February 21, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.4   Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street

2024-02-21 - Staff Report (2.4) - 39 Carfrae Street - Heritage Easement Agreement_Redacted

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the proposed updated Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” for the Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the proposed updated Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 for the Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to address outstanding concerns with the remainder of the Heritage Easement Agreement and bring back an update by the end of June 2024;

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

  •    a request for delegation status from J. Gard; and,

  •    a communication dated February 14, 2024 from J. Gard;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from J. Gard with respect to 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 (4 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That J. Gard BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the property located at 39 Carfrae Street.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road (OZ-9450/39T-21507) 

2024-02-21 - Staff Report (3.1) - 1160 Wharncliffe Road South (AC) - OZ-9450

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2793774 Ontario Inc. and Goldfield 1 Ltd., relating to the property located at 1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by revising Map 1 – Place Types to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024 to AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, forming part of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by revising Schedule 4 and Schedule 10 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Medium Density Residential designation and an Open Space and Environmental Review designations;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR6), an Environmental Review (ER) and a Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI2/LI7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (hh-161R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 (hh100h161R4-4(2)), a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100h161R6-5(_)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-2h-100h161*R6-5(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road; and,

e)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by 2793774 Ontario Inc. and Goldfield 1 Ltd. (File No. 39T-21507), prepared by MHBC (Project No. 17334”j”), dated November 10, 2021;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhood Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable The London Plan policies; 

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents; and,

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

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 (4 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   475 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9687) 

2024-02-21 - Staff Report (3.2) - 475 Wharncliffe Road South - Z-9687

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Michael Clark Construction (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 475 Wharncliffe Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 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 Restrictive Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC4) Zone TO a Restrictive Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2/RSC4(_)) Zone;

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

  •    J. Robertson, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building with a range of potential uses that is appropriate for the context of the site;

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 (4 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   1494 Commissioners Road West (Z-9689) 

2024-02-21 PEC FINAL Z-9689 - 1494 Commissioners Road West_Redacted

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, based on the application by David Moubarak (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1494 Commissioners Road West, the request 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 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    this application does not comply with the Environmental Management Guidelines;

 

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    S. Mirsattari;

  •    R. Rybansky;

  •    V. Hopkins;

  •    M. Parezanovic;

  •    B. McDowell;

  •    M. Harnadek;

  •    J. Goldhawk;

  •    Victoria;

  •    Ghasaq;

  •    F. Fernandez;

  •    Emma;

  •    S. Comiskey; and,

  •    T. Heath;

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

  •    this application does not comply with the Environmental Management Guidelines; and,

  •    the requested Special Provision does not provide sufficient space within the interior side yard to accommodate adequate screening, protection from boundary trees and privacy to the abutting properties;

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 1)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   1467 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-9680) 

2024-02-21 - Staff Report (3.4) - 1467 Wharncliffe Road South - OZ-9680

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Nabataeans Homes, relating to the property located at 1467 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to held on March 5, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), for the City of London by CHANGING the designation of the subject lands FROM Commercial TO Medium Density Residential on Schedule 4 Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and Schedule 10 Central Longwoods Neighbourhood Land Use Designations;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-149*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Shopping Area Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Central Longwoods Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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 (4 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   Gloucester Deferred Trail Segment – Medway Valley Heritage Forest (South) Conservation Master Plan

2024-02-21 - Staff Report (3.5) - Gloucester Deferred Trail Segment - Medway Valley Heritage Forest - FULL_Redacted

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

hat, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Gloucester Deferred Trail Segment of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest (South) Conservation Master Plan:

a)    the portion of the pathway and trail system from Gloucester Road (Access 12) to its connection with the pathway in the valley shown on “Appendix A” of the Medway Valley Heritage Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan BE APPROVED as a Level 2 Trail;

b)    Parks and Forestry BE DIRECTED to consult on the need to establish public access through the City owned Green Acres Drive unopened highway road allowance through to Ambleside Park and report back to the appropriate Standing Committee; and,

c)    the Medway Valley Conservation Master Plan Gloucester Deferred Trail segment item BE REMOVED from the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters list;

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

  •    a communication dated February 15, 2024, from J. Madden; and,

  •    a communication from J. Menard;

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

  •    G. Sinker;

  •    S. Pacifico;

  •    A. Vanstone; and,

  •    J. Madden;

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 (4 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-02-14 CACP Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on February 14, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) Deferred Matters List

2024-02-20 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated February 20, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

6.   Confidential

6.1   (ADDED) Solicitor-Client Privilege and Position, Plan, Procedure Criteria or Instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and, a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board in connection with the property located at 39 Carfrae Street.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session from 3:56 PM to 4:36 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:48 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, 16 minutes)

good afternoon everyone. I’m going to call the fourth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. I want to begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwa, and Adawanderan peoples. And we honor and respect the history, languages, and culture over the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, and as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489 extension 2425. I want to acknowledge Councillor Layman, who is the chair of the committee, is not in the City today.

He indicated he will be joining us virtually. He has not joined us virtually yet, however. So as Vice Chair of the Committee, I will be chairing today. I also want to recognize that in addition to the Councillors who are here in chambers with us, we have Councillor Hillier joining us online and Councillor Cuddy joining us online.

So welcome everyone. And we will begin with item 1, the disclosures of culinary interest and looking to see if anyone has any disclosures to make. Seeing none, I’m going to move on to the consent agenda. I do know that the Mayor has asked to speak to item 2.3, but he doesn’t need that pulled to vote on separately.

I’m not sure if colleagues have any items that they wish to have dealt with separately, but I’ll look to see if anyone wishes to pull anything at this time. I’m going to acknowledge Councillor Stevenson as a visiting Councillor. Thank you. I’m not on this committee and I’m unable to pull it, but I would appreciate 2.4 being pulled if one of the members was willing to do that.

And I’ll look to committee to see if anyone wishes to pull 2.4. Councillor Hillier has his thumbs up on the screen. Councillor Hillier, I know that you indicated your little under the weather and talking is a bit of a challenge today, so I’ll look for your thumbs up on the screen there as long as you’re able to keep your video on and I’ll look to you that way. So we will pull 2.4.

That is the Heritage Eastman agreement for 39 Carfrae Street. Looking to see if colleagues wish anything else dealt with separately. Seeing none, then I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder for the consent agenda, excluding 2.4 moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor ramen. So now we will move to any discussion, comments, questions for staff on the consent agenda.

And Mayor Morgan, you indicated you wanted to speak, so I’m going to go to you first. Yes, I’m going to speak on item 2.3, which is the amendments to the downtown community improvement plan to introduce new guidelines for office residential conversion grant program. And so I’ll be brief about this because I did speak about it a few times, both at the state of the city and in the media. So first, I want to recognize the contribution from the federal government through the Housing Accelerator Fund, which actually makes it possible.

As you can see, this does not have a tax levy impact and we’re able to try something new with what is a significant challenge in our downtown area because of our partnership with the federal government through the Housing Accelerator Fund. And so I recognize and thank the federal government and our local MPs for their advocacy on ensuring that we were able to achieve the $74 million investment in the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is in part being used for new initiatives like this. I also would say, I think this is going to be like a really good learning experience. So, you know, people may have questions about the per unit rate or the cap or things like that, but I think until we actually try something here, we’re not going to know what the uptake our interest is and then we can make modifications as we move forward.

And I think that this is a good base to start from. I think staff have done good dialogue and research on this already, good consultation to come up with a program that hopefully will work. And as I said, solve a couple of challenges that we have in the downtown core. One is the high office vacancy rate.

We know that post pandemic, there’s both businesses that have shifted the way that they do business, as well as people who have not fully returned or may never fully return to in office work, which has created a significant vacancy challenge for office space in our downtown. And of course, the need for more residential development in our downtown, particularly higher density residential development. I still remain to be a strong believer that one of the key strategies to the long term vibrancy of downtown is to get more people to live there. I think there are always going to be people who want to come in and out of downtown for phenomenal restaurants, great entertainment, different activities, whether it’s work or, you know, enjoying Dundas Place or many other things, festivals, concerts, all the reasons you come downtown.

But there is an advantage to having people walk out their front door each and every day and support downtown businesses, downtown shops, downtown activities, and creating a feed on the street vibrancy in the downtown core. So we can hopefully show some movement on addressing both of these problems with this particular program. And again, I see this as a test case to see how it will go. I’m hopeful that there will be uptake and interest.

But should it be successful, I think there’s an opportunity to potentially expand. Other cities like Calgary have gone through this. Now their program is not identical to this, but they learned how to design a long term program through taking those first initial steps, which we’re now able to do today. Thanks to both our good work of our staff, as well as the partnership with the federal government through the housing accelerator fund.

So, you know, I encourage colleagues to support the next step on this. And I look forward to how it plays out over the next little while. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

Any other speakers to this consent agenda? Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just want to share my appreciation for staff and the mayor bringing this forward.

I do have one question through the chair to staff. I know last year we had a bit of a discussion when we were doing our five-year review of the CIPs and directed staff to report back in Q2 of 2024 to look at introducing mandatory minimum affordable housing units. When we give out CIP money, I’m just wondering if there is an update on that and how it would apply to this CIP. I saw Mr.

Mathers nodding his head. And I know we’ve got Mr. Felberg with us as well. So, I’ll start with Mr.

Mathers. And then if you need to pass it off to any of your team, by all means. Through the chair, we’re actually undertaking that work. Currently, we have a consulting engage to be able to bring that forward.

This part of that resolution was to look at whether there was an ability to have mandatory minimums for our CIPs programs to provide affordable housing. So, that is work that we are targeting to bring back in June to this committee. So, very much timely. And then at that time, we’ll be looking at making recommendations around whether we’d be changing or modifying any of our existing CIPs.

And that could include this one, but other CIPs as well. If that’s something that is supported by Council and something that is supported by the research that we’re doing currently. And just before I go back to Councilor Frank, I did see Mr. Felberg nodding his head too.

So, I just want to give him an opportunity you’ve all covered. Just wanted to make sure from the municipal housing development side, we didn’t miss anything in terms of the CIPs. So, on the active side, Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I appreciate that because I think it would be a really great opportunity given we also have other CIPs where I know that developers would be able to stack. So, I think requiring a mandatory minimum would really help us meet our affordable housing targets. The other follow-up question I had in regards to this was, I assume, so these buildings are zoned as office. And then, I assume they’d have to go through rezoning to be zoned as residential.

I was just wondering, given that they’re downtown, if they would then qualify for that tax grant, given that I don’t know, I don’t know, I assume that the residential property tax rate would be higher than the office one, but maybe that’s just a general assumption. So, I’m just wondering how the tax grant factors into the CIP as well. Well, let’s start with Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, so, for the most part, there won’t be a change of use required because it’s pre-zoned in the downtown. There’s the downtown area zone, which would allow that mix of uses. So, we’d have to do a little bit of a legwork to see in this specific location, whether there would be a change between the amount of tax being paid between the commercial use and the residential. There would be a difference there, but we’d have to do a little bit more work on determining that for whatever sites that they’re looking at converting.

So, Frank, you’re good. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you to staff. First, thank you for your work on bringing this forward.

Thank you to the mayor for championing it and ensuring that it’s brought to us as quickly as possible so that we can get moving on this. I just had a question for the description on page 38. It mentions that we’re looking at low potential for continued commercial, and I’m just wondering how we gauge that the low potential. Mr.

Thompson. Thank you, Chair, through you. This is focused on class B and class C office buildings. Those were identified in the core area of vacancy reduction strategy as classes of buildings that London has historically had an oversupply of compared to other markets, and that also is where we continue to see high vacancy rates and, in fact, increasing vacancy rates.

So, it really is targeting the class B and class C offices that have already been identified as having that potential through the core area vacancy reduction strategy that was presented last year. Councillor ramen. Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I was just wanting to better understand that. I’m really looking forward to finding some gains and successes in this area and seeing some conversions happen quickly, and thank you to LDI and others that have commented on how they think this will be effective in making strides in this area. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Seeing as I have no other speakers from the committee at the moment, certainly visiting Councillors want to make some comments. I will go to them, but I’m going to actually ask Councillor Frank to take the chair for a moment just so that I can offer a couple comments as well. Thank you, yes. I have the chair in acknowledging the deputy mayor.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer, and I am timing myself just so you know. I did want to take a moment, although we’ve been talking a lot about the community improvement plan and the office to residential conversion. I also wanted to take a moment to just highlight 2.2, the annual development report, and I think it’s really important to underscore the amazing work, the amazing progress we have made on the affordable housing file. In just two years since the roadmap to 3,000 was introduced, 498 units have been built and are occupied today.

Another almost 700 are under construction, and we’ve got more, sorry, almost 600 more under construction, and another 729 are in the pipeline. That’s an amazing amount of work to achieve in just two years. I think it really speaks to the commitment that the previous council made in its multi-year budget, over $96 million went into this area. That continues to flow through the base budget in the current multi-year budget process that we’re in, and some additional funding for the roadmap to 3,000 in particular is included in that budget right now.

So we’re continuing to build on the investments we made last term, and housing investments can take a while to start to appear. Neither our staff nor the development industry have a magic machine that can roll down the street and plop out a 12-story building or a 20-unit townhouse complex overnight, but we are starting to see the benefits, and we’re starting to reap the rewards of the work that’s been done by both the past council and this council in addressing the affordable housing crisis in our community. So I wanted to take a moment to especially thank Mr. Felberg and his team, because without their work, this wouldn’t happen, and whether we’re talking about the Vision Soho project, or Zarin projects, or Indwell projects, or any of them.

I know, because I’ve seen quite a few of the files across my desk myself, the amount of work that our staff is putting into making these happen, and I also want to thank our community partners, and I just mentioned a couple of them there. But you know, we’ve got six not-for-profit partners working just on the Soho site alone, and we have other sites in the city who are in that 600 more under construction, and that’s 700 more that are in the planning pipeline. So to everybody who is rowing in the same direction on this, whether it’s the not-for-profits, whether it’s the building industry, and Mr. Wallace and the folks at LDI and our city staff here, remarkable progress.

Obviously, there’s a lot of work to still be done. I don’t think that’s lost on anybody, but I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight that for people, and to thank you for your work. And then after the meeting, I’m sure we’ll get back to work on some more of those files. So thanks for letting me make those comments.

Thank you, and I assume you’re under time. Wonderful. Retrain the chair back to you with Councillor Stevenson on the list. Thank you, and yes, that came in at two minutes, 54.5 seconds.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, through you and to staff. I just wondered if you could share, you know, what the vision or goal is from this. Are we hoping to have large towers converted?

Are we looking for smaller properties to do a few apartments? Is there a goal here? And this is with regard to the CIP? Yes, please.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So this would apply to any size of development.

So ideally, we can get a mixture of those types of opportunities. So we’re really looking at trying to take out space that is not being utilized, and so there’s an overabundance of capacity in those B and C buildings, and then be able to provide some housing there. So we’ve put that cap that’s on there just to ensure that it will be available for several developments. So it won’t just be one giant one.

It could be a series of small to medium to large projects. So ideally, we can get a lot of people interested and build and get some more folks in the downtown from housing perspective in these buildings. Councilor. Thank you and a follow-up through you.

I was just curious to how we came about with the grant amounts, because when I was looking at Calgary, it was $75 a square foot. That was many years ago. You know, I’m just curious as to how we came up with the amounts. Maybe what kind of consultation or do we feel that it will truly be an incentive?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So in comparison to the this is a smaller amount than in the Calgary situation.

It can be up to in if you compare these values to Calgary. It could be up to double or in some cases triple, depending that you would get in the Calgary situation. That is a different city, of course, of much larger city. What we wanted to do was try to take something that had already worked in the downtown and use that kind of value.

So we have an existing program that provides grants for new developments. So these values are very similar to what you would get from a development charge credit for a new deformed development. So that’s our starting point. That is a program that we know when it works.

So we’re going to start there. This is as the mayor had mentioned, like a first iteration. If this is too much or too little, we’ll be able to course correct and learn over the next year. But from our perspective, we really needed to get something out there for this three-year timeline that we have for the housing accelerator so we can get some housing units constructed.

But we think this is a feel this is a very good starting place. Councilor. Thank you. Just last question there.

Can you just tell me a little bit about that re-evaluation process then? Are we looking at maybe a year from now? And if we have sort of like what would be a success? How many units are just curious?

Mr. Mathers. So we actually have a consultant on board doing some of that work just to look at the evaluation, look at the marketplace in general to be able to provide us some recommendations. So we’re hoping that that will come back in the fall.

That’ll allow us to have an opportunity to see how kind of interest we’re getting. Bring that back to council and also allow us to have a little bit more time. We’ll have at least two years left in our targets to be able to make any kind of course corrections that we need. Good, Councillor.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you. I just wanted to verify one thing and it’s as registered that we will register a lien to protect the interests of the city. And the lien would be discharged when the building inspection passes.

Is that correct, Mr. Mathers? Through the chair. And this is something that is very similar to what we do in other situations.

We just want to ensure that when we give the funding and that we’re achieving the actual units and that we protected the city’s investment until that unit’s actually constructed and it’s occupied. So yes, that is the structure that we use. It’s similar to what we’ve used in other CIP programs. And very much now, and now I guess even to what we do on the affordable housing side as well.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I did find the annual tax increments, but I didn’t find unless I missed it, when actually the classification would change from the commercial office to the residential, when the classification would change.

And after the educational tax portion, which was waived, would this be going back now to be added to the property owners, Mr. Mathers? Through the chair. So the change would happen at the occupancy stage of the development.

So once someone’s actually residing in that location, it would very much depend on the model that they’re looking at if it’s a rental property, if they’re looking at creating condos. But at the time that unit’s created and you have that occupancy, then the entire tax regime around that building would change at that time. And the last portion, the educational tax portion, if it’s, if it would be, because as far as I know it was waived, it’s not being paid currently, would it be after visiting? Should we go back in, Mr.

Mathers? Through the chair, I’m not a tax expert, but I would say it would be analogous to what we do in any apartment downtown. So apartments downtown would pay that educational portion of it. So whoever the owner is of that property would have that additional cost.

Councillor Per bevel? Thank you very much. No more questions? Thank you, colleagues.

Mayor Morgan. Yes, just based on where the conversation is going, I just wanted to add some context for colleagues. Only because I sat on the corporate services committee, I think, for eight years, nine now, nine and a half. So it’s just important to note that, like, I know that there’s some questions about the change in tax status.

So just realize that the current commercial status is at a ratio that is higher than the residential ratio now. I think it’s 1.76 compared to one for residential. These will likely be multi-residential ratios, and although there is a multi-residential rate that is aligned relatively with the commercial rate, new multi-residential construction is actually at a ratio of one under that. So I think there are some questions here, but the classification that should be answered.

But my anticipation is when you’re converting something into new residential units that weren’t there before, there’s likely to be a tax reduction overall if it’s assessed at the new multi-residential ratio of one to one with residential, which will be a substantive reduction. So although education taxes may now be paid, I don’t think we can presume what the net tax change is going to be for these particular properties until staffing that determination, because again, even though the ratios are different, the way that you calculate the valuations for commercial and residential are also different. And so there’s going to be a netting out here, but my expectation is there’s not going to be a fundamentally different change given the differences of the ratios, as well as the way they’re calculated. So it’s probably marginal on any given property depending on the size of the property, but I just hear colleagues asking those concerns.

I would say there’s probably a whole conversation with the deputy city manager of financial supports and her team about how this plays out. But given the differences in ratios, my strong expectation is it’s probably not a material difference for the viability of a project. Thank you for that helpful information on the tax ratios, Mayor Morgan, and I would let colleagues know if they’re interested in really getting into the weeds on those. I believe that is coming up on a corporate services agenda in the next week or so.

So there’s an opportunity to visit that committee as well and ask some questions of our finance team. So check the corporate services agenda because there is an update on those tax policies coming. Looking to see if there are any other speakers to the consent agenda. Seeing none, then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries. Board is zero. Thank you, colleagues.

Moving on, we are going to move to section three. That’s our scheduled items with regard to 2.4, which was pulled from the consent agenda. That will move down to items for direction. So that will be dealt with later in the meeting with regard to the heritage easement 39 carefree.

We will move on to 3.1, which will be a public participation meeting for 1160 Warren Cliff Road South and 234 Exeter Road. I do note that we have a number of members of the public with us in the gallery today. Regardless of what item you’re here to speak to, I do just want to take a moment to respectfully ask that everybody keep in mind that there may be individuals with different points of view from you in the gallery to speak to an issue today. We ask that people do not applaud or boo or speak under somebody as they’re trying to speak at the microphone.

This is a respectful place, and we’re just asking that people give everybody an opportunity to share their points of view openly and without feeling intimidated or pressured to be on one side of a position or another. So just ask that that be observed by everybody. And I will let everybody know if you are going to speak to an item, you do have a maximum of five minutes, and I will give a wave as you’re approaching your 30 minutes or your 30 seconds left in your time. Obviously, you don’t have to use all that time.

If you have items where somebody has already raised all the points you wanted to raise, feel free to simply let us know that you’re here to speak to this item and that you agree with what’s been previously said. We want to give everybody an opportunity to speak, but we also want to be respectful of everybody’s time as well. So I’m going to move on to the scheduled items now. And as I said, item 3.1, the first item on our agenda for scheduled items is the public participation meeting for 1160 Warren Cliff Road South and 234 Exeter Road.

I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder to open the public participation moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor ramen. And we will open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero.

Thank you colleagues. And Councillor Frank and Councillor ramen, if I can just ask, given Councillor Hillier is a little bit strained in his ability to speak today, can I just look to each of you on the public participation to move the opening and seconding the opening of the PPMs? I’m seeing nods. So that will just save us a little time to be able to do that.

So I’m going to first go to the applicant to see if there are any comments if the applicant has a representative here. And we’ll just ask you, sir, to give us your name and then go ahead and proceed with your presentation to us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And good afternoon, Scott Allen from MHBC. We’re acting on behalf of the applicant. And at this point, I would just like to briefly note that we are in support of the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report relating to this application. We’d also like the committee to be aware that with approval of the sufficient plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment, our client plans to advance the draft plan approval process expeditiously.

I’m looking forward to advancing that. The project has taken some time to get to where we’re at today. I’d also like to thank City staff for all their work through the last several years to get to us to this point. And gladly here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that. And I’m going to look to see if there are any members of the public here to speak to 1161 Cliff Road. And if you are here for that, please approach a microphone.

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to check online and see if there’s anyone online for that. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay. So we’ve had our applicant speak.

I’m going to look to committee then to see if there’s a mover and a seconder to close the public participation meeting. And we have Councillor ramen and Councillor Frank. I’ll just do those in reverse order for closing. And we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five four to zero. Thank you colleagues. I’m going to look to see if there’s a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation or an alternate motion.

Councillor Frank. I’ll move the staff recommendation. And seconded by Councillor ramen. So the motion is on the floor to support the staff recommendation.

Now I can look for any questions or comments for our staff. Councillor Frank. Thank you. And through you, I just had one question for staff.

I was curious as to, and let me just pull up the drawing, um, in the area where there’s a holding provision on RC six, or yeah, I’m sorry, our six dash five in the top right corner. I’m curious as to why it was chosen for that and not, um, environmental review, ER, I’m just given the, some of the comments, I’m just curious as to why the holding provision was selected over ER. Well, let’s ask staff that question. We did take a look at the, uh, the application.

We looked at the, uh, environmental review that was done on the lands, and it was deemed that the road, Paul Peele is going to extend from the north to the south, and it’ll come in some sort of configuration. At this point, it was determined that the age two, which is, uh, additional environmental reports would be suffice, and that we’ve, um, put the lands in, uh, residential development. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

And through the chair, and then so just curious, so after it has been evaluated for environmental and natural heritage features, if there are some to be found that are significant, would then this turn into a different, uh, zoning area or would it, I just, I’m wondering since it hasn’t been evaluated what the future plans are for it. And we’ll go back to staff for that. Through chair. Yeah, if, if the lands themselves are deemed to be significant and they’re provided for a buffer, as part of that, there would be the, uh, rezoning that would put it into the appropriate environmental zone.

Um, the alignment of Paul Peele will be detailed in further environment, or further engineering review later in the subdivision process. And just for clarification, the city would initiate that zoning. That’s correct. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. No other questions. Seeing no other speakers, uh, to the motion, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, the next item on our agenda is three point two. This is a public participation meeting for four 75 Warren Cliff Road South, and I am going to ask the clerk, uh, with the same mover and seconder to open the vote for on the public participation.

Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Uh, so the public participation meeting is open.

I would like to see if a representative from the applicant is with us to speak to this. Uh, unless hello. Thank you, chair. Uh, my name is Jamie Robertson from strict bald and L.

E. Mona’s, uh, SBM representing the owner of four 75 Warren Cliff Road South. Uh, the owner Nate Ferriman is also, uh, attending virtually, uh, to this meeting today. Uh, I’d like to thank staff, uh, from the planning and engineering departments for helping us navigate this application, uh, from the pre consultation and reviewing the application documents, and ultimately establishing the application is before you today.

Uh, the amendment, uh, would allow, or would acknowledge the existing site conditions and would allow for the existing commercial building to be reutilized, uh, permitting the additional requested commercial uses through this amendment would increase the marketability of the site and would promote the adaptive reuse of the existing building, uh, with the com with compatible commercial uses. Uh, we’re looking to create a diversity of commercial uses in the area as well as for the project and create kind of, uh, compact development, uh, intensifying the vacant building, uh, as it exists today. Uh, this building was formerly an auto dealership and we’re looking to provide a few more commercial uses within, uh, acknowledging the existing conditions of today. Uh, we believe the application would allow for an appropriate use of the land and the development would be compact and would meet the character of the existing community, especially the commercial community and the node at which the location is provided.

Uh, regarding the staff report, we’ve been able to review it, uh, as well as the zoning bylaw amendment draft. Uh, and we are in agreement with the recommendation of staff. Uh, we believe that the proposed application is appropriate for the site represents good planning. Uh, and if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. I’m going to look to the gallery now to see if there are any members of the public here to speak to 475 Warren Cliff Road.

And I’m not seeing anyone in the gallery for this application. I’ll just check with the clerk to see if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you.

So I will, with the same mover and seconder, ask the clerk to open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Councillor ramen, I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor. And Councillor Frank is seconded that.

So the staff recommendation is on the floor and I’ll look to committee now for any questions or comments. And I see none in chambers and none online. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. Thank you for that colleagues. Moving right along. Our next public participation meeting is 3.3.

This is in regard to 1494 Commissioners Road West. I will note that there is a revised bylaw that was attached to our added agenda. So just before we move to the public participation portion, I’m just going to ask if staff can just highlight the change that was made to the original circulation versus the added. Through the chair, the change for the bylaw just comes for the first regulation where it speaks to originally it spoke to West Interior windows with no habitable rooms.

We changed the word and just to simplify it for the applicant at their request. Thank you for that. So I’m just clearing up that little technical matter. So people are aware of what we’re talking about.

So now with the same mover and seconder, I will ask the clerk to open the vote for the public participation meeting. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. So the public participation meeting is now open.

I will look first for a representative from the applicant to speak to us with regard to 1494 Commissioners Road West. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, PEC members.

My name is Simona Rassenu and I’m a planner with Strict Ball Nellie Moniz and the agent for this application. I’ve reviewed the staff report and would like to thank staff for their support of the project of the proposal. I’ve also communicated with staff about the details of the draft zoning bylaw amendment. There was some back and forth between us regarding the technical details and regarding the wording.

But I’m happy to say that we’ve come to an acceptable agreement and the revised bylaw that you’ve just outlined. Councillor Lewis is is acceptable to the applicant myself and staff. I understand that there are some members of the public here to speak today and I assume you’re here from them shortly. I’ve also read some of their comments as attached to the staff report.

I would like to, I can’t obviously, I don’t have the time to address every single one of their comments but I would like to address two things. First, I’d like to make it clear that the UTRCA, the local Conservation Authority, has been extensively consulted throughout this process, including throughout the pre-consultation meetings. We’ve had prior to formal submission and they provided their comments to staff and their support of in principle. In addition, since a portion of the property is regulated by the UTRCA, the applicant would also be required to go through a section 28 permit under the Conservation Authority’s Act before any building permits can be released.

So that’s a separate parallel process that the applicant would undertake before again, before any building permit can be released, which means that the UTRCA has final say on the geotechnical aspects of the proposal. Second, I would like to say something about the existing zoning because it is a little bit complicated. So the existing property is proposed to be zoned residential and open space. So obviously we need the residential portion of the zoning to which would apply to the proposed apartment building but we’re also proposing to rezone the rear portion or the south portion in this case to an open space zone to protect the existing natural heritage and geotechnical features of the property.

So those areas would not be developed. The OS zoning that we’re proposing is in line with the existing OS 5 zoning just to the south and that reflects the zoning for the existing workloads ESA. So that’s why you see again the zoning and the zoning where you see the 0.3 meters to the south and to the east west side yard. That’s to the OS 5 zone limits and not to the property limits.

So just to make that clear, you’d have to kind of look at the map to make it to understand where that zoning line where that zoning demarcation line goes and how it affects the property. In addition to that, the client and I, the applicant and I are proposing to transfer or convey those OS those lands to be zoned OS 5 to the city as part of the proc land dedication process. So those lands, if the city chooses to accept them, they could be consolidated with the existing workloads ESA to the south and would become part of the city’s property portfolio. So in summary, the proposed development would add 10 generously sized dwelling units in a beautiful contemporary building that has been designed to be sensitive to its natural surroundings and to respect the existing residential neighborhood.

Thank you very much for listening and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that presentation and overview of the project. So if any members of the public wish to speak, please come to the microphone and we’ll ask you to give your name. As I said, you have five address if you wish.

You would have up to five minutes. I will give a wave as you approach your 30 second mark. The one thing that I did forget to say earlier is as the chair, if you have questions that are asked, I am making notes of those. Staff do not respond during your five minutes to that.

At the end of the public participation meeting, after it is closed, I will then ask staff to respond to the list of questions that I’ve recorded. So if you’d like to go ahead, sir. Sure. Thank you.

My name is Sayyud Mirsetari. I live at six Chestnut Hill, which is exactly behind this property and just wanted to let you know that I’m a neurologist. I work at LHSC and Western University and I’ve taken the day off canceled my clinic to be here because we believe that this is important for our community. When I started my career in London, we chose Orgler Wood as our home because of its characteristics.

And in particular, we asked our real estate that we are looking for a place that faces ravine. We don’t want to need development beyond our home. And that was the reason we chose this. We extended our budget and we went through a mortgage which we are happy to say that we paid and we own this property.

And we have a beautiful 13-year-old who has been born and raised in this property and we wish her to continue living in this safe community. I wanted to bring to your attention the history of this building behind us. First of all, when we moved there, we actually never noticed anyone lives there. It was not noticeable.

It was a high-density bush area that was completely hiding the house behind us. But now it is very visible due to the fact that this area has been cleaned up by the current owner. Secondly, I think there’s a period where this individual wanted to convert this to a spa and you should have it on record that all the neighborhood came up and spoke strongly against it. And we had communications with Mr.

Kragg Smith from the city in 2012 and he reassured that this will never go ahead and the community will be consulted again if any changes happen. We are a little bit short-sighted because we were surprised that all these things were going on without consultation with the neighbors. That this application had been restarted in 2018 and during the pandemic where people were worried and concerned about their lives, this application were going through. So we are a little bit disappointed that public engagement was not sought because the neighbors had already spoken about this.

Secondly, I wanted to talk about the character of the individual who owns the property. This individual shares fans with me. And when the fans got rotten, I took it upon myself to ask my neighbors to replace it. All the neighbors came in, thanked me for my initiative, and paid half the cost except for this individual.

So I wanted to say that this individual does not have credibility. He does not respect our privacy. And he does not serve. I’m just going to caution.

We’re here to speak to a planning application. I am. We have to stick to the planning matters, not to people’s personal feelings towards one individual or another as a character. We have to stick to the planning matters.

But I just want to make sure that I wanted to make the character of the individual who making the claim to make the safe and private for the neighbors. Secondly, there is an issue if you’re going to have 10 individuals living in that or 10 units, you’re going to have at least 20 or 30 people living there. So you cannot have just 10 cars there. So there are issues with car.

The number of cars will be there. There’s a Montessori behind this where our kids walk there. So there will be concerns about that. And I think that the traffic evaluation is something that needs to be looked at.

We don’t believe that the environmental assessment is done properly. I think that we certainly feel that that environmental assessment should be redone. Again, concerns about traffic. There is a Montessori, there’s Tim Horton, there’s a left turn there at the traffic light.

None of these make sense to have a big unit in an area which is designated to be low density. On our side of the street, we have children and the offices are elderly and people go out for a walk. This is not a suitable area for having individuals housing 10 units. So I strongly oppose this plan and I hope that you would take that into consideration that all the neighbors have spoken up.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. There are other members of the public who wish to speak to this application. Okay, we’re going to go to the top left corner there.

We’ll ask staff to make sure that that microphone is on and go ahead, sir. You have five minutes. Just start with your name and address if you wish. Hi, my name is Rudy Ribanski.

I live at 62 butternut Grove. I’ve been a longtime resident in approximately 30 years there in Warbler Woods West. I’m opposed to this development, primarily for pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety, as well as the environmental values and the impingement on the single detached homes and immediately adjacent. As we all know, Commissioner’s Road is an arterial roadway.

There’s probably 13 to 14,000 vehicles a day that traverse that road. The Chestnut Hill intersection is immediately west of this driveway into this proposed property development. The driveway is blind to the west given the topography and the tree coverage. The left-hand turn lane to Chestnut Hill is right there.

The sidewalk is extremely narrow. There is no buffer between the edge of the sidewalk and Commissioner’s Road. As a longtime resident, I’ve experienced many near misses turning left into Chestnut Hill to go to my home. As people race down the incline coming from the west and cheat into the left-hand turn lane and accidents have happened.

Recently, a neighbor has been t-boned coming across Commissioners as a car sped through the red light. This is a hazardous area that will only be further compromised and exacerbated by the fact that this development will have numerous cars going in and out, trying to see past the left-hand turn lane and there’s a bus stop right there as well. I can only imagine the frustration of drivers trying to get in and out of there and trying to beat the traffic and the resulting accidents. There, as previously mentioned, there’s a Montessori school there.

There’s a bar in Northridge just down the road. There’s lots of pedestrian traffic and I can’t imagine what this development would do to public safety and let alone the environmental and property value impacts to the immediate neighbors. Those are my comments. Thank you very much.

And in the top left, sorry about that, sir. Okay. My name is John Hopkins and I decided to condone tariffs just across the road from this proposed development. I want to start by thanking the developer and the architects for moderating the plans to look at some of our concerns.

However, the few issues which I find totally insurmountable have all my comments referred to our appendix B, the site and development summary and the figures on that. My first concern, the developer has a right to apply for a zoning application to go from three to one or sorry, one to eight. However, there seems to be little understanding of what requirements mean. I live in a condo townhouse.

Being an owner, I am required to pay a monthly condo fee. This is not negotiable. I’m also required to pay taxes to the city of London. This again is not negotiable.

I cannot say I don’t want to pay that much. That’s what I have to pay. That’s what it means by requirements. I have a garage, it’s seven feet high at the entrance and it’s 20 feet long.

If I choose to purchase a vehicle which is taller than seven feet, a longer than 20 feet, it’s not going to fit in the garage. I have options now. I can either buy a new vehicle or I can move. As a condo owner, I do not have the option to change the size of my garage.

In the case of 1494 Commissioner Road, the developer applied for R8 zoning but found that it was not compatible with his plans. This is not a matter of simple oversight. The proposed building is too high. It’s too close to the lot line and the footprint exceeds the required percentage of the lot area.

I’m appalled at the response from the city. Evidently, the maximum required height is not 13 meters but 13.5 meters. Evidently set back, maximum and so, minimum set back is not 4.5 meters. It’s 2.5 meters and a lot coverage is not 40 percent.

It’s 46.2 percent. I’m concerned that next week, some developer is going to come along and say oh, 13.5 meters height is really 14 meters height. It’s not very much more so we can do with that. And the set back now, it’s not 2.5 meters.

Let’s go for 1.5 meters and the proposed coverage of this lot is not 46.2 percent. Let’s call it 52 percent. Is it going to end? A requirement is a requirement.

It is not a recommendation for two. The architect realized that there is insufficient space to park 10 cars in a conventional parking lot underneath the building. Instead, the choice is made to stack the vehicles. Now, I wouldn’t want to be the owner of the car underneath the one that just came in from the road covered in salt and mud.

But anyways, that’s their problem. But what happens when that mechanism fails? It’s going to. It’s a mechanical thing.

It’s going to fail. I’m also concerned about safety issues here for hoisting materials up above the ground, especially when you’re hoisting something like 4,000 pounds above the ground. It has a real safety issue here. There’s training before you can operate a hoist in the garage to lift a car up.

Who’s going to do that? And how has the developer taken into account that electric vehicles are going to weigh 50 percent more than the average vehicle? A third point. The plan calls for one exterior parking spot.

We can assume that the type of resident who will be able to afford one of these mega apartments will be doing a fair amount of entertaining. Why else would you require a 3,000 square foot apartment with multiple bedrooms? After the first guests have arrived for your house wearing a party, where are the other people’s going to park? Just want to let you know you’ve got 20 seconds.

There’s been no allowance for me for EV plugins either, and yet in 11 years time, we’re not able to buy anything but EVs. In summary, the proposal is just too big for the lot. It’s time to go back to drawing board. Thank you, sir.

Looking for further speakers, and I’ll go to the lower right speaker here. And again, sir, if we can just get your name, address if you wish to provide it, and you’ve got five minutes. My name’s Matthew Piersonovic, and I reside at two chests in the hill with my partner, Fransilly Fernandez. Sorry, I’m just going to stop you for a moment.

Couldn’t we get you to just tilt your mic up a little bit so we can hear you a little better if you want to just give that a try. I’m not counting this towards your five minutes. Can you hear me now? Much better.

So my name’s Matthew Piersonovic, and I reside at two chests on Hill with my partner, Fransilly Fernandez, and our two-year-old son. So I’d like to bid you all good afternoon. So our property backs directly on to 1494 Commissioners Road West. We share our rear fence with the West Interior side yard of this property, and we are opposed to this application for a number of reasons.

Firstly, granting R8 zoning with special provisions in a neighborhood with R1 and R5 zoning on all sides is unacceptable. This would set a precedent in our community that puts other single-family dwellings adjacent to the Warbler Woods Environmentally Sensitive Area at risk of being redeveloped in the future. This is the core of our opposition to the By-law Amendment. No other structure adjacent to this area is such a large footprint, height, or density, especially for a property of this small size.

Therefore, our recommendation to be to construct a building that conforms to the zoning classifications to the existing structures surrounding this, not granting such special provisions for one single property. Moreover, the special provision request of only 1.5-meter setback along the West Interior side yard is unacceptable. There are two European large trees along the rear of our property. One of the trees we own and the second is considered a boundary tree.

We intend to keep these mature trees, and we’re informed by the City Planner that a 3.5-meter setback is required to maintain these trees. However, the report you have received indicates that the recommendation has now been reduced to 2.5 meters, but my question is how can you have a tree with a radius of 3.5 meters confined to a space of 2.5 meters in the setback? So this is found in Appendix D for your reference, and there’s a comment made by landscaping architecture that outlines this 3.5-meter requirement. Moreover, the report states that consent would be required from myself and my partner, the owners of Two Chest and Hill, to remove these trees, which we will not be providing.

We ask that you consider this point with specific care and detail in your review. Additionally, the length of the building along the West Interior side yard is about 28 meters in length. This means that almost the entire view of the back of my property will be replaced by the exterior walls of this new construction. How is such a lengthy wall and essentially a barrier to the environment acceptable?

Moreover, the quoted figure in the report states coverage, as mentioned, 46.2% of the lot will be covered by this building. However, this is not totally accurate considering that the property is required to give about 10% of the land as per the Upper Thames Conservation Authority to OS 5. Additionally, the land at the front of the property is also barred from construction due to future widening of Commissioner’s Road West. So 46.2% increases to 60% of residential land that will be developed if you consider the restrictions that are already in place on both the front and rear of the property.

Furthermore, the property has a long history in terms of its heritage and historical significance. According to a recent article on local publication and speaking with long-term community members, the property was settled in 1812. The barn has been on the property since 1929, which was moved from the location close to the current Byron Public Library. I’ve been informed that a barn adjacent to the Byron Public Library was recently destroyed, which consisted of part of the original buildings of the halls mill settlement.

So my concern is if this barn is destroyed and there’s connection with the halls mill settlement, what’s left of the history of Byron and its agricultural past? Lastly, I am concerned about the housing shortage our city faces. This proposal would in fact bring tenions to the city and increase the number units available. However, this is a proposed luxury building that would not be the needs of challenges of community members that are struggling to secure housing.

These units will be out of reach in terms of their affordability. So the proposal does little to address the crisis our city is facing with housing. Therefore, I ask that your decision consider the voice of those that live around the Warbler Woods area. We care deeply about this community.

It’s environmental significance, history and its future. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. And looking to see if there are any other speakers.

Welcome, sir. Again, you’ll have five minutes. If you can start with your name, address if you wish to provide it and go ahead. My name is Phil McDowell.

I live at 62 Springfield, which is adjacent to this property. We’re fortunate enough our lot goes through through from Springfield to commissioners. So we form the full easterly boundary of this property in question here. We’ve lived there for 32 years.

We were fortunate to know the original owners of the property of this home, Mr. and Mrs. Cross. That’s what brought us to Byron in the first place was this nice wooded ravine lot that we could purchase with our house at Springfield.

I think it’ll be destroyed with this kind of a proposed development, have a little bit of background in real estate, and to the extent that almost all of the neighborhood is now zoned R1 and R5-5. Basically, that’s a mix of townhouse homes and single family residences. The closest R8 zoning is a kilometer away opposite a school already surrounded by multi-family zoning. I don’t know if the city has this information, but is there an R8 zone parcel of land in the city of London that is half an acre in size?

I don’t think that there is. Like someone else has mentioned, we set a precedent for this. You’re opening the doors wide. I have a little over an acre.

So do I tear my house down and apply for, let’s call it our 50 zoning so I can put up a 40-story building just because that’s what’s going to make me some money. It isn’t about money. It’s about what these people want. It’s a community.

We have neighbors. We’ve become friends with some of these people because we have common interests. What we have here is someone coming in, purchasing a property, has owned it for a number of years and has tried all kinds of little schemes on it that just don’t seem to work because it doesn’t conform with the neighborhood. I suggested in my original letter to the city that we’re all in favor of increasing the density of properties throughout the city.

We need that. We have to have it. But to do it on one small little parcel like this, to the detriment of everyone around it, if it’s going to conform with the neighborhood, it should be one story high, conform with the neighborhood, maybe be our five. That would be reasonable.

We can build a few townhouses on it, make a few families, have a nice place to live backing onto a green space. Any one of these people will tell you that is the thing that draws them to this property. I’ve had a few conversations with the owner myself. Every time a development comes, he thinks he can come to me and ask for permission to run a drain or some water runoff onto my property, and that’s going to benefit me.

It’s not going to benefit me at all. I’ve lived there for 32 years. We’ve never had a fence up. I’m proud of the fact we don’t have fences.

But if this proposal gets approved, the first thing that I’m going to do is put up the highest fence the city will allow me to put up front to back 425 feet. Because I know 10 people that are 10 families that are going to live in this new house, where are they going to head right into the ravine for their little picnics and stuff? That was the problem 10, 12 years ago when he tried to put a spa in there. I said to my wife, they’re going to try and turn our backyard into their little private oasis area, and maybe I’m rambling a little too much here.

I just think we have our one and our five zoning surrounding this whole complex. I think everybody’s in favor of some increasing density in neighborhoods everywhere. Let’s do it slowly. But you start dropping in 10 units there.

Do I tear my house down to build 20? No, that’ll never happen because I appreciate my neighbors. It’s my family and my neighbors that keep me happy. That’s it.

That’s all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And we’ll go to the next speaker in the lower left microphone.

Thank you. My name is Michael Harnerdek. I live at 14 Chestnut Hill. And I am also here to speak against this proposal.

You have heard about concerns about the height and I share those concerns. You’ve heard about concerns about the traffic and I absolutely share those concerns. It is actually a dangerous intersection, particularly with that left turn lane. But specifically, I have concerns about the sound that could be radiating from the building into the ravine and the light that could be radiating from the building into the ravine.

That the property sits at the base of a ravine. It basically forms the bottom of what’s essentially a sound tunnel, if you would. And we have a lot of issues with both direct sound coming from properties, but also reflective sound that bounce off the surfaces into the ravine. And my specific question is, to what degree did the city planning department take into account that that sound is going to reflect back up into the ravine and into everybody’s backyards.

There is opportunities for people to enjoy their backyards. I just am not clear on what mitigating measures were considered to help minimize such excess noise from being added to the soundscape that already exists. The last question concern was about the light. It is a building is going to be illuminated.

That is a wildlife ravine, deer and other animals use it to transverse across commissioners to get down towards the river. With exterior lighting, is that going to harm or interfere with that in any way? And is the light going to be designed so it can reflect downwards and not outwards into the ravine and basically making a lightscape in the nighttime and disturbing everybody’s view. So I haven’t seen any anywhere in the reports where those issues have been addressed.

And I’d like to know what consideration was taken for those. And if not, what considerations could be taken to this place to give that consideration consideration? Thank you. Thank you, sir.

And I’m going to let’s see if we’ve got other speakers to this application. And welcome, ma’am. Same as I’ve said to everybody else. If you can start with your name, address if you wish to provide it.

And you have five minutes. Hello, my name is Jody Goldach. I’m at 38 Chestnut Hill. I’ve been at that location for a number of years, 24 specifically.

One of my concerns is my house is about eight houses from this location. And I understand that 141 property owners were notified and I was not one of them. So I just don’t understand how something like this could be happening in my neighborhood and somehow we were not notified. How this building is a good fit for a neighborhood when we need all the provisions to fit such a large building into a small residential lot.

There’s a reason why this is a residential lot and why are all this owned and why there’s so many provisions that need to be made. The proposal is using the reasons of aging in place, diversity of building form, affordability and effective use of land in neighborhoods. This is no way going to address the affordability issues, considering it’s a luxury townhouse. I don’t understand how it’s going to help the agent in place needs of our community when there’s only one extra park and spot.

So I don’t know where we talk about these owners having guests over, but if it is for agent in place, how are the caregivers going to park? Where the PSW is going to park? Where are the services that these owners are going to need going to park? One park and spot is not enough.

The safety of this corner has been mentioned many times. I think we need to address that this is root for our neighborhood to get to their closest public school. They walk down this narrow sidewalk. We’re adding 10 more houses, which is potentially 10 to 20 cars coming in and out of a dangerous location.

It’s also the route to our bus system. Our buses don’t come up to our neighborhood on weekends or past 6pm. So if you need to take a bus, you got to go down to Griffith and you got to again walk on this neighborhood. I am the mother of a special needs child who uses a walker and an adaptive bike.

She uses this path many times and the extra, the fact that she won’t be able to safely ride her bike around the neighborhood with this type of thing is just disappointing. I sympathize with one of the other speakers who talked about how the city could allow all these provisions. You know, 40% is the limit, but hey, it’s 46, so we’ll let them go with that. We’re, we’re making, you know, 4.5 meters is the limit, but hey, 2.5 may be okay.

So we’re squeezing this big building into a spot that just doesn’t belong and shouldn’t, we shouldn’t be making exceptions like this. And I do challenge, we also bought our house because it backed on to this ravine and forested area. We love the fact that it was a protected area. It goes quite extensively all through our neighborhood.

We’re one of the Warbler Woods sections. So if it’s Warbler, you know, this is a key characteristic of our neighborhood. I don’t believe there’s any other buildings of this size that are on Warbler Woods anywhere in the city of London. So we’re going to start allowing buildings 10, like 20 units, four stories high to be on Warbler Woods and encroaching into it.

This is sort of a narrow spot. It is a ravine. The sound does travel extensively through our backyards. I also don’t have any fence in my backyard because it’s, you know, it’s nature and that’s why we live there.

We also talked about construction being limited to just conditioners and not Chestnut Hill. This is kind of an interesting statement since, you know, anybody that comes to this building is going to have to park somewhere and they’re not going to be able to park on Commissioner’s Road. So are they going to park and, you know, go up to Chestnut Hill and park? I just, you know, that road is going to be widened at some point.

So again, I don’t know where people are going to park to live in this building. And I don’t think that’s been glossed over by the person proposing to build this building. I don’t think they’ve looked at all the ground. So anyway, I do commend the city on their wishing to make London, you know, more diverse and bringing in new buildings, places and addressing our affordability issues and housing.

But this is not an affordable housing unit being put up in a residential neighborhood. This is not going to help the true problems that we need to solve in our city and to have affordable housing for people who are no DSP and have limited income. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Goldhock. And we will stay at that microphone and go to the next speaker. Hi, can you hear me? Okay.

Okay. Great. My name is Victoria. I reside at 76 Springfield Crescent.

The latest letter emphasizes how this proposal aligns with the city’s goals for housing, neighborhood, well-being, safety and climate action. As a resident of this area, I would like to discuss how these point either have a negative impact or really no impact at all. Housing and homelessness, which is point number one. This initiative evidently does not contribute to the provision of affordable housing or shelters aimed at alleviating homelessness in London.

Consequently, this proposal undermines affordable housing and the growing homeless population as it is to our understanding that this development is a for profit development, which has not been advertised as affordable housing. And if the intention is to offer this as affordable housing or community housing to aid in homelessness, when will the community be made aware of this? I do have a follow-up question in regards to this. Is this proposal focused on only focus only on renting units or does it also provide opportunities for potential buyers of the units in the future?

Additionally, while I acknowledge the importance of the increasing housing density to address the current crisis, constructing a 10 unit dwelling in a single family zoning area won’t effectively solve the issue. Although it assists the city’s planning as another 10 units, it establishes a risky precedent, as you’ve heard today, for future developments in Byron and environmentally sensitive areas. The housing crisis requires a more comprehensive approach involving formal discussions with our provincial and federal government. So I urge you as government officials to actively voice your concerns instead of simply approving another 10 units as this won’t contribute to solving the problem.

In fact, it hardly makes a dent. The well-being and safety. The point presented only accounts for the new residents who would inhabit the property, but it fails to consider the concerns of the existing residents of the area. We, the existing residents, oppose this development because it raises concerns about safety due to increased noise, light pollution, and from the construction, from the construction and the addition of the people to a limited space.

Furthermore, it adds to the traffic on an already congested road, being commissioner’s road, and it adds to the foot traffic in the ravines behind the houses of the area presenting safety concerns. The presence of 10 units with, sorry, the presence of 10 units with balconies overlooking neighboring backyards, not including the west houses as outlined in the letter, but the other areas and the daycare also does not contribute to neighborhood planning. It jeopardizes the creation of a safe and connected community. In essence, this proposal also undermines rather than promotes neighborhood planning, climate action and sustainability growth.

This development poses a significant threat to an environmentally sensitive area, undermining our commitment to environmental sustainability. The removal of 21 mature trees noted in the letter is particularly concerning as it will disrupt the habitat of protected species, such as the downy and red-bellied woodpucker, which we enjoy seeing on a daily basis. Additionally, it will disrupt the waterway frequented by deer for nearly a century in the Gully and Woods area, continuing to develop around these ESA’s forest native wildlife out, leading to repercussions for our ecosystems. Overall, as a resident who cherishes the natural beauty of the ravine and the peaceful ambiance of our surroundings, I’m incredibly apprehensive about the disruptions this development will bring.

My partner and I specifically chose this area to relish the serenity, tranquility and closest to nature. And unfortunately, the proposed build threatens these qualities in several ways. While I’m not against the development of this area, I request that the plan preserves a footprint and height consistent with the surrounding properties, particularly those designated for single family zoning, as this will aim to minimize the impact on the ESA and neighboring homes. Thank you.

Sorry, thank you. I’m looking to see if there are other speakers to this. Yes, it’s actually, I’d like to speak. Oh, we have somebody online.

So, and I do have, I did see one more person heading to the making chambers. So we’ll go on to the online individual first, and then we’ll come back into chambers. So welcome. And just as with all the other speakers, if you can give us your name address, if you wish, and then you have five minutes.

Well, yes, I, good afternoon. My name is Gasek and I live on six just not Hill. I’m actually here to voice my extreme opposition to the application for the amendment of the rezoning of 1494 committee commissioner road west, I have already outlined all my concerns via email to Mr House and also I am echoing all my neighbors that they are beautifully outlined their concerns as stated. While I do understand the recommended amendment is consistent with the provisional policy statement 2020, which encourages the intensification and redevelopment.

This is not particularly applicable at this site for many valid reasons. Frankly speaking, I feel this development will violate my rights to a quiet, enjoyable environment in my property that is really immediately next to to the 1494 Commissioner West. Also, we had dealt with this applicant, Mr Mubarak back in 2012, where he was applying for a commercial zoning to build a spa. This brought all the neighbors together against all this.

We felt it was financially motivated. We strongly opposed it and such thing the spa did not go through the concern that we had with the applicants back and when was that his lack of consideration of the environment. He actually quote and quote said at that time when he was knocking doors that he wants to clean up that area. So this had really was a very worrisome statement by meaning of the clean up he wanted to go ahead and cut the trees and he did so actually we had to call the city many times for some random people coming and cutting trees in that area.

So this is really cast a very negative side on this applicant in particular being financially motivated and lack of consideration to the environment. So, I’m just I just want to interrupt you for a moment. And I’m not counting this towards your time. You did speak specifically to the environmental concern that you had for the area.

So I allowed that. But I just want to caution that we do need to stick to planning concerns and things of the proposal rather than personal interactions with the applicant. So if we can just stay to the concerns around the proposal rather than the individual, please. Absolutely understood.

My additional concern also the negative impact this building will have on the value of the property of my house. This is will actually undermine any future value to the property having a four story building with 10 units in there. As well as my additional concern which is kind of like the one that hits most home is that this building is going to bring heavy traffic and safety hazards to the area because when my daughter was young, I used to walk her to the Byron would want to story school and being that sidewalk crosses that property. It’s actually narrow.

And as is, it’s very hazardous to walk through. And now by adding this building, you’re going to bring in so many vehicles in and out of that which interrupt that sidewalk. And there are a lot of kids and parents are walking through that sidewalk to get to the Montessori school plus the Byron White School, which is kind of like the main road leading to these schools. So having this building going to bring extra, in my opinion, extra traffic that is going to really sort of be risky for the kids walk into schools.

Therefore, I really urge the planning and environment committee to really consider that or take that into consideration entirely. It is actually safety. And my final concern is that beside that I said the traffic and safety hazards. I would like to mention that having the building that facing us, it’s going to take the privacy away from us directly so I won’t be able to really use my backyard much.

And we have this swimming pool there and I don’t know when the plumbing and the issues going to impact on that down the road, it may actually devalue the property severely. Thank you. Thank you for sharing those thoughts on this with us. And I know we had another person in the gallery so I’m going to go back up to the microphone lower level on your left those watching me my right.

So my name is Francisco Fernandez and I live on to Chester Hill with my partner. I’m I’m very concerned hearing all those objections from my neighborhood on this new development. I just want to bring to everybody’s attention that I did find on the urban Toronto website, planning on these condominium building that has been proposed back dated on 2022. I just want to be very clear.

I’m totally opposed of the rezoning of this neighborhood. And my concerns is this has been in the is it being published this story apartment buildings in the site of urban Toronto since 2022. So how much that has been already put forth. And is this already move forward and we were not aware of it.

Again, we were in form of this proposal in on Christmas time, the 23rd of December of 2023 where the first time we heard about this new development. And again, this is very concerning for many reasons already raised, which I’m not going to continue to describe about traffic concerns with safety. What about we’re talking about affordability and putting a building, but this has been raised as a luxurious apartment buildings that does not really address the issue of homelessness. It’s quite offensive that we’re calling that this building would be solved the homelessness issue.

I do want to share my background. I’m a nurse practitioner. What I do deal with vulnerable communities and social determinants of health. And I find this extremely offensive.

They were saying that this for a story apartment building would solve the homelessness issue in our in our city. I think this is extremely serious and this totally undermines the crisis we’re living in. Yes, I will, what would significant area faces our car lining area and is extremely sensitive area. I don’t understand how upper themes have said it in that document that has been posted last Wednesday that they have absolutely no concerns.

I have a lot of concerns. How are we going to protect that is sensitive area. Again, traffic. You don’t need to do an assessment as it’s stated in the in the file that they have no concerns.

Actually, the staff can go and drive on that intersection that our community has raised and see the traffic and the severity and the issues that can raise with accidents, children walking on the side on the sidewalk. I don’t understand how the traffic in the city of London has no concerns and I don’t want to do an assessment about that. Hydro. The hydro has not been.

There’s no concerns about the increase of electricity. This is going to increase. It says in the report that we’re not going to investigate to see the increase of the hydro that’s going to need necessary to housing this apartment building. I don’t understand.

We’re talking about electrical cars and the excess of the of in need of many resources that’s going to required. Again, I’m totally opposed to this to this building and the rezoning is extremely concerned because it can set as a precedence to our community. Thank you. I’m looking to see if there are any other speakers for this file.

Hi there. Welcome. My name is Emma. I live at 76 Springfield Crescent.

I’ve worked in the real estate industry for 10 years around a real estate team. I think my neighbors have done an amazing job of addressing many of the issues that I have. Well, like our neighbor that was virtual had addressed the property valuation impact that this will have. And I just want to make one point.

This is this is going to make one person very wealthy and it’s going to have financial negative financial implications for many people in our neighborhood who have been there who have taken care of their properties who have invested in this neighborhood for years and years and I just want you to know like the affordable housing thing is it can’t be a cover up because we understand that this is going to have a positive financial impact for it. I guess if this gets approved. So it’s just something that I want to take into consideration there are negative financial implications for many of the people and I would hope that we could recognize we have an amazing community. I think you guys have done an incredible job and I just want that to be noted.

Thank you very much. And I’m going to look to see if there are any other speakers to this before we close the public participation portion and final call for any speakers to this. We the clerks letting me know we’ve got one more person online. So we will go online next to Sandy Kamiske Miss Kamiske you seem to be muted still.

Can you check to make sure that you’re unmuted on your end and then start again. We can hear you now. Thank you. Hi, I wasn’t expecting to speak today because we know I received it said that I was only allowed to watch the video.

But anyway, I agree with everything that everyone in our community has said. I also live on just not help. I just found out about this on January the 20th. I oppose.

I oppose the building for all the reasons that I’ve already been said. And thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Kamiske. And we always appreciate it when people are are able to say we agree with everything and and be efficient with their time there.

So thank you for that. And but it does still matter that you took the time to speak. So thank you. Looking to see if there are any others and we’ve got one more gentleman at the mic here in the gallery.

So if you’d like to go ahead, sir, starting with your name address if you wish. Sure. My name is Thomas Heath. I live a two butternut lane.

I’ve been in that residence for just under four years. And I’d like to reemphasize my comments that I’ve already sent to the to the chambers already with me opposing and this this development. Our neighbors have done a great job. And I tell you, if we would add more notice on on what is trying to happen on this property, I’m sure this gallery would be even more full than it is right now and people online.

But to have something like this happen in our neighborhood where we’ve already expressed the safety concerns. I have a daughter that’s nine years old. We’re actually going to let her walk to Byron Northview school next year. But if this goes through with this planning committee, that will not be happening.

You know, I think every single neighbor here is expressed a concern. I haven’t seen one positive comment from anyone or anything positive about what this development would bring to our neighborhood. All I see is negative comments, property values to safety to hide in the sky construction plan. You couldn’t do construction on a four by eight shed on that road, let alone try to build a 10 story unit.

I watched the condos be built in front of my daughter’s school. And Byron Northview and I took two years and they took up half of the parking lot of the church in order to park all the construction vehicles there. And it was a mess. And that’s not even at an intersection.

You’re going to try to do something in a major intersection that needs to be widened already. And I don’t know when that’s going to be planned to do. But that should be widened already. We’ve got a bus stop there.

We’ve got people walking to our beautiful sanctuary of warmer woods up and down these these these skinny sidewalks. I know for a fact 10 parking spots with 10 units. Are you kidding me? Everyone’s going to own at least two cars.

It’s going to be three residents per apartment building, 3000 square foot apartment buildings I hear, which is I don’t think we need a lot of those in London right now. But once again, you know what they’re going to park in a park on Chestnut Hill all the way up our street. Our street is it’s a hidden gem in the city of London. And I think you guys got to look at that.

Someone’s got to take a deep dive on this. We’ve got to get into some more environmental reports. We’ve got to get someone out there and watching what’s happening with the traffic this intersection. If you want me, I’ll volunteer.

I’ll give you a study for that. Trust me, if you need more time to make the proper decision for this neighborhood of of 200 plus residents, please open it up and let us know in the community. What’s happening? Because we obviously care and have a lot of passion to what’s going to be in our neighborhoods for decades to come.

That’s all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And I will do one more final call to see if there’s anybody else to speak to this one.

I’ll check with the clerk to see if there’s anyone else online. Mr. Chair, there’s no one else online. Thank you.

So colleagues, I’m going to now ask the clerk to open the vote to close the public participation meeting closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Okay. So I wrote down a number of the questions.

A lot of the concerns expressed were repeated. So I’ll only be asking through our staff on that one time. I do, however, before I just jump into questions, I’m going to provide a little bit of context for residents in the gallery about a couple of the concerns or a couple of the comments that were raised. So when it comes to whether or not a building is a rental property or an owned property, that’s not a matter that the planning committee can consider.

That’s not a matter under the Planning Act that we would take under consideration. Similarly, with regards to the concern, and I appreciate where Ms. Goldhock, I think it was, was coming from with the aging in place. But aging in place can actually simply refer to somebody downsizing from their single family home and into an apartment and freeing up that single family home for someone else.

And it does not necessarily mean living in a supportive housing environment with PSW’s or anything like that. Although it can, it does not necessarily mean that that is the case. And I will say for the resident that commented about this appearing in a Toronto publication. I have no knowledge of that.

I don’t know when that appeared. I don’t think our staff would be able to comment on that either. If somebody submitted something privately to a publication and they chose to run it. That’s not really something that we would have much to contribute on.

Although if staff is aware of it, I’ll certainly ask for them to provide a comment, but they may not be aware of that at all. So I just wanted to share those few sort of key pieces off the top because I do think it’s important to share that they were heard, but those aren’t matters that we can consider as a planning committee. We did hear lots of questions and concerns around traffic around the parking ratio and that it would be forcing parking into on street on the side streets. And as well as the and the last speaker raised this one, but it was raised by a couple of other speakers as well with the width of the road and the potential future widening in the area.

So I’m wondering if staff can comment on three things that I will start with those ones. The parking ratio and the concerns about the on street parking and a future widening of the intersection or commissioners road itself. And I’m not sure whether Mr. House wants to start or if another member of staff wants to start on that, but just looking for some comments on that through the chair, I can provide some answers towards the parking ratio.

So in the bylaw today, we request a parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit. The applicant is providing nine underground spaces as well as one on the surface parking. So at one space per unit. Based on that, they meet our requirements that are outlined in the bylaw based on parking ratio requirements.

So I will pass it off to our engineering team for the discussion on the actual traffic ratios and that type of thing. Thank you through the chair. It was previously mentioned, but a traffic impact assessment was not required by our transportation division, due to the minor increase of vehicles on the road. And there was also no concerns raised regarding the access location in the proximity to the intersection.

Thank you. Okay. Another question that we heard several times was with regard to the extent of the setbacks. The 46% lot coverage was mentioned several times, but we did hear the applicant also indicate that they were going to be conveying some of their current land to the city.

So, and I don’t know the answers to this myself, but whether or not that 46% is calculated based on after those lands have been conveyed to the city or the lot size before the conveyance. But I’m just wondering if we can get a little bit of additional comment from staff around the recommended staff supported setbacks and lock coverage. Through the chair, I’ll try to explain as well. The agent also tried to explain it.

So those setbacks and the lock coverage is based on the new zoning line. It’s not based on the total area of the property. So to answer your question, the calculation is based on a reduced area of the zone line and not the total property. So that does make the numbers slightly bigger.

Okay. Thank you for that. I think that’s helpful for a community to know. We also heard a number of concerns about the impact of the noise, the lighting, the noise reflecting through the ravine and impacting the backyards as well as the wildlife and the considerations for that impact on the ESA.

So I’m wondering if staff can comment on any consideration given to a study on noise impacts or light impacts. I know that the lighting is typically designed in modern developments to reflect down and not out, but that was raised by members of the public. So I’m just wondering if we can get some comment on the light and noise impacts considerations through the chair. I’ll start with noise generally noise studies are done based on traffic and the impacts on the development itself.

It relates to the kind of windows and stuff they need put in the development, not so much the reverse. Any noise issues would ultimately be a bylaw issue, but based on the development proposal, the limited amenity space in the rear of that apartment building, we don’t anticipate any major noise issues from from the development itself. In terms of lighting, again, we have limited the number of potential windows on that western, yeah, western lease side yard. So there’s limited uses over there.

We’ve increased the setback and hopefully through buffering and landscaping, it’ll limit the light impacts without site plan approval. There is no direction we can give for directional lighting. So we are limited there in terms of controlling the lighting on the property. Thank you for that.

Another concern that came up by multiple residents, the pedestrian use in the area, and certainly something that I had put a star beside in my notes here was concerns about the sidewalks being too narrow. And I just wonder if transportation can comment on the existing sidewalk widths and whether or not they’re within our regulatory standards for the appropriate size. Zohagan through the chair, and we don’t have a staff representative from transportation, but the existing sidewalks, I would assume were constructed under the appropriate widths. And with no site plan, we wouldn’t have any upgrades to the sidewalks at this point.

So I’m just going to do a quick follow up with you there, Ms. Ohagan, over the course of the years as different subdivisions and neighborhoods have been built out. Have there been changes to the minimum sidewalk widths under the provincial guidelines? So would we maybe see a narrower sidewalk in this neighborhood than we may see in a brand new neighborhood through the chair?

Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. Peter Kavick.

That’s absolutely correct. So as provincial legislation has changed with respect to accessibility for Ontario, the sidewalk width have varied. For instance, right now they’re 1.5, but previously they’ve been 1.2 meters after reviewing this area. It does look like it’s 1.5 meters.

Granted, the sidewalk right now is curbside sidewalk adjacent to the street, which is probably leading to the unpleasantness that the residents are experiencing. Is it feeling like a narrow sidewalk? Thank you. I think that’s that’s helpful information for us to have as well, knowing that it’s curb facing and under the 1.5 meter guideline size.

So that that really summarizes all of the major questions that were asked. I do want to give committee members now an opportunity. If they have any technical questions, we don’t have a motion on the floor yet in any direction. So I want us to stay very, very tight to technical questions.

Then once the motions on the floor, we can have some more general discussion guidelines. So I’m just going to see if anyone has any technical questions and particularly related to the PPM that that I did not cover. But I think based on the list I have here, I’ve covered off all of the ones that we heard. So looking to see if there’s Councillor Frank.

Thank you. Yes. One of the questions that I heard, maybe it’s not a question I’m forming into question from the PPM was in regards to the boundary tree. I’m just wondering through you to staff if an adjacent property owner does not give consent for boundary tree to be demolished.

What happens at that point with this project? Do we want to go to Mr. Corby for that through the chair of consent’s not received the applicant will have to make adjustments to the building footprint to avoid impacting that tree. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. And then I do have some questions, not specifically from the PPM though, but they are technical. So it’s now an appropriate time. Wonderful.

I was wondering, given that this whole process, I think for this application started before we had updated EMGs, I am wondering, given that our EMGs now require 30 meter setback from significant natural features such as the Warbler Woods ESA. I’m wondering how that was factored into the discussion and how come we’re not seeing a requirement for 30 meter setback, given it’s close to an ESA. Mr. House or Mr.

Corby. So as noted, the previous or the original application was made in 2012 based on that submission. The development limit was determined through an onsite visit with staff, college staff and upper Thames, and that development limit has carried through the development process till today. All right.

Thank you. If I may ask a follow up. So I’m wondering if anything was in like other applications are in the pipeline, and this is more for my information. If anything is in the pipeline pre EMGs, are we honoring whatever the discussed agreements were and ignoring our EMGs moving forward?

I’m just wondering if that like what it takes precedent in this case. Everyone looking towards Miss McNeely. So we’re going to go to Miss McNeely. Thank you for the question.

That’s a good one. In terms through you, Chair, it’s something that doesn’t, you know, it resonates well with the city in terms of trying to protect the balance with development. Where there have been previous conversations, discussions, applications and even adjustments to applications, resubmissions. We’ve been honoring the or grandfathering those conversations.

So going forward, we will be. You’ll see some other applications coming forward where we’re using the old EMGs, but any new application that’s submitted fully will be under the new EMGs. Anything else, Councilor Frank? Yes.

Yes. Thank you. So I’m just again wrapping my head around this a little bit given that it was staff that had this discussion with the applicant and not counsel. It sounds more to me as if it is like a staff commitment and not necessarily counsel one.

So I just want to confirm that that discussion does not bound counsel to a previous agreement between staff and the applicant. Ms. McNeely on the EMGs is what Councilor Frank was asking through the chair. These are conversations that have been with experts, some of the matter experts.

So in terms of that, as it’s not just city staff, it’s others that have been participating in those conversations and in terms of determining those, the development limit. Having said that, no, we have not come through Council for those. They are brought forward at the time of application like today for those for that decision making. Thank you.

Councilor Frank. Thank you. I think this is my last one. And I’m just wondering.

So the, the previous agreement, that was back in, I think it was 2013 or 2014 when this application was first discussed. And that was, it sounded like from some of the attendees originally intend to be a spa. So I’m just wondering, given the significant change in use of the applicant, was it considered throughout this process to, to change the, the setback limits at the back. Okay.

So that’s what we’re going to be or Mr. House will look to whichever staff member wants to respond to that one through the chair there. I don’t want to say there was no discussion. There was discussion about the new EMGs.

But again, with the previous agreement, that was confirmed through discussions with staff. That’s what we based the development limit on. Thanks for Frank. Thank you.

I lied. I had one more. One more follow up. I promise.

And I appreciate all these questions. I know this one’s a unique application through the chair. One final question. I’m just wondering, are we able to guarantee that there’ll be no negative impact to the ESA?

Given this development application. And I don’t know which staff member wants to take that one through the chair. We can’t ultimately confirm what the final impacts will be of the development on the ESA. Thank you, Mr.

Kirby. I see Council Frank nodding. So I’m going to move to Council ramen next for any technical questions. Thank you.

And through you, I just want to get a little bit more familiar with the environmental management guidelines and the rationale for those guidelines changes in 2020. I assume that there are the changes. And ultimately, the 30 meter setback was for more protectionist measures in ESAs and other areas that something staff can confirm. So Hagen, do you want to start through the chair?

Can we please get that question again? Sure. Thank you. Sorry.

So for the environmental management guidelines that were set in place that are not applicable to this application due to the fact that it was before the. The timeline of the guidelines. I’m just wondering if you could provide the rationale for the guideline updates and that 30 meters, particularly. Is it to provide additional protection for ESAs?

A little more clear. It looks like Mr Edwards is ready to answer that. So yeah, the provincial policy statement set up that you are to demonstrate no negative impacts as part of a development. So the old guidelines are from 2006 and in 2021, they were updated and part of that update included the review of what we call ecological buffers are meant to do is a space of vegetation protection zone.

It protects a spacing between development and the feature. So it’s that area that absorbs impacts. So the 30 meters, really what it’s about is it’s things like eliminating the opportunity for encroachments to occur within the feature, mitigating lights and noise and those sorts of things. So when you have a dense vegetative patch, that inhibits light from getting into the feature.

So it protects the feature protects root zones, but also attenuates runoff. So there’s a separation. So that runoff is an impacting the feature as well. So that’s that’s sort of the genesis and what the buffers are about.

Councilor Robin. Thank you. Just another technical question from page 197 and part two around the drip lines. I’m just wondering if you could speak to the drip lines and that.

Discussion, it looks like on word and now on paper between former city colleges and the applicants, the colleges to maintain the drip lines as the limit of development into naturalize under the drip lines. If you can just provide more insight into that. Mr Edwards, through the chair, drip lines are where we define the edge of a feature. So that is the starting point of a feature.

So in this instance, based on that. There would be no ecological buffer in this instance. If the drip line is used as a limit of development. Okay.

I think that’s exhausted. Our technical questions. Councilor Hopkins technical or. Yes, just technical.

If I could be recognized. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you.

And I know there were many, many questions here from the public just following up on some technical questions. I know the barn in. Is a heritage feature in the area. I just want to make sure that it is not significant in any way through you.

Mr House. Through the chair on our mapping system. We do not have this site as being a heritage property or anything in relation to heritage. So we confirmed with our heritage planners that there is no features on this site.

Thank you. And just following up on another question about the application. I know this is in my ward. Lots of residents were notified at the end of 2023.

And I just would like through you to staff to explain why we are here today and the timeline and the significance of the timeline. So, Mr House, did you want to speak to the statutory timelines now? So through the chair, we have 90 days to processes that be a application. So we got this application in December, just before the holidays.

So based on the timeline, when we deemed the application complete, we had 90 days to bring it to a planning and environment committee meeting and council. So that’s why we are here today for February 21st, because this is the only meeting that would fall within that 90 day timeline. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

I think that’s has been a concern from the public not knowing anything at all about this application. So one last technical question, and it is a follow up to the buffer in the around the ESA. I understand it is an open space five. If you could explain it.

Is that enough buffering to the south of this property to protect. What is the always five start from the drip line, and how does the buffering understanding the buffering and if it’s sufficient enough to protect the environmental sensitive area and following up with the geotechnical slope stability report. I’m just wondering if it’s required and if so, is there a holding provision that’s needed, Mr House, through the chair, in regards to the geotechnical report, that is will be included in the section 28 permit that they’ll have to get through the UTRCA in regards to the drip line and where the OS five zone starts. It starts right on the opposite side of the development limit.

So the entire rear portion of the property will be zoned OS five, which is our most restrictive in terms of development. So no development will be allowed on their just parkland trails, that type of thing. So it’s the most restricted that we have in terms of our OS zones and the further section 28 permit will permit further geotechnical reports and that kind of thing. Thank you.

Okay, so I think that’s exhausted our technical questions. So colleagues, you’ve had a chance to read the report. You’ve listened to the public feedback. You’ve had your technical questions answered.

So we’re looking for some direction now from committee on this application. Councilor Frank, thank you. Yes, I think based on the discussion and on the input from the community, I will be rejecting the staff recommendation and refusing this, but I unfortunately do not have language drafted for refusal. But that would be my preference and I can whip that up.

If I have a seconder. I think that it would be reasonably easy for the clerk to change be approved to be refused in the language. So that’s a relatively quick thing for the clerk to do. Councilor ramen.

Thank you. I’ll second that. Okay. So a motion to refuse has been moved and seconded.

So now we can open the floor for some discussion and I will start with the mover. Councilor Frank. Thank you. Yes, I’d love to speak to it.

And I just want to start my comments by saying, I do love in film and I love medium density. And I think that this design actually looks very good. So I think whoever was working on it did a very good job. I unfortunately think that this location is not a great location for this specific development.

I’m personally I’m willing to ignore EMGs. I do think they apply in this situation because this application is new in my opinion. It was submitted three months ago and therefore it is after the 2021 new EMGs. And just to comment on some of the comments from residents.

I’m not aware of any research. And if anyone is, please feel free to send it to me. But any research that says that in field decreases property values. Again, if anything, I think a lot of nice info increases property values in invites neighbors into the community as well.

I don’t think that 10 units of infill significantly adds to the traffic in the area. So I just, I’m not refusing this application because of those comments. I’m really sticking it straight to just the, the not complying with our EMGs. So at this point, I will be supporting a refusal of this application and would encourage the applicant to work with staff to find something that fits on this parcel that meets the setbacks and EMG requirements.

And I’m going to look to see if there are other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor. And while we typically go to committee members, I know the word counselors here too. So just looking to see if there’s anyone further speak to this. So Ramen.

Yeah, thank you. I did second this for similar reasons. I do think that although we do need infill development. I do think that right sizing that infill development and lining it up with the environmental management guidelines is important.

So for that reason, I’m not in favor of this application at this time. Thank you. Any further speakers seeing none. I’m just going to turn the chair.

Sorry, Councilor Hopkins. Go ahead. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

I know you could go ahead and if you can recognize me after that’s fine too. Yeah, I’m, you’re the word counselor. I’m happy to wait and let you go first. Thank you.

I want to first of all start off with saying that it’s really important to know that this is 10 units. Sorry. So there’s no site plan process. So here at committee, we’ve got to get it right.

And I really appreciate that the concerns coming forward around that buffering and even to the west side, the importance of creating that privacy and buffering and protecting the environmentally sensitive area. You could hear loud and clear from the public today how important this feature is to their community and it should be respected. I do want to say to the applicant though, there’s many things in this proposal that I support. I really do appreciate the way you’ve tiered the building.

It’s not all four story. It goes from second to three to four. And it really does create that balance on the property because that property is very unlevel. There’s the windows to the west.

It’s really important that they’d not be habitable rooms, no balconies really appreciate doing that to respect the neighboring. But I think that west side, if we don’t get it right here at committee that west side need. There is a boundary tree. We need that further set back side set back because we don’t really know what the lighting is going to look going down with this development and how it’s going to be developed.

If anything, that west side tends to really require the extra buffering. As many trees coming out, lots of work still to be done on this property. The density, it’s not 55.5 hectares is not units per hectare. Isn’t that intense, but right abutting an environmental sensitive area changes the dynamics.

I really want to say to the public, thank you for coming out. I do support in Phil. We do need, we’re not going to get another house put in here to replace the existing house. We do need to build some kind of intensity on the property having regard for the sensitivity of the area.

So I really would encourage the builder to keep working with staff to come up with something that works. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I will ask Councillor ramen to take the chair just for a moment so I can share my thoughts too.

Thank you. I have the chair returned to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. And although I will say this won’t be a unanimous vote, I appreciate where my colleagues are coming from.

I’m not going to support the refusal. And I want to say for a couple of reasons, I appreciate the staff work that has gone into this. And I really appreciate the answer that was provided about the 46% lot coverage and the fact that this would be based on the new zoning lines because lands are in fact being conveyed to the city that will make the property smaller than it is today. I, too, support infill.

I agree with what the word Councillor said. The density for hectares is not significant. It’s it’s gentle. I would say compared to a number of infills that we see.

And I actually do believe that when applications are submitted, whenever they’re submitted, it’s the regulations of the time that need to be applied. It’s not fair in my view to change the goal posts. And whether that’s EMGs or other factors, I don’t think it’s fair to change the goal post on an applicant once they’ve started a onion fill project. That’s not to say that I don’t think that there are some really legitimate concerns raised by the neighbors.

And particularly frustrating for me is the fact that and the word counselor Councillor Hopkins raised it. There’s no site plan approval process here. And that is something that the province has taken away from us. So things like the noise attenuation and the lights and those things would have been something that we could have put holding provisions on and looked at in greater detail in the future.

But that tool has gone from us now. And that is a loss that has impacted a number of applications already. And I think we’ll continue to do so. I wish we still had the opportunity to refer things back because I think that this project with a little bit of work and we heard about the necessity for upper temps to issue a section 28.

And so work would have to be done before upper temps is going to issue that permit. We also heard about the boundary tree. And that actually, we heard the residents say they’re not going to give consent. If we could refer this back, the applicant would have to make some changes anyway, recognizing that they’re not going to get consent on the boundary tree.

But we now have this statutory 90 day deadline to make a decision. So not having that site plan control, not having the referral mechanism, not because we’ve chosen to give it up as a council, but because it has been taken away by the province on us. It’s frustrating. But for me, that’s where I have to lean back more onto the work that staff have done with the applicant behind the scenes and trust that they’ll continue to do that work as applications move forward as building permits are considered and those kind of things.

Because I think that there is an opportunity for infill here. And I think that to the word counselor’s point, we’re not going to see single family homes demolished and replaced with single family homes anymore. There are going to be infill sites happening around the city. And for me, it’s frustrating that we’re asked to do more and more infill, but have fewer and fewer tools to actually govern how this infill happens.

So that’s where I have to rely more on the work that our staff are doing behind the scenes. And so when they come forward with a recommendation to approve, I struggle to support refusing it. So that’s why I’m going to go the other way. It’s not because I don’t have some mixed feelings about this one.

Because I don’t have the tools to do more than our staff have done already. Thank you, returning the charity with no one on the speaker’s list. I’m going to look for any further speakers as Councillor ramen didn’t add any while she was in the chair. And I’m seeing none.

So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on this and give us just a moment to get that ready and e-scrap closing the vote. The motion carries three to one. Thank you colleagues. Councilor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. President Chair for recognizing me. I know there’s a number of residents here in the gallery. If you could explain the process going forward.

Certainly. So for the residents who are here, this isn’t a final, final decision. This still has to go to the next council meeting. If council upholds the committee’s decision to refuse, then the application is either stopped or an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal could be the next step.

But on the applicant’s part, council could change direction on this as well at council and decide to approve. They could make amendments to it. There are a number of steps still to come. But what’s happening today is the committee has recommended a refusal and that goes forward to the next council meeting.

Thank you for asking that, Councillor Hopkins, because I know that for members of the public, this may often be the only time there before us with a planning application. So what we are familiar with on a weekly basis is not necessarily familiar to everyone. So thank you for asking that. We’ve got a couple of more items on our scheduled items.

And the next one is the public participation meeting for 1467 Warren Cliff Road south. And I know we have some folks leaving. That’s okay. We’re going to look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

The same mover and seconder as we’ve had closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. So we’re going to look to the gallery first for a representative on behalf of the applicant for 1467 Warren Cliff Road.

I think we have anyone here to speak to this one from the applicant side. So we’ll just move along to opening up to anyone who wants to speak to this one. Final call for 1467 Warren Cliff Road. Seeing none, I’ll get the clerk to open the vote to close the public participation meeting closing the vote.

The motion carries for. Thank you colleagues. We’ll look for some direction on 1467 Warren Cliff Road. I don’t know if we perhaps have a mover for the staff recommendation, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen.

So that’s been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero.

Thank you colleagues. Moving along the next item on the agenda. 3.5 is a public participation meeting. This is and I’m going to apologize in advance.

I always mess up the pronunciation, but I’m going to say closer. Deferred trail segment, Medway Valley Forest, South Conservation Master Plan, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero.

Thank you colleagues. And as this one is really the city being the applicant, I’m going to ask staff if they can provide us a quick overview on where we are with this one. Through the chair, Emily Williamson ecologist. This has been a long 10 plus year project.

The city has undertaken extensive ecological assessment of the Medway Valley through the approved process laid out in our policy document. The trail management guidelines. We did phase one, which assess the baseline environmental conditions moved on to phase two in 2018 that then overlaid an effective trail sustainable trail plan on top of that. That was referred back to staff for additional work in 2018 and in 2021 staff brought forward a revised version through consultation with various advisory committee groups, and that was approved.

Save and accept the glovester deferred trail segment. The trail segment is being brought forward by staff as a level to trail. That is a firm and stable surface that will provide additional accessibility to meter requirements through the accessibility of Ontario’s contract and as well as provide access to the utility overlay at the base of the Hill for various cleanouts and to avoid additional work and disturbance should any emergency cleanouts be needed. We are bringing this forward to you for to resolve the 2021 resolution and move forward with this conceptual trail plan.

I’m going to look to the public in the gallery for those online who may wish to speak to this. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, you can hear me down there. We can hear you perfectly clearly, sir.

So if you can give us your name address, if you wish, and my name is. George George, George Sinker, my wife Sydney and I live at 1597 Gloucester Road, which is adjacent to the A12 trail to the east. Congratulations on your pronunciation of Gloucester. And we’ve lived either on this side of the Valley or on White Acres Drive for approximately 37 years, because we love the Valley so much we raised our family there.

Since today, in 2021, there are actually two items that happened. The Planning Committee directed Council and Council resolved to take no action with respect to the Green Acres Road allowance. And secondly, they deferred the A12 trail issue. And I would say today, with all due respect to staff who have spent a lot of time on this, Emily and I have had a lot of discussions.

I believe that it’s premature to deal with the A12 trail today as to whether it stays as a level one or goes to a level two. Why is it premature? Because there are about 20 people a week that traverse that trail, so that volume of traffic does not require A2. But secondly, I think you need to deal with the Green Acres Road allowance issue before you can decide on whether you increase the trail from level one to a level two.

Because the original intent of staff was that that Green Acres Road allowance be opened. The residents in the area, and I believe you’ll hear today, are certainly not in favor of that. And there are probably 45 to 50 year old encroachments on that road allowance, which I appreciate are illegal, however they’ve been there for some time. That you direct that the property division look at whether these lands can be declared surplus, and in fact, conveyed to the adjoining owners, which I believe is what the neighborhood would like to see rather than having it opened as further access to the park off Ambleside.

The other reason I think you should that it’s premature to proceed with dealing with the A12 trail today is because I’ve made a request to staff and staff have agreed that they’ll have their trails committee take a look at the A13 trail, which is if you’re familiar with the area at the intersection of the West End of Windermere and Ryerson. Currently, you can travel down that trail about three quarters of the way, but my suggestion was that stairs should be installed at that trail because there is parking there for visitors to the valley. So certainly, if the decision is to bring this back and if it’s decided these lands are surplus and should be conveyed, I don’t believe that 20 people using that trail per week is sufficient to upgrade it to a level two trail. I agree that the level one trail should have some upgrades to it.

No question about that, but I also don’t believe that it’s really an issue for planning committee to decide whether this should be an access to the utilities in the valley. In my experience, planning doesn’t deal with the issues of sewer access, so I believe that’s a red herring here, or if it’s not a red herring, it should have been framed that way to begin with that we need access to the sewer. Just because somebody didn’t think of that 30 years ago, it doesn’t mean that we should suffer that now. So again, I say the cards before the horse, let’s deal with these other issues first to determine if there’s going to be more volume created if the decision coming back from parks and rec is that it should be left open.

I disagree with that. I think it should be sold. That’s what the neighborhood wants. And I believe that if you want to do some improvements to the current level one trail, that would be fine.

There’s some running there certainly. So those are my comments. Thank you, sir. And I’m going to look to see if there’s anyone else who’d like to speak to this.

Welcome to chair. My name is Sal Pasevico, and I’ve lived in the neighborhood for about over 30 years. I live next door to the trail. Over the course of the last several years, our neighborhood has repeatedly made it swish known that the past should remain as it exists now without widening without changing it to level two.

With any alterations such as switchbacks that would necessitate significant construction in an environmentally protected area. This was well documented back in our city council meeting in 2018 and a virtual meeting with the neighborhood in 2021. The important factor for consideration is that this is a very small path that leads to nowhere and is only approximately two kilometers long. The cost benefit analysis taking into consideration the impact on existing neighborhood, the natural habitat species do not warrant proceeding with this project.

The public consultation on this issue has been extremely limited and failed to include fully the surrounding neighborhood. The public consultation failed to include such important issues as the impacts that the increase in access to the valley would have on the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, congestion, public safety. Increased traffic will inevitably lead to use of informal trails going through sensitive areas and private properties. Lack of available parking roads result in increased congestion in the area and safety issues for area children.

Signage does not work as one of often sees people ignoring signs and have dogs off leashes. If one was truly concerned about the environment impact, the city would do something about the buckthorn invasion. We have repeatedly pointed out that the natural access to the small trail at access point A13 at the end of Windermere West A13 currently has a large signage is not in the neighborhood as recycled actual parking with additional parking if required. Available at the LC parent William estate, which is owned by the city currently a significant portion of this path approximately half already consist of serpentine switchbacks path leading to the bottom trail.

It would take minimal construction to complete the last half of the path to the bottom trail or as my neighbor mentioned possible stairs. The parking issues and concerns are important to take into consideration and result in significant impacts on the community. The gloss Chester access a 12 into the primary access point would create parking hazard on a narrow street with no curves. This street was built in the 50s.

There are significant number of families with small children in the neighborhood and are concerned about increased vehicular traffic. In the last two years, we’ve had two incidents of vehicles traveling at high speed and crashing into homes. The proposed widening of the gloss to path and possibly the inclusion of switchbacks would negatively impact the current natural environment. The neighborhood through past consultation with the city has repeatedly asked that the path be left the way it is in its current natural form.

The current existing slope is reported as 11.5% which is within the acceptable limit of 15. Option A outlined in drawing would require significant changes to the path without a significant improvement in the slope. Option B would double the length of the path getting to the bottom. However, this option would create significant intrusion into natural environment impacting numerous species and habitats and add significant costs.

The neighborhood preference is to leave the path as a level one without the need for option A or B. The current path and trail fit within a protected natural heritage forest with minimal disruption. Any change would significantly impact the current natural environment including natural deer trails and numerous other species and their habitats. Hiding the path and installing recycled asphalt significantly altered the natural environment and contaminate the area with petroleum hydrocarbons.

In addition, the risk of safety to children in the area due to increased traffic. There have been several reports of trail users being attacked by people hiding in the forest and two known cases where dogs being stolen given rise to concern for the safety in the area, particularly of the numerous homes that do not offense rear yard. Once expanded, widened and hardened with recycled asphalt become popular places for people with mountain bikes, camping and potential motorized vehicles. The city currently does not have the staff to significantly enforce any of these rules on the paths and trails.

The cow gates at the entrance of the path do not stop people from lifting their bicycles over their heads and walking through and only serve to prevent any potential city vehicles from getting down to the valley. There have also been several incidents of coyote attacks and dogs and people on this path and gatherings by groups of teens late at night. Just want to let you know you got about 20 seconds. Campfires.

There has been at least one incident of coyote attack and dog cluster on Gloucester Road. If people can’t feel safe walking in the streets, how can they feel safe walking in the valley? Thank you. And we’ll look to see if there’s anyone else who wishes to speak.

Just give you a moment to get to the mic. Welcome. Thank you. Hi, my name is Allison Vanstone and I live at 74 Green Acres Drive.

My husband’s here with me Peter Pendle and we moved into the house in 2015 and we were part of the conversation in 2018 and 2021 again about increasing this path on Gloucester. I can’t say it either and hardening it and also for opening the path beside our home between 74 and 84 Green Acres Drive. On both occasions we took a petition around the neighborhood and had 80 to 90 percent depending on who was home. In each case sign the petition that they weren’t interested in changes in both of those areas.

So I think my observation of moving back to London, I grew up here when I was younger. So moving back to London, settling down here and then meeting people in our neighborhood and then meeting new people who’ve just moved into our neighborhood. They did build a very large single family home on an estate lot. They moved there.

There are two doctors that work at Western University and we walked on the neighborhood yesterday with them and they said we love this city and we love living in this neighborhood because it feels like we’re living in a park in the countryside. Even though we’re right beside the hospital and we can walk to work. So I understand what the city is trying to do with opening paths and creating connectivity but there’s this little tiny cul-de-sac that has 80 homes on it. And everybody there just wants to live there the way that they’ve lived for 30, 40, 50 years.

Even though we’re new, we like the way everybody lives there and we’d like to continue living there that way. So I understand that today it’s just this one path that’s for discussion about hardening and creating more access to the bottom. Well, if there’s something happening with the sewers in the bottom, there’s got to be a way down there already because somebody’s fixed sewers down there before now, I’m sure of it. So that’s one question I have.

How did people get down there before hardening this new path that’s on the agenda? And the other one is about 7484 green acres, about sending it back through a hole, Corinne was very nice to spend some time with me on the phone and talk through how the process would go from this committee back to Parks and Forestry, then back for a public consultation, then back to this committee, then open for a public consultation again, and then on to City Council. It seems like so much time, hours of staff time put into a question of a little tiny path to get a few children to a park that they can walk to in 15 minutes if they just walk out of the neighborhood and over to the park. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me and it sounds like it costs a lot of money.

So I’m just putting it out there if there’s a way for this committee to say today, why don’t we just close that issue, hand it over to real estate and let it be done with. Neighbors on both sides are happy to keep it the way it was for the last 50 years. Thank you. Thank you.

We do appreciate you coming to share that and I’m going to just look to see if anyone else wants to speak to this. I’m not seeing anyone else in the gallery. I’m going to check and see if there’s anyone online. And then you have five minutes.

Yes, I’m Jacqueline Madden. I’ve been involved in this project for a lot of years when I first moved here in 2012 I was a neighbor. When we did the Medway Valley North, and then I was part of the Accessibility Advisory Committee when we were doing the rest of this and then most recently just as a community advocate. I’m going to be pretty short and sweet because for me the answer to this is is pretty simple.

We’ve had all the environmental studies done. Let’s say that a level two trail is doable and bought and it might even be desirable in this spot. We have the AODA, which says, which certainly what we’re planning to do is consistent with what the AODA says. We have significant areas, which is a publication that that the city endorsed in 2016.

And it says we’re environmentally possible ecologically possible. We will put in the most accessible trail that we can. And so the level two trail has been deemed ecologically advisable. It’s certainly accessibility wise.

It’s the right thing to do. And so I’m hoping that city council endorses what staff has recommended. Thank you, Miss Madden. Thank you.

And I’m just going to do one more call for additional speakers. And I’ll check with the clerk to see if anyone else is waiting online through the chair. There’s no one else online. Thank you.

Pardon me. And thank you, Councillor ramen for grabbing me a second glass because my voice is a little hoarse today. I did a lot of talking this morning. So seeing no further speakers, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote to close the public participation meeting closing the vote.

The motion carries 4 to 0. Thank you, colleagues. We heard a fair amount of community point of view on whether or not this is necessary. There weren’t really too many questions, but I do want to go to staff before we look for any motions on a couple of very specific things that were raised.

First of those is the premise that this is needed for sewer access and what the current sewer access options are for the city right now. So I’m wondering if staff can give us some comment on how we’re servicing or hopefully not, but perhaps not servicing the existing sewer lines through the chair. Currently, there is no access down to this portion of the utility overlay. On September 29 of 2023 on the west side of Medway Valley, there was an emergency blockage and clean out required.

And at that time, they were able to use the existing level to firm and stable trails to access that portion, thus ensuring they didn’t need to take down emergency trees and vegetation remained intact. I haven’t heard of any residents who were even aware that the blockage took place. And that’s why one of the drivers for ensuring that we do have access down to these utility overlays in these sensitive areas. Thank you for that.

A couple of our speakers commented about closing the or not proceeding, and then just declaring this surplus or letting realty services deal with it from there. I know this gets into a little more policy and a little less in terms of the staff recommendations. And I’m not sure if there’s any staff who want to speak to this, but I will ask if given the direction that’s before us today. So there is a potential for a consultation on whether or not to open the one path.

If that consultation were to be a negative, would that result in realty services then evaluating whether or not the land is surplus as a result, or does that require a council direction, whether now or in the future to have realty services determine whether these lands are surplus or not. Through the chair, with respect to Green Acres Drive, as per the council direction, we did not do any consultation associated with this access. So we are moving forward to request if now is the time to initiate a process. Should it be deemed that these lands are surplus through the public consultation and we did provide in our recommendation that this would move forward to parks planning, and that they would complete that consultation.

And we do have parks planning staff here to speak to that process if it is necessary. But that would be the intent. Should it be deemed that there’s not a public need for this access, realty services would then move forward with their processes. And it would be a recommendation from that report for them to do so.

Thank you. So just for clarity on a technical process moving forward. What I heard there is that there are actually two options. We could simply, the committee could determine not to move forward and then it would go to realty services or the committee could determine to move forward with a public consultation.

And that would then first involve parks. And if it doesn’t involve if parks deems after the consultation, no, then it moves to realty services. There’s potentially two paths that lead it to there. One of those paths potentially leads it to being opened up as a more enhanced trail system.

Just want to make sure from a technical perspective, I’m hearing that correctly. Thank you. That’s correct. That would be the expected process.

But considering that it was an unresolved matter from a previous council resolution that we put it forward at this time to ultimately decide what was going to happen with this unrode. And I will say it also would provide additional connectivity than just for children. There’s pick up all courts and other things in the area that would be supported by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to establish that. But again, we would go back to the public consult on the need and make that course from there.

Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to follow up on those two items that we really heard consistently in the public engagement today. So I’m going to look to see if colleagues have any technical questions to follow up on what I just asked from the public participation or if we’re ready to get into perhaps some direction and debate.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I have two questions through you to staff that are somewhat technical in nature.

I just want to confirm that by improving this access that there will be negative impacts to the ESA. Ms. Williamson. Through the chair, that is the intent of the upgrade.

The access will ensure that we have a firm and stable surface that does provide increased accessibility. However, as part of this larger project, there will be a species removal associated and then because we are creating an access to the sewers below at the base of the hill. There won’t be any emergency access, which will not have any regard for the trees that need to be cut. The vegetation that needs to be cleared as they access that emergency blockage.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. And through the chair, one follow up. I also just want to confirm that it meets our master plans and the master plan for this specific ESA.

Ms. Williamson. Through the chair, in 2021, the entire Midway Valley Conservation Master Plan was approved, save and accept this portion. So with that in mind, should Council deem the level, not approve the level to trail, we would be going back and revising that Conservation Master Plan and subsequently bringing forth a bylaw to amend and enact the new Conservation Master Plan.

So yes, it meets the requirements of creating a Conservation Master Plan, laid out by the trail management guidelines, and it has already been approved by Council in 2021. Again, save and accept this component. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

Based on that input, I’d be happy to move the staff recommendation. Oh, sorry. I’ve got it. These new microphones have a sensitive button, folks.

So if you wonder why I’m going in and out, it’s because I’ve hit the button twice. So moved by Councilor Frank and seconded by Councilor ramen. So the staff recommendation is on the floor, and I’ll look for speakers to that now. Councilor ramen.

Thank you. And three, and before I provide comment, I just want to ask a few follow up questions to staff. If that’s OK. So when we were first, I want to say thank you to staff and the public for what I will say was a very vigorous engagement over this discussion about what to do specifically with.

The deferred trail segment. I had the opportunity to also go out with neighbors and take a little walk through as well. Had a chance to also walk through the 13 trail to also observe and get a sense of those two access points. So thank you to the community for their engagement with me on that.

I’ve had quite a few emails from the community on this matter. I’ve heard from members of the accessibility committee and those that have accessibility concerns in the area as well. I wanted to just ask a question about the difference between the trail level one and the level two. I know this was quite the discussion that we had at the library about this as well.

But there is in the level one, there is an acknowledgement that a level one can be granular in wet areas. And from what I observed, this was quite wet in some spots. And so I think for the difference between the level one and the level two in this segment, other than the width, I’m just wondering if you might be able to speak to that granular substance and whether or not we would see a lot of granular in this area if we had a level one anyways. Miss Williamson through the chair.

That is correct. I’ve given the erosion issues along this segment. There are requirements for us to upgrade the access or upgrade the trail surface. If only just to ensure that the trail does not degrade further from an erosion and sediment control perspective.

The trail management guidelines do provide for different trail surfaces, whether those be a compacted gravel in some location in some wet areas that don’t have a slope that could include a boardwalk. So we have suggested moving forward with the level two trail to ensure that we do have the width, but the surface could remain the same regardless of if level one or level two are approved. Councilor. And thank you.

And then through you from the width perspective, my understanding is with the level two and the width. This would be beneficial from the access to the sewer perspective because with that additional width allows us to get vehicles and things that are needed to access that particular site further down through that through that corridor. So that width in the level two adds to that just to confirm is Williamson through the chair. That is correct.

We allow up to 2.5 meters. The city standard is three, but given there is an associated side of both of both of the trails that is managed and manicured, it will provide for the entire access. Yes. Thank you.

And my next question with regard to the sewer. I know that it was accessed in September 29, 2023. Can you speak more to the, I know it was an emergency? I know that it was something that we haven’t had to do in quite some time.

Can you speak more to that incident and perhaps be on before 2023 if you have any indication of when we may have access that point? Ms. Williamson. Through the chair, there is required maintenance on a 5 to 10 year cycle.

However, the emergency access was a one off event. This corridor drains the sewage from an entire section of the city towards the treatment plant, and it’s an extremely large sanitary sewer. The required maintenance material, maintenance equipment was a truck. So a truck was driven down into the valley with the appropriate equipment.

That is the sort of the limit of what we know in terms of that event, but happy to follow up with sewer operations if that’s desirable. No, that’s great. Thank you. And my last question just to confirm.

The A13 trail is not accessible as it is currently in the condition it’s in currently. And the ability to make that section accessible is has its own challenges and limitations. Can you just comment on the accessibility from that perspective of the A13 and then where other nearby accessible trails are within this vicinity? Ms Williamson.

Through the chair. A13, the slope precludes it from being an accessible trail. Some members of the public did speak about potential upgrades to that section. And that’s certainly something that city staff are able to look into.

However, it would not meet the requirements of a level two trail by virtue of the fact that it would be a staircase that would be installed and would not provide for alternate uses. In addition to that, it would not provide the necessary maintenance vehicle access that we are looking to obtain here adjacent or approximate level two trails. Multiple examples exist directly across the creek and are attached through from Gainesboro and around the through to almost the Metamora area into which would. So there are lots of other examples of level two trails within the Midway Valley.

This is just one section that has not yet had a level two trail approved with. The only exception is at the base of the valley where we have already approved a level two loop. So this is connecting through to it. We could be in a situation where the level two loop at the bottom of the valley would be connected to a level one and excluded from the trail system.

That’s a wrong. Thank you. I appreciate that. I did forget one question that was around cost and budget.

And I’m just wondering if you might be able to reflect on what we know or what we estimate to be the cost and where there’s existing budget or not to do this. Thank you, Miss Williamson. Through the chair, we anticipate that this trail segment will cost anywhere between 50 and $70,000. However, we have we have opportunities to reduce that cost based on the existing ESA management contract with upper tems as well as the existing at ESA management budget.

We are at the conceptual trail stage, though. I think it’s important to remember that. And we would never go through the detailed design process and establish the firm numbers associated with these at this point. Until we have received Council approval to move forward.

Sorry. Thank you. That exhausts my questions. I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask those questions in public to provide additional perspective.

And I know I’m running 10 running tight on time. But I wanted to first let the public know why I’d arrived at my decision on this matter. And a lot of it was related to the questions that I posed. For me, when I became familiar with this file at the time, the sewer issue wasn’t known or explored.

And when I was hearing from you and others during the consultation and understanding now that this is a new element with the overlay, I do think that this is the right decision at this time to address this issue and to deal with this deferred matter that’s been on our list and has been outstanding so that we can firmly wrap up the consultation and to wrap up this issue in the neighborhood. Of course, it doesn’t address the green acres area. That is something that we do need to spend some time with the community working on. And I do think it’s worth having a consultation similar to what we had, although it is a process.

I do think it’s important for people to have the opportunity to voice their concerns around that area as well and have an opportunity to weigh in on what we’re doing in that area. So I’m supportive of the direction and the motions that are on the floor. Thank you, Councillor ramen. I’m going to look to see if there are any further speakers to this.

So seeing none. I’m just going to take a minute to offer a quick thought from the chair, which is this. I’m going to support this at committee. I may change my mind by council because I’m going to go back and look at the discussion that was had in 2021 by the previous council.

I was a member of council and a member of the committee at that time. So I do recall a very significant discussion and I am in agreement with what I heard from the gallery about the length of time and consultation and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. We’re having on what is a very, very short piece of trail connectivity on a cul-de-sac. And I do recall a take no action direction.

And so I’m not sure that I want to take further action on opening up this trail, but I’m going to go back and I’m going to take my time to review that debate when it happened then. I can support the level two trail piece. It is the connection through that that is a concern for me and where that is disrupting long time residents for what I would agree with what we heard from the public to facilitate a very small number of users. And where that cost benefit analysis comes in in terms of whether this is worth more time and more consultation, because we have spent a tremendous amount of staff time on this.

This has been going on for years. And I’m not sure that that opening up that pathway is really the right way to address this. So I just want to share that I’m going to support this today, but I am going to take the time over the next week to do my homework. It’ll be a nice break from looking at budget emails and budget agendas, but I’m going to take the time to go back and watch that YouTube video of the debate we had back in 2021.

And at Council, I may not support the second part of this, which is talking about the trail opening. I may only support the level two trail connection because I I’m not sure that the direction from the Council resolution in 2021. It was intended to bring us back to have yet another public consultation on this. Maybe wrong.

Maybe that it was what we intended. But I will say, I can’t necessarily remember what I had for breakfast last Friday. So I definitely not going to pretend that I remember a debate from 2021. So I’m going to take the time to do that before I support this fully at Council.

But I do appreciate the great discussion on this site. And I do think we are at a point where we need to make a decision. So, thank you for listening. Councilor Roman.

Yeah, thank you. If I might just follow up. It was actually quite difficult to have this conversation about the Gloucester deferred trail segment and not talk about the green acres access because they did, you know, they worked in linked before and then to have that conversation separate because it was definitely a neighborhood concern. So absolutely I hear you.

I do think though that this neighborhood has changed even in the time since that discussion happened in 2021. And I do think it’s important to give the people that live in the area, an opportunity to weigh in on green acres and then decide what what needs to happen from there. They’re quite clearly from the neighborhood, what they’d like, but there it hasn’t been to parks and forestry for that further discussion. So I think that that’s important as well to hear what the residents have to say.

Thank you, Councilor Roman. And I’m going to take that as a note to also make time to sit down and have a coffee with you and listen to the some of the additional feedback you’ve heard. So I don’t have any other speakers on my list. So I mean, ask the clerk to open the vote.

The motion carries 4 to 0. Thank you colleagues. So moving on, we have one item that was deferred from our consent agenda. This is 2.4 heritage easement agreement for 39 car phrase street.

That was pulled by Councillor Hillier. We did have an added request for delegation status from Mr. Guard as this was pulled from consent. It now becomes an item for direction.

So a delegation status is in order. So we can dispense with this, but I am going to look to see if there is a mover and a seconder to receive the delegation moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor ramen. And Councillor Hillier, everybody was trying to get their hand out for that one. Thank you.

So I’m going to just ask the clerk to open the vote for us to receive the delegation. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to 0. Thank you colleagues.

So we have both the staff report on this as well as the delegation. So we’re going to invite Mr. Guard to take his delegation time now. And then we can have any direction from our members of committee in terms of the staff report and what we hear from the delegation status.

Hi, my name is Jeff Gert. I’m the owner of 39 Carfrae Street. This too has been going on, unfortunately, for a couple of years. The existing easement was copied word from a 1980 easement used in Toronto and filled out with mistrous lies in the schedules.

I do have to thank Kevin Edwards and Mike Gregol and myself. We’ve worked hard for the last six months. We survived monthly meetings, endless emails, telephone calls and multiple site visits. This process has been exhausting for all of us.

For over two years, we’ve been crystal clear to anyone who will listen to us. We require a mediation clause in the easement. We had made great progress. However, yesterday after I had already filed our submission, I was told by city staff, we will never give up soul and absolute control.

Otherwise, why have a easement? But with those words, perhaps this is the best resolution to our disagreement, not to have an easement. What I would prefer is I would like to see this committee recommend our proposed easement, including the schedules that we worked on for approval. And yes, this is very emotional for me, because it’s been so much time, so much energy.

It’s my house. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gard.

And I’m going to look to committee now, and you’ll have to forgive me as I have several windows open here. Councillor Ramen, you put your hand up, so I’m going to go to you first. Thank you. I’d like to move motion to go and close session.

Okay, so we need the purpose for going into closed session. First solicitor client privilege, and do you want me to read the motion and including communication necessary for that purpose and a position plan procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or behalf of municipality or local board in connection with the property located 39 car free street. Okay, so that has been moved. We have a seconder for that.

We have a seconder and Councillor Frank. So we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that closing the vote. The motion carries forward to zero. Thank you colleagues.

So we’re going to go into closed session to receive legal advice from our city staff. So we will have to ask everyone else to leave the space for this moment. Please take any belongings you have with you. We will be as quick as we can and return department to report out from our closed session.

Thank you. And please report that progress has been made for the matter. Everyone in camera. Thank you, Councillor Ramen.

So colleagues, we have had an opportunity to go in camera for the reasons that were listed for client solicitor privilege. We have the staff report and I just want to draw to colleagues attention before we get into whether we’re looking at the staff recommendation or alternate recommendations. That the recommendation that’s before us in the staff report is the updated schedule C and D on the heritage easement as attached in the appendix that we would be approving that. And there was an it being noted that the owner is requesting to resolve outstanding concerns with the remainder of the heritage easement agreement.

So right now that isn’t it being noted if colleagues wanted to do something different with that. We would need to either put forward an alternate motion or we would have to amend the staff motion if somebody wants to put that on the floor. And there’s also the further it being noted that the clerk has inserted that the communication and the delegation status from Mr. Guard was received.

So I’m in your hands. I’m looking to see if somebody wants to make a motion. I will indicate as well for colleagues that Councillor Stevenson did circulate a potential draft language for a part B. Although she’s not a committee.

So I’m just going to make sure we’re okay to continue with our. Okay. So our live streams are okay to continue. So as Councillor Stevenson is not a member of the committee a member of the committee would have to move that.

But she did ask and I did suggest that if committee wants to do committee work at committee that it would be better to advise us that she was interested in such an amendment rather than wait till council. So that was circulated and is in people’s inboxes as well. So I’m in committees hands Councillor Hillier. You put your thumb up.

I are sorry. Is that I’m trying to spare your voice. But if you can. Yeah, I would like to amend with the submission received from the Councillor.

Okay. So you want to put this an amended staff recommendation on the floor that would include the part D civic administration be directed to continue their efforts. With the applicant to address the outstanding concerns with the state. Oh, yes, sorry.

Yes, the language indicates bring back an update by the end of June of 2024. Okay. I just want to check with colleagues to make sure that they’re clear. Okay.

I’m just going to try and hopefully provide a little clarification then. So I believe and Councillor Hillier correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m going to try and do this to spare your voice as best I can. Believe what Councillor Hillier is moving is that. Part A would read that on the recommendation of the director of planning and development.

The proposed updated schedule C and D for the heritage easement pursuant to section 37 of the heritage act. And then rather than the being noted, there would now be a B section that will read civic administration. Be directed to make efforts with the applicant to address the outstanding concerns with the remainder of the heritage easement agreement and to bring back an update by the end of June of 2024. That would reflect the part B and then we would still have it being noted that the planning and environment committee received the following communications.

The request for delegation status and the communication dated from Mr. Guard and it being further noted that we received the verbal presentation. I’m seeing Councillor Hillier putting his thumbs up to that. So I’m hoping that helps committee and the clerk in terms of what the counselor is moving.

So we’ll see if there’s a seconder for that. We’re getting that ready and you scribe. Yes. And we can we can pause for a moment till that’s ready and our committee clerk is amazing.

So it’s up. Just going to give everybody an opportunity to read that before we Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you to staff. I just wanted to see if they can comment on the timeline proposed here.

June 2024. I know they have a lot in their work plan. I just want to check in. Staff.

Thank you through the chair. Yes. That’s a reasonable timeframe. Thank you.

Thank you and through the chair of a similar question. I’m just wondering in staff’s interpretation of what make efforts means. I’m just wondering to the scope of what revisions they would be considering if we give them this direction. I’m not sure which staff person wants to take that through the chair.

My interpretation of the make efforts would be to work with the applicant as as possible to try and resolve the outstanding concerns. And report back if not possible. Sir Frank. Good for now.

Okay. So it’s in a scribe. I’m going to look to see if there’s a seconder. Sir Roman seconds.

Any further discussion on this? See any committee members hands up? So I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

And thank you to staff for the help with the wording of the amendment. I just did want to clarify. I think it was clear but that what would come forward in June is an update and possibly if there’s a gap in terms of. Agreement that it would be brought to council for councils decision making through the chair.

Thank you through the chair. Yes, that’s correct. We would certainly bring back any. Suggestions and as my colleague mentioned that if there’s any confidential matters in terms of matters to be resolved that would be an in camera report.

Sir Stevenson, you’re good for any further discussion. I see none. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries for it is zero. Thank you colleagues. That moves us on to item five deferred matters and additional business. We have two items that were added and Councillor ramen is going to have to leave for a pre scheduled meeting for another board that she is on.

So we are we still have quorum though. So we can proceed with the two items that are on the deferred matters. First is the second report of the community advisory committee on planning. And I think we’ll deal with that one first and then deal with the deferred matters list as a second item.

Councilor Frank. Thanks. I’ll make a motion to receive that. Okay.

That’s been moved. Seconded by Councilor Haley or any discussion. Okay. So that’s been moved and seconded and just a quick conference with the clerk on this because I just want to make sure that everyone is is clear, that any members of the advisory committee who might still be with us online.

We are receiving this. That does not mean that the mayor is being directed to send a letter to the province. It simply forwards the request from the advisory committee to him for him to decide as he sees fit. Seeing no hands up to discuss this, I am going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. Colleagues, we have one final item. This is the planning and environment committees deferred matters list.

This was attached as an added for you. The items are all there. I hope you’ve had a chance to see them. I’m looking to see if we’ve got to move on a seconder to receive moved by Councilor Frank and seconded by Councilor Hillier.

Any discussion? Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just want to say you guys are making good work of this deferred matters list because you’ll be able to take one off.

It looks like after today. So good job. Or maybe we’ll see. We’ll see you when it goes to Council.

I don’t want to drink anything. Concur Councilor Frank. It always feels like we get to scratch something off. But then we have actually got to wait until Council meeting.

Seeing no further discussion, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. Thank you, everyone.

That concludes our agenda. So we just need a motion to adjourn. No colleagues by leaving. It doesn’t mean we adjourned for lack of quorum.

Councilor Frank and Councilor Hillier move in second. And we can do this by hand. All those in favor. Motion carries.

Thank you, everyone. Have a great evening.