April 9, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-03-21 ECAC Report with Attachment

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 21, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3696 & 3832 Scotland Drive - (Z-9705)

2024-04-09 - Staff Report (3.1) - 3696 and 3832 Scotland Drive - Z-9705

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Bre-Ex Aggregates Ltd. relating to the property located at 3696 and 3832 Scotland Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Resource Extraction (EX) Zone TO a Resource Extraction Special Provision (EX()) Zone and Holding Resource Extraction Special Provision (h-18h-166EX1()) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward Ecology comments regarding the identified Significant Wildlife Habitat and Species at Risk, appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “F”, to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for consideration in their future site plan review;

it being pointed out that S. Allen, MHBC Planning, made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the construction of a resource extraction-related facility that is appropriate for the context of the site;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   634 Commissioners Road West - (Z-9708)

2024-04-09 - Staff Report (3.2) - 634 Commissioners Road West - Z-9708

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 of Royal Premier Homes (c/o Sivik Planning and Design) relating to the property located at 634 Commissioners Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to AMEND the Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(30)) Zone;

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

i)    provide 1.8-metre-tall privacy fencing along property lines adjacent to residential parcels;

ii)    retain as many mature trees as possible, especially along Commissioners Road West and along the east and south property lines between the proposed development and the adjacent single detached dwellings; and,

iii)    provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking stalls; 

 

c)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to evaluate the north side sidewalk gap and potential need for a PXO to ensure sufficient pedestrian connectivity;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Project Summary with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    D. May, President, Condominium Association located at 665 Commissioners Road West;

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, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building Policies and Our Tools;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development;

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. 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)

3.3   735 Wonderland Road North - (Z-9704)

2024-04-09 - Staff Report (3.3) - 735 Wonderland Road N OZ- 9704

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 735 Wonderland Rd North Inc.  c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. relating to the property located at 735 Wonderland Road North:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA2/ASA3/ASA5/ ASA6) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(_)) Zone;

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

i)    incorporate elements that achieve the following:

A)    principle entrances that are oriented and are accessible from the relevant street frontage;

B)    forecourts on ground floor commercial units;

C)    urban character between the building/street interface;

D)    integrated parking and garbage ramps with active uses on the ground floor to activate the front face of buildings to the street;

E)    appropriate lay-by locations;

F)    green development elements, where appropriate;

ii)    Implement all Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) recommendations into a future site plan application notably, the two-way left-turn lane along Beaverbrook Drive; and,

d)    the Municipal Housing Development division BE CONSULTED for the provision of affordable housing units to 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:

  •    a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Wilkinson; and,

  •    a communication dated April 8, 2024 from K. and C. McNairn;

 

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    Dr. J. Barnett;

  •    B. Elliott;

  •    C. Wilkinson;

  •    Resident;

  •    M. Felker;

  •    A. Hobbs, Director, Condominium Complex 474; and,

  •    W. Medwid;

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

 

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development; 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-D08)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan

2024-04-09 - Staff Report (3.4) - BGP Secondary Plan Report O-8434 - Full

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 Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Final Report:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as follows:

i)    ADOPT the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Schedule “1”;

ii)    DELETE Policy 1168, Specific Policies for the Byron Gravel Pits within the Future Community Growth Place Types;

iii)    AMEND Policies 1537 and 1538, Byron Gravel Pits and Adjacent Lands Specific Policies for Aggregate Resources;

iv)    AMEND Policy 1565 TO ADD the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

v)    AMEND Map 1 – Place Types to change the land use designation FROM Future Community Growth, Environmental Review, Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Types TO Neighbourhoods, Green Space and Environmental Review Place Types as indicated on Schedule “2”;

vi)    AMEND Map 3 – Street Classifications TO MODIFY Commissioners Road West, a Civic Boulevard, as indicated on Schedule “3”;

vii)    AMEND Map 4 – Active Mobility Network TO MODIFY the Cycling and Walking Routes within the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area as indicated on Schedule “4”;

viii)    AMEND Map 7 - Specific Policy Areas TO ADD Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area, and MERGE Specific Policy Area 66 into Specific Policy Area 67 as indicated on Schedule “5”;

ix)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 18 storeys with an upper maximum of 22 storeys; and,

x)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 25% affordable housing to 10% to 15% affordable housing;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake the following:

i)    consult the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to clarify Endangered Species Act regulatory requirements that apply to preserving or relocating species at risk habitat for the Bank Swallow within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area; and,

ii)    contact the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to clarify Aggregate Resources Act regulatory requirements that apply to rehabilitating and potentially preserving existing site conditions and topography within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area;

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

  •    the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, March 2024;

  •    a communication dated February 8, 2024, from D. Hayman, Senior Biologist and A. Leadbetter, Biologist, MTE Consultants;

  •    a communication dated February 9, 2024, from C. Linton, Highland Ridge Land Corp; and,

  •    a communication dated April 3, 2024, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

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

  •    M. Vise;

  •    M. Shepherd;

  •    C. Linton on behalf of Highland Ridge Land Corp.;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    D. Ennis; and,

  •    N. Pellizzari;

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, which:

i)    promotes opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment, taking into account existing building stock or areas;

ii)    promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips to support current and future use of transit and active transportation;

iii)    promotes healthy, active communities by planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of the public, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

iv)    protects existing mineral aggregate operations, and promotes the progressive and final rehabilitation of mineral aggregate operations by accommodating subsequent land uses, promoting land use compatibility, recognizing the interim nature of extraction, and mitigating negative impacts to the extent possible;

v)    requires that development on lands within, abutting or adjacent to mineral aggregate operations may be permitted only if rehabilitation or other measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are under way or have been completed; and,

vi)    requires the protection of natural features and areas for the long term by maintaining, restoring, or where possible, improving the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems; and,

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of The London Plan that provide direction to prepare a Secondary Plan for lands designated as where a more detailed and coordinated planning policy framework is required for redevelopment and intensification;

 

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-D08)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to amend the motion to:

“AMEND Schedule 1 from 18 storeys with an upper maximum of 22 storeys;“

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

AMEND Schedule 1 from 25% to 10% to 15% affordable housing;

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve the main motion, as amended.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-04-09 PEC Deffered Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated March 28, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to change the order of business to deal with Item 5.1, Deferred Matters List, after Item 3.2, Public Participation meeting relating to the property located at 634 Commissioners Road West.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 10 minutes)

Good morning, everyone. So 101, I’ll call the sixth meeting of the planning and environment meeting 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 Anashambak, Haudenosaunee, and Lina Peiwok, and Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today 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 PAC, PEC@london.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I’ll just let everyone know, I formally requested a clerk to move our meeting to Victoria Park today. Unfortunately, she said no.

So here we are. I’ll look to the committee members for any disclosures of community interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to a consent item, 2.1, and that’s a 434 of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee. I’ll look for a committee to— Councillor ramen moves it, receive it, and seconded by Councillor Frank, any discussion, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, 5-0. Moving on to 3.1, this is regarding 3, 6, 9, 6, and 3, 8, 3, 2, Scotland Drive. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, 5-0. Any questions from committee members of technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look to see if the applicant is here and would like to address the committee. Please, sir, if you could give us your name, and you have five minutes.

Certainly, thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott Allen, MHBC, we’re acting on behalf of the applicant. And with me this afternoon, our members of our project team are available to answer any questions committee members may have.

At this time, I’d like to briefly express our support for the findings and recommendations of the staff report. We’d also like to advise the committee that with approval of this application, the applicant intends to move ahead with some kind of approval expeditiously. Finally, I’d like to thank the city staff for their assistance with this application. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Gladly answering any questions committee members may have. Thank you. I’ll look for any 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. Okay, one last look in the gallery. I see no one wishing to address us.

I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 5-0.

Thank you, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members, Councillor ramen. Councillor ramen’s moving the staff recommendation. I look for a seconder. Councillor Frank, a second.

We have a motion moved in a second. Any questions, comments before I call the vote? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 5-0.

Thank you, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 634 Commissioners Road West. I’ll look for a motion from the committee to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconder, please.

Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 5-0. Any questions of technical nature for staff at this time? Then I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members. Are you able to hear me? Okay.

I can, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, of course, thanks, Chair Leman. Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design here today, representing our client, Royal Premier Holmes, who’s the owner and developer of this project at 634 Commissioners Road West. If you have Mr.

Nouri from Royal Premier Holmes and attendance with you in the gallery today as well, this property will be familiar to most of you. In January of 2023, we were before this committee to seek approval for a 10-unit three-story cluster townhouse development. And January 2023 doesn’t seem like that long ago, but what I’ll point out is that that milestone was actually the end point of a very lengthy planning process that actually began in the later stages of 2021 when that project was originally conceived. Since the original conception of the 10-unit townhouse project, there has been a significant shift in many of the fundamentals of the local housing market to the point where Royal Premier Holmes has really had to make a change in terms of their development strategy for the site.

So to better respond to current market needs, Royal Premier Holmes is now planning a new stacked townhouse development for the site. This will increase the amount of dwelling units from 10 to 28 new units to be exact while really trying to provide a more attainable housing product. While doing so, we’ve tried to maintain many of the key design principles that we established both with planning staff and with area residents through the first proposal and also stay well within the parameters for intensification outlined in the London plan, just some of the kind of key highlights we’ve continued to retain the existing circa 1870 heritage dwelling on the property. That will be incorporated as part of the new development.

We’ve maintained still a low rise form of development below the four-story mark. We’ve included and enhanced landscaping strip along the rear lot line, which will allow for a better, more robust tree road to occur with the new development. We’ve also actually increased the side yard setbacks from 1.8 meters to three meters. We did make sure to carry out a new public consultation and communication strategy.

So there has been good dialogue with neighbors through this process, which you’ll see in our project fact sheet attached to the agenda. I want to thank planning and development staff for their work and open-mindedness in helping us to achieve this new solution for the site. And I know that Royal Premier Homes is really keen to move forward with construction on this site starting this summer. We appreciate your time and consideration of the application today.

Of course, I’ll be available to answer any questions, both from the committee or members of the public or in attendance. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you.

I’ll look to the public now to see who would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. David May, I’m president of the condo association at 665 Commissioners Road West, which is part of the planning consultation area. We live next door to another condo complex at 681 Commissioners Road West.

Our concern really is not with the development proposed today. Our concern is safety. Traffic issues have been raised by myself and by other members of our condominium and other members in the neighborhood. Our concern is that while this report talks about the virtues of the sidewalk transportation from the site in question, all the way over to Wonderland Road, it ignores the people on the north side of Commissioners Road.

We have no access to that sidewalk without crossing the road. We’re seniors. It really isn’t a question of if it’s more a question of when somebody’s going to get hurt. There are two issues.

I think that might resolve that issue. One is a traffic light, which was a study that plans to be done some time in the future or the addition of a sidewalk, which continues from 665 Commissioners Road West towards Wonderland Road, most of that sidewalk exists. There’s only about seven houses that are just there and no sidewalk at all. We are effectively isolated.

We know this is not the only infill project being planned on Commissioners Road. We do know that this is necessary and needed for housing. We don’t object to that, but I wouldn’t be doing my job as president of our Condo Association if I didn’t point out the council that you are isolating two large communities of seniors. And we need a resolution to that problem at some point.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I look for other speakers that would like to address the committee.

I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you. Seeing no others that would like to address us, I’ll look for a motion to close public participation.

Raman, seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll look to committee now. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, first of all, I appreciate the representative from the public coming to speak to us about this issue. I’m quite familiar with the frustration of a sidewalk that ends five or six houses too soon. Had a similar one in my ward, which was actually on a walk to school path that we did get addressed and get filled in. I’m also mindful of the fact that, well, there’s always lots of requests for traffic lights.

Those do have to be approved through a traffic study and be warranted. However, pedestrian crossovers are something that can be much more easily directed so that there is traffic control for pedestrians to cross to access a sidewalk. So I’m wondering through you if staff could indicate whether a site plan approval might be able to recommend transportation prioritize the area for a PXO evaluation or a sidewalk completion plan. These are actually things that are relatively minor to address in the grand scheme of the city’s transportation plans and budget.

So I think if we’re gonna give the okay for this to go ahead and we do need the housing, how can we make sure that those residents have good access to the sidewalk? That’s already there, except it’s about six or seven houses short as we heard. I’ll go to staff to respond to the counselor to the deputy mayor’s questioning regarding sidewalk or pedestrian crossing being included in the site plan. Thank you through the chair.

I’m maybe asked for some clarification, but there is a sidewalk on the side of the property where this development is happening. So on the side of the road and the side of commissioners. There is a gap on the north side of commissioners if that’s what we’re alluding to. If there’s direction to staff to further consult maybe outside of the site plan process that would probably appropriate, it’d be challenging for the site plan process to bring that requirement across the street.

So at this point, it would be more of an operational capital discussion with our transportation colleagues. Deputy mayor. Okay, so appreciate that. And I have no desire to complicate Mr.

Pease’s site plan work any further than it already is. But I do have some concerns that we’re hearing that small gap that needs to be filled in and the ability to cross the street safely. So I think I can be supportive of this. And I’m just going to yield for other questions or comments.

I’m going to send the clerk some quick language. And then if you can come back to me, I’ll perhaps make an addition to this. Okay, Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you.

I’m supportive of the proposal that’s in front of us. I appreciate the concerns shared by neighbors in the area and agree that this is one of those situations where we have a development plan and the neighbors have concerns not with the fact that we’re going forward with development in the area, but that we haven’t perhaps planned for the traffic accordingly. And you’ll hear later on in this day that there will be other conversations about similar concerns. So I agree that that’s an issue and glad that we addressed that it’s on the opposite side of the road, but definitely something that needs to be looked at.

I’m wondering, I know that some of our transportation folks are here, I’m wondering if there’s any commentary on what’s planned on Commissioner’s Road already. In this stretch, if there’s anything to come, ‘cause I know I’ve been receiving emails saying there’s plans to come. So I just wanted to see whether or not there was an opportunity comment. And if it’s not on the floor, I’ll put it on the floor or second it.

Okay, I’ll go to staff to respond. Thank you and through the chair, yes. We do have plans for improvements to this section of Commissioner’s Road West, essentially extending from Wonderland to Cranbrook. And that would involve many of the elements that have been discussed already in terms of active transportation and sidewalks.

At this time, it is a longer term initiative, but certainly as part of ongoing work through the mobility master plan and future prioritization of projects as part of the development charges review. It would be opportunities to review the timing of the project at that time. Councillor. Thank you.

And I appreciate that in just a comment. I think what we’re hearing quite consistently across the city as we continue to intensify is that we need road and infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, complete street designs that will support that intensification. I know we’re all committed to that work. So thank you.

Oh, staff. Oh, sorry. I was conferring with the clear council, I apologize. (laughs) Okay, I have Councillor Preble.

I like to advise people who are not here that we do have some visiting Councillors. We have Councillor Van Mirberg and Councillor Preble, Councillor Tasso and Councillor Cudi joining us today and Councillor Hopkins as well, I look to my left. So I’ll go to Councillor Preble, you hand your hand up and then I’ll be going to Councillor Van Mirberg. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. By the way, the gentleman from the public, he did say the sidewalk was on the north side and he needed to be added. But my question was, we did during the last year, if I remember correctly, on this side, south side and about half a kilometer west of Wonderland, we approved four projects. And this one is even kind of a bigger, even though it’s not huge, additional 18 units.

And I remember when I was addressing the issue about the road and sidewalks, I was told that the next time and I forgot if it was 2031 or 2032 that we would be looking at. And based on this information, is this any way that we can really start to looking at this earlier? Because by 2031 or 32, I believe that all four developers, so I think it’s three developers, four projects, I’m quite sure they will be done. And then when everything is in place, we are gonna be starting to look at potential widening and doing the sidewalks.

So my question is, what is the timeframe and can we start looking into doing it earlier? Thank you. I’ll go to the staff. Thank you and through the chair.

As I mentioned, it is currently a longer term initiative. I believe it’s 2033 that we’re looking at in terms of work to advance the project. Certainly as part of the ongoing planning and development opportunities along the corridor, we will look for opportunities for protecting for the improvements and widening of the corridor, as well as opportunities to complete the sidewalk network as well, but certainly the dedication of property has maybe come available through the planning process would present some of those opportunities. Councillor, no more questions right now?

Thank you. We go to Councillor Van Merebergen. Thank you, Chair. And I’d like to thank the commentary from the public about the lack of sidewalks.

It’s refreshing given that the sometimes really negative feelings about trying to impose sidewalks in existing neighborhoods. This is a situation where the sidewalks are desperately needed and should have been put in years ago. And whether or not this particular plan goes ahead, it still needs to be done. And I appreciate the deputy mayor bringing this up and bringing up the crosswalk factor as well.

I don’t support this additional intensification. The 10 units were fine. The community was fine with that, which came before us just a short year ago. Now there’s a request for 18 additional.

The vast majority who I’ve spoken with and spoken to are basically saying, look, we’re doing our part. We’ve done our part. I mean, who can forget the six story 95 unit block on the corner of West Mountain Commissioners West and other developments that are going through in this stretch of commissioners, fundamentally transforming and changing the pastoral quality of this beautiful stretch of road and community. So again, lots of support for the 10, not for the 28.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Trussa. Thank you, through the chair.

I’ll keep my comments very brief. I didn’t come to address this one today. But what the Councillor is saying is really resonating with me. And I went to Councillor to know that I’m hearing what he’s saying.

Because I think we’re seeing very, very similar problems throughout the city. And to the extent that I’ve been following this committee, I need to be following it more ‘cause I have quite a few coming up in my area. But to the extent that I’ve been following this committee, I see certain themes that just keep coming up. And that is we have to make sure that our infrastructure and by infrastructure, I’m using the term broadly, not just sewers, but also transportation, traffic concerns, and transit need to get out in front of these developments.

They can’t be added on at the end of, well, we’ll approve this and later on during site plan. Maybe we’ll give some consideration to it. These considerations have to be built in to the project at the beginning. This is not the biggest project.

We’re looking at today, but I’ll just close by saying, thank you, thank you, Councillor, in what you said resonates with me quite a bit. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So just coming back, I have sent the clerk a very short amendment for the staff recommendation.

And it would just be a new clause that would read and that civic administration further be directed to evaluate the north side sidewalk gap and potential need for a PXO to ensure sufficient pedestrian connectivity. So, Deputy Mayor, are you moving the staff recommendation? The staff recommendation with an additional clause. Okay, Councillor Ramen, you’ll second.

Okay, thank you, okay. Okay, so we have a motion moved in second with that amendment. Any other comments or questions? Seeing not the committee will allow me.

Yeah, I hear definitely concerns about transportation. Usually we talk about traffic with cars, but I think we’ve heard today that very serious concerns about pedestrian traffic as well. And it sounds like it be fixed pretty expeditiously with infill on the north side or with pedestrian crossing there. So, I’ll support the amendment proposed by the Deputy Mayor for sure.

And Councillor van Mirberg and Councillor Trost, I’ll understand what you’re saying about, which comes first, the chicken or the egg. We do allow rezoning and then traffic catches up based on the traffic patterns that evolve. But I can see where you’re coming from. There are a number of times when there will be a major impact.

And when do we do that? Do we do it prior to the development? Or do we wait till after and deal with all the traffic congestion and safety issues? I think that’s something that I want to discuss with staff off the committee time to kind of look into that, see why we do things the way we do.

I’m sure there’s reasons for it, but I’m curious to find out. So that being said, after no other comments or questions, we have a motion moved in the second and I’ll call the vote. So I think the vote, the motion carries back to zero. And next PPM.

Our next public participation meeting, which is regarding 735 Wonderland Road, is not scheduled until 1 30. So I will look to, or I’ll look to committee to see if they’d like to move up the deferred matters list to get that out of the way. Councillor ramen is for it. I need a seconder and then we got a vote on that.

Councillor Frank. So what we’re doing is we’re just voting to see if we can move up the deferred matters list, get that out of the way until we get to 1 30. So I’ll call that vote. Deputy Mayorless.

Chair, with all due respect, the deferred matters list calls for item six, the Byron gravel, secondary pit to secondary plan to be removed from the planning environment. Community deferred matters list. Until we have a decision on that, we cannot vote on the deferred matters list. Yeah, I was, you’re right, Deputy Mayor, I think about that as I did it.

Councillor ramen. Thank you, doesn’t it call for council decision anyways? Yeah, so the car has confirmed it has to go through council to deal with that before it gets removed from the list. So we could just dispense with the deferred matters right now.

So we have a vote. We have motion moved in second to move it up. So I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay. So we will be dealing with 5.1, the deferred matters list. I look for a motion from the floor, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Now just move receipt of the deferred matters list.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Frank, can we have a motion to receive? Seconded, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, we’re at 130. So now I will go to 3.3, which is regards 735, Wonderland Road North, I look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, who’s it seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, any technical questions at this time from committee members. Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My name is Nick Dijak, I’m with strict bowling monas. I’m representing the applicant on this application. What the applicant was requesting today is an official plan amendment and is only a by-law amendment to allow the approvals to move forward through site plan approval for a 25-story tower building with 219 dwelling units.

A podium, a three-story podium with internal parking, a many space and ground floor commercial. It’s located in the Transit Village, which when presented with this development application and the proposed building, we evaluate the proposed development on the merit of the design. It’s planning approvals or the planning policies in place and the potential for adverse impacts on the neighbors. And without it, I’d like to say that I’m satisfied with the recommendation from staff supporting the application.

I do believe that it is an appropriate development with an appropriate height and intensity for this location. We are seeing some applications and development approvals come forward in all of our transit villages and increasing this height and density is appropriate for now and in planning for the future. We are looking for these locations that are in close proximity to grocery stores and parks and amenities, services to be intensified and allowing the development to kind of grow in those specific locations as envisioned in a lot of plans. So with that, I do want to say that thank you for staff and supporting this application.

Thank you for the hard work specifically, in Israeli and Heather on the comments on how this application has come to date. There was a public meeting that was held in January that was a request from staff and it was a great idea. We sent out over 400 notices to the surrounding neighborhood. We had a couple dozen people show up and ask questions and look for information.

So with that, I do want to say that we’ve done our due diligence, we have a great looking building, we have a great application that would make sense in this area. The applicants are moving forward with the development approvals for the west side of this site, also to include some ground floor commercial buildings that would improve the intersection of Wonderland and Beaverbrook. So this would be the next phase of development which adds some residential to this area and it provides that kind of mixed use, intensification as envisioned in the London Plan. So I’ll be around for any questions and happy to find any answers by Anthony.

Thank you, look for members of the public that would like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, I’m Dr. John Barnett.

I couldn’t disagree more with what I’ve heard a minute ago. This building is absolutely not appropriate for a whole host of reasons. But really what I want to ask council to do is to please put this project in advance until all of the concerns that, there are three different projects for this immediate area that so that all of the work that can be done can be looked at together so that a traffic pattern study for example will include all of those, including the huge development going between Cherry Hill and Beaver Brook, as well as the development just west of Wonderland on Oxford. These are all in the same general area.

And I believe that the difficulties of a huge downtown sort of building of 25 sources is completely inappropriate. There are no such buildings anywhere close. I think we can infill many other ways including small apartment buildings along bus routes, for example. There is no transit village that didn’t ever happen.

We didn’t do anything to Wonderland because it would attract cars. And yet this building and all of these other developments will obviously attract cars. It’ll be like downtown Manhattan on a Saturday night, on Wonderland. This will have spillover effects to Hyde Park Road, Western Road, as people try to avoid what would be the huge traffic congestion along the Oxford, Wonderland area.

Thank you. Thank you. For the next speaker from the public, like to address the committee, please ma’am. Give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Barb Elliott and I and my neighbors live across the street from the Swiss chalet building where the development is proposed. I believe there are two major issues with this application. The first being, it doesn’t take into consideration that this 25-story building is going to be set in the middle of a low-rise neighborhood. Powering over a single-story senior’s home and 92 bungalow condos.

There isn’t a building on the street higher than three stories. It does not suit this block. Even initial plans for the huge development coming at us from Cherry Hill in the east shows the heights decreasing from Cherry Hill as they reach Proudfoot and Beaverbrook, blending into the existing neighborhood. This is good planning.

If massive high rises are permitted in low-rise neighborhoods, already heavily congested with traffic, this city will not be attractive in years to come. The value of our homes will fall and people will look elsewhere to live. There is a corridor of high rises planned along Oxford Street and already existing to the west of Wonderland going north. This is where additional high rises should continue to be developed in the transit village along the main corridor where they’re accessible to transit and multi-lane roads.

This leads to the next issue, which is traffic congestion. The traffic study for this application has been very limited and does not take into consideration hundreds of homes and apartments that are going to be built from Cherry Hill to Proudfoot, nor the opening up of Beaverbrook through Oxford Street to Riverside Drive. Today, Oxford and Wonderland are gridlocked, most of the time forcing cut through traffic to Beaverbrook. There is a large senior population here and crossing the street on foot is very dangerous on Beaverbrook and Horizon.

Personally, I have twice been nudged by a vehicle while walking across that four-way stop. When I’m halfway across the road, this corner is extremely busy. Adding an apartment entrance on Horizon Street directly across from Horizon seniors home and beside the emergency services exit and beside Westview Chapel where funeral possessions exit is not a good idea. It’s really an extremely busy corner already.

The Tulane Street is already jammed with Costco shoppers lying down the street waiting to get into the entrance. This is the state today without the massive development coming along. Without adequate infrastructure improvements, this development is not sustainable in this neighborhood. City planners need to look at the bigger picture, not just Beaverbrook directly in front of Swiss chalet.

It’s not acceptable to just wait and see how it goes. Simply installing a single turning lane in the middle of Beaverbrook is not sufficient for the additional traffic that will flow through this little Tulane Street. A broader comprehensive traffic study needs to be completed before this development is even considered. The London plan does not support a 25-story high rise in a transit village and should not be amended for this application in this location.

If this owning is to be changed to support a multi-unit dwelling on that commercial site, it needs to be cut way down to a height appropriate to the neighborhood. Knowing that the city has pressure from the federal and provincial governments to build housing, all development still has to be appropriate to their surroundings. And this one is not. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Carol Wilkinson. I live in Cherry Hill Condole Complex across the street from where the mixed use development is being proposed.

My major concern is the safety issue with the congestion already experienced in this area. It is unsafe now for a pedestrian to walk in the neighborhood and a proposed development to build a 25-story apartment building to bring in many more residents would only add to the anxiety. There are drivers who already do not obey the stop signs at Beaver Brook and Horizon and Horizon and Farrah. I try to avoid these crossings on my daily walks.

Not to mention the traffic gridlock in both directions on Wonderland. I have witnessed a fire truck with its sirens blaring, trying to go north during a traffic stoppage. Again, dealing with safety, EMS station is on Horizon and the emergency vehicles need a right of way to get onto the street on Horizon and then left onto Beaver Brook, which is only a two-lane street. Many times Costco shoppers are backed up on Horizon, waiting to get into the gas space and parking lot.

Also, funeral processions already have been held up coming out of Westview, funeral home. Not to mention the traffic trying to maneuver in and out out of Angelo’s, Damian Warner Fitness Center and the Medical Center. There are residents from Horizon Place, a retirement home who walk in the area too, some with the use of their walkers. Also, as I live across from the proposed development and on Beaver Brook, I am concerned about the extra volume of traffic this will cause.

We now have an issue of entering and exiting our condo complex now as drivers use our street as a cut-through from Oxford and Wonderland and vice versa. There needs to be a complete traffic study done before making any decision on this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for the next speaker in the gallery. Last clerk is there, is there anyone online? Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. The quality, I bought this condo in 2007. I run every day and the quality of life will disappear. I measured it before I bought it.

It’s 3K to the beautiful bike path in Springbank Park. It was in the paper a couple of weeks ago. There’ll be 1,800 new cars from Cherry Hill. This doesn’t include this monster tower.

I mean, you can’t even, I’m lucky I’m retired. I can drive on Wonderland and avoid the weekends. It’s totally unsafe just to walk along Beaverbrook. If there’s ever a child there, they wouldn’t last an hour if they’re on a bicycle.

I mean, you have the congestion from the exit and the streets are pretty mean. I just saw the other week, an older woman trying to cross Wonderland and Beaverbrook. She had 30 seconds to do it and she didn’t make it. So I just, why do we need this tower?

250 feet would drove anything that’s there now. It’s the quality of life I’m talking about. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. My name is Meagan Felker.

I have to totally disagree also with the fact that it’s a nice looking building from the pictures that I have seen of the plan of this apartment building. It is an eyesore and it will just drastically change the skyline for us. I’m thinking looking out my front window. Now that’s what I’m gonna be seeing and that’s not what I wanna see.

On top of everything that Barb and Carol have already spoken about about the gridlock and the number of cars that will be added into an already extremely congested area at Oxford and Wonderland and Beaverbrook. And then if you travel along Beaverbrook where the other apartment buildings are, there’s school buses that are just filled with families with children and it’s an extremely busy area there because of those apartment buildings. So that would be added on to our area as well. And just, you know, I know it’s very built up around with Costco and everything around us, but you drive into our complex, into that lovely condo complex and there is a serenity there.

It’s a lovely place to live. And that I see as changing completely if this plan goes forward with putting this enormous eyesore in there right across from us, thank you. Thank you, look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you know, five minutes.

My name is Al Hobbs. I’ve been director of condo complex 474 at 1241 Beaverbrook. I think everything has been said ahead of me. Can’t be better stated.

We have traffic issues. Chair, you just alluded on one of the previous issues. The staff to, maybe we have to take a look at the infrastructure before we’re putting the cart before the horse sort of thing. Traffic is horrible there.

You’ve heard it from all the speakers so far and it’s not going to get better. Beaverbrook and Wonderland is not going to get better. Right now people coming home from work or shopping or wherever who want to go into the subdivision on the west side of Wonderland. Instead of trying to make a left hand turn from Wonderland onto Beaverbrook.

Come up, proud foot, go across in front of where this building is going to be located. I understand the need for infrastructure. But 25 stories, too much. Thank you.

Thank you, look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you know, five minutes. My name’s Walter Medwood and I also live at 1241 Beaverbrook. I’m a director at another condo complex that’s on the premises, 504.

And again, I’m not going to talk anymore about the individual issues that have already been well expressed. I’m just adding my support that I don’t feel that this building is the right height for the area at all. It is going to be a stark, stark building that’s going to be standing in the sky totally out of place. That building belongs in a totally different area, downtown, commercial areas, things of that nature.

And again, it’s going to draw a lot of traffic. That’s our biggest concern. We have one exit out of our complex, 91 units, and there’s one exit. And even now, because everybody’s bypassing, trying to get off Oxford Street and Wonderland area, cutting you through our section, we can’t get out of our complex at four o’clock, five o’clock, six o’clock at night.

It’s just solid traffic all the way through. So again, I guess what we’re requesting Council to do is take another real hard look at the overall planning, because we understand that there’s a need for new housing, and we understand that it’s cheaper to go high as opposed to wide, all right? But with all the new other applications that have been there, the Cherry Hill, the other 33, two stories that are going to be on East corner of Oxford and Wonderland, the traffic is going to be huge. There is no public transit to really speak of.

So I think Council and the planning committee needs to really do a long-term depth and delay this whole development until a better plan is prepared. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you. One last look up in the gallery, seeing no one else. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you all. With this, I’m on the floor for committee members.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I’d like to start off by asking staff a couple questions, which I only sent an hour ago. So I appreciate their best efforts to answer some of them ‘cause I didn’t give them a lot of time.

Given some of the comments we heard from residents, I’m wondering if through the chair, if there’s a secondary area plan for this area in order to address some of the issues that are happening across different sites. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, we had identified all of the transit village place types to have secondary plans done. It was in December, 2021, when we came forward with terms of reference for a secondary plan for this area.

At that point, Council then directed staff to look at prioritizing the south and the east legs of the transit corridors and the transit villages for secondary plans, since then there’s been a number of additional initiatives and projects that have come up and we’re focusing on those strategic ones related to the housing accelerator fund to prioritize those projects ahead of any secondary plans in this area. Councillor. Thank you, to follow up on that theme. So I’m not sure if maybe they’ve come forward and I’ve already forgotten, but have we received the south and the east secondary plans?

Go staff. There were terms of reference for the Wellington corridor, the south corridor that came forward. Again, we are moving forward with as a bright zoning for those corridors and some other targeted projects related to the housing accelerator initiatives. Councillor.

Thank you, and I guess another question in that area. So without a secondary area plan for this area, and which I understand that makes sense that we would focus on the other two first. But without one, my understanding then will just essentially be somewhat piecemeal development. And then without one, we can’t really, after all this stuff has been developed, we can’t really go back retroactively and do a secondary plan because everything will be developed in the area.

So I guess to ask kind of some of the questions from the gallery, given that we look at development applications one off each individually, what is the greater plan to ensure that there is good traffic flow in this entire area as all of these applications are coming forward? I’ll go staff. Thank you, and very good questions. We do have the London Plan.

And the London Plan is that guiding policy framework for how we grow and develop as a city. And we’ve identified various corridors, transit villages being very high intense development. And I’ll pass it off to my counterpart for the transportation to talk about the transportation system. Thank you, and through the chair.

I guess there’s a number of components to that. At the site level, we’re certainly working with the developer in terms of looking at the traffic generated by the site, how access will be accommodated. We have also, as part of adjacent developments, looked at the broader area, and looking at more of the cumulative impacts associated with ongoing adjacent developments and the traffic generation associated with those sites. And the third part to it would be the master mobility plan, obviously, and looking at the broader network in terms of potential improvements to the network, how we look to optimize our corridors.

And obviously all of this work is undertaken in collaboration with our colleagues in planning, looking at London Plan requirements and ensuring that those are addressed. Obviously, we’ve had a significant milestone with the council’s direction related to the mode share. And then with that information, we’ll be looking to move forward with additional consultation as part of the mobility plan, leading to recommendations across the network in the first part of 2025, Councilor. Thank you, and through the chair, can I say that it’s safe to assume, given that it looks like we’ll be getting thousands of new units in this area, there’ll be some sort of proposal for rapid transit or an improved transit corridor to the west end of the city.

Good stuff through the chair. Certainly as part of the mobility master plan, we’ll be looking at all modes and recommended networks related to transit, a roadway and an active transportation and sustainable modes, Councilor. Thank you. Another question I’m not sure who on staff to direct it to, but given that this area is a transit village, developers in the area are allowed to ask for higher height, or there’s a higher height allowance in the area, which makes sense.

But given that it’s a transit village without a transit hub and without any improved transit, I guess I’m wondering again, it kind of goes back to the chicken or the egg. If we allow for increased height, which I do enjoy, but with no adequate transit servicing to the area, how does that really work for the community in that area, having a transit village without a transit hub or improved transit? I’ll go staff. Through the chair, with these types of developments, this is one of the first in this area.

And so this is that chicken and egg that you’re talking about. And as one comes along, it puts more pressure on, in this case, the master mobility plan and looking for that future thinking and in terms of those recommendations that come out of that and potentially bringing this next lag on, depending on the development pressures in the area. Councillor. Thank you, yes, that’s, again, that’s kind of maybe what I’m imagining.

We’ll see in the future. A follow-up question to that. So again, given that we’re potentially gonna be seeing thousands of units in this area, and I’m also including the E-Sam development, I’m wondering if there’s planned sanitary infrastructure upgrades and at which point would we also plan transit upgrades given that most of our rapid transit projects are really just sewer upgrades with some transit on top. So I’m wondering if that kind of discussion has been happening between the two departments.

Good stuff. Through the chair, based on the information that’s been provided by the consultant on this development is that there is servicing that is valid to allow for the capacity for this development to proceed. As far as any future developments, we don’t have something before council regarding the other developments in this area. When we have that, we need to assess those on their own merits as they’re provided.

However, something that we are working on and you’re gonna be seeing coming in the future in the coming weeks is a need to create and complete an inventory and an assessment for growth within the intensification area so that we have a very well thought out plan to ensure that we can meet our intensification targets and that we have servicing available. So that’s something you’re gonna be seeing coming forward. And that until that time, each of these developments need to be assessed on their needs and they need to be able to provide to the city to our satisfaction that there’s available servicing. Councillor.

Thank you and I’m almost done. I know I’ve got a lot of questions. I was curious, are we able to provide a holding provisions on development applications based on adequate transit servicing to the area? I know that we’re able to apply it based on, you know, sanitary servicing, but given that there’s, you know, in some people’s opinions, not adequate transit servicing to this area, is that a potential holding provision that’s possible?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chairs, certainly you could apply holding provisions for just about anything in terms of orderly growth and development. However, there are other mechanisms that are underway that are gonna be capturing some of these matters that you’ve raised. Having said that, we would probably frame it not so much from a transit perspective, but maybe more of that master mobility plan that’s underway if that’s helpful too.

Councillor. Thank you, yes, I might percolate a bit on that because I do feel like a holding provision regarding some sort of transit improvement in this area would be good for the residents of the area and the residents of the building. However, I do see that being, you know, of course, a detriment to the developer because it’s somewhat outside of their control, but I’m curious as to looking into that. So I’ll percolate on that.

And my last question for this one is regarding Wonderland Road widening development charges. I know that we’ve been collecting them for Wonderland Road and we’ve kind of put that on pause until the master mobility plan is done, but I’m wondering if, you know, as staff are looking through the master mobility plan, if they are able to suggest reallocating some of the funds for that to focus more on transit and active infrastructure to deal and alleviate some of the transit. As we know that widening roads only creates induced demand. I’ll go on staff through the chair.

So in September of 2021, when we halted the environmental assessment study for Wonderland Road, we were directed by council at the time to, as part of the mobility master plan to look at future improvements to Wonderland Road that would include more sustainable modes of transportation along those quarters, including a transit, high occupancy vehicle and other means, so that work is ongoing as part of the MMP. And as I mentioned in early part of 2025, we’ll be looking to provide those recommendations regarding that corridor as well. Councillor. Thank you, those are all my questions.

Thank you, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. So through you, I think it’s important to address a couple of things. And I’m gonna just start out by saying I won’t be supporting a holding provision, creating a new holding provision for transit.

It’s not even under the direct control of council, let alone the developer. And to say that we would hold up housing for transit, I just, I cannot be supportive of that. It does underscore, however, why it is so important that London transit apply through assessment growth to address transit needs through growth funding. And so we had that discussion in the budget.

And of course, councils recently directed an audit of London transit as well. So those issues need to be addressed through the appropriate funding mechanisms. If we don’t have funding for transit, then a holding provision, I think would actually put us in a very questionable standing in an OLT appeal for that kind of holding provision. So I would not support that.

I will say too, and I heard a lot of the folks from the gallery saying, put this in a bay and delay it, go back and do another study. I think it’s really important that people understand we have a 90 day statutory limit once an application comes forward. This is the province, this is not the city’s choice. We have to make a decision.

We can’t send it back. There are consequences to doing that, including refunding all of the development fees that the applicant has paid. We have to make a decision on the individual application on the merits that are before us. We used to have the luxury of sending it back, but we do not.

And respectfully, sir, you can shake your head as much as you want, but that’s the law in Ontario today. That’s what the Ford government has imposed on municipalities. So that’s what we have to follow. We don’t get to circumvent those provincial rules.

So those are things that we have to consider in this application. Does it meet the planning, the statutory planning requirements that are laid out in the London plan? Does it have the appropriate services, water and sewer? It does, and so for that reason, Chair, I’m gonna move the staff recommendation, and then we can continue to have some discussion around whether any changes are needed, but I think we need to frame our discussion and get a motion on the floor.

So I’m gonna move the staff recommendation. Okay, we’ve got a mover. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hill, you’re a seconded motion.

So we have a motion moved in second. I’ll put it back for committee for discussion. Councillor Trusson. Thank you very much through the chair.

And thank you very much for giving me the opportunity as a guest counselor to address this issue. I did come in with a number of questions. I did get some of them answered over the period of time. I want to make it very clear that I will not be supporting this application as it is on the table.

I will be voting against it at council as it is on the table. And I do think that there were some compromises that could be made, but what I’m hearing is there’s not a taste for a holding provision, which I think would have been good policy. To do that, I also think there is a question of referring this back to staff for a more fulsome traffic study. I don’t think this traffic study was at all through the chair.

I don’t think this traffic study was at all adequate. Staff will know, staff will know through their interactions with me as the word counselor on this project and the other adjacent projects, particularly the one going back to Cherry Hill that I am very, very keen on having a cumulative traffic study done that looks at the entire area, especially since we don’t have an area planned. Now, you add to the congestion on Beaver Brook, you add to the congestion from this project, the problems that that creates for the funeral home, for the senior home, for the residents, for the fact that we have an ambulance service here. And then you add to that the fact that we are talking about in the E-Sam development, breaking through Westfield and breaking through Beaver Brook.

So there will be a through street that people can come down, Platz Lane and make the right turn on Cherry Hill, go through Cherry Hill, go up past 180, 190, 200, 201 and go through Westfield. And this is really going to increase the tendency for motorists quite rationally, I would think, to avoid, went to avoid Oxford Avenue, Oxford Street. And I don’t think we’ve taken this into account. I know we’re calling this a transit village transit corridor.

Come on, we all know we don’t have the transit corridor. And yes, it’s true that this council would very much like to see London transit make improvements. But we need higher order improvements in order to legitimize calling this a transit corridor with the transit village. Is there any immediate plans to start construction of a transit village in this area?

I’ll go stop. Need a little bit more clarification on that. The place type is a transit village in terms of council’s long-term vision and intent for the area. This is one of the first in this area for the development.

So over time, it will grow and develop as a transit village that will support in long-term the transit that we’re talking about today. Councillor— Anything immediate? I’m thinking about the transit area that we have at the end of Masonville as a legitimate transit hub where you really do have that concentration. Anything in this area being planned along those lines?

I’ll go stop. Through the chair, again, as Ms. O’Hagan indicated, that was something that was considered by council. And it was supported to do the south and west legs.

Councillor, thank you. Was the EMS service consulted about the traffic effects when there ambulance it? I’ll go to stop. Through you, Mr.

Chair, yeah, the EMS was in the 120-meter so they were circulated. Councillor— My question is, was EMS explicitly consulted by anybody on London staff? Councillor, she has already answered that question. OK, well, I’d like to add my comment that I did visit EMS as well as many of the other areas— merchants in the areas.

And they were hearing about this from me for the first time. This was at the beginning of March. Comments were supposed to be closed March 5. The sign was not put up in a timely way.

And other than the residents in the condos, I was not getting any indication from anyone that they knew anything about this project, including the merchants in the stores. I do want to raise— I think we need to, in the long run, look at our notice provisions, because I don’t think notice went out really, really well. Now, the other question I have— I think I know the answer to this, but I have to ask it— has there been any modeling done for the cumulative impacts of all of the proposed projects in this area? I’ll go ahead and stop.

Through the chair, so as part of the traffic study that was completed for the development, there were considerations for adjacent ongoing developments. And then as part of the residential development to the east, there was a traffic study that had been completed there that did, again, consider some of the adjacent development. And then more broadly, the modeling work that’s done as part of the mobility plan will consider the area and network improvements. Counselor.

OK, so in closing, as the ward counselor, I have spent a lot of time in this area. I’m familiar with it. I shop there. I’ve canvassed it.

And I know how perilous it is to try to walk around Beaverbrook. And I’ll address this further at the council. But for now, I want to say, I don’t think we’ve done the background research to inform this project to the point where it could move forward. Therefore, I would like to request that this committee vote this down.

I was hoping there would be some alternatives, but I’m going to urge this committee to just say no. And it can start over again. And maybe there’ll be a more fulsome study. I would be happy to refer this back to staff or further work on traffic if somebody wants to make that motion.

Transportation issues, I think, are first and foremost. I also think requiring a holding provision is something that I’ve heard dismissed here. I’d like to hear a little bit more consideration of that. But short of the compromise of a holding provision or referring this back, I think, from my point of view, as the ward counselor, I’m going to be asking council to vote no on this.

And I really wish there were— I really wish there were an alternative, because everybody in the area understands that there’s going to be intensification. But this is very different than the ESAM project. This is very different than the drawings that I’ve looked at for the Rand property, where there’s going to be lots of open space and an integration of the housing and the amenities around there. This is a cement strip mall that has viable businesses.

What is going to happen to those businesses? I understand, from talking to some of the merchants, that they’ve recently entered into new leases. Where’s Swish How are they going to go? Do they even know about this?

Have they been given notice? They’re certainly within the 150-foot area. I got to tell you, I was very, very surprised when I went around and talked to all the merchants in the area, and they did not know about this project. And I think that speaks to a weakness.

And I think it speaks to a weakness that if this has to go up on appeal, is something that is going to be taken seriously. So again, I am urging you to just say no to this right now. The developer can come back without prejudice, submit something new, but short of a referral back to staff with directions to do a more fulsome traffic study, which is very badly needed in this area. And by the way, I’m not just picking on this developer, I’m going to be saying the same things when all of the other projects come up in this area, or require a holding procedure, holding provision.

So unless there are some amendments on the table, I think that’s all I’m going to be able to say today. I think I’m about, my time is about done. I want to thank the people from the residential area to come out. I think you’ve been very respectful in terms of recognizing that there is going to be massive, massive intensification in this area.

But we have to get our transportation infrastructure in place before we can impose all of these traffic hazards on this entire part of the city. Thank you very much. Thank you, my further speakers. As a gallery, please hold applause and ooze and et cetera.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councilor Omme? Thank you and through you.

So I’m understanding that there isn’t much of an appetite for holding provision that’s been contemplated at this point. I’m just wondering if staff might share with us what they perceive as possible remedies other than the MMP at this point to address some of the concerns we’re hearing. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, in terms of this is one of, as we mentioned, that’s one of the first applications of this intensity in this area.

We would go through the normal site plan process. We would make sure that there’s certain transportation requirements addressed, servicing capacity addressed. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to get issue building permits. So those are, the holding provisions add that extra barrier, but it’s a process that would be looked at anyway through the site plan process, if that’s helpful.

Councilor? Thank you. Beyond the two way left turn lane along Beaver Brook Drive are there other transportation impact assessments that have been contemplated at this point? I’ll go staff.

Through the chair, as part of the recommendations, there are also access management improvements that are proposed for the site. I believe there’s currently five entrances that serve the site. And I believe there’s a reduction proposed to three primary entrance points, which will improve traffic operations and some of the traffic circulation in the related to the site. Councilor?

Thank you. So I will say I frequent this area quite often. I’m a Costco mom. So I spend quite a bit of time in this area and know the struggles of trying to traverse this area.

And I agree with the residents on this. And I know that we are supposed to look at the application separate from the conditions of the area and separate from what’s going on. However, I do struggle, as Councilor Frank said, with the fact that they’re at this point we’re not contemplating a secondary plan, this area with the amount of intensification that we’re looking at. And I worry that if we approve developments like this without a secondary plan or without that contemplation in place, we’re creating a lot of anxiety for current residents of the area that we are not going to address these concerns before this intensification happens.

They’re already struggling with being able to enjoy their quality of life in the area because of the transportation concerns. And we have to be willing to recognize that that’s already a growing concern for area residents. So we seem to be continuously facing this balancing act of existing residents and their concerns in the area and then this need to intensify. And we’ve decided on intensification around these transit villages and transit hubs of which we do not have additional transit, nor in this stretch where we have, again, a long-term commitment, although it is in our budget for a long-term commitment for an expansion on Wonderland, we can understand where those anxieties are coming.

I’ll add to those anxieties as well. And the fact that if you look in this area, if you look at the schools in the area, they’re also over capacity. Eagle Heights Public School is getting an addition. That addition will already have filled the school when they get it.

So I see the struggle as not only that. I just want to raise one issue again. Under the site plan approval request, it says four courts on ground floor commercial unit. Is that some sort of an outdoor amenity?

I see some benches mentioned and things like that. Just wondering if you can comment on that as well. I’ll go staff through the chair. So a four court would be like a small urban sitting area at the ground level.

And I do understand that there is proposal for rooftop amenity space for residents as well. Councillor. Thank you. And does that meet our requirements in terms of outdoor spaces?

And I’m just wondering in terms of the closest park or other amenities, I do know there’s a neighborhood community garden around the corner, but what else do we consider for those amenities? And is there anything else that’s contemplated? I’ll go staff. Through the chair, we don’t have specific regulations with a minimum amount of amenity space.

So this is private amenity space for residents. We judge all developments on a case by case basis, looking at the amount of private balconies and common rooftop and other outdoor areas that are provided as well as indoor areas. In this case, the combination of balconies, rooftop amenity space, the four court’s at grade. And this property being across the street from a park, a public park, we consider that it’s an appropriate amount of amenity space in the area for the residents.

Councillor. Thank you. And I know, I wanna thank the word Councillor first for his comments and I tend to agree with him on what he said in his comments. Specifically around EMS, I do see the concerns, anyone that’s driving down wonderland sees EMS trying and struggling to get into lanes and getting out of this area.

So I agree with those concerns as well. At this time, as I’ve been looking through this application and reading the comments from residents, I’m wondering if the developer ever had a previous submission for lower heights or was this something that was just the first blush was the 25. I’ll go with staff. Through the chair, any previous consultation through the city through our pre-consultation process is a confidential process.

Councillor. Okay, thank you. I’ll hold my questions at that. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me and I really do appreciate the questions coming out of the committee.

And in particular, the word Councillor’s comments, I really do hear the concerns from the public here as well. I don’t see this as not in my backyard. Conversation as I do shop in this area as well and already see the concerns of movement, especially at this intersection. I do have a question through you, Mr.

Chair, and it is around secondary plans. Following up on Councillor Frank’s questions to staff, we know the east and the south are going through secondary plans. And I was on a previous council where we did look at a secondary plan for this area. And I wonder through you, Mr.

Chair, if there are opportunities or when would opportunity be, ‘cause we know there’s gonna be more development in this area too, I don’t think it just stops at this application for a secondary plan or is that off the table? Go to staff. Through the chair. So there is still plans, although they’ve been delayed for a secondary plan in this area, it was just that this area would be lower in priority than the other secondary plans.

So it all is dependent on staff resources and time for when all of our various planning studies come forward. Councillor. And how long, and I know timelines are very difficult and I’m not, I don’t want you to be specific because obviously it does depend on staff. How long does it normally take for a secondary plan to go through a process and then come back to committee?

I would assume there’s probably a lot of public consultation, but it’s quite obviously obvious with this area, being a transit area as well, that there is a need for more of a wholesome, wholesome conversation as opposed to these one-offs. So just wanting to know when would there be an opportunity to have a look at this area? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as Ms.

Hagen indicated, it’s lower on our priorities. We had to readjust some of our work programs as part of the Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives and we were setting more priorities on those getting housing as of right. We want to get people in homes. Having said that secondary plan, we have another one that’s coming on next on the agenda and that one’s taken many years.

So it varies, traditionally about 18 months or longer in terms of secondary plan review, as you’ve mentioned, that it is extensive public consultation, involvement, studies and that type of thing, which at the end of the day, every secondary plan is a little bit unique to the characteristics of that area because the London plan is the policy framework that is guiding development in this area. Councilor. - Thank you. Thank you, other comments?

Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just wanted to provide commentary on how I’m going to make my decision. I will be supporting this application. I know it does not bring great joy to some of the residents who have joined us here, but I do appreciate you coming and sharing how it will impact you.

I do think that in this case, this is one of the, if we build it, they will come. And when I was doing some research on this file, I was reading articles from 2019 when the West and the North BRT links were not approved and in fact, the developer for this very application was quoted in the article as saying we have, if we have to build the density and have rapid transit follow, so be it, we may build and the BRT will show up when people are there. And I think in this case, it’s a good location. People are able to walk and get groceries.

Unfortunately, the schools are at capacity, but hopefully the school board will be able to work with us on some solutions for that. But having people move to this location and then eventually we’ll have to build something for transit because we’re simply adding more lanes. This area will do absolutely nothing. In fact, it would make it worse.

So I will move forward with this at this point and be supporting this. Looking forward to seeing the master mobility plan and the plans for 2025 and how it will alleviate congestion in this area. Many members and visiting counselors. Councilor Roman.

Thank you and through you. I just had a follow-up question regarding the MMP. And I’m just wondering as we’re going through this process and we’re hearing commentary from residents based on the fact that we’re planning for a development or we have an application coming through. How does that information that they’re feeding into us about current traffic conditions as well as what they’re contemplating for the future?

How does that get moved into the MMP conversation? Hello staff. Thank you and through the chair, the consultation associated with the MMP is ongoing. There are opportunities through the Get Involved site and other channels and certainly from a staff perspective, this type of feedback is very valuable as we undertake the study.

Chancellor. Thank you. So what I’m hearing is that individual residents need to move that commentary that they’re providing to the planning committee into the MMP process. So those that live in the north and the west, this is something that I know a lot of us counselors in this area have been saying is that we need to hear from residents that this area needs to be prioritized.

We’ve been putting development into the north and the west without contemplating how we’re going to be moving around for far too long. We need to ensure that this information is passing forward to the right departments and right plans that we’re working on for future growth. In fact, I still think we should be with the MMP, making it very clear that it should be one of the principles that the north and the west will be prioritized because that is where we need to look at moving some of our plans forward as we’ve again impacted growth. I too am struggling with this application.

I want to see us expand where we’re increasing our heights where we have opportunity for growth. However, I do think that this site is too intense at 25 floors and with this many units, I think that the level of intensity in the area is too much for the area, so I won’t be supporting it this time. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

If the committee will allow me a few comments here. First of all, the secondary plan. Eight months to prepare it. I remember last council prioritized the secondary plans for Wellington Gateway where we had transit approved and for the eastern link, I’d hope by now, quite frankly, that we would be at this transit village for a secondary plan.

So I will follow up with staff to see where we’re at and seeing if we need to direct staff to get action here. I understand the workload is onerous right now. I’ll have that discussion with you. I’ve been aware of this corner, Beaver Brook and Wonderland ever since I got into council on the previous term.

Back then, or in five and a half years ago, it’s a serious concern and I was told that nothing could be done unless we widen Wonderland Road. So I was terribly disappointed when council did not support widening Wonderland Road, but at that time I did put an amendment through that requested the master mobility plan look specifically at the section between Wonderland, between Springbank and Sarnia Road in the north. And since that time, traffic north-south has increased exponentially. It is traffic jam all day long.

I had hoped that the widening would be allowed to, and widening for multimodal transportation, by the way, not just for cars, would act on that, but I was at least satisfied that the master mobility plan would explicitly address this north-south section of Wonderland Road. So I’m looking forward to seeing what that plan includes from that direction of council. Our mobility is changing over the years with remote work, with increased population in the north and increased business activity in the south, and north-south Wonderland is now becoming a major thoroughfare for the city as is veterans on the east side. So again, I look forward to seeing what the master mobility plan has to address this.

You know, as councilor Tracelle and councilor Ramen alluded to, obviously the development coming on Oxford is of great concern, and the traffic flow there, not only east-west, but also north-south, how is that going to be accounted for? So I’ll be following up regarding a secondary plan advancement in this area, and look forward to the master mobility plan and what has to say explicitly on Wonderland Road between Sarnia and Springbank Drive. Thank you. So if there are no other comments or questions, we got a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, forward to one. Thank you, moving on to 3.4. This is being of secondary plans. This is regarding the Byron gravel pit secondary plan.

So I’d like to go to staff for a brief presentation on where we’re at with this. Good afternoon. Through the chair, my name is Alison Curtis. I’m with the subdivision planning division, and I’m pleased to share with you our work on the Byron gravel pit secondary plan.

Long-term planning for the future use of the gravel pit began in 1990, and the development of a secondary plan was initiated in 2016. Work on the secondary plan was paused for the commissioner’s road west, realignment EA, and then began again in 2022. The draft secondary plan was shared with council in July of 2023, and staff were directed to commence a public engagement process to gather partner and community feedback. That process has now finished, and the final version of the secondary plan has been prepared.

Extraction activities have created a unique topography with dynamic views and vistas within the gravel pit. The secondary plan seeks to maintain this dramatic topography, but a safe and stable form. Under the aggregate resources and extraction act, extraction license holders are required to have rehabilitation site plans registered with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that demonstrate how the pit will be made safe once extraction is complete. Once those rehabilitation works are completed, the license can then be surrendered.

Staff have met with M&RF to understand how the secondary plan will assist the license holders with submitting major amendments to their site rehabilitation plans that will allow the slopes to remain, contributing to a unique community and recreational area, but in a safe and stable form. The land use plan for the secondary plan sets out four main policy areas for development, as well as identifying gateways, public access points, and vehicle and pedestrian access points, promote connectivity throughout and surrounding the secondary plan area, as well as lookouts that would take advantage of the unique and dynamic topography within the gravel pit. The first of these policy areas is the Byron baseline policy area, and it is to form the mid to high rise mixed use portion of the secondary plan that will serve as a focal point and gateway to the community and the natural areas contained within. Two gateway and public access points with a corridor are identified within this policy area to connect existing and new residential development to the gravel pit area.

A range of high and medium density residential uses and small scale commercial uses are permitted and they are encouraged in a mixed use form. Permitted heights within this area are stepped to reflect the change in grades that exist in this particular part of the gravel pit. A standard maximum building height where the policy area fronts onto Byron baseline road is recommended at four stories with an upper maximum of six stories. At the future intersection of the road access points with Byron baseline road, the permitted maximum height is nine stories and the upper maximum is 12 stories.

There will be a transition to the interior of the policy area where buildings shall have a standard maximum height of 12 stories with an upper maximum of 18 stories where the lands front on to the central pond and green space policy area. The second policy area is the Cresford policy area. It is intended to provide a range of low to medium density residential housing forms along the realignment of the commissioner’s road and will be integrated with the existing residential areas to the east. A minimum height of two stories and a maximum of four to six is permitted in this area.

All access will be from Cresford drive and development applications will be required to identify the top of the Sable slope, which will identify the limits of development. The third policy area is for the Longworth area and it is intended to provide a range of low density residential housing forms in the southern portion of the gravel pit. And this area will be integrated with the existing residential neighborhood to the southeast. A minimum height of one story to a maximum of three to four is permitted in this area.

All access will be from Longworth or Cranbrook roads and again, development applications will be required to identify the top of the Sable slope, which will determine the limits of development. The fourth and final policy area is the central pond and green space policy area. And it is intended to provide a regional type recreational opportunities within the neighborhood, as well as protect natural heritage lands identified through ecological studies. A future park master plan will determine the design facilities and layouts of this open space, but that will be processed through a public engagement system and will consider a variety of amenities that will draw a regional, a regional, it’s more of a regional focus and less of a local focus.

So we’re looking at fascinating and new different ways to use this space. It could, they could consider multi-use pathways and enhance promenade around the central pond, gathering spaces, viewpoints and lookouts, connections to the surrounding amenities. They have identified a need for BMX and cycle tracks, which could be considered here, potential for a skate park and an urban beach and also possibilities for water activities that could take place on the pond feature. Staff have worked closely with our colleagues in ecology to understand what natural heritage features are in and around the gravel pit, as well as to develop policies that explore opportunities to enhance, restore and expand the natural heritage system, including the addition of naturalization areas.

A subject land status report and an environmental impact study will be required for new development applications to assess the extent and significance of natural features and wildlife habitat, evaluate potential impacts of proposed development, and identify how to avoid or mitigate those potential impacts. Studies that have already been scoped with staff will be permitted to include the SLRS component within an EIS. Significant wildlife habitat replacement may be considered where the features and functions can be provided elsewhere and it can be demonstrated that they provide a net gain to the natural heritage system. The secondary plan also speaks to creating a multi-use pathway that connects all areas, including the top and the bottom of the pit, as well as integrating the new network with adjacent park and pathway systems.

That would include Springbank Park, the Arboretum, the Buttonbush Wetland, and the Cresthaven Park. A park master plan will confirm the final location of these pathway networks in an AODA compliant manner, but two gateway and public access points with a corridor are identified along the Byron baseline road frontage that will connect to new and existing residential development to the gravel pit. This network will also include a promenade around the pond feature that will function as an enhanced multi-use facility that is designed to serve the needs of the residential and commercial uses, as well as to provide emergency access and to foster a sense of shared space in the pedestrian realm. So that concludes staff’s presentations and we are prepared to address any questions or comments you may have.

Thank you. This is public participation meeting, so I’ll look to committee members right now to a promotion to open, Councillor Ramen, the second of my, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. So I’ll look to the public, I’d like to address the committee on this, please, sir, go to the mic, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name’s Michael Vise, I live at 967 Gabor Court. With the new system of pathways that you’re putting in around the Buttonbush Marsh area, there’s a path, existing pathway there.

And my concern is that with this being integrated into a total system, we found that we go out every spring and we clean up that area back behind our house. Now this year we found, I don’t explain it any other way, but 50 bags in which poop bags for the lack of a better term back there. Now we called the city up and we asked them if they could put a trash can behind there, identified as someplace where people could throw their bags in as they walked through there. And we were told by, I don’t know what department my wife called, but they basically said, no, that’s not part of the past system of the city.

That’s going through a stormwater management pond and we don’t put those type of cans there. So what I’m asking is that because there’s gonna be more traffic through that particular area, why are those cans not placed in those particular areas? Okay, thank you. I’ll get all the answers that are raised during the public participation meeting and I’ll put them to staff when we’re finished.

So if you have any other questions, let me know. I have a second point as well too, is that right at the corner of where we live there, two houses down, there’s a 90 degree angle as far as the pathway goes, for where the pathway goes, where it goes back out to Gabor Street, is that I noticed that cyclists ride down that pathway with their bikes at a pretty high speed, where they go around a blind spot, where you could have women with baby carriages walking around, that there’s a possibility that there could be quite an accident there where someone really gets hit. Now, I would hope that someone would go out and look at that because it really wasn’t designed properly to be part of that system the way it’s set up now. And that’s the second point I’d like to make.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. But for other speakers.

Thank you for allowing me some time to speak. My name is Mary Shepherd and I am a Byron resident. I’m also living very close to the gravel pit. My comments may sound a little disjointed but they will come together at the end.

It’s a unique opportunity for London to be a leading edge in the province to create safe passages for wildlife and to do as they do and will continue to cross Talbot Road. In the US and Europe, they have created transcends across highways and also under the ground but above the ground as well so that the animals can get across and get out of this very heavily density populated area that is being considered to create. This is high density. A lot of people will be there.

The wildlife while the buildings going on will need to be able to escape and they will go across Colonel Talbot Road. I see them all the time, the deer in particular but lots of other animals. I’m asking the city to please take a look at how they can create safe passages for these animals. It won’t just be deer, it will be all the other animals and they can get across safely.

A lot of people in Byron that I hear do not appreciate wildlife. And what you’re creating is an area where wildlife will be and the geese will, to quote, poop on people’s lawns and et cetera, et cetera, all on the paths and everything else. It will be a relentless complaint driven project as it is now. We need vigorous input, vigorous input from wildlife professionals, not just the MMNR.

We need it from the residents in the area who care deeply about wildlife but there are a whole lot who don’t. And those who would seek to give people this opportunity to enjoy an area but not with such high density population. There will be so many complaints on both sides. So I would ask the city to take a look at starting with wildlife.

Let’s not make it sort of a casual throw in comment but start with wildlife. What can we do to make London a leader in a situation like this which most places don’t have and create a wonderful opportunity for learning, for children, for learning for adults and an appreciation of wildlife and reduce the number of people who will be in there. I’d really like to see this turned upside down. Let’s start with wildlife because they are there and they also need to be able to get down to Springbank Park.

So I’m asking the city to please take this under consideration as well as forming a committee that can give this kind of vigorous input that will lower density but keep the city happy with put people. It’s also going to affect us where we are and frankly I have lots of wildlife that visit me regularly, peek in my door and walk away. I love it and some people do but a lot of people do. So I ask you to consider this on a more serious basis and to look into some of these opportunities to make Colonel Talbot a much safer route for the animals because they will cross and they do cross now.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please sir.

Thank you Mr. Namio for five minutes. Craig Linton, I’m speaking on behalf of Highland Ridge Land Corp. Through the chair to the committee members and to staff.

I just want to thank staff for bringing this report forward. It’s been a long time coming and generally speaking we support the general notions of the report. I think the main point that I would like to make is just with respect to the land that we own and our interface with the property to the west of us. So the property to the west of us was excavated for granular resources over many, many years.

And the restoration of that pit has only just begun. And unfortunately there is some level of conflict between the licensee and the landowner. And we have a situation where we have been left with more than a third of our land is rendered undevelopable because it is a complete, it’s a slope stability issue. On the existing features or on the existing condition slide that Ms.

Curtis had put up before, there is pictures of the slope there. Top of the slope to the bottom of the slope is more than 60 meters. And if you stand on the edge of our property and look down, you look straight down 15 to 20 feet in some areas, it’s a vertical face. People from the public access our private land through Cresthaven Woods and go to that point.

For good reason, it’s a wonderful lookout, but it’s extremely dangerous. I’ve tried contacting the MNR numerous times and because we’re not a license holder or we’re not the landowner of the property next door, they won’t tell us anything. So we’re left with really no option now except we would like to come forward with a site alteration permit and to lower our grade down at least by 10 to 12 to 15 feet and that would at least get rid of that most severe slope and hopefully create a more stable slope there. There are environmental concerns, I get it, but at the end of the day, if someone falls off that cliff or if someone is standing up there or standing at the bottom and there’s a significant landslide, it’s gonna be problematic for everyone including the city of London.

I have a few other minor comments, but they are listed in my letter that I’ve submitted and we have some environmental concerns which are listed in our letter that I submitted from our consultant’s MTE and I’ll leave those issues there. But the slope stability is a major concern, it needs to be resolved and I get that the city can’t force the licensee or the landowner next to us to rehabilitate the pit, but there is a way forward and if we can come forward with a site plan or a site alteration permit to cut our grade down then that would go a long way to creating a much more stable slope and allow a lot of the urban structure plan to actually be created that the city would like to see. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councillors for giving me this opportunity today. I’m gonna talk to you about the secondary plans in general, using this as an example of what’s come forward. As staff indicated, secondary plans are not done overnight, take time. This one’s been many years.

What has happened in previous secondary plans, what’s in previous secondary plans including the Southwest area plan, under 3.6 under affordable housing, there was a, it’s indicated that a 25% of affordable housing component, like 25% and minimum for a period of 25 years should be encouraged. But in the previous secondary plans, there was also other wording along with it that talked about bonusing for density, which as you know, Mr. Chair and Councillors, that that is not available any longer to municipalities. So what we’re looking for as advice going forward is that not only for this secondary plan, but future secondary plans, is that you need to re-look at that affordability piece, and it is encouraged, but at 25%, one in four for 25 years, you’re not going to encourage anybody to do anything.

So our recommendation, you look at that percentage, maybe 10%, somewhere in that range, that would encourage developers to do something that they don’t actually have to do under the Planning Act, but it would be something that you need to look forward to make change to. So that’s basically, we wanted to be on record on secondary plans. I have to speak to the secondary plans that you’re going forward. They’re based on what the London plan is recommending, intensification targets.

We’ve talked about previous meetings, talked about it during the year of mobility study. You can’t have increasing intensity targets, and then the only place you can do it in the London plan is along the transit corridors. It’s not allowed in any neighborhoods, and then we have a discussion at council about, well, this is too intense. Well, where do you want us to go with that?

How do you have a intensification target, and the only spot other than downtown that you allow development to happen in an intensified way is along the transit system that you have put in the London plan. There is, you either support the London plan, or it’s time, I think a few Councillors have mentioned, it’s time to review whether it’s accurate, and it reflects what the city wants to see happen over the next couple of decades. So it was just a bit of a warning, I guess. I don’t know, I just got my blood boiling a little bit that you can’t have a plan and send the message to us, this is what we want.

And then when we bring applications, you turn us down, it just doesn’t work that way, thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Lisa, give us your name in five minutes. Thank you very much, and thanks, Mike, for going behind you on that one, I guess.

Steven Stapleton, Vice President of Auburn Developments. With me today is a joint partner in this project, Kevin Artes, with Auburn Developments, with Orange Rock Developments, we’re the owners of 2100 Colonel Talbot, as well as 1044, Byron Baseline Road. I do have a letter that was added to the agenda, I’m not gonna reiterate that, I just wanted to expand on it a little bit, especially after hearing some of the previous applications that were in front of you. It’s really important at this stage, in the secondary plan stage, to have ranges and density.

The intent of my letter was to bring forth a consideration for the full optimization and utilization of the property for development as well. We’re the owners of 68 acres, including the central pond. So we own a lot of open space, and we have approximately 13 acres developable as well. So we have a foot in both camps on the recreational side, as well as the density side.

And this is a unique secondary plan, unique opportunity. In London, there’s nothing like it that exists, and I wanna make sure we utilize this fully. There’s great opportunity for further intensification, and I’m looking, my recommendation is to add a modest increase to the numbers by staff, and I do wanna thank them for the work throughout the years on this project. It was a complicated project and bringing forth their vision.

It is something we support generally. I just think that the larger range from 15, from 12 to 15, and 18 to 25, gives us more flexibility when we get to the next step on the implementation side, in the zoning, in the site plan, to bring forth those other objectives, green construction, exceptional urban design. Greater density allows us to do that easier, and we can attain our intensification targets as well with more density. I think it’s important here because we’re maintaining the step back that was suggested by staff.

We’re not playing with the streetscape. We stuck with the four and six on the street, and then internalize the increase in density inward to the pond area as suggested by staff, but just increasing it slightly more. So we’d like you to consider that, and if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stapell. Next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, through the chair. My name is David Ennis. I live within walking distance of the gravel pit. Often people will tell you what they don’t want, and then get blamed for not my backyard mentality.

I thought, well, what is it that people do look for when all is said and done in a new area? And it seems me property owners in the region want to have peace and quiet. They want relief from noise and pollution. They want to feel safe, and they want their property values to stay positive.

I think the secondary plan is a diamond in the rough. I’ve already learned, I’ve read the plan. I’ve already gotten new information as people have spoken. It’s a diamond in the rough, but it is certainly a diamond.

Nonetheless, I worry and hear the things I worry about. I worry that the balance will be wrong, that you may overbuild and over-commercialize in order to get more property taxes to offset the substantial costs that would be involved in developing this zone. Creping intensification a bit at a time over 20 years, I think it’s perfectly possible to happen. I worry about it.

I’m not accusing people of it because nothing has happened at this point. I worry about it. I worry that you will settle with the issue of environmental compliance with the Ontario regulations rather than being more visionary about protecting wildlife habitat and mobility resulting in similar problems, similar to the area around the sift and bog that got a lot of press a few years ago. I worry about not starting first with environmental and wildlife habitat issues and then building afterwards.

That building intensification will dominate the plan rather than preserving and enriching the environment and the habitat around it. I worry that the Commissioner Road alternative will create new and unexpected problems in return for very little value. I have absolutely no idea if that’s a threat or not. I put the card on the table.

And I do worry given that you want to create an attractive area that transportation and parking challenges will be underestimated and intrude negatively on the region. So I lay that one in front of you as well. I do hope that the plan integrates seamlessly with Spring Bank Park, which is surely one of London’s greatest attractions in its strengths and that the project will involve all kinds of expertise, not only the city of London and the staff who I agree have done extremely well with this, but the many agencies and not for profits and committed citizens with various areas of expertise that could help get this project done really well. I have four questions.

I will fire them out there. If they can be answered, great. If not, I’ll submit them online. Here are the four just off the top of my head.

Will Cranbrook Road go all the way across the top of the zone and end up connecting to Talbot Road? Two, will there be infill in the northeast section between Southdale and Colonel Talbot up to the edge of the Biring Gravel Pit boundaries? Three, will there be a means for wildlife to cross over or under Colonel Talbot Road? You’ll have strange problems if we get bottlenecks, as you know.

And will there be a transportation plan to handle the influx of visitors to the park portion of the zone? Those are my four questions. If they can be answered easily, great. If not, I’ll submit them online, not a problem.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, it goes for your name, you have five minutes.

Yep, Norman Pazale, 1003 Thistle Ridge Crescent. So we’re at the south end of this area. We moved to this area 17 years ago, wanting to build our dream house. We lived downtown London in the Hamilton Road and Adelaide Street area for 25 years, loved it.

Little noisy as we got older. So we moved to a quieter area, a single story house. And at the time we did our research and we’re inquiring about what was gonna happen with the gravel pit. We wanted to move there because we thought by building a house there, maybe naively, we weren’t destroying farmland ‘cause this was now where we are as an old gravel pit area.

So those are some of our ideas and we’re very pleased to hear from staff at the time, some of the plans for this area. And I’m very pleased to see that many of what we were told 15, 20 years ago are coming into this secondary plan. So I’m thankful for that. The area behind us, where there’s like a corridor and I guess in behind our crescent, we were told would be permanent green space.

And when we first moved there, some of the people commented about wildlife. We had deer and wild turkeys in our backyard all the time. I had a brother-in-law deer hunting and I took a picture of six deer in my backyard while he went away empty-handed in North Bay. It just, there’s no deer anymore.

None, I haven’t seen any for probably seven or eight or nine, 10 years. So some of that corridor, some of that sensitivity needs to be thought about how it’s going to happen. Not necessarily that deer and humans live together very well. But let’s try to do something right here in terms of the green space.

And so one of my thoughts are that I’m hoping that the pathways, the multi-use pathways are not going to be used for motorized vehicles. The noise from that would be unnecessary, disturbing to wildlife, disturbing for the area, the way it should be at least in my opinion. Where I live is quite a distance from Colonel Talbot, at least a half a kilometer and probably a kilometer from Southdale. And I can tell you it’s as noisy as Hamilton Road and Adelaide because of motorcycles and noisy cars that are allowed to exist and go up and down Colonel Talbot and on Southdale.

And I’m hoping that somehow we will create a quieter zone where wildlife and humans can thrive a little better and try to enjoy each other. So I’m hoping that we’re going to do something unique here. Think beyond the minimum and not allow motorized transportation on those corridors. And other than that, I just really wanted to say thank you to staff for pulling together something that I’ve been worried about for 17 years.

It might never happen and I hope the green space areas really do get generated in terms of the developer. I like some of the comments that you said and I don’t ever say that about developers. But I do want to say that probably several years ago, some developer, not these guys I don’t think ‘cause they’re in the other area, we’re tearing down all the trees in the Kubi residential area behind our house. And my wife went out there to stop the bulldozers from coming within the 55 foot green space.

And I just want to take this opportunity to say, I’m very disappointed that developers feel they have to take out the trees 20 years before they’re planning to build houses simply because they’re worried about not being able to do it 20 years later. And so all those trees were lost and the deer’s were lost. And it’s just an open space now that nobody’s allowed to use ‘cause there’s no trespassing signs. So if we can try to plan that a little better of how we’re going to develop in our city, I appreciate that.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Clerk, if there’s anyone online.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. One more time, I don’t see anyone rushing to the mic up there at the gallery. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Council by Councilor Frank, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. So there were a few questions. I’ll just go to staff with that.

We’re raised today. Regarding regards, the first gentleman there was being with garbage cans on pathways. Well, all the pathways they’re looking at right now in the secondary plan be like city property that where we would have proper refuse collection. Through the chair, the pathway connections that’ll be there will be maintained by our operations crew and they’ll be applying the appropriate garbage containers.

Okay, thank you. The question on cycling and the path at 90 degrees, I think that’s something that gentleman can follow up with his counselor or with staff on that. I don’t see that as impactful with the secondary plan. There were a number of questions here that just some of the details.

Cranbrook Road, will it connect to Talbot Road? Through you chair, there won’t be a connection out to Colonel Talbot Road. It’ll be all internal roads. So there won’t be a connection from Cranbrook to Colonel Talbot.

Okay, there was a question of infill in Northeast section to the Byron pit. Is that part of the plan? Through you chair, there was just a little bit of confusion in terms of where the location is. There is a development currently underway on Southdale, the corner of Southdale and Colonel Talbot, that’s Northeast corner.

Commercial residential development going through there. There’s an intervening portion of land, some green space that we haven’t had a development application on. There’s a corridor of Cinefim Woods and then the Byron gravel pit start. And at that southern point of the Byron gravel pits in the study area, there is proposed development for a lower density form.

Thank you. Will there be a wildlife crossing to get across Colonel Talbot Road? At this point in time, we haven’t looked at a wildlife crossing for Colonel Talbot. There’s no improvements intended from Colonel Talbot.

There’s no access for any of the developments to be from Colonel Talbot. And is there a transportation plan for visitors coming to this area? As part of the development, particularly in the North, is most likely where the beginning, getting access to the extracted area of the gravel pit. There’s a proposed road network that would come in.

And then in that portion is where we would have our high density mixed use. And they would provide for parking areas for any of the uses that would occur within the gravel pit. Thank you. Okay, I’ll open it up for a committee discussion.

Councillor Fray. Thank you. Yes, I tried to be with staff both this yesterday. Thank you for answering all my questions.

I want to commend staff on the hard work. I know that it’s taken a long time, but I think this is the best secondary plan I’ve ever seen. I think this is maybe the only one I’ve seen that has come to this council, but it’s the best that I’ve seen. So I appreciate the hard work that you guys did.

I did chat a bit about some of the environmental concerns that I had heard from various residents and added an amendment that I circulated to the chair and the clerk and it’s actually an e-scribed under item four. So I was hoping to move forward with the staff recommendation as well as the amendment. Although I’m not sure if there’s anyone else on this committee who is interested in revisiting some of the maximum heights. So I’m happy to chat a bit about that, but did want to get a motion on the floor, which would be the staff’s recommendation as well as some additional environmental discussions, which I can read out if you would like.

Yeah, if you could just read out what you want to amend the staff recommendation. Sure, so then a part B being that the following actions be undertaken by civic administration. I, that staff consult with MECP to clarify endangered species act regulatory requirements that apply to preserving or relocating species at risk habitat for the bank swallow within the central pond and open space policy area. I, I, that staff contact the MNRF to clarify aggregate resources act regulatory requirements that apply to rehabilitating and potentially preserving existing site conditions and topography within the central pond and open space policy area.

I, I, I, that staff report back to PECP by end of Q4 2024 with an update about the above discussions with the province. And I, V, that future environmental studies supporting the development of a master plan for the buyer and gravel pit include design options for the creation of artificial habitat or an alternative location for the bank swallow if such needs are required due to plan relocation of the habitat. Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder for councilor’s motion as amended.

Don’t appear to have a seconder councilor. I’ll go to, do, do you want to continue on a kind of your, your time in the mic and Deputy Mayor Lewis is next on deck. Nope, thanks. Okay, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you chair and through you, I guess I’ll start by saying I wish I could have seen the amendment before now because there’s parts of it I might be amenable to, but I’m not sure particularly about timelines Q4 2024 and the piece on future environmental studies. I don’t, I wouldn’t have a problem consulting with the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks. I could see some value in that, but there’s, like I’m struggling with getting all of this right now. So I want to however change the topic a little bit and I’m gonna go actually where councilor Frank started, which is whether there might be some discussion around the maximum heights.

And so I’m less concerned about the standard maximum. I think 12 as a standard maximum is fine. It’s that ultimate maximum or the super maximum that we allow for additional considerations. And I do think that 18 might be capping us a little low and I’m wondering if through you chair, if staff can indicate the rationale, I guess behind the 18 versus say, now I know Mr.

Stapleton commented on 25 in his letter. I kind of, as I was reading this over the weekend, I was thinking more like 20 or 22 might be appropriate, but I do see 18 as perhaps a little bit on the tight side, especially if we are going to continue to look for things like narrow tower or urban design guideline things, because if you want narrow, you have to allow taller. That’s just the nature of accommodating density. So I’m wondering if I can get some preliminary thoughts on that piece and then I want to talk about the affordable piece.

I’ll go to staff through you Mr. Chair. The maximum heights that were identified within the secondary plan, originally it was 12 stories, which was sort of the consistent of, if you look 10, 15 years ago, which was sort of the maximum of apartment buildings that were allowed in. And through what’s happened recently throughout the city, 18 stories was looked to be that upper maximum, and that’s what we were consistent with in this area.

It is a unique facility. It’s one that you’re probably not going to find in anywhere else in southwestern Ontario, where you’ve got an aggregate resource pit in the middle of the city. So we were looking at trying to maximize the heights and the height that we used with 18 was just consistent with other areas in the city. Deputy Mayor.

So we have some other, and I know they’re mainly at this time, primary transit corridors, but we have other areas where we are looking at a city initiated zoning changes to increase heights. I know I continue to talk to Ms. McNeely and to others about Dundas Street East and some opportunities to develop along the corridor there. That would actually be outside a primary transit corridor, but it’d still be one of those urban corridor place types.

So I’m looking for higher density there. So I understand where 18 is coming from as the current standard, but how is that balanced with some of the increased heights we’re looking at through our own London Plan review and city initiated zoning changes that are looking at allowing additional heights in other areas? Go staff through you, Mr. Chair.

There is currently a height study that’s underway and it’ll be brought forward, I believe, later this year. And we’ve had some consultation with the staff to talk about the heights at this point in time. They don’t have a recommendation in terms of what those heights would be. And we didn’t want to presuppose them.

So we were trying to look to this unique area that it would justify itself for the heights as opposed to relying on the height study again, which should be coming later this year. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so just to seek a little bit of clarity on this, and again, I know I’m kind of spitballing ‘cause I did not have the opportunity to share these in advance, but should some of these other height reviews come back and we’re moving that 18 to 20 or 22 in other areas of the city as well, would staff likewise be bringing back an amendment to this secondary plan as well to make it consistent? One of the things that we struggle with at this committee hasn’t been so much in the last year, but there was quite a bit of this in the previous term was where a secondary plan and the London plan did not align.

And so lower maximums were being contemplated in some areas than the London plan itself contemplated, but a secondary area plan was restricting that. So would we see a recommendation for an amendment come back if the overall height review came back positive in other areas? I go to staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question, and it’s a good one.

And it would be something that we would take in a line in terms of the overall city review that we’re undertaking to make sure that we’re being consistent. In some cases, it may actually allow more than should council approve this one, and we actually have more heights it may allow more, but then we would need to amend the secondary plan to catch up. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so I appreciate that there’s a process then to amend this later to catch up on the heights with the overall height reviews happening.

Because I would like something that’s sort of consistent across the city, it just makes sense. And I think for the building industry as well to have some surety in terms of what we’re looking at, I’m gonna move on to my other concern, and I’m really gonna be looking for some guidance on whether staff would prefer an amendment to this or a referral back to work on it further. Mr. Wallace mentioned it, and frankly, I agree, to bring forward a plan that’s encouraging, encouraging is a nice word.

I know it’s not requiring, but I’ve seen this debate go on. I’ve seen it in the media. I’ve seen it around this horseshoe. I know the secondary plan says 25%, so we shouldn’t approve this because it’s not 25%.

People like to omit the word encouraging when they’re making an argument against a development. So I’m really concerned with this 25% affordable. One in every four units to be affordable. I mean, I don’t think it’s realistic at all.

The old bonus formula that we used to look at generally looked at 10% of the lift, which even under that formula, we have zoning that was approved by the prior council, where the land today is sitting untouched, not a shovel in the ground. It’s up for sale because the pro-formers don’t work on the number of affordable units that were imposed on that development. So now not only do we not have those affordable units, we don’t have any units on some of those properties. So when we all want to have affordable housing, but I am really, really cognizant of how much we can reasonably be asking for.

And so my amendment, if this is the direction staff needs, I’m fine with amending it or I’m fine with referring it back to come back for another cycle because this one is actually not on a 90 day statutory deadline clock. So we can send it back is that we would set a range to encourage 10 to 15% affordable, which I think is closer to what we had under the old bonus formula. And noting that, as Mr. Wallace said, we have no tools to impose this.

We can try and incentivize it, but we can’t actually require it because bonusing is gone. So through you, Chair, I’m looking for some direction or some response from staff on whether they’d prefer a referral or just a direction to amend the secondary plan schedule. Okay, I’ll go to staff on providing some direction to where the deputy mayor wants to go. So through the chair, I think it would be most appropriate at this time if you do have a very specific range that you’re looking at to just look to amend.

Okay, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Okay, so rather than study single number, I think I would prefer to set a range and I’m so I’m gonna look to amend the schedule one of the secondary plan to reflect a 10 to 15% affordable housing rather than the 25% number that’s in there right now. I think that that has more opportunity for attainability than 25% does. So I don’t know if I have a seconder for that or not, but that’s the amendment I wanna put forward.

So Deputy Mayor, are you moving the staff recommendation with that amendment? I am and I’m also willing to include with my own amendment parts B.I. and B.I.I. from Councillor Frank’s original amendment so that staff can have some additional consultation with provincial authorities around some of the environmental concerns that were heard.

I will say, I don’t feel like we need to report back. I think staff can have these consultations and incorporate steps as they need to, but I would encourage the consultation with the provincial authorities on this one. Okay, if I’m understanding correctly, you’re moving staff’s recommendation with changing the 25% of affordable to— To a 10 to 15% range and then adding in Councillor Frank’s part B.I. and B.I.I.

With no changing to that wording? With no changing to the wording. Okay, thank you. Do I have a seconder for that?

Councillor Omen. Thank you. I’ll second. I do have another amendment though.

Okay. So at least we have a motion with those amendments on. So I’ll go to you, Councillor, to continue on. Thank you.

I appreciate the discussion and I support the amendment with the addition of those two components from Councillor Frank’s amendment. Again, without that report back component because I do think that might, although I know staff might have been okay with the quarter four, 2024, I just don’t wanna put a timeline on something like that. And hold that on a report back. But I do wanna comment on the heights.

I do think part of the issue that we continue to face is that we continue to go into these processes with the heights at a lower level and it continues to raise concerns. It’s something that neighbors and residents are starting to clue into, that the number that’s on the paper does not mean the number that we may agree to. And so I think just to promote more clarity, I would like to have a discussion now around heights. I’m personally comfortable at 22.

I think that in this area and what’s contemplated and looking at what’s in front of us, I think that that actually makes sense considering where we’re going with the rest of the city. So I would be willing to amend to add that if I had a seconder. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, it looks like you’re a seconding that amendment, okay. So we have a motion with a few amendments and then I’ll put that on the floor for discussion.

Councillor Robin. And just to clarify, that’s our maximum that we’re looking at. It’s not, yep, okay. Just wanna make sure that we’re clear on that.

Right, okay, okay. So I’ll have to clerk word that up for us so we can look at it in eScribe. And while she’s doing that, I’ll look for other comments or questions on the motion, Councillor Craig. Thank you, yes.

Can we vote on various parts of this separately? Just given that some of it wasn’t circulated in advance. I just don’t feel confident that I at this point could support it. So I’m just wondering if we could break it up into different chunks.

Which particular ones would you like calls separately? The affordable housing one specifically. All right, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I would like to just make a couple of questions on the amendment that’s in front of us. I don’t see it, but I’m just gonna go from memory here. And in particular to the increase in the height to 22 stories.

So we’re going from 18 to 22 is what I understand. And I’m just gonna address it from Councillor’s point of view. I represent word nine. This is this area where it does have the intensification which is a long Byron baseline is in word nine.

And one of my concerns about this unique area that we are developing is how we move around. And if you are familiar with this area, you will know there’s very few opportunities to move around, number one. There’s the geography. There’s Commissioner’s Road, Snake Hill.

Talbot Street, Snake Hill. Movement and having respect for the wildlife and the uniqueness of this area is imperative. It’s important to the community. We just had a conversation around secondary plans.

I read the 1989 secondary plan of the Byron pet. It has evolved. We’re 35 years later, not all secondary plans, by the way. Take 35 years.

This community has been waiting a long time to understand how we develop this unique area, but more important how we preserve it and how it is an asset to the community. And it’s not about don’t do the intensification, don’t go too high. It is really about how it fits and how it works. If you look at the secondary plan, and I’m just gonna stick with the amendment before I go off in many directions, which I’m trying not to do, there’s two access points into this development, right on Byron Baseline.

There’s one road, connects to Spring Bank. We’re rerouting Commissioner’s Road West. We’re taking away old Commissioner’s Road West. And maybe that’s a question through you, Mr.

Chair, if I can just ask that question, because it is all about how we move around. And I think I really want this committee to understand the uniqueness of this area. It’s not Oxford and Wonderland conversation where it’s straight and congested. It’s congested with the geography.

So my question is with the realignment of Commissioner’s Road West Snake Hill that we did a number of years ago, which was a great opportunity to understand how to develop the pet. I understand that Commissioner’s Road, the old Snake Hill, is going to be sort of used as a trail or I just want to know how that is going to work because I think we really have to understand these two access points that we are right now addressing. More height, doesn’t mean intensification, but how do we make this all fit? I think it’s really important for the committee to know.

So is it just the realignment of Commissioner’s Road and Byron Baseline are the only entrances and exits to this area? That’s my question. - Through you, Mr. Chair.

The access for the Northern portion along Baseline Byron is from Baseline Byron. The development that will be occurring to the south within the Crestwood area and the button was swamp area will be internal to the subdivision. There won’t be any access from Colonel Talbot. So there will be the introduction of one full movement street on to Baseline Byron and what’s being proposed are two right in rights outs.

They’ll come through as a plan to subdivision and as part of that plan of subdivision, there’ll be the normal studies that would accompany it. A TIA would be one of those studies that would accompany the plan of subdivision. Commissioner’s Road realignment, I believe, is 2032-35 that will come through depending upon it. The A was completed in 2019-2020, which shifted the road further to the west.

It’s in the plan where you can see the realignment and the ultimate use of the existing Commissioner’s Road will be decommissioned and the thought is that it would be used as a multi-use trail to get into Reservoir Park Council. Thank you. And with the amendment, with the increase in height, we’re specifically speaking to the north part of the development, which is the entrance onto Byron Baseline. I just really think the committee needs to understand how we move around this area is vital to the success of this unique development.

And I just want to really make sure you really understand the dynamics that are going on here. And we’ve already increased a bit of the height. Let’s come forward. I just really want you to caution your decision-making here.

As we move away from the recommendation, allow for more height, take away affordable housing, if anything, that was something I was kind of pleased to see in the plan. But for now, I’ll just encourage the committee to stick with the recommendation when it comes to the height. Thank you, other comments or questions? Okay, refresh your screen.

We have a motion to receive. All the time, sorry, Councilor Van Mirberg and my apologies. Please go ahead. No problem, thank you.

Yeah, I’d like to speak to the overall secondary plan. I think, and it’s been said before, there are a lot of Londoners who have no idea what’s awaiting them in behind what is currently more or less covered, which you don’t see from the roads. So most of us have not been exposed to what is about to happen over the next few years. It’s so rare to have a reclaimed aggregate pit right within the city boundaries, very rare.

And then that result is once it’s been rehabilitated, it’s going to be absolutely stunning on so many levels. And what I find very appealing about this is most of it, most of these lands are open space, park land, water use pond, trails, et cetera, with the development being less and more or less in the periphery. So there’s ample opportunity to truly enjoy what is about to take place. I mean, the water sports alone, I mean, swimming, perhaps canoe rentals, paddleboat rentals, all these good things are upon us right in an urban area.

It’s fantastic. I think everyone is going to be very, very pleased. We have to be careful. I like the fact that there’s staggered densities that’s sensible and logical, but I think we have to be careful that we don’t go past the tipping point in terms of trying to over-densify and keep this within the realm of what works.

With regard to the reorientating or the reorientation of commissioners, I’d like to ask staff, if they think that’s a net benefit to this newfound property, or can it be possibly a hindrance, I’d like to get their opinion. I’ll go south for you, Mr. Chair. The benefit that we see with the realignment of commissioners road, it does take away the accessibility issues that currently are in place.

And that was fully expanded and detailed in the EA. So it did the analysis in terms of the costing, the movement improvements, the less impact on the natural heritage of the existing commissioners road. So those see as great improvements. Other things are a little more subjective.

You’ve now will be opening up the views in the VISTAs from commissioners road into the gravel pit. It’ll limit that sort of the development along there. It’ll limit the access from vehicles. So vehicles won’t be accessing commissioners road.

It’ll be a little bit smoother. So there is some definite benefits in having the realignment of commissioners road. And it does take out that challenging little turns and the steepness at the most northerly part of commissioners road snake hill area. Councilor.

Would it be fair to say that it adds an extra VISTA, an extra opportunity to see what’s actually out there or in there as residents were driving by? Good staff through you chair. Yes, the view to the west will be open. I’m not sure what the actual interface will be from a safety mechanism, but that view will definitely be open looking into the gravel pits.

And there won’t be development on the west side of commissioners road impeding that view. Councilor. Okay, thank you very much. I mean, it’s fair to say this truly, I heard earlier it was described as a diamond in the rough.

I’ll say it’s a hidden gem. It’s truly magnificent. I’m just thinking off the top of my head that maybe we could charge an admission to get into the pond and then use the proceeds to build maybe a tiki hot bar or something if that’s just joking. Anyway, thank you chair.

Thank you, Councilor for your creativity. Councilor Robin. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to speak more about the built form and intensity that was provided within the report.

So again, with amending the maximum to 22 stories for lands fronting on to the central pond and green space policy area. This is still my understanding is it is still by way of an application using the hour tools part of the London plan. So there is still the opportunity that applicants would have to and will only be permitted to do so with an amendment to the plan. So I think we have some guardrails available there as well but it helps again to help us to shape the discussion with respect to the heights.

And I know in my ward we’re seeing 22 stories come through and part of this report also highlights that the orientation of the building and the streetscape is there to support the transit services. So where we’re looking at heights increasing, we’re looking at transit services that should come through and again through with some assessment growth. But I think if we plan for it purposefully, I think it’s really important to do that on the front end. What I liked from hearing the discussion today with the public participation meeting is that the increased heights give us the opportunity to do more of a green build.

And so I think that that also needs to be considered as we make this decision. Okay, other comments or questions? Councillor Trussell. Thank you, future.

Could I just get clarification on the issue of the movement of wildlife through and out and into the area? I think I need clarification on that, go staff. If I get you to expand upon the question. There was a question earlier about whether there would be, and I want to make sure I got this right, I heard it during the public participation meeting, there would be access for the wildlife.

Can I ask my question? Well, I did ask that whether there would be over Colonel Tyler. Councillor. What is the state here of the wildlife access to get out of this?

‘Cause I don’t want them trapped inside. I guess what the Councillor is asking is their means for wildlife to get in and out of this secondary plan area that we’re discussing today? Or is there not? Like is it just, you know, is it just the way nature will proceed?

So you through chair that there is currently wildlife moving through there, been in the gravel pits and you can see access and you’ve spotted wildlife in there. So they are moving through that area. You have woods located in the southeast corner, you have woods along the south, you have woods onto the west. So there is movement through there.

There is wildlife that’s utilizing the water source. So we do have wildlife movement. There are currently limited fences. There’s the overburden that’s created as a bit of a noise barrier or a berm.

And those are vegetated, but the wildlife seem to be moving through there. So we’ve, I’ve personally seen deer coyote within the gravel pits and their movement would be there. The proposed development locations wouldn’t impede upon those areas. We’re not looking at fencing it in so the movement could still occur.

However, it’s going to occur. We haven’t at all addressed or considered creating a wildlife corridor or cross-kernel tell, but I think that’s what the one question was. It may be something that we would look into. As mentioned through Ms.

Curtis’s presentation, the city would be undertaking a master plan for the recreational and ecological restoration of that gravel pit area. And that may be one of the areas that they could consider. Councilor, thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I very much appreciate Councilor Raman adding another amendment to this. I think it’s very wise to get the number on paper sooner than later. I think it sets a better expectation. I also think that it’s important to keep in mind that these higher heights not only allow for some greener or more urban design positive construction builds, but they’re also ultimately at the end of the day will be servicing considerations for water and wastewater.

And so taller isn’t going to necessarily mean more density in the area overall because there will still be servicing requirements. And so a 22 story on one parcel of land might take up servicing that results in another parcel of land only having a 12 story, depending on how the plans come together in the area for the individual properties being developed. So I’m absolutely supportive of the higher height. I will also say, and I know that it wasn’t intended that way, but I heard a Councilor say we’re taking away affordable housing.

We’re not taking away affordable housing. If nothing is built to create housing in the first place, that affordable housing doesn’t exist. And that was the point I was making about conditions we imposed in the prior term of Council where we have land sitting undeveloped and vacant because it’s not fiscally viable with the conditions and the constraints we put on it. And so it sits.

So we have to be careful to say that these targets are actual affordable housing. If nothing is built, they aren’t. And so that’s why I want to set a target that is more in line with what we used to get through the bonusing in that 10 to 15% range. I think we will get more uptake that way.

But I do want to underline, you know, and again, we went through this in the budget process and we just went through this in the last cycle with community and protective services and Council and an exit agreement for homes unlimited. We only have so much funding to incentivize affordable housing. And we heard there an RGI provider saying the rate isn’t going to meet our need to continue to operate. So we have to be careful and thoughtful and when we’re balancing the need for affordable with the need for housing period because the best way to keep the market from over inflating the prices is to have inventory on the market so that it’s not skyrocketing.

I mean, you look at anything on eBay, an item that’s rare is more expensive than an item that’s common. And right now, housing in our city is not common. We have less than a 2% vacancy rate. Last number I saw was 1.7% and the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation says a healthy vacancy rate in a city should be between three and 5%.

So we’re thousands of units away from even being considered at the low end of a healthy market. So if we start imposing a number of conditions that is going to lead to land sitting vacant, I think we’re really doing a disservice. We should absolutely try and get affordable considerations where appropriate, but within the scope of what’s actually going to get us things built. And I think this amendment will do that.

So I’m really encouraging colleagues to support both amendments as well as consider the environmental concerns that Councillor Frank brought forward in her amendments. And that’s why I included those as well, ‘cause I think some more consultation around that for the wildlife makes sense. So I hope that combined what we have and the amendments that have been put on the floor can get support from this committee and ultimately from Council, ‘cause I think we do need to provide, as Councillor Hopkins said, people have been waiting a long time for this. I think we need to provide them the next step forward, which is getting this through so that they can start to have some sense of what this area is going to look like as it’s gonna develop.

And I just wanna finish when we talk about the transportation things. And we heard 2030s for some of these road alignments. It’ll be the 2030s before some of these properties are built. We’re just approving a secondary plan today.

Applications will have to be developed. Architects and engineering will happen. It’ll get submitted through staff. There’ll be site plan reviews and then anything that’s 12, 18, 22 stories, it’s gonna take two or three years for it to be built too.

So we’re not gonna see these towers spring up tomorrow. We’re not gonna see this infill happen tomorrow, just as we’re not gonna see the transportation enhancements happen tomorrow. But the timelines we’ve heard, actually to me make a lot of sense for the transportation alignment for the infill to start happening in this area. So I think this is actually a situation where all the pieces are falling together time-wise in an appropriate way.

I have Councilor Hopkins next on the speakers list. Yeah, thank you. I’m not sure if you’re just on amendments and all the main motion, but I would just like to make some of my comments. And I do have one question, just as a follow up to where we are with, through you to staff with who holds the license.

I know right now we’re looking at the secondary plan with the concept, then we have to go through the process of rehabilitation before we even consider applications for this site. So where are we with the rehabilitation and the name on the license? I’m not exactly, ‘cause there are a number of developers. So how do we go forward with the rehabilitation of the pet?

Good staff. And who is responsible for that? Through you, Chair. It was a good question.

It kind of leads into what is sort of the next steps. And what will happen is with the secondary plan approved, they’ll be moving forward with the ministry and there is reclamation plans currently in place filed with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. These plans in some areas require the filling of the site to grade. So we’ve had some calculations and around 380,000 workloads of fill type thing.

So what we’ve done is we’ve worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources. We’ve included them as part of our steering committee. We’ve included them through the whole process to provide them with an outcome of what that secondary plan, what we were envisioning the secondary plan to develop in the future. They’ll be using that secondary plan as a guiding tool when the licensees do come in and seek for an amendment to their reclamation plans.

They’ll use that as the basis and then they’ll work with the technical details to determine whether or not the slopes are stable and such. Currently, there are two licenses that have been surrendered. One is over in, or actually both are in the Northwest corner. The balance of them still have active aggregate extraction licenses and my understanding is there’s two of those.

They’re over six properties and they do have to come in and do reclamation work, which may mean moving fill, bringing fill in and making modifications to the plan. My understanding is there’s two licensees that hold those and I’m not sure if this time we’re privy to provide the lambs of licensees. They’re not necessarily the owners of the property, but they are the licensees with the Ministry of Natural Resources Council. I think I’m even more confused than I was before.

So there’s a lot of moving parts still happening right now as we go through the rehabilitation. The area to the Northeast can move forward with applications. Do I get that right? Given that there aren’t licenses in that area.

Staff, sorry to share if I said North, they have an event in Northwest corner. So at the corner of Colonel Talbot and Baseline Byron, there’s two properties that have their licenses surrendered. One has been, actually both have been remediated. Councillor.

Thank you for that. I’m at the Northwest when I’m sending a Colonel Talbot and Byron Baseline, sorry, I just got confused. Thank you for sharing that information. If I can make just a few comments here, just because it is a unique area and how we develop it is something that the community is being looking forward to for many, many years, we have a concept.

I do think when we develop, we do have to balance that with our natural environment. It’s important in this area because of its uniqueness. I would hope that we all sort of consider that we the city as well as the other developers in the on the pet as well. Some of the, I think the biggest concern for me is going to be the major impacts of transportation.

We spoke about transit. We have one bus that just goes along Byron Baseline and onto Spring Bank. One bus, that’s all. It’s going to be a challenge how we move around as we intensify in this area.

It’s really also important for me. One of the big missing pieces is that link from the pet to Spring Bank Park. We have one intersection. It’s going to be quite conducted, it already is.

But how do we not only have wildlife move through these corridors, but people as well? There’s very few opportunities right now and that to me is something that we must be considered as we develop going forward. I’m supported of the plan. Like I said, it’s been a long time coming.

I am encouraged that we had 25% affordable housing in there. I think it’s important that we try as much as we have very few opportunities. Deputy Mayor spoke about that, but to encourage greater percentages I think is something that we must do in all developments. So with that, I’ll just leave my comments there.

And I think the natural environment piece is something that we haven’t spoken about as much as I’d like to hear from committee members and the importance of those features and how we move the wildlife through those corridors. ‘Cause they are corridors and it is connected. The pit does not stand on its own. It is connected to the park as well.

So with that, those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you for further comments, questions. We have a motion with a couple of amendments that are posted, we’ll be calling the amendment number two separately, is that correct, Councillor Frank?

That’s regarding the 18 stories, 22 stories. I’m sorry, I always want to make this clear as a few minutes ago, since we talked about it. Which one did you want to call separately again? Just the affordable housing one.

Affordable housing, thank you. So that’s amendment one. So we will call that separately. Okay, so I will be calling that one first, that amendment first, and then I’ll call the rest together.

So if there are no other comments or questions, I’ll just make a brief comment. Many of them permits me. We’ve had a gravel pit at one time. I’m sure it was at the edge of the city.

Now I would suggest it’s almost more in the middle of the city for many, many years. I think everyone who lives in Byron and the West End, even the city has wondered when we would take action on this property in light of housing issues, and just a community involvement. I’m very happy to see that we’re here with the secondary plan in front of us. I echo Councillor Van Mierberger and his words.

I think I’m very excited about how staff, working with their partners have drawn this up. I know considerable hours have been put into this and considerable thought on all aspects. And so I’m pleased to support it. With that, we will call the amendment number one, which is to move 25% to encourage 25% of formal housing down to a range of 10 to 15% of formal housing.

I’ll put that on the floor now. So I apologize folks, in consultation with the clerk, we’re gonna change things up a bit. I’m instructed that we need to first vote on Councillor Robbins’ amendment to change from 18 stories to upper maximum of 22 stories. Then we’re going to vote on the whole toll motion as amended, that’s Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis’ main motion as amended, but we will pull, or not pull, but we will vote separately on the one amendment portion of that, which is a change in the formal housing to follow.

So let’s vote on the amendment, 18 stories to 22 stories. First of all, that was moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Robin. Is that okay? Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

All right, again, for instruction from the clerk, we are just going to call separately. Hold on a second. Okay, so we are going to vote on, ‘cause Councillor Frank requested the affordable housing piece amendment portion of the main motion pulled separately. We are going to vote on that right now.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you. Now we will vote on the main motion as amended. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, folks. Being that we’ve already dealt with deferred matters, that just leaves a German motion for a German. Councillor Robin, second by Councillor Lewis, hand vote, all in favor. Motion carries five to zero.

Thanks everyone.