April 30, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.5 with the exception of items 2.2 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   6th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-04-10 ECAC Report 5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 5th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 10, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Quarterly Heritage Report 

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.3) - PEC - FINAL Heritage Q1 Report (KG)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated April 30, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q1 2024”, relating to the Heritage Permit Application Permits processed under the Delegated Authority By-law for the first quarter of 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

2.5   March Building Division Monthly Report

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.5) - PEC - FINAL 2024 Building Division Monthly Report - March (KW)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Building Division Monthly Report for the month of March, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-A23)

Motion Passed

2.2   4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-04-10 CACP Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on April 10, 2024:

a)   Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a more a more permissive set of guidelines for the use of synthetic materials (including composites) in buildings designated under Heritage Conservation Districts to allow greater flexibility in material choices, while also aligning with London’s existing HCD policies to preserve the aesthetic of heritage buildings and report back to a future PEC meeting for public input and Council approval.

b)   the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on April 10, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that this direction is consistent with a recommendation brought forward by the Community Advisory Committee on Planning.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.4   Initial Planning Application Tracking and Digital Planning Application Tracking Update from Planning and Economic Development for submission.

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.4) - PEC - FINAL DPAT Update - IPAT (MD)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated April 30, 2024, entitled “Initial Planning Application Tracking and Digital Planning Application Tracking Update”, relating to the initial Planning Application Tracking project and Digital Planning Application Tracking program, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-D19)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1560 Dundas Street (Z-9715)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.1) - PEC - FINAL Z-9715 1560 Dundas Street (CM)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by London Plaza Inc., relating to the property located at 1560 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA4) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1()/ASA3()/ASA4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the project summary from D. Murphy, Urban Planner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, with respect to these matters;

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

  • D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a broader range of uses within existing building stock in the Built Area Boundary;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   4023-4500 Meadowbrook Drive and 169-207 Exeter Road (OZ-9706)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.2) - PEC - FINAL - OZ-9706 - Meadowbrook Business Park (BH)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Bluestone Properties Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 4023-4500 Meadowbrook Drive and 169-207 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), forming part of the Official Plan, by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Transitional Industrial and Medium Density Residential policies in the South Longwoods neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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), FROM holding Light Industrial (h-17*LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4/LI7) Zones TO Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(_)/LI7 Zones; 

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

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

  • L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions and Transitional Industrial Designation in the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP); and,

  •    the recommended amendments would facilitate the continued use of the existing building stock with a range of potential uses that are appropriate for the context of the site and surrounding area;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by 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   6555 and 6595 Royal Magonlia Avenue (OZ-9702)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.3) - PEC - FINAL OZ-9702 - 6555 6595 Royal Magnolia Avenue (MH)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by W3 Lambeth Farms Inc. (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz (SMB) Ltd.), relating to the property located at 6555 and 6595 Royal Magnolia Avenue:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the proposed amendments to the Official Plan:

i)  the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan; and,

ii) the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Medium Density Residential policies in the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in parts a) i) and a) ii) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R8 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R8-4(51)/CC6(120)/NF1(17)) Zone TO Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H24) Zone;

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

i) provide distinction between ground floor commercial and residential uses;

ii) consider reducing the front yard depth (Royal Magnolia Avenue) to 6.0 metres to continue the established street wall;

iii) consider incorporating the ramp to the underground parking garage into the design of the building and reducing the amount of the at-grade surface parking provided in favour of more landscaped amenity area; and,

iv) enhanced tree planting;

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

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

-  N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), including but not limited to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   1170 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9713)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.4) - PEC - FINAL 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East - Z-9713 (MH)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East Inc. (c/o Brock Development Group Inc.), relating to the property located at 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the unit entrances shall be oriented towards Fanshawe Park Road East and/or Stackhouse Avenue;

ii)    consider reducing the amount of surface parking provided in favour of more landscaped amenity area; and,

iii)    enhanced tree planting;

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

-  M. Doornbosch, Brock Developments;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   379-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9718)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.5) - PEC - FINAL TZ-9718 - 376-390 Hewitt 748 King (CC)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of East Village Holdings Limited relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street:

a) the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to extend the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone as it applies to the area of land located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street for a period not to exceed one (1) year; and,

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

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

  • B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting;

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

  •  the requested amendment for a short term extension would facilitate the long-term redevelopment of the site to a more intense, transit-supportive use that is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and The London Plan; and,

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the previous direction of Council requiring the applicant to submit building permits for any further parking extension being considered, which was met with the submission of a building permit for a 24-storey mixed use apartment tower on March 22, 2024;

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road (39T-20502/OZ-9244)

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (3.6) - PEC - FINAL 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road OZ-9244 (LM)

Need to amend clause c) after the meeting.

Members of the public speaking to item: M. Tackabury, Brent from UTRCA, R. Curry,

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the properties located at 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to:

i)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types – to redesignate a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type.

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications - to ADD Neighbourhood Connector and Civic Boulevard street classifications;

iii)    REVISE Map 5 – Natural Heritage - to AMEND the limits of the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) boundary;

iv)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type on the westerly portion of the subject lands to permit triplexes, fourplexes, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments, small-scale community facilities, emergency care establishments, and rooming houses, and to permit a maximum height of six (6) storeys or 20 metres; and,

v)    ADD the westerly portion of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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 lands FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone, an Urban Reserve/Temporary (UR4-T-56) Zone and a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2-UR4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-17-h-100-R1-4) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-4(21)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-3/R3-1(*)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-1/R3-1()/R4-6(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-2/R3-1()/R4-6(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R3/Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R5/Residential R6/Residential R7/Residential R8 (h-17-h-100-R3-3/R4-6( _)/R5-7/R6-5/R7-H20-D100/R8-4-H20-D100) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS4/OS5) Zone; and an amendment to Subsection 4.21 of the Zoning By-law General Provisions to delete the street classification of Kilally Road, 200 metres east of Clarke Road, as a ‘Proposed Arterial’;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision relating to the properties located at located at 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road:

i)    request to add a Neighbourhood Facility Zone to Blocks 22, 23 and 24 along the western extent of the Draft Plan to accommodate a school to meet future needs;

ii)    request to rename the subdivision to include the name Tackabury as there have been seven generations of Tackabury’s living on the land;

iii)    concerns with the second public access to the south of the proposed development as the applicant needs to purchase more than 50% of the existing Upper Thames River Conservation Authority UTRCA) private entrance that currently serves as the UTRCA main access road and the entrance to Fanshawe Conservation Area as this will be required for a municipal right of way;

iv)    the proposed development will impact the UTRCA’s stacking ability for nearly every long weekend of the Fanshawe Conservation Area camping season and every community event held there;

v)    request that feasibility studies and design and engineering alternatives be initiated and not be a financial burden to the UTRCA;

vi)    ensure that the Z-662 for setback requirement for the existing pipeline is followed; 

vii)    ensure that encroachment does not happen on the pipeline easement corridor;

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

i)    a noise impact assessment and appropriate attenuation measures are incorporated into the design of future residential development blocks with exposure to road noise on Clarke Road;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, prepared by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (Project No. 12-824 ), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated February 29, 2024, as red-line amended, which shows a total of thirteen (13) low density residential blocks; eight (8) low-medium density residential street townhouse blocks; three (3) large medium density residential blocks; six (6) park blocks; one (1) future development block; one (1) block for Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond; seven (7) road widening and reserve blocks; served by a neighbourhood connector and several neighbourhood streets (Kilally Road extension and Streets A, B, C, D & E)

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

  •    M. Paluch, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    M. Tackabury;

  •    B. Verscheure, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority; and,

  •    R. Currie, Sun Canadian Pipeline;

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 which promote densities that efficiently use land, resources, and infrastructure, and neighbourhoods that foster social interaction, facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Environmental, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan; 

  •    the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands; and,

  •    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of low and medium density residential development in conformity with The London Plan, as amended;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (4.1) - PEC - FINAL UTRCA Service Level Review (PK)

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 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review:

a) the Service Level Review Consultant and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) Senior Staff BE REQUESTED to provide status updates to Civic Administration on a quarterly basis, with the first quarterly update provided three months following the consultant appointment;

b) the Service Level Review Consultant and UTRCA Senior Staff BE REQUESTED to provide a presentation to Planning and Environment Committee once the project is finalized; and,

c) the staff report dated April 30, 2024 entitled “Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review”  BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated April 35, 2024 from T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, with respect to these matters;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard delegations from the following with respect to these matters:

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute; and,

  •    T. Annett, General Manager, B. Petrie, Chair, Board of Directors and J. Allain, Manager, Environmental Planning and Regulations, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;

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-A02)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following individuals BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the UTRCA Service Level review:

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  • T. Annett, General Manager Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA);

  • B. Petrie, Chair, UTRCA Board of Directors; and,

  • J. Allain, Manager of Environmental Planning and Regulations, UTRCA.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-04-30 - (5.1) - PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated April 22, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 PM.

Motion Passed

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 (2 hours, 37 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone, and it’s a little past one o’clock. I’ll call the seventh meeting, the Planning Environment Committee, being 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 Anishavic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Wock, and Adawandaran.

We honor and respect the history languages and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people in the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, to make a request specific to this meeting.

Please contact PACPEC@london.ca or 519-661-249, extension 2425. I’ll look to committee members for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I’ll move on to consent items. I know of two that will be pulled and dealt with at the end of our agenda, 2.2 and 2.4.

Are there any other items that committee members would like pulled or for motion to move the lot of them? Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re moving them. I have a seconder, Councillor Frank, any discussion before I, Councillor Frank. Thank you.

Yes, I just want to comment on 2.3, the quarterly heritage report. I just want to say good work to staff for getting 100% of all the applications processed on time. Thank you. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you to our staff. I’d like to ask a question on 2.5, the Building Division Monthly Report, which, you know, always good numbers, but as I was reading these, I have a question, and it kind of arises actually from discussions we’ve had over individual planning applications and even some of the work that happens through community and protective services on our housing situation, which is, comes down to when we’re calculating the construction values on these, I’m wondering if staff can provide us where we’re getting the numbers and do these include like the DCs and the land value, or is this just the construction cost of the project? We’ll go to staff through the chair.

It’s just got a kind of welding here from Building, Deputy Mayor. The numbers for the verified construction values, there’s a company called RS Medes that goes through and does different calculations for different areas within the province. Every year we get updated verified construction values per square meterage versus like the different types of construction files that we have, and those numbers are derived based off of the overall values, I could look up a more detailed response for you to get some additional information off to you just so you know that how it works kind of in the back end. Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, thank you. And I’m going to take you up on that, Mr. Welding, and all connect via email just so I can better understand this. I mean, it just stuck out for me as I was flipping through this one and some discussions that rose on the weekend about, you know, why are we not making developers put more affordable housing in?

And I look at the one on Spring Bank, for example, and it’s over $9 million floor on a nine floor building in terms of the estimated construction value. And when you start thinking about what that means for a pro form of a building, like it’s not an insignificant dollar value. So I just, that’s where my interest arose is, you know, when we’re looking at these construction values and when we’re thinking about things like affordability and those components, where are these coming from? I appreciate the answer, Mr.

Welding, and I will be in touch via email so that we can perhaps have a coffee and you can provide me a little bit more information on that. But I thought it was important for the public to know when you look at those numbers and, you know, not almost nine million a story. Like it’s building buildings is not cheap anymore. Okay.

Councillor Ferri. Thank you. Yes. On the same topic.

I’m so glad that Deputy Mayor pulled that one out. I know it’s not competition, but in March, my ward will have the most units being built in it based on this report, so I just want to throw that out there. And also additionally, that building, despite its high cost, does have affordable housing units included in it. So I do think that is a demonstration that despite the cost, there is still opportunity for affordable housing units in these buildings.

Thank you. Okay. Any other? Councillor Peruzza.

Thank you. I’m sure to check this stuff. When I look at the first quarter for this year, those are really positive numbers when I look at the number of units and number of permits are up as well, not percentage as high, but any feedback, kind of I look at the townhouses certainly growing, but any feedback that compared to previous years and especially last year’s for the quarter one that we have such really positive numbers on those stuff and through the chair. So yeah, Councillor, it’s what we’re noticing, the same trend as well, that we have some very good numbers through the overall past five years and how we’re beating every number.

We’re still seeing some increased numbers of these multifamily townhouse units that are coming in. Plan reviews are being completed and as those reviews are getting completed, builders are very actively working on a lot of these projects and even the ones that have currently gone through review and are waiting to be reviewed. A lot of the developers are actually reassessing where they’re looking at those and are contemplating making some small changes to get even more on the market. Councillor Peruzza, thank you very much for that answer and now follow up.

We were in a situation last few months, again, we do have the permits, we do have the units which are increasing, but then the developers are kind of sitting back and waiting what’s going to happen with the interest rates and the shovels are going into the grounds as fast as we would like. Do you see kind of a little bit more of a positive that it’s moving up faster now this time, even though there haven’t been any changes to the interest rates, but do you see any positive movement in terms of the shovels in the ground? Good stuff. And through the chair, yes, we are seeing some positive uptakes in the shovels coming in the ground.

We’re very closely watching the number of units in process or ready for pickup and as we’re working closely with builders just to try to put some pressure on them just to let them know where everything sits and the numbers that we’re in these targets that we’re looking for and just having them work with us to get some more shovels in the ground. Councillor. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions from community members and visiting Councillors?

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries.

5-0. Thank you. And we’ll now move on to scheduled items. 3.1.

This is regarding 1560 Dundas Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call that vote.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. 5-0. Any questions from committee members or visiting Councillors of the technical nature?

Moving on, I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee, please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Dan Murphy.

I’m an urban planner with civic planning and design representing our client today, London Plaza Inc., the owner of the property at 1560 Dundas Street. This property was recently purchased by our client with their primary goal being to establish their own dental practice within the existing building. It’s also the intent of our client to refurbish vacant commercial units within the building, providing desirable commercial space on a highly accessible site along Dundas Street. The proposal before you seeks to add the permitted uses within the ASA3 zone and recognize the existing site conditions, which would ultimately allow for more flexibility for our client in terms of potential future tenants and uses on the site.

No alterations to the building or site are proposed as part of this amendment. I want to thank Catherine Madden and the rest of planning and development staff for the work on this proposal, and we are in full agreement with the staff recommendation. We appreciate your time and consideration of the application today, and I’m available to answer any questions from the committee or members of the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I’ll go to the public. There’s anyone that would like to address the committee on this particular item.

I’ll ask to clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. One last look in the gallery. I don’t see anyone.

I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor ramen, seconder by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you. I’ll open the floor to the committee looking for a motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m not prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. Seconder by Councillor ramen. Any discussion or questions? Seeing no, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Moving on to 3.2.

This is regarding 4-0-2-3-4-5-0-0. Metalbrook Drive, I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 5-0. Questions of technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look to the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee.

Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with the link of pre-ammo.

On behalf of our client Bluestone Properties to address the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment before you for the Metalbrook Business Park. The intent of our application today or applications is to transition these lands as is intended in the London plans or the secondary plan to incorporate commercial and office uses within the existing light industrial business park. It is our professional opinion that these lands are appropriate for this transition to make use of an existing building stock that is a viable economic location within the city. We have had the chance to read staff’s report and we agree with the conclusions and recommendations.

I am here to answer any questions of the committee and thank you so much for your time. Thanks, Ms. Jamison. Anyone from the public would like to address the committee?

Ms. Clerk, if there is anyone online, there is no one online. Looking in the gallery, I do not see anyone. So I will look for motion to close BPM.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank and I will call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

So I will put this to committee members. Councillor ramen. Councillor ramen has moved the staff recommendation, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any questions or conversation or comments?

Seeing none. We have motion moved and seconded by I will call the vote. Vote. Motion carries 5-0.

Okay, moving on. We are at 3.3. This is regarding 6555 and 6595 Royal Magnolia Avenue. I will look for motion to open BPM.

Councillor Frank’s moved it, seconded by Councillor ramen. We will call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5-0.

Any questions of a technical nature for this item? Committee members. Seeing none. I will look to the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address committee, please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, committee members, my name is Nick Dijuk with Strict Modeling Moniz.

Here representing the landowner and the developer as the authorized agent. We reviewed the staff report. We have no objections to the recommendation as well as the recommended say specific provisions that have been added on to the application. So just lastly, our client is looking forward to moving this project along expeditiously.

So looking forward to a favorable council decision. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Our members of the public that would like to address committee on this item.

That’s a clerk. If she has anyone online, none online, I don’t see anyone in the gallery. I’ll look for motion to close the BPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen.

I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 5-0.

I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members and visiting committee members. Councillor Hopkins. Welcome. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me. This is a development in Ward 9, and it is a mixed-use development to six-story buildings. It is intense, but I really think having this development in an area that is going to be fully developed is a great way of creating mixed-uses in subdivisions. I just want to make a comment, too, just supporting this development.

Those four roads that, for me, create a little bit of buffering around the intensity of these buildings is going to sort of help with that bit of privacy for the development to the south. I really do want to make a comment here about as we do the intensity in this area, the importance of other uses to move around this morning at Civic Works, we did approve the RFP4 road improvements on Colonel Talbot, which is needed. It’s a rural road, and as we do this development, but very supportive of this missing middle and the mixed-uses that will benefit the community, and hopefully see some better transit as well. Thank you.

Thank you to the committee to maybe make a motion here. Councillor Ramen has moved the staff recommendation seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then I’ll look for further comments or questions. Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you.

I just had a question for our staff regarding the Appendix C site and development summary. I just noted that London TFC Academy is listed as the community recreational amenity. Is it typical for us to just include any amenity that’s there? Are those supposed to point to amenities that are public amenities?

Are we going to staff? Through the chair, the intent is to identify kind of what is in the area, so that would have just been the closest amenity space in the area that would have been referenced. Councillor. Okay.

Thank you. That helps. I didn’t have any issues with the application, appreciate the word Councillor’s perspective on it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded, and we’ll call that vote. And the vote.

Motion carries. 5-0. Thank you. Moving on to 3.4-1170 Fanshawe Park Road East, I’ll look for a motion to open it.

Councillor Frank? Oh. What’s the problem? I see.

We’re too fast. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I need a recessed for attendance. Can make it as a call of the chair to actually move one of the consent items up so we can get that off our plate. And we’ll do, I’m looking at 2.2, which is a fourth report, the community advisory committee on planning, and I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis on that. Thank you, Chair, and through you to colleagues, I did ask this one to be pulled because the advisory committee did make a request, but of course the advisory committees can request so they can’t direct.

I’ve pulled this to ask for your support for a direction, and the clerk does have the language in his scribe, but I will read it out. So with regard to the fourth report of the community advisory committee on planning from its meeting held on April 10, 2024, a civic administration be directed to develop a more permissive set of guidelines for the use of synthetic materials, including compsits in building designs designated under the heritage conservation districts to allow greater flexibility in material choices while also aligning with London’s existing HCD policies to preserve the aesthetic of heritage buildings and report back to a future planning and environment committee meeting for public input and council approval, and then be that the fourth report of the community advisory committee on planning from its meeting on April 10 be received. It being noted that this direction to our staff is consistent with the recommendation brought forward by the community advisory committee on planning. Thank you.

And I’ll look for a seconder from committee on Deputy Mayor, Councillor ramen, are you seconding? Okay. So we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll open the floor for conversation.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. Appreciate this discussion, and I did circulate some questions to staff, so I’m hoping through the chair I’ll be able to ask a couple, just trying to understand this a little bit better.

First I’m wondering how permissive our existing HCD, HDC, no, HCD, HCD ones, okay, sorry, that was too many times when you were saying those words, HCD guidelines. Good stuff. Thank you. And through the chair, each of our seven heritage conservation districts have their own policies and guidelines that were developed at the time of their designations.

Those range from 1993, our first heritage conservation district in Eastwoodfield to our most recent heritage conservation district, the Blackfire’s Petersville Heritage Conservation District. As you can imagine, there’s changes in materials that may not have existed. For example, solar panels weren’t really considered comprehensively in the Eastwoodfield Heritage Conservation District, but we have seen those integrated within the context of the built heritage fabric of our heritage conservation district. So staff do try to work to recognize new materials and new approaches to conservation that may be appropriate within the realm of the heritage alteration permit application process.

As you can imagine, something that’s appropriate for one resource might not be appropriate for another. So again, using that same example of a solar panel, really difficult to implement successfully on a slate roof, which is often identified as a pretty significant heritage attribute of a resource, but could very easily be introduced into the built environment for an asphalt roof, for example. So there’s a lot of case-by-case property or resource-specific consideration that’s necessary in the implementation and the administration of those guidelines for each of the different heritage conservation districts. Councillor.

Thank you. That’s some good background. I’m wondering then, given that each of the seven HCDs are different, are we able to tweak the language in each or is it superior or easier to have just one set of guidelines that applies to all sevens? It sounds kind of like you go either way, I guess.

Go staff. Thank you. And through the chair, the province did recently introduce provisions within the Ontario Heritage Act to amend or potentially update a heritage conservation district plan. However, that’s yet been untested and the province is not yet really standing regulations to undertake that process.

I’m not aware of any municipalities in Ontario having undertaken that update process. Formerly, the process would require the repeal and introduction of a new heritage conservation district, which could be considered by some to be a risky enterprise in terms of heritage conservation as it would open it up to appeals to the Ontario land tribunal. There is an existing status to the heritage conservation district plans, of course, having all been adopted by Council and also registered on the title of the properties through the applicable heritage designating by-law, so that status, if you would need to be recognized if there is direction to adopt or pursue or develop any sort of guidelines that Council may wish to direct to supplement those existing policies and guidelines, Councillor. Thank you.

Okay, so it sounds like doing seven different ones is not a good idea. So then I’m just wondering how long would this new permissive set of guidelines take and do we have capacity on staff, or is this something that we’d have to hire consultant to do? I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through the chair.

That’s something that we would have to consider, of course, if there is direction from Council in terms of adding it to the existing work program, as this Council knows, staff are quite busy. There are a lot of changes with the heritage act that we’re reconciling with, including the loss of the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources over 2,000 properties that will be removed come January 1st, 2025. So if there is direction from Council, it would have to be added to the work program with report back. I hope that’s a sufficient answer at this time, Councillor.

Thank you. Yes, that makes sense. And I think that we all know and are aware. I hope we are that of all those changes and how staff are quite busy.

It seems like over the next little while. So one or two more questions, I’m just wondering how many applications are rejected annually on a materials basis alone, which seems to be kind of the main issue that this motion would be dealing with. Hello, staff. Thank you.

And through the chair, refusals are really uncommon for the heritage alteration permit applications. Pursuant to the delegated authority bylaw, staff do not have the ability to refuse a heritage alteration permit application. Staff can recommend refusal, however, that does require consultation with the community advisory committee. It does appear on this committee’s agenda, typically as part of the consent agenda, and ultimately a decision by Council to refuse, approve with terms and conditions, or approve a heritage alteration permit application.

So that process does help to ensure that any applications that may be considered to be contentious on a materials basis, I do have the fulsome process and the decision resting with municipal council on those matters. Last year, there was only one heritage alteration permit application that staff recommended refusal of. You might recall that porch application on Bruce Street, where staff were unable to support retroactive heritage alteration permit approval for a plastic or PVC porch that was installed without a building permit and without a heritage alteration permit. That, however, was supported by municipal council.

I would also add that there was one application pursuant to a heritage easement agreement that staff did not recommend approval of, however, that was approved by municipal council. Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate that. It’s only one, it sounds like last year’s ejected on a materials basis, and that was by council.

Okay. And then how many heritage alteration applications a year on average to staff approve? No staff. Thank you.

And through the chair, last year, there were 105 heritage alteration permit applications and 93% of those were approved administratively by staff because they were consistent with the applicable policies and guidelines within their heritage conservation district plan. The most of the applications that were referred to committee and council were for retroactive approvals and also for major changes. For example, a new building within a heritage conservation district, that’s something that can be a fairly substantial change within that area. So those are always referred to the CACP for consideration, which then initiates that process to council to approve with terms and conditions or potentially refuse that heritage alteration permit application.

So the vast majority are compliant with the policies and guidelines already in place and staff are able to approve those administratively. To give you a little look further back, we usually see between 85 and 90% typically generally in terms of applications that are approved administratively since delegated authority has been implemented in 2015. Councilor. Great.

Thank you. That exhausts my questions and I’m sure Mr. Ganyu maybe is exhausted from answering all of them. No, never.

So I will say to me, this sounds like it’s not really a problem, although in the general media narrative we seem to see in London, it is created to be a problem. That said, I’m happy to support this if it brings comfort to the general public as it sounds like staff can pick away at this when they have time because there’s no deadline associated with this. So I’ll support it for that. But generally based on those answers, it doesn’t seem to actually be a problem.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I didn’t really speak too much to the rationale when I introduced this, but I do want an opportunity to just speak a little bit to the rationale. You know, my earlier question was about how construction costs are determined.

And we are seeing increasing costs across the board for materials on everything. We are also in many cases with heritage properties going to see fewer and fewer suppliers of certain materials as they’re just not used in modern construction. And while there hasn’t been too many issues that haven’t been able to be resolved through discussion yet, I see this as a way to start future-proofing against future problems. We have heard of, you know, some challenges with things like the cost of slate roof.

We saw things, as was mentioned, the Bruce Street porch and the use of a synthetic material as opposed to wood. I think from the—we also heard Mr. Ganyu reference solar panels. And I think from the lens of climate change, we should consider allowing heritage property owners to use alternate materials that are more energy-efficient and more climate-friendly than perhaps traditional materials on a heritage property would have been.

I know I certainly wouldn’t want to replace—and mine is far from a heritage property, but I certainly would not want to replace a single pane window in my home with another single pane. I want to go to a double pane for the energy efficiency. And I just don’t want those kind of things to be barriers in the future. But I will say, I did note in drafting this as well that staff do have a number of other things that are higher priority and have some deadlines associated to them.

So I deliberately did not attach a deadline to this because it is an issue that I think staff can work on as time permits. It is not the highest order need we have right now. And so I deliberately did not put a deadline of Q4 or of any particular year or anything like that. So it is something that I just want to open the door to staff for staff to work on.

And of course, it will come back to us for some more consideration at a future meeting and an opportunity for the public to provide some input to before we make any final decisions. Other comments or questions? Committee members are visiting counselors, seeing none if the committee will permit comments from the chair. I’m glad to see this come forward as Council Frank did say that it’s not like we’re seeing a lot of these come through.

But the ones I have seen have been, I think, seen frustration either with availability of material or as the deputy mayor mentioned, how an injury efficient. The old materials are compared to what’s available on the market today. One observation I guess I have is I just wonder how many upgrades to heritage properties are not coming forward because we don’t have this in place, you know, leading to maybe disrepair of heritage properties because they don’t see a way around either less energy efficient material or extremely costly repairs to get the original material. So while we’re not having a lot of them, we might see more as a result of this.

I don’t know, but what I do see is I do see heritage properties sometimes in a great state of disrepair, which doesn’t serve anyone well. So I will support this. There are no other comments or questions. We have motion moved in second.

I’ll call. Close in the vote. Motion carries. 5 to 0.

Thank you. And I want to thank committee members for making us an efficient committee and able to get some things off the end of the agenda. We’re now past 130 so now we can look at item 3.4, which is regarding 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East. I’ll look for motion to open a public participation being Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ramen.

I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries. 5 to 0.

Any questions of a technical nature for staff? I’ll look for the applicant, like to address the committee. Please ma’am. Give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Dornbush. I’m with Brock Development Group. We’re the owner and applicant for this application before you this afternoon.

We’ve had an opportunity to review the staff report. We’re satisfied with the information that’s been put forward in the draft by-law. We have no concerns. We would very much like to note how quickly staff process this.

We’re very appreciative of how quickly we’ve been able to move through the process with this application. I don’t have any concerns or comments to make with regards to the staff report. If the committee members have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them for you. Thank you, Mr.

Narmash. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online indicating no, I don’t see anyone in the gallery. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, I will call the vote. Thank you all with us to committee members Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I have a seconder. Councillor Ramen has seconded. A motion moved and seconded.

I’ll open the floor for discussion. Councillor Ramen. Thank you, through you. Just wanted to follow up with staff on the matters for site plan on page 114.

It mentions the proposed waste storage set up. I’m just wondering if that needs to be noted at all in B for the motion or if we’re satisfied with that. I’ll go to staff. Thank you for allowing us to collect some thoughts here.

I think we can work through that through the site plan so I don’t believe we need any additional commentary at this time with direction to the approval authority. Looking at the plan that’s shown within the report, it seems to be something that could actually work now, must have been a comment that was made prior to a previous revision. So we should be working through that at the site plan stage. Thank you.

Councillor. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. Mine’s actually of a similar nature. It does say matters for site plan.

There’s significantly more bullet points than there are included in the recommendation to staff. And I’m just wondering for site plan approval, when you get comments like this, are these all things that you would consider and things within the realm like now that we will be putting in 50% native species to the site plan by-law, are those things that you need direction on or at any time you can ask the applicant to include those or do they have to be in the council direction is what I’m wondering. Thank you. I’ll go to staff.

Thank you. So those comments are just a flag that we would be identifying to the applicant when they come in for site plan approval. Don’t feel that anything in there that’s not within the direction to the approval authority needs to be added necessarily. We think that our staff capture the main points that need to be provided through that recommendation to the approval authority and anything else that’s within the appendices that were provided during circulation are just information for the applicant and even for council to know what we’ll be looking for as part of our discussions through site plan.

Councillor. Any other comments or questions? All right. We’ve got a council approval.

No, just, excuse me, just a comment and as this development is in my ward and I’m supportive of this development and thanks to the agent and to staff that they came to an agreeable zoning by-law amendment and sir, as I already mentioned, I’m supportive of this application. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions, we’ve got a motion moved and seconded and I will call the vote.

Closing the vote. Motion carries. 5 to 0. Thank you.

We’re moving ahead of schedule here. So the next item is not scheduled to two o’clock. So at the chair, I’m going to move the other item from consent items 2.4. Maybe we can get on that one right now.

And what I’d like is if staff could give us a bit of a debrief on the wonderful work they’re doing in this regard. There it is. Yup. Thanks through the chair.

So 2.4 is a report on the digital planning application tracking program, which is a program that we’ve established to start to create an enterprise-wide tracking solution for planning and development applications. And it aims to transform how we handle them, display them, and report out on them. Through this, we’re hoping to have a centralized location for tracking planning applications throughout their lifecycle. And to do that, we’ve partnered up with our folks and ITS in order to have a combined project team.

One of the first things we did as part of the project team is in 2023 did a discovery project, which was kind of looking at kind of the existing system and where we’re at, and determined that we have several projects we need to do in order to enhance the business processes and the existing systems, which are all quite complex and interconnected. As part of that, we kind of came up with an interim approach, which we were calling the initial planning application tracking or iPad, which is also in the report that’s before you. And what we were hoping to do through that process was to come up with this interim solution to enhance the existing citizen portal. And for those who may not be aware, the citizen portal is a web-based platform that we currently have in place.

It’s primarily used by residents for building permit applications. And without planning applications on there, we were focusing on bringing planning applications to that in some capacity. And as we started looking at that, we thought, okay, for starting small, let’s start off with two applications that are fairly far along in terms of our database. And that was our zoning bylaw amendments and site plan approvals.

And we were able to get some basic information into this new part of the portal, including file number, address, description, committee day to day going to committee, as well as a visual milestone tracker to kind of show you your path to approval. With it being released, we actually were able to get it up and live as of April 18th and starting together feedback from the development community. We’ll use that feedback as we continue to expand and add new applications to the citizen portal. In terms of next steps with this project, as we move forward, we’re hoping to start additional projects in Q3, so this coming summer.

And as we do that, we’ll have a better idea of our scheduled timelines, deliverables, and we’ll be reporting back to yourselves and the development industry as to what’s next on our agenda as we get to that point. Thank you. And thanks for jumping in. You probably thought you weren’t on stage yet until later on, so I appreciate that.

So I’ll open the floor to any questions from committee members. Councillor Cribble. Through the chair to the staff, I’m very excited about these news. I really am.

And let me understand this. This is the current system, Amanda, and we are planning to build on this information on Amanda that we will have this tracking system, and we are doing that internally. There will not be external and other program. We are developing internal one is my understanding, correct?

Go staff through the chair. So we are working with the existing Amanda database. The external facing portion of Amanda is the citizen portal, which already has the ability to apply for building permits. We’re going to expand that to allow for an application of planning applications as well as tracking.

Councillor. Thank you. And follow up in the timeline. It says Q1, 2024 software development and testing.

Is this relating to the two applications you were mentioning that we were trying? Oh, staff. Through the chair. That is correct.

That’s related to the two applications that we were testing. Councillor. Thank you for that, and follow up Q2 2024 plus planned public lounge, and how big is the plus? Good stuff.

Through the chair, at the time of writing the report, since we do have to have them completed in advance of the committee date, we weren’t sure when the actual release was going to be. So I’m happy to say that as of April 18th, the initial launch has occurred. The plus now is a feedback gathering period, which will take us likely towards the summer. Councillor.

Thank you. And last, do you estimate or how long do you estimate to input the once we get this done, how long will it take to input the existing application in any approximate timing for that? Go, staff. Through the chair.

Clarification is to which application are we speaking about? Councillor. So I would imagine after we launched this and it’s a successful launch after all the feedback and everything is developed, are we going to input already the ones that have been already in process and are not completed, or are we going to use this only for the new ones? Because my understanding was that we will, the ones that are not completed yet, we will input them as well.

So that’s my question. Staff. Through the chair, at present time, we’ve truncated the amount of information that we’d have to go back and retroactively fix to get into the portal. So currently, the cutoff is applications that have been entered into the system as of January 1, 2024, depending on, as we move forward, when we release the next, say, round of applications into the citizen portal, we’ll have to make a similar determination as to how far back we go, depending on volume.

Councillor? Thank you. No more questions. And thank you.

As I said, I’m going to repeat myself. I’m really excited about this. And I hope we get it done soon. And I’m quite sure the entire industry as well.

So thank you all for effort in completing this project. Thank you. Thank you. Questions?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Not so much a question, but I did want to offer a comment or two. And first of all, I think the work that’s being done here is very important and it is a process improvement.

I recognize that it’s also a step-by-step and that this take time. We Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will the iPad be. And that’s perfectly okay. I guess what I’m looking for, though, in terms of sharing a couple of comments is that just as we’re getting the update today, it will be important for us to periodically get some updates through the Planning and Environment Committee and ultimately to Council.

I would like to see some data at the end of an application process because I think it’s important for us to tell the story to Londoners. So we move from approvals to building permits being issued to construction underway. I think it would be important at the end of this process for there to also be a category where occupancy is noted so that we can close the chapter on a story and say this building that we talked about, that we did this announcement for, that we provided brownfield clean-up incentive for, or that we provided a CIP on affordable housing for — it’s not just the shovels in the ground, but people are actually living there now. And so I just want to offer that as a comment for take away for future considerations as these processes get worked out and developed.

But to me, that would be a really important statistic for us to have in future updates that do come to us once the system is built out, that we also have a category where occupancy is noted. We know the building inspection has been complete, people have moved in, and these are now not just construction projects, but they’re actually homes. So just wanted to share that thought with folks, but again, like I said, I know Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I realized that adding that ask might add another many weeks or months to actually getting the project completely finished, but just wanted to offer that as thought. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from committee members? Committee will — oh, sorry, Council Friend, go ahead, please. Mine was more procedural. I was just confused as to why this one was pulled if people aren’t planning on doing any amendments or voting separately on it.

Certainly this would be consent. I’m sort of wondering if there was — do you know what I mean, like how we pulled it? I thought maybe there would be an amendment or a separate amendment. No, there will be a motion.

I’ll look for it to receive this, but there has been no specific — there hasn’t an emotion yet actually on the floor, so we’ll have to get to that point. Okay. I was just curious, because usually then this would have just been dealt with that consent. So more of a procedural question and curiosity is why I was put at the bottom.

And maybe before I say anything, I’ll look for that. We move to receive this report. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frang, so the emotion movement is seconded. Any comments or questions?

And then if the committee will allow me to speak to this, I just want to question. Be clear. So this is a tracking on an application. When it comes in our door, we’ll know where it is in our process right through — it comes into our door until it gets here and where it gets approved by Council.

Is that correct? The Chair, yes, the intent of the overall D-PAP program is to establish that. Currently, we’re just using the information that’s in our existing Amanda database, but as we build the program, we’ll have a better idea of where it’s at at every stage. And this tracking information, will that be available to the applicant on an ongoing basis?

Through the Chair, that’s one of the benefits of using the citizen portal. There is a public property inquiry which shows some information, however registered users, as we build that out to mimic more like what’s on the planning — sorry, the permit application side. There’s more information that is available to the registered users once they’re in that system. Okay.

I think that’s great. I think that we’ll cut down on actually the communication between city hall applicants because they’ll know where it stands. But I think it’s a terrific management tool that will allow a bottlenecks to be identified and for procedures to be addressed to be more efficient in handling our applications. So I’m very excited about this, actually, and we’ve been talking about it for a while.

So it’s terrific to see where we’re here, and I can’t wait to Q3+, to hear we get closer to actually in getting this thing alive. So good work. Thank you very much. We have motion moved in second to receive this.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 5-0.

We’re about 10 minutes ahead of time. So I’d like to take a 10-minute recess. I got a mover for that. Mr.

Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that vote. Good job. Closing the vote. Motion carries.

5-0. 4-1. Sorry. Okay, folks.

We’re back in action. We’re going to call the meeting back to order. We have dealing with scheduled item number 3.5. This is regarding 379 to 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank. Call that vote. Councillor Lewis is not here at the moment closing the vote.

Motion carries. 4-0. Okay, I’ll ask, I’ll look for any technical questions from the committee on this item. Seeing none, I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee.

Please, sir. Go to the mic. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Brian Blackwell. I work at Stantec Consultant and I’m the agent for the applicant, which is oldies village holdings limited, accompanied by medallion properties. Mr.

Chairman, about a year ago, we were in front of this committee requesting a temporary zone for this residential surface parking lot. At this meeting, an approval was provided for one year to allow for this use of the surface parking lot. With this approval, PEC would consider extending the temporary zone for another three years based on the following conditions. Condition number one, medallion submits building permit for our 24-story 270 units, including 13 affordable units with commercial fronting Dundas Street prior to this PEC meeting.

This building is located at Dundas and Hewitt Street. Mr. Chairman, this building permit was submitted on March 22, 2024. Second condition, medallion submits a site plan application for the subject site related to landscaping, grading, stormwater management upgrades to the parking lot.

We have now reduced the parking lot by 19 parking spaces and added 29% of landscaping area to the site. Mr. Chairman, site plan is approved by the city, subject to signing the development agreement. We also have included an extra 188 parking spaces over the minimum requirement to the new apartment tower.

We require this three-year extension to the temporary zone for our construction timeline for the new tower. Mr. Chairman, we have completed the two requirements, required condition required by PEC and Council. We ask committee today to please extend our temporary parking zone for another three years.

Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Blackwell. Anyone from the public that would like to address the committee, I’ll ask to clerk if there’s anyone online.

I don’t see anyone else in the gallery that would like to address the committee, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconder, please. Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote. Closing the vote.

Motion carries. 5-0. Thank you. Are there any motions, conversation?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’ll call you. You’ll be aware yesterday I missed the added deadline, but I did circulate to committee members an alternate motion and an alternate by-law, which I worked with staff to ensure the language was appropriate for this to be put forward.

All those staff’s recommending refusal. My alternate motion is to recommend we approve another one year of temporary surface parking use, and I will look to see if there’s a seconder for that before I speak to the rationale. I’ll look for anyone that would like to second, Deputy Mayor’s motion. I see Councillor Hill here as second, so your motion moved in second.

Do you want to go back to you, Deputy Mayor? Yes, so I will speak briefly to my rationale here. Obviously, the long-term plan is to see development happen on this site, and I did look back at last year’s decision. And we did, in fact, say if the building permits were submitted, we would consider.

Not that we would guarantee, but that we would consider a further extension. The applicant has fulfilled their part of that requirement. They have submitted those building permits. They were submitted at the end of March.

And so I think it’s incumbent on us to honor our site as well and consider a further extension. Now, my concern is three years, just leaves the door open for nothing to move forward on the future development of the site. One year, the applicant can always come back again, but one year allows us to get an update on where things are with the site being developed for residential use. And so that’s why I’m proposing one year.

It’s not three, as the applicant’s asking for, but it does honor the commitment that we made as a council in last year’s decision on this, that if the building permits were submitted, that we would consider an extension. And so that’s why I’m putting this forward. Okay. Thank you.

Other comments or questions on this motion? Councillor Fray. Thank you. Yes, I appreciate what the deputy mayor is trying to do.

But just as like last year, I did not support the extension. I will not support another extension for this one either, but I appreciate the rationale. Thank you. Committee members like to speak, I have Councillor Stevenson online.

I’ll go to you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, chair. I appreciate committee have allowing me to speak here as the ward Councillor for this project. I want to say thank you to the deputy mayor and to Councillor Hillier for putting this motion forward.

It’s an important development in ward four. We’re looking forward to having the extra housing there. I appreciate medallion for meeting the deadlines and doing what they committed to and I look forward to committee supporting, as the deputy mayor said, our side of this agreement. I know that the one year is not what was requested and, you know, if everything’s going to move along as planned, there should be no problem doing a renewal again next year.

So I’ll be supportive of this and I just want to thank everyone involved. We are excited to be more housing here in London, Ontario, including some affordable housing. So thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to Councillor Hawkins. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. For recognizing me.

I know I’m part of this committee, but I do have a question through you to staff just trying to get an understanding and an update on this development. I’m not exactly sure if it started or where it is. I’ll go to staff through the chair. If I could just clarify, are you asking about the future development of medallion, the fourth tower on the property and the status of it?

Councillor. I understand we gave an extension of one year for the development to go forward and I just like an understanding of that development as it relates to the one year extension. Mr. Kirby.

Through the chair. So just to clarify, the previous extension for the one year was for the temporary parking lot across the road. It was to give the applicant time to submit their building permit. So at this stage, building permits have been submitted very recently, and that’s where we’re at for that development.

And site plan approval is pending for that application as well. So they have come in for site plan on the apartment as well. Councillor. Can you say that last bit again, please?

Mr. Kirby. Through the chair. So building permit has been submitted and site plan approval is pending sign off by the applicant.

Councillor. Thank you for that information. I think it’s really important if we are going to do extensions and these are just my comments to the committee that we really have a good understanding that this development is imminent. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor. Thank you and through you.

I just wanted to ask some questions on about some items on page 129, 4.1 recommendation. So in that it says, particularly the extension of the temporary zone would discourage long term redevelopment of the site, and then you highlight the transit supportive area, but also talk about the pedestrian environment. Within the permit that was submitted for March 22nd, do we have indication that it addresses the pedestrian environment issues? I’ll go on staff.

The chair, we’re just looking into that to respond to the question. Through the chair, I just want to clarify again, are you looking for in terms of the future apartment building and how it’s addressing the public realm or with the temporary parking lot? Councillor. Thanks.

I’m just looking at what’s outlined within this page of the recommendation, and I can’t figure out if it’s referring to the parking lot or if it’s referring to the permit. I’ll go on staff. Through the chair, the resolution from last year about the temporary parking lot mentioned the building permit for the apartment building, which is on a different site, as well as the site plan improvements for the temporary parking lot site. I’m sure.

Okay. Thank you. So just ask this a different way. So the temporary zone would discourage long term redevelopment of the site, and staff have concerns with the requested extension and proposed site concept plan, have little regard for the pedestrian environment.

So for that segment of that particular recommendation, what is that, in your opinion, referring to? I’ll go on staff. Through the chair. So that was in reference to the existing parking lot that’s there, and that the proposed site plan wasn’t significantly addressing the public realm in terms of how they were planting and landscape space on the property.

Councillor. Thank you. So within the new site plan that we’re awaiting sign off on, those issues are addressed. Staff, through the chair, given the nature of the parking lot is temporary, it doesn’t fully satisfy the long term goals in terms of addressing the public realm, in our opinion.

Councillor. Okay. Thank you. And just when it came to the rationale for the refusal, I note that in the recommendation it talks about action item 10, the quarry area community improvement plan, and how we’re aiming to discourage the perpetual extension of temporary surface parking lots, as part of our direction going forward.

And so I can see that in part of the refusal, what are your concerns if we extended this a year? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair. Ultimately, the extension is just the extension of a use that’s not permitted in this area of the city, and again, we’d like to promote development of these properties.

Councillor. Are you concerned that a one year extension would not assist that it would just, again, that one year is the issue, that it just doesn’t allow for the development? I mean, just in terms of our own timelines, if we were going through the process of going through the permit, would we not be kind of into that one year timeline anyways? So would this be allowing for that permitted use while that process is going on?

Staff. Through the chair. Thank you for the question. What the one year extension would provide is this, what we’re trying to achieve in terms of allowing this apartment building to be built, and to work through the site plan matters as well.

The long-term goal for the parking lot across the street, which is the subject of this application for the extension, the long-term goal is for this parcel to also be redeveloped or these parcels. It does allow for an interim approach, yearly extension may be a better course of action, so that it allows for the development to occur, for accountability, again, what we’re all trying to achieve is people in homes and in this neighbourhood. So overall, the staff recommendation is for refusal, because it doesn’t meet the policy framework, the core area goals and strategies, however, if it is a one year extension, we would be supportive of that. Councillor.

Thank you. Much appreciated. I appreciate that staff are willing to look at a one year and hope that the developer will be able to move forward within that timeline and hope that the developer is very clear to understand that this is the priority, and again, we’re allowing for the discussion of a one year timeline, but that we’re hoping, and we want to see the long-term use as we’ve discussed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the committee or visiting Councillors? Committee will allow, just make a brief comment, I see where Councillor Raman is going here. You can see some concerns from the committee, sir, and a year from now, I’m not too sure where the update will be continuing on for a temporary parking lot, so we want to see stuff built, and we’ll appreciate efforts, I guess, in that regard.

I will be supporting the extension for one year, but with those caveats. I see Councillor Stevenson has her hand up. Please go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, and through the chair, I appreciate the chance to just speak here.

So my understanding of this is that these parking spaces are needed for the current tenants that they have in the building, and that the new development is going to create the parking that will replace this. But in the meantime, that parking is desperately needed by the tenants that are currently living there, and so I would recommend an amendment on this to be that it’s a one year extension of three years, so it’s going to be an annual extension for up to three years, and the only reason we’re doing one year at a time is to incentivize this moving along. But that there’s an awareness of Council that the request for parking is during the duration of the construction, so as much as we all want housing, it’s going to take two to three years to get this built, and in that time, we need to serve the tenants of the existing residential until that they can move into this new building. So I would recommend that amendment, if it’s not done here, I will be bringing it at Council to ensure that we’re not in this place next year, where the developer who’s doing a great thing for our city isn’t left wondering whether we’re going to leave them in the lurch, leave them in the lurch in a year, that we understand that we’re doing this to support the development that is needed, and that we’re going to renew on a yearly basis, which might be a little, it may not be what they want, but it’s us doing our due diligence to ensure that this moves along, and that if it isn’t, that we’re checking in and we understand what the issues are and that we can help.

So I am supportive of the one year, but it’s one year at a time, let’s be really clear, we get to provide this temporary parking for the duration of the construction, which we said is up to three years, there’s a time limit on getting this done, and so I really do, I am asking committee to support this, and to support the tenants who are currently there who really need parking, there is not enough parking for all of the tenants that want and need it, and per staff recommendations and council’s direction, they have reduced the parking that is currently there to meet the site plan, you know, to make the improvements that were requested at their cost. So they are fulfilling their end of the bargain, and ours is that we will allow this temporary parking until the new development is complete, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I look to Councillor Almond.

Thank you. I appreciate the word Councillor’s comments, and I understand the conundrum that we are in with this, but I personally at this point, I would only support the one year extension, and I suspect that through continued conversation with staff, that the developer can reach a reasonable agreement to decide how to move forward with the build out of the site in the next build, while being able to provide parking in the future, and I think having that as a carrot is actually a good way to incentivize the development that needs to happen in the area. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors?

Seeing none, we have a motion, Movements. Sorry, Councillor Stevenson, please go ahead. That’s okay, thanks. Just another quick comment.

I’ll go back and listen to what happened at last year’s meeting, but again, my understanding is that they need this, they need this assurance that they’re going to have the parking to go ahead with this, so it’s not too disruptive to the tenants that they currently have. It’s going to cause a lot of stress for people if they’re left thinking that they only have parking for one more year, and then, you know, then they’re not going to have it anymore. So, like I said, we said that this is done in three years, and yes, there’ll be other development at that time, but I’m going to go back and listen to what it was that we agreed upon. They have met their conditions, and I really think that we should meet our side of it.

So I will confirm that prior to council meeting, and I am asking for council support in this development process to assure that the current residents get what they need while this new development is going up and minimize the impact to people who are having to, you know, people are struggling these days, so whatever we can do to make life a little easier, I think it’s something that behooves us to do. So thank you. I will confirm that for council. Okay.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Moving ahead.

Item for direction 3.6. This is regarding 2331. Laley Road and 1 5 8 8 Park Road for our motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Raman seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to 0. Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time?

I think not. I’ll see if the applicant is here. I would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name, and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members of committee staff and members of the public. My name is Martha Palooch.

I am a planner with Montieth Brown Planning Consultants. With me today is Jane McGuffin, Vice President and Principal Planner at Montieth Browning Planning Consultants, Alexandra Hossen from Sifton, and Phil Mashlin also from Sifton properties. We are here today to support staff’s recommendation for approval for the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments to the lands at 1588 Clark Road and 2331 Kelly Lee Road. And we are in general agreement of the proposed draft plan of subdivision as red line by staff.

The client would also like to say a few words. Good afternoon to members of committee. My name is Alexandra Hossen speaking on behalf of Sifton properties. I would just like to thank staff for bringing forward a positive report and to reiterate that we are in support of the recommendation to approve the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications and generally accepting of the proposed draft plan of subdivision as red line.

We have some concerns with the draft plan conditions however we believe we can work with staff to resolve these concerns at a later date. We would like to request consideration by committee to add a neighborhood facility zone to blocks 22, 23 and 24 along the western extent of the draft plan. We have engaged informally with the Thames Valley District School Board and wish to add that NF zone to provide flexibility to accommodate a school to meet future needs. All that being said we don’t wish to see this request cause a need to defer the application.

We are asking committee to consider bringing forward a motion today to make this change. If a motion cannot be advanced today we wish to see the applications move ahead as proposed and a follow up amendment to the zoning bylaw could be initiated in future to accommodate this request. Thank you for your consideration of this request and I am available for questions if there’s any questions of committee. Thank you I’ll go to members of the public that would like to address the committee.

Please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes. I am Marlene Tackberry the former owner of the land. Ma’am can you sorry can we travel here and just bend up. There we go.

Can you hear me now? Okay thank you. Okay my name is Marlene Tackberry and my issue is the name of the development. Tackberry is seven generations on that property built schools built churches big contribution to the to the whole area and to have a guide from logo township name put on the property.

It’s a real affront and a real affront to history. London is a historical town they were one of the first generations to come up here and spread all over the community and now you’re going to take a Tackberry property and put Cavar Hill on the name. There’s something really wrong with that. I have no problem with siften with what they’re doing.

I wish I had a counselor like this when I put my driving range in but the killer bees killed a lot of business and it’s taken a long time for this city to recover if it has recovered. So I am just impassionately saying don’t change history. The you know as I said 200 or 200 years seven generations and it’s just been sad what’s been going on using the Cavar Hill name. I urge you to change it not urging you to change anything in the development we need business we need building but it’s got to be reasonable.

You can’t kill our history. Tackberries were here at the very first before London was developed and you’re wiping it out in one Cavar Hill name. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for another members of the public like to address committee. Please sir give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon committee chair members of the committee and staff. My name is Brent Fisher and I’m the manager of lands facilities and conservation areas with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Here today to represent our landowner interests and concerns for the property located at 1424 Clark Road otherwise known as Fanshawe Conservation Area. The application before committee today for approval is a request for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to support a draft plan of subdivision that will add a significant number of homes in new residential dwelling units abouting the entrance to Fanshawe Conservation Area. Since the formal application was submitted in 2020 transportation considerations and draft plan revisions have included reference to Clark Road improvements, the Veterans Memorial Parkway extension and interchange improvements and there have been several iterations and revisions to the clearly road design and layout. But I quote from the staff report one of the main challenges during the application review process has been the provision for an acceptable second public access to serve the subdivision from the south.

It is important to note this because the UTRCA has yet to be engaged in any level of discussion by the applicant to address this challenge. While the UTRCA has a landowner has no objections to the proposed place types of zoning being sought for the lands the authority as an abutting landowner has significant concerns regarding the operationally critical lands that the UTRCA holds needed to support this development beyond or greater than 80 units. Specifically this development requires the acquisition of more than 50% of the existing UTRCA owned private entrance that currently serves our main access road and tree land entrance to Fanshawe Conservation Area. This is going to be converted to municipal right of way for the sole purpose of accommodating this development application.

Taking 50% of our entrance will impact our stacking and queuing abilities for nearly every long weekend of our campground operating season in every major community event that Fanshawe Conservation Area hosts, not to mention the impact to the overall visitor experience. This reduction to the authorities private entrance way will result in significant negative impacts to our conservation areas daily operations and will place operational and business limitations on the events that we are seeking to welcome and grow now and into the future within the community. The Fanshawe entrance is an integral component of the campground operation that serves as a controlled access point to our very active recreational lands. Feasibility studies and design and engineering alternatives need to be initiated immediately and ultimately the implementation of these findings shall not be in any way financial burden to the UTRCA.

While UTRCA staff recognize and respect City of London transportation requirements for an appropriate setback from the Veterans Memorial Parkway, we do have serious and significant concerns regarding the business interruptions, disturbance and operational impacts to Fanshawe Conservation Area. The UTRCA landowner comments have been provided on multiple circulations as our London staff report. However, these requests for coordinating landowner concerns between the applicant and the UTRCA remain outstanding. As a landowner, the UTRCA will continue to work with the City of London Planning staff to review detailed draft conditions to address the requirements for secondary subdivision access at this location and request that safety and engage authority staff as soon as possible to ensure collaboration to the planning and development process.

On a final note, I’d like to leave members in the committee and City staff with this. The private laneway entrance to an access to Fanshawe Conservation Area is a tree-lined single-lane entrance that was built in the 1950s. It is matured into the beauty that it is today. Now, full respect for our neighbors at the London International Airport, they’re making excellent progress in the community and we’re lucky to have them here.

However, when you arrive at the airport and select a lane to pick up, drop off or park, this multi-lane access or entrance is part of what creates the efficiency and allows for travel plans to start off an enjoyable experience. In contrast, when you arrive at the Conservation Authority, you come to enjoy what nature has to offer, accessing your Conservation Area through its tree-lined entrance is part of that experience. If you haven’t been one of those hundreds of thousands of visitors to visit Fanshawe Conservation Area, we welcome you to come out and see what Fanshawe has to offer. Thank you for your time.

I appreciate the committee’s attention to this matter and I’m open for any questions. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? I’d like to address the committee.

Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, good afternoon, council and staff. I’m Ray Curry with Sun Canadian Pipeline. We operate two high-pressure pipeline petroleum product pipelines on the eastern side of this development.

Just here to ensure that planning is properly incorporated for Z662 for our setback requirements and we have been watching the progress of the development without really any opposition. We would like to comment that we have seen in London other municipalities where our setback requirements have been met but people have a tendency to want to build out and onto pipeline corridor lands and it does present a, what we call an encroachment. So looking for ways to maybe incorporate into the plan ways to fence protect the pipeline easement corridor and just to ensure our safe operation and access to the system. And again, any questions?

I’m here to help. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public would like to address the committee?

I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online, there’s no one online, I see no one else in the gallery. I’ll have a promotion to close the PPM Deputy Mayor Lewis motion, seconded by Councillor Frank, call the vote. Close the vote. Motion carries.

Five to zero. Thank you. And I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation on this. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor ramen. We have motion moved in second to accept the staff recommendation.

I’ll look for a committee discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I just wanted to take a moment to note, and I know he just had to step out for a call, and I don’t know if he’s going to have an opportunity to be back to speak to our first speaker from the public. But there is a note in this staff report around the Takabari family history in the area and an encouragement to the developer to consider some features, possibly some street namings over family.

I don’t know, like I said, I’m not sure if Councillor Cudi’s going to be back or not. But that would certainly be a discussion to engage with him and the developer on. The city doesn’t actually choose the names of developments. The developer picks the name for those things.

So that would be a discussion to engage and Councillor Cudi’s return. So I won’t speak for him, but I would suggest that you may want to hear from him on engaging with the developer on that, because the city doesn’t not set the names of subdivisions. So that’s one piece to offer. With regard to access and certainly, I don’t know if we can perhaps get some comments from staff on what we heard with the pipeline concerns, but I believe that would be dealt with through the draft plan of subdivision process, not through the zoning that would be considering today.

So, Councillor, you’re asking about the pipeline protection encroachment into the pipeline area? Okay. I’ll go to staff with that concern. Through you, Chair.

If I can refer you to page 161 of the agenda, it actually has a proposed draft plan of subdivision on it. A few minutes to it. And if you look to the top of the page that’s actually to the east, you’ll see some single family blocks. There’s a little bit of a wiggle in the lot line there.

Just to the top of the page there, or to the east of that, will be an open space area. And that’s where the pipeline runs. Within the zone, we have a 20-meter setback. And then what we’d also require is that there would be fencing, or typical black chain-link fencing, along that property line without gates that would limit any sort of encroachment onto those lands.

Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Chair, that’s great to hear, because obviously the request for some fencing, as we know, if those things don’t exist, then, you know, backyard sheds or whatever, tend to end up as far back into the property as the owner can put them, and it’s not necessarily always on their actual property. So, and I appreciate that, because the detail on the drawing is a little tight to read when you zoom in. So, thank you for clarifying that.

Councillor Robin. Thank you, and through you, I have a couple of questions. The first was regarding the recommendation from Zifden to do an amendment to the blocks, and I just want to know from staff if that would be needed here and at this time in order to allow for the school block. I’ll go staff, through you, Chair.

As part of the circulation that recently went up with the amendment, we did not include a neighbourhood facilities zone, which would facilitate a school. We’d have to provide for public circulation for that zone to come in. If we are directed so, we can circulate and bring back to the committee a zoning by-law amendment for a neighbourhood facilities zone on those three blocks. Councillor.

What does that do in terms of the timeline? Both staff. Through you, Chair. It could be treated as a separate amendment.

We wouldn’t have to postpone this amendment or defer this one. We also could deliberate on this application, and then we would just bring forward a subsequent zoning by-law amendment. It wouldn’t relate to the by-law amendment currently in front of the committee. Councillor.

Thank you, and through you, is it possible to ask the applicant if that’s what they were alluding to, because I just want clarification? Yeah, I can, for sure. The applicant wouldn’t mind commenting on the Councillor’s inquiry. Through the Chair to the Councillor, if it can be treated as a separate application and doesn’t affect what’s on the floor today, then we would be supportive of that approach.

Thank you. Councillor. Thank you from a process perspective. Do you need us to do anything here today to support that, or is it just we work on this current application, we go through this process, and then it’s up to the applicant to bring that back?

Go to staff. Yes, that would be preferable if the applicant brought forward the amendment. Councillor, sure. Thank you.

Okay, I’m happy to hear that. Happy to see another school block come forward. Excellent news. I wanted to address some of the questions and concerns that UTRCA has brought forward.

I’m just wondering if, is it typical that we would be involved in that discussion between the developer and UTRCA in order to address the access, or is this something that would typically be worked out between them? I’ll go to staff. As part of the application process, staff have engaged the applicant, and upper tems to try to facilitate a resolution, as well as part of the EA that was undertaken for Veterans Memorial. Lands were secured for an overpass along that driveway, which limits the access from SIFT and from 400 meters at Clark and Veterans.

So if you were to come down the driveway 400 meters, that’s been secure. SIFT wouldn’t be able to provide access to the existing municipal right-of-way. They would have to acquire the lands further to the east. Councillor.

Okay. Thank you. So within what’s in front of us, I suspect that that’s something that would continue on in conversation and doesn’t need to be addressed within any amendments or anything at this point. Go to staff.

Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. We anticipate engaging for the conversations with both upper tems and SIFT and to resolve the issue. Councillor. Thank you.

I do hope that a resolution can be found. I completely agree with upper tems. This is part of the legacy development of this area and definitely a part of the experience. And I can also tell you from going to many cross-country meets there from my children, that that entrance and access point is quite well utilized.

So I can see the need for it as you continue to build out programming and continue to do work. So I hope that a resolution can be found at the applicant. Councillor, did you wish to put forward any amendments regarding the school board? No.

Any other comments or questions at this time? Councillor Cady. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for allowing me to speak at your committee.

This is a really important development for Ward 3 and for the east end. But 18 months ago, shortly after I became Councillor, I met with Mr. Rachlan and Ms. Hanson and we toured through the property and they explained their ideas and what they wanted to do and I was quite excited by it.

Because, Chair, this offers the east and the northeast end of the city an opportunity it hasn’t had before. You know, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis and I spoke about this last week. And we mentioned that was standing the fact that it’s great that we’re getting all of these developments, but so many of them, Chair, have gone to the west end or the northwest and very little to the east. And so Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are quite excited and I say all east end Councillors are quite excited by this project.

But, Chair, what’s more important about this is that we have a developer that I would say is a foundational developer in this city in siftants. They’ve built for 101 years, siftants have built great developments and neighbourhoods in London. And I think this is a tremendous opportunity for them to continue building and building in the east end. What I really like about this chair and what I think that we will all like about it is that it provides multi-use space, there’s low rise, there’s higher rise, there’s multi-use.

There’s also six, I think six, maybe even seven green spaces, so lots of opportunity for kids to play. I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to work with a really, really good builder to build something that is foundational for the east end. I’ve had the opportunity to work with residents and one of my residents in the area is sitting in the gallery today and he’s the most affected, Mr. Dehart is the most affected by this development.

And I will say, Chair, that siftant has worked to accommodate Mr. Dehart and moved their entrance to the development so that it wouldn’t interfere with his lifestyle or his family’s lifestyle. So I think that speaks to what the developer has done for us and is doing for the constituents in the ward. So Chair, in conclusion, I will be supporting this when it comes to Council and I will be encouraging all of my colleagues to encourage to support this because this is a really good project and I’m looking forward to seeing it come to fruition.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Again, for recognizing me, I do have a question regarding the holding provisions and maybe through you to staff to speak to the holding provisions as we go forward through the site plan process. I know there’s a number of neighbors abouting this property and the importance of these holding provisions through the site plan process. I’ll go and staff through the chair.

Thanks for the question, within this draft plan of subdivision and rezoning, we brought forward the age 17, which is for sanitary capacity and review, as well as the age 100, which is for water looping. Currently, there is no sanitary sewers along this section of Kalei, but as part of the growth management implementation strategy or GMIS, we are looking to advance the water project as well as have sanitary sewer through Kalei from Webster to Clark Road to enable more development in this area, but currently the age 17 is just there because there’s no sewer infrastructure. Councillor. And the 108 and 109 as well.

Staff through you, Mr. Chair, the H100 holding provision is applied in many subdivision plans at draft plan approval and it ensures that the subdivision is looped for municipal water supply as well as that a second public access is provided. And so all of the lots and all of the residential blocks in this draft plan will have that H100 as well as the H17 holding provision that will be applied to it and the H100 will be able to be lifted until when there’s more than 80 units that municipal servicing is provided for. So the limit is 80 units up until that point.

Councillor. I think is that all the holding provisions that we have? I see some nods and I just want to make a comment. There’s a lot more work to be done through that site plan process and really encourage staff to work with the neighbors in the area to bring this forward.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Frei.

Thank you, yes. Hoping to fall up on that a little bit because I think I understood it but I just want to seek one more clarification. So if, because it’s my understanding that there hasn’t been discussions with Sifton Upper Thames yet about that additional entry and access point. So if an agreement or discussion has not been reached between two parties, then the only amount of buildings that can be built in that property is 80 and I just want to get confirmation from staff that that’s true.

Oh, go staff, that’s correct. Councillor. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

If the committee will permit me, you know, I agree with comments made around our issue here and tasked to see this amount of development going on in the northeast. It’s where I see potential for future development that we haven’t utilized yet. I agree with the comments from Councillor Cudi and the Sifton name. There’s many Sifton bricks and the houses in Oak Ridge where I represent that were built in the 60s.

So I hope the local Councillor of this community in 2070 will be making similar type of comments. I understand Upper Thames concerned about access. It’s the same thing we hear many times at this committee when there’s new development by neighboring property owners and businesses about traffic and concerns that and the impact that the new development will have and I’m certain staff will work very closely to mitigate those concerns. Chair, sorry.

It’s just one correction. That won’t be me in 2070, just so we’re clear, okay? Sorry, Councillor, you’re youthful. Look, confuse me sometimes.

So if there are no other, sorry, sorry, Councillor Truss, I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand up. Yes, I just have a quick thank you for letting me speak through the chair. I have a quick follow up regarding Councillor Frank’s last question and that is if there’s a limit of 80 such that if there are more than 80 units, you would need an additional entry. If the access is filtered, that is the access is there that emergency vehicles could get through, but it would not be open to through regular traffic, would that still, how would that be treated?

I’ll go stop. Through you, Chair, we would be looking at that as development comes through, development for this, my understanding, Sifton will be starting in the northwest corner of the site and then working down to the south to provide that access and provide the road network. We would look to see if there’s opportunities for it or such, but typically it’s two part. One is for emergency access and the second is for those residents living within the development as well.

Councillor. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 5-0.

That concludes scheduled items and we now move on to items for direction. We have one item, 4.1 regarding Upper Thames Review Conservation Authority Service Level Review. Before I go to, we have two delegation requests. Before I go to that, I’m going to go to staff for a brief presentation on this review.

Through the Chair, the service review being discussed today comes out of a substantial amount of work over the last several years between the city and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority. There’s a mutual decision to undertake this review and the work is being led by the Conservation Authority. These staff are very supportive of this work and the Conservation Authority’s ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of their service delivery is essential and very much valued. Today’s report provides an update to Committee and Council of the work being undertaken and includes several priority items for review.

These have been collected from multiple city service areas and work with industry partners as part of our customer service and process improvement reference group. Report also highlights an opportunity for the Conservation Authority to share their findings with Committee directly as they become available. The timeline and financial information in their report has come directly from the UTRCA public documents and provides direct quotes and cites these documents. I’ll now pass it back to Peter Kavzick to provide a brief summary of the priority items that city staff would like highlighted in the service review.

Thanks, Scott, through the Chair. The service level review will include a review of redundant services, floodplain modeling, mapping, and a value for money audit, as well as the approval process best framework, which will look at a comparable Conservation Authority review. As part of city staff’s review of the service level review request for proposal, we noticed the need, as Scott mentioned, to review the floodplain mapping and modeling as more regular updates to this mapping are required, as development progresses from executed development agreement to building permit. Staff have highlighted these three areas as the areas of focus to lead to efficiencies enterprise-wide within the city.

This initiative is very important to the city as we work towards our goals of housing pledge. In 2017, the city’s planning and development team undertook a similar continuous improvement improvement that resulted in a culture of continuous improvement. As part of this review, staff were hoping that this will create this culture of continuous improvement both within the city and upper times as a collaboration between partners. The city has agreed to fund a portion of this review with upper times, and funding is available to support this review.

In the report, I just want to reference there was a slight error with respect to the reference for the multi-year budget, and there is no multi-year budget funding associated with this request. Rather, there is a capital account where we do a sufficient money to fund this review, and we anticipate the review being around $100,000. And as mentioned in the report, the review is anticipated to be complete within the third quarter of 2025, and we are going to look for areas for quick wins to bring on process improvements prior to that time, if it’s feasible. And also, as part of the review, we’re looking to include some short-term, long-term recommendations on how these improvements can be recognized within the upper times and the city as that partnership.

Thank you. We have a couple of delegations that I would like to appear before the committee, so I’m going to look at the committee to make a motion to accept that. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote.

Emotion carries. 5-0. Mr. Wall, so I’m going to go to you first, sir.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Councillors, for approving the — I said, Billy, you speak to this item.

This is a very, very important report to our industry. We appreciate the city’s work on this, and the Conservation Authority coming to the table to talk about how we can improve, and I want to tell you what this report means to us going forward. There are a number of third parties that are involved in the planning process. It’s obvious to you that it’s the city and the applicant, but the Conservation Authority, London Hydro, if you’re near a train track, the railway, but the Conservation Authority plays a very key role in the third-party portion of the application.

We are very much in favor of the principles and the items that are outlined in the report of what we need to look at. We need to look at what’s redundancy. Can we get rid of some redundancy between what the city’s doing and what the Conservation Authority is doing? Everything is a key problem that we have, that we need to be resolved.

Working with the city, working with the Conservation Authority and the industry, we believe that mapping needs to be current, it needs to be up-to-date, and needs to be available for us to be able to make appropriate decisions. And you can see some discussion of that in the background portion of this report. We also, many of my LDI members do businesses in other communities and have experiences with other conservation authorities, and frankly, Mr. Chair, nobody’s perfect, of course.

But there are some best practices that we will be able to learn that we could bring to the table from other conservation authorities that are not being practiced at the Conservation Authority upper temps. In addition, another part is streamline, can we want to get more housing produced and occupied as somebody indicated before sooner? In other ways, streamline the process that allows the city and the development community to move forward quicker than what we currently have. My final point, Mr.

Chair, is that the industry is very keen on being at the table. We have been, since I’ve been here five years now, we’ve been advocating for what I would call a three-legged stool, the municipality, the industry, and the Conservation Authority seeing together in finding ways to improve how we can deliver their services that we’re all responsible for. And so we are very much in favor of what the city staff will put forward in this report. They have identified correctly in our view the items that need to be discussed.

We need to move on it as quickly as possible, and we as an industry are more than willing to have people at the table to make sure that that happens. So thank you for bringing this forward, and if you had any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I’ll look for the representatives from Thames Valley Conservation Authority. Not too sure who’s going to speak on your behalf. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Certainly, Mr.

Chair. My name is Brian Petrie in the current chair of the UTRCA Board of Directors, and I thank you very much for allowing us to address this today. I’m going to start, and if I could, I’m going to turn it over to our director, Jenna Elaine, to provide some more further information. I do want to say that we are priority number one at the Conservation Authority is working with the city towards ensuring it’s meeting the goals around housing.

We know how important that is to the city. And so I think recently the developments in Mud Creek proved that by opening up 10 percent of your housing pledge to make sure that that is available through development and making sure that it’s a collaborative message. We want to continue to make improvements to our organization to provide the service level needed by our members, and that’s an ongoing process certainly around the new regulations that have come out, and it’s an ongoing process that doesn’t stop. I will say that I want to make sure the committee is aware that UTRCA was not being collaborated with or consulted with the proposed scope change in scope.

To the mention RFP, Nora had the opportunity to discuss it with city staff prior to the report coming to the committee. We feel it’s the last opportunity to truly collaborate for the best outcome. We believe that we have valuable information and expertise that can be used to scope the project for the best available outcome. And so I would suggest to the committee that prior to the RFP being issued that it would be an agreement towards between the city and UTRCA on what that project would look like, so there’s clarity on both sides, and that we can move forward to the best outcome for the city and UTRCA.

I’ll turn it over to Jenna Blues. Thank you, my name is Jenna Elaine, and I’m the manager of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s Environmental Planning and Regulations Department. And I want to start by just reiterating our chair’s remarks that we believe that further discussion is required between the city and the UTRCA in order to understand the expectations of the service level review and finalize the project’s scope before it can proceed. We’d also like to clarify several items in the staff report regarding UTRCA’s programs and services.

First, we would note that the activities of our planning and regulations department are a mandatory program of conservation authorities and are prescribed by regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act. We have seen various changes to our regulations over the past four years, but specifically we’d like to point out that since January 1st of 2023, the UTRCA has been required to focus our review comments solely on our delegated and regulatory responsibility of natural hazards. We’d also like to point out that we have never received from the city an indication that the service level review should include a value for money audit of our floodplain modeling and mapping. And I would note that this is work that’s being completed by a UTRCA department that is separate from our environmental planning and regulations department.

The funding amounts that were provided in table one of the city staff report for UTRCA’s floodplain mapping and modeling are for all hazard mapping and information requirements to meet our mandatory programs and services. These figures include amounts for the data collection and modeling that support our flood forecasting and warning program as well as our natural hazards identification program, which includes both flood and erosion hazards across the upper terms watershed. The floodplain mapping and modeling work that is referenced in the staff report is only a component of the actual costs outlined in table one. The UTRCA recognizes the critical need for housing and we support taking actions to streamline our approvals process to help the city achieve its housing targets.

We’d like to point out that the UTRCA has already undertaken process changes that have resulted in improvements to our service delivery. In 2023, our permit review timelines were achieved 98% of the time, which reflects an improvement over the last five years of our permitting program. We look forward to attending the next meeting of the planning and environment committee where we’ve requested a delegation to provide further information on changes to our planning and regulations program and process updates. We’d like to close by stating that we look forward to further collaboration with the city to finalize the RFP for the service level review and we are pleased to report that the city staff have recently reached out to UTRCA to further these discussions.

Further to this, we are supportive of the recommendations in the staff report to provide regular updates to civic administration and a final report to the planning and environment committee upon the conclusion of this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Layman, thank you, Mayor.

That ends the delegation part, so I’ll look to committee for discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So before we get into our discussion, I’m going to put the staff recommendation on the floor to frame where we’re going and see if there’s a seconder for that.

I’ll look for a seconder for the Deputy Mayor’s motion. Councillor Hillier has seconded, so I’ll open the—do you want to speak to it right now? Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. I’m going to speak to it, and I’m going to try not to use all my time.

I might want to come back with some additional comments, but I want to thank the staff for the work that’s been done on this report, and, you know, I’ve got some things highlighted in here as I was reading it through last week, and, you know, there’s nothing in the scope of this service review that I would not be prepared to have move forward in the funding work that we’re providing and what needs to be developed, and a lot of it is consistent with a lot of the feedback that I’ve had in the five years that I’ve been here. I could point to an application in my own ward, and when we talk about redundant comments from both groups, and in this case it’s the city and the upper temps, but as Mr. Wallace indicated, there’s a third leg there, and that’s the private developer who’s doing something, and when we’ve got applications being held up because we’ve got a private ecologist, an upper temps ecologist, and a city ecologist, and only two of the three can agree, that’s a problem, because this sort of work can be subject to some interpretation sometimes, and so when we talk about reviewing redundancies and overlaps and those things, I think that’s absolutely critical to streamlining the system. I will also say, and Mr.

Wallace referenced this, the mapping situation, this has been an ongoing frustration for me, and I think it is absolutely critical, and I appreciate that the budget items were indicated to be all of the mapping, but flood mapping is part of that, and if that is a component where there are savings later, because we undertake some changes here, and perhaps, as was noted in the report, engage external consultants to expedite the floodplain modeling and mapping, and get that completed. I think we need to look at that, I think we need to be open to that. We saw in the last budget process, actually, the Middlesex London Health Unit come forward with some reductions, because they had changed some ways that they were doing things, and when we look at an average of, well, almost a million dollars a year over the last seven years, I think that that’s a fairly significant mapping budget that we have to have taken to look at, and are we getting the value for our money in terms of what we’re spending there? So those are a few of my preliminary comments.

I think that everything in this report, I can be supportive of, I think it’s necessary to get moving forward on this, get the RFP issued, so that we can retain the service review consultant who will undertake this work and get things streamlined sooner than later. 2030 is going to come fast, 47,000 units of housing is a lot, and we need to be moving forward on this. I look for other Councillors, Councillor Pratt. Thank you.

Appreciate the staff bringing this forward in the commentary that we had from the various delegations. I am curious, given what we heard from UTRCA staff, that they would prefer further discussions before an RFP’s issued, and I know that we have had staff reviewing it, I’m just not sure where we’re at, maybe with the city side of the review of the RFP, and if there are going to be a couple more discussions before it’s issued, because it sounds like those discussions and agreement between city staff and our pretend staff might resolve some of the points of conflicts. So I’m just wondering through the chair to staff where we’re at with the RFP. I’ll go to staff for co-op and the RFP.

Through the chair, thank you. This is the RFP, for the service level review that UTRCA is leading, we’re just collaborating on as a partner, we’ve had reviews from all city departments pretty much, planning and development, environment and infrastructure, our financial team as well. So it did take a bit of time to gather comments and get them to TRCA, and as part of the next step with this RFP, we are looking to meet with them to discuss the comments before they submit the RFP. So we do want to refine the scope and make sure we both agree before our upper tems does submit this RFP.

Councillor. Thank you. I appreciate it. As I mentioned, I think that would maybe resolve some of the maybe slight differences of opinion of what’s included and what’s not.

In my perspective, what’s included in the city staff proposed report seems reasonable, but I would like for the discussion, it sounds like that’s on the table. So I’m just wondering based on what the recommendation is for staff, I imagine there’s probably no further direction needed to staff to continue. Okay, so I won’t add any of those. And again, just appreciate the work that all three of the legs of the chair are doing to try and meet our housing and environmental targets.

Thank you. Other comments? Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair, again, for recognizing me. And I do want to thank both delegations for being here and listening. I think it’s really important. I’m not on the committee, but I am on the upper tems conservation authority board that we learn and understand and that we do not sort of, when we make decisions, really do the due diligence that we need to do to understand the process here.

I’m supportive of the recommendation going forward. I think that feedback that we will get will, and those updates will help inform us when we make decisions as well at committee, as well as council. I really was glad to hear that moving forward that there will be discussions with upper tems and the city with the agreement and having a look at what that scope will look like and maybe even making it shorter, who knows. But I think having said that, I have been on the board for a number of years, and one of the first things that I learned, and that is different wearing these many, many hats.

And I really hear Mr. Wallace talk about the responsibilities of not only the development community in the city as well as upper tems, but one of the things that I learned is a little, maybe different and unique is that we as an authority are mandated to protect people and property. There’s no question that we should not do that. And I think, you know, having that, understanding that difference is really vital.

I think we need to do a better job and really want to encourage each and every one of us. That collaboration is vital to understanding each other’s responsibilities and roles and we’re really working together. That is my happy place as I juggle my hats. And I do have a developed award that’s all about development as well, and through this process, I’ve learned the importance of understanding each and everyone’s responsibility and working together.

I can’t say enough of the importance of doing that. So I just wanted to make those comments to the committee. Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors?

Committee will permit me from the chair. I just want to look at one thing with floodplain mapping, I just want to go to staff. I’ve been hearing about this since I’ve been on council. When was that initiated or when were we looking for upper tems to provide that mapping?

Through the chair, I’ll start out and I’ll throw it off to Shauna as well as she has gathered for their comments. So this is, of course, like one of the very critical things that the Conservation Authority provides and is really essential to that protecting people and property. So it is absolutely something that there’s current modeling, and we know that they’re working very hard to update their work, but we need to get that work completed because what we want to do is ensure that we’re allowing for that orderly development and that we’re allowing that we can share that with people so that the community is protected as well. So whatever can be done to be able to expedite that work, we know that there has been some timelines set in the past that have are overdue by a few years.

So we need to have new timelines, ensure that we’re getting that work completed as soon as possible, and that’s part of why we’ve brought these comments here today. I’ll also throw it off to Shauna as in case she has any questions or comments, sorry. Thank you, Scott, and through the chair. I appreciate the question about floodplain mapping.

It’s one of the items that’s extremely paramount and important not only to the Conservation Authority but to stormwater engineering. So over the years, we’ve been working and engaging our own private consultants to do some of the very critical areas such as Mud Creek, which we just spoke to, city led initiative, working in collaboration with Upper Thames, and got that work through. Damon Creek is underway as well through private consultants to get the work through. The city has struggled a bit because we know that there’s mapping available for the Thames River, but we have not been able to see that yet.

So it’s really in an effort to work together more, to find out more information is what we’ve been asking for and would like to see so that we can have a better idea of what’s coming down as development is coming forward as well. Of course, floodplain drives land values. It also drives infrastructure sizing and budgets. And so we’ve been on a very need to know basis on a lot of items and just kind of being honest about that.

So we hope that this initiative, working forward together, will be positive through this service level review. Thank you. And yeah, that’s what I’ve been hearing. I hear from staff.

I hear from, you know, the development community as well as Mr. Wallace’s indicated. We need to have a road map where, you know, we’re getting up to urban growth boundary. We have many lands that are sitting now waiting for this to be done.

I think what the development community wants is some sort of guidelines. One way or the other, where they can know and the city can know where we can move forward on and the more delay in that is the lane getting people a roof over their heads. Mr. Wallace made a good analogy about the three-legged stool.

I think since my time here, I’ve seen a different engagement between the development community and City Hall. It’s driven because we have similar goals. We want to build housing. I think we’ve seen much improvement in that regard.

I think what we heard earlier today about tracking, applications, et cetera, is an example of that way. The city staff have done many things as the development community has too. That doesn’t mean to say that things are given a free ride. Like it’s just, you know, due diligence for sure is done, but they’re done better and more efficiently.

I think those conversations and interactions have been fruitful. I hope this is the beginning of adding that third leg with upper tems being part of that discussion. I agree with Councillor Hopkins that we play an important role in well-planned development for all of us. But all of us are kind of at the same goals.

We want to see housing done more efficiently, and I’m hoping, as part of this, is seeing where there are redundancies. Maybe we can take some load off your shoulders that we’re already doing in-house that can free up your time to get on with the important work that you do. So I’m fully supportive of the motion and the direction where we’re going here. And I look forward to deeper partnerships with the three-legged stall.

Thank you. Councillor Rum. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on something you just said, because I think you brought up a really interesting point, and I wanted to get some more information about this.

I’m just wondering, I know there’s been significant legislative changes as well for upper tems. Over this course of time, some of those went into, in fact, April 1st, I believe, as well as upper tems increased the amount of staff they have in the past little while, based on all of the legislative changes that have happened, have they been getting the support resources that they need to be able to manage all the change that’s taking place, because I know that’s been significant with all of the demands for housing. And so service reviews, yes, but adequate funding for sure. So that’s just my comment.

Councillor Lewis. Or Deputy Mayor, sorry. Thank you, Chair, and as we see some provincial changes happening, obviously, we need to make sure things are right-sized. I would say to colleagues that, given some of the things that the upper tems is no longer involved in, that may ultimately mean not as many staff in the future, too.

It may not mean, do they have enough staff? But I want to come back to, Chair, the comments that you were emphasizing, and I need to pull this right from the report, that as of April 1, Oreg 1424 from the province changed the definition of a water course, and it requires the CAs to produce publicly available maps depicting the area where permits are required. And the city has received some updated mapping for that. But the up-to-date floodplain mapping is still not publicly available, and we’ve had comments that were relying on draft floodplain mapping.

So this is where I think that the value for audit really needs to happen on the floodplain mapping. This process started in 2016. We’re in 2024, and we still don’t have publicly available floodplain mapping for people wanting to move forward with development processes for the city to move forward with our own municipally initiated projects, and that’s really key. So, you know, I really, really think, and I think it’s really important that I want to say this again, highlighting that other conservation authorities have gone to external consultants to expedite this.

After this period of time, I really, really think, as we’re going through the service review, that has to be given serious consideration. These maps need to be updated and publicly available yesterday, but in lieu of that not being possible, then, as soon as possible. Okay. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

We have motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you. I’ll move on to defer matters additional business, five point one to defer matters list.

Look for a motion on that, or comments or questions. Councillor ramen. I’ll move your seat. Move.

I have seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions? I’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries. Five to zero. I’ll look for a motion to adjourned.

Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Frank. Hand vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries.

Thank you, everybody. Check it out.