January 9, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-12-14 ECAC Report 1

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Levin, with respect to these matters, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1544 Dundas Street (Z-9671)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.1) 1544 Dundas Street (Z-9671)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 15370070 Canada Inc., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1544 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Urban Corridor Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new land use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context and will facilitate the reuse of the existing commercial building;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   2598-2624 Woodhull Road (Z-9673)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.2) 2598-2624 Woodhull Road (Z-9673)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, the application by Brock Development Group Inc., (c/o Michelle Doornbosch), relating to the properties located at 2598-2624 Woodhull Road BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

  •    the property is too close to a significant woodland; and,

  •    the proposed application does not meet the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated January 2, 2024, from D. Koscinski, Executive Director, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

  •    a communication dated January 5, 2024, from K. Gowanlock;

  •    a communication from Dr. R. Inculet; and,

  •    a communication from N. Inculet;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    M. Rail;

  •    D. Koscinski, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

  •    R. Inculet;

  •    R. Rau;

  •    K. Gowanlock;

  •    N. Inculet; and,

  •    M. Doornbosch, Brock Development Group Inc.;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   1982 Commissioners Road East (Z-9668)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.3) 1982 Commissioners Road East (Z-9668)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2804904 Ontario Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 1982 Commissioners Road East and part of 1964 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Urban Reserve Special Provision (UR4(7)) Zone TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (hh-18R5-7(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    design the side elevation of the corner units that are facing the driveway and the common amenity space with enhanced detail;

ii)    provide pedestrian connectivity through the proposed development to the public streets;

iii)    connect walkways directly from individual units of the 2 storey townhouses to Constance Avenue and Commissioners Road East, respectively;

iv)    provide enhanced tree planting; and,

v)    review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site for the townhouses;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    the project fact sheet from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning/Design;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

(2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   150 King Edward Avenue (Z-9670)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.4) 150 King Edward Avenue (Z-9670)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by (Eparchy of Mississauga), relating to the property located at 150 King Edward Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NAS3(3)) Zone and Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(80)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NAS3()) Zone and Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5()) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated January 7, 2024, from V. Philip;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    D. James;

  •    S. Thomas;

  •    J. Devassia;

  •    D. Mathew; and,

  •    L. Jimmi;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement,2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the adaptive reuse of an existing building within the Built Area Boundary;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9671)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.5) 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road (O-9683 Z-9675)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Towns of Magnolia London Inc., relating to the properties located at 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), for the City of London by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Lambeth Neighbourhood to allow a height of 6-storeys for one apartment building;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (h-17.h-67.h-89.R6-5(_)) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    provide a minimum ground floor height of 4.5m to give prominence to the base of the building and provide additional opportunities for increased glazing to activate the street and provide passive surveillance;

ii)    provide street-orientation with the principal building entrance for the apartment building facing toward Colonel Talbot Road;

iii)    ensure the width of the garages for the townhouse units does not exceed 50% of the individual unit width, and does not project beyond the front façade of the unit;

iv)    reduce the amount of surface parking at-grade in favour of more underground parking to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces and provide opportunities for additional landscaping and amenity space;

v)    review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site for the townhouses; 

vi)    locate the principal building entrance for the apartment building on the Colonel Talbot Road-facing façade and distinguish this entrance with a high degree of transparent glazing, signage, weather protection (canopies, awnings, etc.) and direct walkway access to the street;

vii)    incorporate a high degree of bird-friendly glazing and architectural detail in the north and south elevations (side elevations) for the apartment building as these facades will be highly visible from Colonel Talbot Road;

viii)    incorporate 5% EV charger spaces for required parking spaces(roughed in or complete Level 1 or 2);

ix)    ensure 50% native plants, and no non-native species planted;

x)    provide enhanced tree planting due to significant healthy mature tree removals; and,

xi)    investigate opportunities for solar installation on apartment buildings;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including the Lambeth Neighbourhood policies with the exception of height in which the site-specific policy refers to; 

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   3055 Dingman Drive/Roxburgh Road and 4313 Wellington Road (OZ-9665)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.6) 3055 Dingman Dr-Roxburgh Rd and 4313 Wellington Rd S (OZ-9665)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Goal Ventures Inc. and Goal Ventures Southwest Inc., c/o KWA Site Development Consulting Inc., relating to the property located at 3055 Dingman Drive/Roxburgh Road and 4313 Wellington Road South:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend the Official Plan by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type AND AMENDING Map 7 – Special Policy Areas – of The London Plan by adding the subject site to the list of Specific Policy Areas;

b)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 9, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA3/ASA5/ASA6(3)/ASA7(1) /ASA8(11)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision/ holding Light Industrial Special Provision (ASA3/ASA5/ASA6(3)/ ASA7(1)/ASA8(11)/h-55h-212LI1(_)) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issue(s) through the site plan process:

i)    offer safe pedestrian connections within the public realm; and,

ii)    provide a high-quality gateway image along Highway 401 East and Wellington Road South and enhanced landscaping along the gateway corridor shall be required in conformity with the policy framework of The London Plan and Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

iii)    investigate EV charger spaces for required parking spaces (roughed in or complete Level 1 or 2);

iv)    ensure 50% native plants, and non-native species planted;

v)    provide enhanced tree planting;

vi)    investigate solar installation on industrial buildings; and,

vii)    include bird friendly glazing on any glazing below 5 storeys; and,

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    a revised staff report page; and,

  •    a communication dated January 8, 2024, from J. Manocha, 401L Inc., and K. Papatia, 1787996 Ontario Inc.;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    R. Walker, KWA Site Development Consulting Inc.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

 

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type, Criteria for Special Area Policies, and Key Directions; 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Wellington Road/ Highway 401 Neighbourhood of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a broader mix of uses on a serviced site within the urban growth boundary along the 401 Highway corridor;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to add the following to part c):

iii) investigate EV charger spaces for required parking spaces (roughed in or complete Level 1 or 2);

iv) Ensure 50% native plants, and no non-native species planted;

v) Provide enhanced tree planting;

vi) Investigate solar installation on industrial buildings; and,

vii) Include bird friendly glazing on any glazing below 5 storeys;

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Motion to move the main motion, as amended.

3.7   3637 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9664)

2024-01-09 - Staff Report - (3.7) 3637 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9664)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by SOFCO Properties, relating to the property located at 3637 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a holding Residential R1 (h-17R1-16) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-14(_)) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-149h-121*R5-2(_)) and Open Space (OS4) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provisions to facilitate the construction of a new detached garage in the front yard in the R1-14 Zone BE APPROVED, including:

i)    permitting accessory buildings in the form of detached garages in the front yard;

ii)    permitting a front yard depth for garages of 4.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required; and,

iii) garage doors shall not face Colonel Talbot Road;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    planting as many replacement trees as possible on the subject lands; and,

ii)    implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study; and,

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Open Space Place Type and Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including the Lambeth Neighbourhood policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Urban Growth boundary with an appropriate form of infill development at the rear of an existing detached dwelling lot;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part b)

b)    The requested Special Provisions to facilitate the construction of a new detached garage in the front yard in the R1-14 zone, including i) permitting accessory buildings in the form of detached garages in the front yard, ii) permitting a front yard depth for garages of 4.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required, and iii) garage doors shall not face Colonel Talbot Road, BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-01-09 Submission - (5.1) Deffered Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Deferred Matters List dated December 18, 2023 BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) Green Development Standards

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Site Plan Control By-law and/or Zoning By-law:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update by Q3 2024 the Site Plan Control Bylaw and/or Zoning Bylaw to include the following requirements;

i) 5% of the required parking spaces for buildings over 40 units be roughed in for EV charging;

ii) minimum 50% native species for landscaping, with no invasive species planted should be considered during plant selection criteria, and for staff to create a preferred list; and,

iii) short-term bicycle parking requirement at a rate of 0.1 space / unit for townhouse developments. Where feasible, bicycle parking should be centrally located to serve all units;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include CSA A460 (bird friendly) standard in all city facilities building design standards;

c) the CSA A460 standard BE USED as a reference by staff in building design and construction;

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the legislative framework and municipal best practices to adopt a bylaw through section 97.1 of the Municipal Act to implement sustainable building construction features, including but not limited to, energy efficiency, water conservation and green roofs, and report back to Council with options and recommendations, including identifying any required Official Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Site Plan Control Bylaw amendments; and,

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council within Q3 2024 with a short update regarding the scope and timeline of the Green Development Guidelines and Green Parking Lot Guidelines, and the above items;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • a communication dated January 9, 2024 from Ward 11 Councillor S. Franke and Deputy Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor;

  • a communication dated January 4, 2024, from B. Morrison and M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  • a request for delegation status dated January 7, 2024, from M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  • a communication dated January 5, 2024, from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee and Coordinator, Bird Friendly London;

  • a communication dated January 6, 2024, from T. and L. Nielsen, E. Power, N. Kuchmij, M.B. Blokker, J. Mazur, T. Bell, S. Miller, R. Kanu and L. Miller;

  • a communication from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

  • a communication and a request for delegation status dated January 7, 2024, from L. Blumer;

  • a communication dated January 8, 2024, from L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network; and,

  • a communication dated January 8, 2024, from R. St. Pierre;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London, L. Blumer and M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to these matters;

it being noted that staff are encourage to engage industry partners, utility companies and other relevant partners throughout this process.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That notwithstanding Section 36.1 of the Council Procedure By-law, M. Wallace, LDI BE GRANTED delegation status to discuss the Green Development Standards.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That M.A. Hodge and L. Blumer BE GRANTED delegation status relating to the Green Development Standards.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:42 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (3 hours, 49 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m going to call the second meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. I’m going to start by acknowledging that the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Linnae-Paywalk, and Adewanderin peoples. Ask staff to increase the volume a little bit to the mics there.

Also adjust mine a little bit closer. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, Linnae-Paywalk, and Adewanderin peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today, and as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

I will also note that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact keclondon.ca or phone 519.661.24, or 819, extension 2425. I’m going to note for colleagues that Councillor Layman, who is normally our committee chair, is not with us today, so as vice chair, I will be chairing this meeting. We have Councillor Hillier with us via Zoom, and we have visiting Councillors Hopkins, McAllister, and Pribble, and I understand that Councillor Apollosa will be joining us shortly.

As we go through these items, we will be looking to committee members to speak to items first, and then I will go to visiting Councillors. So I’m going to start by looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest from committee members. Seeing none, we will move along. We have one item on the consent agenda in section two.

That’s the first report of the ecological community advisory committee. And we’ll look to see if there is a mover and a seconder for that. Sorry, colleagues, although I have a mover and a seconder from Councillor Frank and Councillor Ramen, just in quick conference with the clerk. The committee chair, Mr.

Levin, has asked to speak to his report and is going to be joining us a little bit later. So if I can, instead of having a motion to receive at this point, if I can have a motion to change the order and refer this matter to the end of the items for direction, moved by Councillor Ramen and seconded by Councillor Frank, and we will all the vote on that in just a moment. The clerk’s advise that we can do that by hand. So committee members, all those in favor.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. And moving along then to scheduled items. Our first item, 3.1, is a public participation meeting for 1544 Dundas Street.

And so I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder to open the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, and we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that in e-scribe. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

And just for all members of the public who are in the gallery to whether you’re here to participate or whether you’re here to listen, I do want to start this first public participation meeting with the supplies to all of the public participation meetings on the agenda today. We do ask that you do not applaud or boo anyone else’s perspective. Everybody needs to be entitled to their own perspective and to be able to express that without feeling pressured to do otherwise. And I will also just advise folks, as you’ve already noticed, we may have a couple of little hiccups along the way today.

We had some technology updates over the Christmas break while we were away. And a couple of those are not working quite as smoothly as we had hoped. So if there’s a few moments pause on things, that’s the reason why. So with that out of the way, for those wishing to speak to 1544 Dundas Street, we had nobody pre-registered, anybody wishing to speak to that item if you can move to one of the microphones in the gallery.

We can just get your name and address should you wish to give it. And then we will start, you have five minutes to speak. I will give you a wave with about 30 seconds to go if you’re approaching the end of your time. And then I will ask you at five minutes to end your comments.

So by all means, go ahead. Thank you. Hello, members of council. My name is Matler Windjuck.

I’m a land use planner with Salinka Priammo. We’re the consultants for the applicant and the zoning bylaw amendment to permit a pizza restaurant takeout on the subject lands. We do note that the purpose of this public meeting is to hear from members of the public with respect to the proposed application. And we would also like to note that staff are currently recommending approval in principle of this zoning bylaw amendment to permit a pizza restaurant on the above on the subject lands.

And like I said, we do note that there has been no public opposition to date. So we just wanna thank staff for their work on this file. And we hope for a positive endorsement when this application comes to council. If anyone has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And we’ll look to see if there are any other speakers to this item. And I’ll just ask one more time and I’ll check with the clerk if anyone is on Zoom.

Through the chair, there’s no one on Zoom. Thank you, clerk. So seeing as we have no other speakers to this item, I will look for motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Frank and seconded by Councilor Raman. And we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that in e-scribe.

To close in the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So we will look now to see if there is a motion or any questions or comments for our staff or the applicant on this item. See any colleagues indicating any questions?

Do we have a mover for the recommendation in the report? Moved by Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. And I’ll look for any discussion or debate on that. And I see none if colleagues will indulge me.

This is in my ward. I’m just going to briefly say from the chair that from a ward council perspective, I’m supportive of this as well. It’s always good to see a business looking to open up in the space and take a space that’s not being used right now and put it to good use. So looking forward to trying the pizza once the place is open.

And with that, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving along, the next item on our agenda, 3.2 is 2598 to 2624 Woodhall Road.

We do have a couple of participants registered on Zoom for that item. So we will look to their comments as well. But first we have to open up the public participation meeting. Moved by Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Raman.

And we will open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries for zero. Thank you, colleagues. I’m first gonna look, and I’m sorry, I should have done this last time, but the applicant got to the mic first anyway.

First, I’m gonna look to see if the applicant wishes to make any comments on this. We have no one online for this, and I don’t see anyone moving to the microphone on the applicant’s behalf. So we’ll look to two members that we have registered for public participation first. We have Mr.

Rail on Zoom. Mr. Rail, are you there? We don’t have him on Zoom.

Oh, are you in the audience, sir? Okay, sorry. We had you listed as registered to participate online, but we welcome you to the microphone here in the gallery, and any of the microphones is fine. We’ll make sure that gets turned on for you, and you have five minutes when you’re ready to go ahead.

Thank you, members of council. I have a little more to say than what the others who are against this amendment are going to be saying. I’m sure, I just have a couple of questions. One being that it says that owners and residents received notice of public meetings for the meeting of November 6th of 2023.

But we did not receive notice of the meeting, and we’re only two doors down from the subject property in question. So I wouldn’t mind finding out the answer to that. And then my other question is, according to the report submitted for today’s meeting, I’m not clear as to how the proposed amendment that is submitted for today’s meeting. I’m not clear how it satisfies numbers one through three of the linkages to the corporation’s strategic plan.

That is to say, how does the addition of a residential building, new septic field, new well? In fact, there is not a well on that part of the property, new driveway. How does it not impact the character of the land use and consideration of long-term protection of natural heritage resources, long-term compatibility of uses, and yet does not increase the number of buildable lots. This seems to be precisely what it is intended to do if this zoning is amended.

And that’s all I have today. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Rail, and just so you and others who are perhaps speaking to this or other items know, I’m keeping a list of the questions.

Once all the public comment and question has come in, I will ask staff to respond or the applicant to respond to any of those questions to the best of their ability, okay? Looking for other speakers to the application for Wood Hall Road, to council chambers. As I indicated before, you’ll have five minutes, so I’ll ask you to start with your name and then begin your presentation. I will give you a wave at about 30 seconds left if you’re approaching the end of your five minutes and then I will ask you to stop at the five-minute mark.

Otherwise, I’ll turn it over to you and let you share your comments or questions with us. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. My name is Daria Kaczynski, and I’m the executive director of Thames Talbot Land Trust. We are registered charity dedicated to protecting natural and agricultural lands.

We currently protect over 890 hectares of land across 25 nature reserves in London, Middlesex, Elgin, Oxford, and Perth. We protect lands through a variety of mechanisms, including ownership of lands, and one of our nature reserves is on Wood Hall Road just downstream of this project. Protecting natural areas and the Ozzens Nature Sanctuary is very important to our mission, but we believe also important for the community. In the agenda package, you will find our comments letter and some slides for reference with my presentation.

I’d like to draw your attention to the first map of the Wood Hall Road area on page 78. I understand that all the reports focus only on the subject lands, but I wanted the committee to have a sense of what is surrounding the subject lands. You can see in the aerial image the Dingman Creek and the extensive forested lands of the corridor. There are more than 20 hectares of forest just behind the subject lands.

And more as you follow the Dingman Creek corridor. The subject lands contain part of that forested ecosystem and anything that happens on the subject lands may affect the rest of the complex. The Dingman Creek in this location is an environmentally significant area designated by the city of London, a significant woodland in the Official Plan, a tree protection area in the tree protection by-law, contains a provincially significant wetland and significant valley land for the steep ravine slopes to the creek. The area is also home to many species at risk, only some of which were identified in the environmental impact study.

I wanted you to have this larger view to better understand the context for where this project is taking place. The subject lands are part of an extensive natural area that supports incredible numbers of wildlife and provides ecosystem services to our community. In our submitted letter, we outlined our concerns with the proposed project, centering really only on the environmental implications of the project. I don’t have time today to go over all of that, and you can check that in the agenda.

As I mentioned, the Dingman Creek corridor is a sensitive natural area, providing home to rare species. It also has steep slopes at the ravine edge. Development near natural areas will always have an impact, but the goal is to reduce that impact with appropriate buffers between the development and the natural area. The city of London’s environmental management guidelines include a minimum buffer of 30 meters for projects near subject significant woodlands and valley lands.

But this project essentially has a zero buffer. The justification is that other houses on the road don’t have a 30 meter buffer, so this one doesn’t need it either. This statement essentially concludes that we should keep repeating mistakes from the past even when we now know better. 50 years ago, we didn’t use seep belts.

Is that a good reason not to use them now? We know better, so we do better. We are asking the committee to stand by the rules that protect nature in London and require the 30 meter buffer. We are also concerned that the slope stability may be affected by the project, especially as we experience more extreme weather events with climate change.

Many of the statements in the slope stability study refer to all the conditions that must be in place for the slope to remain stable, like no clearing of vegetation, no trails, and no water flowing down the slope. But not enough details have been provided on how this will be insured. If these conditions are not met, will the slope fail? The study also did not include information on how climate change might affect the slope stability in the future.

Erosion could have serious consequences for the natural area, and of course, a house that’s built near the edge of the slope. In addition, the environmental impact study did not include information about the tree protection area and the buffers required as part of London’s tree protection by-law. There are also trees along the south boundary. The environmental impact study indicates that trees should not be required to be removed, which is good since they are on the neighbor’s property, not on the subject lands.

But it does not address that these trees are likely to be damaged. The trees along the south boundaries should have at least a six meter tree protection zone to ensure the critical root zones of these trees are not damaged. If you look at the map that I created in the agenda, with the buffers included, it’s very clear that this site is too small to accommodate the proposed development. The city of London’s strategic plan and the climate emergency action plan all state that natural features should be protected and enhanced.

We are asking that you review the documents and provide a comments carefully and assess if you have been provided enough evidence to make this decision. We are not satisfied that enough information has been provided to establish that the natural area and the ravine slope will not be affected by this project. We hear a lot about the housing crisis, but this one house outside the urban growth boundary will not solve that issue. But this project could exacerbate the biodiversity crisis and the climate emergency by removing open space and potential agricultural lands and negatively affecting an existing natural area and all the wildlife that call it home.

The Dingman Creek environmentally significant area is just that environmentally significant. Please ensure it remains so by applying the required buffers to protect it. Thank you very much. Thank you and you hit your time exactly.

So thank you for keeping it to five minutes. We’ll move to the next microphone and the next speaker. If you can give us your name, sir, your address, if you wish, and then you can start your presentation. My name is Richard Enkalet.

I live on a farm on Woodhall Road. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for the opportunity of being able to speak today about the proposed bylaw amendments. The portion of Woodhall Road relevant to this application is outside the city urban boundary and fits the London Plan’s definition of rural London.

It’s all zoned AG2 or open space, a mixture of active farms on prime agricultural land and a few scattered pre annexation 60 or 100 year old dwellings on large lots. They were not subject to the modern laws of London at the time. It’s inappropriate to use these dwellings as comparators to justify amending today’s bylaws for a new dwelling because they were built at a time when municipalities didn’t know any better. We are smarter now.

Because the health and safety of the public is paramount, the creation of municipal bylaws today are driven by evidenced based data. The minimum safe front yard depth to separate a dwelling on AG2 land from the farm machinery on the road and the farm across the road has been determined to be 30 meters, about 100 feet. The applicant and the planning department propose it to be shortened to 14 meters. Wind sweep across the farm fields and the road bringing dust odor, herbicide, pesticide, over spray and farm machinery noise to the eastern side of the road where 2624 is situated.

Harvest is often done after dark under the bright combine lights. The farm machinery or entrance from the road to the North Field farm is directly across from 264 Woodhall. A reduced setback from our busy farm road will shorten the safe distance unsupervised young children occupying the dwelling need to traverse accidentally and get on the road. Nuisance complaints calls to the city will rise.

The planning department unilaterally decided a minimum of 14 meters, front yard depth is sufficient because that was the only way the proposed dwelling could be cited beyond the erosion hazard lands and to minimize impact on natural features. Safety was not a consideration. Prioritizing fitting a profit driven large dwelling on a posted side slot over public health and safety prevention and ignoring adherence to regulated zoning guidelines is dangerous. A future related adverse event could be associated with liability.

Point number two, drop development and the planning department justify the bylaw change by suggesting the AG2 property is too small to be suitable for agricultural purposes. And the only recourse is to maximize its potential and build a dwelling on it. This justification is absurd. The London plan and the PPS encourage preservation and utilization of prime agricultural land, which this is.

Size does not define a farm. Apple orchard, apiary, greenhouse can all be accommodated on a small plot of land. These are farms. If there’s room to build a 4,000 square foot home, there’s room to establish a productive albeit small farm.

Point number three, the London plan and the PPS provide clear direction that before one builds on prime AG2 lands, there must be no other available nearby lands within the urban growth boundary of lesser priority than AG2 prime agricultural lands. Why is the city not insisted on this? Point number four, our farm across the road has been existence for over 140 years. Historically, it’s had livestock and cash crop.

Today, sustainable farming promotes the practice of incorporating both of these synchronously. Rock development calculates an arbitrary hypothetical MDS from the proposed dwelling to shed on our farm, claiming all clear. Despite the few historic dwellings in proximity to our farm, building a residence across the road on 2624 Woodhall will impose an additional MDS constraint on operating a future livestock facility on our farm. MDS policies are very clear.

Applications that would result in a development that imposes operating constraints on a livestock facility will be refused. Conclusion, the applicants finalized their justification report by having you believe the proposal is good for the public and supports Bill 23, more homes built faster. They are the only public that will benefit, both financially and by gaining a precedent. As a cancer surgeon, my life has been devoted to recognizing and stopping a cancer as soon as possible before it spreads and kills.

If the city continues to allow them to rezone and build outside of the urban growth boundary of our profit, they will continue like a cancer to destroy prime agricultural farmland, green space over and over again as they try to justify that it maximizes the land’s potential. As for Bill 23, building a 4,000 square foot single family dwelling does not contribute to the housing shortage of the 400,000 annual low income arriving immigrants recognize what we are dealing with. I hope the committee carefully reflects on the short and long term implications. Thank you.

Looking for other speakers. My name is Ruth Rao, and I would like to draw your attention to public comment number four on the report, Appendix A. There is a great deal of detail given in the danger of the placement of the driveway. I won’t go into those details.

It is very, very laid out for you. The property I’ve walked it, I’ve driven it. There is nowhere on that property that touches Woodhall Road that would be at all safe for someone to drive out of that property. There’s just a great deal of danger.

And now that the city is aware of the danger that is there, if you look at that part of the report, now that you’ve been made aware of this significant safety concern in writing, my question is, could the city be held liable in the event of a fatality? The speed limit is shown as 60 kilometers per hour, but I absolutely guarantee you, you can come to my house and we can sit at my front window. I invite any of you to come on over and take a look for just 15 minutes of what goes by outside my front door. And I absolutely assure you, the driveway on this property, no matter where it is placed, it’s just very unusual.

It’s probably hard for a city dweller to imagine. There is a curve, there is an embankment. And as you come out, if there is traffic heading north, you may not see it. Thank you, ma’am.

Looking for any other speakers to the Woodhall Road application. I see we have someone making their way to the mic, so welcome, sir. And again, if you can give us your name, address, if you wish, and then start your presentation, and I’ll give you a wave at 430 if you’re approaching your five-minute mark. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee regarding the Sony Amendment.

My name is Kevin Galwellock. My wife, Diane, and I own the adjacent property at 2648 Woodhall Road, just south of the property in question. Both the city and the applicant Brock Development propose that the properties at 2598, 2624, and our property at 2648 Woodhall Road are not considered viable for agriculture purposes. I would suggest that they are viable.

I grew up on a 100-acre farm south of Lambeth and farmed my entire life. One of the main reasons we purchased the property at Woodhall is due to the barn on the south side of the property. In the past, the barn was home to horses, which grazed in a fenced area adjacent to the barn. On the north side of our property, there are three apple trees providing an ample crop every year.

We have bought the property excited about the opportunity to owning a hobby farm, raising livestock, and picking apples. Our property has lots of options for farming as well as the property in question. The city of London staff planning report states, and I quote, “Know the abutting property at 2648 Woodhall Road have or are proposing uses other than a single detached dwellings,” unquote. We have lived at Woodhall for over two years, and at no time has anyone from the city of London approached us or contact us regarding our planned use of our property.

Our property is a farm, and we look forward to return it back to its roots. If we were to raise pigs in our barn using the MDS-1 software, the proposed dwelling fails the MDS-1 distance guidelines. The applicant states, and I quote, “The proposed dwelling will not impact the existing surrounding uses,” unquote. This is simply not true.

The approval of the dwelling will impact the use of our hobby farm. We would also like to address the applicant’s request for three-meter side yard setback. One common trait of people living in the country is they enjoy their space. Everyone provides their own buffer along their property by way of a large side yard setback, including lawn, bushes, and trees.

If you drive anywhere in the neighborhood, you won’t find one property that has anywhere near three-meter side yard setback or a house that takes up 85% of its frontage. Everyone provides their own buffer on their own property and do not count on their neighbor to provide a buffer. Residents in the country spend many hours cutting lawn surrounding their property. This is the country way.

The applicant proposes, and I quote, “The existing established tree line on the South property line also provides an added buffer from the existing dwelling to the South,” unquote. Yes, we have a beautiful row of mature pine trees along our property line. They have a significant root system that not only goes deep, but extends two to three times their drip line horizontally just below the surface. The roots are very sensitive to any type of excavation or compression from heavy equipment traveling along the surface.

The requested three-meter side yard setback will likely result in significant damage to our trees and elimination of this buffer if the trees die due to root damage. With reference to the City of London’s tree protection guidelines, the protected zone would be 12.5 meters. Even though we are in the country, we are still in the City of London and part of the forest city. Please do not allow any damage to our trees by approving a three-meter side yard setback adjacent to our property.

Finally, we’d also like to express our concerns regarding the location of the proposed driveway. Woodhall Road has become an alternative route for West Elborn for vehicles traveling north and south, far exceeding the posted speed limit of 60 kilometers an hour. We have included in our public engagement submission details of why we feel this driveway location is dangerous with reference to the Ministry of Transportation stopping guidelines. After sending the email of concern to the City’s traffic and transportation engineer last week, I received the following response last night.

It quotes, “staff have reviewed as well as completed a site visit last Friday. Based on the information available, the stopping site distance appears to be adequate for design speed at 60 kilometers an hour.” Unfortunately, no measurements or calculations of line of sight were provided to support this opinion. Since when do we design rows and driver locations based on bare minimums? I request that a sight line review be a requirement as a condition of this rezoning to determine the optimal location of this driveway.

Every day, we witnessed vehicles traveling 80 to 90 kilometers an hour over this hill where the proposed driveways to be located. At some point, some will exit or enter this driveway at the wrong time and the results will be deadly. In conclusion, I’ve been thinking about this entire process over the last two years. First, the applicant had applied for a minor variance, was going to build a large home and become a hobby farmer.

They have now applied for a zoning by-law amendment, but now the property is no longer viable for farm purposes. I find this very confusing. Have you ever tried to insert a square peg into a round hole? This applicant keeps trying different ways to make that square peg fit.

In reality, it’s not meant to fit. Thank you. And I will apologize on that one. I did let you run about 10 seconds over because I was noting one of your comments as instead of watching the timer, and so you got a little bit extra in there.

We’ll look to see if we have other members of the public, and we’ve got up in the corner there. Go ahead, ma’am. My name is Nancy and Collette. I live with my husband on the farm across from these subject lands.

I respectfully share my comments with London citizens, the standing committee, city counselors, and the honorable mayor. So here we are again seeing toxic history repeat itself. The toxic history of our protected lands manipulation and abuse. Here we are again with one developer, builder, owner, repeated attempts to build and perpetuate the self-serving history at the expense of depleting our citizens valuable, limited resources.

These taxpayer resources are needed to focus on our citizens’ crises at hand. We know what they are, and we are in trouble. We need to pause and reflect and learn from this history not to ignore it. Please refer to my PEC submission for historical references.

Please refer to the well-researched and thought-provoking submissions by the concerned residents and stewards of our land. Please refer to the process we have endured so far to prevent this toxic history from repeating itself. So here we are again trying to defend our protected land from disappearing forever. Once it is gone, it can’t come back, much like the time and resources that we have spent thus far.

What words can I speak that have not already been spoken or written to prevent opening the door allowing more toxic history to happen? This is not the legacy that our current and future generations of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren should have to inherit. This standing committee and our counselors have a teachable and very powerful leadable moment to write a historical precedent-setting wrong and utilize the OLT’s decision of provincial consent with many conditions, including giving the power back to our city, selected officials, to determine whether a zoning change is needed and to benefit our citizens and environment. Or is it benefiting only one developer, builder, owner?

Self-serving’s bottom line at the citizens’ expense and legacy. The right thing to do seems so simple. In early childhood, we learned, as Kevin mentioned, that a square peg does not fit into a round hole. To hammer it in only creates damage.

Annihilously, our protected lands have wisely been zoned for the precise reason of protecting them against damage. Regardless of their private ownership. These wisely zoned protected lands protect our citizens’ health and safety. These subject lands inclusive of this tiny lot of record, the square peg, should not be damaged to fit into the round hole of a developer-builder-owners plan for profit from a squeezed-in out-of-character setting estate dwelling at our citizens’ expense.

Perhaps a developer-builder-owner might recognize the true cost involved and consider the resale or donation of this tiny lot of record to the Thames Talbot Land Trust for this protected lands protection and enjoyment for all citizens. I ask this committee and counselors in your capacity as elected public representatives to pause, reflect, listen, and continue to learn from our history. To be guided by the true intents of the provincial plan 2020 and London Plan intended for all current and future citizens. To use your power to intervene and stop this unnecessary, unneeded, precedent-setting, self-serving development at our citizens’ expense.

I ask this committee to lead us with wisdom, clarity, and humanity to prioritize what is in the best interest of all citizens and to promote our caring and healing living legacy. To decline this application for zoning by law amendment. Thank you. - Thank you.

Looking for other speakers to Wood Hall Road. I’ll do one more call in the gallery for other speakers to Wood Hall Road. Seeing none, I do know that the representative for the applicant, Ms. Dornbush, I believe has joined us on Zoom.

Ms. Dornbush, did you want to provide us with your comments? We seem to still have you on mute, whether that’s on your end or ours. Okay, try it now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Michelle Dornbush. I’m with Brock Development Group.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this application before you this afternoon. I have had an opportunity to review the staff report. We have worked very closely with staff on this application, as you’ve heard from some of the residents for the past couple of years. We did start with the consent of application, and we had a minor variance as well proposed.

And we did come to the conclusion that based on the specific definitions of a farm dwelling that staff was at the opinion that it would be better suited to apply for the rezoning to allow for a single attached dwelling on the property be permitted. While we do recognize that we are no longer proposing, quote unquote, a farm dwelling, the intent with this property is still to maintain it as a hobby farm. It was staff’s opinion that by definition, what we were proposing in terms of woodland protection, even maple syrup, things like that, the proposed, the owner of this property does live within this area. They are familiar and they are practicing those existing hobby farm measures on their property.

So there is no change in terms of what we originally proposed as a hobby farm. But like I said, staff were of the opinion that this property itself is too small to be classified as a farm property. And they suggested that a single attached dwelling would be better suited as the definition proposed for the dwelling on the lands. There are a number of concerns I have heard from the neighbors with regards to sightlines.

We did refer to a traffic consultant as part of the consent application when the consent decision went forward. They did confirm for us that there are no sightline issues. And in particular, the existing location of the property is the more ideally suited location for the driveway given the fact that it is at the top of the hill at the south end of the property. And I think it’s important to note here as well, although there are concerns, the reality with this property is it is an existing lot of record.

And based on that, it is permitted to have one legal access to the roadway. So regardless of this being a farm use or a residential dwelling, the fact of the matter is there will be and there is a driveway permitted for this property. In terms of the concerns of this being precedent setting, I would have to disagree with the residents’ comments in terms of this will establish circumstances that would allow another properties. This property is an anomaly in the rural area of the city of London.

It’s an existing lot of record. It is fairly small, though it was intended to be developed at some point in time. I believe when it was part of the former municipality. What we’re trying to do is we do have approval for consent application on the lands that are allowing us to increase the size of the property.

And it does allow us to make better use of the lands. Right now, it’s currently simply just a lawn manicured lawn and has not been used for anything further. With regards to the environmental concerns, this is not proposed to be a public area. We’ve gone through all of the extensive slope stability.

There were comments provided by the UTRCA as well as staff. And we’ve addressed all of those concerns in the same circumstance as the existing houses in the area. This one wouldn’t pose anything different. We’re not proposing any dumping.

We still have the same implementation of the environmental regulations in terms of the slope stability over the long term. And we do feel that we can maintain that with an existing single detached dwelling. And while I know that this is only one house in terms of a much broader requirement and direction for the province, the reality is this is an existing lot of record. We might as well make use of it.

We can make use of the supply. The provincial policies are changing and have pointed in the direction of let’s make use of all the land that we possibly can while it’s only one house. The impacts on the surrounding area as you can see from the studies. 30 seconds.

Oh, our limited, sorry. So from that perspective, we are in support of the staff report and we do ask the committee to approve the application as proposed. Thank you, Ms. Dornbush.

And I know that you will stay online should committee have any questions that need to be directed to you rather than to our staff. So we thank you for being available to answer those. I am going to now look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. And then I will go to staff on some of the questions from our members of the public who have presented today.

So moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor ramen to close the PPM. And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues.

Okay, through our staff, these may not all be in exact order, but I will run down the list of questions that I’ve noted. Some of them were noted a couple of times by a couple of different presenters. So I’ll be asking the staff just once on those issues. One that came up multiple times was the driveway placement site lines.

So through to our staff, Ms. O’Hagan or a member of your team, can we get comment on the evaluation of the driveway, the site lines and its placement? Through the chair, this is Brent Lambert from Development Engineering. As it was mentioned previously, the city did conduct a site visit last week to better understand the site line issues.

And it appeared to us that the safest location for the driveway may be on the south side of the property, but keep in mind that was based on a high level review. So if the committee still has concerns with the site line and the driveway location, we could recommend a holding provision for the requirement of a site line analysis to be submitted prior to a future building permit. Thank you, Mr. Lambert.

And while we have you, do you know what holding provision number that might be or if you need time to look that up, that’s fine ‘cause we have some other questions to ask. So I’ll just ask if you can indicate that to us now. Sure, it would have to be a new holding provision. And we have one drafted up.

Okay, thank you for that. And I appreciate the proactive drafting in case committee members want to impose that one as a condition. Going back to the list of questions from the public. And again, just noting that Ms.

O’Hagan is acting on Ms. McNeely’s behalf. I’ll go to her and to pass along to any staff as appropriate. One of the first questions that was asked of us was can staff expand on the linkages, how the linkages to the strategic plan are satisfied.

I’m just looking to see if there might be some additional comments beyond what’s written in the report towards those linkages to the strategic plan. To you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Acting Chair.

So the linkages to the corporate strategic plan that we have here are related to climate action and sustainable growth, including ensuring waterways, wetlands, watersheds, natural areas are protected, as well as creating a more resilient better prepared for the changing climate and addressing housing and homelessness. So we do reference the corporate strategic plan and there are a limited number of strategies and actions through that that we try best to align our applications to. In this case, there have been environmental studies, significant environmental studies that have gone into this and we’re confident with the outcomes of those that they will protect the natural heritage features. And while it is only one residential dwelling that’s proposed, it does help in kind of achieving our goals for creating more housing units in the city.

Thank you for that. There are two questions that sort of relate back to some of the comments that you just shared more specifically. And so again, I’ll ask for your comments on these two and I’ll start with the comment we heard fairly early on with regard to the recommendation is essentially providing a zero buffer, not a 30 meter buffer, and that there’s insufficient consideration for tree protection and the drip lines and root protection of the trees on the property. And so I wonder if we could start maybe with the zero buffer and the slope stability and then perhaps we’ll come back to the tree protection and the drip line and the root protection of those.

Through the chair, so that’s correct. And buffers are really intended to absorb impacts from development. That is their key function. And the environmental management guidelines speak to 30 meters and that does provide the lowest probability of negative impacts.

So that is what we looked to achieve. This is a really difficult one because we have the OLT decision which established the principle of development. And that really struggled, we really struggled through this one in the sense of, and then through the submission, what we saw was the zero meter buffer. And that basically is the intent is there would be no buffer to mitigate the impact.

So what we’ve recommended is that there actually be a buffer established that it be brought out to the erosion hazard limit so that there is at least some element that can mitigate those impacts to the adjacent features. Thank you for that and I’m gonna ask for just a point of clarification. And I’m just from my own notes on reviewing this report and to follow up on that question, give or take a little bit, is it approximately about a 10 meter buffer that is essentially recommended which takes it to the erosion line? That’s right, it’s about approximately five to 10 meters and that it varies.

Yeah, I did note that it kind of, the buffer in the mapping was weaving so that it might not be the exact same one at all points. So thank you for that. There were multiple questions about the tree protection and trees that are on neighboring properties but drip lines and roots that may extend into this property. And I’m just wondering if we can get some further staff comment on that.

Through the chair, so the tree protection bylaw doesn’t apply outside of the urban growth boundary but trees that the trunks do cross over the property lines are protected under the provincial forestry act. So if there was any concerns, there would become a civil matter. Okay, thank you for that. Another item that was referenced by one of our members of the public was the 14 meter setback versus the 30 meter setback.

That would typically be standard and I’m just wondering if staff can expand a little bit on the reduced setback. Through the chair. So that setback is for agricultural land uses, farm dwellings, barns, et cetera. Again, this is a rezoning for a single detached dwelling based on that land use 15, well, 14 meters is more than sufficient in our opinion.

Thank you for that. I am going to ask one more question that was posed by a member of the public. Although this may not actually go to our planning and development services staff, which was the concern about public notices not being received and I’m just going to check with the clerk to see if we have anyone available who can provide us any additional information on that. Okay, so we don’t have someone who, and that was Mr.

Rail that asked that question at the beginning. So with regard to the public notice not being received, sir, I appreciate why that would be a concern. I don’t have someone who can answer that for you here today, but certainly if we can follow up through your word counselor and have them reach out to the appropriate staff, we can maybe get some further answer to that, but I’m going to go to Ms. O’Hagan first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we can confirm that the notice was circulated to the statutory requirements it was posted in the London or newspaper, sign was placed on site and circulated within 120 meters. As you can appreciate it, an agricultural context that 120 meters may not have included the member of the public’s property, but we have looked at all of those properties and they were all circulated within that statutory requirement.

Thank you for that. So just for your information, Mr. Rail, given that you did not receive one and you would like to receive one and that it may have just fallen outside of the statutory requirements for how far we circulate. Again, I would encourage you to contact your word counselor directly.

They can connect with, and I see you waving to your word counselor, so they can certainly connect you with staff to make sure that any additional information following this meeting, including what happens at council and everything else that you are kept informed that way. So given that your word counselor is here, I know she’s made a note of that on her own agenda ‘cause I saw her writing away. So we’ll leave that in her hands to follow up for you on making sure that you’re getting notifications. Just the last component that I’m gonna, before we follow up with committee, we had a comment from the applicant that the rezoning was a recommendation that arose out of staff because the consent for this law to exist makes it too small for the definition of agricultural use farming.

And I just wanna ensure ‘cause it was mentioned that staff were of that opinion, and I wanna confirm with staff that that is, in fact, a concurrence on your part. Through the chair, that’s correct. At the time of trying to apply for a minor variance, the applicant tried to say this was a farm dwelling based on a review with our zoning department. They couldn’t meet the definition of a farm dwelling based on what they were proposing.

And as such, we recommended a rezoning to a single detached dwelling, which is permitted in our farmland place type. And just for clarification, Mr. Corby, the definition of a farm dwelling, was that based on the lot size or the lot coverage of a dwelling in relation to a lot size in an AG zone or a combination of those factors? ‘Cause I know in an AG zone, there are different lot coverage requirements than we would have in a residential zone.

Through the chair, so those would have resulted in variances, however, it was the definition of farm dwelling and it speaks to a single detached dwelling located in a farm cluster and is incidentally exclusively used in conjunction with a farm and situated on the same lot there within. So the issue was they couldn’t create really a farm cluster as per the definition of what we’d expect to see with a farm dwelling. Great, thank you for the clarification on that. I think that’s helpful to understand.

So that’s the questions that I had noted from members of the public on that. I’m gonna go now to committee, look to see if we have a motion or questions for staff before a motion is put forward, I’m in your hands. Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes.

Mine are just gonna be comments because based on the input from the community and based on our EMG policy, I will not be supporting this application. I’m personally unwilling to ignore the 30 meter setback given that this is a significant wood land proper or adjacent to a significant wood land. And simply just to approve one single home is not a compelling enough reason for me. In our EMGs, our required minimum buffer widths, I know we’ve discussed them, but I did wanna highlight one area.

With significant woodlands, we require 30 meter buffer. There is a caveat that does say the city may accept a buffer less than the required minimums for wetlands, less than 0.5 hectares, significant woodlands, less than two hectares and woodlands where it’s supported through environmental impact study. This is adjacent to a significant woodland that is vastly larger than two hectares. So I don’t see this meeting that caveat requirement where we can ignore the EMGs.

So I will be not supporting this application as well. I just wanted to highlight for Upper Thames conservation comments. They’re no longer able to comment on natural heritage. So their comments here were entirely specific to erosion and flooding hazards.

Therefore, I noticed in some areas, I don’t think there should be any assumption that since UTRCA didn’t comment on natural heritage, they don’t see this as an issue. I’m not saying they do or they don’t, I’m not gonna speak for them, but I am saying that they’re no longer able to. So if you start noticing in the next couple applications, there are less comments regarding that. That is why that’s a provincial legislation.

And finally also, just because there was an OLT decision on this for minor variance, does not mean that we have to approve the zoning by-law amendment. So I don’t also find that to be personally to compelling for my decision-making process. So I appreciate the comments from the community and the work that staff and the developer have done, but I will not be supporting this application. According to other members of the committee, and I don’t see any hands up for that, but I note, oh, Councilor Robin, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. First, I wanna thank my colleague for going first and having that important, but uncomfortable sometimes conversation around why an application like this, although supported by staff, would not be considered by members of the committee. I too do not find that this is compelling enough application to approve it at this time. Concerns over the buffer is, I think, one of the most important considerations, but even if being noted, the amount of considerations that are in front of us, I think, tells a story in and of itself.

I had my concerns around the OLT decision and whether or not, if we made a decision here that did not move this application forward, where would the next step be? Would it be back to OLT for discussion? So I guess that’s a question for staff, is if this isn’t supported here or at Council, what’s the next step for the applicant? Well, let’s ask Ms.

Ohegan if she or another member of her team can provide some comment on that. Through the chairs, so the rezoning of the property was a condition of the consent. The consent was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal. So if there is not a decision or there is not an approval of the rezoning, then that condition could not be met.

I’ll maybe pass it over to Mr. Corby for additional information. Through the chair, the applicant does always have the right though to appeal your decision as council and could go back to the OLT. Councillor ramen.

Thank you and I appreciate that answer. You know, I don’t want to post in a situation either of legal back and forth, but I do think that protecting these ESA and this admission here for one single family home does not support the need to go forward with this application at this time. I do think that the residents in the area have brought forward compelling arguments why it doesn’t make sense. And this really is, to me, a one off, not precedent setting decision, but at the same time, I do think it’s important that we set the tone of how important our agricultural land is.

Thank you. Looking for other speakers. The two committee members who are here in chamber have spoken. I don’t see Councillor Hill here with his hand up online, but I do know the word Councillors here.

So I’m going to look to see if Councillor Hopkins wants to offer any comments. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you for recognizing me. And I appreciate the two comments that I’ve heard from committee members so far, not supporting this recommendation.

I am looking forward to hearing from other committee members as to if they support the recommendation and reasons why. I would like to start off, first of all, thinking the community for coming out and speaking to this committee about this application. I know I’ve been involved with the application for the past couple of years. And just to get committee members up to speed on the history of this application, it did go to committee of adjustments.

And at that time, the recommendation was to refuse it. For a number of reasons, didn’t meet the PPS, London Plan, the 1989 Official Plan, and the applicant did go to the OLT. And consent was given, but we are here to approve this zoning amendment. And that’s what’s before us.

And I do appreciate some of the comments. I don’t think I could have said it better than residents here that have spoken this afternoon about the concerns and reasons why I hear from them on a regular basis, the challenges, living out in a rural area and how we can create those changes for them. To me, this is not how we plan in our rural communities. Protection of agricultural land is very, very important.

I really appreciate the comments from the Thames to help it. Land Trust, Councillor Frank spoke very well to the fact that UTRCA no longer does deal with the natural heritage areas, makes comments, and it is really important that we as a committee understand and hear the significance of these areas and how we protect them. I’ve got a lot to say. I want to thank staff, though.

I have found this recommendation very confusing, and I’ve had lots and lots of questions, and I really want to thank staff for your promptness and efficiency of getting back. To me, this recommendation was very confusing. And hearing from the public, is there a protection plan, tree protection plan, while we’ve heard that outside the urban growth boundary, maybe not, and it will be a civil case to protect those boundary trees. I think that’s very significant in an agricultural area.

And we heard about the safety concerns. If this recommendation is supported, I would encourage the committee to add other holding provision to deal with the site line analysis for traffic if this is going to move forward. I would not encourage the committee to do so. Just because, to me, there’s a number of inaccuracies in this recommendation as well.

Regardless of where this goes, I do not think that we should build without services. It’s that simple for me. No water, no stormwater, sanitary, proper road infrastructure in place. I don’t think building one dwelling will get us to the 47,000 units that we need.

Definitely the affordability to me is not there as well. So I would very much encourage this committee not to support staff’s recommendation. Thank you. Councilor Hopkins and I see Councilor Hillier with his hand up.

Councilor, go ahead. Thank you very much. And first of all, the Councilor Hopkins, yes, as another Councilor that has a lot of farmland, I do appreciate everything you’ve said and I will not be supporting this application. I do not appreciate the setback.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, I have no one else. Oh, Councilor Ramen, you’re back on this speaker’s list. Thank you, I’d like to put the staff recommendation on the floor just so that we can move the conversation forward.

So we can do that, Councilor, but I’m going to just advise that given the comments that you’re hearing, rather than putting the staff recommendation, if you might be interested in putting an alternate recommendation that the application be refused, because if we defeat the staff recommendation, then we still have to dispense with this, with a refusal and given that you’re hearing a number of colleagues are leaning that way, do you want to move just to an alternate motion? Sure, I’d be happy to move to an alternate motion. I’m just wondering if you would recommend that we in just in case include the holding provision. Generally in a refusal, you’re refusing the whole thing, so it would just be a motion to refuse the application.

All of the holding provisions go away on a refusal, so the holding provision would not stand anyway, because we’ve refused at all. Thank you for clarifying that. I just wanted to make sure that if it somehow went to Council and it went without the holding provision and went forward, I just want to make sure that that was covered as well. Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor that the application be refused, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll look to see if there’s any other speakers now to the motion to refuse. I see none, so I’m just going to ask Councillor Frank to take the chair briefly so that I can just offer a couple of comments. Thank you, I have the chair and I recognize you.

Thank you, Madam Acting Chair, and through you, I will say this was one where I sat on the fence a little bit, because ultimately, I think where this ends up is, this goes back to the OLT and the OLT orders something that’s a little less muddied waters for Council. I think that by saying, yes, we are going to agree to the consent and then send it back to Council for a rezoning, really just added a layer that maybe was not necessary. The OLT could have made a decision on this directly and they chose not to, and while I appreciate them trying to perhaps defer to a municipal decision, I think the result of the ruling they gave us is just sending it back to them. Because I do think the establishment of the property ultimately will mean that it’s going to be developed.

I have less concern with the setbacks from the environmentally significant area. I think we have roughly provided a 10-meter setback with the erosion line rather than the property line. And again, it’s about the mitigation of the impact and I think that the 10 meters achieves that. I will share that I’m not particularly concerned that upper temps no longer comments on natural heritage features considering the challenges we have getting comments back in a timely manner from upper temps in the first place on the actual planning decisions.

So that is not a concern for me, but I am concerned about a number of the cumulative impacts of some of the setbacks and the reduced setbacks and the fact that some of these would not perhaps be necessary if the applicant were bringing forward a smaller property. This is thousands of square feet. Some of these setbacks would be a little less impactful if they were smaller or if they were closer to the average. And so I understand where the concern is around the reduced setbacks and what those might mean for the neighbors, so I’m inclined to support the refusal as well, even though I suspect that this ends up going back to the OLT and I do appreciate all the work that staff have put into trying to recognize that the OLT has issued a decision in trying to find a way to make this work.

But I think that this is one that there’s just so many considerations that are outside of what would normally be approved, that it’s the cumulative impact for me that says this one needs to be looked at again. So I’m inclined to support that refusal and that’s my comments on this. Hi, yes, I have the chair and now it’s back to you. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

So I’m looking for any other comments or questions on the motion that’s on the floor and seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. May I ask a quick question on the refusal? You can, yes, sorry, the vote’s open but we haven’t closed it yet, so. Perfect, I am wondering, do we need, like I preferably personally would like to put in and does not meet our EMG, like as a policy reason?

This kind of seems preferential, but again, I don’t know. Anyway, I’ll just say I know in the past we have to have like a policy reason for refusing or overriding a staff decision and I’m wondering for this one if we should include that it does not meet our EMG guidelines as the policy reason. I mean, just a moment to check with the clerk and see if we can cancel this vote and add that as an additional reason before we vote. And the clerk is indicating yes, she can accommodate that, just bear with us for a moment while we add that reason.

Okay, so the clerk’s going to reopen the vote with that additional reason added. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you to the members of the public who came today to share your thoughts and your questions and concerns with us. Moving along, colleagues, to the next item on our agenda.

This is a public participation meeting related to 1982 Commissioner’s Road East. I’m gonna look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, and we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

We do have the applicants representative from Civic who was registered to participate. So we’ll ask Mr. Davis if he’d like to, and I did see him up there in the gallery, so welcome, and again, you have five minutes if you’d like to go ahead. I’ll ask you to hold on just a moment till we get your mic working properly.

Yup. Right now? Can now? Awesome, okay, Chair Lewis, members of committee, appreciate your time this afternoon.

Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design on behalf of our client, Royal Premier Developments, who are the owner and developer of this project at 1982 Commissioner’s Road East. I’ll be at a small project, very excited to be kind of reaching this milestone. There’s quite a bit of work and investment that comes behind achieving approval of these zoning by-law amendments, and appreciate the work of Ms. Heinz specifically in helping us get here.

I don’t really have any comments to add other than we’re in support of the staff recommendation. Of course, I’m available if there’s any questions from committee that are most appropriately addressed by myself, so thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Looking for any other members of the public who wish to speak to 1982 Commissioner’s Road. Just check with the clerk to see if there’s anyone online for this. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Then we’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meetings, moved by, sorry, Councillor Hillier.

Sorry, putting it out to ask questions after you close the VPN. Okay, you just got a little bit ahead of me there, but I will put you first on the speaker’s list. Moved by Councillor Raman and seconded by Councillor Frank to close the public participation meeting, and we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries for zero.

Thank you, colleagues. Councillor Hillier. Thank you. As many of you know, Commissioners is not gonna have construction until 2029, but the two neighborhoods at this corner of Commissioners of Hamilton Road, they’ve been in need for a joint access for quite some time for emergency services and residents.

I’m wondering, is there any update from staff on when that will be coming? Have they spoken to developers? ‘Cause I believe it was supposed to be off Constance Avenue, the one that’s in question being worked on. Well, let’s see if anyone from our planning team has a response for you.

Ms. O’Hagan, do we have, go ahead. Through the chair, thank you Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Hillier for your question. Currently we’re working with Sifton for Victoria River Phase 6, which is a subdivision.

As the council mentioned, that’s connecting Barnswallow Place to Constance Nav. We’re currently in the drawing review, getting close to finalizing the subdivision agreement. I do anticipate, once the subdivision agreement is fully executed, Sifton will be eager to get on site to start servicing the road and making that connection. Right now we do have a site alteration agreement for this property.

So you may have noticed some activity on site, but that is just for earth moving. But once we do have this subdivision agreement, the next step is to then start servicing, creating this road connection and building some additional homes. Thank you. Councillor Hillier.

Do we have any estimation on date a year or two years out? Just for my residents, ‘cause they have been asking as you know. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. We do envision this year, Councillor. We should have this agreement executed within the first quarter I would envision. So it could take one to two quarters for them to finish all the earthworks and the servicing, but I do envision this connection can be made this year.

Excellent, thank you very much. Councillor Hillier, are there any other questions from you? That’s what I needed, thank you. I’m looking to colleagues for any other questions, comments or a motion to move the staff recommendation.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’d like to make a motion to move the staff recommendation with a tiny, teeny, tiny little site plan amendment at the bottom, which the clerk has regarding short-term bicycle parking. Are we accepting yelling from the gallery during our committee meeting?

No, I was just going to say if we can, I appreciate you can’t hear, we’ll do our best to address the volume again. Would you like me to repeat myself more clearly? Councillor Frank, if you can just repeat. Yes, please.

Sure, happy to. I would like to move the staff’s recommendation with a small amendment to the site plan section and it’s regarding short-term bicycle parking, specifically review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site for the townhouses. And then the rest of it being the staff recommendation as was written. Okay, thank you.

Councillor ramen, you’re seconding. Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? Bear with me for just a second.

I just need to confer with the clerk quickly on one item on this. There was just an error in the language in HeScribe. So we’re just getting that corrected. And I will say apologies if folks can’t hear.

The microphones were replaced over the holidays. It does matter how we as Councillors adjust our microphones to be heard. So, and I do appreciate that it’s frustrating when you’re in the gallery and you can’t hear clearly. Okay, we just had to get that amendment to the site plan consideration in there properly.

And that is in there now. And if colleagues wanna check your HeScribe and refresh if you have not because there wasn’t a language correction made there. ‘Cause I have no one else on the speaker’s list for this item, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. The colleagues and moving along. The next item on the agenda is a public participation meeting regarding 150 King Edward Ave. And I’m going to look to colleagues to open the public participation meeting by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen.

And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. And I’m gonna look first to see if the applicant, if the representative of the applicant is here.

And I see that she is. So if you can just give us your name and then go ahead with your comments to us. We can’t hear you now. So we’ll just ask staff to make sure that that microphone is live for you.

Okay, try now. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, PC members.

My name is Simone Arrasenu. I’m the agent, I’m a planner with the strict ball, Noni Monas and the agent for this application. I also have members from the owner applicant team here available to answer any questions. The only thing, first of all, I would like to say that I have reviewed the staff report and I have no objections.

I would like to thank staff for their support of this application. The only thing we’re looking to add is place of worship as an additional permitted use to the existing site-specific zoning. The existing property has been underutilized and vacant for a number of years. And the proposal before you today would revitalize and be an example of adaptive reuse of the existing building to facilitate a place of worship.

It would be beneficial to the community, have no impacts on adjacent properties. And would be an active adaptive reuse of the property that would be, again, beneficial to the community and have no adjacent impacts and be compatible with existing development. So I hope you can support it as well. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. And I will now to see if there are any members of the public who wish to speak to this. Welcome.

  • Thank you all. My name is Dindu and my address is 2207 Spring Ridge Drive, Lenton, Ontario. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. Thank you for all the fantastic work you do for Londoners.

I believe that majority of our community members are healthcare workers who are happily serving the Lenton community. Presently as an ICE unit, I’m honored to house out the Lenton community for the last 10 years. When compared to previous years, nursing has changed significantly and it is challenging these days. I am pleased to announce that one of the most critical factors helping us to progress with resilience is our St.

Mary’s Regional Malabar Church. It is always delightful to go to our church at least once a week and have the opportunity to speak our native language, participate in particular community-based activities, charitable events, and have fellowships. It does us improving our spiritual mental health and adding colors to our holistic health. Especially in my early days to London, St.

Mary’s Regional Malabar Church members assisted me in navigating through job options and I received a lot of guidance from my church, which I make sure pass on to the newcomers. Our community is expanding, especially with the hiring of international nurses in our hospitals, nursing homes, and other settings. We respectfully request your approval to enlarge our church to have enough space to conduct our community, cultural, and spiritual events so that we can continue to serve the Lenton community more efficiently. Thank you, Inaduans, for considering our request.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m gonna look to see if there are others in the gallery who want to speak to this application. And I will say, and this has been set up prior meetings before, certainly if you don’t feel comfortable giving a long comment, you’re welcome to just say you support what has said before.

Obviously, if there’s reasons that you don’t support it, you’re welcome to say that as well. I know speaking can be in public and particularly from council gallery, can be a little bit of an intimidating experience to some individuals. So don’t feel that if somebody has already said what you wanted to say, that you have to take a full five minutes to say that, you can let us know that you just support what’s already been said. And I will go now to you ma’am for your name address if you wish, and then you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, members of the planning and environment committee. My name is Sonu Thomas, and I stand before you today as both a grateful community member and a former international student. I’m here to speak in support of the proposed sounding by law amendment for 150 King Edward Avenue. A place that holds great significance for me and many others in our community.

When I first arrived in this country as an international student navigating the unfamiliar terrain of a new culture and society was a daunting task. Amidst the challenges, I found solace and support at St. Mary’s Sierra Malabar Church located at 245 King Edward Avenue. The church became more than just a place of worship.

It became sanctuary where I felt a sense of belonging, where the community embraced me, and where I found the support, I needed during the initial period of my adjustment. Now, as a permanent resident and a proud member of our community, I have come to appreciate the value of the St. Mary’s Sierra Malabar Church even more. It is not just a place of worship.

It is a hub of support, cultural exchange and community building. The proposed sounding by law amendment to include a place of worship used at this location is a crucial step in ensuring that the hurt of our community continues to beat strongly. The larger space that the amendment admissions is not just about expanding the physical boundaries. It is about expanding our capacity to support more international students who likes me find themselves in need of a welcoming community.

It is about creating a space where cultural diversity is celebrated and where newcomers can connect with others who share the similar experiences. The international student community often faces challenges from home sickness to the intricacies of adapting to a new academic and social environment. The St. Mary’s Sierra Malabar Church has been a beacon of support for many of us, offering not only spiritual guidance, but also practicing assistance, a sense of belonging and a new network of friends that spans across borders.

By approving this sounding by law amendment, you are not just granting permission for a physical expansion. You are enabling the expansion of support networks and cultural connections. The larger space will allow more international students to seek the assistance they need fostering a stronger sense of community among those who are far from home. In conclusion, I urge the planning and environment committee to consider the profound impact of this amendment can have on the lives of international students and our community as a whole.

The St. Mary’s Sierra Malabar Church has been a lifeline for many, and this proposed expansion is an investment in the wellbeing and integration of those who seek refuge and support in a foreign land. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much.

We’ll look to see if there’s other speakers to this. Welcome, sir. As with the other speakers, if we can just get your name, your address, if you wish, and then you have five minutes. Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Joby Devosia, and my address 33 local line, and I am a proud member of our parish and the coordinator of children’s activities within our church community. It is indeed an honor to address you today, recognizing the remarkable efforts you all contribute to our rapidly developing London community. Canada, especially London, stands as a diverse and vibrant community where people strive to preserve their unique cultures while seamlessly integrating into Canadian life. I extend my gratitude to our native people for their dedication and commitment, making our nation a more inclusive and reliable place for everyone.

While moving from my born and bought a place to Canada, I was initially concerned about preserving my unique language and culture. However, Canada, especially London, has consistently made me comfortable to follow my native practices. My only struggle now is finding a place to bring our kids together and help them understand and follow our unique identity, allowing them to practice our beliefs and traditions. In my role as the coordinator of children’s activity, I consistently encourage our young ones to embrace and celebrate their cultural heritage and unique languages while integrating with the royal tapestry of Canadian life.

However, the challenge we often face is the limitation of space when planning our programs and activities. Amidst our traditional celebrations, we also actively participate in important Canadian events, engaging in activities such as visiting elders, collecting food and clothes and organizing classes to help them learn more about our beliefs. Over the years, space constraints have also the challenges in organizing these endeavors effectively. Therefore, I honestly request the council’s consideration and support for our application, allowing us the space to maintain our traditional and unique identity is not just an investment in our present, but a gift to the generations that follow.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. Thank you, sir, and I did check with the clerk. We don’t have anybody waiting on Zoom for this one yet, so I’m gonna continue with the gallery and we’ll look for the next speaker to this. Welcome, and if we can get your name, address if you wish, and then you’ll have five minutes.

Good afternoon, my name is Don Matthew, and my address is 2774 Tukala Trail. Dear members of the City Council, I’m here to support the ZBA application with reference to 150 King Edward Avenue as a place of worship. I stand before you today as a 20 year old Canadian with the roots deeply embedded in the rich tapestry of Indian culture. Growing up in this diverse nation has been an incredible journey, and my experiences have highlighted the significance of having a community based place of worship for individuals like me, such a space served as a beacon of diversity, unity, and a nurturing ground for lifelong relationships.

In a country as culturally varied as Canada, a community based place of worship becomes a vital hub for people of different ethnicities and backgrounds to come together. It is a sanctuary where individuals, regardless of their origins, can find common ground to come together, fostering a sense of unity that transcends the differences that often divide us. This unity is not only spiritual, but extends in the realm of social interactions, creating bond that lasts a lifetime. A place of worship is not merely a building.

It is a foundation for building connections and making a lasting impact within the community. It becomes a hub where cultures intertwine, create a unique blend that contributes to the mosaic of our society. The friendships forged within these walls are not only bonds of shared faith, but also bridges that connect diverse communities, promoting understanding and harmony. For the youth of our community, a community based place of worship is particularly crucial.

It provides a space for them to connect with their roots, learn about their heritage, and build a strong foundation for their identity. In a world that often pulls us in different directions, having a spiritual home allows the youth to find solace and purpose, fostering personal and communal growth. As a youth, hearing with the rich cultural heritage, I can attest to the significance of such a place in maintaining a connection with my cultural roots. It serves as a place where traditions are upheld, and knowledge is shared between generations.

The teachings go beyond spiritual matters and compassing life skills, cultural understanding, and the importance of giving back to the community. Moreover, a community based place of worship is a source of joy and fun. It becomes a hub for celebrations, festivals, and cultural events, injecting life and vibrancy into the community. Differences are not just tolerated, but celebrated, as each individual brings a unique perspective and flavor to the collective experience.

In the larger context, this decision before you is not just about a building, but about the growth and strength of our community. It is about creating a space where people can come together, share their joys and sorrows, and collectively navigate the journey of life. A place of worship is a symbol of commitment, not only to one’s faith, but also the well-being and prosperity of the community. I implore you to consider the profound impact that a community based place of worship can have on our city.

It is more than a structure. It is a place to call home, a place to belong. It is an investment in the unity, diversity, and strength of our community, ensuring that future generations can continue to thrive in a supportive and inclusive environment. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, sir. I’m gonna look to see if we have anyone else in the gallery who wishes to speak to this item. Welcome to Council Chambers, and again, if we can just get your name, address if you wish, and then you have five minutes. My name is Leanne Jimmy, and I reside at 812 Zafeman Circle, London, Ontario.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning and Environment Committee, good afternoon, and thank you for taking the time to hear us speak about this. I stand before you today as a proud member of this vibrant and diverse community. I am here to speak in support of the proposed zoning by-law amendment that would allow us for the inclusion of a place of worship. As a newcomer to this beautiful country, I have found comfort and a sense of belonging in the welcoming arms of our community.

Canada’s values of inclusivity, diversity, and respect for different cultures have made it a beacon of hope for individuals like me who seek to preserve our traditional practices while embracing the essence of being Canadian. Today, I wanna share with you the importance of having a dedicated space for our community’s children to gather and practice the traditions that have been passed down through generations. Our cultural and religious practices are an integral part of our identity. Being a part of this church and of those who make it a community allowed me to connect with those who share the same roots as me.

And I was able to foster a strong sense of belonging. After our regular Sunday holy masses, we have faith formation classes being conducted for over 600 children who regularly attend. Currently, I am in my third year of university, and I have attended these classes up to grade 12. In almost 10 years of these classes, I was able to get closer with my faith and those in my culture.

The same difference can be made for the hundreds of children with the convenience of a new, spacious place, which offers a wide variety of cultural events and activities and services. By providing a larger and more accessible place, we can bring together more children in our community, creating an environment that nurtures their growth and development. This space will not only serve as a place of worship, but also as a hub for cultural exchange, education, and community building. In embracing this amendment, we’re not only honoring our heritage and culture, but also contributing to the rich culture fabric that makes our community uniquely Canadian.

This community allows us to stay connected to our faith, cultural traditions, and to motivate and accept others who wish to be a part of something great. I urge the planning and environment committee to consider the positive impact that this amendment can have on the well-being and future of our community. By allowing us to establish a place of worship, you’re not just approving a change in zoning, you’re endorsing a commitment to diversity, cultural preservation, and the well-rounded growth of our children. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your comments, and we’ll look to see if we have any other speakers to this item, and I’m gonna ask the clerk to just check Zoom in case we’ve had anybody join us late and see if there’s any other speakers. We have no one waiting for us on Zoom, so I will look for a motion from committee to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, and we’ll ask the clerk to open that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, forward to zero. Colleagues, so I will look for any direction from committee on this as I didn’t hear any questions that we need to go to staff or the applicant on.

Councillor ramen. Thank you, I’ll look to put the recommendation on the floor. And that’s seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll look for any speakers to this, and I’ll note that the word Councillor’s with us, so we’ll go to Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair.

Appreciate being a guest today. I wanna thank all the speakers for coming out, sharing your views on this. I met with representatives of your congregation when the project first started. I’m in support of this, and I encourage my council colleagues to support this as well.

This plaza has set empty and underutilized for quite some time, and it would be nice to see it used. I really appreciate it in terms of the words you spoke today and how much this property in terms of the value and what it means to you as a community, and I’m sure you’ll add to the community as well. Currently, this congregation is actually just a bit further up on King Edward right now, so you don’t have that far of a move to make, but I’m really excited to see a new life breathed into this property, and I think it’ll be a great addition to the community, so I’m in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I don’t have anyone else on the speakers list. Councillor Roman. Thank you, and through you, I just wanted to thank community members for coming today and providing their comments, as well as to the applicant, very supportive of this recommendation.

Just one question, perhaps the word Councillor if that might be permitted, and that’s just regarding transit, and whether or not there is transit and adequate transit to this location? Well, we can go to staff, although I’m not sure that they might have those routes, but certainly if the word Councillor wants to comment on that, we can certainly see if he’s got any comments to share as well. Councillor McAllister, we’ll go to you first. Thank you, and through the chair.

Appreciate the question. Don’t know the LTC routes off the top of my head. I do know in terms of place of worship that that has been an issue in terms of routing, getting the necessary buses, especially on days of worship. I will defer to staff in terms of, if they have any further comments on that, but I know those can be challenges.

I do recognize though that one of the reasons that this location was favorable to that community was also the added parking, ‘cause I do know at their current location that is an issue right now, and that this would be well utilized in terms of attendees being able to park on the site. Thank you, and we’ll go to our staff who have some information to provide us. Thank you, through the chair. The intersection of King Edward and Thompson Road actually has a stop on the line one bus route.

Thank you for that. Councillor ramen. Thank you, much appreciated. I do get a lot of outreach from members of the community, especially faith-based communities about transit and the need for more transit in Ward 1 and 2.

Interestingly enough, at places of worship, so I wanted to make sure that that was well thought out beforehand, especially with a large demographic of international students who tend to be transit riders as well. So I wanted to make sure that that was considered very supportive of the application. Look forward to seeing this move forward. Okay, now I have no one else on my speakers list.

So I lost, oh, Councillor McAllister, come back to you. Thank you once again, through the chair. I just wanted to make one final comment in terms of this, you know, it’s not a precedent-setting rezoning. I’m reminded of another one in my ward in terms of repurposing another commercial property at Pond Mill Square Impact Church, moved into the former Zellers there and they well utilized that space.

So there is a, you know, past precedence in terms of this working well. And yeah, once again, I support this and I’m looking forward to seeing it come to fruition. So just gonna check to see if there’s any other speakers. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, everyone. So for members of the community, just so that you’re aware, it’s past unanimously at committee, that means it will go to the next council for ratification. And if it’s supported at council, then the approval is granted.

So that, I’m sure that your ward councilor can provide you updates on that as that progresses. So thank you for coming out today. Moving along, our next item on the agenda is a public participation meeting regarding 3810 and 3814 Colonel Talbot Road. I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by councilor Frank, seconded by councilor ramen.

And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. I’m gonna look to see if the applicant is with us to speak to this application.

Just give a moment for folks to get out of the gallery lane there so that they can get on with their day. Just make sure that that mics on. And if you want to just give us your name and proceed with your five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of committee. My name is Nick Dijak. I’m a planning consultant with strict balling monaz been retained by the owner and applicant to handle this rezoning application. And I just want to mention that my problems I’ll be brief that this application has been ongoing for quite some time.

I believe I started on this project in early 2021. So it’s three years in the making to get to this milestone. Several iterations of design changes and technical review have been underway. And I appreciate some of the comments that were made today and considerations that will need to be made in the next step, the process through site plan approval.

And we are currently ongoing and doing some of the technical review and engineering as we speak. So I just want to make that clear. And I do want to make it clear that we are very thankful for staff’s help on this project. It’s been a long time coming and three years of going through policy changes and just provincial changes and all together.

It’s been really appreciative and I could use all the help I can get. So it’s a thank you everyone that’s been involved in the project so far. Lastly, I do want to just mention that the report we’re supportive of it, recommendations. We are very confident that the holy provisions that are being implemented could be resolved.

Leinor has been involved in the engineering and the improvements planned for Colonel Talbot Road from Pack Road down to Lambeth quite some time. So we’re fully aware that the servicing in this area is required and that is currently underway and hopefully constructed eminently. And the last one for the RSC, I have been speaking with the owner on that and we have reviewed the report. We’re confident that that is not an issue.

The site has not been used for industrial uses previously that contamination or soil issue is due to film material. So that should be resolved fairly quickly and expeditiously. So thank you. Thank you for that.

And I will look to see if we have any other speakers now from the public to this application. Just check with the clerk to see if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you.

So seeing no one else to speak to this item, I’ll ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you colleagues. So we look for any motion to move this application in a direction. Councilor Frank? Yes, I’d like to move this staff recommendation, but I did circulate a couple draft amendments to site plan authority and I’m happy to read them out as the clerk gets them up.

Okay, wonderful. So just at the bottom where it says, incorporate a high degree of glazing in architectural detail. I’ve included the term bird friendly before glazing. And then below that, incorporate 5% EV chargers for required parking spaces and brackets roughed in or complete level one or two.

Reminder level one is essentially an electrical outlet. Then the next ensure 50% native plants and no non-native species planted provide enhanced tree planting due to loss of significant loss of healthy maturity removals and investigate opportunities for solar installation along apartment buildings. I’ve brought these in the past and they’re similar in nature. And of course, as we all know, nothing is binding at SPA, but it is a direction for at least that to be considered where appropriate.

Okay, so that’s been moved. And we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that, Councillor ramen. Any discussion on the motion as amended and moved? Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you. So I’m happy to second this to bring in onto the floor for discussion. I just wanted to find out a little bit more about the amendment specifically, the investigating opportunities for solar installation and apartment buildings as to how far we would go in terms of that with the site plan. Is that just dialogue with the developer or what would that look like?

Well, let’s ask Mr. Pease. Thank you through the chair to the Councillor. We’ve seen a number of these come through.

We haven’t quite, maybe the proper term is test those. So at this point, it would be something where we’d engage in dialogue with the developer to see how they can meet the intent and spirit of the resolution as directed by Council to the site plan of full authority. Yeah, and Mr. Pease, can we ask you to just tilt your mic a little bit towards you so that we pick up your voice just a little bit better?

You may not have to lean in quite as much as we do with these new ones, but with it tilted away from you, you are just a little bit quiet there. So I suspect folks in the gallery may have had a hard time hearing. Councillor ramen. Thank you, I appreciate that.

So just to repeat what I said for Mr. Wallace and others that maybe didn’t hear me, I was asking specifically about the solar installation on apartment buildings as part of the amendment and what that meant in terms of that discussion at site plan. I’m just wondering, I guess again, I’ll call this a newbie question for being new on planning here. When we have the developers in the gallery here ready to answer questions and we have amendments, is it okay to ask them questions about the amendments?

So procedurally, we have typically, when there’s technical questions, we have allowed staff or the applicant to respond. So if you did have questions for the applicant specifically on the amendment, I would allow that because that’s been our past practice. Thank you. And since the developer, sorry, the representative is here today, with the amendments that are proposed are these things that have been contemplated by you already.

And we will go up to Mr. Dijek to see if he can comment on that for us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of these design comments that come through aren’t really contemplated because we’re focused on the zoning and making the built form work. The electrical and mechanical equipment and that kind of the glazing isn’t really kind of thought out until we get to the detailed engineering phase. So as we get into the site plan process even, that hasn’t fully been thought out yet. So it’s not until you get to the permitting phase, we actually look at an electrical equipment, that kind of thing that it really gets to the nut and bolts of the application.

But that is to say that some developers and some applicants actually want to facilitate some of those kind of improvements or enhancements to the building. It does help perhaps if they’re looking for some funding from CMHC or other requirements. So I wouldn’t say no, but I wouldn’t say that it’s been fully thought out yet. Thanks for ramen.

Thank you. And I appreciate your feedback on that and the fact that that contemplation hasn’t happened yet and see the value of having these as pieces of the conversation at site plan. So supportive of this amendment, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. This application is in ward nine. And I just like to make a couple comments.

Thank you, Councillor Frank, for those amendments. I do have a question through you, Mr. Chair. There is a significant amount of trees being removed.

I think there’s about 80 or so of them. And if someone could just speak to the tree protection plan and specifically with how the boundary trees are going to be dealt with, I know that’s a site plan, probably conversation, but I think it’s important that we understand the amount of trees coming down and what the plan looks like. It’s my question. And we’ll go to staff for that.

I’m not sure which of you wants to take that one, but if I may, I think because it was to the tree protection by-law, we should hear from staff first, although if staff indicates that they’re happy to have you comment on that as well, I think that’s appropriate. But we’ll go and I saw Ms. O’Hagan nodding. Was that that we have some staff comment or that we should go to the applicant?

Mr. Chair, if we can go to the applicant first to explain and if there’s any additional, we do have staff online. Great, so by all means, go ahead and if you want to respond to that one. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I have several comments and conversations about this every time it comes up. The tree protection plan at the zoning stage is preliminary. We haven’t done the detailed grading yet, so some areas might have an elevation change of two, three meters on a site this size.

I think it’s substantial. So if we say a tree is going to be protected today, it might not be able to be protected and once we get done to the engineering, there might be servicing pipes or grading changes that need to happen or retaining walls. Any number of changes, even through the site layout, could change through staff comments and department comments. So I would take the tree protection plan with a grain of salt at this point in time.

It’s a good understanding of what could be removed and what could be preserved, but that has to be done again at the site plan approval stage when we have that information. In terms of the boundary trees, conversations with the neighbors are ongoing, but yeah, we’ll have to have those conversations prior to the approval and we’ll take that into consideration once we have more detailed information. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I appreciate that extra bit of information, so thank you for that.

I, 160 units, it’s a lot of units going in, so supportive of the recommendation in front of it. In particular, the holding provisions, there’s no sewer stormwater, we’ve got the holding provisions to make sure that happens and also addressing any concerns of site contamination. So I really appreciate staff’s work on this and putting these holding provisions in. Just for the committee’s information, Colonel Talbot is going to be going through some upgrades in 2024 along this area.

And as the board councillor of this development that’s coming in along this area is very important, so we can achieve those housing units, but it’s also important that we get some infrastructure in place so we can move around. So I’m happy to hear the upgrades with the infrastructure, the road infrastructure going along with the housing, so supportive of the application, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Looking for any other speakers before we call the question.

Seeing none, it has been moved and seconded. I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for it is zero. Colleagues, moving along.

The next item on the agenda is a public participation meeting. This is item 3.6 with regard to 3055, Dingman Drive, Roxborough Road and 4313 Wellington Road. I’m gonna look for a motion to open the public participation meeting and this one’s moved by Councillor Frank. And just to mix it up, Councillor Hilliard, did you wanna second that?

That’s seconded by Councillor Hilliard and we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for it is zero. Thank you, colleagues. We will look to see if the applicant or their representative is here to speak to that.

And again, if we can just get your name, sir, and then you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, members of committee, excuse me. My name is Rob Walker from KWA site development.

With me today is Jeff Lumsden from Penn Equity. They’re the owners of the property. I probably had a little bit more to say, but my throat’s gone now and I wish I brought a bottle of water. We’re turning back the clock a little bit on this site as we reintroduce some of these light industrial uses that we’ve been discussing and working through as the site evolves.

I think the staff report does an excellent job of laying out kind of the history and where we’re at with the site. I’d like to thank staff for their time and effort as we had worked through some discussions and issues with regards to the transition or the kind of evolution of the site. We are in support of the staff recommendations as they’re set out and are here, both of us to answer any questions that committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you. I will take the opportunity to let you know, we do have water fountains out in the hall with wonderful municipal water service and a vending machine as well if you’d like to support us by purchasing something through that. But we do appreciate the comments and I will see if there are any members of the public who wish to speak to this. Seeing none, then I’m gonna look for a motion to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor Hillier and we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 4-0. Thank you, colleagues. Before we move into debate and motions and questions and comments on this, I did want to just note in the event that colleagues missed it, that there was a replacement page to the staff report. It was included in the added agenda and when it is the changes, when we’re looking at the analysis, the light industrial Li1, which was in the report as item D, manufacturing and assembly industries, that has been struck from the report.

So I just wanted to draw your attention to that minor change to the report as originally circulated and corrected in the added. And now I will look to see if we have questions, comments, a movers for the motion, the word Councillors here. So I will go to Councillor Palosa first. Thank you, Mr.

Przani, officer for recognizing me. As I’m a guest at your committee, though the word Councillor, thank you to staff and the applicant for this as there’s been lots of excitement, lots of disappointment over the years. Residents are still hoping, if we say no to this, that the IKEA will come, which is not the opportunity before us. So overall, I’m in support of this application.

It is serviced, it’s prime development land with great potential, very visible from the highway coming in as we discuss and roll out our bus rapid transit corridors. It’s the Wellington Gateway, lots of opportunity here for regional transportation connections into this area, including hopefully some connections in St. Thomas and park and rides that are still yet to be decided. My only concern with this is the opportunities for self-storage.

I believe self-storage is not the best used. I know it’s currently permitted under the commercial and industrial. I would like to see it withdrawn for self-storage establishments, realizing this is very visible from the highway coming in and is in within the staff report of a request that they had of just keeping that in mind through the development of the site. But we do have neighboring municipalities just down the highway who did allow self-storage.

And it’s one of the first things you see coming into their city. And I do believe that London has more potential than self-storage facilities, as well as we recognize that this is the gateway into the city. And when we’re attracting development in residents and visitors that I believe the site has more opportunity than that, I know it is a larger site. So that is one question or my comment there and my other one is more technical to staff about this property.

I don’t know if you want me to hold that one until something goes on the floor or— If you have a technical question, we can deal with that now. Okay, thank you. This one is more from residents as this property is large and we know the Costco already moved. The side roads are not built out on this parcel of land but the stop signs are already up on it.

And some residents maintain speed, some slow down, some stop and residents are just concerned realizing it’s not assumed by the city of just legally with the stop signs being up and not being enforced and people not stopping road traffic concerns in whose provision is that and how can that be addressed? Well, let’s go to staff for a response on that. And I greatly appreciate the question, Councillor, ‘cause I visit that Costco and have had the same question. I’ll try to speak closer, Mr.

Chair. The Roxbury Road extension that extends beyond what was kind of formerly a terminus where the old Costco was. We’ll be maintained as private land. It won’t be assumed as a city street.

The stop signs that are there well, in some respects, comical because there are no side streets coming off of it at this point are intended to facilitate the future overall development. They’re meant to be traffic control measures that were put in place through many conversations between the applicant, the city and including MTO as well for traffic calming and traffic management. I don’t believe anybody from transportation is on the line but my guess would be that those would not be under the jurisdiction of the Highway Traffic Act but they would still be managed through complaints dealt with through various avenues, whether it’s through the city or through the developer that’s in themselves. So that’s the short version of a very long answer.

Thank you for that and recognizing that there might be an opportunity for a follow-up before a council to transportation staff. That’s I think the best we can do today. Councilor Palosa, did you have a follow-up to your technical? Yeah, I just thank you for that as residents.

We’re concerned as we have a lot of residents coming from out of town. Some are local liners and we welcome liners from across other wards in the city and sometimes you find your fellow councillors there as that’s where I am. Just it’s a safety concern residents just wanna know, do we have to stop? And then certainly if there’s a stop sign, some people are stopping, it’s a concern.

So yes, just looking to hopefully that there’ll be a member committee looking to move staff’s recommendation with revision, realizing this is a high quality gateway image along the 401 East in Wellington South into the city, that self-storage not be permitted. Thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. Thank you, Councillor.

And I’ll just underline that you and I bumping into each other at Costco does not constitute a meeting of council. So I’m gonna look to see if there’s a mover and/or a seconder for any particular motion, Councillor Raman. Thank you, I’ll move, I’ll look to move that with the light industrial self-storage establishment to be removed from permitted uses. Thank you.

And I think Councillor Palosa has provided some language to the clerk in advance, hoping that there might be a mover. So we’ll let, can Councillor Frank, you’re indicating you’re prepared to second that? Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded. I’m just gonna ask for folks’ patience for a moment while I make sure that the clerk has the language that was forwarded.

Okay, so the clerk’s advice that she does have that language in East Cribe for us and it has been bolded just so that colleagues can identify that that permitted use would be removed. And there might be a slight language adjustment required at Council just to be consistent with the planners, but this captures the intent for now. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I had circulated some SPA direction as well, so I’m wondering if that would be required to have an amendment to this one ‘cause we’ve already put it on the floor.

Yes, ‘cause we do have a motion moved and seconded, you would have to move an amendment. Wonderful, okay. Well, I am happy to support removing the self-storage option as well I’d circulated some direction to site plan approval authority. Again, this being a gateway into London and being probably highly accessed by lots of people who are doing their shopping.

I did incorporate a couple items that in my opinion would improve their experience. So I’ll just read them out. So incorporate 5% EV charger spaces for required parking spaces, rough-did or complete level one or two, ensure 50% native plants and no non-native species provide enhanced tree planting, investigate solar installation on industrial buildings and include bird friendly glazing on any glazing below five stories. Okay, and just so colleagues are aware under motion for in eScribe that language has been captured by the clerk.

So that is in there, although it also has the light industrial removed, which is now in the main motion. So we’ll just get that corrected. And again, this is for consideration at site plan approval. So this would be a discussion back and forth.

It’s not a binding requirement. So that’s been moved. Do we have a seconder for that? Councilor Hillier, thank you.

Do we have any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the amendment. And then we’ll have to deal with the main motion as amended after that. Thank you, Andrew.

Can these be split? Yes, you can ask for any vote to be split or any part of a vote to be split provided they’re not tied together. So in this case, we have the reads, the motion added to the following a part C, then there’s a three, four, five, six, and seven. So you can deal with three, four, five, six, and seven in any sort of blocks that you wish to ask for.

Thanks. Okay. I’m not sure if anybody else wants them split completely, but I’m looking to split three or II, sorry. And then the rest can go together.

So we will ask the clerk to open the vote on C-I-I-I first. And then we will deal with IV through V-I-I. So we’ll ask the clerk to just prep that. We just may need a second to split that into two separate votes.

While we’re waiting for those votes, Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Yeah, thank you and through you. I guess, I’m not sure if this would be a question to the applicant, but where we have existing parking spaces in this location, and I’m not entirely familiar, like I don’t remember the exact layout of the parking lot, but I’m just wondering they, I don’t want to put something unreasonable on incorporate 5% EV chargers, is that, again, I just worry that we’re including something for discussion with a percentage there that may not be feasible because of the way that the lot is planned out and the electrical to those locations, I just want to be, I want to understand if we’re having a conversation about something that’s absolutely something they can do. So I think before we ask the applicant for comment, I’m just gonna go to Mr.

P’s in regard to site plan approval to maybe expand on how they have a discussion with the applicant when there’s a percentage and whether or not something in the middle or something lower might be, might meet or in fact, in some cases, it might not be able to be met at all. Mr. P’s, can you just walk us through? And I recognize with this being an early PEC for Councillor ramen, some of us have had a little more experience with this than others.

So if you can just help us with this one. Thank you through the chair. This one’s also complicated by the fact that the applicants have effectively, they have site plan approval for the overall commercial development that was seen previously that came a couple of years ago for a public site plan meeting and eventually made its way to site plan approval. The matter before us today is potentially to readap some of that site, which does have site plan approval for some industrial uses, however the developer sees fit.

I think that their plans based on conversations with them are evolving. So in terms of any of the direction that’s provided to the approval authority, it will be measured depending on the circumstance and how they see that they’re gonna adapt their proposed amendments over time. It may be something that’s within the scope of the area being revised. If it’s a larger area, there’d be obviously more impact and more regard for some of the requests of Council through the resolution.

So while I don’t have a specific number, a lot of these conversations that do happen as a result of Council resolution are quite, I guess, pointedly a bit of a back and forth, a dialogue to try to come up with a compromise, which I mentioned earlier, which meets the intent and spirit and goals of what Council is asking the approval authority to consider. Thank you, and I’m gonna allow the applicant as well if you want to add any comment to what we’ve heard from staff with regard to the site plan approval discussions. One of the concerns with the 5% request as Mike just commented on is that we do have an approved master site plan that basically lays out the parking configuration and all the spaces and it’s laid out accordingly. Depending on what amendments in the site plan process that may happen as a result of a new tenant or someone coming along, there’s opportunity for change and modifications to that, but generally speaking as a planner that represents retailers across the country, the 5% doesn’t sound significant until you get into the hundreds of thousands of square foot buildings and you start talking about 500, 600 spaces required and we start talking about 25, 30 EV stations on some of these lots.

It’s not that a lot of this is dependent sometimes on who the tenant is as well and not just an industrial, light industrial manufacturing guy may not have the same approach to the EV parking situation, but it’s being embraced, I’ll say that across the board, but the putting hard numbers to it or the percentage thing is sometimes difficult and given that we have an approved master site plan here, I’m not really sure how that would play out ‘cause we do have a site plan process that we’ll be going through. Thank you for that, Councillor ramen. It’s good, okay. So Councillor Frank.

Thank you. If it would be easier and I’m happy to make this direction is to remove the 5% and just say investigate EV charger given that consideration. So again, I’d be happy with like five for 500 spots. Like I just think it would be nice if for some people who need a quick charge of this location to get one.

The other thing I realized is I said no non-native species and that should say no invasive species. So I was hoping to actually make that correction too. So I’d be happy to replace incorporate 5% with just investigate and then replace non-native with invasive. And I don’t know again, if we need to make an amendment to the amendment, I’m sorry folks.

Okay, because we have not called the vote and because we’re dealing with the amendment as presented and you’re the mover of the amendment, I’m gonna allow you to adjust your language there for the sake of expediency of the meeting. And that may change the need to separate the votes and I’m seeing Council Raman nod to that. So with two small language changes. So I simply read investigate EV charger spaces with no percentage and IV would say to ensure 50% native plants and no invasive species planted.

So those will give the clerk just a moment to make those two language tweaks. And then I’ll look to see if there’s any more speakers before we call the question on this. So if we refresh our screens motion for that language has been corrected. So clause II reads investigate EV charger spaces, no percentage and IV reads ensure 50% native plants and no invasive species planted.

So those changes have been corrected. And I’m gonna look to see if anybody wants to be on the speakers list before we open the question. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on this now. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you colleagues. We will have to approve the main motion as amended. It was already moved. So we’ll see if there’s any more discussion on that before we call the question.

What’s our privilege? Thank you guys. I just wanna make a through the chair to the staff and to the applicant that commented, I was really happy to see this come forward because I really think the four one, four or two quarter and well willing to get right has a great opportunity for our city. So I’m really glad to see this.

Even though it’s certainly light industrial, I think the opportunity is there. So I was really happy to see it. Thank you all very much. Thank you councilor.

Having no one else on my speakers list, I will ask the clerk when she has the language already because we did amend it to open the vote on this. And that is now open for voting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you.

You have one more item on our section three. This is a public participation meeting for 3637 Colonel Talbot Road. And I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by councilor ramen seconded by councilor Frank. We’ll open the vote on that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you. And Mr. Dijekt, we’ll go to you again.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Let’s meet once again. Nick Dijer from SBM retained by the owner to be the agent on this application.

Before I get going, I just wanted to comment on the EV’s discussion. If I’m not mistaken, I’m also told recently on application that the EV parking spaces are above and beyond the required parking. So if the EV parking is required, that wouldn’t count toward your minimum required parking. If I could just get that on record, that would be great.

If I, okay. For this application at 3637, the intent to development is to retain the single family home, wonderful single family home on Colonel Todot, and infill the lands in behind with town housing. Again, this project has been underway for a number of years. We support the recommendations, except there is a recommendation for refusal on three site-specific provisions for the R1 zone, which we do not agree with.

The specific provisions are to permit a front yard, within the front yard, reduced frontage or front yard of 4.5 instead of eight meters, and that garage doors should not face the Colonel Todot road. These provisions were included in the proposed zoning for two reasons. One, to acknowledge the existing single, our garage within the front yard, and two, to allow for another accessory building to be located in the front yard. The intent of the refusal from staff in the staff report is referring to a London plan policies, which I’ve reviewed and I found too that are likely what they are referring to.

Referring to what was it here? Streetscape and site layout. So I found policy 222A, which states the proportion of the building and street funders used for garages and driveways should be minimized without for street trees, on street parking, pedestrian and cycling streetscapes, and site layout policy 260 projecting garages will be discouraged. So I don’t believe that those two policies, themselves, kind of acknowledge that this site has some context to it.

It’s not a typical suburban development where we have snub-nosed garages along the entire street, creating a streetscape as undesirable. If you look at your figure two within the staff report, it shows the street view of the existing single family home. Quite substantial. The current accessory building to the left of the house is out of view, out of site.

Doesn’t create any site line issues or pedestrian conflicts. The proposed location would be east or to the right of the building. Again, would be screened by a wall that is located along the entire street frontage and has a gated driveway. So there would be no impacts to pedestrian or vehicle conflicts at Colonel Table Road.

The streetscape would be unimpacted, there would be minor changes. But ultimately, the streetscape and the somewhere I’m looking for, the way that the driveway operates as Colonel Table would not be altered in any way. So I recommend that these provisions be included and be approved with the proposed zoning. I don’t think there’s any impacts to the road or the neighbors.

And I don’t see why this would not be a benefit to the development. It creates a nice little four-court within the area and closes the space for the residential development. It would beautify the site, in my opinion. But other than that, support the recommendations, support the holding provisions, and I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. Thank you. And I’m gonna look to see if there’s any members of the public to speak to this. Seeing none in the gallery, I’ll just check with the clerk.

And we have no one online, so I look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen, as the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

So we’ve heard the applicant’s presentation. You’ve got the staff report before you. I’m looking to see if committee wants to provide some direction on this. Mr.

Frank. Thank you. I’m just hoping to ask a question through you to staff, just in regards to the comments from the applicant, specifically the refuse items. I’m wondering if staff could comment on their rationale for including them in the recommendation.

We’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, thank you for the question. Staff are recommending refuse of the following three requested special provisions related to the proposed the attached garage in the front yard of the R14 zone. Front yard garage depth of 4.5 meters.

The notwithstanding section 4.1 for A, accessory buildings in the form of the attached garage shall be permitted in the front yard. And garage doors shall not face. Sorry, Mr. DeCuster, can we just ask you to speak up just a little bit where?

My apologies. The intent of prohibiting accessory buildings in the front yard and providing for garage setbacks is to provide for safe ingress and egress from parking spaces and to ensure accessory buildings and garages to not dominate the streetscape or cause sideline vehicle or pedestrian conflicts. It is the opinion of staff that there are alternative configurations of the property that could accommodate a new attached garage elsewhere on the property. And in a manner that does not cause at first impacts on the public streets or to the safety of site users.

Finally, it should also be noted that there is an existing multi-car garage on the property already. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’m just mulling it over with two different opinions, just mulling.

Well, well, you’re mulling that. We don’t have a motion on the floor yet, but perhaps we do have the word councilor here. So why don’t we take this time to go to Councillor Hopkins and see from the word councilor if she’s got any comments to share with us? Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Chair for recognizing me again. And as Councillor Frank is mulling this over, my question may be through you to staff would be, are there ever options for this applicant to move forward with getting the detached building approved through other processes? Well, let’s ask staff for the answer on that, Mr. Dick Hester.

Through the chair, thank you for the question. Two possible ways are either through a minor variance application at the Committee of Adjustment or by reconfiguring the site plan through the site plan approval process. Thank you for that information. If I may, Mr.

Presiding Chair, I just want to make a few comments, but I do have a few questions. And I’d like to just go back, this is another development, just up from the previous development that we just approved. And I did have a question around the pre-treat, protection plan. And I appreciate that the applicant’s comments back then when a number of trees are being removed in this application, there aren’t as many.

There’s probably about half that amount being approved. But I do appreciate in the recommendation that we are requesting that planting as many replacement trees as possible on the subject lens and implementing the recommendations of the EIS be done. And my question, and it’s a little bit backwards, I wish I asked this question in the previous application, is why is that this now in this recommendation and not in the previous recommendation when it relates to the tree protection plan? I know we’re at zoning amendment right now, we’ve got a site plan process, but I’m just trying to understand and maybe trying to get some consistency in our recommendations.

So as a ward counselor, I understand, especially when these applications aren’t too far from one another on how we implement the process, going to site plan specific to the tree protection plan, just wanna sort of understand why it’s been recommended in this situation and not previous, I’m glad it is recommended, but just trying to understand the difference. So we’ll go to staff on that. If that’s you, Mr. DeCuster, great.

And if it needs to be passed to somebody else, by all means. I truly try happy to start, a tree assessment report was prepared in conjunction with the proposed development. The inventory captured 45 individual trees in tree vegetation units. One boundary tree was inventoryed and is identified for preservation.

The current site plan does not necessitate removal or injury of this boundary tree. And the critical root zone can be protected with a tree preservation barrier. One city tree on Colonel Talbot was identified as well for preservation and no impacts to this tree are anticipated. And direction to site plan is given to plan as many replacement trees as possible.

Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. That really doesn’t kind of clear things up for me, unfortunately, and maybe I might have to take this offline, just trying to understand our process with our tree protection plan and how that moves forward through the process. I’m not sure, don’t want to go to the applicant, but maybe that’s something I’ll be following down the road.

And this will still have to come to council. So appreciate the comments. So far, my other question is around the barn. I want to make sure that I understand there’s no heritage significance to this barn, but just want to confirm that.

And I also want to understand that the, what’s going to happen to the back colony and how that’s going to proceed through the process, through you, Mr. President Chair. And we’ll go to Mr. Dick Huster for that.

Thank you, Trudy Chair. I’ll start with addressing the heritage comment about the barn. The property is not listed on the register of cultural heritage resources, nor is it designated, so it has no official heritage status. As part of the application, stage one and two, our assessment was provided and no cultural heritage issues remain.

With regard to the bat colony, it is currently unknown whether the barn is confirmed bat habitats. It has been identified as candidate habitats in the environmental impact statement. The EIS recommends that confirmatory studies are undertaken at the set plan stage to confirm presence or absence. Audio recording units, ARU and exit surveys are recommended to be completed to determine the use of trees or structures by bats to prescribe the next course of action.

For example, mitigation or permitting, depending on the outcome of the surveys, consultation with the ministry of the environment may be required as well. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that information, I much appreciated. And so there’s mitigation that’s going to be moving forward.

Good to hear, I’m going to miss that barn. If it does come down, it’s a beautiful looking barn, just my personal comments. I am supportive of this application going forward. Again, we’ve got these holding provisions on there aren’t any services in this area.

So it’s important that they remain. It is, it will contribute to a range of different housing in the area. And again, the improvements on Colonel Talbot, the infrastructure road improvements that are coming forward this year will really sort of balance the development that’s going on and the need to move around, given that we have very few options out this way. So those are my comments.

Thank you. And I’m going to go to, so I actually, just like colleagues know, I have a speakers list. I’ve got Councillor ramen and then I’m going to ask Councillor ramen to take the chair so that I can offer a comment. And then I will come back to Councillor Frank who’s asked to be back on the list.

So Councillor ramen, you first. Thank you and through you. I had a question about page 185 and the site plan received November 20th, 2023 comment around clarifying waste collection. So the comment says that waste collection will function on the proposed development, a turnaround is required for solid waste and specifically the proposed waste collection method.

What do you, I just wanted to get some more clarification on what’s meant by that. And whether or not green bins are way forward with these types of units. Mr. Pease.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Comments like that from the site plan group, I generally refer to determining whether it be a private or public garbage collection system, whether it’s hired or whether it’s through the city. And really it’s just ensuring and advising the applicant kind of at an early stage through the rezoning that we’d be looking for if it is public and even to some degree private that would be adequate space for maneuverability for trucks to do three-point turns so they don’t reverse things like that.

So it’s more of an advisement in terms of green bins, much like garbage and recycling, if that’s part of the system that’s in place as operated by the city from a public pickup perspective, we would ensure to that degree that it would be picked up just in the court the same way that recycling and waste is picked up as well. I believe these would be typical for kind of end of driveway type pickup points, much like you would see in a traditional suburban setting. So really, I think the comment really was more towards the fact that we would need adequate space for truck maneuverability so they don’t have to back out onto Colonel Talbot Road. Councillor.

Thank you. So just to follow up, so for multi-unit residential, the expectation is that if they have public service, they will have green bin service from hero and will be planned for that from here on out. Mr. Pease, through the chair, unfortunately, I don’t have someone from solid waste here to advise of kind of that standard.

We work with them and at this point, we haven’t really gotten to the point of multi-res and high-rise development for contemplation for green bins, but something that we’re picking up as part of our, I imagine through our site plan control by all update that we’ve been working on as part of our work program. Councillor ramen. Thank you. Would it be helpful to include it in our site plan authority language that with ongoing multi-unit residential?

I’m not speaking specifically of high-rise at this point, but that we include that for consideration in our site plan going forward. Mr. Pease. Thank you, through the chair.

I think at this point, on a one-off basis, I would prefer to, I would suggest it may not be desirable to have that in this case. I would take direction. We circulate our solid waste group on all site plan applications and consultations. If they have specific comments on a site specific basis, they’ll provide that to us to accommodate any of their needs for green bin recycling or solid waste pickup.

I’ll leave it at that at this point. Thank you, Councillor ramen. Thanks, I’ll leave it there for now, but I do, I would like to make it known that I do think it’s important that we’re making this consideration now at this point that we are planning for multi-unit residentials to have green bins going forward. This is the way we’re headed.

This is part of our strategic plan. We’re way behind already on doing this. And I think it’s important that we’re planning for the future appropriately and making sure that the buildings that we’re building and things that we’re approving now have that in consideration. Thank you for that.

And Councillor ramen, I’m gonna ask you, if you can take the chair so that I can offer some thoughts and perhaps a direction too. Thank you, acknowledging I have the chair and over to you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So I’m gonna try not to give a long preamble, but I am going to put something on the floor since everybody seemed to be thinking about it.

I’ve mulled it over as well. And first of all, I appreciate this infill. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to speak to Councillor Hopkins yesterday and find out the Colonel Talbot Road upgrades are already in the works because I was quite aware that we were approving townhouse clusters and some apartment as well on two applications today and that came in a little bit of effect starts to come into play. But I was listening as Councillor Frank asked her question and as Councillor Hopkins asked her questions and I was thinking about the comments about the London plan policies on the front yard garage request.

And I appreciate that there’s an alternate route for them to go on taking a minor variance to the Committee of Adjustment. But as I think about that, I just think that we are really creating additional work and additional timelines for staff on what, when you look at the site, is an existing situation with one accessory structure. And I think thought about what the applicant was or the applicant’s representatives was presenting in the street view of the site and the protections that are there already from the pedestrian realm and from the interaction with the driveway, there’s no change to the access in and out of the site. And it just seems like an unnecessary step to then send this to the Committee of Adjustment as well.

So I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation with the change to clause B, which is the special provisions for a detached garage instead of it saying be refused just to say be approved. I think when we listened to the spirit and the intent of why these London Plan policies are there, I don’t think that approving this violates the spirit and intent of those. So I’m prepared to move that. I don’t know if I have a second or not ‘cause I have been thinking about this as I listened, but that’s what I’m prepared to put on the floor.

Thank you, recognizing that I have the chair, I’ll acknowledge Councillor Franknaxe before returning, I guess you’ve moved to motion. Oh, I can’t see. Councillor Hiller, so I’ll go to Councillor Frank and then to Councillor Hiller, that’s okay. Oh, he’s seconding it?

Okay, thank you. He’s indicating a second. So we now have this on the floor. I will go to Councillor Frank.

Thank you. And I have a question. I think it would be through the chair to the applicant perhaps. I pulled up the map and I am checking it out.

So it looks like our 114 zone is an existing very large house with an existing three space garage. And I’m just wondering with this proposed three space garage to your knowledge is it are all six spaces dedicated for cars or is one of these garages being used for some sort of purpose for the like townhouse units. If the applicant has that knowledge, I was curious as to the purpose of the garage. Thank you and I’ll go to the applicant.

Through the chair, the purpose of an accessory building isn’t quite dictated to the zoning by-law. For my knowledge, it would be used for the single family home. It wouldn’t be used for the townhouse development. With that said, it is a large home.

It could be multi-generational. Could have multiple habitats in there that require additional cars. So there is some flexibility in there. And I think just wanna say that again, there’s no impacts objectively.

There is no harm in having that accessory building there. It does allow for a local flexibility for the current homeowner and potentially future homeowners. So thank you. Councillor Frank follow up.

Yes, thank you. I also want to quickly follow up on the comment made at the very beginning. My understanding is the additional 5% EV charging does not mean you have to do more parking spaces, but that I will verify with staff. We had a different application and that was the case with that one.

So relevant to this, but I think in my case, I mean, this location already has three parking spaces in a garage and five additional parking spaces out front. So even if it is multi-generational, that’s eight parking spaces. And then having another garage with three spaces, I understand the concept of an additional building, but it does say proposed garage three spaces and like the concept of three spaces to me feels like it’s being used for parking and not necessarily for a different accessory dwelling purpose. So I personally, based on what staff recommended and kind of the thought process, I don’t actually think I will be supporting Deputy Mayor’s motion only because I actually do think now I do want to refuse this additional garage.

Thank you, do I have other speakers? Councillor Hillier, I can’t see you, so I’m not sure if you have your hand up. Okay, thank you. Seeing that there are no other speakers, it’s the motion available to review and e-scribe for everyone.

Okay, I will look to open the vote. Can I ask a voting related question? Sorry. Go ahead, Councillor Frank.

So if we, I like A, B and C, but if I vote no, can I put it all back on again when only, or is B on here? I’ll be approved, no way, sorry. I’m getting a bit confused ‘cause part B is the only one that I want to go back to the staff’s intention. So I guess I’m confused.

Do I put this down and I can put it all back on, but flip it back to the staff recommendation? Would you like to vote on B separately? Yes, that makes sense, thank you, sorry. Thank you, we’ll pull that right now and we’ll get that sorted and put it back up.

Okay, so what we’ll do is we’ll vote on B first and then take the rest. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to one. Thank you, and we’ll look to vote on the rest. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, I will return the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, and thank you for filling in for me there. Just before we move on to the next item, the word counselor just asked if she could ask one additional, or share one additional comment. So I’ll go back to Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. President and Chair for recognizing me again. I did have it in my questions, but it’s more important that there was some concern from residents in the area about this development and the construction as it relates to the Self-Winds channel that was just completed about two years ago. It was a major development in the area, a lot of construction going on.

And I just want to make sure that residents do know that there are no impacts of this development on that channel. I think it’s important information to share with the community given their concerns. So thank you. Excuse me, and thank you, Councillor Hopkins, just for sharing that additional information.

So the community, or the community is aware of that. So that concludes our section three of our agenda. We did, and Mr. Levin is with us.

At the start, we moved the ecological community advisory committee to after the public participation meeting as a change of order so that you could join us. There was the addition of a request for a delegation status as well. So I’m going to look for a motion to approve the delegation status. Oh, you’re sorry, just give me one moment, Councillor Levin.

Sorry, the clerk was just reminding me we did change the rules as an advisory committee chair. You don’t need delegation status approved. So you do have an opportunity to speak to this item on the agenda from your committee. So if you’d like to join us at the microphone now, you are welcome to do so.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to speak to welcome Councillor Roman to the committee because it’s the environment and ecological community advisory committee which reports to this committee. A brief mention, we generally review environmental impact studies and do it in a timely way to assist staff which is faced with a very narrow window to review technical documents because of bill 23. And item 5.2 on our report references a tool we’ve developed to assist newer advisory committee members.

Hopefully it’s also helpful to members of council and point out that our comments go to staff and are incorporated in the staff reports that you see. So practice is that you don’t see our comments in total. It’s simply that’s how the procedure is. And happy at any time to meet with members of this committee or council to give them more of a background about what our committee does, who we are.

It’s a technical advisory committee consisting of a number of people from the university who have PhDs or our graduate students. And I wanna thank council and this committee for extending the term and as well having staff post for vacancies. We now have four vacancies. And I tend to recruit at the university so I get more technical people and like to be able to do that during this first quarter while professors and their grad students are in session.

I also wanna invite you to attend. We meet the third Thursday of every month. Councilor Pribble has been attending the last couple of meetings. He heard a very interesting and involved discussion about the Byron Pitt secondary plan, which I think will be, which I think was helpful to us as a committee, but also to councilor Pribble as a council would be making a decision on that matter.

Our next meeting this month will include an overview from staff regarding council’s recent purchase of land for compensation lands. Also wanna point out item 5.1 that’s on your agenda regarding the Dingman environmental assessment. We’ve already had a discussion with staff. Our committee will be reviewing the documents.

The motion is here before you as a process formality. And finally, I wanna note in your deferred list, item three, it’s an item about a matter we’ve discussed a number of times as an advisory committee about a continuous quality improvement to the information that goes to new homeowners. Currently it’s from builders, but we think you’re gonna save a little bit of money for the builder and also provide more permanent indications. And I understand from staff it’s still a work in progress, even though it said Q4 of 2023.

So it hopefully remains on your deferred list as staff work through their final recommendations. With that, I’ll take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Levin.

And I’ll just look to committee to see if there’s any questions before we move receipt. Councilor Frank. Thank you, one quick question through you to staff. I do know, and I’m not talking about it, but I do know that there’s a budget recommendation.

I’m just wondering, so as we receive that, does that then go to SPPC and civic administration and somehow get incorporated into the MYB discussions that we’re gonna have? So I can answer that for you from the chair. Communications have been sent from the budget chair and myself to standing committee chairs, as well as to advisory committee chairs, that all budget recommendations need to go to the budget committee. They can be put on the agenda for the public participation meeting at the end of January.

Nothing that comes through standing committee reports expresses support for business cases in the budget. Those have to be done separate from the standing committees because the standing committees are not the budget committee. I hope that’s helpful. So they will have to resubmit that directly to the budget committee, Sir Hopkins.

Just to follow up and thank you again for recognizing me, I did chair CDPC this morning, and we did refer the reports from those advisory groups with multi-year and budget comments to the proper department. So I’m not sure if we do it differently in different committees, but that was the motion that was put forward at CWC. Well, I would just share that that’s not my understanding from the conversation with the clerk and the budget chair yesterday. And that communication should have gone yesterday to the advisory committee chairs.

Mr. 11’s nodding that he received that. And that communication indicated that they needed to submit those to the budget committee. So I’m not sure why the difference at CWC this morning, but what we’re receiving tonight and Mr.

11 nodding that he received that communication, they will have to submit that to the budget committee directly. And they can come and speak to those recommendations at the PPM as well, should they choose to do that. So that’s the ruling I’m gonna make on that is that we wouldn’t be referring, we would be receiving the advisory committee, absolutely can submit those independent of this committee to the budget committee, Sir Frank. Thank you, and I will make a motion to receive that report.

Okay, so that motion is moved and seconded by Councilor Raman, any further discussion? Seeing none, then I lost the clerk to open the vote on that. Close in the vote, the motion carries vote to zero. Thank you colleagues and thank you, Mr.

  1. And I appreciate, I know you probably thought you might be speaking sooner when you were arriving late, but we had substantial public participation meetings to get through, so I appreciate your patience with that. So moving on colleagues, we are into the final section of our agenda now. This is Deferred Matters, an additional business.

There was additional business added to the agenda. We do have the Deferred Matters list first, so I’m hoping we can dispense with that by receiving the Deferred Matters list, moved by Councilor Raman, Sir Frank, you have a question? Yes, thank you. I noticed that we’ve dealt with inclusionary zoning, so I was just wondering if that was gonna be removed as well as, so that’s under item one, and then item seven, the first part, it does say complete, some wonder if we’re moving that, or if we’re keeping it because it’s like a two-parter.

So I can actually share that the motion that the clerk has prepared in his scribe is that the Deferred Matters list dated from last month be received, and it being noted that the committee clerk be directed to update the Deferred Matters list to remove any items that have been addressed by civic administration or council. So with that information, are you prepared to second? So we are moved and seconded, and we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. So that brings us to the final item, which by the attendance in the gallery is the item that everybody was very excited to talk about today, but all kidding aside, this is item 5.2, the Green Development Standards. As colleagues are aware, a motion was circulated and a communication from myself and Councillor Frank. I do want to draw to colleagues’ attention that some of the language has been changed slightly, and that was circulated and provided to the clerk as well, just making a couple of tweaks to the language.

So that item now is before us for consideration. Before we entertain delegations, and we can certainly entertain delegations, I also want to draw to colleagues’ attention that there was a request, and because of holiday and travel time, the request was not received by the deadline, but there was an additional request for delegation status from Mr. Wallace on behalf of LDI. We also have requests for delegation from Ms.

Balmer and Ms. Hodge, and I believe I had an indication from Councillor Raman that notwithstanding our council policy that she was willing to move the delegation for Mr. Wallace. So I’m just going to go to Councillor Raman and make sure that that is still the case.

Yes, thank you. I’ll do that with the notwithstanding clause. Okay, so we have a motion that notwithstanding our council policies and procedures, the delegation request for Mr. Wallace be heard on this item.

Do we have a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any questions or comments before we vote? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on individually as it’s notwithstanding, and then we can move forward on the other two delegations as their regular added.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. Now we also have two requests for delegation. We have a request on behalf of Climate Action London for Ms.

Hodge, and we have a request for delegation status from, and I’m sorry if I mispronounce your name, is it Layla or Layla, Balmer? So I’m wondering if colleagues are willing to entertain both of those requests for delegation in one vote. Let’s move by Councillor ramen, and seconded by Councillor Frank. And we will ask the clerk to open the vote for those delegations.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. So all the delegations have been approved. I am going to go in the order that they are in my agenda, and as Mr.

Wallace has a late addition, you will be at the end, but we will go first to Ms. Hodge on behalf of Climate Action London. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I’m asking you today to adopt Green Development Standards now to help make London a more affordable and attractive city.

20 years ago, when I was a facility manager, I helped construct a lead certified office building in Toronto. It was not for a green company. It was for a business that believed keeping operating costs low benefited the company’s bottom line. It believed that having green credentials would be a selling feature for attracting subtenants.

And it believed that creating a positive work environment with green amenities like bicycle storage and EV chargers helped with staff retention. If maintaining affordability is one of council’s guiding principles, I urge you to consider that as someone who lives in an older home, it costs more to renovate a home than to build from scratch. You will be providing more affordable housing for Londoners by adopting standards earlier rather than later. This is not something that individuals can do.

This takes systems change. Systems change, not climate change, is not just a call for reducing emissions, but a call for affordability. Systems change means that when you visit a friend, there’s a place to lock up your bicycle. My parents are both Dutch.

Do you know why so many Dutch people ride bikes? I was curious too, so I asked my cousins. It’s not because they are noble or virtuous. It’s not because they are fitness nets or can’t afford a car.

It’s because it is the most convenient option. And if council’s goal is to make London a big city, we need other transportation options besides cars. We need to make cycling more convenient. Adding a bike rack to a townhouse development is not an expensive ask.

It also has many co-benefits, like improving fitness levels, which decreases healthcare costs, a win-win in my books. Systems change means that when you live in a high-rise building, whether a condo or a rental, that if you choose to buy an electric vehicle, you will be able to charge it where you live. There is much talk about people hesitating to buy electric vehicles. A lack of charging options where you live is one of them.

EV chargers are one amenity that can be very expensive to add after the fact. And it’s not lost on me that we name our housing developments for the things that we are displacing. Oak Ridge, Warbler Woods, Fox Hollow. There’s a growing realization that we are in a major biodiversity crisis, and London is sitting in the sweet spot of one of the most biodiversity in Canada.

One way to help offset this loss of habitat is to plant native vegetation. Several years ago, I was listening to Ben Porchuk relate a study done on chickadees. I don’t know about you, but chickadees are one of my favorite birds. They are so cheerful and friendly.

But one thing I did not know was that birds feed their chicks bugs and insects, not seeds. So bird feeders don’t help raise their young. It takes about 4,000 caterpillars to raise a typical nest of chickadee chicks. And at that rate, the adult chickadee cannot stray too far from the nest to find them.

So where do these bugs come from? This study showed that the bugs live in native trees and shrubs and plants. Nests that were found on streets with mostly non-native trees resulted in a chick’s survival rate of 0%. Birds bring a lot of pleasure to people of all ages, asking for the little vegetation that remains and developments to be native should not be onerous and often does not cost anymore.

City Council has been working hard to attract business and industry to London to create more jobs, to attract more people, especially in the tech sector. High tech is green tech. The proof is seen with the West Five Development, a highly desirable high tech community that is green as a byproduct. Green development standards are not complicated.

We know how to do it. We know how to build for more energy efficiency, how to conserve water and mitigate stormwater, and how to use roofs as an energy source and not a heat sink. In 2019, I stood before council and asked them to acknowledge that we were living in a climate emergency. It was a unanimous decision.

This is a small ask to remove systemic barriers to taking climate action. I ask that you not delay, just like the best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago. The second best time to act is now. I urge you to approve this motion today to begin adopting green development standards.

Thank you, Ms. Hodge. And I will say that I stopped and started the timer ‘cause my fingers have been screwing up all the buttons today, so I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure you were under the five minutes and I appreciate that. And I will say that no sweaters were displaced when we named Argyle.

But we’re gonna turn now to Ms. Balmer for her delegation. And we do have you on Zoom and I can see that you’re unmuted now, so go ahead. Good afternoon, and thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

I will be brief, so you don’t have to worry about timing. My name is Lella Bloomer. I’m a resident in ward seven. And I will be brief, but I do think it’s really important to speak today.

I think it’s important to voice support for making adoption of green development standards a priority for council. And to begin by looking at what can be implemented now as counselors Frank and Lewis are suggesting. It’s really clear to see the rapid pace of growth in London. And this is an opportunity for the city to be very clear about its commitment to doing things differently, to using a climate lens, to the principles and the goals of the climate emergency action plan and to evidence-based best practice for development and growth.

There’ve been a number of delegates earlier in this meeting that talked about making decisions that benefit from what we’ve learned over the years and to not continue with the status quo when we know that that’s not the best way to go forward. So right now we know there’s no question that buildings and communities need to be more resilient. They need to be ready to weather the frequent and intense weather events that we’re experiencing and we’ll experiencing more often like flooding extreme heat and storms. And they also need to in every way possible lower GHG emissions and support natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

There’s no question that this is the way forward. So if London wants to remain competitive in terms of attracting development and people this is a chance to be really clear with developers and with residents about what the vision is for the city. I think it’s really important to be intentional about what needs to happen for us to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate and to a changing world. And it’s also really important to take every opportunity and can to act on evidence and best practice and not least of all common sense.

So I appreciate the challenges that are outlined in the submission from the London Home Builders Association. I honestly recognize the amount of work that’s involved in undoing policies and processes and administrative practices that exist and have evolved over the years that are supportive of doing things a certain way. And I understand how much work it is to transition to a different way of doing things. But we’re living and acting in a time when the need for change is urgent above all else.

So in my mind that needs to be the priority and I urge you to accept the recommendations in front of you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We appreciate that feedback and comments.

And we will go now to Mr. Wallace. No, okay, great. Thank you and Happy New Year to committee and welcome to an afternoon meeting of PEC.

It’s quite nice, isn’t it? There you go. And so, and I do want to apologize for shouting out, but it is very difficult to hear up here today. So I know you made some changes, I think some more changes need to be made to get back to where you were at least.

Listen, I wanted to, I was away, I do appreciate you providing me the opportunity to speak, I just got back last night. One of the things that I told my group was that if there was anything urgent, I’d send it around. Guess what, I got a letter from Councilor Frank and it was urgent and I sent it around. So, I’m here for two reasons, really, two requests.

We’re assuming this is going to pass, or are you going to move forward? There’s no mention of staff working with the industry on some of these things. We like that wording in there, that staff be working with the industry on this. And the reason is I got lots of feedback and even to the previous delegations, we have some really life experiences, real experiences, like in West Five, of what actually happening and the part about the EV charger stations, like, regardless of what Council says, the market’s going to drive it.

If people are buying EVs, they’re going to demand their homes have EV charging stations. If the market will drive it, whether it’s 5%, 3%, that’s not an issue for us. But we need to be at the table. For an additional example, in ‘97, one in the most block, whatever the number is, it clearly says any changes can’t override the building code.

We’ve got to make sure that’s included in that. And we want to thank Councilor Frank and Council others for bringing this forward. Councilor Frank was kind enough to meet with us as an industry previous to Christmas to talk about what was your vision on what, on the green development standards. And we really appreciate that opportunity.

We wanted that opportunity to continue. And if this is a staff direction, we want to be included to talk to staff, with through working group, to work through all these issues. The second piece is that there’s a tremendous number of changes coming to the building code this spring. A lot of them have to do with environmental standards, to be frank with you.

And we think that having staff report back in Q2 is too soon. Why not push everything into Q3, Q4? In the fifth one, you’ve got Q2. The other ones, you’ve got Q3.

Make it all Q3, and we’ll work with that. That gives us a chance to be at the table, and you’ll be at the table. One last little comment that I’d like to make based on what I heard today. It’s alluded in here, was talked about solar panels.

It is an opportunity. It’s not for every consumer. It’s not for every builder. My suggestion is, what happened to the golden rule?

You have thousands of square meters of civic property that have roofs. Why don’t you put solar panels on city properties first, see how it works, find a partner, make that happen, see what the economics are, before you look to the private sector, to try something that may or may not work, and consumers may not want. But that’s not your issue in the public sector. You have lots of opportunity to take the lead on this.

That would be a suggestion from Mike Wallace, not from LDI. Thank you for the time, and I hope our suggestions can be incorporated in today’s motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Wallace, and while you may have been late with your delegation request submission, you stayed well under your five minutes, so that’s appreciated. And we are definitely noting the audio challenges folks are having, so we’ll try and work through those as we have the opportunities to do that. So that concludes our delegations, as colleagues know, there’s a number of communications as well. Those can be received if there is a motion on this, but we don’t have a motion on the floor yet, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Frank and turn the microphone over to her.

Thank you, yes, and I’m gonna go a bit into detail about what the actual motion is and then some background as well, just to make sure everyone’s on the same page. I do wanna start by apologizing for the motion appearing on the added agenda. I hadn’t realized that the deadline for the original one was earlier than I anticipated, and that is my bad ‘cause I did want everyone to have as much time as possible with this, so I do apologize. We have been working on this for months, so Deputy Mayor and I have had multiple conversations, we’ve met with industry partners, with staff, and various other individuals to get input and feedback on the motion before we put it before you, and based on their input, we have already made multiple revisions, although I am very happy to include the suggestions from LDI, as well, if this moves forward, it was always my intention that there’d be more opportunities for feedback from the community and from industry partners, and I just wanna explain the motion in more detail.

So for the first part, the site plan, so the site plan control bylaw is gonna be updated later this year, and we do see as an opportunity to include some of the things that you have noticed me making amendments at PEC regularly. This would eliminate the need for me to bring for those amendments because it would give a reason for staff to be able to add them, and it would also provide staff who are the experts and not Skyler, who’s a politician, the opportunity to put it in where they think it would best suit and require a little bit more, what would I say, refining. So I think it provides more guidance. So that’s the first part.

The two items related to bird-friendly to the Golden Rule, we do want to see the city facilities moving forward have bird-friendly glazing when they’re in the design world, so that’s part B, part C is specifically when we use the term bird-friendly, we don’t currently have a standard that we point to, and so being able to use CSA A460 is a federal standard, and that is what part C is just essentially using that as the goal post when we use the term bird-friendly, and then the final two parts. So again, part E is directing staff to come back, and we are gonna update it to Q3 2024 with an update regarding the scoping and the timeline of doing these green development guidelines and green parking guidelines. That will be the opportunity to come back and tell us how long it’s gonna take, what resources it’s gonna take, what’s feasible, what’s not, and then part D is having staff, again, it’s not writing a by-law, it is directing them to review the legislative framework and municipal best practices to adopt a by-law through section 97.1, so that again is directing them to do some research and come back with information for us to make a good decision. So that’s the motion, and then I’m gonna hop into my rush now.

So, based on my discussions with industry partners and on research, they’re all plans for the federal building code to be harmonized with provincial building codes. That’s most on lay a pathway for net zero building by 2030, which is good because building emissions are the third largest source of emissions in Ontario, and in London, they’re the second largest source of emissions, so buildings create a lot of CO2 and other emissions. And about 60% of Ontario’s building code right now aligns with the national code, but we need to continue moving along and make sure it’s fully aligned. That said, depending on the whims of upper level government and depending on any change in government, that might not occur, and that is my worry.

So apparently the harmonization work is already delayed, especially with COVID, and I personally want us to continue working on this in absence of current legislation requirements from the federal and provincial government. I’ve confirmed that municipalities are able to develop their own green standards throughout this harmonization process, and they’ll still be honored. So I think we need to be moving this forward. We have a climate crisis.

The previous council declared a climate emergency, and this aligns with many of our plans and the strategic plan in our climate emergency action plan. And as well, I’d also highlight green development goes beyond just energy efficiency, which is what the harmonization process is. And so if we don’t do green development guidelines or standards, we’re missing out an opportunity to comment on things like water conservation, biodiversity indicators, and I think that that is really limiting for us. So I’ll also add, and Councilor Longen will like this, we do have a crown jewel in London.

It is our own utility, London Hydro, and by ensuring buildings are more energy efficient and moving towards greater electrification, we’re keeping more money local and strengthening our local utility. London spends an average of 1.5 billion a year on energy. So the city entirely of London, not just the corporation, and 530 million is spent on electricity. So that stays local, which means a billion dollars a year spent on other gas types, and that’s leaving our community.

So the greater efficiency we have, the more money is staying local. And also by ensuring that buildings, both residential, commercial, industrial, are more efficient now, reduces the requirement for them to retrofit in the future. I just spent $12,000 in the past two years retrofitting my home. And so it comes to a point where people have to do retrofits.

It’s better if it’s already incorporated in the building design now. So I hope to have your support, and I think that Deputy Mayor Lewis and I have done some good homework, and we seek your support in having staff do a little bit more homework for us so that we can move forward with some really good, meaningful steps in dealing with climate change. Thank you, Councilor Frank. So that’s been moved.

Although I co-authored the letter, I’m prepared to second it if no one else wishes to you, but I will look to see if another member of the committee wants to second it. Councilor Raman, it’s always ideal if the chair doesn’t have to second something. So I appreciate that. So that’s been moved and seconded, and now it is on the floor for further discussion.

Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I appreciate the work that both yourself and Councilor Frank have put into this and the amount of thought and discussion that you’ve had with industry partners and others in the community. I think that this is the right direction to head into provide more alignment and to provide more forethought to these discussions instead of having them later on when the applicants already have been meeting with staff and going through the process of putting their development application forward.

I do wanted to ask, and I know that it was noted in the communication as well, but from a staff perspective and just knowing how much staff have on their plates already in order to provide this kind of feedback and report what kind of, would we require a consultant? Would we be able to do this kind of work in house? Thank you. Ms.

Ohegan. Through the chair, so we do have a work plan that we can update and modify as we get requests from Council. So if this is put forward as a motion and approved, we would ensure that staff are able to work on it. Part of the report back in Q3 would identify some of those constraints, if any, and if we were looking to hire consultants to take on work, that would be identified at that point.

So we do have capacity to do the background research and we have been doing some of it already and then we’ll report back on any additional resources needed. Thank you and further to that kid, I don’t know if you’re able to comment at all. I know that there are some other cities that already have some marine development standards. Is there anywhere we can look already that has kind of started this process or has some best practices that we can look to replicate?

Ms. Ohegan. Yes, through the chair, we have done a preliminary scan and there are varying levels of, I guess, grid or strength to green development standards across Ontario. City of Toronto does have green development standards.

They also have the City of Toronto Act, which is slightly different than the Planning Act. The City of Whippy is one that we have referenced as well and also many others across the province. So we can offline provide a list of other examples but we are actively looking at best practices and they’re implemented through a number of different bylaws, guidelines, incentive programs. So that will all be part of the report back as well.

Councillor. Thank you and just my final question or thought that I wanted to provide as we are talking about electricity and efficiencies as well. I do think it would be very helpful to include more dialogue with London Hydro on this within this and moving forward into Mr. Wallace’s comment about the Golden Rule, I hear you.

And I can say that even within that conversation around development and what can be done, I think there’s conversations that are appropriate to have with Hydro on what can be done for the development community as well. So I’m not sure if that’s an amendment or if that’s just something further to contemplate as we’re going forward, thank you. Thank you. And I’m going to, so I’ve got Councillor Hopkins on the speaker’s list and then Councillor Frank is back on the speaker’s list.

Excuse me, I will share a couple of comments myself as the co-author of the communication. I will also note that it is always possible to add some it being noted if individuals want to say it being noted that staff are also requested to and rather than directed requested in it being noted to include the industry, to include utility partners, et cetera in the conversation. So I just want to note that as folks think about whether they may want to make some changes or not, you can also add some it being noted. So I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins next.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. President Chair. Just a follow-up question on Councillor Robinson’s comments, which I appreciated and before I go forward with that, my thanks to you, Deputy Mayor and to Councillor Frank for the work that you’ve done and bringing this forward. It is important.

I do appreciate the comments from Mr. Wallace around the changes in the building code. I think that is something that’s going to be coming forward and we will have to work parallel with that too. So glad to see this coming to the third quarter.

But getting back to our best practices through you, to staff, I know we have a great net zero development in Ward 9, W5. And when I came on council a number of years ago, the developer, Siften at that time, had to come up with it with their own standards. And I would think there’s lots of examples, even in our own city, that we can rely on and speak with the development industry on what they’re doing. I do think we’re innovative and we should sort of seize the innovation that’s already going on in our city and build up on that.

And that was not easy either. Changing standards, coming up with new initiatives did take time. And I think now’s the time to do it. I really appreciate the comment from the public about now’s the time.

We can’t wait and maybe we’re a little bit behind, but I really appreciate this coming forward and just wanted to sort of emphasize some of what’s going on in the city and building on upon that and really appreciate the committee supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. So if colleagues will indulge, since Councillor Frank is the mover and Councillor Raman is the seconder, I’m just gonna speak from the chair. I didn’t think about that when I boxed myself into offering somebody else the opportunity to second, but I’m just gonna share some comments and hopefully some brief comments.

I agree with Councillor Frank that aligning particularly the first areas in section A and B and C with the site plan control by-law update that is coming later this year makes some sense. I recognize that the direction to report back to council is now in Q3 and quite honestly, I will share with staff right now, if it ends up being Q4, because you’ve got 65 Ontario Building Code changes to deal with as well this year, I completely understand that. Q3 would be great, but if it is delayed because of the necessity to adapt to provincial changes at the same time, by all means, but we did recognize that this had been on a deferred matters list for a long, long time with sort of no timeframe and that’s not staff’s fault. There COVID came along.

There’s been any number of things that have delayed this, including other directions from council that have taken priority and knocked this down the list. So I do think that it’s important we take some steps now and I think about what our first two delegates said and some of these are very easy. It shouldn’t be difficult to ensure 50% of your plantings in terms of landscaping our native species. And I really reject a notion that there’s additional costs to that.

Now, I recognize that, and I’m glad that it’s included in the language, we need to have a list for those applicants to consider what is native and what we consider invasive and that has been updated. That was one of those language tweaks that was not included in the communication but is in there. And the same thing and we’ve seen that with the bicycle parking, it’s been pretty easy and low cost to add a few spaces to places where bicycle parking would be ideal. And we haven’t had a whole lot of challenges with that with the applicants that they brought it forward.

So let’s just make it a standard operating procedure that we ask for these things in site plan control. And they won’t always be perfectly what we’re suggesting. And that’s because as we heard earlier, site plan is a give and take sort of approach to things. And so I understand that putting these in is not necessarily going to guarantee an exact percentage that everything can be achieved in every development and to Mr.

Wallace’s earlier point. It does make more sense in some locations than it does in others. I will say to the golden rule comment, East Lions Community Center has solar panels on the roof. I believe Councillor Hopkins, can you confirm if Bostwick does or not?

But East Lions certainly does. And we also use the pool filtration system to help with the heating and cooling costs. So we are trying to incorporate that in more of our city facility builds as well because, and we’ve roughed in EV charging stations. So we have been taking that seriously ourselves as well.

And so that’s why I’m supportive of this. I’m also supportive of the sections, D&E. And again, this was a lot of conversation with Councillor Frank and I. And I recognize that there are challenges to some bylaws and other municipalities that we have to not be contrary or inhibit the building code.

Now we don’t really have enforcement mechanisms to exceed it, but I think that we can ask for some things. And right now, this is exactly as Councillor Frank outlined. It’s reviewing the legislative framework and coming back to us with some municipal best practices. That will be best practices learned from some of the challenges too, because some of these municipal attempts have not been successful.

And we will learn from that as well. So I think coming back with a learning and then identifying the tools that are at our disposal are okay. I’m really glad Councillor Frank highlighted and I wanna highlight it again. We’re not asking staff to come back with a draft bylaw at this point in time.

We are asking them to look at the legislative framework, including what the federal and the provincial folks are doing and recommend to us how we might implement some of these things. I very much hear, and I think that we’ve taken this approach on this item and I agree that we need to continue to engage the industry partners too, because they’re ultimately the ones who will build these things for us. And so we do need to listen to their comments as well. So certainly supportive of expressing that through our process improvement tables, through direct work on this, and whether that’s in it being noted or otherwise that somebody wants to add, that we do have to have our partners involved in moving this forward too, because ultimately, if they can’t deliver on these things, then we can put in all the regulations we want and we end up with no shovels in the ground providing those homes, providing those job opportunities.

So we need everybody at the table to discuss this, but I think that these are some very reasonable first steps we can take that we don’t need to wait for the longer comprehensive review, which I know is still on staff’s work plan, but hopefully by chunking out these couple of pieces, that can be done a little bit more expeditiously. And then some of the other longer standing items we can deal with later on down the road. So I appreciate all the work the Council of Frank has done on this because I want to be very clear. She’s done the heavy lifting.

Yes, I have participated in some meetings. I’ve listened to some partners in the industry, but she’s done the lion’s share of the work in terms of getting this ready to bring forward today. So I appreciate her determination and persistence on getting this through. And it’s not just her, we both screwed up on the deadline to get this on the regular agenda, ‘cause we wanted to be no surprise to anyone and in the rush to get ready for the holidays, we both missed the deadline.

So our apologies for that. Thank you for letting me make some comments from the chair and I’m gonna turn it back over to the committee. And I have, so I have Councilor Frank, Councilor Preble, Councilor Roman. So Councilor Frank here.

Thank you. And I just want to recognize the discussion about having it being noted. I did send a bit of language to the clerk, including it being noted that staff are encouraged to engage industry partners, utility companies, and other relevant partners throughout this process. I didn’t want to put on, ‘cause there’s kind of parts D and E.

And so I thought it would be good if they engaged them as they’re doing both of those items. And then the other thing I just want to highlight again, going back to the Golden Rule, that really sparked a buzz. There was a direction in May 30th as PPC when we got the CIP update that was approved to develop a net zero mission plan for corporate assets to ensure fleet and facilities can achieve 2045 targets and that ensure asset management projects such as retrofits, replacements, renewals, and rehabilitations of city infrastructure make significant invisible efforts to be in line with net zero mission. So I do think we are, again, to the Deputy Mayor’s point.

I think we are trying where we can to add some solar and add some renewable features to our existing buildings, but perhaps another motion for another day. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frank. So I’ve got Councillor Ramen next and then the visiting Councillor Privel’s on the list.

Thank you, just supportive of the, if being noted, clause. That was quick. Thank you, Councillor Privel. Thank you, just a couple of comments.

Thank you for making those updates and changes to our motion, which I think they all do make sense. The Q3, because there will be lots of changes and guidelines during the first half of the year. I was also happy to hear that the Deputy Mayor potentially said to Q4 because I’ll rather have it done right and approach this much more comprehensive way. One of the things that I would like to talk to and for us to discuss also in terms of the green development standards, when we can discuss it, I’m saying it right now at this moment, but realistic deadlines, because again, so we have realistic deadlines so we can really approach this less ad hoc with specific points.

I totally understand the Councillor that just today, she came up with three different applications with the same amendments. So I totally understand that it’s repeating, that we can be more proactive, but I just hope that we can be even more proactive in the bigger picture and introduce the green development standards so we can do it less ad hoc and more comprehensive. Just these two comments, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Privel.

Thank you for any further comments on this item. I see none, so the original was moved and seconded, and then we have an hit being noted clause as well, that Councillor Frank has circulated some language over to the clerk, and I believe you can find that now in your eScribe, and it’s been updated to the main motion being noted that staff are encouraged to engage industry partners, utility companies, and other relevant partners through this process. So that is on the floor, and we will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Okay, colleagues, before we move to adjournment, one minor housekeeping issue, these are normally clauses that would be included when we make a small change to an application. We made two changes to the last two applications in scheduled items. In 3.6, we removed a permitted use. That is deemed minor enough that no further notice be given.

In 3.7, we approved the accessory structure, and that is minor enough that no further notice be given on advice from the clerk. So we just need, as a housekeeping measure, to add those to no further notices be given clauses. The clerk has prepared some language, so if colleagues can entertain moving and seconding those additions to our agenda, we can get those fixed. So I’m gonna, Councillor ramen and Councillor Frank.

So we have a mover and a seconder for both of those, and I’ll just ask you to bear with me for a minute while we get the things lined up and ascribed properly. Okay, so we’re gonna use the same mover and seconder for both, but we have to do the votes separately. So I’ll ask the clerk to open the first one on 3.6. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, and now I’ll also clerk to open the change for 3.7. I vote yes, I’m having some e-scribe problems right now. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

That takes care of that housekeeping measure, so we are just left with a motion to adjourn. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Hillyer, with all of his fingers, not just to this time, all those in favor by hand. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone, and thank you for your patience as I chaired us through a rather long peck for the first time today.