March 19, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 and 2.2 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Heritage Designation for 244 Base Line Road East

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (2.1) - Heritage Designation for 244 Base Line Road East - Full

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property located at 244 Base Line Road East:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property located at 244 Base Line Road East to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report; and,

b) should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 244 Base Line Road East to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared; and,

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal;

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

2.2   Building Division Monthly Report

2024-03-09 - Staff Report (2.2) - Building Division Monthly Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Building Division monthly reports for the months of January and February, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Amendment to the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan (O-9647)

2024-03-19 SR Amendment to the Industrial Lands CIP - FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1494-217, as amended, being “A By-law to adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land uses”, by:

i)    DELETING Schedule “2”, the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan and REPLACING it with Schedule “2” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024;

ii) DELETING Schedule “3”, the revised Industrial Lands Development Charges Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines and REPLACING it with Schedule “3” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024; and,

iii) DELETING Schedule “4”, the Industrial Corridor Enhancement Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines, from By-law C.P.-1494-217;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 14, 2024 from C. Butler, with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    implement Municipal Council direction following the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Review;

  •    an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with the latest policies outlined in relevant City of London documents, such as the City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2027, the Industrial Land Development Strategy and other Community Improvement Plans; and,

  •    remove outdated Community Improvement Plan goals and replace them with update Community Improvement Plan goals and objectives; it being noted that this action will result in an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with current City policies and Municipal Council strategic directions;

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-D19)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   6097 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9698)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.2) - 6097 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9698)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2803767 Ontario Inc., c/o MHBC Planning, relating to the property located at 6097 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2()) and holding Agricultural Commercial Special Provision (h-17h-18AGC1()) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024, from A. Johnson, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed use is considered appropriate within the adjacent land uses and considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   192-196 Central Avenue (Z-9695)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.3) - 192-196 Central Avenue (Z-9695)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 192-196 Central Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R10/Office Residential/Temporary Zone (R10-4H26/OR5D303*H26/T-70)) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure the landscape plan is implemented;

ii)    ensure a west interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres for 3rd floor amenity space encroachment;

iii)    ensure a minimum setback of 1.5 metres from all property lines to the underground parking structure;

iv)    demonstrate that the recommendations included within Section 9 of the Heritage Impact Assessment are implemented;

v)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan process;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting;

  •    F. Devereaux;

  •    M. O’Dwyer;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    A.-M. Valastro;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the High-Density Residential overlay, Near-Campus Neighbourhoods and Talbot Mixed-Use Area 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 (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   900 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9697)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.4) - 900 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9697)

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 900 Jalna GP Ltd, c/o MHBC Planning, relating to the property located at 900 Jalna Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the main building entrance for units fronting Southdale Road East shall be oriented to the street;

ii)    provide a minimum parking setback of 1.5m from the western property line to allow for appropriate landscape buffering and screening;

iii)    consider revising the right-in, right-out, access driveway to be a full access driveway instead;

iv)    consider providing a communal paratransit layby internal to the property;

v)    consider providing a safe and accessible pedestrian connection between the central townhouse block and the rest of the property;

vi)    enhanced tree planting;

vii)    consider inclusion of green roof elements, as per submitted renderings

viii)    include 50% native species for landscaping

ix)    larger parking setbacks and/or larger landscape islands be considered to increase tree planting in addition to the existing SPA directions

x)    include short-term bike parking

c) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson with respect to these matters:

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a range and mix of housing options;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   300 and 306 Princess Street (OZ-9688)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.5) - 300-306 Princess Street (OZ-9688)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1000566345 Ontario Inc. & Domus Development (London) Inc., relating to the properties located at 300 and 306 Princess Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 properties FROM a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-2/OC2) Zone and a Residential R3/R11 (R3-2/R11) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-18R6-5()) Zone and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-18*R6-5(**)) Zone;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, the Near-Campus Neighbourhoods policies, and the Woodfield Neighbourhood policies;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the restoration and intensification of the existing heritage buildings at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   3010-3050 Yorkville Street (Z-9692)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.6) -3010-3050 Yorkville Street (Z-9692)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 731675 Ontario Limited, (c/o York Developments), relating to the properties located at 3010-3050 Yorkville Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9/Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Office Special Provision Bonus (R9-7/CC4(5)/RO2(32)B-57H40) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-7()B-57H68) Zone and a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Office Special Provision Bonus (h-_R9-7(**)/CC4(5)/RO2(32)B-57H45) Zone;

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

i)    implementation of the Urban Design Guidelines for 3080 Bostwick Road;

ii)    implementation of the recommendations of the Noise Study;

iii)    details regarding garbage storage and collection be finalized; and,

iv)    consider a design for the forecourt at the principle building entrance that complements the design of the forecourt and playground at the Bostwick Community Centre;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson with respect to these matters;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including, but not limited to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood policies and the Urban Design Guidelines for 3080 Bostwick Road; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an appropriate form of high density, mixed-use development within the Built Area Boundary;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   460 Asher Crescent (Z-9701)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.7) - 460 Asher Crescent (Block 231, 33M-826) (Z-9701)

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 Drewlo Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 460 Asher Crescent, known legally as Block 231, 33M-826:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R4-6/R5-4/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5 (_)) Zone;

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

i)    locate and design the apartment and townhouse buildings to provide street-oriented development along Commissioners Road East, Jackson Road, Reardon Boulevard, and Asher Crescent;

ii)    locate apartment building ‘B’ closer to Jackson Road to provide more landscaped open space between the apartment buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’;

iii)    realign townhouse Blocks D, E, F, G, H & I to run north-south with townhouse buildings oriented to Jackson Road and an internal grid network of private drives;

iv)    provide pedestrian connectivity between the townhouse and apartment portions of the proposed development and to the public streets, including Commissioners Road East;

v)    provide adequate landscaped open space and outdoor amenity areas to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development;

vi)    provide enhanced design of side elevations of apartment and townhouse buildings that face municipal streets; 

vii)    provide enhanced tree planting; and,

viii)    include 40% to 50% native species for landscaping;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson with respect to these matters;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings; and,

  •    S. Munn;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment Update (O-9595)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.8) - Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment Update (O-9595)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan Review with Land Needs Assessment:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reinitiate the Official Plan Review which is consistent with Section 26 of the Planning Act, noting the review will be phased to prioritize a Land Needs Assessment in support of the City’s housing supply initiatives;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversions into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment, with the exception of 2496 Dundas Street;

c)    the property located at 2496 Dundas Street BE RE-EVALUATED for consideration of possible industrial conversion and for possible amendment to The London Plan, noting that additional background materials are being submitted for evaluation;

d)    the staff report dated March 19, 2024, entitled “Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment update” BE RECEIVED for information.

e)    that, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversion for 2251, 2253 and 2257 Trafalgar Street into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review development opportunities on lands to be converted within the Hyde Park Commercial Industrial Area and consider specific area policies to ensure future development includes a mix of commercial uses and other neighbourhood amenities.

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the 25-year planning horizon to the Land Needs Assessment;

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward associated recommended amendments to The London Plan Amendment on clauses c), d), e) and f), above, to a future public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised recommendation;

  •    a communication dated March 11, 2024, from J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;

  •    a communication dated March 15, 2024, from P.V. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024, from L. Clark, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

  •    M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    P. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.;

  •    J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions on behalf of York Developments, S. Copp and 3C Holdings;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

  •    M. Cory, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. on behalf of Dancor Construction Limited;

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

-   Municipal Council approval of the reinitiation of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Act, section 26; and,

-  the recommended changes to the Planning Horizon of The London Plan and conversion of Industrial lands to other non-Industrial Place Types in the London Plan is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conforms with the policies of The London Plan.    (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   613 Superior Drive (Z-9691)

2024-03-19 - Staff Report (3.9) - 613 Superior Drive (Z-9691)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Ironstone Building Company Inc., relating to the property located at 613 Superior Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility/Residential R1 Special Provision (NF/R1-3(7)) Zone and a Neighbourhood Facility/Residential R1 (NF/R1-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provision of direct pedestrian connections from individual units to the city sidewalk along Superior Drive, including the corner units with wrap around porches; and,

ii)    work with the applicant for park enhancements or onsite amenity that may serve the neighbourhood, including play structures etc.;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to work with the developer on the following:

i)    to ensure the road conditions in the adjacent plan of subdivision are improved and communicate with the developer on paving the unassumed streets (Kleinburg Drive and Appletree Gate) in the near term to ensure an accessible vehicular access to Sunningdale Road West; and,

ii)    Phase 4 of the subdivision to establish the east/west access on Superior with the connection to Adelaide Street;

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

  •    a communication dated March 10, 2024 from K. Ladd;

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2024 from P.V. Hinde, The Ironstone Building Company Inc.; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, The Ironstone Building Company Inc.;

  •    K. Ladd;

  •    S. Andrus;

  •    K. Ladd;

  •    R. Seshan;

  •    J. Chen;

  •    M. McGarry;

  •    J. Findlay; and,

  •    K. Stillert;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant parcel of land at an appropriate scale and intensity;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to add part b) ii) which reads as follows:

“b) ii)    work with the applicant for park enhancements or onsite amenity that may serve the neighbourhood, including play structures etc.;”

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to add clause c) i) which reads as follows:

“c) i)    to ensure the road conditions in the adjacent plan of subdivision are improved and communicate with developer on paving the unassumed streets (Kleinburg Drive and Appletree Gate) in the near term to ensure an accessible vehicular access to Sunningdale Road West;”

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to add part c) ii), which reads as follows:

“c) ii)    Phase 4 of the subdivision to establish the east/west access on Superior with the connection to Adelaide Street;”

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the recommendation, as amended.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-03-19 PEC Deffered Matters List

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Deferred Matters List dated March 11, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.5   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.5.2   (ADDED) 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning - 1:00 PM, S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning 

2024-03-13 CACP Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on March 13, 2024 BE RECIEVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Pursuant to Section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE MOVED to the first order of business after Consent.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.6   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:06 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 (4 hours, 17 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1 p.m., and I’ll call the fifth meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishabic, Haudenosaunee, and Lenapei Walk, and Anur-Rondron. We honor and respect the history and languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-661-249, extension 2425. At this time, I’ll ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move to the consent items, looking for motion.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Lewis. I’ll open the floor for questions or comments. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

I just wanted to make a comment for the Heritage designation at 244 Baseline Road East. That’s in my ward, and this is a really beautiful property, and I just wanna thank staff and the applicant for putting this together. I enjoyed reading the background, and I think it’s a really nice piece of property in the area, so thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? If the committee will allow me from the chair, I’d just like to comment on 2.2, 836 building permits, units for building permits so far, in 2024, up substantially over previous years. We know as a committee and council, we had a rough year last year with getting shovels on the ground, despite the hard work by this committee and council and getting rezoning. I think that I have a good feeling as we see interest rates and inflation steadying off that we will see the results of that work in getting much needed housing built in London.

Kudos to Mr. Mathers and your team for handling these building permits. I know you’ve been working hard to expedite the process. I think all the work that has been done over the last 12 months is gonna be needed, quite frankly, and what I see as a big volume increase in the building permits, especially coming across your desk.

So thank you very much to you and your staff. So we have a motion moved in second. If there’s no further comments, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, moving on to scheduled items, 3.1. I’ll look for a motion to open the committee. My apologies. There was a request by Ms.

Bergman, Chair of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning to have her item moved from deferred matters to before we get into scheduled items. So I would like to move that up, but I will call a vote on that. We have a mover and a seconder, Councillor Robbins, seconded by Councillor Frank. So I’ll call that and that’s a motion to move from deferred matters, additional business up to before we get into scheduled items.

So I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So Ms.

Bergman, if you’re here and want to address the committee. Yes. Oh, yes, I’m okay. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Thank you through the chair. Thanks for hearing me. So I did just want to call one item from the Community Advisory Committee on Planning’s report to your attention. We had a delegation from a member of the public that brought forward a concept that I think we as well as Council could use some guidance on.

And that was the concept of the expropriation of properties and specifically heritage properties for other uses like affordable housing. There was one particular property located at 172 Central Ave. That was identified in particular. I don’t know if folks recall, but this was designated back in 2020 after a demolition request was brought forward.

And the property has since kind of continued to decline. And the individual, the delegation really wanted the committee’s support in requesting information from civic administration on the legalities around expropriation for the purpose of say affordable housing. So we did pass a motion, it was not unanimous, but we did pass a motion to request that information on the legalities of the use of expropriation as a tool both to preserve these significant heritage properties, but also to support the provision of housing opportunities. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

I know we again, in our motion, we’ve requested kind of some an overview of the potential of the use of that tool. And that was what our motion was. I think again, it would be good information for the committee and also PEC and council to have as opportunities arise. So that was just, that was really what I wanted to bring to your attention.

Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Bergman. I’ll open the discussion to committee.

Oh, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I’d also be interested in that information. So I’m wondering if we received this report from this advisory committee.

Does the request from the advisory committee then automatically go to civic administration for consideration? So two parts, one is we would receive the report. If you want to act further, then you would put a motion on the floor directing staff to take some sort of action. Thank you, yes.

In the chair, I would like to receive the report and make an additional motion. I think essentially to just taking part B of 5.2 from the report where it says the civic administration be requested to explore appropriation or other preservation options. This one’s specifically related to property 172 central F. I’d be interested in this in more general.

Like are we able to use expropriation or other preservation options for these types of homes? Like heritage homes? I’d be, again, maybe I’m seeking a bit of guidance if it’s better to have it specific to this one property or general advice about using these planning tools as a whole. Oh, you’d have to make that call.

You’re making the motion. If you want to go to staff and ask them for their opinion, maybe to help you kind of get where you would like to go with this and go ahead with that. Sure, yeah, I’d love to hear staff’s thoughts on this. Please go ahead.

Yep, through the chair. So just as far as a workload, I’ll just comment on that. So if we’re talking about one specific property and a specific type of use, that will be more easy for us to provide that details. If it’s a more broader use, it’ll be a little bit more work.

So it’s really just the difference between the workload that you’re looking for us to perform. Councilor. Thank you, yes, that does provide some context. So perhaps I’m thinking actually of a two-parter where the first one is the specific property in a timely manner and then the second part being a general direction to looking at expropriation as a tool for overall purposes.

So maybe I’ll craft something and set it over to the clerk because I kind of want to do both now, like one at this specific one, and then one recognizing your timelines and pushing it a little bit out into the future. So let me work on something. So Councilor, I’m going to look for a seconder. While that’s being crafted just for the sake of time, do I have anyone on the committee that would like to second this direction?

Councilor Roman. Can I see it, wait till it comes up? Sure, yep, absolutely. Councilor.

I got it, worded, and I just sent it to the clerk so I can read it if that works. Okay, if you want to read it out, that’d be great. Sure, so first part would be received the report. Second, the civic administration be requested to explore appropriation or other preservation options related to the property at 172 Central Ave for repurposing for other uses.

It being noted the significance of Dr. Oren Hihn. I’m going to say Dr. O.

The first known occupant of the property to the indigenous history of our community and then see that civic administration be requested to explore appropriation or other preservation options for repurposing for other uses. That’s a terrible sentence, but it’s almost done. It’s pretty, it’s getting there. I’m going to go to Councilor Roman based on what you’ve heard, are you willing to second?

Thank you. If it was split, I would support it, but I’m not willing to support it as it’s written. Is there anyone else on the committee that willing to second Councilor Frank’s motion? I don’t believe you have a seconder, Councilor.

Please go ahead. Thank you. Then may I ask through the chair to the Councilor which part she’d like to second so that I can craft a motion for that? Councilor.

Thank you and through you. And although I want to do committee work at committee, I just feel like I heard the delegation and I want to get a little bit more information about what they discussed at the meeting to better understand how they arrived at this question. But in general, I’m interested in what tools we have available through expropriation, but I would do that through legal advice. So I could do that at a later time.

I don’t have to do that right now. In advance of Council. So Councilor from the chair’s perspective, I don’t see urgency here that we need to deal with it today. However, I do see interest in maybe pursuing this.

So maybe it could be brought back at a later meeting. Go ahead. Thank you, yes. I’ll work and craft something more appropriate for Council perhaps, but the only other question I had maybe through you to staff is, is this location?

My understanding is one of the items that was brought to that planning committee was then noticed by, I guess, the public and the person started to demolish the property. So I’m just wondering, is this that location or is that a different one? ‘Cause that would actually add urgency to my interest. I’ll go to staff on that question.

Thank you and through the chair, the property that I believe you’re asking about is 651 Talbot Street is listed on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, but it is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. There is a requirement to provide 60 days written notice of intention to demolish or remove a building or structure from that property, any building or structure. Staff have received complaints and are investigating. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the advisory committee was referring to 172 central, so I don’t think it was that property.

Go ahead. Thank you, yes. No, I think you’re correct and it’s a different property, but I will say this to me is timely. And so I will work on something for Council, but I do think there are some people there with heritage properties that, you know, if they notice that they are properties being noticed by some of our advisory committees, we’ll start to demolish without permission.

So I do think that this is time sensitive, but I will do some better work between now and Council. Okay, so the motion did not get a seconder, so I’ll look for a new motion to receive the report. Councilor Robin seconded by, I’ll second it. So we got a motion moved and seconded to receive the report.

I’ll call a vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you. We’ll now move on to get started with our scheduled items, 3.1, which is regarding amendment to an industrial lands community improvement plan.

And I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting on this. Councilor Robin seconded by Councilor Lewis. Call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. And I’ll look to the public for anyone who would like to speak to this item. As a clerk, if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Okay, thank you. So it looks like we have no one that would like to speak from the public. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Robin seconded by Councilor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And I’ll put it on the floor.

I understand Councilor Robin has an amendment that she has distributed to members. So if you’d like to go ahead, Councilor not there. Yeah, it’s for the, it’s for later on. Yeah, 3.8.

My apologies. So it’s on the floor now. I’ll look for discussion of motion. Councilor Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair and through you. I’m prepared to move the staff’s revised recommendation. I’ll note that motion five in E-Scribe has the revised recommendation with the clause that Councilor Robin was seeking to amend. I’m not sure if motion three in E-Scribe is the revised recommendation without that addition.

It looks like it is, but I’m prepared to remove the staff’s revised recommendation. Okay, so we have the revised recommendation move. Do I have a seconder for that, Councilor Robin? So we have a motion moved and seconded.

Any discussion? Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. And through the chair, I did have one question to staff.

And it was prompted by the communication that was submitted. And I was just curious, do we have, they called it an off road or an exit ramp? But I’m wondering at what point with this kind of strategy, do we feel that the city has invested enough government money into creating new industrial lands? And at what point are we planning to say, we’ve done our part, we’ve made this really successful.

We don’t need to continue adding taxpayer dollars to this subsidy. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, so we have, of course, another industrial strategy that really outlines what our approach is to be able to allow for new industrial lands within the city. It really will be for Council to decide how much farther we go with that.

We try to ensure that anything that we allow for is recovered through our development charges. If it’s something that’s required for growth, it has to be very strategic. It can be very much a link to the amount of effort and the need to allow those industrial lands to go forward. So we have, through the multi-year budget process, approved funding to be able to move forward with the plan.

But if there’s any expansions to that plan in the future, then really would be for Council to decide the extent that they would like to pursue industrial lands moving forward. So at this point, we have our strategy and that is our playbook to be able to move forward to bring industrial lands to the city. Councillor? Thank you.

I appreciate that input. I think, and this is probably my personal opinion and is not shared by all Council, but I think eventually we’re gonna get to a point where we’ve in my opinion invested enough taxpayer dollars into the strategy, especially when we start seeing some of the manufacturing coming in and there being somewhat of a lack of options that I think that the industry will do it themselves, but that’s my personal opinion. So just eventually one day, I think I’d like to see an evaluation from staff made towards the end of this term on if we felt that we’ve contributed enough to this strategy. But that’s a conversation for another day.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We’re moving on to 3.2 regarding 6097 Colonel Talbot Road. I’ll offer a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Raman seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

So if there’s any technical questions for staff, this is the time. Okay, I’ll ask if the applicant is would like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Mr.

Chair and members of committee. My name is Jennifer Cadet and I’m associate planner with MHPC planning. We’re acting on behalf of the owner, who is in attendance today to answer any questions. We support the findings and recommendations of the staff report and agree with staff that the requested zoning by-law amendment conforms to the London plan by providing an agriculture related use that supports a local agricultural community.

Thank you for your consideration. We are here to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look to any members of the public that would like to address the committee this time.

Clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you. One last look around.

Seeing there’s no one that would like to address the committee. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. So I’ll put the recommendation from the staff on the floor. Councillor Frank.

I’ll move it. Thank you. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Look for any comments or questions from committee members and visiting as Councillor Hopkins.

Welcome back to PAC where always we miss your company. So please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me.

This is a recommendation that’s coming forward in Ward 9 for a heavy equipment and agricultural machinery dealership. I just want to give my thanks to staff and to the applicant for the work that has been done on this file. I know it’s taken a while. It’s a good place to put a dealership right in an agricultural area.

Please to see that the remaining lands will stay agricultural as well with access to those lands. And I’m really supportive in the fact that a lot of work who’s gone into this in terms of making sure that the impacts to existing agricultural practices will have been addressed as well as a number of holding provisions, the MDS, the restrictions were taken into account. So again, my thanks for this and having a business come in to this area, very supportive. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if staff can help me to understand under the ecology part of the report on page 182 where it talks about the site falling within RCA and that they need to determine if permit is required. Is there anything needed in the motion just to reflect that language?

I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. Upper Thames would comment through the subsequent site plan process and provide their input at that point, whether they require a formal permit or not, that would be determined through that process. So I don’t think we would require anything in terms of direction to the approval authority.

Councillor. Thank you. Just with the fact that it was under major issues identified, it just kind of raised a red flag for me a little bit that we’re saying that there’s potentially a major issue here and that we don’t want it overlooked in site plan, but if you say that it’s okay and it’s going to be covered off and fine with that, thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions before I call a vote? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 192 to 196 central AV.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ramen. I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff from committee this time? Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. The applicant is here and would like to address the committee.

Please go ahead. Give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Dave Galbraith. I’m a planner without consulting based out of Waterloo here today on behalf of the applicant for our holdings corporation.

I have prepared a brief presentation which should be included as part of the council package. I know that the address on the front of the presentation doesn’t mirror what the site is so I apologize for that. In terms of the presentation of a bit of a background on the site, some of the existing conditions, a high level overview of the plan and controls and the development proposal contemplated. And then go through the site specific regulations that have been contemplated by staff to be applied to the site and some recommendations on those regulations.

So the subject property is 192 to 196 central avenue in London. And the proposal before you today is for a 12 to 13 story apartment building containing 126 residential units. I say 12 to 13 as the ground floor of the building has integrated two-story townhouses based the building. So it could be classified as a mezzanine or one in two levels there.

The development itself contemplates two levels of underground parking with a total of 68 parking stalls. And the zoning development application was recently made to permit proposed building site-specific development standards along with the direction of the London plan. So the subject property is currently used as a service parking lot, paid service parking lot. It’s located to the west of Richmond Road and to the northwest of Victoria Park.

And that can be the context shown on slides four and five of the slide deck. In terms of the existing planning controls, the London plan recognizes the site is within the neighborhoods in rapid transit corridor place type. Where a mix of land uses are encouraged including apartment buildings. Within this policy context, the maximum building by the 14 stories is permitted with no units per hectare density maximum.

The site’s also located within the high density residential overlay of the 1989 official plan. And then the existing zoning is residential 10 and then there’s a temporary use provision or use zone in effect to allow for the use of the property as a service parking lot. And the zoning itself which predates the London plan allows for a maximum height of eight stories. As I’ve mentioned before, the development proposal is for a 13 story apartment building containing 126 total units.

This includes two story townpost units that will wrap around the front and eastern sides of the base of the building. Studio units, one bedroom stand, two bedroom suites and a total of 68 parking stalls are proposed. In addition to vehicular parking spaces, 114 bike parking stalls are proposed. And then there will be indoor and outdoor amenity spaces.

As you’ll see on slide nine of my slide deck, this shows the second level of the building with the outdoor amenity space over the cantilever structure over the driveway with a preliminary landscape plan showing as well on the right side of this slide. There will be seating areas, tree plantings and trucks proposed within this area and through the detailed site plan application process, the design of this area will be confirmed with staff. The following slides like 10 shows a conceptual rendering of the building. As you can see, the cantilever portion of the building on the west side of the building itself, which would lead to the underground parking garage, loading the area and drop off spaces.

And then the two story townhouse units wrap in the front of the building. As the building rises, it does have considerable articulation with setbacks from the front at above the second, third and fourth level kind of stepping up. And then above the ninth floor of the development, there’s an additional step back from the front side. And with that, the floor plates do taper to be about 700 square meters through the upper levels of this development, which is very much in line with the direction of the London plan that encourages more compact floor plan as the building gets taller.

So in terms of the application that was submitted, various site specific regulations were proposed, including the building height of 13 stories or 47.8 meters, front yard setback of three meters to the existing property line. And then side yard setbacks of 1.5 meters to the British amenity space or cantilever structure and 12.4 meters to the western lot line to the main building. Our rear yard setback with 3.4 meters is contemplated and I might direct you to the site plan. You can see that that 3.4 meter setback applies just to the east side of the lot.

Mr. Galbraith, you have 30 seconds left, so I’ll ask you to kind of get to the wrap up. Thank you. Sure, yeah, so that we go to slides 12 and 13 of my slide deck.

They overlay the proposed regulations on the site. Generally the development is in conformity with these amenities or sorry, with these regulations and say for a couple of items, which I’d like to fly for your attention and I’ve done so on slide 14. So the recommendation from my perspective is to remove the special regulations requiring setbacks to the front and rear facade above the podium as they’ve substantially incorporated already. Thank you, thank you very much.

That’s your time. I’m sorry to cut you off, but we have a lot on our agenda today, so we’re gonna be pretty strict in the five minutes. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the committee at this time?

Please, sir, I’ll go to the gentleman on the right. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, my name is Nathan Henry. I’ll be here along with and on behalf of the owner of 204 Central Avenue, which is located just to the east of the proposed site.

We were just looking at the site concept and we had a couple of questions in regards to what will be done to mitigate the potential effect on our business and the disruption to our parking and our clients access to our building, as well as looking at the site concept, it looks like the property line acts these stretches over our building. So we just had a couple of questions about that. Okay, I’ll ask all questions that are raised by the public at the end of our session. So if you have any other comments or questions, you’ve got a bit of time left to go ahead, but I’ll raise your questions at the end.

Okay, those are the only questions I have at this time. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to the gentleman on my left. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Hello, my name is Frank Deverle and my principal residence is at 189 Hyman Street. I also own the property adjacent to me at 191 Hyman. And it’s a reduced setbacks. As a gentleman online, they were just starting to get into on the rear of the building in the east corner, which is the back of my property on 191 Hyman Street.

I think the setback that he’s say three meters and it should be like 12 originally. It is a concern. They’re also showing it as a place to dump snow, push snow into. I know, I think overall the idea of bringing the cars along the west side to the rear of the building, it’s going to create a lot of noise to all the residences on Hyman Street.

Can you hear me okay? Yeah, now we can. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, you’re drifting a bit there, so yeah, thank you.

So yeah, what do we, you know, if this development proceeds, what do we have left on Hyman Street? I mean, it’s just pushing that whole street to the curb and gutter. Something has to happen on the parking lot. I’m not against that.

I mean, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, there was a proposal came in for the 10 story, the R10 rating that it has now, and those setbacks were put into place. And also, you know, I read my neighbor, Mike and Ellis and Hany, and they submitted in writing their concerns. And I think all of them have to be addressed. I’m not sure if they’re, you know, they’re being looked into right now or not, but especially, he brought up a point, and I never would have known it, but, you know, the city of London hasn’t done a preliminary site plan on this before we’re going into a zoning application.

And Michael Hany brings that up in his first concern. Shadowing, it is going to definitely, you know, we enjoy the sunshine so much now because there’s no structures there at all. So looking at the city of London’s shadowing study and Michael Hany’s, yeah, we’re going to lose a lot of, it’ll be afternoon before we get sun in the summertime. Also, my neighbor, that would be 197, 191, 193 Hyman Street currently have parking at the rear of their building.

This is the back east corner. I’m looking at the proposed site plan. There’ll be no more parking there. Now, a fair of properties owns that property, as well as 80% of Hyman Street.

So I think, I always thought that development would come from Richmond Street back, you know, where everything would step up, facing Richmond Row. And then when it gets back to my property, put a 50 story building in there, do it proper. I guess I’m not a very good, you know, putting my thoughts together don’t always come very well. Okay, but I think, if everyone steps back a little bit, then the owner, as well, and comes back with a bigger, better plan, incorporating Richmond Row.

There’s a little bit of heritage there, but not a lot. And it is a location, you know, it’s a sweet location, Victoria Park, it doesn’t get any better. And yeah, I’m not sure what happened with the development behind Starbucks, as well. Did that get approved?

Mo, do you have anything to say? Okay, are you finished? I am, thank you. Okay, thank you very much, sir.

And the questions that you raised, well, we’ll get answers from staff when we’re finished here. Ma’am, please give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Maureen O’Dwyer and I live at 189 Hyman Street. My concern has to do with the requested amendments.

They seem very large, especially with a 26 meter required height to a proposed of 47 meters. You guys have a London plan, you have zoning bylaws, and every property that is going on around the downtown area, or close to where we live, special provisions, special provisions, special provisions. You’re changing your city plan, your London plan, whatever that is, and that’s quite frustrating. I don’t know why you have a plan if those, those are quite a few variances.

And I don’t understand how you guys could even consider changing those, and the same thing that happened on across the street on Richmond, where your own city plan said, planning department said, “No, we don’t think this is a good idea.” And counsel the staff, I guess you’re calling yourselves, approved it. So I would think you guys need to revisit your city plan, your zoning bylaws, and especially what the variances should be. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that’d like to address the committee, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

I’m here. Just as a second, yeah. Patricia Colomore. Okay, Ms.

Colomore, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Okay, can you hear me fine? We can, thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Thank you for offering access to this meeting by Zoom, and also thank you very much for the opportunity for me to speak today. I find the recommendations in the planning and economic development report disappointing, because my concerns regarding the scale affordable housing and heritage have been summarily dismissed with the design of the site will enhance the streetscape and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood and respond to the adjacent heritage properties. Regarding the scale, I understand that the point of this public participation meeting is to make comments, but I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could please explain how these high density residential overlays that supersede bylaws are applied, because looking at the map and figure five in the report, it appears to be arbitrary. Even according to the London plan, it makes no sense to embed a 13 story modern tower in the middle of a block surrounded by 125 year old two story structures.

From the P&ED report, the urban design peer review panel comments and appendix F, while a high density development at this location is appropriate, it appears the proposal may be overbuilt and lacking sensitivity to the context of the neighborhood. The proposed hyper-dense built form typology may be appropriate for downtown, but it seems to be overwhelming for the neighborhood and lacking effective transition, particularly to the properties to the north and the west of the site. Regarding lack of affordable housing, the P&ED report states the city cannot dictate whether units can be affordable or offered at below market rates. I find it disappointing that the city’s solution to achieving affordable housing is to advise applicants that there are opportunities.

They can explore such as the funding through the municipal housing development division of the P&ED or subsidies and rebates through homelessness and prevention and housing development. London needs to show some leadership. The city can and should do more. Regarding lack of heritage designation for the North Talbot neighborhood, the planning and economic development report states, the North Talbot area is recognized as a potential future heritage conservative conservation district.

Further study and evaluation are required. In an email sent to me by John Fleming, the then managing director of planning he states, I do agree the North Talbot neighborhood is an important priority as a potential heritage conservation district and that development pressures in the area are significant. It’s important that we get it right to ensure intensification, infill, and additions fit well within the neighborhood and do not undermine the value of the heritage resource that this neighborhood represents. North Talbot is scheduled as the first HCD that we will tackle once we complete the HCD that we’ve already started in North London.

This note was dated August 13, 2019, five years ago. So how much more study is required and will there be any heritage left in the neighborhood by the time it’s completed? Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look now to the gallery. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Anne Marie of Elasto. This is also my neighborhood.

So the complaint here is the setbacks. There just aren’t enough setbacks to service this building. This, the setbacks that are being proposed cannot fulfill a series of policies that should be integrated in every single site. One is low impact development.

The setbacks are too small to apply to low impact development, which is completely based on open ground to absorb a runoff. And the building doesn’t have enough open ground to absorb its own runoff, which means it has to go down through the stormwater system. And the whole point of storm low impact development is to reduce the risk of flooding. If it can’t be absorbed on the property, it goes down the stormwater and the risk of flooding ends up at the other end of the pipe.

Now, this is very serious because these are massively expensive projects that the public has to foot the bill for. And when you don’t use low impact development, it increases the need for these massive infrastructure projects. And you can see how big the project can be on the Carling Master Plan stormwater development. I don’t wanna pay for projects like that because you can’t demand the proper legal setbacks on a building.

You can’t implement the recent policy where 50% plantings can be native plants. When you don’t have enough ground and you don’t have enough sunlight hitting that space, you can’t implement that policy. There’s no point bringing policies forward that cannot be implemented. You can’t plant with a sunshine.

You can’t plant without soil. And you can’t plant if you have a parking lot just inches below that open area. You can’t implement the urban forestry strategy because you don’t have enough setbacks to plant a tree. And therefore that site does not contribute to the overall canopy that is apparently a stated goal of this city.

You do not, you cannot implement the climate change action plan because part of that plan is not just about cramming people into small spaces. It’s also about mitigating climate change. And you can’t mitigate climate change if you don’t have trees or you don’t think about runoff or flood assessments. It’s just getting down to be really pathetic.

And you’re starting to hear the frustration across the city, across the pushback. And people feel that things are being mismanaged because you’re in a state of manic, trying to reach some arbitrary housing goal so you can grovel for a handout to the province. Rather than just go about the business as planting good cities, good development, and you realize you’d have the support of the public if you did that. But that’s not your goal.

Your goal is to reach some crazy housing number, not even affordable housing, which is the big problem in this city. So you can get money from the province. And if everyone feels you’re bankrupting the city and the city feels mismanaged. So without the setbacks, you can’t implement a wack of policies that you endorse.

There’s no point bringing these policies forward if you can’t implement that. It’s a form of insanity. So those setbacks have to be the legal setbacks that’s in the London plan that alleviates all these complaints you’re hearing from people on Hyman Street. It’s crushing those houses on Hyman Street.

You’re not familiar with it, but it crushes those houses. This building is too fat. It needs to be thinner and stay at 13. Stories be thinner and implement those setbacks because they’re legally required and there’s a reason for that.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other folks that would like to address the committee? I’ll ask clerk again for anyone online that would like to speak.

Through the chair, there’s no one else online. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the gallery, I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So there were a few questions raised by the public that I’d like to go to staff on. There was a concern about property lines and overlapping, one of the staff could address that concern.

Through the chair, I’m not sure if the member of the public was looking at our aerial mapping, but that is not 100% accurate. Sometimes there’s an angle from the photo in the air and it looks like the line will cross a building. Figure three in the report, the conceptual site plan is more accurate and you can see the property line does not cross the building to the east, so it is on its own property. Okay, thank you.

There was some concerns about setback. It should be 12 and it’s three meters. I’ll go to staff to comment on that comment just to address that question. Thank you and through the chair.

The applicant has requested the number of special provisions related to setbacks for the front, rear, east and west. Staff is generally in agreement with those reduced setbacks based on the number of different arguments, for example, to bring the building closer to the street when it relates to the front, to create a more friendly pedestrian environment. With regards to the rear and to the interior side yards, those are reduced as well. Many to allow for development potential.

At the rear, there’s also a lane way that creates additional separation to the rear. And you will note that staff is recommending additional special provisions related to step backs above the podium, so above the third floor, to further mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding properties. Thank you. Thank you.

There was a comment made that a preliminary site plan is needed as that been done or as that required for this project. Through the chair, so it’s part of a complete application for zoning by-law amendment. We require just a conceptual site plan. It’s our process within planning and development that the site plan approval happens first and then, or sorry, zoning by-law amendment happens first and then site plan approval happens once that approval’s in place.

Okay, thank you. Shadow study, I know there’s been some changes in a metro service bill C23 or not, but can staff just comment on the shadow studies if they’ve been done or are they now required? Thank you, through the chair, I can start. No shadow study was included by the applicant as part of this application based on the pre-consultation application, however, both a member of the public and city staff themselves initiated two shadow studies.

So in total, there are two shadow studies as part of this application. In general, they show that shadows move relatively quickly traversing across existing development within approximately two to three hours. Thank you. Thank you.

And finally, storm water management. Staff just comment on how engineering is addressing storm water management to protect neighboring properties from flooding. Thank you, through the chair. Storm water will be collected by within the structure and stored in the parking basement and then released to the municipal storm sewer at a controlled rate.

So the setbacks are adequate from a storm water perspective. Okay, thank you. That’s the list I had of questions raised by the public. So I will open the item.

Excuse me, I’m your— Excuse me, I missed my question. Excuse me, ma’am, you had your time. Thank you very much. No, you didn’t ask my question.

I had a question about— Thank you. I’m open the floor now to either motions or discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Through you, chair, I’m gonna put the staff recommendation on the floor.

Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder for that. I’ll second the motion. And we have a motion moved and seconded. So now I’ll open the floor for discussion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, chair. I just want to take an opportunity to address a couple of comments that I heard myself. And we hear these at almost every planning application that comes forward with regard to the London plan.

The London plan is now fast approaching 10 years old. Our population today in the city reflects what the London plan projected for 2031. So I agree with the comments that the London plan needs to be updated and staff are actually working on updates to that. But we also have 90 day statutory framework deadlines from the province to decide on individual planning applications.

And so that’s why special provisions, holding provisions, all of those things exist is because official plans can never keep up with changing demographics. They’re a long range planning tool, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination, something that’s carved in stone. And in fact, we heard, you know, one of the commenters referred to a communication for Mr. Fleming in 2019.

Just a couple of months ago, Mr. Fleming was here speaking in favor of the approval of a 53 story tower, which significantly exceeds the maximum height that the London plan envisioned, which he was the lead author on. So yes, there are changes and there will continue to be changes and staff will bring forward updates to the London plan. They’re going through a rethink zoning process right now.

We are reviewing densities around urban corridors, those kind of things we’ve later on in this report. We’ve got a land needs assessment on our industrial land inventory. So yes, these plans are just that. They’re plans, they change over time and they change to address a changing environment within our city.

Downtown intensity and densification is one of the primary goals in fulfilling our housing targets. We do need to achieve 47,000 homes in the next 10 years. That is based on actually a medium range population projection, which we’re already behind on. So it’s not an arbitrary number.

It’s based in demographics. It’s based in statistics and it’s based on our official plan. This is a, I do note also somebody did ask if the application on the Starbucks property behind the Starbucks property was approved and it was approved. And so now that would work its way through the site plan processes and building permit issuances and those things as the applicants ready to move forward.

But that’s why I’ll be supporting this. I appreciate the fact that we are getting rid of a temporary surface parking lot that has been temporary surface parking for year after year after year. We kept getting renewals after renewals after renewals for temporary surface parking. Now we’re seeing a residential development that includes underground parking, which is very desirable for us to see in terms of not having a surface area taken up by car parking where it’s possible.

The inclusion of the bicycle parking spaces because we are in a downtown urban area where car transportation may not be necessary. We are along a heavy transit use corridor. Again, where car transportation might not be necessary. So they reduce parking, the underground parking, the intensification targets, the high density overlay, all of these things make sense in terms of moving this application forward.

Thank you, Councilor Almond. Thank you and through you. I believe the question from Ms. Collemore was around the heritage designation for North Talbot neighborhood.

And I know that it’s included in the report on page 203, but I’m just wondering if we might ask staff to help address that just to answer that last question. Can you be a little more clear on what the question is? Sure. The speaker referred to the fact that in 2019, there was a conversation around heritage designation and that it’s been five years and no designation has been made.

And just, I thought it might be an opportunity for staff to comment on that portion of the question. Okay, thank you. Any updates or comments on the process of that area being designated heritage? Through the chair, as mentioned, the North Talbot area is recognized as a potential future heritage conservation district in the document heritage places 2.0, a guideline document to the London plan.

Further study and evaluation are required to determine if the North Talbot area meets the new criteria for heritage conservation district in Ontario Regulation 9/06. At this time, municipal council has not directed staff to initiate a heritage conservation district study of the North Talbot area. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Thank you. I’ll reserve my comments on the rest of the application. I just wanted to get that question out of the way. Okay, thank you.

Other comments or questions from committee members? Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for recognizing me.

I did want to, I had some notes here too and I thought I would ask, there was a concern also brought up and I have this concern as well for the property owner at central 204, there’s some other businesses in there as well. But for construction concerns, if the stock could speak on that and mitigating any potential impacts with accessibility concerns to the businesses. I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, typically with these types of construction projects, they would be required to go through a permit of approved works and they would have to then demarcate the areas, change sidewalk locations and mitigate in the measures that people can still access businesses and the safety of sidewalks and such safely.

Councilor, I thank you for that. So I do see that some of the setback questions were answered but I do also see that there was a response about the basin and the basement being full, there’s a catch basin for any stormwater and I just wanted to know if we had an extreme event, like extreme rainfall event, is there a possibility that that basin would get full? And then what would happen after that? How would we release stormwater in that situation?

I’ll go to staff on the question of extreme, whether events, whether the catch basin would be appropriate. Thank you, through the Chair. It’s actually a storage tank in the parking garage. So it’ll be sized to take up to the 250 year storm event.

So we’re not expecting any overflow in that system. It’ll be sized appropriately. Councilor. Thank you for that.

And the last question and it was about the heritage impact. And I do see that that was asked by Councilor Raman but I just wanted to go a little bit further and ask staff if I did see that staff said, Council needs to direct you for a heritage impact or sorry, a heritage, basically a heritage designation. So with that, that would be done at this committee or would that be done at SPPC or just wondering? I’ll go to the clerk actually on that question, which committee would be appropriate for questions of heritage designation.

Through the Chair, that would be the planning and environment committee. Okay, Councilor. Okay, thank you for that. I may be speaking to some Councillors on this committee to move something like that in the future.

Going back to just the fit between the building a modern structure with the rest of the buildings there. Like I also don’t want to see a surface parking lot anymore. And I feel like we need to have better usage of the land. But I also want to know is how can we ensure or how will it look after the building is there in the fit between the existing properties and that property itself?

And would that have any impact on the heritage designation? I’ll go to staff on that question. I guess I just want, Councilor, can you be a little clearer the impact? I’m trying to get my head around.

So it would be, it would change the face of the neighborhood and many of the buildings there have been around for a while. And this one does look fairly modern. So I just wanted to know is there any, are there any issues that may come up that you might see with that? I’ll go to staff.

I guess the Councilor is looking for any implications on heritage value of the existing neighborhood with this development. Through the chair. So what I understand is you’re asking how will issues of compatibility and fit within the heritage character be addressed? So we do have a subsequent site plan process that will happen after the zoning if it is approved.

And through that we do have urban design staff as well as heritage staff that look for things like compatibility and fit. So there is another level of staff review that will be looking to implement any official plan policies that relate to the contextual fit of the building. Councilor. Okay, thank you for that.

That would be it for my questions at this time. You know, it is a surface parking lot, it is on a transit corridor. But I do have some concerns, but we also do need units there. It would be a better use, but with the heritage, I guess one last question, with the heritage designation.

If we were to have the neighborhood designated appropriately, would that influence the type of building that we would see in certain develops in that neighborhood? Would it influence the look of the building to fit within the rest of the buildings? I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, if this area was evaluated for potential heritage conservation district, and then was designated as a conservation district, there would be the requirement of heritage alteration permit for any of the development within the area.

So there would be an extra level of scrutiny on the actual architectural design of the building. Councilor. Okay, thank you, that’s all my questions. Thank you for recognizing me.

Any other, Councilor Fray? Thank you, yes, I just wanted to make a couple brief comments. I appreciate the input that residents shared. I also appreciate them being aware that the situation the province has put us in, and I agree I’d prefer not to grovel to the province for some funding, but that’s currently what’s being required of many municipalities in Ontario.

I also appreciate the general concerns raised by residents in the area, that said, and similar to Councillor Frayra. I’d rather see an apartment building downtown than a parking lot, so I’ll be supporting this development, and I hope it gets built. In regards to meeting our climate targets, high density infill is one of the main ways we can ensure we reduce our emissions, and how it reduce how many cars we have on the road. So again, to me, I see downtown infill as one of the prime ways we can be attacking the climate crisis that we’re currently in, so I’ll be supporting this.

Any other comments or questions from committee? We have a motion moved and seconded. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you, before we go to vote on this, I just wanted to ask, I noted that in the presentation, there were a number of recommendations, I’m just wondering, I noticed that those recommendations don’t all, aren’t all in line with what’s in the motion.

Those are, I think for the most part, things that would be discussed at site plan. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the request for modifications related to the front yard step back is easily addressed through the bylaw, whether it’s three meters or one and a half meters after road widening. We can ensure that is correct in the final bylaw.

The balconies are a little bit interesting. In our opinion and the set plans opinion that is not required, balconies are allowed to encroach into the interior side yards, as long as there are more than three meters away from the property line, which is the case in this instance. So in our opinion, this modification is not required. And then finally, we have the recommended staff, special provision for the additional step backs on the podium of two meters at the front and rear.

Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, I appreciate that. Yeah, similar to others on the committee, I’m glad to hear from residents on this item. And I too would rather see a building versus an empty parking lot.

And I do know that one of the things we hear quite often is that we’re not seeing a lot of development from certain developers. So I was pleased to see this application come forward and hope that this project goes forward. Thank you. We have a motion moved and seconded.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4.

This is regarding 900 Jolna Boulevard. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by, all the votes. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. This is the time for any technical questions from committee members now. Excuse me before I go to public. Seeing none, I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee.

If you wouldn’t mind giving us your name again and you have five minutes. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and members of committee.

My name is Jennifer Godette. I’m an associate planner with MHBC planning. We’re representing the applicant on this file. Sorry.

We support the staff recommendation and are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to members of the public that would like to address the committee.

Let’s clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay. I don’t see anyone in the gallery looking to address us.

So I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Frank. Moves it seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. I’ll put the item on the floor, Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes, I’d like to put the staff recommendation and with the four additional site plan amendments that I’ve circulated to the committee as well.

Okay. Are you making a motion first before we, are you making the staff, I’m moving the staff recommendation with that amendment? Okay, great. Do I have a seconder for that?

Councillor ramen. So Councillor has distributed that amendment. So we have a motion moved and seconded with that amendment. I’ll put that on the floor for discussion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. So with the amendments that Councillor Frank has made, I’m generally supportive in terms of the bicycle parking, the 50% native species. The fact that green roof elements were included in the submitted renderings, I want to have that discussed at site plan as well. My challenge is with clause nine or IX.

And I’m not sure if this is a typo or if this is an intention, the larger parking setbacks and larger landscaped islands. If this said larger parking setbacks or larger landscaped islands, I would be more supportive. If we’re looking for and both, then we are talking about asking them to consider reduced parking overall, which I’m not supportive of. So I wonder if the Councillor wants to clarify if she’s looking for and both, or if this is a larger setbacks or larger landscaped islands, because I don’t like oceans of asphalt.

I do like when we have them broken up by islands of landscaping, but I also recognize that when people are marketing units, they market them whether there’s parking included or whether there’s not parking included, that affects their pro forma. So I’m willing to entertain this if it isn’t or, but not if it’s an and. Okay, I’ll go to the Councillor to ask those, or answer to respond to those questions. Thank you, yes.

I had new ulterior motives, but as always, I’ll take anything that SPA and staff are able to get. So I’m not offended to add and/or or or, but perhaps before we do that, I’m just wondering if staff can maybe comment on their ability to achieve either of those items, and perhaps if they felt that the or was required. So I’ll go to staff, just kind of the impact and the availability of arcing spaces requested in the application with these changes. Thank you through the chair.

With all these directions that get provided to the approval authority, we do what we can within the limitations of providing a balanced overall functional development. Our requirement for planted islands are about three meters, but similar to a parking space, three meters in width, setbacks are about a meter and a half. So certainly a little bit more room to provide more holistic planting is a good outcome for us to work with. So we’ll do what we can to balance kind of everybody’s needs with these directions as they come up to the approval authority.

Okay, so are you comfortable with and/or? I’ll go to Deputy Mayor’s give me a thumbs up on that. Okay, so I’ll ask Clerk to make sure the wording is adjusted for that. Okay, any other comments or questions before we call the vote?

Okay, we’ve got motion with amendments by Councilor Frank. That’s been moved and seconded. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, so I’m moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 300 and 306 Princess Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Rowan.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff? This application from committee members.

Seeing none then I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, members of committee, my name is Casey Cole-Chickie.

I’m a senior planner with Slink Pream Unlimited representing the applicant on this file. We’ve had a chance to review staff’s report and like to thank them for their work on this file. We are in agreement with its recommendation and I’m available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I’ll open up to members of the public that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you, one last look around in the gallery. Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Raman. I’ll call.

closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So we’ve got a staff recommendation. I’ll open it to the floor, Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I’ll move the staff recommendation. I just wanted to comment that all I’ve heard is positive feedback from the community. So I just want to thank the applicant and staff for the work on this file.

Thank you. I have a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on, we’re on 3.6, which is regarding 3010 to 3050 Yorkville Street. I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Raman.

I’ll call the vote. closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff, many members? Okay, then I will go to the applicant on busy Tuesday today.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. My final one. Good afternoon again, Chair and members of committee. My name is Jennifer Gaudet, Associate Planner with MHBC Planning.

I’m here on behalf of the applicant, who are also segregated, but they’re on the other side here to additionally answer questions. We support staff’s recommendations and are available for questions. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for members of the public to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you, one more look at the gallery.

I don’t see anyone rushing to the mic, so I’ll look for a motion to close the BPM. Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, and open the discussion to committee. Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to put the staff recommendation on the floor. Thank you, Councillor Raman, you’re seconding.

Okay, thank you, so we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll open the item for discussion to committee members. Councillor Raman. Thank you, and through you, I was going to wait ‘til the word Councillor’s vote, but I’ll go before her, and then hopefully hear from her because I’m very interested to hear what she has to say as well.

Yeah, so I wanna thank the applicant for bringing this item forward. I was very pleased to see some ground floor commercial included in this particular development, and I appreciate the thought from staff around incorporating the Bostwick Community Center into the design and the look and the feel in the area. So I’m supportive of this particular building and the mixed use that’s being proposed. Thank you.

Councillor Hopkins. Ditto on the Councillor’s comments as well. I just wanna make some remarks. I think this is where we’re changing a building going from a three-story to a 12-story, creating 120 units.

I don’t know if you’ve been in this area, but the building close to the 17-story building, it’s a beautifully designed building. The Community Center start tech right across the street from the other side of Yorkville, incorporating the urban design really, really important, but putting in this intensification, which is allowed in this area. I want to also make comments about the transit, there is transit in this area, really encouraging pedestrian traffic, and I’m starting to notice more pedestrian traffic in this area as opposed to just cars coming and going to this area. There’s servicing available.

I’m really pleased to hear that, ‘cause we do have more development going forward, but there is servicing for this area, and it’s important, I think, to keep that holding provision to address the security that is needed with the changes in this agreement, so really pleased to see these changes coming forward. Yeah, any other comments or questions? The Committee will allow me, I just want to echo Councillor Hopkins and Councillor ramen. This is kind of a new direction, I think, for the city.

We’re bringing high-density areas away from the core. Where the city wants to go with incorporating commercial activity, so people can actually walk to shops and commercial services and with the community center as well. So, I’m very excited with what’s been developed to date around this area, and I think just adds to the direction that we need to go, so thanks to the applicant and the staff for moving ahead with this. So, if there are no other comments or questions, we have a motion moved and seconded, I won’t call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving to 3.7, which is 460 Asher Crescent. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, any technical questions for staff, committee members? So, you know, I know I’ll look for the applicant, like to address committee. Please state your name, you have five minutes. If you can move the mic down just a bit, so we can make sure we’re here, perfect.

That’s great, thank you, go ahead. I thought I was tall, but apparently not. Kerry O’Brien on behalf of Drula Holdings, who just wanted to take time to thank staff for their help processing this application and indicate that we are supportive of the staff recommendation. I am available if the committee has any questions or concerns.

Well, that’s a new record for being succinct. Well done, I’ll open the floor to gallery and public input, addressing the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Sonia Munn.

I live directly behind where this development is going to be put. They are currently in the process of building already, but they are changing the proposed area that’s directly behind my house. I, along with 21 other people in my neighborhood, had submitted some questions to staff, which they did respond to. But I just wanted to bring forward a couple of concerns for you to consider.

They are adding three apartment buildings where previously town homes were planned. Something that we had been told back in 2017 was the new designation for the neighborhood. So this area has been under development in Somerset for quite a while. However, this piece of land has not been developed, even though a sign has been posted there for a long time.

I have lived in the neighborhood since 2013 and was told town homes would be built in this area, which I was fully expecting when they started development of this land. I was extremely taken off guard when I received notification that apartment buildings would be built where we were previously told town homes would go. I’m not opposed to the six-story apartment buildings that are being built directly along Commissioner’s Road. However, there is a five-story apartment building that will be built along the side of Jackson Road, and that directly faces the backyards of single-family homes on the other side.

I emailed staff asking if the developer would consider removing the five-story and making it a three-story building to be more in line with the town homes that they had previously proposed, which are also on the development. The staff basically emailed me back and said that the proposal was in line with the London plan and didn’t really leave room for additional questions from our side of things other than the fact that they just said it’s in line with the London plan. So I’m just questioning, for this type of development, it is directly impacting the neighbors that are across the way. They are asking for reduced setbacks, so this would impact us on the other side because it would remove the setback so that we would have less privacy.

And like I said, 21 people in my neighborhood, when I went around and spoke with them, were more happy to hear about a three-story apartment building that would be directly backing onto our land as opposed to a five-story apartment building, obviously knowing that there’s already two six-story apartment buildings that would be put along Commissioner’s Road. We didn’t have issues with the six-story, it was the five-story specifically. So I just wanted to bring that forward for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee and the public? Also clerk, if there’s anyone online? Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you. One last scanner at the gallery, I see none. It’s all a promotion to close PPM, Councillor Robbins, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So I’ll put this on the floor for committee, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’m happy to put the staff recommendation on the floor with one additional site plan amendment that I’ve sent to the committee. So I’ll make that motion.

Okay. I have a seconder, Councillor Robbins. So we have a motion moved and seconded with the staff recommendation plus an amendment that has been circulated prior from Councillor Frank. So I’ll open the floor for discussion.

Mr. Mayor Lewis. I’m sorry, I’m just looking for the amendment. I don’t see that in eScribe.

As an amended, I see the staff recommendation, but not an amended motion. You can check on eScribe, it would be there. Have any comments regarding that? Okay.

We have motion moved and seconded with the amendment. So you can know their discussion, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We’re moving ahead to now 3.8, which is official plan review of the London Plan and Lands needs assessment. And I’m going to go to staff for some words before we get into it. Thank you through the chair. Before you this afternoon is an update report on the official plan review of the London Plan and the associated land needs assessment.

Purpose is first to seek council direction on re-initiating the section 26 official plan review. It’s to be initiated as a phased review, prioritizing the land needs assessment and related amendments. The review was paused last year based on timing of a new provincial policy statement document coming forward from the province. MMH has been consulted on undertaking this phased approach.

Second, it’s seeking direction to apply a 25 year planning horizon to the London Plan and land needs study. The 25 year horizons consistent with both the 2020 PPS and the draft 2023 PPS that’s not finalized yet. Slide five in the attached presentation identifies specific language changes on those two PPS’s around time horizon. Third, on slide six, you’ll see that seeking to continue the 45% intensification target within the London Plan.

45% new development targeted within the existing build area. So policy reviews such as permitted heights of development and the servicing infrastructure works are underway as part of the housing accelerator fund project from the federal government. So the target will continue to be monitored but with the expectation that the results of those half projects will require a future review of the intensification target but monitoring for now rather than a change now. Fourth, seeking direction on recommended industrial land conversions to incorporate lands into new place types and apply those lands to the new land use categories in the assessment noting that bylaws for converted sites would be brought back to a future date of council based on direction here.

As part of the official plan review, the city’s evaluated designated industrial lands for potential conversion to non-industrial uses. Civic administration received requests from landowners and also identified some additional areas for potential conversion. Slide seven in the presentation identifies lands recommended for conversion. These include the former Kellogg’s factory area from line industrial to residential, a Hyde Park commercial area.

So commercial and industrial to residential with recognition of existing commercial plazas. 1525 to 1635 Fanshawe Park Road West, commercial industrial to residential, noting that approximately six hectares of neighborhoods place type is designated the rears of two of the properties but the actual frontage is in commercial industrial. So that’s for, to create the entirety being neighborhood. York Street, commercial industrial to urban corridor.

This is a primarily commercial area but the purpose is to encourage future mixed use development along that corridor. Bathurst and Little Simco, so south of the CN rail tracks on the other side of York there. That would be light industrial to commercial industrial maintaining light industrial is permitted but also adds commercial opportunities. Then in slide eight, you’ll note that there was an added recommendation.

So staff received additional information regarding 2496 Dundas Street. And because of those additional background studies, staff are seeking a deferral in order to reevaluate based on those additional materials. It’s a new clause C. And then slide nine of the presentation identifies lands not recommended for conversion, which is 2251 to 2257 for Folger Street.

So this is three parcels entirely designated as light industrial place type. They have a residential zone but they’re designated and planned for industrial land use. They’re located in a strategic industrial area of the industrial land development strategy of the city along the VMP corridor. This area is key for economic development and job growth.

It abuts the former 3M lands now owned by WSIB, a major provincial employer announced and moved to the city as of last September. Three subject properties on a block that’s one of the highest quality for size servicing and location criteria to meet the needs of industrial employers. Staff’s opinion that it would be premature for that piecemeal redesignation. The changed residential designation may prevent or limit the ability for the area to develop for intended industrial purposes.

And the landowner’s planner has indicated an interest in applying for rezoning. Increased residential intensity introduces additional land use conflict which may also limit the ability to develop the area for the intended industrial purposes. The Trafalgar site is not recommended for a change in place type. So then on slide 10 has next steps.

Reevaluation of the request to 2496 Dundas Street. Preparing a bylaws for London Plan Amendments associated with Council’s direction today. Continue update of the vacant land inventory, updates to our land supply and demands. And then following that a subsequent phase of review with any additional conformity exercises as part of a new provincial policy statement as well as finalizing of the land needs assessment prior to that second phase of conformity.

Thank you. I’ll go to the committee now to open up the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ramen, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to the gallery and see if someone would like to address committee.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. It’s Mary Ann Hodge from Climate Act in London. And thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic.

We have seen recently in the past the pressures that other areas have had on their green belts and London doesn’t officially have a green belt, but I think everyone would agree that the agricultural land around London is precious. It is some of the best land in the country and possibly in the world. And so the more pressure we put on the urban growth boundary, the more pressure there is to turn some of that wonderful agricultural land into housing. So it’s of interest to me this land’s use assessment because there were a number of things that kind of came to light for me as I’m reading through this.

One is that the target for intensification of the existing lands is 45%, which has been the same since like 2017. And as we know in 2019, the city declared a climate emergency. And when an emergency, to me, that means that plants change. So targets should change, they should intensify.

So if we’ve had a 45% intensity target for this since 2017, I’m thinking that we need to up our game and make that target a little bit higher, and especially where there are areas where there is infrastructure that allows for intensification, we should be encouraging that. So I’d like to see that intensification target increased. We’ve talked in the past about transportation, mode, share, and wondering how that impacts the land needs assessment, whether that’s going to take into account the mode share target, which hasn’t been defined yet. And we know that the mode share target is again, lower than what we’d like to see of the options that are on the table.

Even the highest option is not high enough. So looking for some conversation around the transportation mode share and how that impacts the land needs assessment. Also wondering how the climate lens has been applied to this assessment, and that as we know, we are trying to intensify. We’ve talked to, people have talked throughout the afternoon here about the land plan and intensity targets.

And I would like to see how the climate lens has been used. Sometimes when I see reports, they talk about, yes, we’ve given the, we passed it by the climate lens, but it’d be really nice to know what kind of specifics have come out of that, that we looked it through the climate lens, and these are the things that we’ve identified. Also, there is a comment in there about that now looking to change it to a 25 year planning horizon, and that minimum densities are recommended for new lands. And I’m wondering why we’re looking at minimum densities for new lands.

And does that mean that we cannot make any changes to those planning densities for the 25 years of that horizon? So once we lock in those densities, that it’ll become more difficult to change them. And as we know, when people buy homes, that they have some perception of what their neighborhoods are gonna look like. So if we don’t do it now, and give people an awareness of what the expectation is going to be, you’re gonna continue to see this kind of reaction when intensity comes to the public.

So it’s best to do it now, so that it’s out there, people know what to expect, and there’s no surprises down the road. So if you can answer those questions, I’d appreciate it, thanks so much. Thank you, Ms. Hodge.

I’ll go to the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Paul Heind.

I’m the principal of Tamfield Consulting Limited. I’m here today to speak on behalf of one of the subject lands that we’re considered as part of the land needs assessment, the municipal address is 2251, 2253, 2257, Trafalgar Street. I believe it is on page 420 of your agenda, there’s a map that shows exactly where the property is. It’s on the south side of Trafalgar, west of what Veterans Memorial Parkway, immediately abutting both low-rise apartment, town housing, and single-family dwellings.

The property, all three properties combined, represent approximately 0.43 of a hectare or one acre in size. It’s located within the industrial designation as indicated by planning staff, whoever it’s at the extreme north limit of the industrial designation, which follows along the western corridor of Veterans Memorial Parkway. As indicated, the three parcels represent approximately one acre in size. Currently, there’s two lots, which are zoned residential 1.9 that are vacant, and the most easterly of the three lots contains one single detached dwelling and an accessory building, and is currently being used for residential purposes.

It’s interesting to note that the two vacant residential lots were created by consent just a couple years ago. They’re also zoned residential 1.9. However, they happen to be in a designation of light industrial. However, less than three years ago, two more residential lots were created by consent.

We had applied for a pre-consultation meeting for rezoning, and we provided, along with that application, some concept plans to demonstrate that if the lands were rezoned into an R5 or R8 zone, possibly a 39 unit, four-story apartment building, a 22 unit, three-story cluster townhouse development, or an 18 unit, two-story townhouse development would be able to be accommodated on this one acre parcel of land. This is ideal intensification, infilling, and redevelopment of an underutilized residential zoned parcels of land that could assist in contributing to the 47,000 new homes being sought by the city. It was suggested in the staff report that the subject lands are mid-block, and I would respectfully suggest that they are not mid-block to the industrial designated lands. They had the extreme northern tip with Trafalgar Street forming the boundary between residential neighborhood place type and light industrial to the south.

So it isn’t mid-block at all. Further staff suggested that any intensification could potentially cause a conflict. If one looks at the surrounding land area, and I can make reference to page 420 of your agenda that shows a map, you can see the abundance of the residential along Maynard Street, along Trafalgar, where any future industrial development on the former 3M lands is going to have to have regard for the existing residential development right away. Along the south side of Trafalgar Street, not only is there the three residential lots that I’m representing today, but there’s also three additional residential lots that currently have residential dwelling units constructed to form an entire ribbon along the south side of Trafalgar.

We had also suggested during our pre-consultation that policy 43, one of the London plan, allows for a boundary interpretation, and unless the boundary follows a road utility corridor, railway, river, or stream, none of which would apply, the municipality could have easily or staff could have easily interpreted and used the boundary interpretation clause to recognize that there is this unique sliver of existing residential development on the south side of Trafalgar with right across the street from mid-size apartment and townhouses, and that that could be deemed to be that an official plan amount wasn’t going to be required. They chose not to use the interpretation clause and thought that we looked at 30 seconds. Thank you. That we looked at the land industrial needs study instead, and we’re very disappointed that the recommendation is to be refused.

We would request that the committee not support the staff recommendation in so much as 2251 to 2257, and that you do allow for the redesignation to residential in order to allow for a zoning by-law amendment to be submitted at a future date. Thank you very much. For the next speaker, Mr. Fleming, please go ahead.

You’ll have to raise your mic there about a foot. (laughing) So you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is John Fleming, I’m the principal of City Planning Solutions, and I’m representing today York Development, COP Realty, and CQ Holdings. They own land that is west of Hyde Park Road and south of Fanshawe Park Road. It’s about 25 hectares in total, and the vast majority of the land is vacant, and I think that’s important. I’d like to start out first by thanking planning staff, particularly Heather McNeely, Justin Adema and Travis McBath, who have worked with us through this process, and they’ve been excellent to work with.

We want to make it clear that we agree with the staff recommendation relating to the lands that I’ve identified, and there is a submission on your agenda on the added that explains our case for industrial land conversion. We think that this is an excellent opportunity in a location for a new residential community. It’s a prime intensification opportunity, and we know that Council has been looking for ways to intensify to identify opportunities for new residential nodes, and we think this is an excellent one. The infrastructure is already in place.

Road, sewers, massive storm pond that’s already there, and that’s a significant investment already made by the municipality. It has great residential amenity, so there’s an opportunity to build an outstanding residential community here with large storm pond. A woodland that is to be preserved. We have the rails to trails bike path and walking path to the west, and adjacent to the site.

Parks nearby, transit right at the doorstep. A massive power center, which is with an easy walking distance to provide retail, restaurant, and other commercial services to the residents, and it’s all within a very easy walking distance. So it’s a very sustainable form of residential development that could occur here. But there’s another benefit, and we wanna point this out.

This is potentially another thousand residential units, if you think of this in terms of a mid-rise form of development, that missing middle that you’ve been looking for as well, that will help the Hyde Park Village in that main street. It’s with an easy walking distance. You could just imagine the shot in the arm that this kind of community would be directly adjacent to then about three or four minute walk to this new residential community. Just to wrap up, again, I just wanna emphasize we agree with the staff recommendation that we look forward to the next steps.

Once this has been identified as a site for conversion to talk about the place type that would be moving towards. And I did wanna point out that Mr. Sufen and the other partners are looking to develop in the near future, so this is something that can help with housing supply in the not too distant future. We’re here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Thank you. I want for anyone else who would like to address committee, Mr. Wallace.

You can lower that mic. Thanks, thanks for inviting me to Mr. Chair. I can lower it by six or seven inches, sir.

Go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you members of committee for having us here today.

I appreciate the report. I’m gonna comment a few items on the report and maybe give a little bit of context to what Councillor Lewis said about population growth. So in general, we appreciate the report. We support the phased approach that we’re taking at looking at the needs assessment, land needs assessment first.

We also appreciate that the staff have put forward the 25 year planning horizon, the at least 25 years, that means council, you could choose to go longer than 25 years if you wanted to have a bigger vision for the long-term growth of the community. One thing that I would say some of our members are unclear on and including you got some letters from some of our members that is this a little bit premature on the industrial land conversion prior to the finalization of the land needs assessment. Now, it could be that we’re misreading, I didn’t read it that way myself the first time because it has to come back to another public meeting and other process, but I think it would be ideal if you could clarify with staff that what we’re doing today isn’t requiring you to have that done before the industrial conversion before the finalization of the land’s needs assessment, which our group are actively working with the staff so that it happens that virtually, we’re not saying that conversion isn’t part of the solution, but we wanna look at the whole big picture and where that role is and how much is needed in that conversion. That is from our group who are actively working on that needs assessment group with the piece.

We want to be clear that we appreciate the looking for opportunities to provide more residential opportunities within the city of London. The Watson Report, which you approved in December of 2022, had a population growth estimate in there that you guys agreed to the Middle Road, which averages about 7900 a year. In July, as stats and numbers are from July to July, Canada Day, Canada Day. From July 22 to July, no, 21 to 22, so six months after you approved that, the actual growth in London was over 13,000 people, not 7, 7900.

You cannot underestimate the growth that’s going to happen here in London that is happening now. And that’s without the industrial growth that’s just happening south of the border. Your new city manager, who will be starting soon, in a discussion we’ve had with her, their vision of the population of the employment, of people that are coming to be employed in that area, they are in their performa. They’re expecting 30% of that workforce to be living in London, for them to be able to handle the growth themselves in St.

Thomas. That wasn’t included in your numbers. That project wasn’t on the horizon, wasn’t public. So all we’re saying is that you will be seeing a report coming from your staff in the next cycle, I believe, or the cycle after that, sometime in April.

And it will talk about the progress that we’re making on looking at reviewing the growth demand, the housing supply forecast. And we’re gonna be very supportive of the report that’s there as we’ve seen it preliminary to us, and we’ve been working on it and providing input on it. But we will also be providing you, and from our perspective, an update from the industry of what’s actually happening in the marketplace and what the potential, opportunities and obstacles will be going forward and meeting that future housing supply for London. Yes, in your report you talk about the urban growth boundary.

We will, it is part of the land needs assessment review. I need to remind you and everybody else, that we’re not talking about changes to the city boundary. There might be opportunities to move the urban growth boundary within the city boundary. 30 seconds.

Inside of that is the BAB, the built area boundary, which the intensification targets, which is in this report, we’re supportive of, we’ve been meeting them about 45% over the last little while. But that boundary’s 10 years old, 2016. There has been building in London in the last 10 years, and opportunities to build within the built area boundary now are becoming more and more limited. That also needs to be reviewed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee?

Could anyone online, Burke? Matthew Corey. Mr. Corey, please go ahead.

You have five minutes. Hello, Mr. Chair, and thank you for hearing me today. My name is Matthew Corey.

I’m with the planning firm alone, given Parsons. You can hear me, correct? We can. Wonderful, I’m here on behalf of Dan Corr today, and Dan Corr, construction limited.

I know Sean Ford is in the audience ‘cause I could see him in the background of the other speakers. I apologize for not being there in person. I’m battling a really bad congestion, so bear with me if I cough a lot. I apologize, but I didn’t want to bring it to you and give it to you, so that’s why I’m not there in person.

But we’re the planning consultants for Dan Corr, construction limited. They own 4423 Highbury Avenue South in the city. And this property is positioned just west of Highbury Avenue South between Dingman Drive and Green Valley Road. It’s approximately two kilometer south of the 401.

In these lands, we think have a really present a real unique development opportunity for the city of London. They’re strategically located near the 401. They’re vital goods movement corridor linking the GTA and the United States through Windsor and Detroit. And they also offer potential for economic and investment activity for the city.

The issue that we have is that they’re currently just outside the settlement boundary. And wanted to both introduce you to these lands and also know that we’ll be participating through the process. So really happy to see the city re-engaging with the city’s official plan processing and getting that going again. I have spoken with the staff and understand that later in this year, there will be land supply analysis that will be undertaken in conjunction with the work that Watson’s already done in terms of looking at employment land needs.

But I think the biggest thing we wanted to raise with you today is that given the subject lands are we believe are shovel ready. And in particular, they have servicing very close to where the lands could be and that they’re strategically positioned in proximity to a major good movement corridor, which is of course the 401, which also has an approved MTO ramp for tandem trailers. They have a pivotal role in capitalizing on the economic opportunities arising from all that investment and in green energy in this region, which is of course the VW battery plant. We’re requesting that these lands be considered to be put into the urban boundary and that the urban boundary be expanded to include these lands and that they be designated light industrial for the purposes of accommodating the much needed employment uses within the city.

Understand that there’s the whole land needs assessment and requirement that has to go on. We’re absolutely going to be participating in that. I think there’s some key elements that have to be considered when the supply analysis is done most notably whether servicing is available for lands. Certainly think there should be a prioritization and a recognition of servicing availability when land supply is being looked at.

And then also in terms of the viability of the lands moving forward. Dancor as I understand it already has a couple of tenants lined up. They are ready to go, they’re ready to deliver jobs and new industrial tax base for the city. And it’s something that we really hope will be considered as the city proceeds with its official plan beyond the initial growth management projection study into the land needs assessment and the land supply side and consider these lands as part of all that.

So with that, Mr. Chair, maybe I’ll keep my comments very brief. I know Sean Ford is in the audience. I don’t know if you would like to add anything, but I’ll leave it at that.

And if there’s any questions happy to, of course, answer them if I can. Okay, thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee, honestly, I’d clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one else online.

Thank you. I see no one coming to the mic in the gallery. So I’ll look for a motion to close the BPM. Councilor ramen seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll open the floor. I’ll open this item to the floor.

I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I’m prepared to move an alternate recommendation to the staff revised recommendation. I would be adding an amendment and certainly, I’m gonna entertain with you, Chair, right away that if, ‘cause I know that there was an amendment from Councilor ramen in an earlier file that was meant to be attached to this one.

So I’m certainly prepared to add hers as well. The amendment that I would be adding would be a new clause D. And that clause D would actually read that notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director of Planning Development and Civic Administration be directed to incorporate the industrial conversion for 22.51 through 22.57 Trafalgar Street into the city’s land supply of the land needs assessment. I’m also prepared to add and perhaps I will, if you’ll entertain, Chair, I’ll yield the floor.

So Councilor ramen can read hers. I’ll add that in at the same time. And then we can debate the things as a package and I’ll provide my justification on Trafalgar after that. Okay, Councilor ramen, do you want to work with the Deputy Mayor on this and introduce your amendment at this time or would you like to get his on the floor and then add it up to you?

I will add it now, but I’ll just split out the vote later. Okay, yeah, if you could just, I know we have to distribute it. If you could just read it out, that’d be terrific. So I’m not sure what the clause will be, but the direction would read that Civic Administration be directed to evaluate the properties that 1368 to 1408 Hyde Park for a mixed use of both residential and community facility that the property be evaluated against the criteria for, oh wait, one second, sorry, that’s wrong one.

That’s from earlier time, hold on, one second. It just popped on my screen, thanks. Okay, that Civic Administration be directed to review development opportunities on lands to be converted with the Hyde Park commercial industrial area and consider specific area policies to ensure future developments include a mix of commercial use and other neighborhood amenities. So Chair, if I may suggest that we would add that as a new clause E and then re-letter clauses E, F, and G to F, G, and H.

Just a second, I get to compare with the clerk. So the clerk is going to put an E-scribe what we have down, read it over and see if that’s where you want to go. Okay, have you had a chance to read it over? I have that it captures my intent if it’s satisfactory, Councilor Roman.

Yes, thank you. Okay, so you’re going to move that? I will move that entire. Okay, and then I’ll look for a seconder.

Councilor Roman seconds, okay. So we’ve got the staff recommendation with a couple of amendments that we all put on the floor now to discuss. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

First of all, I want to say to staff, I’m really supportive and grateful for the recommendation to refer 2496 Dundas back for some additional review. I too received some additional information from the property owner, and I think that does need to be reassessed because I think that there is some opportunity there. And I will say that both that and the Trafalgar property for me, when I hear concerns and legitimate concerns from Ms. Hodge, one of the things that I’m always mindful of is the ex-urban growth, and what that means to push growth out into places like Thorne Dale, Amoka, Hillworth, Dorchester, and force people into longer commutes to come to work in our community, come to work at the Volkswagen plant or other industrial development that we have coming on, and actually contributing nothing to our property tax base.

So coming in, using our amenities, using our services, I know that there are a number of students in swim lessons at East Lions Community Center who are coming in from outside those communities. So when we can have growth within the city limits, within the built area boundary, which is old, and I concur with Mr. Wallace, we need to review that. It’s 10 years is a long time, the same with the urban growth boundary, but that’s why these conversions to me are really important today.

And I want to speak specifically now to Trafalgar Street. I think Mr. Hind, when he was speaking from the gallery, outlined the problem here very well. This small parcel of land, and I’m speaking as the Ward Council are now having been on the site, having walked the lands, this is not going to be developed as light industrial.

We have residential right across the street in three-story walkups. We have a little commercial Circle K Plaza right across the street. We’ve got affordable housing immediately to the west in townhouse complexes. This is not an industrial area.

Even with the 3M operation, the building was situated a long way away from the existing residential, because those light industrial designations and commercial industrial designations do have D6 and other setback requirements that limit what they can do to limit the impact on the residential neighborhood. And as we heard, these properties are already zoned residential. Yes, the London Plan envisions the place type as light industrial. But again, the London Plan’s out of date on this.

It has been developed as residential. We created two new residential lots in 2020. And now to say that we’re going to treat it as prime industrial land. I have to respectfully disagree with our staff on this.

The industrial land along Veterans Memorial Parkway itself is prime industrial land, particularly to the south, where the residential neighborhoods do not exist, because we are moving into fully industrial areas on both sides east and west. But in this segment of Veterans Memorial Parkway, we have industrial on the east side of what is at this particular area, a six lane divided expressway, because we have turning lanes on both sides as well. So you’re not just four lanes, you’re six lanes. And we have residential on the west.

We even have a substantive area, an honor guard of trees that was planted by 3M that provides a buffer between the industrial use and the existing residential. And we have a residential property owner who’s willing and ready to come in and intensify with townhouses or medium density, medium mid-rise apartment building. These are the perfect locations for individuals to live in the east end and get to work in the east end, where there are jobs available, literally a couple of blocks away on the other side of an expressway that they can get to. So I am very supportive of having this conversion at Trafalgar Street happen in my ward today.

So I’m asking colleagues to support this. This is a small parcel. Really, it is what I would call a remnant of a previous designation. It’s not big enough to have some sort of assembly or manufacturing facility on it.

It’s not big enough to even have warehousing on it. It’s existing residential. Let’s allow the resident, let’s recognize, not just through the zoning that we’ve already given, but let’s recognize through the place type designation, let’s convert this to residential and let the infill happen here, please. Thank you.

Other comments? Councillor Frank. I feel like I’m playing chicken with Councillor Robin. So mine are unrelated to the, what was just discussed, but mine were related to some of the comments from folks in the gallery.

And I had a really good discussion with staff yesterday, but I wanna kind of revisit it a little bit, specifically the intensification target and understanding kind of where this train is headed. This is the first step on a longer train ride to eventually discuss urban growth boundary. So the intensification target to me is really important. And right now we have a 45% intensification target.

It’s been there for a while. And the part that I’m starting to, I don’t know if I’m gonna say get worried, but consider more thoroughly is that we do have at SPPC next week the master mobility update, which currently looks like is simply just the report from October being put back on our agenda for council. But in that, included in that is again, kind of reference to, and I wanna pull it up and read it, of land use considerations when we’re looking at the master mobility plan. And to achieve option two of the master mobility plan, we need a 50 to 60% intensification target.

And to achieve option three, we need a 60 to 70% intensification target. And so we’re gonna be discussing what mode share split we pick at SPPC next week. And if we wanna have any hope at all of hitting our climate targets, we have to pick option three. And for option three to be viable, we need an intensification target of 60 to 70%.

So I kind of see these things all going together. And I’m not sure which chicken or egg goes first. And if this is the chicken or the egg, but I personally feel like I know understand the caution of trying to keep the 45% intensification target because we’re not sure if we can service all of the intensification at the same time. All of other plans point to us needing a 60 to 70% intensification target.

So I guess through the chair to staff, I’m wondering, I know that right now the process for it is monitoring the 45%. But I suppose if next week at SPPC, we pick option three, will there be a quick reevaluation from planning staff to then align our intensification target to a mode share target? So through the chair to staff? No, I’ll go to staff for that question.

Are you getting a, are you not getting away? Chair, sorry for that delay there. We do have a representative from our transportation area that’s on the line here. And that will be able to speak to that connection between the two, but I’ll just start from the intensification target and where we’re going with that and some background on it.

So the 45% value that is within the London plan is that target that we’ve been setting for and measuring ourselves against. The original value that was brought to council at that time was 40% and then council decided to have that ambition to increase it to the 45. We would love as staff to be able to say today that we can go for 50, 60% intensification. At this point, we cannot say that as we don’t understand and have the details to be able to say that the infrastructure is available to provide for that intensification.

So what we’re doing, and this is part of our work with our housing supply group is to actually do that work to understand within the built out city that there is capacity available. So historically, as part of our GMIS process, we’ve always looked at to ensure that they’re servicing and timely growth throughout beyond that intensification area, but we have to do the same thing within the intensification area and ensure that we’ve got the servicing available that’s available within that 20 year period and then can allow us to actually support that intensification. At this point, we think that it’s very reasonable what we have within the London plan and what has been set as a target of that 45, but we don’t have the data to be able to provide anything increasing from that 45%. Once we do, then we will absolutely bring forward a council for their consideration, what we can do as far as a target moving forward, and we’ll be able to do that knowing that we’re providing with really great data.

Until that time, we think 45% is a good valid target. With that, I will throw it off to our friends from transportation on the call to say how that connects with the master mobility plan. Okay, I’ll go to transportation. You’re a greaty here, I’m a traffic and transportation team.

So there are many factors that influence our ability to achieve a mode share target. Intensification is just one of those many factors and there’s numerous scenarios but how those factors can work together to achieve any given mode share targets, not dependent on any one factor in particular. So while there’s no changes recommended at this time to the intensification rate, the planning report does reinforce industry trends towards more intense forms of development. And planning for a higher walk cycle in transit mode shares that will help them walk the potential for that increased intensification.

So that’s an important thing to keep in mind. And also the MMP mode share target is also a 2050 target. So it is pretty long term. And yeah, based on the, we’re really looking at the trends where intensification has been going to date and we’ll have to wait to see how that trends continuing forward.

Thank you, I’ll go to council. Thank you, yes, I appreciate those answers and I think perhaps for me again, I’ll have more conversations between now and council staff but I am quite worried that, again, I only think the only option for us is option three for our mode share and therefore, in my opinion of us achieving our climate targets and if we pick option three of mode share, it says here that we may need or have 60 to 70% intensification target. So which is a significant discrepancy from the 45% that we currently have. So I think that there needs to perhaps be a little bit more discussion amongst myself and staff members because I think that targets are, you know, they’re ambitious and they’re meant to be achieved.

I don’t personally set a target that I know I can achieve because then where, you know, I mean, the gap is the ambition between what you think you can achieve and what you need to achieve. So I appreciate the caution that staff are executing ‘cause I think that is probably quite responsible but I am hoping I guess maybe in the next couple of weeks, I’ll discuss with staff on both departments how we can be mutually meeting both of these targets. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Councilor Hellman.

Thank you and through you. So I want to thank the Councillor, Deputy Mayor Lewis, sorry for his work on Trafalgar Street based on the added as well as the information provided. I do understand now a lot more about those lands and why there was concern and why the recommendation is reading the way it is from, or the amendment is reading the way it is from the Councillor and I’m supportive of that. I want to talk a little bit about the Hyde Park area and the rationale behind my portion of that motion.

Within the Hyde Park area, the land that we’re discussing here in this context, it is, you know, land that has not been developed and has been sitting on developed in a light industrial area that is surrounded by a lot of natural features and is surrounded by retail and lots of open space as well as great neighborhoods in the other adjacent areas. So I do think that there is opportunity for growth and we are looking to intensify where we already have existing services and I see this as a prime to that. However, I have to also consider that, you know, whenever we make these decisions, they also have economic impact elsewhere. And so for, you know, BIA’s and business districts and other community amenities, we also have to consider what that impact can be.

And so in this case, you know, the BIA would lose some of its area to more residential, but yes, residential is very important for the main street as well. So we understand both of those things. But I think where there’s opportunity is to have more conversation with staff about what’s the future look like and through an OPA will be able to do that and have the conversation around what’s the impact to the BIA and then with respect to amenities as we go through this process and should this move forward and then hopefully relatively soon thereafter have some conversations around actual development in this parcel, I’d be looking for things within the site plan authority to look at some additional amenities for the community at that time. So that’s my thinking at this time, but I appreciate the ongoing conversation with the applicants and the ongoing conversation with the community around this.

I think it’s really important. I will say though, I will be looking for more transit in the area if we do go this way. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? The committee will allow me to make a few comments from the chair. We’ve talked a lot about a lot of things in this discussion. We’ve talked about changes to the east end where I believe I’ll start with my comments with their, you know, with the development in St.

Thomas, with Volkswagen and others. And just a natural progression, I see the east end as a primary for infill. We’ve done a lot of work in the northwest and the west and now we’re moving to south. I think the east side has a lot of potential and I see veterans being used as a corridor not only for industrial but for people, as was mentioned, looking for going to Volkswagen and the off-shooting industry.

So fully supportive of Deputy Mayor Lewis’s remarks about that particular property. And that takes us all the way to the northwest side where Councilor Robin was speaking to, you know, that industrial area, that goes back quite a ways back to even when Highway 22 was a little bit more important corridor between ourselves, Sarnia and the states and now 402 is there where that I think has changed the, you know, the needs that have now transitioned to residential. I like Councilor’s comments regarding commercial uses and amenities that goes back to what we saw at Bostwick. Increasing residential mixed with commercial for walkability and that whole area that we’ve seen from all the way from Gainesboro and Hyde Park and mix of commercial and residential is terrific and people can walk to the commercial uses as opposed to taking other modes of transportation.

Just want to touch a bit on the comments that Councilor Frank has raised and was raised earlier by the public, we’re gonna get into those discussions. We have a target of 47,000 but boy, we’re seeing population moves in a substantial way to London and I think it’s going to continue and even accelerate. So there’s important conversations that we’re gonna have on how we see London positioning not only for the city but the surrounding areas, the Deputy Mayor alluded to. We’re not an entity unto ourselves.

There is communities around us that are expanding tremendously. I feel in my ward, I’ve spoken to this before, we can see a direct effect with the bridge past San Antonio and Oxford leading into the Western areas of Kilworth outside city boundaries. That’s gonna be like 20 plus million dollars that will be on taxpayers in London handling traffic outside the city boundary. So we’re gonna have to take those unintended or intended consequences into the factor and to our discussions that we’re having about density levels within London.

I would just like to, I missed one question that was brought up by Mr. Wallace and I wanted to get clear just in the order of things. We have a land needs assessment and an industrial strategy conversion. And just I forgot to kind of get clarification on the order of things there.

Through the chair, so what this is allowing us to do bringing forward this report right now is to assess how much land is actually available for housing. So what we’re trying to do first is to establish whether there’s lands that are in industrial right now that should be housing. So that’s what you’re determining right now. That allows us to make these calculations and perform the calculations.

We need to say whether we have enough of lands available for housing and then that land needs assessment, then we’ll say then what do we need if we don’t have that within the current urban growth boundary? What do we need beyond that? So this is a critical point for us to be able to start from to say, this is what our housing needs, this is the housing available within the urban growth boundaries. That’s why we’re coming to you today ‘cause this is one of the elements that we need to be able to do that analysis.

Okay, thank you. And this brings me to my last point as far as industrial lands strategy within the city. Back in the day, Kelloggs and Lebats, we have major industry right within the city and those times are changing. Now we’re looking at conversion of those properties into especially Kelloggs.

I mean, that’s the major one. We’re repurposing those areas. So times change and we’re in a time of significant change, both in industry and growth and population. So interesting discussions to come.

I’ll wrap it up. I’m fully supportive of the motion. Thanks for committing for indulging me. And I’ll look for any further comments or questions.

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we have some folks in the gallery right now.

I know you’ve been waiting a long time. Committee has been going on since one here. So I think we’re just going to take a bit of a break. I’m going to look to committee if that’s okay.

Like a five minute, five minute break. Is that okay with everyone? Yep. - Okay, do I need that?

Okay, can I just have a hand vote on the five minute, five minute break? All right, thank you. Okay, folks, we’re back from recess. We’re looking at 3.9613 superior drive.

So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Robin, seconded by Councilor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions from committee members?

And I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. Okay. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. All right, thank you, Chair.

Kerry O’Brien, I’ll be providing comments for the Ironstone Building Company who is the owner. We’d like to thank staff for all their help in processing this application. The Ironstone Building Company is supportive of the draft zoning bylaw amendment that’s in Appendix A of the provided report. As indicated in the letter that was provided by Mr.

Heind, we understand that there’s a number of resident concerns regarding the proposed development. So I’d like to take the opportunity to address some of those concerns. Detailed responses to the comments were provided through staff and Mr. Heind has also attended one of the informal community meetings that was hosted by Councilor Prigle.

As indicated in the report, concerns expressed to the public relate to the impact on property value, insufficient infrastructure capacity, traffic and safety concerns, incompatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding area, density as well as building height and a loss of property. The proposed development is intended to introduce a denser form of housing that will provide the community with more attainable housing options to address needs of various stages of life. The requested zone change and proposed development will provide 142 new homes. The market has undergone significant changes since 2013 to 2017 when the surrounding single detached lots were developed and those houses initially sold.

While appreciating the concerns that come with change, there is nothing to support that the proposed development will negatively impact surrounding property values. In reviewing historical neighborhood sales, the average initial purchase price of homes abutting the property was just under $500,000. It’s anticipated that the units in the proposed project will be starting at 699,000 or more. The Ironstone Building Company has developed several properties throughout the city and we’re confident that our project will maintain the home values within this community.

The proposed density is consistent with what’s permitted in the London plant policies, proposed height which is a maximum of nine meters is the same as what would have been permitted under the current residential zones and is actually less than the 12 meters that would have been permitted in the neighborhood facility zone. The proposed rear yard setback minimum of six meters is actually an improvement over the minimum 4.5 meters that would have been permitted under the current R12 zone. In addition, fencing and landscaping facilitated through site plan approval, this increase in rear yard setback should mitigate the privacy concerns. Infrastructure capacity has been addressed through servicing reports provided by our consultants with the site plan application, confirming that there are no concerns with the proposed development.

We understand and are sympathetic to road and traffic as well as safety concerns identified by residents. Unfortunately, upgrades outside the limits of this block are beyond the control of the developer and we would suggest that the traffic generated by a potential school would exceed that generated by the proposed development. I’m available to the committee if there are any questions or clarification required and thank you for your time. Thank you.

I’ll now open the floor to comments from the public that wish to address the committee. I’ll just remind folks that flaws or booing or any outburst, we ask that you refrain from that. It’s hard enough for people to get up there and speak without that out of pressure. So that’s my ask of you.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. My name’s Kristen Lad and my property backs on to this area. We are here representing over 100 homeowners in uplands north and we’re a bit on edge today because your decision will directly impact whether we choose to remain in this community.

We’re not opposed to development. We’ve watched more appropriately planned housing appear all over London. Within our own community, we’ve seen the additions of high density single family homes at the entrance of Canvas Way, the Eden town homes along Sunnydale and Applewood marketplace. Building these higher density homes closer to Sunnydale and Adelaide within walking distance from transit, the YMCA, Tim Hortons was an appropriate planning decision.

This request to build 142 homes on an interior parcel of land that based on the city’s bylaw would allow for a maximum of 48 single detached dwellings or a maximum of 75 town homes because the development is adjacent to lower density areas is breaking the rules. The land and surrounding infrastructure are not designed or suited for this density. It’s unsafe and irresponsible. Over enrollment in the schools leads to classroom chaos, behavior issues, reduced individual attention, teacher burnout, infrastructure challenges on shared spaces like gyms and libraries.

All of these things are experienced now at St. Catherine of Sienna. The letter from Rebecca McLean from the London District Catholic School Board says that the new school in Fox Hollow that should open in early 2025 is expected to eliminate the current over enrollment at St. Catherine of Sienna when it opens.

The assessment by the board assumed that the city was not tripling the housing capacity on each parcel of land that’s being developed in this zone. Ms. McLean has not indicated anywhere that she has space for any additional students, including those that will move into 613 superior. This greatly impacts our children and their education.

If you approve this request, you’re saying that our children’s education and the over enrollment impacts on the schools does not matter. The negative impacts on this poorly planned storm water pond have already killed most of the trees in the wetlands, which is home to 175 species of birds. Exceeding the number of homes planned on 613 superior will cause more water runoff into the storm water pond. The justification report says it’s sufficient.

It’s not. The city has failed to protect what the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has deemed provincially significant wetland. If you approve this request, you are saying that the provincially significant wetlands are not important enough to save. The current 300 plus residents in the community purchased their homes under misrepresentation in good faith based on the current zones.

The current zoning told us that we would have privacy in our yards. We’d see an increased property value as the neighborhood grew. We’d have additional green space of walking paths that would eventually connect. It didn’t tell us that there was a chance that the city of London would increase the density by 200%.

If you approve this request, you’re saying that you don’t care about your current citizens’ privacy or home value, the ability to safely walk through your neighborhood. You care more about the potential revenue that these new families will bring to you. We did our research. We saved up our hard-earned money to purchase houses along the perimeter of the lot that the London’s by-law states will be a school, neighborhood facility, or single dwelling homes.

This land was designated this way for a proper planning reason. And we trusted the assessments and by-laws when we purchased these homes. If you approve this request, you’re saying that young Londoners like us should not even bother researching their surroundings when they purchase a home because you’re just gonna change it anyway. These concerns are all addressed if you plan this properly.

You need to improve the setback of the homes to help the residents along the perimeter. It would alleviate the privacy concerns along a clips and canvas way. An increased lot frontage will also solve some of the parking concerns along Superior Drive. Additional green space that was promised in the uplands north area plan must be included in any new design, especially when the research shows, families are not gonna thrive with no backyard space.

The city of London Council and this committee should not crucify good and sound planning principles upon a cross of cash from Queens Park or Parliament Hill. Thank you. Thank you. I look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, good afternoon everybody. My name is Stephen Andres. My wife and I reside at 651 Eclipse Walk.

Our backyard faces the south side of Eclipse Walk, ultimately backing onto the pond and onto Sunnydale Road. We’ve been at this property since March of 2013. Unfortunately, what used to be green space, forest, birds, animals is now littered with dead trees flooding and excess water. Families used to walk behind our home on a consistent basis with no issues on the path.

Now there continues to be ongoing issues with flooding the back path. I believe photos have been disseminated, hopefully to Council or my pleasure to share with you three simple photos. Under the context that a picture is worth a thousand words, a simple photo that we have from 2014, 2019, and this morning removes all emotion and it is simply a fact. I’m a capitalist and I support growth.

I support affordable housing and as a parent to two young boys, age nine and seven, I have immense concern about their ability to lead a life of independence and to be able to afford a home for themselves. Our point, our family’s point, my point is responsible growth, having the existing infrastructure in place to support this growth. And I would encourage anyone on council to come into my backyard and to take a look at what we see, dead trees and flooding as of this morning. Others areas of issue pertaining to infrastructure and our concern for the neighborhood revolve around a few simple facts.

Garbage is littered everywhere at our entrance. We’re all hardworking people in this room and we all pay our fair share of tax. Garbage is littered everywhere. To be blunt, it’s disgusting.

My concern with this number of added people is just going to continue to compound. Cars, racing past buses, we’ve seen on a daily occurrence. Again, having just one simple entrance and exit to this subdivision is not safe, it’s the infrastructure is not intact. And I will, again, respectfully challenge any study that comes or tries to contradict this.

Again, to conclude, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say this. Ironstone is a pillar in our community. These are hardworking men and women who’ve built a great business. I don’t think it’s coincidental that when they acquired this land, the cost of money was close to zero.

Fast forward over the past 24 to 36 months, the cost of money is at a 40-year high. I ask everyone in this room, is it strictly coincidence that the planning application is now radically different given the cost of capital, the cost of money, and how it has exponentially increased over the past two years? Anyone with a respectfully speaking ounce of common sense can understand where I’m coming from this. I’m all for growth.

I’m all from density. And respectfully speaking, my backyard is not directly impacted. But I do feel that ongoing flooding in my backyard will impact everybody in the community in that the existing infrastructure in our neighborhood does not support the number of units that are being proposed. Ask everyone on council to please consider an additional road that enables people to get in and out of the subdivision on Adelaide, just north of Sunnydale, perhaps a set of traffic lights, and hey, why don’t we throw a few garbage pails where the bus stop is?

Because it is disgraceful. Thank you, and I value your time and insight. Thank you for the next speaker. Please give us your name, sir, and you have five minutes.

Kevin Ladd, on the eclipse walk. The current zoning for 613 superior allows for 48 single detached homes. The zoning amendment and new site plan is requesting 142 town home units. This is a 196% density increase and is far too intense for a parcel of land that is adjacent to lower density areas like this one.

The London Plan calls for a target of 45% intensity increase, which would allow for a maximum of 70 town home units. It calls for a 75% intensity increase along rapid transit corridors, which would allow 84 units. 613 superior is nowhere near a rapid transit corridor. It’s not even on a major road with sidewalks or trail systems, and yet your plan is calling for a 196% increase in density.

If you approve this increase in density, you’re breaking the city of London’s planning bylaws. Our proposed 75 units is a 55% intensity increase and far more compatible with an established neighborhood. This succeeds the London Plan target and satisfies the homeowners in this neighborhood. 196% increase is preposterous.

75 units would allow for better setbacks and more green space. It would allow for visitor parking, which would help keep vehicles off the streets. It would reduce traffic on the roadways, which cannot even handle today’s capacity. Your solution to this roadway concern is likely going to be to put a skim coat on the unassumed construction road known as apple tree gate and say that is 100% increase in access.

This is comical at best. For that plan to make any logical sense, apple tree gate must extend to superior drive. Apple tree gate runs north and south and is at the most eastern side of the current community. It is out of the way for almost 100% of the homes and traffic in that neighborhood.

This means 100% of the community members will have to drive to the very east end of the subdivision to use this roadway. It’s also only 450 meters east of the current canvas way entry and will not alleviate traffic in the slightest. To properly manage the roadways and traffic safety in this neighborhood, the city needs to expropriate the land along superior drive and connect it to Adelaide Street north. This is a safer and more appropriate traffic management strategy.

The London Way thus far is to build as many homes as possible and let infrastructure catch up someday. This needs to be completed before any of this construction should even be considered. Single story town homes would be more compatible with the existing housing in the surrounding area for many reasons. They would require a reduced number of units by the mere fact that they have a larger footprint.

The reduced number of units would reduce overcrowding on the roads, schools and hospitals. Single story town homes would likely come with only one vehicle. Two story homes are likely to come with two or more vehicles. This impacts the roadways, the safety, the congestion and the parking concerns.

With these town homes built so closely together, the developer has admitted that there will be no street parking available on the south side of Superior. This means that with 50 to 60 foot wide lots on the north side of Superior, the homeowners will be facing a parking lot in front of their homes. The developer seems to think that this new type of unit will allow people to remain in their neighborhood as the age, exactly 0% of the people in this neighborhood intend to retire into a two story town home. The London Plan emphasizes growing inward and upward, but not by a 200% intensification.

Reducing the cost of growth, whose cost, our taxes will stay the same or increase and our property value will decline. The cost of new town homes will not be affordable. Ironstone is charging $650,000 for the cheapest town home. Creating walkable communities, there’s nothing walkable about uplands north.

We have minimal walking trails, no sidewalks for kilometers and not enough nearby green spaces to walk to without crossing extremely dangerous Sunnydale Road. Revitalizing urban neighborhoods in business areas, this is not an urban neighborhood nor a business area. Protecting farmlands, if you approve the density increase, you’re further harming provincially significant wetlands. Reducing greenhouse gases and energy consumption, 142 new homes equates to 196% increase in greenhouse gas emissions potentially.

The tax paying citizens of this neighborhood purchase their homes based on a city approved plan for the subdivision. This assessment is called the uplands north area plan. You have 30 seconds left. Multiple items within that plan have already been ignored, not preserved and overlooked.

The specific parcel of land was designed to have a minimum of 2.4 hectares or six acres of green space. These are all the items you must take into consideration when you’re making your decision. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for the next speaker. Please serve if you can give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, name is Ramu Seshan. So I live on 1943 Canvas way.

So the lot is actually right now. Can I ask you to speak up just a bit so we can hear you? Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Can you hear me okay now? That’s perfect. Thank you. Yeah, so this lot is right behind where we live.

I understand the need for more housing, especially affordable housing because I have lived in apartments, town homes before buying a single story home. So I know that in London, the need is more than ever. But I think sometimes you need to take a conscious decision. I mean, it’s not just, you know, building homes everywhere, right?

So other than the concerns my friends had here, my biggest concern is, you know, I know that, you know, you have the transportation department says that, you know, it’s fine. You know, it can handle, you know, volumes of traffic. But a lot of times, you know, when I come to Sunningdale, I cannot even turn left during rush hour. Even even regular hour, there is, you know, tremendous traffic actually.

So I have to actually go right and then come back. So this is, that intersection is actually, you know, it’s going to be a disaster in the waiting. You know, it’s going to happen because it’s just so overcrowded. And the other thing I want to say is that, you know, for, I’m also concerned for the, you know, the people who are going to be living in the town homes, you know, like all the amenities which are lacking, you know, the nearest bus stop is like a good walking distance from there.

I’ve never seen anywhere, you know, where the town homes are built with, you know, so far away from, you know, public transportation. So those are some of the concerns, you know, I have. And again, like I said, yes, there is a need for housing. But, you know, sometimes just, just, you know, take, you know, I humbly request you to make a conscious decision when it comes to this kind of projects.

Thanks. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

If you could just move the mic, just tip it at the end of it. Okay, okay. My name is Jinton, yes, I’m living in that area. Yes, so in the, yeah.

So in the house, two, three, zero, eight, dancing, cruising. Yes, so, yeah, I just, you know, care about the, the thing that provides all impact on the area of traffic. For this one, people, livelihood, just only one way to access it out to the south, to the sunny day of the world. Yeah, so, all of you, and several, and accident happened in this area and the one accident that actually the, the city of the land posted and the quota, all the quota and yes, and yeah, take a, maybe, one year later and we’d be at it, a new one.

Yeah, so we don’t want, and those accident happened again and so this is a new area, yeah, so, and yeah, yeah. Yeah, this, this accident is, is a, is a small to busy world and sunny day of the world, yeah. So like, what do you like, and two, two day actions, the cars come from two day actions around the sunny day and go down the river and it’s all, and it’s so fast. So it’s, and for us, it’s dangerous, and it’s dangerous and don’t have a good view to, to access it, yeah.

So, yeah, and yeah, so, in the south, south, south, south, south, south, south, south, yeah, so there are, all your pipeline, so we don’t have a way to access to the north and there are many more to the east and to the west, so it’s just the only one X engines and the easiest to the south and to the sunny day, yeah. So, yeah, yeah, yeah. So if we build a, we have a new, a building, yeah, so a complex, yeah, before building that, those probably wouldn’t be another new, ancients and they exit, yeah, yeah. So, because it’ll be, it’s not good for, for people, and, and, and the design, yeah, this is a new area and the design is also new and, yeah, so design is, so design is for the single house, houses, a new, a new program is built at a townhouse and the number of people will be chewed and the, we record the number of people were chewed and, and, and, and the whom are we chewed, yeah.

So, this doesn’t make sense, yeah. So, I think when you double will be, is, is all, a lot, yeah. So, yeah, this is a doesn’t make sense. Yeah, so, and also, again, it expects, it’s a collaboration for the people.

We put a purchase that new home in this new, new area. So, yeah, so this is a new area. So, we, we, it’s, it’s like back frangers, so not too many people, yeah, so, so how are you loaded? Yeah, so, yeah, yeah.

And, what I’d like, before he’s designed for the, that single houses, you know, and right now is a, a townhouse and then two, two, many people, yeah, so we’ll be, and, yes. You have 30 seconds, sir. Yeah, okay, yeah, probably, okay. I’ll look for the next speaker.

I want you to address the committee. If you could give us your names, sir, and you have five minutes. Sure, good afternoon, Councillors. My name is Michael McGarry, and I live across the street from the proposed development.

I’m just going to talk, I have one concern. I, my neighbors have basically told you all the stuff that I agree with the concerns that they’ve highlighted so far. I just want to emphasize again, we have a situation with the road, Sunningdale Road, and that’s access and egress to our subdivision. I believe right now is currently unsafe.

When you add any more development, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Ironstone coming in or anybody comes in, it’s going to make it dangerous, more dangerous than it is. Some of the danger items I see, the high school down the road, Mother Teresa, the kids in our subdivision, the high school kids, they’re too close to be bust, so they must walk. And if you take a look at that, where we come in and out of our subdivision, it’s like a valley, there’s a hill on either side. The traffic, you know, like everywhere else in London, people in a hurry, and they’re going down there all the time.

So when our kids want to get out of the subdivision, they want to walk to school, they have to walk along a road that is currently crumbling on both sides. There is no sidewalk and at the time they’re coming to school and coming home again is when the traffic is very extensive. I’m afraid somebody’s going to get hurt. Also the young kids, like we’ve got some lovely amenities coming into our neighborhood.

We have a community center and they’re building like a nice little mall or stuff. Well, like the kids want to go to the dollar store with their money and stuff like that and they’re heading over there, trying to get over there with their skateboards and their bicycles and I know personally some parents won’t allow the kids to go out of the subdivision unless they’re in a car. So my point is I think that the city of London is incumbent upon the city to address this infrastructure problem because somebody’s going to get hurt and I don’t think anybody wants that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please ma’am if you can give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Jen Finley and I’m at 607 Eclipse Walk.

So like Steven, I back on to the pond. First of all, my first point is holding a public a public input meeting during the middle of the day doesn’t work. We’ve already had three members who did take time off of work today to be here that have had to leave because of appointments or calls or picking up their kids. We had over 50 members attend various meetings.

There was 100 households that were interested in these proceedings and people couldn’t get time off of work. My husband couldn’t be here ‘cause he’s in a job where he’s not allowed to leave during the middle of the day. We have a number of professionals that work in our neighborhood that could not leave during the middle of the day. So holding a public input meeting when people are working and cannot come express their concerns but it’s during the day for the developers.

It’s during their working day so they can come and they can provide their feedback to you. Doesn’t make any sense. My second point is we are the forest city. Yet we have a policy of cash in lieu of Parkland which is absolutely ridiculous.

We as my neighbors have already stated, there was supposed to be green space on this land. We were sold our houses with that promise that there was going to be green space on this land. Every plan had it in there, that’s what we were told. There’s already infrastructure built in the neighborhood leading towards the supposed green space and the city accepted cash to steal green space from our children which is absolutely disgusting in my opinion.

One thing that I’m very, very deeply troubled about is a city planner who actually had the audacity to say to taxpayers in London that an unassumed gravel road was an appropriate entrance and exit to our neighborhood. That’s not right, it’s disgusting. We have one entrance and exit to our neighborhood. We have had multiple instances where we have been stranded in our neighborhood because of accidents and we cannot leave.

If there had been an emergency during that time, an ambulance would not have been able to access our neighborhood. Death could have occurred because of this poor planning and you’re wanting to compound the poor planning with more poor planning by allowing an increase of density which doesn’t make sense. Funny enough, and our word counselor received the text, we were coming back to our neighborhood after one of these meetings about this development when an accident occurred. And we had one lane available for entrance and exit to our neighborhood because the other two lanes were blocked.

And this isn’t something that has only occurred once, this has occurred multiple times for us. Strategy and planning is needed when you’re talking about, when you’re talking about planning. Again, we’re not saying that housing is not needed in London, housing is needed in London. But we’re saying be thoughtful about how you do it and be mindful about where you’re putting certain developments.

It doesn’t make sense to say we’re going to create affordable housing and then put it in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city with really high taxes. That is not affordable housing. What is needed in North London, if you ask anyone right now, is housing for the aging population. It’s in poor demand, sorry.

It’s in high demand and it’s not available anywhere. I can tell you being a part-timer list agent, but one of my really good friends is a full-timer list agent. We have clients that are looking for detached, single-level condos and you cannot find them, anywhere in North London. For a developer to suggest that what they’re putting in our neighborhood is going to be something that will keep residents in our neighborhood, again, one of my neighbors said, we’ve taken a poll.

No one in our neighborhood says they will retire to those dwellings. It’s a two-story dwelling with a single car garage that is not what retirees are looking for in the city. It doesn’t make any sense. A couple of people alluded to the schools, so I sit on the school council for St.

Catherine of Sienna. We are currently at 940 students at St. Catherine of Sienna. Our school was built for less than 500 students.

We have 14 portables. Our children are using staff washrooms ‘cause there are not enough washroom facilities in the school. You have 30 seconds. Sorry, I’m talking loud.

The high schools are at full capacity. There’s no room for our students in North London. You guys are considering putting in higher density when the current students are not receiving the education they require. Again, information about Sunningdale.

Everyone talked to you about it. Sunningdale’s a huge issue in this city and you’re looking to add more individuals accessing this road. Our own board counselor has indicated that it’s like a third world on Sunningdale. Okay, that’s your time.

Okay, thank you. - Thank you very much. Don’t look for the next speaker. Please give us your name, ma’am, and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Kristin Stiller and my property backs onto the proposed land. Before I get into the things that I’d like to discuss, I would just like to give a rebuttal to what was offered by the representative from Ironstone. They made a couple of comments that I found interesting.

Firstly, they indicated that they had consultants who came in to do an evaluation of the infrastructure, the storm water sewers, et cetera. And that that consulting company found no concerns. It’s been a while since I did my undergraduate degree, but I had an amazing professor back then. And what that professor strongly told us in my scientific debate class was that you need to look at the evidence and you need to look at who’s doing the evidence and who’s doing the study.

And you need to look at if there’s bias there. I find it curious that a company that would be looking for someone to say that there is no issue found that there was no issue. I would offer that, was that an unbiased study? I think that evidence from the current flooding that has occurred from 2014 to now would suggest that our storm water system isn’t up to capacity.

I, like many of my colleagues, fully support the development of new homes. I understand that. The provinces said we’ve heard clearly it’s 47,000 homes. We understand the need to build that, but again, I go back to it needs to be strategic, sustainable and responsible.

I think that when you look at this level, when you look at this particular proposal, you’ve heard from our colleagues that there are concerns around, firstly, forget our community first, forget just our neighborhood, but when you look at also the surrounding area, our bigger community. Sunnydale Road, as you’ve heard, it is not sufficient. It’s not sufficiently scoped. It’s two lanes.

It’s incredibly busy. We’ve heard about the lack of appropriate and safe sidewalk access for our children who have to walk to high school. And I’ll tell you honestly, we refer to it in our family as the death gauntlet in that area because it is so dangerous. There have been times where I have, well, we don’t cross the road anymore because it was so terrifying for my six year old one time when we were trying to cross the street in that bowl and the cars were zooming through, there’s no street light, there is no pedestrian crosswalk, there is nothing.

And my child got stuck and was screaming in fear and I was running to grab him screaming, I’m trying to, I’m getting my two kids. That is not safe. That is not the London that I wanna live in. I want counselors who are going to represent us and represent our safety.

The way that that infrastructure is right now with one entrance and the lack of any sort of street light, pedestrian crosswalk, anything that is not sufficient and adding 142 new homes, which how many cars will that translate to? Likely double that. That is not safe for our children. That is not safe for us.

That is not safe for people walking dogs. We’ve already heard about the schools. My children attend St. Catherine of Sienna.

My child is in grade three. I’ve never heard of grade three is in a portable, but that is the reality that we are facing. So I encourage you, I’m not opposed to population growth, but part of what comes with population growth is also building the infrastructure. It concurrently with that.

Where’s the support for hospitals? Where’s the support for our roads? Where’s the support for our schools for our children? Where are those supports when you’re talking about putting 47,000 new homes into this community?

And then you go internally into our individual subdivision. One entry, one exit. You’ve heard the challenges that brings with it. It’s very difficult for me to wrap my head around how a city planner could say to us that but you have a gravel dirt road.

Really, that’s the messaging that we want. Is that the marketing campaign that we want to go out with? Come to London, a step back in time. You have a dirt road.

Is that a hyperbole? Does that make you say, gee, that’s a ridiculous conclusion to draw, Kristen? As ridiculous as that hyperbole by sound, that’s how we the neighborhood feel when we’re told by members of your staff that we can use a dirt road. Our children can use a dirt road.

There’s something missing for me for that. You have 30 seconds. And so I guess in my 30 seconds, what I would say is, this isn’t about property values. This isn’t about property values.

This is about what is safe and what is right and what is logical. Supporting growth makes sense, but let’s do it in a logical way. Let’s address the issues that are in place. And so I would encourage you, please hear our concerns and make a decision based on logic.

Thank you. Thank you. Look for the next speaker. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

Amanda Kuto. Please go ahead. You have five minutes. It’s Kuto, I understand you’re online.

If you would like to address the committee now is your time. I’ll give you a few more seconds and then we’re gonna have to move on. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone else online. Is there anyone in committee room five that would like to speak?

One last time is Kuto, if you’re online, I’ll have to, I’ll look to the gallery to see if there’s anyone else that would like to address the committee. Okay, seeing none, then I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, and we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll just go to staff on one concern regarding flooding, both currently and plans for proper stormwater capacity given the size of this proposed development. Thank you through the chair.

The culvert and outlet understanding the old road was recently upgraded in late 2021. Which lowered the water in the wetland to acceptable levels. Further to this, the city is undertaking the Paladrian Rehabilitation Project, which will provide the wetland habitat restoration. The swim pond has been designed to accept drainage from the proposed development, and this was confirmed with our stormwater engineer.

Okay, thank you. No problem, please, I asked that public participation meeting is over. So I’ll ask the public to refrain from comments right now. Thank you.

So I’ll put this on the floor for committee discussion. Mayor Lewis. Put the staff recommendation on the floor. I have a seconder.

I’ll look for a seconder first. I’ll second it just to get the discussion going. I’ll go to council Robin. Thank you.

I did provide amendments as well for this motion, and I’m hoping to introduce if that’s okay. Okay, I’ll look to the deputy mayor might just add that to his motion. No, because I don’t agree with one of the amendments of the councilor’s proposing. So we should have to move an amendment first, but I do have a motion on the floor.

So before we move to amendments, I wanna speak to the motion that I put on the floor. Fair enough. We’ll get to the amendment, but we’ll let the mover speak to it first. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So I need to go over some of the reasons why I concur with the staff recommendation on this. And it’s gonna respond to some of the concerns that I’ve heard raised as well. First of all, I cannot underline this enough.

The municipality, the city of London, does not control where school boards build schools. We have communications from both school boards on this file saying we will be putting these students in catchment areas where they will be attending other schools. The school boards did not exercise their right to purchase this block and move forward with the school development. We cannot do anything about that.

That is not within our peer review. That is a discussion that residents need to have with their school board trustees, with the director of education, with their MPPs, because city council has zero control over schools. I know that’s not what you might like to hear, but that is the reality. And I have to be honest about that.

And when I hear about the traffic concerns, I don’t wanna dismiss them. But again, I have to say, and I points to some other examples. And Councillor Hilliard, I know is with us on Zoom, Sheffield Road in his ward is the only entrance out of a subdivision right now. Because it’s not a completely built out subdivision yet.

The same is true or was true until recently, again in ward 14 on Charlie Hagerway. Now Oreo Drive has opened up. And so now there are two entrances and exits from that subdivision. But for the longest time, there was one way in and out.

Blackwell Boulevard up on Fanshawe Park Road North, just north of Fanshawe Park on Highbury, I should say. Again, a single road in and out of that subdivision right now. Again, it’s not a completely built out and assumed subdivision. Even where I used to live on Trapper Street for the longest time, Classic Drive was the only way in and out until River Run Terrace was completed and built out.

And then the fact is, we are talking about a subdivision that’s not complete yet. So I understand the concerns. And certainly in terms of, you know, Sunnydale Road and the walkability, I completely agree. Without sidewalks there, it’s absolutely not a safe place to be walking.

No disagreement for me on that whatsoever. And so that is something where our ward counselors need to work with in any of our wards in terms of where sidewalks go. And getting those prioritized and working with our traffic and transportation department to make sure that those are delivered. But when we’re talking about the traffic, and I see this in my own ward, and I know that Councillor Hillier sees it certainly in summer side in his ward, schools do generate just as much traffic.

I think we all wish that that wasn’t the case, but schools generate as much traffic every day as these residential units well. I’ve got a development coming in my ward where 258 units are going in, where there used to be a former Catholic school that the school board closed, demolished, and that’s going in now at 258. And at 258 units, that is anticipated to generate about the same amount of traffic as the school did when it existed. So the traffic, while the exit and entrance to the subdivisions does have to ultimately be addressed, that will come as the phase four and the phase three lands on the applicant development get developed out.

I know there’s been some delays there. That’s unfortunate because either Kleinberg or Superior Drive, I would agree, those roads do need to get over to Adelaide Street North. I agree with what the residents are saying about an exit there. But that is part of a different phase of the development under a different ownership group.

And that’s where we have to make a decision based on this application. And it’s not going to be a school. And we are looking for intensification. And we do want mixed model neighborhoods.

We don’t want neighborhoods that are exclusively one form of built purpose, whether that’s commercial, whether that’s residential. We want mixed neighborhoods. So that’s why I’m supporting the staff recommendation coming forward. The other thing I heard was about the green space.

Howell Park has been created. It’s about 450 meters from this location. And the Parkland dedication requirement for this subdivision was met. It’s in the report.

It’s in the appendix is under 33M-680. So there’s no section 28 concerns from upper Thames. The Parkland dedication has been met. I don’t have a legitimate planning reason to say no to this application.

And I know people want to say that, well, the London plan says the London plan is almost 10 years old. And I said this on an earlier application. We now have a population in London today that the London plan did not envision we would have until 2031. Our population is already seven years ahead of what was projected when that plan was developed.

That’s the reason why every two weeks, every three weeks, when this committee meets, we are looking at zoning by-law amendments to change zoning in areas. Because the zoning that is in existence right now is out of date, and that’s why our staff is working on the rethink zoning and the land needs assessment and all these other components. But we can’t hold up planning applications while those overall comprehensive reviews move forward. We still have to meet our 90 day statutory deadlines under provincial legislation.

So that’s why I’m moving this. That’s why I’m going to be supporting it when it comes to a vote here. And we’ll do so again at council. Thank you.

Any other comments on the motion? Then we’re going to go to, once we debate the motion, I’m then advised by the clerk. Let me just go check on that just a second. Sorry, Councilor.

Councilor Preble, before you, we go to you. Are you okay? Okay, me. Okay.

‘Cause you get presents ‘cause you’re in the committee. So, okay. Councilor Preble, please go ahead. Thank you very much.

So, I’m going to start as, you know me. I certainly support and we need to growth in London. We need intensification. And it’s not, I supported all of them.

And it’s not just that it was in the other wards. It was certainly in ward five as well. Based on this application and staff recommendation, I’m struggling with this one. I really am.

And I’m going to tell you the reason why is because yes, it has to do mainly with the infrastructure. And I totally understand that the infrastructure, that we cannot wait and give green lights permits to build once everything is in place. And there are certain things will be done simultaneously. But what I’m missing here is the strategic plan, the implementation plan.

If we give this a green light, this is a very solid local builder. And I’m going to exaggerate if we give them the green light tomorrow, the shovels will be in the ground next week. This area, Sunnydale and Applewood’s has been in works for over 10 years. I have no guarantee right now that I can face to my constituents and say, but these things will be in place.

I don’t, I don’t have a timeline. I don’t have a timeframe. Sunnydale, Sunnydale Road, we talked about River Road. River Road is in the same shape.

And we say how bad it is that we are going to study, what’s wrong with it, et cetera. Sunnydale between Richmond and Adelaide is not any better. It’s really bad, it’s really bad. When the comment that was made by one of the residents, yeah, the bus stop there, east of Adelaide, that’s the one that I took a picture of last year in summer.

And I said, this is a bus stop for our third world country. It’s a three by two gravel there. There’s a bus stop, sign, and grass up to the knees. So my issue is, this is not what kind of the residents would love to hear, and I know there’s not going to be, but my issue is not as much because our vision, council’s vision, so it’s not as much as the development, it’s the supporting infrastructure.

And we don’t have a plan in place, we don’t. I would love to have from our staff, we are supporting this, and this is the plan. There are two developers that I had a meeting with last week. I do believe we have a momentum going, and I hope we can swing and work very fast with them.

And I hope our staff is going to be saying kind of taking the approach to them. You’re in point A, you need to go to point B. How can we help you to get from point A to point B? And that’s my wish from our staff.

If I had, honestly, the strategic plan, this is the implementation plan, this is the deadline. It’s time for it, it will be much easier to support it, but based on this, and whatever the residents were saying, it’s true, there was an emergency vehicle, after the meeting we had a couple of weeks ago on Sunday, there was an accident, people couldn’t get out. There’s one thing, and there was mentioned by the Peter Mayor Lewis, and yes, Sheffield and Classic. But there’s one thing, Sheffield is going on to commissioners, as far as I know, there are not really plans to work on commissioners.

Classic Go Road has been there, and I don’t think any plans. Sunnydale, we have to address. We have to address, and now, how are we doing it time wise? We are going to give these, this level per week, we are going to give them a green light.

Then, whenever you’re going to do Sunnydale, whenever you’re going to do applique, whenever you’re going to do, and this is the thing that, so East is not going to happen. Something is going to happen, could go through receivership, just like anticipating things that happened a few months ago. And now, we are going to be stuck, because we are going to say, oh, we’re here to do Sunnydale, because they’re stuck there, because the only way, get out of there, is on to Sunnydale. And that is my big issue with this application.

And so, I’m just trying to think if I had my side. I spent a lot of time there in the last couple of months. I did look, and again, what was repeated already, people turning left, lucky we didn’t have very cold winter. But I was there a couple of times, and I went there on purpose, early in the morning, and it was icy.

People turning left from there, people coming down the hill, they were sliding, and there was always, I was praying on the side, and I said, I hope you are going to make it. And these are the things that as a war-run city, in my eyes, we need to have in place. Do you want to slow down the developments and building? I don’t, we need it.

That’s how we are going to get to the affordability, that’s how we are going to get young people, kids, grandkids out of the basements, and we need it. But as a war-run city, we got to have, we got to have the plan in place. And that’s the thing that I’m missing in this one. And that’s why I’m struggling, honestly, to support this one, because as I said, we have a lot of unknowns here, and Sunningdale is a must.

It’s, the sites are just like River Road. There was a mother few weeks ago walking on the street with a stroller, and again, there were very dangerous situations, and we really need to address these first. And again, there’s going to be lots of development between our late enrichment, which I’m going to be very much supportive of it. But us, as a war-run city, we got to have our ducks in a row, we got to have division, we got to have the strategic plan, and we got to have the implementation plan, this options.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Go ahead, Councillor Robin. Thank you, and through you, I’m looking to put forward an amendment, and I’ll speak to the amendment following.

The amendment would be to amend part B and C, which reads as follows, B, the site plan approval authority, be requested to consider the following design issues through the site plan process. One provisions for direct pedestrian connections from individual units, the city sidewalks, along Superior Drive, including the corner units with wraparound porches, two to work with the applicant for park enhancements for onsite amenities that may serve the neighbourhood, including place structures, et cetera, and C is civic administration continue work with the developer to ensure the road conditions in the adjacent plan of subdivisions are improved and communicate with developers on paving the unassumed road, plan for drive and apple tree gate, in the near term to ensure an accessible vehicular access to Sunnydale Road West. In addition, civic administration continue to work with the developer phase four of the subdivision to establish the east and west access on Superior with the connection to Adelaide Street. Okay, we have an amendment.

I can have a seconder for that amendment. Councilor Frank has seconded. So I’ll open the debate for on the amendment. Councilwoman.

Thank you, and I look forward to having this discussion with my colleagues. First, I want to start by thanking Ironstone for one continuously taking my calls, but two for the communication, and I want to thank the Ward Councilor for the work that he’s done on this, and I share a boundary in Ward seven with Ward five and know the Northwest and the Northeast part of the city quite well. I will say I share a lot of the same concerns that I’ve heard from residents. I hear you, I hear what you’re saying about Canvas way, and I agree.

I think that those challenges from the infrastructure perspective, we have to address simultaneously to any new development in the area. I do hear you when it comes to the schools, the issues with the overcapacity, which is in the Northwest and the Northeast part of the city. We continue to put development there. I talk about it pretty much every time a planning application comes for Ward seven.

I know Councillor Hopkins talks about it when it comes for Ward nine too. What we’re seeing is again, this challenge between what we’re asked to do from the province, and where the funding comes for our schools, and having St. Catherine of Sienna and my Ward, I know how overcapacity they are, and the challenges that they face, and I will continue to push for new schools in the Northwest, Northeast part of the city. And I hear my colleagues saying that’s not an issue for Council.

Yes, we don’t have direct involvement, but yes, we need to do something and continue to advocate, and that’s what we do every day. And I know Deputy Mayor Lewis is a big advocate for schools as well. So I will say that when it comes to amenities, I agree it’s not the developer that has to provide those amenities, but I’m trying to set a precedence here with in this development, in this subdivision, that we continue to have these discussions with developers around what the amenities are in the parks, in the current park that we have, but also if there’s any additional development in any additional development that’s coming, that we have a discussion. And I think it’s important.

This is not, it’s a requested to consider. It’s not a you must, and I think that that allows for our staff to continue to have discussions, for us to continue to have discussions. And when it comes to addressing some of the other concerns, I hear what neighbors are saying, that this was not what you expected, and I hear that quite often from residents in my ward as well. And as you can see, you’ve been sitting here for a number of hours through this meeting, you can see that a lot of our conversations are going this direction.

And the reason is because we have to intensify, we have to ensure that we have housing for people in this city right now, and a lot of that comes down to price point, as well as the type of housing that developers are willing and able to build right now. So although I hear your concerns, I do, and I’ve said this to those that I’ve spoke to, that I do support the application in its form, and would just like to add these amendments to it. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, so I’m gonna start with the additional part two of B, with the work with the applicant for park enhancements, or onsite amenity that may serve the neighborhood, including place structures. I agree with Councilor Raman, this could be a precedent setting thing, and I think it’s, in my opinion, a very dangerous precedent to be setting. Our parks department, our recreations folks, community and protective services just received the update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan yesterday. That’s where park amenity discussions happen, not with private developers, as they’re trying to develop residential housing.

They could develop amenities onsite. They also are under absolutely no obligation for those onsite amenities to serve the neighborhood, anymore so than the residents who are in the gallery speaking to us today are under obligation to let residents who may live in this townhouse complex have their kids over to use their backyard swing. It’s a private property, it’s their development, and they decide whether or not to put amenities in. I am absolutely opposed to starting to go down this path on this or any other application, and use this as a way to circumvent the parks planning process.

I’m not saying that the Council is trying to circumvent that, but that’s what we will hear from neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood as new developments come. Make the developer pay for a play structure, make the developer pay for this. Well, that’s not part of how we develop residential housing. That’s part of an overall parks and recreation master planning process.

The developer could even say, yeah, well, we will provide play structure or we will provide an amenity space onsite at the city’s cost to maintain it because private landowners don’t typically maintain public park space in the long run, that falls to us. And so there’s an impact on our parks and recreation, operations and budget as well. So I’m absolutely adamantly opposed to starting to put parks planning into site plan approval considerations. I don’t think that frankly, and I’m not gonna speak for them, but I don’t think that’s what Mr.

Pease’s teams have expertise in. There are expertise in site plan development for development applications. So I don’t wanna go down that road. On the second amendment piece, the clause C, I’m more supportive of the intent here, but I’m also very concerned that when we start talking about unassumed subdivisions and we start dictating what level of maintenance or what level of quality of pavement is on an unassumed roadway, what are we setting ourselves up for from a city perspective in terms of liability, in terms of expectations on future developments, in terms of costs that we lose out on in some aspects potentially of DC charges, and I’m wondering if staff can provide any comment on what their expectation is of unassumed roadways and how a subdivision is developed out when it’s not assumed by the city in terms of the quality of road.

‘Cause I know that we have private roads in the city that wouldn’t actually meet municipal roadway standards because they’re private, and I’m not sure if anybody can comment on that from a staff perspective, but I suspect Mr. Cavick can’t, so. I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, thanks for the question.

So the Apple Tree Gate street right now is within phase two of Applewood subdivision, currently conditionally approved. And what that means is the developers essentially issued building permits and the requirement for them is to have a granular B as their surface course or development. Like the Councillor and Deputy Mayor referenced, we’re looking to coordinate with this developer to try to get the asphalt and curbs placed for the subdivision so that residents have a secondary access here. But a lot of it depends on development in that coordination, and we’re hoping to do that here in the near term.

With respect to the city’s obligation, because it’s not assumed right now, the responsibilities of maintenance are currently with the developer, unless they enter into some kind of agreement with the city to maintain that responsibility, specifically through winter maintenance. If there’s any other questions, be happy to address them, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So that’s very helpful, I appreciate that.

Again, I don’t know the staff can comment, but the amendment specifically speaks to continue to work with the developer of phase four to establish the East West, and believe me, I would love that developer to move forward on the East West access of Superior Drive, too, ‘cause I’ve had separate meetings with them about that. But my understanding is that that is under a separate application and under a separate ownership, is that correct? Through the chair, we’re currently in the drawing review stage for this stage of development, which Councillor Ramen has indicated is phase four of Applewood. The developer’s very active and wanting to advance their development here, which would connect Superior Road to Adelaide Street to provide then another access for this neighbourhood.

But it’s really too early to determine when this road network or infrastructure would get built because we haven’t entered into this other agreement yet. And through you, Chair, just a follow up. So my understanding is one of the, and again, I don’t wanna put words in anybody’s mouth, I’m just sharing my understanding if staff can confirm or if you can’t confirm, that’s okay. But my understanding is one of the hold-ups to phase four right now is actually developing a workable sanitary sewer access connection, and so we don’t have a timeline on when the roads might happen because we’ve actually got some water wastewater challenges to overcome.

Go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. We’re currently coordinating again with that developer for phase two of Applewood to see if we can advance them far enough within their subdivision process so that we can then allow sanitary flows to be conveyed from phase four and to phase two. But right now, it’s us trying to continue those conversations to show the developer there’s urgency here to get more homes built.

Go on, Dr. Ma’am. Thank you. So that for me is where the problem comes with C.

I appreciate the intent, I genuinely do, and it would be nice if the developers could all coordinate and get some granular be accessed out at the same time, but we’re talking about multiple landovers over multiple phases, subdivision development, that we all are aware from the news that at least one of the developers in the area entered into a bankruptcy situation and things were paused there. So I genuinely don’t believe that we are operating, and this is my belief, other Councillors may disagree, but I don’t believe we are operating in good faith, and I don’t believe we are operating in a way that withstand an oil tea appeal if we started to tie the approval of one development application to work that another landowner on another parcel of land in the same subdivision, but in a different phase of it, was tied to this development. I think that we would be in real serious trouble defending that position, so I can’t support these amendments. I absolutely support where the Councillor’s trying to go with C, and I don’t know if staff can provide any sort of additional information for us in terms of the considerations that they have to give.

Obviously, when a development like this is happening, you’ve got construction vehicles coming in and out, so you’ve got some other road uses that are happening that aren’t normal to the subdivision while construction is happening. So can staff give us any sort of overview of what their expectations are in terms of construction access and the impact that that has on local traffic, is there a way without tying this to the Phase 4 to mitigate some of the construction impacts so that the access point in and out on Canvas Way is not as restricted, or are we kind of in the same boat where our hands are tied by the development of other phases? How about staff? Through the chair, if I understood the question correctly, it’s decoupling them, Phase 2 and Phase 4.

Phase 2 is one developer, Phase 4 is a different developer. In the immediate term, we are looking to try to get Apple Tree Gate and Kleinberg Drive paved, so we are able to decouple those two issues. Hopefully that addresses the concern. OK, so I’m happy to hear that Kleinberg is at least trying to be decoupled from the situations in both this one and the other phase so that that can at least be moved forward.

So I think that that’s important to know because I think Kleinberg does provide an extra access benefit to the neighborhood and does relieve some of the concern around the development. It’s not ideal, but until we assume there’s only certain things we can do until we’ve assumed the subdivision. So again, I understand the intent, but I can’t support it as is. Councillor ramen.

Thank you, and through you, so I appreciate the conversation. I will say how it reads is that civic administration will continue to work with the developers, so it signals to the development community, but also to the residents that this is top of mind for the city as we move forward. I think it’s actually important to have those kinds of reassurances in the decisions that we’re making, and I think that we need to continue those kinds of conversations so the community is aware that this continues to be a priority and that we’ve heard them. We’ve heard that the unassumed streets on Kleinberg and Apple Tree Gate, they don’t mitigate the issues of getting out onto Adelaide Street, and so we need to continue to raise that as an issue, and it needs to continue to be front and centre.

I also think that although we may not have, you know, park enhancements and play structures in a lot of our proposals right now, I think it’s important to realize that as we head into more conversations about even different forms of development, mid-rise and high-rise, we need to consider what kind of amenities are necessary for future communities, and what we’re seeing is we’re seeing a transition in our community where we are going to need things like parks and parkets more readily, that are brought in as amenities by developers. I think that developers will need to consider, you know, what’s being done in other big cities when you’re building big towers in the future if these things are going to be needed. In this case, I will say that we have a park that’s undersized for the area, and I think that it’s worthy of a conversation with anyone that’s building in the area as to the fact that the parks in the area are undersized, and by putting it into this, again, to be considered and requested for conversation, I don’t think that we’re saying that it’s holding up the process because it’s a conversation, and so, again, it shows that we heard the neighbourhood, we heard the concerns, and we’re looking to address some of those concerns. I want to mention one thing about Sunningdale Road, because I know Councillor Pribble and I meet quite regularly with our city staff, we’re pushing very hard to get a complete street and widening done on Sunningdale Road, and the hold up on the section of Sunningdale Road that’s in Ward 5 is much more challenging than it is in Ward 7, but we are continuing to push, and as you know, the plan right now, based on our DC study, is for us to start that work in 2025.

So, I hear those concerns as well, and a complete street design means we need sidewalks, and we need a more accessible way forward, and we need to work together on that as well. Thank you. We had concerns raised that we weren’t, the people with the gallery weren’t able to hear staff response to the Deputy Mayor’s question, so if I could have you repeat what you said, but just in a louder voice, ‘cause it was just not caring. Thank you, through the chair, perfect.

I tilted the microphone, so hopefully everyone can hear me now. Not sure what the public was able to hear, so I can try to repeat myself. Just go right from the beginning, ‘cause it was just, and speak right into that mic so we can hear you. Thank you.

  • Perfect. So, within this area, there’s a development called Applewood. Applewood faced to, as comprised of Apple Tree Gate, as well as Kleinberg Drive, then there’s also a development of phase, called Phase 4, which is a different developer, and within that development, it connects a period drive to Adelaide Street, and within that development, actually there is an additional park block. So, in Phase 2, again, Apple Tree Gate and Kleinberg Drive, what the city is doing is trying to coordinate with the developer to provide an urbanized pave, secondary access, because their development is currently within the conditional approval, which essentially is the issuance of building permits, and the obligation at that time from the developer, which is within our security policy, is that they only require to place granular be-down for the surface course.

But as mentioned, we’re trying to work with the developer to see if we can get this secondary access paved. For Phase 4, again, it’s a different developer who we’re coordinating with here, and they’re currently working on the drawing review stage and very close to subdivision agreement. But again, because they haven’t started construction build-out, we’re not sure when a superior drive is able to connect to Adelaide Street. It’s too early to tell from us, just based on the fact that the developer has not signed the subdivision agreement.

But from the city’s perspective, we’re coordinating with both developers, trying to do as much as we can out here in the area to address some of the resident concerns. Hopefully that was louder. It was, thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, because it was an addition to the last time, but I think it’s relevant to the discussion we’re having. And I just want to confirm what I heard from Mr. Kavic, which is Phase 4 has an additional parkland block dedication included in it. So there is an additional park plan for the area.

It’s simply not in the development phase yet. Through you, Chair, the Park Powell Park will be expanded to the west as part of the Applewood subdivision. There is an additional piece of parkland. Deputy Mayor.

  • Thank you. Okay, any other discussion on the amendment? I’d like to speak to the amendment, but I’m a bit in my hard spot, ‘cause we have two Councillors. Councillor Hill here is not here, so I can’t turn the chair over to anybody.

So if Committee would allow me to speak from the chair on this, I would appreciate it. I understand what the Deputy Mayor is coming from regarding park enhancements and play structure. I agree with that. I don’t think we’re off base to have a discussion with where we should go in the future regarding privately owned play structures or park enhancements, ‘cause I think Councilor Robin race a good point.

It is happening, but I don’t think we should have a separate discussion on that. I understand, too, where the Deputy Mayor is going with, you know, understand why certain streets are unpaved, you know, in the construction, we get into it, and who’s responsible, et cetera, and unassumed streets, I get that. But what touched, what hit me today was safety, and I really understand from the folks that have spoken about accident to Sunnydale, I know that area, and challenges of turning left, for example, I assume is east, and it seems to be a bit of a landlocked situation in getting that access road onto Adelaide, so I do support the part of the amendment, the in addition regarding establishing east west access, so that I would ask the mover if she’d be willing to, like have C1 and then C2, and I can call separately and I can support a portion of it. Sure.

Okay, so if the clerk could separate C1 regarding the assumed streets section, and then C2, the east west access, if that would be possible. So if we could call part two, I-I separately, C-I separately, and C-I-I separately. Chair, just as a point of order, I think B-I-I, which is- Your B-I-I, correct, and then C was a new one. Season new one, then C-I and C-I-I.

Did you just see where I’m coming from? No, but I’m sure you get it clerked up, and we can refresh your screen, so we’ll see. Okay, so we’re gonna call the first one B-I-I, which is to work with the applicant for park enhancements on our onsite amenity, that may serve the neighbourhood, including play structures, et cetera. That’s the first amendment we’re calling the vote on.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, three to two. Okay, next we’re going to call C-I, and that speaks to the road conditions regarding the unassumed streets. Call that one next. Councilor Rhomme.

Sorry, thank you, Chair Lehman. So I just wanna speak to this one, and just ask staff a follow-up question to you this. So again, we’re still working with the other developers on the part four of the subdivision plan, but my understanding, and why I included this as part of C this way, was because this one was something that was more immediate that we might be able to work with the developer on for Kleinberg and for Apple Tree Gate, and then the other one’s a little bit further out in terms of the timing. So again, from a timing perspective, I’m just wondering if we see that one might be able to move forward more than the other.

That’s a question of staff. Don’t go staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question. Phase four, which includes superior, a section of Poultry Gate as well.

And unfortunately, because we still are in the drawing review stage, and do not have a subdivision agreement yet, they have to be packaged together, unless the developer wishes to section up, essentially the plan, but it would delay how fast they can build homes, get more units to approval. So I think that’s why the developer has come forward with the plan that they have now, where they’re bringing forward a substantial amount of homes within that one phase for— Councilor. Thank you. So just to clarify, the unassumed roads, which are currently there, but are not in great condition, paving those as a potential remedy to allow for even the construction vehicles and the other things that might be happening in the nearer term would be potentially, or part of the discussion you’re having, is to potentially move that forward as a mitigation.

Go staff, through the chair, that’s correct. Phase two of Applewood, which is Apple Tree and Kleinberg, we can look to coordinate paving that in the near term, and that access could be future construction access for the phase four developer. That’s not to say they still might need access to canvas way and superior for additional servicing, but yeah, this does offer another opportunity for them for construction access. Councilor.

Thank you, I appreciate it. So again, this is just to reiterate civic administration continues to do that work. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, so unless there’s any other debate, I’ll call the vote and please make sure you read what we’re voting on, ‘cause we’re kind of going back and forth in this, so. Clerk and just, yeah, no one just put it up, we can read it, please. So it’s up on your screens now. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Okay, I’d like to put the final, C2, which is regarding working with the developer to establish east, west access, so clerk to put that up. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you, so now we have the amendments sort of dealt with, and now we’re back to the main motion. So look for any discussion on the main motion as amended.

Seeing none, if the committee will allow me again just to make some remarks. Again, back to the safety issue. I really encourage staff to look at the conditions that were described regarding Sunnydale and sidewalks and access for pedestrians, especially the kids who go into school that really concerned me. So I understand, it’s just, it has no bearing coming from me, but I just want to, from the pair, I guess, my concerns on that.

As we deal with more development, more areas, and I know these things are timing and phases that come through, but we have to be cognizant of people that are living in developments that are beside developments that are coming onto the market and for sure put safety at a priority. So if there’s no other, oops, so I’m going to just call the vote on the main motion as amended. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Okay, thank you.

So we’ll go to, there’s no items for direction. Deferred matters, we have the deferred matters list. I’ll look for someone to move that to receive it. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen, any discussion?

I’ll call the vote, oh, excuse me, Councillor ramen. Thank you, item three on the deferred matters list. I’m just wondering if we’re keeping it there because of the, okay, there’s still an ongoing bit of a conversation, but it’s not completely tied to that item, so I’m just wondering if there’s any way we can update the language a little bit just so that it relates just the one remaining part of that item. All right, staff.

Through you, the chair, thank you for the question, and it will need to be updated to reflect the recent change from the last committee. And that’s a challenge with some of the words multiple projects within the one, so we’ll break it out and have that clarified. And now that this is on a monthly, every time we have a packed cycle, we’ll certainly keep it updated, thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions before I call the vote on the deferred matters list?

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, I need a motion to adjourn. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Herduppity, Mayor Lewis, all in favor, hand vote.

Motion carries. Thank you, folks, for adjourned. (muffled speaking)