January 30, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Franke was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2021-01-30 - Staff Report (2.1) - FINAL Consent Authority Report (MV)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend By-law CP-23 to provide for the Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authority and to repeal By-law CP-23, as amended;

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. (2024-D28)

Motion Passed

2.2   Building Division Monthly Report - November 2023

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (2.2) - FINAL 2023 Building Division Monthy Report - November

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of November, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

2.3   Building Division Monthly Report - December 2023

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (2.3) - FINAL 2023 Building Division Monthy Report - December (KW)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of December, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.   (2024-A23)

Motion Passed

2.4   2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-01-18 ECAC Report 2 - full

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 18, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-01-10 CACP Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP), from its meeting held on January 10, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from S. Bergman, Chair, CACP, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   900 Wilton Grove (Z-9677)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.2) - FINAL 900 Wilton Grove - Z-9677 (CC)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Blackbridge Property Inc., (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants), relating to the property located at 900 Wilton Grove Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 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 Light Industrial (LI2, LI3, LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI2, LI3, LI7(_)) Zone;

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

  •    A. Lagrou, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being 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 Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Light Industrial Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an additional use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context and will facilitate the reuse of the existing 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.  (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Properties at 16 Wellington Road and 26, 28 & 30 Wellington Road

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.3) - 16 Wellington Road and 26-28-30 Wellington Road - FULL

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition requests, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

a)    16 Wellington Road;

b)    26 Wellington Road;

c)    28 Wellington Road; and,

d)    30 Wellington Road;

it being noted that commemorative measures will be implemented during the BRT Wellington Gateway construction project in recognition of the significant cultural heritage value of the abovementioned properties;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   3502 Manning Drive (OZ-9674)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.4) - FINAL 3502 Manning Drive - OZ-9674 - (BH)

Moved by S. Lewis

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 The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 3502 Manning Drive:

a)    the proposed by-laws appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

i)    amend Map 1 – Place Types to change the designation of portions of the subject lands FROM an Environmental Review Place Type TO Green Space Place Type and Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type; and to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type; and,

ii)    amend Map 5 – Natural Heritage to DELETE a portion of the Valleylands designation; to ADD Significant Valleylands designation to a portion of the subject lands; to change the designation of the northerly-located wetland FROM an Unevaluated Wetlands TO Wetlands; and to DELETE the Unevaluated Wetlands designation from the westerly located feature;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 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 portions of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Open Space (OS5) Zone and a Waste & Resource Management (WRM1) 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. Williams; and,

it being 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 policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, Environmental Review Place Type, Open Space Place Type and Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type;

  •    environmental studies have been undertaken and recommendations have informed the proposed designations and zoning;

  •    the recommended amendment is not intended to impact the character of the agricultural area and is solely intended to expand the Waste Management facility within the allocated subject lands; and,

  •    the recommended amendment considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   4366 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9676)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.5) - FINAL 4366 Colonel Talbot Road - Z-9676 (MH)

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 Lambeth Health Organization Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 4366 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 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 Arterial Commercial (h-17h-18h-124*AC2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provision, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, that a single-lane drive-through exit shall be permitted onto Colonel Talbot Road, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    the requested Special Provision does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including the Mobility policies and criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, nor the regulations of the Access Management Guidelines or Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 with regards to drive-through facility locations;

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

i)    relocate the exit of the drive-through lane internal to the site;

ii)    a landscape buffer between a drive-through lane and adjacent properties of 3.0 metre to the north and 1.5 metres to the east shall be provided;

iii)    implement the recommendations of the noise study; and,

iv)    short-term bicycle parking is required;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Project Summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc., with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    M. Zuech;

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 Building policies, and the Main Street Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Lambeth North Neighbourhood policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the redevelopment of an underutilized site with an appropriate range of uses at an appropriate scale and intensity;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   934 Oxford Street West (Z-9678)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.6) - FINAL 934 Oxford Street West Z-9678 (NO)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2419361 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 934 Oxford Street West:

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design policies, and Intensity and Form policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    the proposed development, in its current form, is too intense and cannot meet site design requirements such as appropriate building and parking area setbacks, appropriate parking configuration, impact mitigation and waste and snow storage;

iii)    the proposed development sets a precedent for similar developments in the area.  This would result in multiple access points to Oxford Street West which is not in keeping with access management guidelines which seek to consolidate access points along higher order roads to ensure access points appropriately separated and safe.

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer the planning application fee for this Zoning Bylaw amendment to a subsequent application on the same property;

it being noted that the Applicant submitted a revised concept plan on January 16, 2024 with the intention of working through issues with Staff; however, the statutory timelines under the Planning Act require a decision at the February 13, 2024 Council meeting to avoid issuing a refund;

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

  •    a communication dated January 25, 2024, from T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

  •    a communication from A. Johnson; and,

  •    a revised recommendation from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis;

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

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

  •    C. Beck on behalf of A. Johnson;

  •    A-M. Valastro; and,

  •    M. Zwart, Oakridge Presbyterian Church;

it being also noted that the Municipal Council refuses this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design policies, and Intensity and Form policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    the proposed development, in its current form, is too intense and cannot meet site design requirements such as appropriate building and parking area setbacks, appropriate parking configuration, impact mitigation and waste and snow storage; and,

  •    the proposed development sets a precedent for similar developments in the area.  This would result in multiple access points to Oxford Street West which is not in keeping with access management guidelines which seek to consolidate access points along higher order roads to ensure access points appropriately separated and safe;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve the application by 2419361 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 934 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 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 Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    this decision is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; and,

  •    the statutory deadline for a decision under Bill 109 regulations cannot be met if a referral back or if recirculation of notice on the revised concept prepared by the applicant in response to staff concerns on the original application submission were directed.

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

3.7   Housekeeping Amendments to the Zoning By-law (Z-9679)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.7) - FINAL Housekeeping Amendment to Sections 2 4 - Z-9679 (NO)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, by correcting errors and omissions, adjusting and adding definitions, and amending general provisions and definitions;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

it being 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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the City Building Policies; 

  •    the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to supporting streamlined planning and building approvals, avoiding unnecessary processes and increasing the supply of housing;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   City-Wide 5-Bedroom Limits and Increased Permissions for Additional Residential Units (OZ-9661)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.8) - FINAL Additional Residential Units OZ-9661 (BC)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for 5-bedroom limits and additional residential units:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, Policy 942 relating to additional residential unit permissions and amend wording referring to accessory buildings containing additional residential units;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 relating to additional residential unit permissions, in part to conform with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above; and,

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to remove the city-wide 5-bedroom limit from Section 2 “Dwelling” definitions, to modify Section 2 “Dwelling Unit” definition to include reference to the Near Campus Neighbourhood 5-bedroom limit, and modify Section 4.37.5 to include provision for bedroom limit increases related to additional residential unit creation within Near Campus Neighbourhoods;

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

  •    a communication dated January 10, 2024 from A. Kaplansky;

  •    a communication dated January 19, 2024 from J-M. Metrailler;

  •    a communication dated January 24, 2024 from the R. Zelinka, Chair, London Area Planning Consultants;

  •    a communication dated January 26, 2024 from J. Halsall;

  •    a communication dated January 28, 2024 from M. Bartlett;

  •    a communication dated January 28, 2024 from C. Barker;

  •    a communication dated January 30, 2024 from S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association and area resident; and,

  •    a communication from AM. Valastro;

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

  •    A. Kaplansky;

  •    J. Reid;

  •    A-M. Valastro;

  •    T. Rutten;

  •    J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders Association;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development;

  •    J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions on behalf of Copps Backyard Homes;

  •    S. Copp;

  •    J. Halsall;

  •    D. Jones, Orchard Park Sherwood Forest Executive;

  •    J.M. Metrailler;

  •    H. Pearce;

  •    S. Saker, Saker Realty;

  •    M. Bartlett, Broughdale Community Association Executive; and,

  •    M. Blosh;

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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and,

  •    the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   1310 Adelaide Street North and 795 Windermere Road (OZ-8709)

2024-01-30 - Staff Report (3.9) - 1310 Adelaide St N and 795 Windermere Rd OZ-8709 (NP)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Development, relating to the property located at 1310 Adelaide Street North & 795 Windermere Road:

a)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Green Space Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the  attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “B”)  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 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 Open Space Special Provision (OS4(2)) Zone TO a Holding Open Space Special Provision (h-18*OS4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure there is a network of walkways between the parking areas, building entrances, the public sidewalk on Adelaide Street North and the Thames Valley Parkway along Windemere Road to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and support transit usage;

ii)    review City parking lot upgrades and field house as part of site plan review process;

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 verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

  •    S. Pratt, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;

  •    D. Windsor; and,

  •    M. Blosh;

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 permits development and site alteration in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards, and access standards, vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies, new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated, and no adverse environmental impacts will result; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Policies for Specific Areas, and the Green Space Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to Specific Area Policies (Map 7), the Green Space Place Type, the Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will establish a principle of development for a site by allowing some additional development opportunity, while ensuring protection of public safety and minimizing property damage;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-01-22 PEC Deferred Matters List - Updated

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:11 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, 18 minutes)

Good afternoon everyone. Great to call the third meeting of Planning and Environment Committee to order. It’s 1 o’clock. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed live streaming, be a live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei-Wak, and Adiradron. We honor and respect the history languages and cultures 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.

As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. 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 PACPEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension-2425. At this time, I will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Seeing none, I would like to move on consent under the consent items. We have four of them, so I’ll look to the committee. I look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Motion moved and seconded.

Before I get into discussion or questions, I would like to go to Mr. Mathers regarding 2.1 the delegated authority for consent. I’ll briefly speak to that, and it’s a general update on the process work that his division is doing. Through the chair, I just want to bring to your attention a couple of really good news stories that are on the agenda here today.

So there’s a lot of work that we’ve been performing with our industry partners. We have a group that’s called the customer service and process improvement reference group that we meet every month to be able to look at ways that we can try to optimize and streamline our processes. So a couple of these reports have come out of that work, one being the housekeeping amendments, and the next is a delegated authority. So we’re looking at some of those kind of low-hanging fruit of things that we can make some really simple changes to that will also very much improve our processes, but also don’t have a huge impact or actually positively impact the community as well.

In addition, I would also like to let everybody know that we have just last week soft opened our new desk space that’s on the second floor. So that space provides in-person support for planning applications, building permits and business licensing as well, inquiries, and really will help people be able to try to navigate that process. We’re planning a grand opening on February 14th, and we’re excited about that, and we’ll also be unveiling on that day the new the name for that counter space as well. So we’re really excited about moving that forward and really hoping that that helps with that in-person opportunity to be able to assess people that are looking for that enhanced customer service.

Thank you, Mr. Mithers, and I want to thank you for the work that you’re doing to improve the efficiencies of your department. I think that’s just terrific, that new site that’s opened on the second floor. Look forward to the opening.

It’s challenging for many that we have heard, both from developers and for small people that are doing building projects on their own regarding building permits, et cetera, a direction that they need to go. This will provide them quick access into City Hall, where they can get their questions answered quickly. I will now turn over to the committee for any questions or comments regarding the consent items. Council privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff, thank you very much for the November and December building reports and the building permits. I just have a question, and I know we have, I think it’s all together, four or five years that we are following or we have in this report.

And when I look at the building permits, the number is lower or was lower last year. And I know there are two aspects of it. One is us issuing the permits, and the other one is we do issue permits and certain developers or developers don’t start building immediately because the cost of the money is expensive now. I just want to ask you about the outlook in terms of when we look at previous years and looking at this year, what we have in the pipeline, do we expect kind of the building permits to go both actually building permits and also number of units, because the number of units is important as well.

How do we see it as the outlook coming into this year, what we have in the pipeline, are we kind of in line more of this last year or hopefully going back to previous years? Thank you. I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, what’s been really good about having these industry conversations that they’re able to provide us a little bit of employed as far as what they’re seeing in the in the community.

There’s still a lot of trepidation from from purchasers of new homes and new properties as far as moving forward due to the lack of change in the interest rates. So they are they’re optimistic but cautiously optimistic. If there was another uptick in interest rates and they people thought it was not correcting over time that they definitely would be it would be a negative impact on this year, but it is looking cautiously optimistic compared to the previous year. Councillor.

Thank you very much for the answer. I don’t have any more questions, but I will add a comment that it’s not just me, it’s my fellow other Councillors are of course in daily weekly contacts with the developers and they are really they like the changes that are happening in our planning and the building. So thank you for that. And I hope we stay on track on that and we’ll just keep moving forward.

But thank you for the first initiatives. Any other comments or questions from Committeeor? Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you.

My first question pertains to the consent, delegated consent piece of the report. Just with respect to the by-law, what changes can we foresee? And then one of the things I was a little bit confused on. I’ll blame it on again being new.

With the Committee of Adjustment, I believe that we have a provincial obligation, excuse me, to have a Committee of Adjustment. When we remove things from Committee of Adjustment to become part of the consent authority or sorry, delegate consent. At what point do we change the scope of the Committee so much that we need to then reevaluate the scope of the Committee is kind of where I’m going, but I hope you might be able to help me with that. I’ll go to staff on that.

There’s two questions when regarding by-law changes. The other one is impact on Committee of Adjustments in the larger picture. Thank you. Through the Chair, so the Committee of Adjustment will still oversee the minor variance applications.

So all minor variance applications will continue to proceed to Committee of Adjustment. For consent applications, lot creation is the only one that currently goes to the Committee of Adjustment. All other application types are delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Development, so that will continue to be that. And then everything is just under the Director.

Thank you. Council. Thank you. Looking at the building, the reports that we receive, the monthly updates, one, I understand that we are moving away from these updates, just wondering in terms of a timeline as to when we can expect not to receive them because I feel like I will be disappointed when I don’t.

So that would be very nice to know. And then I have a question about page 25, the TBD percent time with staff and when we be able to see that number. Thank you. Mr.

Mathers. Through the Chair, so I have reference that we’re making changes to how we do all of our reporting related to housing. So Council will have an opportunity to see that when we bring forward our housing supply action plans. So we’re targeting that for the March PEC meeting.

And that’s something we have another reference group that’s been working with with the industries. We’re pulling that together right now. It’s going to highlight what we’re suggesting is changes. You will still get building information.

You’ll still get building information, but we just want to make sure that it’s timely and not something that necessarily would come every month anymore, but you’d be able to get the same kind of data. And what we really want to focus on is not just have the data, but have the analysis. So like the question the Council will ask to have some of that content in there versus just trying to have like a data dumped to yourselves too. So that’s very much what we’re focusing on.

That would be in March. Councilor. Thank you. And just with the percent time with staff, sorry.

Through the chair. So on the percent side of my staff, what we’re doing now is actually starting to incorporate that as something that we’re tracking. We weren’t historically doing that. So before we can actually start bringing the data forward, we just need to start collecting it and then make sure that it impacts the substantial number of the applications so that it’s actually a valid number.

So that’s something we’ve just started to be able to track. Councilor. Thank you. And follow up.

When does that officially, I guess, start that on the clock percent time with staff, especially now with our new counter and people coming in for questions. Just if you can give us an understanding, what is the start of when that’s considered with a staff person? Mr. Mathers.

So all of our submissions are online. So it would start when that that submission is made online and it’s been reviewed by our staff members. So that is when that time period would start. Councilor.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay. This is on our consent items. It’s moved and seconded.

We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you.

Moving to our scheduled items 3.1. We have a visit from Ms. Bergman for a delegation who’s the chair of the community advisory committee on planning regarding the first report. So Ms.

Bergman, I’ll call on you right now to address the committee. Through the chair, I hope everyone can hear me. We can hear you. Please go ahead.

You have five minutes. Okay, great. So yes, through the chair, I just wanted to there’s really one main item on our on our report. So the community advisory committee and planning’s report that I wanted to bring to your attention.

And that was 300 and 306 Princess Ave. That’s the notice of planning application and the zoning official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. And really, we want to we think it’s important as a committee to, you know, not just come and and and, you know, identify when we have concerns, but also identify when we really feel positively about about an application. And this is one of those times.

I know the committee and other members of the community as well have been very concerned about the state of these two homes. These are some very, very impressive homes here in the Woodfield community. And lately, they have been boarded up for the past. I’m not sure how long, but probably close to six months.

And so we’ve just been really, really concerned about the state of those buildings. And so to see kind of a sympathetic, you know, gentle density style of proposal come in for these houses, where we’re seeing some additions to the back to introduce a few extra units. It’s really, really encouraging. And it’s really the type of application that really excites us.

And we hope that it kind of brings in the needed, the needed improvements to these properties and introducing some more units into a neighborhood that people really want to live in. So I just wanted to kind of come virtually in person just to show that the committee was very encouraged to see that application because we have been very concerned about these about these structures. So that was the main item that I really wanted to share. Again, the committee was very encouraged to see that application.

And we hope that the applicant will continue to work with staff through the heritage adulteration permit process to identify the specifics of the restoration work. I know there was a quite a few mitigation measures and recommendations identified in the HIA. So we just want to ensure that those get carried through as it goes through site plan approval. And then there was also a couple of properties.

We’ve been seeing these applications for demolition and removal from the heritage register associated with the associated with the BRT projects and improvements. And I just wanted to note there was some concern and quite a bit of discussion over the demolition of these properties. Ultimately, we support staff’s recommendation to approve the demolition requests. But we also just wanted to the committee just wanted to be clear that there was some regret there for the loss of these of these structures.

But we understand what needs to happen there. So just sharing some thoughts from the committee on those two items. So thanks very much again for having me through the share. Thank you, Ms.

Bervin. I’ll look to the committee for motion to receive a report. Deputy Mayor Lewis and moves and Councilor Robin seconds. Any discussion?

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 900 Wilton Grove. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hillier seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and I’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any technical questions for staff at this time from committee or visiting Councilors.

Seeing none, then I’ll go to the applicant. If the applicant is here and would like to address the committee, please let us know. Thank you, sir. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Through you, Mr. Chair. Good morning planning and environment committee. My name is Adam Lagrou.

I’m a planner with Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’m here with Jay McGuffin, Principal Planner at Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. And we’re the planners for Blackbridge Property Inc who own and operate Rocky Harley-Davidson at 900 Wilton Grove Road. We’re here to represent our client’s amendment to light to the light industrial zone on their lands to add a range of accessory permitted uses including a personal service establishment tattoo parlor and barbershop for a maximum total gross floor area of 40 meters squared.

The proposed amendment is primarily technical in nature as the proposed accessory use is not customarily incidental to the main permitted use of light industrial land. We believe that the tattoo parlor and barbershop will add value to the customer experience providing additional opportunities for economic growth and for the clientele to cut their hair and get tattoos while servicing their vehicles or intending seminars and events. The proposed use will operate fully within the existing building no external modifications to the footprint are proposed and everything will happen during the existing hours of operation. We’ve had that opportunity to review the staff report and fully support staff’s recommendation to approve the proposal.

We believe that the application is consistent with the provincial policy statement conforms to the London plan and maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. We’re available to respond to any questions from the committee or public. Thank you through you Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Now look for anyone that would like to address us from the public. Please go to the microphone or let us know online. I see no one in chambers here.

I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online that would like to address us. Through the chair there’s no one online. Okay seeing there’s no others that would like to speak and I’ll look for a motion from the committee to close the PPM. Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Hill here.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. I’ll go to committee now for hopefully a motion to get things kicked off.

Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis I’ll move the staff recommendation. Councillor our deputy mayor moves the staff recommendation seconded by Councillor ramen. I’ll open the floor to the committee for questions or discussion. Seeing none we have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3.

This is regarding a demolition request for 16 Wellington Road and 26-20 and 30 Wellington Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councillor ramen. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. There are any technical questions right now for staff. Seeing none I’m going to go directly to the public. Is there anyone the gallery would like to speak to this?

Seeing none I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair there’s no one online. Thank you. Seeing that there’s no one that would like to address us I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Hill here seconded by Councillor ramen and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. Councillor ramen. Move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. That was quick. I just don’t even chance to get my notes in order. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any conversation to be okay we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 3502 Manning Drive. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 5-0. Any questions of technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none I’ll go to the applicant if the applicant would like to address us.

Now it’ll be their time. Please go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chair.

My name is Michael Thomas Insic and I’m from the Economic Services and Support Division and we’re assisting our friends in waste management with this application for Zoning By-law amendment. There are two amendments here actually. There’s one for the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law amendment as well. The Official Plan amendment is essentially to refine and recognize the ecological features on our W12A site and then the Zoning By-law amendments are intended to bring the zoning in line with the Official Plan.

So for some waste management uses or zoning for waste management as well as to recognize the ecological features in the aforementioned London Plan amendment. It should be noted though that not withstanding the requested amendments there is no intention to store additional waste material on these expanded lands. These lands are being zoned to accommodate additional ground monitoring, some soil storage and vehicular transportation routes but as for neighborhood impacts there are no additional impacts anticipated with Zoning By-law amendment. I do have colleagues online from waste management just in case there’s any technical questions but we like to thank our colleagues in planning for supporting this application and looking forward to answering questions that you may have.

Thank you. Once we get through the PPM I’m sure committee will be looking to you. Any folks from the public that would like to address the committee at this time? Please please sir if you could give us your name and you have five minutes please go ahead.

My name is Mike Williams. I live in the area of Glenworth. My understanding of this proposal is that the landfill is to the height of the landfill is to increase fivefold. That’s what’s been detailed to me specifically and there’s no mention of that here.

Somehow his introduction was limited to being a periphery of a landfill. My concerns which I’ve addressed to this council years back are odors coming from that landfill. You have multiple odor complaints that come in on a regular basis and it’s very specific as to why there’s these odors coming and it’s because you’re putting that bioset which is called sewage into the landfill and you’re covering it with garbage on a temporary basis as you’re filling the landfill. Those sewage odors mixed with those garbage odors are atrocious.

Anyone who’s driving from St. Thomas to London knows how bad that can be on a regular basis. The impact on the community is quite significant. You’re supposed to be developing a community.

You’re destroying one out there. Compensation should be the first and foremost on the subject or on topic on the top of your minds as to what you’re going to do for the community out there. Property value protection should in my opinion must and compass all areas that are downwind of that landfill and at this time it can be two to five kilometers depending on the day. It can be even ten kilometers some days.

There’s so much to say on this topic I can’t even fit it into five minutes. Being on the PLC committee I’ve addressed all these concerns with the city officials and dismissed every time. Every two months we meet and it’s dismissed every two months. The councilor comes to these meetings and pans are tied.

Nothing they can do. I see they’re not even here today. Either of our counselors. I don’t know where to go for with this.

Like if drops start dropping lawsuits. Not everybody can afford a sixty thousand dollar retainer to a lawyer at nowhere at at risk to themselves. They’re not guaranteed to win anything. They’re growing up against the Corporation of London.

You guys are supposed to be building communities. Well you’re destroying one out there. What are you going to do about this? Continue to do so is what I’m hearing.

Continue to do it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee?

Is there anyone on the online clerk? Through the chair there’s no one online. Thank you. Seeing no one else I’d like to speak to the committee.

I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Raman, executive by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Okay. I’ll put this on the floor now for for the committee. Any questions or emotions Deputy Mayor Lewis?

I will move the staff recommendation. I have a seconder. Councilor Raman further comments or questions of our staff or Mayor. Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you. So just to staff just to reiterate what is being introduced through the motion. This is about how we’re going to be using the land within this this particular area not specifically dealing separately with the issue of the increase in height at the landfill. I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair this is just dealing with the land itself. These lands are already in the London plan as the waste management recovery area. So it’s just an expansion of the zone to allow for additional buffering for the property. And there’s no additional bill forms or anything else on the site.

It’s just to accommodate what Mr. Thomas insect announced. Councilor. Thank you.

Much appreciated and just a small typo to correct on the subject. Just the ward number. Then staff identify the incorrect ward number and what would be the correct ward number for the report? Through the chair.

I think the report states that it’s ward 11 when it is actually ward 12 that the landfill is located in. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor.

Anyone else like to speak to this? Seeing none we have a motion moving and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Using the vote the motion carries 5-0.

Thank you. Moving on to item 3.5 regarding 4-3-6-6 Colonel Talbot Roanell look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councilor Hill here. I’ll call that vote.

Close in the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Do you have any questions of the technical nature for staff at this time? Go to the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon Chair Lehman members of committee. I appreciate your time this afternoon. Mike Davis here with civic planning and design and representing our clients.

Cavalier development group and infinity foods group. Really excited to be reaching this milestone with this project today. This is an interesting and important site in Lambeth. It’s the a portion of the former McKechen school which has received a significant investment from Cavalier development group over the past few years to transform that building into what’s now modern kind of health and wellness center.

The site in particular was a former parking lot that served the school. What’s interesting from a redevelopment perspective is that it has a frontage on Colonel Talbot Roan. The Colonel Talbot Roan that you see today is planned to be much different in the future. It’s planned to be it is a vision for this segment of Colonel Talbot to actually evolve into more urban and pedestrian oriented type of space.

A main street kind of vision or environment. And that vision was something that we communicated very early to our clients that would be extremely important to the city of London. And what we’ve been able to do here is work with them and develop what is really a new urban format quick service restaurant concept that it breaks the mold of your typical quick service restaurant that you would see in a big box shopping plaza. It’s got many unique design features.

We’ve been able to position the building directly adjacent to the street. We’ve oriented it in a way that allows for a high degree, a high degree of built edge along Colonel Talbot. And what that does is screens a lot of the back house functions, the parking area, waste collection, vehicular circulation, things of that nature. This model includes a pedestrian pickup window with direct connection out to the sidewalk on Colonel Talbot, a front door oriented towards Colonel Talbot and also an outdoor patio space.

Also with this specific concept plan that we’ve conceived, we’ve been able to achieve 30% landscape open space or green space, which is significantly higher than you would see with a typical suburban quick service restaurant. That number would come in more around 10 or 15. So lots of opportunities with this specific concept to look at canopy coverage, tree planting, things of that nature. With the work that’s been done and the conceptual plans that we’ve developed with Wendy’s, they’ve truly kind of bought into this vision and are really excited about kind of integrating into the fabric of Colonel Talbot Road and Lambeth.

And we’re generally really pleased with the staff recommendation. I do have two matters, we could call them kind of friendly amendments that I do want to table with committee. I did provide an email with those potential amendments both to clerk for circulation to committee and to planning staff just in advance in case there’s any dialogue about those. But firstly, in terms of recommendation B, we had a lot of good dialogue with staff through the process.

We’ve landed on a mutually acceptable zoning bylaw, which is what they are recommending in what’s Independence A of the report. We understood that our request relative to recommendation B had actually been withdrawn from our application. And so my request is that that recommendation actually just be stricken because that provision no longer forms part of our application. So that’s the first request.

The second, within the directions to site plan approval authority, there is a very explicit direction under subsection I that speaks to reorienting the drive-through to exit internal to the site as opposed to Colonel Talbot. And we’re fully committed to looking at and exploring those alternatives, sort of configurations for that drive-through lane through the site plan process. My one fear though is that that direction is overly sort of narrow and doesn’t give us the space to truly look at the overall site layout from what’s going to be the best design outcome. So we’re just simply requesting that some of that language be modified to take sort of a more holistic view of the site design to land on what’s going to be the optimal drive-through orientation.

So some of those things that we’d consider in doing that, pedestrian safety, considering both pedestrian traffic on Colonel Talbot and users of the site, the provision of landscape open space, opportunities for tree planting, and canopy coverage, the degree to which the design reinforces the main street vision for Colonel Talbot, the degree to which functional elements such as waste collection, loading space, and parking can be effectively screened from view from Colonel Talbot, and then also impacts to the adjacent RTO road network and of course traffic safety considerations. We really think that it should be a holistic consideration and and perhaps until that analysis happens, it might not be the right time to totally close the door on the concept of the exit. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Your time has expired. Anyone from the public that would like to address committee on this topic? Is there anyone on line, Clerk? Do they chair?

There’s no one online. Thank you. I see a gentleman at the microphone at the top. Please, sir, if you could give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Mario Zuwek, I said U-S-H, and I own the property 43, 43 says Colonel Talbot Road. My concern is the drive-through, because the drive-through goes by, we have two apartments and a business on the front, and the drive-through goes right through by the window of the apartment there. So in the pickup window, they stop right there, so it’s going to be traffic all day and night. So that’s my concern, Mario.

That’s all I am. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee from the public?

Seeing none, I look for a motion to close the BPM, Councillor ramen. Seconded by Councillor Hayley, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0.

Followed the floor for the committee members for discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So after the applicant has presented, I wonder if we could go to staff to get some comment on what we heard about section B and in section I, the CI, the relocation of the drive-through internal to the site. Indicating that B is actually is no longer part of the plan and around the language on C1.

I’m just wondering if staff can offer some perspective from their side about what would be appropriate in terms of dispensing with those concerns. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. We’ll go to staff on those questions and comments. Through the chair, so ultimately the applicant is amending their applications in a sense, so our decision in Part C was based on the proposal that was in front of us with the drive-through coming out.

So if Council were to remove Part B, I can understand maybe providing more flexibility. To Part C, again, Part C was based on the fact that we were not preventing the drive-through out to the road. Therefore, you would have to look at the internal as the only option for the drive-through. Deputy Mayor.

I just wanted to ask that question. I know the ward councilor is here, so I’d like to hear what the ward councilor has to say before pinning anything else on this application. Okay, I’ll look for other comments. Councilor Oppens.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me and thank you to the applicant as well. For the open house virtual meeting that you set up, it was important that we reach out to the community. We’ve heard a lot from this community.

There was a petition sent in. We heard from one of the neighbors to the south, the concerns of a drive-through. If you look at the map, you could see the surrounds are residential. I’m pleased that the consultant is striking out B, which is fine, but the concerns around having an exit onto Colonel Talbot came from transportation.

This is a safety concern. It is about movement and how it’s all going to work. I know that through the site plan process, they’ll be able to address new plans. The buffering that they will be doing to the east, maybe through you, Mr.

Chair, just a quick question through you to staff. If you can speak to the buffering to the east of residential property, I know there’s lots of landscaping, 30% is good, but what else can be done to mitigate some of the challenges? Through the chair, there will be buffering looked at during the site plan application stage to the east and to the north to those residential uses. So we did implement them to have a landscaping buffer, and they also might have to consider other aspects from the noise study, like noise barriers to different aspects like that.

Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that. So that would be something like a wall as well. I know we heard from the neighbour to the south, the challenges, and I really would encourage the neighbour to work with the applicant as well to see what can be done there.

It’s going to create a lot of challenges, a lot of changes, given the proximity of the residential house to the south, but I think that can be done. I’m glad there’s going to be a noise study done on this property as well. That’s really important, but I would really encourage the committee to not change see. I think there are alternative plans that can be done, but that can be done through the site plan.

I want to stress the importance of that, that exit onto Colonel Talbot and the movement, the patterns, people walking, it really should be not stricken off the sea clause. Our policy supported. We did make a slight revision to having this a business just strict commercial neighbourhood zone in the area. Lots of changes are happening here.

It partly is that residential component with this drive-through coming in. The applicant is doing great work with the McEckron School. This is part of that redevelopment. Lots of exciting development going in the area, but how do we balance that with the residents?

I really would like the committee to consider that as well. So thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions or motions from the committee?

Dr. Berlos. I just want to follow up on Councillor Hopkins’ comments and through you to our staff. The section C indicates the landscape buffer.

I’m just reflecting on the drive-throughs in my own ward where it’s both landscaping and privacy fencing and/or sound retention walls. I’m trying to just seek some clarity on why right now we only have and I recognize that sound studies may influence what needs to go there, but why we only have the landscaping and not a privacy fencing and/or sound retention wall to separate from the residential because that’s a pretty standard thing. We’re drive-throughs about residential and I don’t see it in here, so I’m wondering if we can get some comment on why landscaping is the only thing recommended? That’ll go staff.

Thank you through the chair. So looking at the recommendation clause to the approval authority, as you noted, item three is implement the recommendations of the noise study and looking at the noise study there is a requirement for a 2.4 meter noise attenuating barrier along that property line. So it would be landscape and supplemented with that noise attenuation wall. Deputy Mayor?

That’s fine. I just want to make sure that that’s something that’s going to be in consideration here and so I know that Mr. P’s and his team will follow up through site plan, so that covers that. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Okay. Do I have a seconder? Councilor Hillier? Any further comments or questions?

Deputy Mayor? Thanks. I just want to say with regard to the drive-through, I really do think it’s important as we develop these sites, particularly along high use corridors as Colonel Talbot Road obviously is, that we do have consideration for limiting the number of access points. The more points coming in and out of a site, the more chance that we have a transportation conflict and a vehicular accident.

You know, I heard from our police chief at one of my ward town hall meetings just last week how motor vehicle fatalities in our city are at an all-time high and well that’s not directly related to a site plan on any particular application. I think it reflects the fact that as our traffic volume increases, as our population increases, that there is a need both for enforcement but also for thoughtful planning in terms of how we manage traffic coming in and out of primary collectors or arterial roads where the traffic volume is in the tens of thousands on any given day. So I appreciate where the applicant is trying to go, but I do think we need to keep the drive-through interior. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? The committee will permit me. I’ll make a few comments from the chair. I concur with the deputy mayor.

For sure, we want to make access as convenient as possible for commercial businesses. However, that has to be balanced, as the deputy mayor said, with traffic flow and dealing with our roads and planning folks, there’s a long-term view that they are always considering and Colonel Talbot is one of those roads that’s going to get increasingly, has increasingly more traffic and so what might seem okay today might not be good for five, ten years down the road. So there’s a balance to be struck with commercial interests as well as general traffic flows for many reasons, safety and also for general flow of traffic to make sure that it’s moving as efficiently as possible. So I will be supporting the staff recommendation.

There are no other comments or questions. We have a motion moved in second and then I will call the vote. Thank you. Moving on to 3.6.

This is regarding 934 Oxford Street West. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councilor Hillier. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Any technical questions for staff at this time from committee members? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant.

See if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you and through you chair. Good afternoon.

My name is Taylor Whitney. I’m a planner with the link of preamel limited. The planning consultant representing the landowner of 934 Oxford Street West. I would like to use my time today to provide some background on the information before you today being the staff report recommending refusal, the letter that I’ve provided, and the proposed motion provided by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

We submitted a zoning by-law amendment application in November of 2023 to permit a three and a half story eight unit residential development. Just before the holidays, we received comments from city staff which detailed several issues to the site layout and built form of the proposed development, and it was clear from those comments that staff wouldn’t be supportive of the development in that form, hence the staff report before you today. We had the opportunity to meet with city staff in early January to discuss their concerns and brainstorm potential solutions to address the issues that were identified. As a result, we were able to provide a revised development plan which generally addressed staff’s concerns.

The revised plan has a more efficient site layout, which also provided the opportunity to increase the number of units on the lands from eight to ten. City staff had the opportunity to complete a preliminary review and indicated that they would be able to recommend approval in the revised form. The letter that I provided provides an analysis of how the revised development plan addresses staff’s concerns at the initial application. Notable changes include reorienting the building to address the Oxford Street frontage, rearranging the parking lot, and increasing setbacks to provide appropriate separation space and to mitigate privacy concerns.

We’ve had initial conversations with our engineering and landscaping consultants who have advised that there would still be sufficient sanitary capacity to support the additional two units and advise that the revised layout may allow for the retention of more trees on site. However, due to legislative changes imposed by the province last year, council decision is required 90 days from the date an application is submitted. So in this instance, this puts city staff in a difficult position because they have insufficient time to recirculate the revised development plan without having to refund the application fees. We were advised by staff that we would have to accept the refusal of the initial application from this committee and then file a new application which the fee would be waived for.

This would extend the approvals process by several months and essentially require a duplication of city staff’s time and efforts on this application. In comparison, this time last year, staff could have simply recirculated the revised plan internally and had it on the next peg agenda. I would like to thank staff for their work on this project today. They’ve been put into a tricky position due to provincially mandated timelines, but we’ve been able to work together to come up with the mutually agreeable solution in front of you today.

Given this, I would respectfully request that this committee consider the revised development plan and revised bylaw at this meeting. It’s our opinion that the revised plan addresses all of the relevant staff’s comments relating to access, parking, building orientation, setbacks, and privacy. I’m available to answer any questions you may have and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Ms.

Whitney. Look for any folks from the public that would like to address the committee. I see you ma’am up in the gallery there at the mic. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Excuse me, ma’am. We can’t hear you. I’m going to make sure the microphone’s on. Hello.

There we go. My name is Cleo Beck. I’m speaking on behalf of Angus Johnson and Green Space Alliance. Of the six projects on your agenda, one is of most concern in regard to global warming.

It is the development at 934 Oxford. 934 Oxford is another case of delivering a one two emissions punch to the city of London. It will bring 77 cars to town and by removing 25 trees will eliminate the means by which those car emissions should be mitigated. Angus Johnson has objected to other approved one two punch projects like this and there are many in the city plants, but the one two punch itself is not the main reason to reject these projects.

Developments completed in the last 30 years have removed thousands of trees and there are thousands more trees listed for removal. As a result, hundreds of acres now show up in the random emissions map in yellow, a color that means the area is doing an inadequate job at removing emissions because of lack of vegetation. In the 39 pages of development, plants for London from page one to the first project on page 11, 100, 1000, six trees will be removed. Significantly, some plants are not formatted to show removal numbers.

On page seven, the project involving 51 acres at Sunningdale Golf Club will have significant impact on trees and emissions and it is not counted in this mix. Thousands of removals are not an exaggeration. Whatever London’s current tree canopy percentages expanding our tree canopy over the course of a year depends upon building upon the mature trees we have. We know that the mature trees are the real leaders in the growth process and contribute most to that over all growth and protection from global warming.

Protecting our existing canopy means ensuring that the number of trees removed does not exceed the normal expected growth in a growing season. Ensuring that the canopy expands in a year means cutting back less than what is in the base amount prior to the year’s growth. Therefore, the reason for rejecting this plant to cut down 25 trees at 934 Oxford is our lack of knowledge about the impact. We don’t know the impact of cutting back those 25 trees on the tree canopy of London, Ontario and we’re in the same boat with a stack of plants for removing thousands of trees from the canopy.

Before plants for cutting trees or pursued research is needed to determine how many trees can be removed from the existing canopy before our base percentages reduced. Only after we know what we have can we determine what trees can be safely cut. To be clear, we’re not against building houses and getting people in residency. To approve cutting out thousands of trees from our tree canopy, however, without any effort to assess the effects of that loss on the health of the canopy is reckless endangerment of a public resource.

Our sole ask of this committee is to find a way to fund that research and make it publicly available. While there are too many unknowns about the effect on the tree canopy of cutting down trees, the effect of more commissions is clear. As of this writing, 222 developmental plans are filed for London with the addition of 23,660 new households multiply 23,660 by a 0.66 car dependency rate for ex households of 2.4 million people and we are looking at a huge increase in car emissions. There’s a potential increase of 37,477 cars, a 14% increase if the plans are passed.

Add that to a car population that is already 273,000. The key point is that vegetation that is being cut back dramatically will be processing at least 14% more on the rise tailpipe emissions. Clearly, the remaining vegetation will not be able to do the job. Google’s environmental transportation emission numbers for London already suggest that in 2023, we may have already exceeded the pre-COVID 2019 high of 824,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

If you don’t get worse from here, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee, please, ma’am, state your name and you have five minutes. My name is Annemarie Velastro.

The staff recommendation is to refuse this development because they refer to it as an over intensification. What that means is the building is too big for the landmass. And because it’s too big, it can’t service itself, which means it can’t take care of itself. It can’t maintain itself.

It doesn’t have enough room to do that. And that has very negative impacts on the surrounding residents, the surrounding area. It’s imposing. That’s why you don’t over-intensify piece of land.

And on top of it, it can’t service its own runoff. So because there’s not enough open space for flood control, that’s what open space does. It keeps water out of the storm sewer system, so it can be absorbed back into the ground and is stressing out the storm sewer systems. So much so that now the Carling Creek master plan storm sewer project is actually suggesting that underneath Big Man Park that we build a big water reservoir to take the over capacity storm water whenever it overwhelms the system, it goes into this big storage unit underneath the park.

And that’s because this committee perpetually, over and over again, approves buildings that are too big for the land it sits on. And now there is a motion on the floor introduced by Councillor Sean Lewis that is going to override the staff recommendation. It is brief and then it suggests that it complies with the policy statement, the official plan when staff say it doesn’t, it doesn’t comply with policy and is being introduced. And I personally, I may be wrong about this, but I personally find that manipulative and maybe even dishonest.

I will caution you on your comments about modus from the members. This is my opinion. This is my opinion. I don’t care if it’s your opinion or not.

You can thoroughly talk about the facts at hand, but not to modus. So the facts on hand is that there is a motion on the floor right now that overrides. There is no motion on the floor, ma’am. It hasn’t been introduced, but it’s going to be introduced as soon as I’m done speaking.

And I feel it also is insulting to members of the public that come down here to generally express their views because emotions is been written and it’s going to be introduced right after I’m done speaking. So I think that the refusal from staff is wise. The building is too big for the land it sits on. It can’t service itself.

It can’t absorb its own runoff. And that puts stress on the stormwater system. And taxpayers pay tens of millions of dollars for these projects simply because we’re over intensifying the land and the land can’t function as it’s meant to function. Thank you.

Any other comments from the public class? The clerk, if there’s anyone online? Through the chair, Mike Swartz. Please sir, we can hear you online.

Give us your name and you have five minutes. Okay, my name is Michael Swartz. I’m a representative of Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church. We are not really impacted significantly as a as a church by the development of the 934 Oxford Street.

I understand where some of these other comments are coming from and we need to pay attention to that. I also have concerns about the lack of affordable housing in this city and how do we address that when this is not a project that falls under that category. I think that’s an urgent situation and how do we deal with that as a society or a city like London. Those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Swartz. Any other comments?

Anyone who wishes to address the committee? I’ll ask the clerk, if there’s anyone else online? Through the chair, there’s no one else online. Okay, seeing that no one else would like to speak, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hilliard, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll open up the floor for this discussion amongst committee members.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I did circulate in advance an alternate motion and an alternate by-law that staff helped me prepare. So I’m prepared to put that on the floor.

And then if there’s a seconder of that, I’ll speak to the reasons. But I will preface it by saying here we are. This is the first application on Bill 109, where the time frame is now impacting us. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Hilliard. Okay, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So as I said in my comments, here we are with Bill 109.

So we have legislative change from the province. So, and then we had an applicant who brought in an application. There were some staff concerns. The applicant worked with staff.

We had a Christmas closure impacting our timeline. And if we do not make a decision on this, either refuse or approve by February 13th, then either the application moves forward, or we’d be in a situation where we would have to refund. Staff’s recommendation is just waive the fee for the next application. But I’m concerned that we start to get into a process where we are deciding on when we’re waiving, when we’re refunding, what we’re doing with applications where we run up against this 90-day statutory deadline.

So last week, I had the opportunity to meet with the applicant. I had the opportunity to meet with staff. I know that both sides said, yes, we were working on this. We are very, very close to being able to bring forward a recommendation to you, except we don’t have time to recirculate and still meet the February 13th deadline.

So that’s why I’m prepared to put the alternate motion on the floor. This is taking a residential property and adding 10 units. I do want to share with the representative from the Presbyterian Church. Unfortunately, there’s another change in provincial legislation.

We no longer have bonuses, so we cannot require affordable housing units in our planning application processes. So that is a tool that’s been taken out of our toolbox. I agree with the applicant or with the representative that affordable housing is certainly needed. And I would encourage him to also take a look at the number of business cases in our multi-year budget that do address affordable housing through other approaches, rather than through planning application processes where we don’t have those tools.

But that’s why I think that this is important to move forward today. We are on an arterial road on Oxford Street West. This is exactly the place where we want to see infill and intensification. There is transit service there.

You are near a commercial area at Wonderland and Oxford, as well as at Oxford and Hyde Park. So there’s good amenities in the area. There’s transit service. And this is a recommendation that’s coming forward after both the applicant and staff ran out of time to finalize this before a 90-day statutory deadline.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Committee members? Councilor Roman.

Thank you and through you. I appreciate the work of the deputy mayor to work with the applicant to bring through this revised or proposed motion. But I would really need to hear from staff on this. I’m just wanting to understand, did the proposed motion change and address the concerns that were outlined in the refusal?

Does it give staff enough information to make a different decision based on the conversation that was had? I’m struggling with that because I feel like in order to agree to what’s in front of us, I have to understand whether or not you’ve had a fulsome opportunity to really review the changes and whether or not they meet the requirement that you were looking for specifically around the intensity and also related to the access management guidelines. And I have concerns when we start talking about precedent setting and then going forward with that. So if you could comment on that, that would be really helpful.

Thank you. So the councilor is looking to see if the revised suggested amendments are revised application in a sense that addresses the three areas that are outlined for reasons for staff refusal in our report. Please go ahead. Through the chair.

So as was noted, we received the revised plan near the end of the process. In our opinion, we haven’t had significant or sufficient time to provide a positive recommendation at this point in time. Given the increase in height and intensity of the development, we would like to recirculate it and do a fulsome review of the application. There were some positive changes in the development.

However, I don’t think we’re in a place based on those changes to provide recommendation for approval today. Councilor. Thank you. And then again, I’ll go with that.

I’m new. So with this process where we have an amendment, does the amendment allow for you then to have adequate time with it following to be able to have ongoing discussions that there are issues still with the application? To me, it seems like we’re limiting the scope of the ability for staff to comment if we approve it. And I’m just trying to get a better sense if you feel like there’s enough opportunity to continue to look at this.

I’ll go staff through the chair just to confirm if if the development was approved today as in the zoning. So if that was the case, it would just go to actually doesn’t go to site plan approval. So the zoning would be in place and they could apply for a building permit. Councilor.

Thank you. And that’s another particular change. I think that we have to consider along with the timeline changes that this no longer goes through that same site plan. So for that reason, I think that although I agree that we’re running up against this timeline, we’re learning through this process.

It’s not our process that created the timeline challenge as well. I think that that’s to be noted as well. I think staff have a reasonable I think they presented us with a reasonable language on the refusal. I think that what’s in front of us is unfortunate, but we do have a remedy in that we can waive that fee at the next application.

And I’m supportive of what’s in front of us from staff. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. I know there’s another committee member there too.

Happy to hear the committee members comments before I make mine. I just have a couple questions. Well, Councillor Fray. Thanks.

I wouldn’t have minded Councillor Hopkins if you went first, but all right fine with some of the council ramen. At this point, it feels like we would be approving something that hasn’t been reviewed by staff and given that there’s no site plan and oversight at 10 units or less, it doesn’t seem that we have appropriate amount of time or ability to work with the applicant. And I agree that it is really unfortunate because it sounds like it’s pretty much ready to go except for a couple revisions and tweaks. So I’m wondering perhaps through the chair to staff, given that we’re running into these issues, and I’m not sure if this is the first one.

This is the first one that I kind of noticed regarding the 90-day turnaround time. I’m wondering if there’s been any discussions at any of the housing action plan teams or the continuous improvement teams. I know you have lots of different tables you meet with the industry on, but any discussion about raising this and elevating it as an issue, I could see a remedy being having both the applicant and staff mutually signed to extend a timeline. I’m just wondering if that’s something that’s been raised at any of those tables as discussion items.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you for the question through chair. Know that we have not had those conversations. That’s something certainly that we as staff had identified as recommendations to the province in our responses back to them as a means to advance these applications forward.

And I believe what you may be referring to, Councillor, is something that’s under the Heritage Act, where if it’s a mutual understanding, a letter that’s written and signed to then allow for that extension. But that does not exist under the Planning Act. Councillor. Thank you.

Yes, that is what I’m referring to. So I’m wondering, perhaps I don’t want to add more work to you guys because I never want to do that. But perhaps if that could be an issue that’s raised at one of your working groups as a discussion, because I worry that this will be the first of money that we run into this issue. But I think at this point, given that we aren’t able to fully work with the applicant legislatively, I won’t be supporting this application or I won’t be supporting the Deputy Mayor’s amendment and instead would prefer to support the staff’s recommendation.

Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I really do appreciate just making a couple comments to the committee.

I appreciate Deputy Mayor’s position on the importance of getting things built in our city. I agree the affordability conversation has been taken away from us, which is really unfortunate here at the Planning and Environment Committee. When I look at this application, the road dedication that’s not there on Oxford is a huge concern. I think that is something that we have to be very, very mindful of as we go forward with the process of putting in some development.

I hear the community when it comes to trees. These infills are always challenging when it comes to taking away the trees. We really need to understand when we do that, what are we putting back? And I think there’s still a lot to be done.

I’m really pleased that we can waive a fee. That, I think, is something that should be taken into consideration as we are challenged with the tight timelines that the province has given us. But those are my comments. I really appreciate you hearing them.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments from committee members? I’ll look to the Vice Chair.

He can take the chair. So I’d like to comment on this. It’s my motion, so you’ll have to go to somebody else. Correct.

I will go to Councillor Ramen on this. To take the chair, please. Thank you. I have the chair.

I’ll recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. This is in my ward. And I’ve met with the community there with the developer and attendance as well to address community concerns.

I agree with the staff’s report here. This is a one-lot that my opinion development is being kind of forced into here. The comments that’s too intense cannot meet site design requirements such as appropriate building and parking area setbacks, appropriate parking configuration, impact medication, waste and snow storage. Very, very concerning.

But the most concerning thing for me, and it kind of ties back to the previous item that we had before the committee, was access points on Oxford Street. Oxford Street is like Colonel Talbot is increasingly becoming an entry point for people not only living west of Thames River. In fact, so much so that there’s a planned bridge expansion there, but also on the west outside the city limits for development out there that are using Oxford Street as a corridor to have multiple access points on Oxford Street given the amount of traffic is very concerning for the same points that we raised with the item on Colonel Talbot. The other thing that the concerns me here too is to do something quickly to meet the 90 days.

I share the the deputy mayor’s frustration within 90 days and and obviously Councillor questions regarding staff looking at this to see how we can prove this so it doesn’t get to this point. But to change height and density having the committee to essentially make the call on that at this point is I don’t think a good precedent in going forward. Height and density were the major concerns of the community and to increase both those factors without having the community have a chance to weigh in on that as well as having staff to properly identify whether those would address the concerns in the refusal in the first place. I think it’s not a preferred path forward for me personally anyway.

So I will not be supporting the motion and if the motion fails I will be supporting the acceptance of the staff recommendations. Thank you. Returning the chair to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Thank you.

Councillor, please go ahead. Thank you for allowing me to speak at your committee. I rarely come here to speak but I’m here twice today, yeah three times today. I just want to very briefly say that I support the staff report at council.

I will not be supporting this amendment and I think that the staff report is very careful and is sustainable and should hold up. But I also want to say that some of the points that Councillor Lehman made really resonated with me in terms of what we’re asking Oxford to do, where we’re just asking Oxford to do too much. This is much further to the west of Oxford than my ward but I share many of the Oxford related concerns. So at council I will be supporting the staff report and I will not be supporting this amendment and I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay we have a motion on the floor that’s been moved and seconded and I will call that vote. Closing the vote.

The motion fails two to three. Thank you and I’ll look for committee for another motion. Councillor Robin. Thank you.

I’ll look to put the staff recommendation on the floor please. Thank you and I will second that motion. I’ll look for comments or questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

So I won’t be supporting this motion either and I want to be very clear. I’m not going to be supporting any recommendation that comes forward that suggests that we just retain the fee and apply it to an next application. Provincial legislation requires a refund and so if we’re not going to meet the deadlines then I think we should be refunding and starting over from scratch because that’s the way the legislation is laid out. So I’m not really comfortable with waving the fees either.

We either need to meet our deadlines or not and live with the consequences of that so I won’t be supporting the staff recommendation either. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded.

I will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to two. Thank you.

Moving on to three point seven. This is regarding housekeeping amendments to the zoning by-law and I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen. Can I have a seconder please?

Councillor Hayyer. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Yeah I’ll open the floor to the public that would like to address us. Please sir if you can give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you committee members and visiting Councillors. My name is Mike Wallace and I’m with LDI as many you know already. First of all we want to start by saying we want to thank staff for their efforts of communicating with the industry on these items. Sometimes people committee of adjustment you would never think are our industry and the development side would ever go to committee of adjustment.

Everyone thinks it’s individuals going for their backyard changes and so on but there are a tremendous amount of changes that need to happen at committee of adjustment that our industry often have to go to committee adjustment to obtain and in review of this working with staff we looked at a number of very very repetitive costly time consuming changes that were always approved and where there are an opportunity to remove those so that we don’t have to continue that process and the city has made a commitment and the planning staff have done a very good job of working with us and trying to improve the processes for development for approvals and this is just one of the many items that we’re dealing with we really appreciate what has happened on this item. It is housekeeping on a number of other issues but for us in particular was the changes that allowed in the zoning bylaw that we won’t have to go to committee adjustment for. This is just part Mr. Chair of all the and you and Scott alluded to at the beginning of the meeting about all the changes in working with the community and in the spirit because I need to be talking to this just so you know that we’re looking at other opportunities in terms of improved processes and as per the last application the process of the 90 days or the other requirements that have changed under bill 109 should let you know that LDI has been active in promoting that there should be a right of the developer of the applicant to waive the fees if we’re close to having an application come to fruition but we’re missing the deadline of let’s say 90 days in this the past case we would like the opportunity for the developer to be able to say we’re working with the city we would we don’t want to start over you know you’re talking about a refund but that defeats the purpose of the actual application so I don’t know how I’ll say the problems will be about that and just so you know not only we’ve done that in letter as of last Friday had a meeting with the Minister of Housing our local MPP and that was one of the items that put on the table of changes that they could make this spring in the in the legislation that everybody bringing forward so we want to continue to work with the city on on we appreciate the changes here we appreciate the continued review of the zoning bylaw and how to get it connected to the official plan that’s now passed through rethink zoning and we thank the staff for all their efforts on this particular app item here in front of you today thank you very much thank you mr.

Wallace any other comments from the public is there anyone online clerk through the chair there’s no one online seeing no one else would like to address this all look for a motion to close BPM deputy mayor Lewis second by counsel ramen i’ll call the vote the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you and i’ll put this item on the floor for committee deputy mayor Lewis i’ll move the staff recommendation thank you kyla for a seconder councilor hillier any comments or questions councilor ramen thank you and through uh i do appreciate the um the review of this from staff perspective to kind of plain language and make it cleaner and easier to understand uh although i do think we uh if there was a way to do that even further that would be great uh because i do think it’s still a bit meaty and uh difficult to get through in terms of some definitions i’m speaking in a grade five class tomorrow i may give them some of it just to have a look but uh no i do appreciate it i do think that there was a real intentionality here to make sure that there was better understanding of the terminology that’s in it and make it cleaner and easier to read so thank you thank you any other comments or questions committee will allow me i’d like to make a comment or two um i want to thank um both um staff for sure and uh the development community and and builders out there um that have uh worked with staff to come up with um solutions that allow us to um do things more efficiently um and which we’re we’re being successful at and we’re making improvements and i know mr mathers and his team uh continue down uh that road and i look forward to hearing wonderful things like that we’ve heard recently um to mr wallace i wish you well knows discussions with the minister and i hope you will convey my um my wish is that they recognize the efforts that the city of london is doing to achieving to doing what we can to achieve our goals that we set out for the province and that we hope the province is seeing that and recognizing the fact that we shouldn’t be punished for not getting shovels on the ground when we’ve done the work uh on getting uh zoning um and permits done um it’s incredibly frustrating uh for us uh on the committee then a council and for the staff of our planning department uh that we’re doing this work but for factors beyond our control uh we are still financially negatively impacted uh we uh uh uh do our job of uh communicating these concerns both at council and through the mayor’s efforts and counselor’s efforts deputy mayor’s efforts um but i ask you as well as someone who represents the development community to to also join in that voice to um have the province um really look strongly at uh the incentivized programs that they have so that um communities such as ours that are doing the good work uh in getting housing uh promoted as quickly as possible uh are not negatively impacted so i appreciate that thank you there’s any other comments or questions and uh we have a motion moved in second i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on to three point eight this is regarding city-wide five-bedroom limits and increased permissions for additional residential units uh i’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor hillier seconded by counselor ramen and i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero uh thank you and i will go to uh public now i wish to address uh the committee on this matter please sir give us your name and you have five minutes my name is uh annon kablansky i want to thank the member of planning department for the opportunity to address the committee i’ve been in infill development and infill builders in the city of london for 35 years during this time i’ve experienced the evolution of the official plan and the zoning bylaw 35 years ago responsible infill development was encouraged this allowed healthy units development in the core in 1988 townhouses were allowed today they are not over time and with every change to the official plan and zoning bylaw the ability to create dwellings dwelling units in the core area diminished and townhouses were eliminated from the zoning bylaw in the core these are significantly contributed to intense urban spall and houses and housing crisis in that the city is in and you can see it in response to the growing limitation to develop in the core area i adopted my project and started to create proper housing for students within walking distance to the university unfortunately this was met with extreme resistance for the nimbus influence just as the townhouses were the city was swayed by the nimbus agenda and imposed arbitrary restriction on the number of bedrooms for each load reducing the potential for student housing this struggle has had profound impact on the development landscape affecting not only my project but also the overall growth of and vibrancy of the city student housing was forced to spall outward into more areas taking up housing from the rest of the population the municipality should support student housing right around university there should be no difference between near-composed neighborhood and the rest of the city the housing crisis affect everyone allowing more density in the near-composed area will reduce the housing crisis for students and free up housing for other people it should be a no-brainer limiting the number of bedrooms to five plus one in each additional unit does not make sense financially and for this reason these units these units with one bedroom will not get built perhaps this is the intention actually not to mention creating three separate units with one bedroom as opposed to also allowing three bedroom in one unit completely goes against the environmental sustainability goals of this city there is no legitimate reason for the area defined by the city as near-composed neighborhood not to have the same rules and opportunity as the rest of the city it defies the purpose of bill 23 it is not proper planning and it will get challenged at the provincial level the city position that the proposed amendments creating opportunity for appropriate intensity in the near-composed neighborhood is misleading the so-called opportunity hardly exists the available lot inventory that is zoned out to or out three and complies with the current zone requirement for such development is minimal to non-existent due to flow area ratio and gross flow area requirement the existing and proposed policies and regulation imposed through the zoning by-law are preventing the creation of quality purposely built-in housing near the university the province has started reducing hardship such such a site plan approval requirement but more needs to be done for years the planning department champion policies to prevent over intensification in the core which prevented property which prevented property significance and created the worst urban sport of the city for 35 years i’ve been succeeding in doing it here the current policy changes will not help yet no housing it is to satisfy the province uh and bill 23 only it’s a lip service and to you mr chairman i would like to ask the planner that came up with the recommendation if his recommendation is purely on planning principle or he had some political pressure thank you thank you look for the next person i would like to address the committee hi my name is john read please sir give us your name in your five minutes yes my name is john read i have a property in the near-campus neighborhood and um the perspective that that i have is an existing property concerning the five-bedroom increase in number of bedrooms and the opportunity to add additional residential units with respect to the previous speaker who i think was focused more on new development i’m focusing on leveraging existing infrastructure which sort of i believe in line with the London plan i would like to start by saying uh i feel that the city uh the staff have actually done a commendable job on trying to work within the constraints and um the near-campus neighborhood because it’s approximately in the sage and the population should require some special considerations so that said i’ve i found working with staff uh very easy to work with um very forthright and i’d like to pass on my my um commendation further approach to these things so in terms of the five-bedroom increase i think a significant improvement which i’d like to commend uh counsel and staff on again is uh as i understand it looking at say a triplex uh five bedrooms per unit total of 15 bedrooms in the house that they are going to look at 15 bedrooms in the house rather than five bedrooms per unit so in other words you could have six bedrooms in one unit uh less bedrooms in the other as long as you stay within the 15-bedroom limit i truly believe that for many landlords that will enable them to very easily add additional bedrooms at almost immediately in the near-campus neighborhood where they have a rental property that was constrained by the number of bedrooms earlier so i think that will actually help in addressing some of the shortage in housing as it pertains to students with the additional residential units um i also appreciate that the city is now opening that up to allow additional residential units to do flexes and triplexes where that makes sense to do so um the question that i do have as well as just passing on my compliments to everybody here is uh surrounding parking um i did notice in the planning report that there is some consideration to if a an attached garage is converted to uh an ARU that uh there’ll be allowances given to park on the i believe the existing driveway which could technically be in front of the house at that point um i think parking is something that needs to be considered um many of the near-campus neighborhood homes originally were serviced by laneways that have prime opportunity for ARUs and by virtue of the garages that are on those laneways which in turn will create a bit of a parking issue if those garages are currently used for parking so i i think there is a bit of a gap in addressing what parking considerations may need to be made if in fact these changes result in the densification that they are intended to do so uh it’s kind of an open question that i appreciate uh if there’s not consideration to actually implementing it in a by-law uh what the path forward would be to provide additional parking when it becomes necessary to do so after densification be it by virtue of allowing parking on a front yard which has been done throughout the majority of the near-campus neighborhood in the older homes it looks very tasteful it can be done properly um so i i’m just curious as to how the city would like people such as myself to approach that issue once again be at a variance or be it by some other means to try to achieve parking if if we’re able to successfully successfully densify thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am uh can you turn your mic oh it’s no no oh there we go thanks um we have your name um you have five minutes please go ahead i think there’s some confusion about near-campus neighborhoods i’m a little bit confused i did write a letter but i’m confused since then there’s a three-bedroom limit in near-campus neighborhoods and um there’s a history of why there’s a three-bedroom limit and if you were to build a brand new house on a brand on an empty lot then it would be a five-bedroom limit and so if you’re adding the three-bedroom limit uh it applies even if you’re adding an extension to the house and i’m here to say that it should also apply if you’re if you’re converting a garage or you want to put another small house at the back of the property and i understand why developers are um wanting to free up the bedroom but i live in a near-campus neighborhood and there’s good reasons that there are restrictions and that’s because these neighborhoods are very temporary there’s a lot of temporary housing and in my street in the summer i my house is the only one that’s occupied the rest of the houses are empty last year um i had to ask people to leave from my neighbor’s house there was a pop-up encampment there after asking to leave they broke in um and it was up to me to call the police because the landlord’s absent there’s nobody in the house um these are real problems and they’re directly related to the fact that um student housing is temporary housing and i don’t want more of the same these neighborhoods can be very difficult to live in and i think that it’s important to recognize why there was a three-bedroom cap in the first place there was no cap before so we know what that’s like so i recognize it um and you know people are having a hard time affording affordable housing is difficult for every person not just students but everybody and it’s the neighborhoods are best if they’re mixed so they have students but then you have families and then you have everyone in between that’s what makes a neighborhood vibrant and what makes it safe so what’s happening with developers is they’re taking that they’re taking that apart so i would appreciate if the status quo was upheld you can always go back later and look at it again but i feel like there’s a bit of confusion right now and there’s good reason to put a cap on it and it should apply both to you any additional units and if you want a free standing structure at the back of your property thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes uh tree spritain i live in soho and um not only is there a large housing encampment there aren’t my neighbors and friends are needing to move because properties are sold renovations and they they can’t even afford to have their own private apartment anymore they’re need to share with perfect strangers so i’ve been wanting to have a tiny house built in my property the restrictions are my property is unusual um the boulevards are like 15 feet deep it’s northwest property and all of my front yard is owned by the city so i i don’t think i can get permission to have a tiny house even though i have a side yard that would accommodate a tiny tiny house and it would still fit in alignment with my house and my neighbor so it wouldn’t be an eyesore and i have been a landlord most of my life i always charge affordable rent currently there’s a duplex there my tenant pays 775 a month um i wouldn’t charge much for the tiny house either because i think people need to be able to um afford the cost of living i also am concerned about food i see john Fleming is in the i planted and orchard on my property i happily happily share the produce i facilitated the planting of an orchard in our neighborhood again because i am concerned about the rising cost of living both in housing and food and i would like to be a part of the process that actually helps even though it’s such a tiny portion i would like a tiny house built on my property i would even i’ve been in conversation with Gabriel Gato he’s in the Quebec Ontario border he was originally a hemp farmer who went into the construction industry now builds natural hemp homes he would prefab a tiny hemp natural house for me to move on my property but again i don’t think i can get approval can you help me out thank you i’ll look for the next speaker mr zafen um please go ahead you have five minutes well thank you mr chair and thank you for hearing me out jared zafen ceo the London Home Builders Association i was hoping to be here for item 3.7 um our health care system got me out of there quickly but not quite quickly enough but i made it for this one uh so simply just wanted to share support for 3.7 and appreciate the support on that and all the staff’s work uh specifically on 3.8 as well very much appreciate the opportunity that we’ve had to interact with staff and provide feedback certainly the ability now to have additional dwelling units in our additional residential units in duplexes and triplexes is certainly an issue that was raised certainly a concern from our members and brought to the attention so appreciate that uh being cleared up and certainly as well uh now being able to have the five bedroom limit removed so that these additional dwelling units can actually be utilized to the best possibility across the city whereas previously with the five bedroom limit it extremely limited how much or how many additional dwelling units could be constructed across the city this should be quite a driving force we hope in adding density across the entire city uh something that we absolutely need in in all forms across the city so this is great to see and again just want to thank staff for their work on this i think we’re always trying to see where process improvements can be made and where things can be simplified and restrictions be removed in the hopes of adding housing across the city and making housing more affordable and more options for more people across the city so thank you very much and certainly encourage your support on this item today thank you look the next speaker mr wallace you have five minutes please go ahead thank you mr chair thank you Councillor for whom again i want to echo what Jared had to say this is a you know a politically difficult issue and i think staff handled it very well we would encourage you to support what staff will put in front of you in terms of removing the bedroom limit across the city and the changes that they’re recommending for the near campus neighborhoods the uh speaking not as it on infill issues which uh somewhat different but uh one of my uh members has already started the process of developing uh community neighborhoods with an additional unit already uh within the building with a full kitchen access to the outside that would happen to go through the front door anybody else’s door uh bathrooms so that we are providing more density more opportunities for home ownership and uh for people to be able to get into these properties and then have some rental income to go with it providing more housing all of that is good good news and i think you’ll see more of that uh come uh in new developments uh as we go forward it won’t be taken up by everyone but we think that has a real opportunity the one issue uh two two things i want to uh you to keep in mind is that you know this is uh a relatively large change um i think it would be appropriate that maybe in two years we come back again and have a revisit and see how it’s going and see what the uptake is particularly on infill and whether that additional uh residential and backyard is actually materializing as we are hoping it does and the other thing that uh i think we need to to recognize i know staff are not supportive but i think you’re going to have to look at driveway widths if you want our development community to be building additional uh units on these lots they’re not going to be downtown they’re likely not going to be around western they may be some around Fanshawe but they are going to be in in what you guys determine as the burbs uh to me it’s not the burbs coming from the gta but the uh um uh and the chances are that those who are renters in these additional uh dwellings will need a car they’re just going like no one’s kidding each other they’re going to need a vehicle we will need the driveway space for some way to park if you want an uptake on the number of 80 additional residential units that will be built purposely built in this community i’m not going to ask for anything today on it but it’s something that i think needs some for their discussion thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker mr. Fleming i’m glad to hear you’re recognized uh in the food industry thank you mr. chair i actually had no idea but please uh please go ahead you have five minutes thank you uh my name’s john Fleming and uh i’m with city planning solutions here in london and i have with me my client uh steep cop and and matt cop of uh back house backyard home mr. Fleming can you raise your mic just a bit we’re just having a little trouble picking you up how’s that is that okay yeah can you can use your way to raise the because you’re such a tall fellow is there a way that i can bring you back to your roadie days yeah it’s kind of stuck down here can you hear me now yep okay i’ll start again much better thank you great thank you uh my name is john Fleming and i’m with city planning solutions and uh my client is uh cops backyard home uh homes and i have uh here with me steve cop and matt cop and i believe that uh steve would like to say just a couple words um after i’m done uh i’d like to start out by thanking staff uh they have been as others have mentioned really great through this process is not easy um and we had a lot of dialogue and then there’s a lot of pushback from staff but i think appropriately so trying to uh strike a good balance between protecting residential amenity and actually allowing the opportunity for these uses to to happen um because they’re not going to happen in a big way uh in a meaningful way with the current zoning that’s in place i’d like to thank uh Heather and her team uh Justin Adema Nancy passado and uh Fred a new planner uh Brandon coveny who is really great to work with all of them were through this process um and i think it’s pretty impressive uh with the direction of council they got here in january which uh i think it was just october that you asked them to uh bring this fairly substantial amendment forward i know that council struggled with the idea of um affordable housing in the housing crisis in london and uh in order to address it they really need to think out of the box and council’s been doing that uh in lots of different ways uh but it’s not just about um those people that are in crisis those people with precarious housing situations and health issues it’s also about a lot of average londoners that just can’t afford to rent housing anymore and these kinds of additional residential units are part of the puzzle uh to address that issue that’s in our city um these types of uses where you’re actually taking a or building a new unit in a backyard um they take advantage of existing services these are the costly roads and sewers that you’re all dealing with through budget processes um existing communities are in place with parks and community centers um these tend to eliminate the cost of land or at least minimize the cost of land which helps them to be affordable uh they’re the lightest forms of intensification out there they help with affordability of home ownership so it’s a track to home ownership and helps the affordability of that as well to uh subsidize um that uh paying of of the mortgage through rental stream and they help to create affordable uh ground related rental units which is really key here and finally they also they they allow for families to stay together family units seniors for example that need support uh can be close to uh their families and we know that the provinces laid down regulations to require that cities allow for these uses but it really comes down to these kinds of amendments to make them happen uh the the changes being proposed we think are critical to make detached additional residential units possible in London um you can’t expect homeowners to go forward with these there’s a lot of risk it’s an uncertain new form of housing they’re not going to go forward if they have to go through a zoning amendment process or minor variance process uh cops backyard homes um it’s one thing to make a policy change or a regulatory change to the zoning but it’s another to have a private sector um the partner such as cops well trusted 145 years as a local business um they have the financial might to actually make a difference and take those regulations and make something happen here in London and they’re wanting to do that they’re looking at the possibility of expanding and existing manufacturing establishment in favor of uh or to allow for the prefabrication of these units they can deliver these two properties completed uh so uh with the windows in place the cabinets the drywall are set to go so this is a way to get a lot of these units on the ground when you build it that way you’re not uh having to deal with weather conditions um daylight and all the other issues that uh arise when you’re building um on site as opposed to in a factory um and as a private sector partner they have the marketing smarts and ability the promotional skills and the trust of the community to actually get these out out there um i’ll just follow up by saying we’re after a lot of dialogue uh supportive of the amendments is not exactly what we’re after but the amendments that are coming to you today by staff Scott and his team Heather and her team uh we think strike a good balance and uh we are in full support of all of the amendments that are before you today but now i’d like to through you mr chair if it’s okay just introduce mr cop for a couple words thank you mr plumbing sorry you think mr cop uh you have five minutes please go ahead i won’t take it you think john’s tall um so i i just would like to thank um the staff uh you know when we started working uh from the first meeting they understood what we were trying to do which was like lightly densify um neighborhoods with our backyard homes and they’ve been tremendous to work with and you know you’ve all i’ve always been scared of city hall and i actually commend them for for listening and helping us through the process and uh you know what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna build some of these houses we’re gonna make them affordable for the people and we appreciate all your help thank you thank you all right for the next speaker please ma’am i see you up there uh give us your name and you have five minutes my name is jessica halsil i’m a property owner in the city of london i am looking to add ADUs or ARUs to help with the housing shortage i’m having trouble creating units with the three meter rear yard setback i’m not here to push to try to change that i do understand it’s a concern that’s been brought forward but what i’m asking for is either an amendment to bylaw item 4.37.4 or an additional document for grandfathering in the location of an existing legal non-conforming dwelling or additional unit this is specifically for existing structures such as a detached garage that have been previously erected with permits and original setbacks now through the new updates they would require a minor variance to be considered for an ARU when it’s in an accessory structure as they would not conform to the three meter rear yard setback i know when we have province wide changes coming for incentives such as increasing housing that we like to compare to other municipalities the bylaw setbacks for hamilton ARUs are actually 1.2 meters on both the rear and the side yards our london rear yard setback is actually three meters but london has or sorry hamilton also has a grandfathering document for additional dwellings that are legal non-conforming and location in this case the city has a policy stating that if the existing building has been built prior to the passing of the new zoning bylaw and does not meet the requirements of that new bylaw it would require a minor variance in every single instance this can result in hardship and inconvenience for a property owner under their new policy in hamilton any proposed additions which do not further aggregate the existing legally established non-conforming yard setbacks shall be permitted and shall not require the application for minor variance provided that the existing yard setbacks are maintained in the zone i understand the consideration the city has given to the neighbors for privacy however our rear yard setback is significantly larger than most municipalities there are many existing structures across the city that may not that may also fall in this category it would be beneficial to allow these existing structures to be grandfathered in rather than submitting many minor variance applications there is one last consideration i don’t think that the city has actually thought about this or really made an exception if you do have an order requesting an ARU application but they do not have a rear yard neighbor in this case there will be no privacy issue i believe that there has not been consideration for this exception for the three-meter rear setback and i would like to see if there would be a possibility of having one when you do not have a rear neighbor thank you thank you i look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes my name’s uh there and jones i’m a member of the orchard park surewood forest community group and uh i’m part of our executive i’m here speaking on our behalf i’d like to first thank uh city staff for very constructive process there was a lot of back and forth uh we i think all sides got to understand where we stood and and we felt that uh the proposal that was put forward was was balanced and fair based on addressing the concerns of all parties involved the uh the other aspect of this i think that’s really important to understand is the fact that uh you know we’ve got a lot of other co-current actions going on right now we have a federal action plan coming forward addressing international students the university of western’s building additional residences so there are other areas that are taking some relief on the near campus neighborhoods as far as the the overall issue of addressing the the student intensification and housing challenges but you know today it was interesting hearing everybody’s point of view i think there was something you know there’s there was something that stood out to me and that was um there was a uh reference that uh the floor area of ratio was going to be broadly applied and and there’s no recommendation to apply that in a broader sense across other areas that that’s that wasn’t one of the recommendations made but ultimately we feel what was put forward is reasonable it’s fair and we support it thank you thank you i look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes sure good good afternoon members of peck through the chair my name is john mark metrae a um i’ve been involved with near campus issues for a while now both as a student and now as having a family living in a near campus neighborhood and i i do have to say something pretty rare and and good has happened here in that um we actually have some common ground i can see between near campus neighborhood long-term residents and some of the folks in the development community um so we were happy to see you know for the most part mr.

Fleming and others being okay with um keeping that modified five bedroom cap which was very important in your campus neighborhoods um so so i i support that and i think you know it’s um when there’s that kind of compromise reached between two groups that have often been at loggerheads uh that should be respected um there was a comment raised about how that graduated bedroom cap would only allow single bedroom units uh and i’m sure city staff can answer this better than i can but that’s not how i read it um it gives you one extra bedroom for the total cap but you can still divide that up uh you know three three three two bedroom units i think was an option for example so that’s um i don’t think that concern is valid i did i put a letter on the agenda just about um i think the setbacks are broadly okay but i put a letter on the agenda just raising a risk i see where the setbacks don’t vary by building height and so you’ve got some situations where a developer might come and say you know you’re going to give me a three meter setback for a two-story building or a three meter setback for a one-story building of course i’m going to build a two-story building um and i i think if you don’t either make the setback a little bigger for higher buildings or a little smaller for single-story buildings you might be creating some incentives there that um that that are going against the purpose of those setbacks you know a lot of neighbors might be more comfortable with a single-story ARU with a smaller setback than a monstrously high two-story ARU and as it’s written now in a lot of situations the setback will be the same for both of those um i don’t know that that needs to be changed now i think staff can monitor it and give appropriate variances where that creates an issue but um i just wanted to raise it uh overall though i think uh as others have said staff have been great on this um and i think they they’re owed a lot of credit for creating a uh a pretty good deal that works for both the development community and and neighborhoods thank you thank you i look for the next speaker uh it’s a clerk if there’s anyone online that would like to uh address us Heather Pierce and please uh go ahead we recognize you online you have please give us your name and you have five minutes Heather can you please unmute everyone my name is Heather Pierce i am a long-term resident of bruftdale as was my dear departed grand before me i am raising my children here and very fortunate feel very fortunate that we are in the school zone for old north public school which is consistently ranked in the top three elementary schools in london and glad to be near the tems river trails and five minutes away from hospitals and near the major transit corridor of richmond street connecting downtown and the north i am deeply concerned about the poverty issues and affordable housing options for all segments of the population and i hope is that these zoning changes that will allow additional dwelling units on properties will help more people find long-term affordable housing i do agree with the issues raised by the bruftdale community association in that intensification in near campus neighborhoods needs to be balanced with community needs for now and for the foreseeable future i support uh bedroom limits and floor area ratio measures as bruftdale is located beside university campuses there are many students that reside here and there are many student housing opportunities i enjoy having student neighbors as did my gram but it is difficult to maintain a livable community when most of the properties are short-term student rentals and vacant from may to august increasing the intensification of student purpose housing in this neighborhood actually limits affordable housing opportunities for families that want to live in this neighborhood for its location increasing student focused housing in this neighborhood will also compound the safety and security issues for students and long-term residences one quick example is the student parties that happen at certain times of the year and already so they’ll probably get more significant and already they’re entirely out of control for law enforcement and that affects city-wide emergency services paramedics and ambulances london is known to be a student city and is very accepting of students however i think it’s incumbent on post-secondary institutions to create more housing opportunities for students and new incentive for post-secondary institutions to do just that was announced yesterday by the federal government and that is going to allow applications for low-cost financing by the end of the year which will hopefully make housing more affordable for students and across the market as well so in conclusion many long-term residents in bruftdale are proud to live in this community and enjoy the neighborhood together so i think the value of this is worth special consideration and reasonable accommodations for now and in the near foreseeable future thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker and gentlemen uh on the gallery up there please give us your name you have five minutes hi my name is uh she and sacred with sacred realty um i’ll try to be quick here uh first off i just want to thank you all for the proposed amendment and i am in support of it um my only concern is uh table one near campus neighborhoods the graduated bedroom limit it’s to my understanding that you can add uh two units per i’ll call it garden suite in the backyard um so if you were to do so if you had for example five bedrooms in the main house and you wanted to add a garden suite in the backyard uh based on this graduated bedroom limit you could add one bedroom in the duplex essentially in the backyard for each unit so why not so essentially in the garden suite you’re allowing two bedrooms total so then why are you not allowing um our garden suite just have two bedrooms in one unit sort of my question to the staff based on the graduated limit if you can put yeah if you go again if you can put a duplex garden suite in the backyard and you can have one bedroom in each unit why can’t you just put a garden suite unit in the backyard with two bedrooms thank you thank you look for the next speaker last clerk if there’s anyone online mike Bartlett mr Bartlett yeah please go as your name and uh you have five minutes thank you through the chair you can hear me all right yes we can very good so my name’s mike Bartlett uh and i’m a member of the roughdale community associations executive committee um i’ve been changing my remarks quite markedly as i’ve been listening to other people talk because a lot of people have said things that i’d also intended to say um i’m very carefully surprised by the support from the development community about the document uh and echo comments from other community association people saying we haven’t always agreed with with the development community so this is good my primary reason for speaking now is to really underline support for the proposal to retain the five bedroom limit in london’s new campus neighborhoods for all kinds of housing um i recognize that richmond street is a busy arterial and think that we could densify richmond a little bit and that might save uh the pressure on some of the inner neighborhoods in roughdale i guess the second point i wanted to make is that there seems to be a vision that the area around uh not not universally held obviously that the area around western university should primarily be used to house students and i feel differently um my wife and i are professors emeritus at western uh we were very fortunate that my first boss said save money and save the environment don’t buy a second car get exercised by living close to the university and walking to work uh and we’ve done that for um since we moved to uh here in 1996 we’ve got the Thames River in our backyard and wonderful walking especially on the new loops that are facilitated by the pedestrian bridges at ross park in the north london athletic fields um we’re close to downtown uh i’m delighted by the number 90 express bus that gets me from the western gates to downtown london in about eight minutes and so um there is a community of of permanent residents in broftdale and and heather just said it wonderfully but we we really do enjoy living here it’s a it’s a very comfortable community it has pressure uh with uh student temporary housing but by and large um i can’t complain about students because they were paying my salary for 25 years so um anyway i’ll close there but just to say the community association really does think this is a good document and we’re grateful for being able to contribute and for the staff listening to our contributions and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak thank you i’ll look for the next speaker i’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online through their chair there’s no one online okay i’m looking in the gallery it appears everyone has said their piece ma’am i see you approaching the microphone please give us your name and uh you have five minutes okay um okay my name is mary bloch and um ma’am can you we’re not picking you up just uh how’s that there we go perfect my name is mary bloch and i’m another broftdale resident and i’ve lived there for over 20 years um and and like the previous speakers have said it’s a great place to live and it’s not just a student neighborhood um one of the things that i’ve seen in my time there is the neighborhood did start to deteriorate i mean parties noise garbage that stuff stops but when there’s changes to the infrastructure that’s permanent and we started seeing lots and lots of bedrooms being added we’ve already been there when you talk about adding bedrooms a three bedroom house and roughdale that get bedrooms added in the basement two or three two or three more in the attic the dining room became a bedroom there were people standing up here now saying why can’t i add more bedrooms they’ve already maxed out their bedrooms that’s why these houses some of these houses have seven eight nine ten bedrooms they have seven eight nine tens adult renters seven eight nine ten cars so the bedroom limits have had a positive impact it’s really important to keep them the one point i wanted to make in addition to that though was how i studio or a tiny house or a bachelor bachelorette kind of a unit would be counted because my concern is that’s someone’s going to build one of those and say it has zero bedrooms and you might say well common sense would tell you something differently but if money is to be made people will build it and i guarantee if it’s built and someone moves in you’re not going to come along and say demolish it it’s just going to it’s just going to happen and i don’t want to come down here and say oh see i told you so all you need to do is add and this is in the roughdale um community association uh letter that is in your packet um it’s kind of buried in there with all the other responses but all the staff has to do is add a sentence that says that these one room plus bathroom units will be deemed to count for the purposes of the bedroom count as one bedroom that’s all the um and i found a couple places i’ll bring it down and give it to the clerk later but um Kingston has added that to their zoning by-law um as has the city of Cambridge so i can give that to you i’ve already done the research staff can just take a look at this and add that sentence and if you if you still still think it’s not possible i’ll just remind you that uh according to Statistics Canada these kind of one room units count to zero bedrooms so i can almost guarantee someone’s going to rely on that but um i’ll just uh ask for that to happen and and i’ll also say you know i’ll just repeat what other people have said that the bedroom limits is something that there is a compromise there and um i hope you support it so thank you thank you there are any other speakers that would like to address committee one last check on line clerk through the chair there’s no one else online okay seeing no other speakers then i’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting councilor ramen seconded by councilor hillier and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you i’ll turn it over to i’ll put on the floor for the committee deputy mayor Lewis so i’m prepared to put the staff recommendation on the floor i do have some questions for staff but i think to help frame the discussion i’d like to get the staff recommendation on the floor okay thank you can i look for a seconder councilor ramen please go ahead deputy mayor thank you so uh through you chair to our staff i think the first uh question i have and and a very important one um because they do exist um the issue came up both about the legal non-conforming uh status so i’m wondering if we can get some staff comment on uh existing units that are simply legal non-conforming i’ll go to staff um through the chair so any existing building would have been built um prior to the regulations for additional residential units being in place so that wasn’t considered at the time in terms of potential for impact um so that’s not recognized in the draft by-law so in order to put an additional unit in an accessory building would have to meet the setbacks that are um established as part of this proposed amendment um and if they’re if the existing building didn’t meet those setbacks um there would be a requirement to go through a minor variance process deputy mayor thank you and uh next question um and we heard it referenced and certainly last week i had the opportunity to sit and uh chat with Susan Bentley from the bruftail community association uh as well um and and this actually came up today um the density allowances along Richmond in particular um the fact that the near campus neighborhood um areas have been mapped out for quite a long period of time uh and where students live has changed since those um mapping pieces have come into place um and i actually agree um that within near campus neighborhoods arterial roads still need to be looked at differently than uh those streets back in the neighborhood um the impact is much different uh when you’re uh tucked away back in a crescent or a cul-de-sac than it is if you’re on Richmond um and we want density along our arterials as any consideration been given uh to um and i recognize that this is probably a next step in this process and not something we’re dealing with today um but a city initiated um zoning review zoning housekeeping cleanup that might look at where some inconsistencies are uh on our housing goals with our near campus neighborhood map overlay uh and where existing services can handle capacity i’ll go staff um through the chair um i would just say that the near campus neighborhood policies encourage intensification along those corridors um so when the the policies were written there was concern about intensification um within neighborhoods and within areas planned for low density um residential uses and what was happening was that that wasn’t the form of development there was a much higher density being um built than what had been um planned for so the policies were set up in a way to encourage intensification along the corridors and when um they were adapted to the london plan um those policies again direct um development to follow the permissions or the heights and and the levels of intensity permitted in the plan um i would say we we have on our work plan already a review of zoning along the corridors um and that’s something we’re hoping to implement through the housing accelerator fund initiatives and sort of some unrelated but you know it’s all connected um type of supporting projects so that is underway and we’re hoping to bring that report back um later this year um we’ve not as part of this review looked at the near campus neighborhood boundaries um i think that that was a bit out of scope of what we were trying to do and again as part of trying to uh bring this amendment as quickly as possible we limited the scope to um just permissions for additional residential units um specifically in those detached buildings and then also what to do with the five bedroom limit happy to bear okay so that’s that’s helpful um and i i know he uh i’m pretty sure he won’t take offense to it but i know the the primary author whose name was on the london plan is with us in the gallery today and i know we’ve talked about uh both uh personally and and some in presentations past how uh some of those heights and densities need to be revisited because uh they certainly did not contemplate the reality of of the housing crisis today when the plan was written so i’m glad to hear that that is being reviewed and and i would say i’m i’m less i’m less concerned about the mapping of the near campus neighborhoods than i am at looking at the height and density allowed along those primary corridors so hearing that’s coming through our our zoning review citywide i know of my award uh dondas street east is being looked at in terms of of what heights would be allowable along that corridor so knowing that that work is taking place um you know i will echo i guess what we heard from mr wallis in the gallery hopefully this this is an ongoing process and and we will revisit and see how things are going in a couple of years time um i also uh through u chair i want to pick up on one other point mr wallis raised because at the same time as this matter came forward um the matter to review driver driveway widths was also um included uh in emotion uh at a previous committee meeting as i recall and it’s not in here but i agree with mr wallis that this is incredibly important where we’re looking at ad use uh out in uh the sewer and neighborhood place types um certainly it’s a big issue in my award um in fact i can tell you um with a nephew who thinks he should be able to plant an adu in my backyard um uh instead of uh living at home with mom and dad um that he’s gonna need a parking spot if he wants to pull that trick off so um i’m wondering if staff can provide any updates as to where uh that driveway review is in process because i i do see it as a significant barrier to homeowners in those neighborhood place types moving forward with these kind of uh solutions to our housing challenges that will go to staff uh through the chair we are uh undertaking that work currently there was a resolution as a recall that was outlining that so that would be something that we bring forward for comment through our customer service and process improvement group and then we bring back our report to council on it so it is on our work plan and we’re working through that right now deputy mayor so i just want to um follow up on that a response from mr mithers is what i’m hearing um that mr wallis needs to bring this up at the customer service improvement table and make it a priority there through the chair um we have an ongoing uh re-prioritization so we got three items that we’re working through right now so what i’m hearing from council is that something that’s also like a council priority so um i will bring that back to the committee and then we’ll raise that as part of the priorities moving forward deputy mayor great because i i think whether it’s a standalone adu or whether it’s a basement conversion uh whatever it may happen to be when we’re looking at those uh rental units uh whether it’s in a backyard or whether it’s in a basement or or an addition on the back of home um i i agree with the comment that the reality is these folks are going to need transportation um and they’re going to need a place to park that transportation so if if that’s a priority um to get back to us when you can i’m fine with that i don’t need any specific direction in the motion i know that there’s lots of things on your plate i’m not going to say i need it backed by you know three cycles or six cycles or whatever over this committee i’m just happy to know that you’re working on it and i’ll look forward to seeing that thank you all go next uh counselor counselor katie thank you chair and uh thank you for inviting me to to your committee meeting today and allowing me to speak um i’ll be supporting this motion uh when it comes to council and i’m going to be encouraging all of my uh colleagues to support as well we’ve heard a lot about western and about off-campus housing and um i have a similar issue at fancia which is in my work um we’ve had these problems since i became a counselor and i hear about it regularly as does uh deputy mayor louis we we share similar problems with respect to housing and accommodations so this is great i really appreciate all the work the staff’s done on this thank you so much and i look forward to this coming to fruition thank you thank you i’ll go to council frank thank you yes i just want to say i appreciate the work that staff did and how quickly they did it and how much community engagement they did on this as well and i appreciate the comments from those in the gallery i will say the parking lot stuff that the driveways is not a priority for me so maybe if you can balance uh deputy mayor louis’s priority in my not priority and come somewhere in the middle um take plenty of time on it plenty um but i appreciate the work that you’re doing and uh look forward to seeing this come to council thank you counselor uh counselor ramen thank you and through you and as someone that hears about driveway what’s pretty often uh yeah i want to see it come forward as well so thank you appreciate that comment though uh counselor frank um i want to say echo some of the comments that have been made very supportive of the direction that we’re moving in um i agree that it doesn’t address all the the the questions and and and processes that we have to look at in order to address it but i do think that we’ve had uh very good dialogue um especially with the near campus neighborhoods i can tell you that having part of a near campus neighborhood in my ward um yeah there’s definitely some concerns in the ample side area around uh the the bedroom limits as well so i think that this addresses some of those concerns and and allowing too many bedrooms so again thank you to staff for their work on this thank you any other comments uh counselor trassel thank you very much i’m really happy to be here for this meeting i think it was a very productive meeting this was a very productive process um i just want to join everybody who thanked the staff because i think you really did listen to um what all the stakeholders were saying there are a few questions there are a few technical questions here on on the table and i’m wondering if if i may if i may ask um in in terms of um how you count the number of bedrooms because we’re we’re moving away from the strict five bedroom limit towards um a graduated model and i think the question of how these are counted um could be better um i’m not offering them i’m not going to offer an amendment while i can’t but um i think uh the definitions could be a little tighter in terms of what constitutes a bedroom and i would suggest that um and any room that meets the definition of of of a bedroom um in terms of it being big enough would count as a bedroom regardless of how it’s being um characterized because i don’t want to see situations where um something is called a den or a sewing room or or or or the like when in fact the intention is it for it is for it to be a second bedroom and similarly the borderline between zero and one i think needs to be um needs needs to be clarified um a a bit um i am very excited about what mr cops said about the products that he’s going to be um offering and i think that’s going to create um that that’s going to create some real opportunities for people to be able to uh and engage in taking taking advantage of this um new new bible but i think i think these questions about counting counting bedrooms um needs to be needs to be refined a little bit um i i am going to be a council i’m going to be supporting what i think is very reasonable compromise and i’m just again just in closing i’m very happy to see um that there was so much engagement and that there was so much uh willing to listen to other people and and move we’re we’re in a different era now and i’m very very positive moving forward so with with with this small caveat that i think we need to um you know address some of these technical bedroom issues i don’t know if staff wants to address that now or or later but i’m i’m very excited about this and i’ll be supporting it at council thank you so i’m not too sure if there’s a question there i’m gonna go to council what is the definition of a bedroom has that been explicitly put forward down through the chair so bedroom is not specifically defined in the zoning by-law um and we don’t have our our zoning department here who’s responsible for that um interpretation but my understanding is that they do interpret it as suggested if it meets all the criteria of a bedroom it would be considered as a bedroom as well for the purpose of um say a a detached traditional unit um that’s more of a loft style or a bachelor style that sleeping area would also count towards the bedroom limit counselor does that kind of satisfy your career okay okay good any other uh comments or questions from uh many are visiting counselors if the committee would permit me i i’d like to uh just ask a little bit more along those the the bedroom um vene uh there was a bit of confusion i think up in the questions i heard from the gallery a bit how many bedrooms especially when we come into additional dwelling units etc can you clarify uh in near campus neighborhoods um the number of bedrooms permitted in an additional dwelling unit uh thank you and through the chair so within near campus neighborhoods there is no bedroom limit associated with an ARU um the bedroom limit is specifically for the property itself so um given the example of a single family home um there is no change proposed it’s five bedrooms currently it will be uh five bedrooms as proposed um if that single family home is three bedrooms and there’s an ARU added to the property there’s the option to take the remainder of the five bedrooms and put those into the ARU um but yeah they’re strictly speaking there is no bedroom limit on an ARU okay thank you um but my comments are this i do i want to thank um uh the public for weighing in um both those in the building industry and and those from um people that live in and around um near campuses etc i was really impressed with the um good uh suggestions that that came forth that i know that our playing department um are always listening and considering um those uh creative ideas uh that come forth that uh uh are much needed um as we uh are in this era of uh of hard um constraints on unhousing and informal housing and supply uh etc thank you again for the staff for working with the community um both the developers and uh building community and and and neighborhoods uh in coming up with from what i’m hearing is as reasonable um variations to to what we’ve done in the past i’m encouraged uh by the senior levels of government and promoting on-campus development because i agree with some of the comments that um nothing against student behavior i was one and i lived in near campus uh on Richmond street um but i do believe that um because of the temporary uh dwelling needs of students um if they can be accommodated more on campus it frees up more permanent housing for those that are living and working in London uh so thank you to the community for that um so yeah obviously i’m very supportive of uh staff’s recommendations oh and um on that driveway thing um yeah i echo um comments of the deputy mayor i know i’ve i’ve toured uh um purpose built housing uh with uh you know um better units in the basement i think that’s a great opportunity to actually defer to home if you can uh rent out the bottom part of your basement but in some areas they’re constrained by uh small driveways that defeat the purpose of uh of having additional uh person in your house uh so i look forward to uh to what comes back on on that issue from uh from our planning folks uh there’s no other uh comments or questions we have a motion moved and seconded and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you and we come to the final uh items uh three point nine and this is regarding 13 10 Adelaide street north and some 95 Windomier road i’ll look for a motion to open the ppm council ramen seconded by deputy mayor lewis i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you any technical questions for staff at this time from committee members okay i’ll look uh see if the applicant would like to address the committee thank you sir uh please give us your name and you have five minutes thank you my name is neck die jack i’m a planner with strict balling monaz or spm limited um here representing the the owner sir could you just raise your microphone a bit just tilt it up to there we go thank you so all right i apologize and i’m also dealing with a little bit of a cold so okay right me here um my name is neck die jack with spm i’m representing the uh the owner as the author is agent on the application for the zoning usually i like to keep my time brief here but i believe this application deserves a little bit of uh context and and the staff report is absolutely lengthy so i appreciate everyone who’s gone through and read it um the owner has also submitted a memo with regard to this application uh providing additional context and and basically what i would like to address are two items um essentially the intensity of use and uh the flood proofing on site um just to go back a little bit this application definitely would have met the 90 day uh review timeline it goes back to 2016 with an application with a former uh developer and user was looking to develop the lands so and at that time there was an understanding that uh an application would be entertained for replacement structures in the floodplain um to replace an existing uh single family home and uh the former good life fitness building so at in 2020 when the the current owner had a approach to city and then developer and acquired the lands there wasn’t understanding that uh potential commercial development could be entertained up to 925 meters square um and there wasn’t understanding that additional parking could be accommodated on the site up to 77 parking spaces as long as the site could be flood proofed so in 2020 that is where we started the the first point of uh of uh moving forward was flood proofing the site showing how a potential development could be accommodated within um the floodplain matrix solutions was retained uh and there were several iterations of flood proofing uh dealing with the conservation authority and city staff to come to a solution that was acceptable to all um I believe there was up to eight different modeling exercises uh submitted to this conservation story 2020 2021 2022 and finally 2023 so it’s been ongoing uh different iterations different site plan layers different modeling techniques and and what you have for you is something that has been heavily engineered and heavily uh thought out and has been um accepted in terms of flood proofing uh by all parties and what we have is essentially a site that is flood proof uh the development area would be high and dry in the regulatory event of 100 uh one and two hundred fifty year uh flood event it’s it’s done by increasing the land to be high and dry uh creating two diversion channels that would divert waters around the development site while all maintaining very little or no impact to the surrounding uses um the other thing is maintaining uh emergency access available to the site through which would be accommodated which is a uh higher elevation of winter so once flood proofing has been accommodated which we believe it has and and we have the reports to kind of document that um it was creating a layout and a and a use that would be appropriate for the site so under us understanding that 975 meter square would be an appropriate commercial use um several layouts had been provided to staff that showed a drive-through and in a commercial building with multiple uh smaller retail units um and there was a list of uses that were provided to the city staff in 2020 this this application has been ongoing um we’ve been uh discussing there’s been a lot of dialogue on what the the use in the site could be there was even options provided to staff to show to explain what this site could be and what the preferred route would would be for an an ultimate application that was finally submitted we got the response from staff that a drive-through and the retail unit commercial would be the preferred route for the application um and we had and made the application 23 23 so where we are today um is an issue that we have in the staff report that we don’t agree with in terms of intensity of use and what is appropriate for the site area as I mentioned there was an agreement that potentially up to 77 parking spaces could be used for the site we are now at I believe 36 with an additional 12 temporary stacking lane uh parking spaces so a total of 48 parking spaces on site um which is temporary so I think the staff are recommending their maximum 33 parking spaces in their um recommended uh by a while we’re at 36 with 12 uh stacked uh parking lane so it’s we’re not far off in terms of 30 seconds the other items in terms of intensity of use um they they use hours of operation as well as uh the number of units uh which would be increasing intensity of the of the site we we don’t um object to reducing the number of units commercial units if that is a required to do so as well as uh incorporating hours of operation which can be done through zone bylaw so I’ll leave that and uh open to any questions thank you thank you I’ll look for any other speakers um to this uh item hello you have uh five this please uh give us your name and go ahead um my name is Stephanie Pratt I’m the planning coordinator at the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority we’ve been working with a few different applicants over the years uh first it was a different owner and then um Farhad brought the property as Nick mentioned so I’ll try not to repeat too much of what Nick has provided here as a summary um but at the end of the day the conservation authorities goal is to ensure that we protect people and property from uh hazards such as flooding this property in particular has been known to flood on numerous occasions um with examples from the waltzing weasel and existing commercial development in that area um staff since 2015 have been working on this application and have been of the opinion that there is potential to replace a commercial building on this property um meeting about 10 different tests of our policy manual we have made good progress as Nick had mentioned there’s been a lot of effort undertaken through modeling and different engineering um designs to try and get this to a point where everyone can be in a grant to move forward and at the end of the day the conservation authority needs to issue a permit under the conservation authorities act for this development um so I’ll just run through some of those tests briefly um they are detailed in our letter which has been submitted alongside the staff report that Nancy has prepared um first and foremost as Nick mentioned there’s flood proofing which um the engineering has done to the extent feasible uh the footprint size has been slightly reduced from that that was existing on the site before the flood risk has been achieved to the extent feasible as well with the exception of access along Adelaide and Windermere um there’s also been studies that have undertaken such as stormwater management and the modeling which has shown that there is decreased risk by um doing the channel that goes along the property at the end of the day we still also need our hearing to move forward um which will have to occur before our board of directors or a subset of our board of directors in terms of the intensification of use there was one residential unit as well as um one business that were on this property before we have seen a reduction or sorry an increase in the number of units that are proposed on this property as well as an increase in the number of parking spaces and the type of the use that’s being proposed we have submitted a list of uses that would be in alignment with the parking requirements that were in place before and something that the conservation authority would be in support of to move forward um so we’re looking to keep working with the land owner to make sure that the uses are something that um our staff would be able to issue a permanent on and aside from that we’re happy we’re happy to keep working with everyone through this process but our recommendation would be to modify the proposal and remove the drive-through at this time thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker on this item before us uh so clerk if there’s anyone online Dan Windsor please sir uh give us your name and you have five minutes thank you my name is Dan Windsor and i’m the owner of tin cup mini-pot and driving range we’re on the north side of wind mirror at Adelaide and um i have the most to gain aside from the developer if this were to be approved i probably will get increased traffic uh better visibility spin-off sales giving me more revenue looking ahead uh an approved change on this um zoning for the floodplain area may open the doors to allow applications by me or future owners to further develop my property um as the applicant proposes i could change the elevation on my property on a small portion of it and dig of basically a motor around it to move the water around but um as community business uh celebrating its fiftieth year here we have to look at the impact on the wider community local community and serves and supports us now um one of the previous speakers was talking about drainage now if you recall the february 2018 flood of the area both the waltzing weasel and ourselves incurred substantial damage the floodwater took quite a while to recede as a lion’s share of the water had to cross our property and squeeze through a 20-foot opening under Adelaide street any grade change or additional paved areas on the proposed development site would exacerbate the flooding and consequential damage on uh proposed on the proposed property and our budding property now the previous speaker has said that the um that their property would be protected i’m sure would but nobody’s spoken to us uh at all about where this water would be going now any increase now right now parking on that area is tar is um is stone and gravel which would absorb the water and they’re proposing uh doing a paved area and um uh now in addition to that the um uh the uh water has to go somewhere so my concern there is that it is going to be going into everywhere but their property now traffic we see this area used extensively by London residents walk groups walking biking down to the green space down along the walking trails at the Thames and even elementary schools coming coming to use our facilities as well even without the fast food restaurant and strip malls i often hear NC cars racing down at the end of wind and near towards the river so this further this further intensification of the area would be a danger to pedestrians three the increased accident uh accident potential the proposed entrance off the east side of Adelaide Street would cause collision hazard without a dedicated right turn lane the turning lane from Adelaide north and south to wind and near was never properly laid out to allow you to see on coming traffic i know this because i use it on a daily basis um we see the resulting accidents um again access to the proposed business would increase the accidents along this area is my feeling trash proposal of a fast food stock fast food style business always generates a disproportionate amount of of refuse from their single serving meals with the proximity to the nature pass city residents can expect discarded trash to migrate along minima road the pass along the river and consequently and at fast food venues have decided to reduce or eliminate refuse containers on the outside of their facilities and we’ve seen that all over um this more than often than not creates discarded trash and lots in close proximity to the drive through portion of the restaurant business this is unsightly and attracts rodents um lastly increased noise all restaurant drives throughs create excessive noise with increased in traffic and often blaring ordering systems i think this would be a bad choice so close to green space and a golf facility even at our facility i’ve been transitioning to electric service vehicles where possible to reduce noise and pollution now i guess weighing out all those factors and um and even though this may reduce potential revenues for tin cup i think that uh the zoning change should be denied thank you very much thank you any other speakers that would like to address committee hi ma’am please uh state your name again and uh you have five minutes yeah my name is mary blash again um and i had no intention of speaking on this matter but i know that area really well and i i’m just appalled i mean i’m just shocked shocked that you would even consider putting a fast food joint there that area is underwater every spring and after listening to the last speaker i just had to stand up and say please listen to what he’s saying it’s a completely inappropriate and one thing he didn’t mention that’s there is the catty shack uh which is part of the um cities animal adoption area as well as the dog park and i can tell you that the traffic is is it’s very difficult to go to that dog park and try to turn in at at certain times of the day because of the traffic it’s really hard but it’s it’s it’s not even just that it’s the green space why are we messing with where water is going i mean anytime people try to do that there’s unintended consequences and it may take years but just look at New Orleans they are building those levees over and over again and the river keeps knocking them down and this is an area not with a little trickle of water but there is a lot of water there it is completely inappropriate to to be putting that kind of a structure there so please listen to the last speaker please reconsider this thank you thank you any other speakers that would like to address the committee ask a clerk if there’s anyone else online through the chair there’s no one else online thank you uh seeing that that’s it uh i’ll look for uh i’ll call the vote i’m sorry i’ll look for a motion to uh close to ppm losing you thank you uh council robin and deputy mayor Lewis for seconding and now i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you uh now put the item on the floor for committee deputy mayor Lewis thank you mr chair i had circulated through the clerk an alternate motion the committee uh that would approve uh the application um that is in your e-scribe um so uh i will look to see if there’s a seconder for that and then uh speak to the reason why okay i’ll look for a seconder for deputy mayor’s motion i’ll second that motion and uh i’ll go to you deputy mayor uh so thank you mr chair i mean i think to start it’s important to recognize this area is already zoned for commercial use and this application has been in process eight years through two different owners we’ve heard from the upper tems that the flood water engineering has been dealt with they’re still going to need to go through a section 28 permit um that is a process that comes after we make a decision on the zoning uh not before and excuse me i will say i disagree though um uh and and the reason i’m prepared to move this is i disagree with both uh our staff and the upper tem staff and i don’t mean any disrespect to this but i do not see a drive-through use as more intense uh than parking spaces particularly when we have an overall parking reduction uh from the original plan um we have the same number of square foot square footage of use on the site um and i to me it’s a difference of opinion on on the intensification piece i don’t think that this is inappropriate here uh we have heard the applicants representative indicate they’re prepared to reduce the number of units uh if that’s uh what’s required uh that’s something that they can continue to talk through uh with site plan approval and and may have to consider in their section 28 application as well um but to me the drive-through alone uh is not a reason to deny this application and and when you look through the original staff recommendation it is really uh as was mentioned it’s the intensity and the interpretation that the drive-through is more intense than parking um i think it’s also important to point out that through the site plan and we can’t get this in a you know in a bonusing agreement or anything like that anymore because again bonusing tools have been taken away uh but the applicant has committed uh to provide uh walkways uh and connections to the tvP uh for pedestrian access there’s been a commitment to uh actually improve our municipally owned city parking spaces and when i say parking spaces i mean actually return some of them to uh green space rather than uh be parking spaces um and uh provide a field field house uh for the city sports activities adjacent as part of the site review plan process so there are community benefits here the water engineering has been addressed commercial use is allowed here the only sticking point in this application we’ve heard it twice uh is the drive-through and i don’t think after eight years uh rejecting an application uh because a drive-through is being deemed more intense than parking spaces uh is really a good reason uh to reject it and and you know i suspect if that’s the direction we choose to go at this point uh then we’ll see ourselves at the OLT um but i think if we move forward with this today there is still the section 28 uh process to go through with upper temps that may result in some additional changes uh that will be for the applicant to work through with upper temps so that’s why i put this forward and i hope committee will support it thank you i look for the next uh speaker committee i’ll ask a counselor uh ramen to uh take the chair so i can speak to this thank you i have the chair go ahead thank you this is a challenging uh for me is a challenging decision mostly because it’s on floodplain uh however do i i do know the existing structures have been there forever and maybe if they were green space that be another another issue but they’re not um as deputy mayor said um this still has to go get go through upper temps and and they’re the experts in in flood mitigation so um to hold this up because of a drive-through or other issues uh i feel more confident uh in proceeding uh and see where this lands with with upper temps and uh and if they can work with the developer to uh to get their blessing uh so that is why i will be supporting that thank you i’ll return the chair to you counsel frank and then myself on the speaker’s lesson thank you i’ll go to counsel frank thank you very much um i just want to say thank you to the applicant and the consultant as well um for the work they’ve done i know eight years is a very long time and i know that they’ve made every effort to try and work within the process um i won’t be supporting the deputy mayor’s um suggestion i think that it will flood even though it’s been flood proof to 250 years i think with climate change we’re only going to see more and more extreme weather events and i think that that is a um that’s just a reality uh and so i won’t be supporting this um i appreciate again everything that they’ve done and that the fieldhouse and the work in trying to um add more green space but i think it’s just a matter of when this floods not if uh and i just don’t think it’s a suitable location for any development i know that there used to be commercial there i think there used to be a lot of things across the city that we used to do and we don’t do now um so despite that that legally being you’re legally allowed to still build within the the square foot square footage um i don’t think it’s a logical thing to do but if this does go forward i will encourage other counselors um if uh it goes to upper temps for section 28 um to not be upset then perhaps with any conclusions that they arrive at or any um additional time that that has because um i think essentially then we’re just kicking this down to to upper temps to to deal with so um i will be supporting the deputy mayor’s uh amendment but appreciate the effort thank you i’ll look for any other speakers council roman thank you and through you um so first again thank you to the applicant uh and uh i appreciate the amount of time it’s taken to have uh this discussion back and forth uh with city staff and and with the upper temps and thank you to both staff and upper temps for your work on this as well um i did have a question though uh in the deputy mayor’s um motion you’re referring or in your comment sorry uh he was referring to the um intensification being only specific to the drive-through and i’m just wondering if staff can comment on that i know i sent an email earlier asking about just if the intensification has just to do with the drive-through or is it the fact that it’s more intense because there’s other buildings as well oh good staff now through you mr chair um the intensification issue is actually um because of the multiple uses that are also being um possibly developed on the site so it’s what was previously a commercial use plus the residential building is now uh potentially four to five different commercial uses on the site as well as how the drive-through when it comes to the intensification consideration um upper temps has its own set of criteria um and and when we were reviewing this obviously um it’s not an apples to apples sort of thing unfortunately but um in this particular case adding the restaurant plus the drive-through plus the multiple buildings on the site um ultimately we determined that it was too intense for the site yeah i’m sorry thank you and through you so uh i will be supporting the staff recommendation on this um i do think at this point what we’re hearing is that staff have weighed in on on that intensification and it’s not just specific to the fact that all of a sudden the mcdonald’s was entering into the conversation and a drive-through i think that what we’re hearing is that based on the modeling and based on what what we’re seeing with the intended use that that there could be some there needs to be more consideration given to how the the site is being used so uh i will be supporting what staff have put forward and i know that it extends the process or or puts it back with the process back into play with the applicant and and what they can use the the property for but i do think there’s opportunity for more discussion and to come back with something in the future so i will not be supporting uh the amendment and i will support the staff recommendation if it’s put on the floor thank you any other comments or questions before uh council trust out thank you again i just want to briefly state that at council i will be supporting the staff report and i will not be supporting this this amendment in in particular i’d like to point out to the reference to the provincial policy statement uh 2020 which permits development and site alteration uh quote in those portions of hazardous lands where the effects and risk the public safety are minor i don’t think given what we know given what we’ve observed that these are minor and i think that that is something that i’m very happy to take to an appellate body because i think it’s a very very reasonable position to take so i think you know yes of course i want to see i want to see what the what the agency does on their on their on their application but i think the staff report here gives us um really good grounds to sort of step back and say no to this so i i will be supporting the staff report again at council and i i i really want to thank the operator of of the golf course because i think that’s the type of um civic civic civic civic engagement that that we really need more of in this town and i just i am so i’m so impressed with with what he said in light of the fact that from a pure commercialization point of view this could help his business but he’s really looking at this from a community point of view and i i just appreciate that so much so thank you thank you i’ll go to councilor hopkins thank you mr chair for recognizing me i wasn’t going to make a comment here but i could see where this may be going uh i would encourage the committee to support the staff’s recommendation and the reason i am asking that you support the staff recommendation is i do appreciate the work that the developer has done throughout the past eight years there’s a lot of work to be done on this property i know it well all my three kids have played soccer right next to this property and i know how it floods and the challenges uh that are in this area i do have the question uh through mr chair regarding the section 28 we did hear from upper tems on section 28 and i would like to have a better understanding if the amendment is supported and we know the challenges of building this development what is the process going forward is there an opportunity even for the developer to go ahead to the olt i’m just wanting to understand what we’re doing here with this amendment and how it’s going to look like going forward i’ll go to staff on that question through you mr chair in terms of the upper tems process i’m not sure what the recourses if let’s say a section 28 permit is not granted i would have to defer to my um friends at the upper tems um but i i think there is an appeal mechanism but i’m not 100 percent on what what that embodies if it’s that if that’s at the olt or whether it’s through their board of directors which is essentially who would also issue uh those types of considerations so um unfortunately i can’t answer that counselor i’ve got some homework then to do before this goes back comes to council the other question i had uh the applicant is able to um this has not come to uh committee at all i just want to know a bit of the background on the on the history of this so there has not been an application approved they see some nose to that question uh through you mr chair i’ll start with staff uh on that maybe go to the applicant if uh on the history uh through you mr chair from from what my research during this application there was no previous application uh for this site it is in the greens play uh sorry it was previously in the open space designation through the 1989 plan and at some point i believe maybe through the 1992 zoning biolab potentially we added uh or it was added for just the commercial recreation use through an open space uh special provision zone so that’s um i’m not sure at what point that was added but it i believe it was somewhere around the 92 um zoning biolab when it was adopted does that satisfy your inquiry counselor it does and i would like to encourage the committee uh not to support the amendment and to uh really encourage the developer to continue working uh with the authority and with with with city staff we all want something to be built there and there are opportunities for uh development but um i have great concerns when we build on a wet land so with that thank you for allowing me to make those comments thank you know i’ll go to mr mccnilly thank you through the chair uh a pretend representatives could are here that they would be happy to answer the question that counselor hop consider requested the counselor would satisfy with the answers that you received from staff so i will leave it at that i asked her for that opportunity and she was she was okay thanks any other uh counselor promo i would just like to make a comment as uh this era is in my ward and uh first of all i do want to thank again and i received the email from mr. Windsor who owns the ting cap as well and no doubt that he had some very valid points having said that uh all the work that honesty has been done which was already said by our staff by the applicant by the developer um and maybe correct me if i’m wrong but i really was hoping that this would in terms of the motion that it would the motion by that appear in merit that it would move forward because i believe that uh and please correct me if i’m wrong section 28 will give the opportunity actually to work together with the applicant without slowing it down and coming to a conclusion in terms of the number of the units in terms of the uh as far as i know the i think the meters of the space the gfa is the same nine seventy nine hundred and seventy six so please correct me if i’m wrong because i didn’t want it again to go and start from the scratch and back but let’s move forward and one of the counselors said let’s not uh this decision wouldn’t be to put the pressure on um or to have the upper times to do the decision instead of us no i wasn’t looking at that whatsoever and i would actually very much respect their views but if he can let me know in terms of the section 28 if this would be the opportunity to get uh to move forward make adjustments without starting from at point zero again thank you any other uh comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors okay we have we have a motion um that’s been uh moved and seconded and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries three to two thank you that uh concludes the items uh there are no items for direction uh we’re at five five point one for matters list i’ll look for a motion to receive that deputy mareluis i guess seconder on that please council roman they need discussion councilors deputy sorry deputy mareluis uh thank you chair just for you and just want to draw attention that item seven uh after this report um given that it was adopted by committee today if approved by council we’ll be able to be removed from the deferred items list oh and go to staff item seven on the ARU’s um the report on that was today so i just i’m confirming that uh should council approve the decision of committee today that will get removed go to staff thank you for the question uh i believe that would be for the clerk to respond i’ll ask the clerk through the chair that will be removed for the next cycle thank you uh councilor roman thank you and through you just a question because that does also contain information about the driveway with policy i’m just wondering if we remove it if it has any implications because we still haven’t finished that part of seven uh staff does that have any implications on that uh policy through the chair we would uh would prefer to keep it in um we could certainly separate out the driveway with but um it’s still ongoing uh we’d certainly want to address that uh matter that was raised okay um i’ll go to deputy mare yeah i appreciate the comments on that i think then it would be best to keep it in because the the driveway with’s review was specific to additional dwelling units as well or additional residential units whatever term we’re using uh this week it seems like we flip flop but um since it is tied to the additional residential units i i think we’d be best to leave that in then for the next few cycles until that driveway piece comes back okay so i’m gonna ask the clerk um do we need to make a specific motion to to keep that uh on deferred matters um through the chair no i will not remove that from the deferred list okay thank you uh so i’ll look uh we’ve got a motion moved and seconded if there’s any any other further comments uh on that if not i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you vote for motion for a German council ronin per seconder i’ll second the motion uh hand vote all in favor of return thank you thanks everyone thank you for that thank you very much oh did i really i’m sorry i’m sorry just no because