May 22, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 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 C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   5th Meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-05-08 CACP Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That it BE NOTED that the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on May 8, 2024, was received.

Motion Passed

2.2   Repeal of Heritage Designating By-law – 432 Grey Street 

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-FINAL 432 Grey Street - PEC Report (LD)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request by the British Methodist Episcopal Church to repeal the Heritage Designating By-Law for property located at 432 Grey Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to repeal the heritage designating by-law for the property located at 432 Grey Street; and,

b) the property at 432 Grey Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

2.3   Delegated Authority for Heritage Easement Agreements update 

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-FINAL Update to Delegated Authority for Heritage Easement Agreements

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the revised “Delegated Authority for Heritage Alteration Permits By-law,” appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to amend By-law C.P.-1502-129 as amended, being “A by-law to delegate certain authority of Municipal Council to consent to or grant permits for alterations to heritage designated properties”, to include written approvals for properties subject to Heritage Easement Agreements;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

2.4   Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street Update

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-FINAL 39 Carfrae Street - Update Heritage Easement Agreement (MG)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated May 22, 2024 entitled “Update on Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Changes to the Conservation Act

2024-05-22 - Submisson - PEC- UTRCA Responsibilities - Changes to the Conservation Act

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the presentation from Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) with respect to legislative changes to the Conservation Act and it’s impacts on the UTRCA BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That T. Annett, General Manager and J. Allain, Manager, Environmental Planning and Regulations and Representatives, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), BE GRANTED delegation status at the May 22, 2024 Planning and Environment Committee meeting to provide an update on recent legislative changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and its impacts on the UTRCA’s planning and regulatory responsibilities.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   50 North Centre Road (Z-9721)

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-FINAL Z-9721 50 North Centre Road (BH)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Rock Developments (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 50 North Centre Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 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 (ASA8) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA8(_)) Zone;

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 amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building with an additional use that is appropriate for the context of the site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

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   743 Wellington Road (Z-9720)

2024-05-22 - PEC-Petition Signature - 743 Wellington Road Z-9720

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-9720 743 Wellington Road PEC Report (JH) - REDACTED

Moved by S. Hillier

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 Zelinka Priamo on behalf of Olde School Professional Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 743 Wellington Road:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 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 Restricted Office (RO1) Zone TO a Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1()) Zone with the exception of “Emergency Care Establishments” being removed as an additional permitted use under the Special Provisions of the Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1()) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice be given with respect to the proposed by-law as the amendment to the Zone is to remove a use;

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

  •    a communication dated May 8, 2024 from B. A. Roach, Adams Law; and,

  •    petitions signed by approximately 734 people and 647 people;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    N. Pasic;

  •    K. Simard;

  •    R. Rains;

  •    T. Gilders;

  •    T. Shimbine;

  •    I. Skinner;

  •    F. Durand;

  •    W. Campbell;

  •    J. Goodwin;

  •    C. Williams;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    J. Durand;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    D. Stacey; and,

  •    N. Wyatt;

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

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

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)

Motion to remove “emergency care establishments” as an additional permitted use under the Special Provisions of the Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1(_)) Zone from the staff recommendation;

If the emergency care removal passes,

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

3.4   530 Oxford Street West (OZ-9712)

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-FINAL OZ-9712 - 530 Oxford Street West (IdC)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Captain Generation Mall Limited (c/o MHBC), relating to the property located at 530 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 4, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area/Temporary (CSA4/T-66) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7()D150H115/CSA4()) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone;

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

i)    implement all Tree Assessment Report recommendations into a future Site Plan Application;

ii)    update the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and implement TIA recommendations into a future Site Plan Application;

iii)    provide a minimum transparent glazing on the first two storeys facing the public streets of 50%;

iv)    utilize visual markers, etched or stained glass to provide bird-friendly glazing, adhering to the bird friendly CSA;

v)    investigate renewable energy sources for the buildings and non-fossil fuel based energy sources for heating and cooling; and,

vi)    provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect;

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

  •    a communication from A. Johnson;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    A. Johnson;

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 (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, promote transit-supportive development and support long-term economic prosperity. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill and redevelopment; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   Environmental Housekeeping Amendment to the London Plan (O-9693)

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - Environmental Housekeeping O-9693 (SB)

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 an Environmental Housekeeping Amendment to The London Plan:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by amending wording to clarify roles and responsibilities, correcting errors and omissions, updating references, and incorporating amendments to The London Plan Map 1 – Place Types, Map 5 – Natural Heritage, and Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources as a result past development applications and City projects;

b)    Policy 1335 in Appendix ‘A’ BE EXCLUDED from the proposed amendments as the amendments are housekeeping matters;

c)    Policy 1335 BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide clarifying language to reflect that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has jurisdiction over approving Ontario Wetland Evaluation System submissions; and,

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice be given with respect to the proposed by-law as the changes are minimal;

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

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    S. Pratt, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Environmental Policies; 

  •    the recommended amendments will correct inconsistencies and clarify roles and responsibilities; and,

  •    the recommended amendments will ensure Map 1 – Place Types, Map 5 – Natural Heritage, and Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources are up to date;

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-D09)

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)

3.6   193-199 College Avenue (OZ-8693)

2024-05-22 - Staff Report - PEC-193-199 College Avenue OZ-8693 (CM) - REDACTED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of College Avenue Lofts Inc. (c/o York Developments) relating to the property located at 193-199 College Avenue:

a)    the development, as proposed, BE ENDORSED:

it being noted that the following zone and special provisions would facilitate the proposed development:

R10-2(_)    193-199 College Ave

a)    Regulations

i)    Front Yard Depth (Minimum) – 5.0 metres

ii)    Rear Yard Depth (Minimum) – 4.0 metres 

iii)    East Interior Side Yard Depth (Minimum) – 2.5 metres 

iv)    Lot Coverage (Maximum) – 45%

v)    Building Height (Maximum) – 21.0 metres

vi)    Density (Maximum) – 196 units per hectare

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

  •    S. Tantum;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    J. Farquhar;

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

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations; and,

  •    the proposed development represents an appropriate intensification of the site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters list

2024-05-22 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the April 30, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:16 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 18 minutes)

What is it you’re looking for? Good afternoon, everybody. I’m going to call the eighth meeting with plenty and environment committee for order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapaywak, and Adawatran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the 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 hackpec@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Seeing none, I’ll move on to the consent items. I’ll ask if any member would like to any of these pulled. Okay, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion with these on the floor, Councillor Raman. Seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll open that to the floor for committee.

Very questions or comments. For visiting Councillors of which we have viewed. Okay, seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Moving on to scheduled items. Our first item 3.1 for a request for delegation status for Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. I’ll look for a motion from committee members to for that request.

Councillor Raman’s motion seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So the delegate from the Conservation Authority, there we are.

Okay, I was looking for you up on the. Please go ahead and you have five minutes. Yes, thank you, Chair Lehman. And also thank you to committee members and visiting Councillors.

I’m Tracy Anand, I’m the general manager of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. And with me today is Jenna Alain, who is our manager of environmental planning and regulations. We did circulate a slide deck. That slide deck is primarily the same information that we’re gonna be sharing with the customer service and process improvement group tomorrow.

And thank you for that recommendation that came out of PAC for having us join that group as well. So through the slides, the first slide in the deck, we’ll really just talk about the Upper Thames Watershed and recognizing we’re over 3,400 square kilometers and almost 600,000 residents within our watershed jurisdiction with that mix of rural and urban land uses. We have 17 member municipalities, 15 members that sit on our board, four of which are from the city of London and appointed from the city of London. We also have our board of directors.

Again, those overall group that set our board policies and direction, they’re really responsive to our local issues and concerns. Each conservation authority, there’s 36 across the province. They all have very different issues. I guess, fortunately, we don’t have shorelines to deal with where many of our counterparts do.

The next slide just gives a little bit background about the Conservation Authorities Act. We’re governed under that act by an administered under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and it was originally established in 1946. At that time, significant flood events and erosion issues were what led to the formation of Conservation Authorities. We’ve had a number of changes since that time, and that’s what we’re talking about today, mostly related since 2021 and those changes that are made under the act and then resulting changes to regulation.

We have mandatory programs and services now that are categorized by category one. Again, those are anything related to natural hazards, do you drinking water source protection, provincial water quality monitoring, as well as our land management activities for passive uses. We have category two programs and services that are requirements of municipalities, but they may ask us to undertake. We do risk management for drinking water source protection, and also an ESA contract for the city of London is a great example.

Category three programs and services go well beyond what’s mandatory, but again, look at that broader watershed approach, broader, more intensive water quality analysis, looking at communications and outreach, and other land management activities. With the next slide, we touch a little bit on those mandatory programs, but highlighting those that are related to risk of natural hazards. When looking at mandatory programs and services, this has long been the goals of Conservation Authorities. It’s been a part of our programs and services in court, what we do for many, many years, and that’s also not only in regulation under the Planning Act, under the Conservation Authorities Act, requirements for those commenting under the Planning Act, but then also our regulation and our regulatory authorities.

As well, we have an MOU with the province to provide that natural hazard commenting, provincial interests under the Planning Act as well. So with that, what we’re dealing with, the administration of our regulation, those hazard areas are flooding concerns, are erosion concerns, wetlands. They act as sponges on the landscape to hold back floodwaters, the entire river and stream valley systems, and then also those that are adjacent to those inland lakes and water courses. And there could be other areas deemed by regulation, those areas adjacent to wetlands, for example.

Pass it over to Jenna to talk a little bit about the changes since this year. Okay, so changes were proposed as part of the province’s Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, back in the fall of 2022 that recently took effect. So as of April 1st, the entirety of section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act was repealed and replaced with the new section 28. Additionally, each Conservation Authority in Ontario had their own section 28 regulation, which guided that regulatory role and responsibility for natural hazards.

All 36 of those regulations were repealed and replaced by one single regulation that guides all Conservation Authorities in Ontario. There was a significant amount of administrative changes as a result of that new section 28 and new regulation, but I just wanted to highlight a few of those key changes, one being the definition of a water course. So Conservation Authorities previously regulated water courses that met the definition of an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs. Water courses are now, have to be a defined channel, having a bed and banks.

So that’s one key change. The other was the area that Conservation Authorities regulate around wetlands. So previously, we regulated 120 meters around all provincially significant wetlands as well as wetlands greater than two hectares and 30 meters around all other wetlands. We now just regulate 30 meters around all wetlands, regardless of their significance or size.

So while we recognize that there’s always more work to do and we continue to strive for continued improvements to our customer service delivery, we have been undertaking process improvement changes to reflect the changes in legislation, as well as to try and meet the growth and demand in the development industry. So I just wanted to highlight a couple of the things we’ve been working on, like many agencies in the development industry. We have been challenged with finding and retaining experience from qualified staff. So we’ve made some structural changes to allow for some more junior positions to meet kind of the applicants we’ve been receiving for vacant positions, as well as increasing our capacity and allowing for some growth within our structure and our planning and regulatory department.

We’ve updated our digital filing system to create a more streamlined and organized approach to data management. And we’ve made improvements to our documentation, including internal and external guidance and training materials. We also wanted to highlight the fact that over the last few years, we’ve seen steady improvements to our timelines for the review and issuance of our Section 28 permits. So in 2021, we met the provincial timelines, which is 30 days for minor permits and 90 days for major permits, 91% of the time.

And our service delivery targets, which are shorter timelines, 76% of the time. In 2022, we increased that to 92% of the provincial timelines and 86% of our service delivery targets. And as of last year, we achieved the provincial timelines 98% of the time and our service delivery targets 94% of the time. So seeing improvements year over year, and that’s been with increases we’ve seen to the number of actual permits we’re issuing.

So increases in the amount of workload we’re seeing as well as increasing our timelines for delivery. Next, we just wanted to point out a bit of a good news story that’s involved the city of London, which was the approval of a two zone concept for the mud creeks of watershed. So floodplains typically considered as one regulated zone, but provincial direction allows for two zones in urban growth areas where specific criteria can be met. And two zones consist of a floodway and flood fringe areas on either side of that floodway.

And it allows for some development to happen within those flood fringe areas. So the city has been undertaking a lot of work in the mud creeks of watershed to improve channel conveyance, which has alleviated the existing and future flooding concerns in that area. So our board of directors recently approved that floodplain two zone concept approach on April 16th of this year. We did want to point out a few opportunities for further collaboration and engagement coming up as a result of our regulatory changes and legislative changes.

We will be updating and releasing a new policy document that guides our regulatory authorities. So we’re planning to release those drafts in June and July and engaging the public, our municipalities and working groups over the summer and early fall. We’re also planning to take out the first phase of our hazard mapping for consultation beginning in October. Finally, we just wanted to finish with reference to the new proposed provincial planning statement.

In section 5.2, the natural hazard section, it states that planning authorities shall, in collaboration with conservation authorities, identify hazardous lands and hazardous sites and manage development in these areas in accordance with provincial guidance. So we just wanted to close with saying that we look forward to our continued partnership with the city and continued collaboration to meet those provincial objectives. Thank you very much for that presentation. Any questions now from committee members or visiting counselors?

Seeing none, I’ll just say from the chair. Thank you for coming today. I know the challenges presented by changes in the legislation, obviously are affected or in fact, our work here at City Hall. We know that adds to the complexity as you shift to adjust to the new legislation.

I just want to talk about collaboration. I feel that’s very important. I met with the chair of the conservation authority. We talked about that.

I think the city has made great strides in their collaborative efforts with the development industry. And I look forward to seeing that same happen with the conservation authority. So I’m glad that you raised that. A question for me is, have you reached out to those that develop?

Like, for example, LTI or London Home Builders Association to sit down with them and kind of explain how the new legislation affects you and therefore affects the relationship that you have with those that rely on your expertise to build communities safely. Yes, to you, Chair, I’m happy to report that I gave a presentation to LDI just last week. I spent quite a bit of time there on Tuesday morning, I believe. And we had some good kind of open discussion around that table.

They have lots of questions for me. And I think we agreed to kind of continue sort of regularly meeting with that group. And they’re very interested in our consultation opportunities coming up through the summer and fall. Okay, I’m glad to hear that, that’s terrific.

As we try to build more homes faster, this collaboration is essential to get to our target 40,000 units by 2031. So thank you, thank you for your time today and thank you for the good work that you do. Thank you. Moving on to item 3.2 regarding 50 North Center Road.

I look for our motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Robbins seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff, committee members at this time.

Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Laura Jamison, I am a planner with Selenka Priammo here on behalf of the applicant rock developments. First and foremost, we’d like to thank staff for their work here on this project. They were able to answer a lot of questions behind the scenes that we had regarding the application and we’re pleased with the positive recommendation that that’s in front of you here today. Ultimately, we are hoping to add an additional commercial recreation use to an existing site.

No physical development is proposed. Exterior to the building, all the changes will be happening interior just so that we can further intensify this commercial plaza. As mentioned, we’re pleased with the staff recommendation for approval and I’m here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the committee? I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online.

I don’t see anyone in the gallery wishing to comment. Then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put that on the floor, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’ll move the staff recommendation.

You got seconder, Councillor ramen. Motion moved and seconded. Any comments or questions? Councillor Preble.

Fair brief. As a board council, I very much support as if I was supportive in this application and rezoning. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. So moving on to 3.3.

This is regarding 743 Wellington Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen. I’ll vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Questions of the technical nature for staff. Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant.

I’d like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

My name is Harry Frucio. Someone’s the link of preammo limited. I’m here this afternoon with my colleague, Alia Richards. And Mr.

Ross reigns from the focal point group who’s the applicant. Good afternoon to everyone. And also to the neighbors that are here this afternoon to provide comments on this application. I wanted to thank staff for their efforts in providing a positive staff report and for processing this application in a very timely fashion.

It’s a very critical application to get someone into this building as soon as possible. And the main purpose of this application, Mr. Chair, members of the committee has to add certain uses to the existing restricted office zone that will enable our client to occupy the existing building which has sat vacant for the past four years. On the surface, this is a very straightforward application because all we’re doing is expanding the range of permitted uses to make it more viable under existing market conditions.

Our client focal point group is a local business that provides office space for several different types of uses including nonprofit organizations. And you will hear from Mr. Rains as part of the public input process. However, in this situation, it was our client’s original intent to offer this site as a potential hub location to assist in addressing the needs of the homeless.

We acknowledge this application before you this afternoon is not for a hub. There’s a separate process for that that could be done at a separate time and that is applicable to any area within the city. However, our client chose to be fully transparent in this situation with their intentions for the property from the onset which is why the application is being linked to a potential hub location. We’ve had two separate meetings with the neighbors and to receive their comments on this application, we thank them.

We thank them for attending these meetings and providing their feedback. It’s clear that there’s significant concerns with the placement of an opposition with the placement of a hub at this location and the concerns of the neighborhood are well documented towards the end of the staff report. We wish to advise committee that we are no longer for smart client, there’s no longer pursuing the hub at this location. As the process and timing to secure the necessary approvals just don’t align with our client’s needs to have this building occupied in a timely fashion.

However, we do want to proceed with consideration of the additional permitted uses as proposed in our amended application and as recommended for approval by staff. I will note that the proposed uses that are for consideration are those which are already considered appropriate under the restricted office zoning category and are consistent with the intent of the London plan for this site. I will also note that we’re not seeking to add uses that are the, I guess I would say the primary uses that are considered appropriate under the rapid transit corridor which would be a mixed use high rise building. We’re not asking for that.

Simply because our client is interested right now in occupying the existing building as soon as possible and having a wider range of uses allowable for that purpose. So therefore we do concur with the planning analysis that was provided by planning staff and the recommendation to prove the application. And we respectfully request that planning committee endorse this application and send it to council for approval or for consideration for approval. On that note, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, I’m available for any questions that you may have either now or even after other comments have been made. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to the public.

Please go to the mic, what’s your name? And do you have five minutes please go ahead? Yeah, my name is Nicola Pasek. Live on Eden, okay, so here’s my statement.

I am not going to rob you today. Somebody came to your door and said that to you. What would you think? The emphasis is on today.

You probably add security to your house to do all kinds of things. The city’s response, even though they have pulled their request for a hub, the city’s response is, there are no plans to put a hub at that location. At present time, emphasis on present time. So that makes us all worried as a neighborhood.

So the key, I’m not, the only thing I’m petitioned against the zoning is the emergency care establishment because that is the gateway to a hub for my understanding. All the other zoning requests are fine. Mr. Rains needs to make money that all these other things that he’s proposing would add to the neighborhood.

As you know, we’ve had a lot of bad experiences. The city put in a homeless shelter in a motel and it could create all kinds of havoc, damage, property loss, et cetera, or property damage costs. So now, you guys only arrived through your policies as well. Provincial policy statement, 2020, page six.

Long-term prosperity, human and environmental health and social well-being should take precedence over short-term considerations. A hub is a short-term consideration. It’s not a solution. Next thing, $2.7 million per hub times 15 hubs.

That’s $40 million a year for 2,000 people. 10 years, that’s $400 million. And there’s healthcare people. She works on a psychiatric hospital.

I talk to a child psychologist. That money is better spent on individuals with expertise in dealing with some of these people. The next question, who are the homeless? CTV did a report, 20 to 30% of asylum seekers.

I saw the city plan. You don’t even meet with the federal immigration. You meet with provincial immigration, but not federal. Where are the MPs?

20 to 30% aren’t even Londoners. They’re coming from outside the country. So that’s my last. So do we live in a democracy or what do we live in?

I see the cities lined up with this global sort of city planning. Do you represent them or do you represent your taxpayers in the city of London? That’s all I want to say. Thank you.

I’m doing just say this to those in attendance. We’re here for open discussion. Some of you might agree with. Some of you might disagree with.

So I ask that booze or applause not happen. It’s just not what I deem as proper for professional discourse here. So thank you. Thank you very much.

So I’ll look for the next speaker that wishes to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, my name’s Karen Samard. I just want to know why is City Hall putting their focus on Londoners?

Why isn’t City Hall putting their focus on Londoners while being in safety? How does a person put in an application for an empty building to be used for pretty much anything and the city is okay with this? Where’s the common sense in this planning application? Why have emergency care establishments and clinics taken off?

Or why not? So is the reasoning because it’s on a major road that will have rapid transit in a few years is not well thought out. We don’t know the owners of true intentions, especially with all the new zoning changes. He bought this property just a few months ago to make money and doesn’t care about the people and businesses in the neighborhood.

Ross Rain said to us, we should voice our concerns to the city about the homeless. I want to know why are we being punished for being good citizens? Why is London rewarding bad behavior? I spoke to many neighbors and they feel homeless people have more rights than taxpayers.

What about our safety and freedoms? Are you saying to everyone, if you become homeless, we will take care of you? All we ask is to get off the streets. Taxpayers are being forced to pay millions for so few people.

Meanwhile, everywhere you look, there are cutbacks. It doesn’t make sense. I honestly think London will lose good people with these terrible decisions. City Hall should think about this.

If this zoning change is approved, Londoners get better get ready because they can happen to any building in London. So I live right beside this property. And we have put a lot of money into our property. We’ve been good homeowners for 10 years.

And for this to happen because somebody comes in and wants to make a buck off of a building that’s been sitting there empty, to me is not right. You need to think about all the old people that are in our neighborhood, all the care, the community that’s around, like the dearness home, the welcome center. I just don’t think that this is being thought out and that he could potentially put anything he wants into that building if you guys give him that zoning, like the city’s already approved, basically in that letter. So I’m really upset about this.

I know my neighbors are really upset about this. It’s been stressful for us for the past two months. Right before we got this zoning application, my husband had a heart attack. And it’s been nothing but terrible news around my house and in my community.

And I really am gonna appreciate if you guys can help us and not put this zoning through. Thank you. Thank you. Look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Ross Raines. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the consideration of the rezoning application to include the additional uses for our property at 743 Wellington. As a provider of rental office spaces for businesses, professionals and non-profits, we took possession of this property and it occurred to us that it closely met the profile of a hub according to the hub plan, which we read for the first time last year, which called for an all community response to the homeless situation in our city. We were moved by the data point that 200 homeless have died since 2020 on our streets. 600 living rough, 129 encampments.

We have two small hubs right now on hospital lands that are meeting the need of about 5% of the total need. It was in that context that we originally wished to offer but not push this site to help address that area’s homeless needs or whatever sector it might best serve. We care about the highest and best use of spaces and this facility had sat vacant for four years. We understand and had attracted much unwelcome activity in the neighborhood.

We’re familiar with neighborhoods. Over 15 years ago, we moved into the Soho area and during that time have brought some 50 businesses into that area. We believe that there is a place for small business to be community builders, but we’re only a small part of a big picture. I specifically would like to speak to the one use that’s been identified called emergency care establishment.

In January, we offered our property in good faith as part of the hub’s solution needed in our city to help onboard the homeless toward housing first so that wraparound services could rebuild lives and steer them towards supportive and affordable housing as required. And we’ve heard from neighbors directly at these two public meetings that we hosted on April 9 and 30 and it was a privilege to meet them all and to listen and to learn. And we understand that most do not support the idea of hub use. We heard that for many, the streets scene since COVID has been threatening in terms of public safety, property damage and crime.

These are things that we’ve experienced in neighborhoods where we already operate. And so the notion to many of a hub simply amplifies that rather than helps address it. In addition, we’ve discovered that a process for onboarding new sites has not yet been defined by the city and wouldn’t be until fall 2024. Well past the six months that we could hold on for a decision to be made.

We have two hopes. First, that the needs of the homeless which are still in crisis will become a kitchen table conversation across London. And second, that private property owners and businesses will be given clear signals on how to participate in the hub plan. We need leadership to what seems to be a sputtering vision for the homeless.

Meanwhile, we ourselves have turned the page on hub use and are pursuing these other uses. We look forward to your consideration of the zoning application to allow a wider range of uses and the opportunity for the vacant building to be occupied in the very near future. Thank you for listening. Thank you, I look for the next speaker.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Tracy Gilders. I’ve lived in this neighborhood for 20 plus years and I have a husband and I have two children. I can see this property directly from my house.

So I’ve seen lots of things in the last 20 years that have progressed in that area. And Ross Range is correct. We have had a lot of increased theft crime due to the housing in Motel 7. So that is a concern of ours.

We do know that in fact there is a high percentage of increased theft crime property damage when you bring a homeless shelter into a neighborhood. So this is why we’re all here. I’ve been a canvasser for this petition and an email contact for the city. So I’m not gonna really go over the emails.

You know all of the concerns. You’ve read all the emails, there’s lots. My main concern is that I know that the council has the authority to remove the emergency care establishments and clinics from the rezoning submission. And you can approve the rest.

So that’s really what my request is and all of ours. The owner has made it very clear that if the city was on board with using this dwelling to support homeless, that this was his sole intention. So that is the concern of the whole neighborhood. Our community as stated does not agree with this part of the rezoning.

You’ll see that in the letters and the emails. I do understand that mental health, addiction and homelessness is a very big issue in this city. But our community is here today to protect our neighbors and our future homeowners in this area. So we feel quite strongly that having a hub here, I know it’s not a discussion for a hub, but the rezoning.

Definitely, if you rezone this as an emergency care and clinics, you can put this in at any time. So that is why we’re here. It would further compromise our neighborhood as always. And we should be allowed to dispute this right now, even though a hub is not on the table like the owner says.

At the second meeting with the neighborhood, the owner made it clear to the council that to us in that meeting that the council has a power to strike the rezoning request as he was not able to. So the rezoning of the emergency care and clinics. So you have the power to take that off the table to give our neighborhood security. You know, there’s a lot of young, old, disabled, there’s disabled that live in this neighborhood that walk the streets, picking things up off the ground.

An adult, disabled person. We have participation houses. You know, you’ve read the emails. So, you know, we just want to have our faith restored in the city and just remove that.

And we would be glad to give, we would be happy to have Mr. Raines put anything else in there. And, you know, we need to have a better talk. And I see that the city is doing talks with the city of London regarding the homeless.

So we need to come together about a plan for that. So, thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

My name is Tom Shimbain. I live in the area. And my concern is with the process that you have followed. When you read your conditions of a hub, the one word that bugged me the most was the word near.

What does it mean to be near a park? What does it need to be near a nursing home? You haven’t clearly articulated that. And I think that’s critical.

Is near 10 meters? Is near 50 meters, you haven’t said that. And that’s a concern because there is a windless park, which is, in my view, near the location. There is a nursing home called Dear Nissa.

I consider that to be near. There is a park that’s well used, Westminster Pond. I consider that near. But the policy that you’ve laid out has not clarified that.

So I think to be in the benefit of an applicant and the benefit of residents, you’d need to be a little more clear on that point. And as the location and the problem I have is it’s right across from one of the main fire halls. The trucks come zipping out of there. And it’s not a great place to put a hub with the emergency vehicles flying all over the place.

So thank you for your time. But please clarify what it means to be near. Thank you. And I’ll go to the gentleman over there.

Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Ian Skinner. So thank you for your time. There are a lot of concerns that are brought up about the location and how this is going to attract homeless people to things like the ponds, as one gentleman said, running in front of the fire station.

But the reality is that we already have homeless people here. If you’ve ever done the cleanups along the Westminster ponds with Antler River Rally, you would see all back in there, there are dozens of tents where people have been living on the rough in what’s essentially a bog, a wetland. These are people, regardless of their situation, we need to do something. If it’s only emergency care, that is something.

That is an improvement. We can’t just complain about things getting worse and worse and how we’re going to bring all these homeless people and then ignore the ones that are currently here. They have no supports, where are they supposed to go? What are they supposed to do?

And there are concerns with increase in crime and theft, property damages. If we don’t put in supports, these things aren’t going to get better. Like, yes, maybe we will attract a few more homeless people, but we’re going to make a positive impact in the long run with some sort of support to slowly get these people back into supportive housing. Help them get back into normal life.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Go ahead, ma’am. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you so much. My name is Frances Durand. I don’t live in the area. I have grandchildren that live in the area.

I’m also, I love Westminster Pawns. We have a welcome center there where we welcome people from outside of the city to come. And I dearly love that we’re anxious to help the homeless. And I agree with that 100%.

However, is this really the right place to even consider an emergency? The number of lanes that to get from that build, from the building on Wellington, to get across the street to the open area where a lot of the homeless like to be anyway, I could just see an accident. It’s an accident waiting to happen. Also, is this how when people come to our city and they go to the welcome center, do they want to look across the street at a bunch of parts and people standing outside?

I mean, look at what happened at Adelaide and Queen, for example, the homeless need to be helped. Absolutely, I just can’t see how this would be a proper location for a place where they would feel comfortable. They want their little space. They don’t want a big fancy building.

How much money are you going to spend to make that place a proper emergency shelter for the homeless? Could that money not be spent in a better way to actually help them with mental facilities, with smaller places where they can lock up their belongings? I just don’t see that, forgive me. I didn’t prepare anything.

I’m just speaking off the graph. And I just, I believe that if you remove the emergency shelter and the gentleman can make money other ways. Thank you. And don’t worry about, this is very intimidating to speak to a large number of people and to us.

So thank you for your comments and don’t apologize. I’ll look for the next speaker. Yep, move it to thank you, Beth. Please give us your name and whoops.

Go to the teller. Great. I may, if by the time I’m finished, no. Please go ahead.

My name is Wendy Campbell. My name is Wendy Campbell. And I’m a resident, a long time resident of Edenev. I thought this meeting was regarding an application, not about a hub.

Now, am I, sorry, Mr. Chair, we just can’t hear the speaker’s comments. Okay, sorry, I can’t get me. I keep getting chosen.

How’s that? That’s good. Thank you, sir. Can you see?

Just for my dinner. Okay. Anyways, I thought that this was about an application. We’ve heard lots about hubs and I think we need to discuss an awful lot about our homeless people.

So this is what I prepared. Since I lived within the boundaries for the notification of this particular rezoning application, I received, I read and I reread the original and revised applications. I found the first amendment request of March 26th, rather strange. But the second one of April 18th, with the added amendments for proposed or possible uses, this verges on ridiculousness.

This building is situated on one of the busiest roads in London, a major artery leading into and out of the city. The volume of traffic is extremely high and attempting to cross Wellington for a northbound bus is virtually impossible. Walking or cycling on the sidewalk in front of 743 Wellington is also risky ‘cause there is no curbing. Your right level with the road.

And the existing parking lot for this location to travel north is caused for another potential accident. Now to all this, add your BRT. In my opinion, the zoning should remain as an RO1. This would be the safest for future businesses, any existing businesses and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Now I’ve got one last comment to make and I know a lot of people are gonna agree with me. This site is north of Southdale Road. It is not white oaks. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name in your five minutes. Okay, my name is Jeff Goodwin. I’d actually lived just outside the exclusion zone, technically under the next door to Wendy Campbell. The short story here.

Last September, I had major heart surgery. So I’m now in the program of St. Joe’s, which requires me to exercise. Well, I walk by that said building on Wellington Road and more than once I’ve almost been accosted.

And according to my cardiology, if I was accosted, is a good chance that somebody would be paying for my funeral and my casket. I’m not against anybody helping the homeless if they can find a suitable location, the suitable funds and where are the funds coming from? I don’t see any of the city coffin up to $40 million ‘cause there’s a lot of places that could be bought, adapted and secondly, where are all the people going to be that’s gonna staff this thing? Like as I said, I’m in this program at St.

Joe’s which includes mental assistance because of what I hadn’t done to be the inside of me. And I got a nice scar if somebody wants to look from my throat down to my waist where I was punched open and caught up and fixed. So I’m trying to get somebody to look after me just for my simple, you might say, condition where we’re talking to somebody that’s got a long-term mental issue because of their being homeless. Maybe it’s not their own fault and we need to kind of separate the homeless from the mental, the drug addicts and the people just down in their luck.

Where are, let’s ask the city, where are the jobs for people with minimal education that can’t be done to make a suitable living? I’m a foreigner when I came to Canada. I had no education. I’ve done menial jobs and no Canadian would even do or even think of.

So why, it’s almost like putting the cart before the horse if there’s no places for people to live, no employment. You can say, well, we’re putting this and we’re gonna do that at St. Thomas and this and that. But the people that you’re hiring are not people like me that has that kind of education or the ability to even do, maybe even do those kind of jobs anymore.

So, but anyway, that’s all I got to say. So thank you. Thank you. We’ll look for the next speaker.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name’s Cindy Williams. I’ve lived on Creston Ave, which is a block and a half from the site. 46 years I’ve lived there and I’ve never seen our neighborhood so upset.

There would be a whole lot more people here today if they thought this wasn’t a done deal with the hub. You guys did a great job on your advertising, getting ahold of the paper, the news. Everybody thinks it’s a done deal that there will never be a hub there. I don’t believe that’s…

Moss Raines has made it very clear that that was not off the table in the future. He said, we asked him if he would put it in writing, saying that he would never put in a homeless hub there and he said he would not do that. So how are we to believe him? Since you put in the homeless hubs across the street, we’ve had more and more homeless people in our neighborhood and the Super Seven Hotel.

You say that you’re gonna help the homeless. I would say a lot of people that are homeless have trauma issues and we need to help them. What do we do? We shut down the hospitals.

Within a, it was about a year before COVID had, they had an excellent program for trauma at Victoria Hospital there, at Commissioners and Wellington. They shut it down because somebody deemed it not important that we did not need to deal with trauma people. The other issue that I’m concerned about is these homeless, I think it was 2015, London became a sanctuary, thank you, sanctuary city. So what happens?

They come by the busload from different cities. And if you say that that’s not happening, that is absolutely 100% not true. They are coming in by the busloads. My neighbor across the road used to work out in Vancouver.

She asked where all these people were going. There was two busloads from Vancouver. They were laughing at us. They said, “Oh, we’re sending him to London.” It was a joke to Vancouver.

Toronto’s doing the same thing. They were sending them to Hamilton. I don’t know if they were sending them here, but this is an issue. This is a ball that has been rolling and we’re on that treadmill and I don’t know where it’s gonna stop.

My husband works downstairs. He has downstairs downtown. His business, the homeless are everywhere around his place. He’s constantly picking up clothes, garbage.

He cannot put his garbage out the day before. He has to go before seven o’clock to work to put his garbage out because they go through the garbage. Now he has set it up so that if there’s any scrap metal or boxes that they could use, big boxes, he puts those out the night before. So they could take it away.

But if he puts his garbage out, they root through the garbage. Every homeless, the two homeless hubs that you put in is riddled with garbage. I have another friend that lives downtown in one of the condos. They have a common area for that building so that they could enjoy their expensive condos.

They can’t use it. They had to board it up because the homeless were taking it over and just trashing it. I don’t know how we solved this problem where we have to be responsible for taking care of our property. We can be fined if we don’t take care of our property.

If we’ve got garbage. 30 seconds. They don’t get fined. There’s no consequences for any of their actions and there’s no big support.

Where’s the big hospitals to help? Those that really need the help. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Anne Marie of Elastro. I wasn’t going to speak to this issue today, but I just wanted to let everyone here know that our neighborhood too, which is near the Thames River, has encampments and tents on both sides of the shoreline, up and down the shoreline.

We have the same issues. I’ve woken up in the morning and had people sitting in my backyard. We don’t tie up our garbage anymore because they get ripped open so we just leave them open for people to easily rummage through them. So it’s not a unique problem to your neighborhood.

It’s really a city-wide problem, but in my neighborhood, we have not-for-profit housing. We have London Housing Corporation. We have brain injury, supportive housing. And I would be very welcoming to have a new housing project in my neighborhood that would be very supportive of people if we could get them off the shoreline of the Thames River and into an area where they get supportive housing.

So I think that’s the difference between what you’re describing in the hotels. So this proposal, if it goes forward or if it’s allowed, I think it’ll make it better for your neighborhood. I know that in my neighborhood, when we’ve had supportive housing for people with no housing, it’s better. Right now, people that go through the garbage, they’re hungry.

They’re looking for something like towels. They’re looking for something to make their own place better. Like I’ve walked everything down. I don’t even leave a chair out anymore ‘cause I’m worried my chair is gonna be taken.

So I would like those sort of needs to be addressed. And I think that our neighborhood would welcome a supportive housing. We already have lots of supportive housing in my neighborhood, it works well. So I don’t think there’s anything to be afraid of.

I think that this might just make your neighborhood better. And it’s not like what’s at the motels. And if the motels aren’t kept up, you can follow a property complaint. And the city will go down there and ask them to clean it up.

They need a complaint first to get that process going. So that’s all I… My comments are really addressed to my fellow Londoners here today. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi there, my name is Jacqueline Durand and I live on Creston Avenue.

I think the proposal for a homeless hub at the location on Wellington Road, the issue is the building is tiny. It’s a temporary solution. It’s a band-aid solution to the homeless issue in London. And the city needs to do something bigger and better to help the homeless people instead of giving them a temporary place to stay.

I’m a personal support worker and I work out in the community and I see all sorts of different situations. I look after somebody who is a drug user and they get free drugs to try and help them stop doing fentanyl but they take the free drugs, they resell them on the street and they’re still doing fentanyl. So the city is trying to help somebody but they’re actually not really helping. It’s just a band-aid solution.

So I think putting a temporary housing hub on a busy city street is not going to be helping the homeless. It is just a temporary band-aid solution to a much bigger problem. And there are other issues in the city that we could be funding and addressing as well such as people needing palliative care, people needing home care, people on wait lists for 10 years to get into long-term care that have nowhere to go because there are no beds, people getting kicked out of Parkwood Hospital who are not rehabilitated to be in their own home yet but have no choice because there’s no space left for them. There are just so many issues in the city that I think need to be addressed in a bigger picture as opposed to doing a band-aid solution for something that isn’t really going to help anybody in the long-term.

Thank you, look for that speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and it’s Mike Wallace and I’m gonna be here on behalf of the LDI on this particular, I wasn’t planning on speaking to this but I wanna make sure that Council understands what the reality of the situation is.

So LDI, part of our service as a development community, we have offered to those who are interested in sites, whether they’re service providers, those who actually help the homeless or those who have a site that they’re interested. We’ve at our own cost have gone by and done a review with our real estate people to see if that meets the zoning criteria, number of issues, the applicability of a building whether it’s easily converted to either hub or a deeply assisted housing. And as you know, one group of ours have bought and I closed nursing home and turning it into a deeply assisted housing project, which is moving forward nicely. I just wanna give you a bit of reality.

Look, as part of the vision was up to 15 hubs, that’s not gonna ever gonna happen. I think we’re in realistic terms, we’re hoping that the city can get to five. We have two that are open currently. Two so far after a year and a half.

And so our reality is that when we talk to landowners, owners of actual properties, it’s been very difficult to find those who are interested in, oh, this song’s not me, providing their site for the ability to either host a hub or assisted housing. That’s my phone, I’m sorry, I didn’t know I had it over there. But anyways, so when you’re looking at the application today, I just wanna let you know, it’s rare for us to come across landowners that are interested in having the ability to have a hub on their site. And it’s a challenge.

And as part of the vision that the city has been supporting in the whole community response is that we’re looking at, we get people off the street into a hub, try to stabilize them so that they’re able to move to deeply assisted housing. And then from there to regular housing, it is a process. There’s no skipping the parts. You need this transitional ability.

So when you’re looking at applications coming forward that have that opportunity to provide that emergency care coverage, I would, speaking on half of the group, we would like to see that happen and that council support that. Whether that ever becomes a hub or not, but that zoning ability is a challenge if we don’t have it in a number of spots because those who have the ability to provide the space, they are not coming to the table as quickly as we thought that might happen. Thank you. Thank you, look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name, you know, five minutes. I’m Jara Stacy and I live on Eden Ave. I’ve been there probably 40 years now. I’ve seen a lot of transition over that period of time.

And Mr. Wallace is definitely right in terms of the fact that yes, we need assistance for our homeless folks. We need the support help. I think anyone is probably one of the best programs we’ve had in the city and for those people that are in those programs.

But they’re getting the support. When we get somebody who has addiction problems, has homeless problems, has mental health problems, the triple Miami, I understand that. It’s a very complex issue and I’m totally with the folks that are saying, yes, we have to do something about that. Now, Mr.

Raines being a businessman, bought that property in December for $2.4 million. He’s waited four months and he hasn’t been able to rent it. So I understand his frustration saying, geez, I’ve invested all this money. Maybe I could, oh, homelessness.

That’s a real poignant issue in this city. And if I can tie my horse to that cart, then perhaps— Just a second. Sir, we have a point of order. Thank you.

Chair, I think it would be helpful to remind those in the gallery that this is not a personal attack on an individual for whatever purpose they may have put forward the application. I think that it’s important that we be respectful of everybody that is speaking today. [INAUDIBLE] Thank you, Chair. My request is that we remind the gallery that this discussion is not personal.

It’s about an application. And it’s not about personal intentions, no profiteering. I think it’s important that we have that discussion at this point. I tend to agree with the Councilor to attribute motivation to someone taking whatever action is not to form for that, you can speak, sir.

You can speak to the issue at hand, which is a rezoning, and strictly leave it to that. So if you would please keep your comments to that. OK, so the resorting issue is that the initial— there was an add-on, and of course, there was a firm hired by the applicant in order to make this a process happen. And I totally get that, and I understand that the company— that’s their purpose.

They’re acting on behalf. And what Mr. Wallace was talking about is that he’s glad that Mr. Raines is available.

But I’m saying for that particular building, in that particular area, it’s just not suitable. The traffic issues, the safety issues, the crossing. If you’ve been anywhere like Dundas and Lyle, or down your Salvation Army place, you know that people will be out and about. It may not happen in January and February, but it’s definitely going to happen in the summertime.

And these folks, that’s just what they do. It’s not against anything that what’s happened. Now, the people that live closer to their site than I do have had more experiences. I mean, I see folks down the street, but nothing of what they have to deal with.

So yes, we have to do something about this issue. The city has to step up in other ways. And it’s not a good fit for the neighborhood. And it won’t be a good fit for those folks that if this happens.

So let’s just deal with the zoning. There’s all kinds of reasons that the existing owner can still rent his property using the existing zoning bylaws. Just remove the emergency clinic part of it. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, so my name is Nicole.

Why? And I live on Eden Nav as well. I didn’t plan on speaking today either. So we’ve lived on the street now for just 20 years.

So we’re one of the newer residents on the street. So our child has grown up on the street. Our child has gone to school on the street. New residents on the street in rental houses have been converted to rental units, which is perfectly fine.

We have more people coming in the neighborhood, more young children. Our street actually over the last five years has gotten a lot of young children on the street. They play together. They go from down the streets together.

My daughter— I don’t even like her walking down Wellington Road near our house and by BX93, I’ll call it that— Tim Hortons by yourself. There is a lot of people up and down that street. There’s a very range of population of people. It’s not necessarily safe.

When I think about helping out with homeless, I actually work at the Parkwood Mental Health Care Building and I work for psychiatry. I don’t work with patients myself, but I do see it firsthand. I actually have family, friends who have also dealt with homelessness, mental health, addiction. I’m fully aware of the issues that we’re having in the city.

And it is— it’s horrible. Anyone who comes to the city can see it. My concern with the building and the land you set— sorry, the application for what you want. I see Salvation Army down here on— what is it?

Wellington and Horton, thank you. So it’s supposed to be an area to help out the homeless and people in need, which I’m sure it does. It also has a ton of people who are camping outside. They’re going to different areas around the neighborhood.

They’re walking out in front of vehicles. They’re stopping people. They’re harassing people. I don’t want this for my child.

I don’t want it for the children around my neighborhood. I don’t want it for myself. My fear is that this establishment— yes, it might be originally caused— people want to do good, and I’m glad people do. This is a gateway on a major intersection of our city.

I’m afraid— and this is my fear— that this is going to turn into a drug hub. Drug deals are going to be able to be done at this location super easily. It’s going to be on the BRT. There is going to be drugs.

There’s already prostitution in the neighborhood. And it’s not a good fit for this neighborhood. I totally agree with that. Do I think we need to do something in the city for homelessness?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I see it all the time, like I said, we all have. But we also don’t want to feel like prisoners in our homes.

We don’t want to feel like we have to lock up our belongings. My husband, he goes for bike rides downtown. He sees people defecating at the front of people’s doorsteps. I don’t want that at my house.

I don’t want it in my neighborhood. I don’t want to have to worry about needles or human excrement in my neighborhood. I don’t want this. And this is my fear.

If this turns into this kind of establishment, it might have the intent to be good. But is it going to stay good? Is it going to cause more issues? Is it going to, after years of use, slowly get forgotten?

Is it going to go downhill? This is a real concern for our neighborhood. We see it. We can see the building from our homes.

We can see the people walking back and forth. And we can see what potentially could happen. And this is our fear as homeowners. We don’t live a million dollar homes.

We don’t want our property value to also go down. We don’t want to have to move. People have moved to this area on purpose because it is a nice quiet street. It’s close to the ponds.

It’s close to Wellington Road. It’s close to the mall. It’s a good location. What happens to us homeowners who have spent our hard-earned money on what we can afford and our property values now go down?

What are we going to have to do them when we say we have to move, sell our homes? Are we now having to lose equity in our home because of what’s happened in the neighborhood? And I don’t think that’s fair to people who enjoy their homes, enjoy their properties, take care of their property, have pride in it. You go down our street.

You go down all three streets around our neighborhood. People pride themselves on the property. It is a beautiful little place to live and we want to keep it that way. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay, I don’t see anyone rushing up to the mic in the gallery. So I’ll look for a motion to close public participation meeting.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Motion to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you.

I will put item 3.3 on the floor for committee. For motions or comments, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you, I have some questions, but not ready to put a motion forward. Is that okay?

Yeah, please go ahead. My question actually is for staff and it relates to the zoning by-law section two specific to the emergency care establishment designation. So one of the things I’m struggling with as we’re looking at our hubs implementation and have brought this up before, but also when it pertains to our zoning is the use of a term like emergency care establishment which can have dual uses and specifically around the language around generally less than six weeks for the majority of the residents. So I’m just wondering if with our rethink zoning process if there is a plan to reevaluate some of the terminology here associated with emergency care establishments and whether or not, and this is kind of specific, but whether or not we are specifically looking at some terminology that would be reflective of the type of establishment we’re looking to zone for for a hub in the future.

I’ll go staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question. It will be a consideration as part of the rethink zoning, but that’s a separate review process that we’d look at definitions in general, all the definitions of the current zoning bylaw including this one and making those refinements, taking feedback, but that’s a separate public process. Councilor.

Thank you and through you. So when we’re currently approving locations potentially, and again, I hear we’re looking at this in the fall of 2024 for potential hubs in the future with the emergency care establishment zone as part of that designation, would we ultimately be in contradiction of our own zoning because we are looking at establishments that have, or we’re actually aware that we’re going to be using the facility for more than six weeks. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, just so that I’m understanding the question clearly, the review would be also looking at locational criteria in terms of where the location of emergency care facilities establishments would be suitable.

Usually it’s on high order streets, access to transit and things like that, and relative to needs in terms of recreation perks, things like that as well. Councilor. Thank you, follow up. So my understanding is that within the hubs model, and I’ll reference the hub that we were looking at on at 705 Fanshawe Park Road.

Within that location, we were told that those residing there could be residing there for up to two years, but within the emergency care establishment zoning, it says that the zoning is for providing a means of immediate temporary accommodation and assistance for a short-term period lead generally less than six weeks for the majority of the residents. So what I’m asking is that do we need to provide direction for a specific zoning designation for a hub so that we’re not in contravention of our own zoning when it comes to emergency care establishment? My concern is that this actual designation is actually for providing emergency care services. And what we’re doing is by having these overlapping definitions, what we’re doing is we may actually be creating a challenge for ourselves in the future with getting establishments pre-zoned for this particular use because of this exact conversation, which means medical clinics, which means places that would have provided short-term care, may not want to apply for this designation or may see that there is challenges because the designation is now considered similar to that of a hub.

I just think that we can provide clarity for the community by having a separate zoning designation that is clear and transparent for people to understand. And if we’re going this direction, it makes sense to me that we have that as a separate designation and that we put that in the work plan for the fall of 2024 so that these residents don’t have to come back and be concerned that the zoning is the same as a hub because it wouldn’t be at that time because a new zoning terminology would be in place for our hub conversation for fall 2024. Go staff. Through the chair, we’re happy to take whatever direction that committee and council decides on this matter.

I will just point to that we have done an assessment and the hubs do meet this definition for this type. If you were to come up with a specific type, that then would limit any properties in the city that are currently have that zoning to be able to allow for a hub so that would very much limit the opportunities for hubs in the short term until there is a that rethink process is complete but that it would be up to having direction from committee and council to be able to look at having a specific definition or requesting us to prepare that for you. Councillor. Thank you.

I appreciate the feedback and that answer and we’ll look to seek further information on that direction but I’ll return now to the conversation at hand on this specific location and I’ll reserve any additional time till I hear from the word Councillor. Thank you. Okay, I’ll go to committee. Okay, Councillor earlier.

Thank you very much. A lot of conversation regarding this area and I’m very glad a lot of residents showed up. I have two of these across the road and as the residents knows density, that seems to be a bit, I feel our area has done its part. Now I would like to make a small amendment if this is the correct time to change the restricted office special provision zone to just eliminate emergency care establishments to alleviate the neighborhood’s concerns.

I don’t know if I have a seconder for that but I would like one. So Councillor Hillier, I believe you can make a motion to accept the staff recommendation but amending it by removing the emergency care establishments, yes. Correct, okay. So that’s the motion that is on the floor.

I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Councillor, Deputy Mayor Lewis has seconded that motion. So I have a motion moved and seconded and I’ll open the floor for a conversation. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair and through you. I’m willing to second this. I think it’s important we have this discussion because I actually share someone, Councillor Robbins concerns. I’m not actually convinced that our current zoning by-law with the six-week reference in there is actually met by the hubs.

And one of the reasons I am not confident that it is consistent with the hubs is that we still have a challenge in terms of flow through. Once somebody is stabilized in a hub, we still have a lack of housing inventory available for them to transition from the hub into housing. And so we can’t say that it’s going to be just six weeks. It might be 90 days, it might be 120 days, it might be 180 days.

At this time, we’re really, I think putting ourselves in some really gray areas in terms of saying the six-week covers it. So I think maybe perhaps we do need to revisit whether a particular definition is needed for a facility like that. I will say, because the amendment is only the emergency care facility, I’m more supportive of that. I heard some comments from the gallery about clinics.

I would not want to remove the opportunity for a medical walk-in clinic to open in this space. In fact, I know that there is a physician recruiter who has at least looked at the property. Whether it’s suitable or not for a medical clinic, I don’t know, but that’s up to them to decide, but I wouldn’t want to take that opportunity away. And I want to say, I want to take this opportunity to say, I understand the community’s concerns about the proximity and Councilor Hillier referenced it.

When we endorsed the whole of community response, part of the founding or underlying principle for me was that it was a whole of community and that services were going to be spread out and not concentrated in one particular neighborhood or another. This location is 600 meters away. Give or take a few meters. The aerial mapping on the website is always subject to a little bit of error, but approximately 600 meters away from a hub that is open and operating.

To me, that is in close proximity to an existing facility. That is not what I would consider a reasonable distance to spread them out from. I also hear what Mike Wallace from the LDI was commenting. It’s hard to find these locations.

It absolutely is. I would agree as well that 15, that number is never going to happen. If we reach five, I think we will have really stood up a system that can address some of the concerns. And we do need places that are temporary in nature for an individual.

And that comes back to my concern about the zoning. Is folks do need to be stabilized before they can succeed in housing. We can talk about long-term solutions being needed. And I really do want to take this opportunity to invite those who spoke today, those who’ve written in, because I do empathize with their concerns.

But I really want to invite you to also take the time to dive deeper into the whole community response and the hub’s plan and learn a little bit more. And even if that’s all you do, that’s great. If it inspires you to donate or volunteer or be more active in some way to help out, that’s great, too. But even if it’s just learning a little bit more about how critical it is when somebody has been living rough to get them stabilized first, because they don’t succeed in housing later, if we don’t support them, if we don’t put those transitional pieces in place, too.

So I know I’m running out of time. I will say, Mr. Chair, that the change in policy that we made with the tenant placement agreements with London Middlesex Community Housing, we’re still in the early days there, but that right there has shown why we need things like hubs first, because until people are stabilized, they don’t succeed in even the limited housing that is available. So we do need some more of them, but I’m not convinced that on Wellington Road, 600 meters away from another location is the best place for one.

I am open to being persuaded by my colleagues, but I am willing to support the amendment because I’m not sure that the zoning even actually covers the hubs, and I think we’ve actually put ourselves in a gray area with this six-week definition. Any other comments? Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me as a guest at your committee to speak to this application. As I am the word Councillor for this area, I wanna start off by thanking staff for the report and the information they provide for the community and their work with the applicant. Thank you to Ms. Hall.

I just wanna indicate residents. This is the individual who you’ve been writing who kept track of all your correspondence and provided information and made sure that you were in the package today as there was certainly lots that you can see in your package. And I wanna thank Mr. Raines.

I do believe he came forward in good faith, hearing a call to action and believing that he could be of service to the community and responding to Council’s plan when he purchased the property. So I wanna thank him for that as we also heard from Mr. Wallace that it is not many who are stepping forward. I think how we handle this process will set the stage of potential partners coming forward or not, realizing if we’re actually willing to put effort and actions towards.

I’ve also heard that Mr. Raines has been a good property owner so far. So thank you again for that from the community, making sure that lighting at this location is actually up, that the property is maintained as it was not prior. And they were having deaf and safety issues.

I will comment that as you’ve heard, there was a super seven motel in the area. That was part of our cold weather response. There was some community issues, I would say substantial community issues that I’ve learned of. So thank you to the community for making me aware of those issues and you know how to find me now if I can be of assistance.

And staff have confirmed that there was one family with children left in that motel who had since moved out in April. So anyone in the area now is not part of that hotel and lodging. As you’ve heard, there was some support for a hub. A lot of community concerns come from what it would look like.

Is there safety concerns? Who would actually be the residents here? And we don’t have those answers ‘cause as staff have confirmed there’s no funding in place, there’s no operator in place and there’s no hub plan at this location as that’s a separate process. Come the fall, whatever staff report may look like.

Also thanking residents for mobilizing and making each other aware of the application as the city follows their standard application process of only notifying residents within so many meters of the application site, which was followed. So word of mouth in the community meetings are for part of it and thank you to the applicant as well for hosting two community meetings before this meeting today, one of which I was at. Residents have actually also written recently in today’s report, Appendix A is the bylaw attached, the dates on its June 4th. Some were concerned that this is already a decision of committee, so just for the public, any draft bylaws attached with any planning application report.

So this is the conversation today and that will be amended as needed. It is not a done decision, just a draft bylaw comes with every decision. For those interested as Deputy Mayor Lewis had mentioned, the next whole assistant response to homelessness is actually gonna be a community meeting held on May 23rd at the East Lions Community Center. Please come out as you’ve heard, it does need to be a whole system community response.

I will note I’m also on the dearness home, long-term care board and on tourism London, both agencies are aware of this application as a vacant building and any neighborhood creates unwanted issues on its own. So we would love to see somebody in there. As you’ve heard, the pub application would be separate from this, just we’ve gotten to the issue that if the care establishment is in there at that point, it’s a council decision and common conversation. So that’s why residents are here today.

As for the application itself, I’m supportive of it. We’d love to see a tenant in there to help with any vagrancy issues in the property. Has more eyes on the street help with all issues. If there’s any direct questions, I’m sure our guests in the gallery would be happy to answer them.

I’m supportive of staff’s recommendation. I would flag my concern for the removal of the emergency care establishment. Mr. Raines, I know it’s a business and he can only hold a property for so long.

And our timelines that we run off of the city and us not having that package ready to go would mean he needs to find another suitable candidate as soon as possible to take over a tenancy. My concern is if we remove the emergency care establishment that as a council, we’d be sending a signal to the community at large, to business partners, to those serving on the whole system community response that we don’t believe in our own plan. And we’re undermining it at this point in this decision factor and potentially seeing other applications for the planning environment committee that come forward that people would want this provision are automatically not in there or as soon as they see it removed. I’m not sure if Mr.

Raines has a potential tenant that needs this zoning or there could be somebody out there who would, in which case he would have to come back again to get it. So those are my concerns. I don’t serve on the committee. I can’t vote on this, but it’s been a process as we go through this together as a community.

So thank you for everyone for coming and your correspondence. Always available to answer questions offline once we leave this room as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Other comments or questions? Many members are visiting Councillors. Councillor Pribble. I’ll give a little bit of my feedback.

Even though I’m not a member of this committee and I do see here the concern of the residents because it does say, you know, short term accommodation generally less than six weeks. So generally it opens up the window that it doesn’t, it’s not a must that it’s in a period of less than six weeks. Yes, what I heard, we all know, to find a location within our city for hubs and these facilities is gonna be very challenging because again, no one is gonna be jumping up and down. I would love this establishment to be outside my door.

Having said that, looking at from the perspective of the business, it is truly a gateway to our city. If you have any citywide convention, anything happening, big events downtown, but why is the gardens? We already have it on Wellington at Horton as one of the residents already mentioned. I certainly don’t feel that this would be in big picture for on the economic side for our city.

This would be a good location for us to have a hub. And I just want to give you my feedback in terms of this location. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Trassel. Isn’t one of the criteria, thank you for having me. I’m also a guest here, not a member of the committee. And I’d like to address this through the chair.

Isn’t one of the criteria for such hubs in the first place that it be a long and established transit route? I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you for the question through the chair to Councillor Trouble. One of the criteria of the hubs implementation plan is that it should be a long or near transit routes.

However, there will be a two-stage process for determining where the location of the hubs will be. So the first stage is identifying and short-listing potential lead agencies and properties that would fit what is proposed in the hub implementation plan. And then the second stage would be establishing the capital and operational costs. And both of those will go to council for endorsement.

Councillor. Thank you, that’s what I thought. Okay, thank you. Other comments or council, Frank?

Thank you, yes. Just listening to colleagues, listening to residents and trying to factor in all these thoughts as people are sharing information. In my perspective, it seems as if the applicant who I tremendously applaud your leadership in this area, again, we don’t have a lot of people stepping forward who are willing to invest money into creating shelters and creating hubs. So I really appreciate you showing leadership in this area.

And I’m sure it has been somewhat difficult, but again, appreciate it nonetheless. But what I have heard is that there’s no current intention for a hub location. If there were to be a hub location, there would be further dialogue discussion, making sure it checks all the boxes and it would come back to council for permission and for funding. So I really think at this point, we are talking about something that’s not even in front of us.

And I think that we should be focusing on the fact that there’s an applicant here who has spent $15,000 on an application and as well as money investing in consultants and studies and is interested in seeking alternative uses to make his investment more financially viable. I know everyone on this council is really concerned with making sure that businesses are able to move forward in whatever means they need to achieve their goals in this community. We are really concerned about economic value here. So one of the things that I think is, maybe I’m finding frustrating is yes, we talked about how we don’t want the hubs all congregated together.

These hubs are still significantly separated. There is a major arterial road that’s actually crossing all three, all three are in three separate areas with major arterial roads. I have received, and I’m not the word councilors for the area, but I have received no complaints about the unsightliness of the hubs that are currently existing. If anything, all I’ve heard is very, very appreciative commentary about those and to one of the residents of the gallery who mentioned the fact that there are people sleeping outside intense in Westminster ponds, the whole point of the hubs is to try and get people to not be sleeping outside intense.

And so the very thing we’re complaining about is the very thing this thing is supposed to solve if it was even to be a hub, which again, as we’ve heard, is not even the case here. So I’m not going to be supporting the amendment because we clearly have an application here where the applicant is looking for a variety of different uses on the site in order to make it a viable property. It is currently vacant, which is much worse for the neighborhood than actually having something operating out of the building. And I agree with Councillor Palose.

I do worry about the message, the sense, the broader community about our commitment to our plan. So I will be not supporting the amendment because it has removed the emergency care services and I understand that from residents that probably is very frustrating. And again, I listened to you and I appreciated the comments that you had. I have a different opinion and that sometimes happens at council, but I will not be supporting this amendment with the removal of emergency care services in the case that the applicant is able to find a suitable tenant that maybe needs that purpose.

Thank you. Thank you. Before we go any further, the clerk has advised me that there’s some housekeeping that needs to be done to the motion. And I’ll go to the mover and the seconder, I’m just gonna read out the suggested wording.

Section 34, bracket 17 of the Planning Act, no further notice be given just to make things proper. So I’ll look to the Councillor Hayley, are you okay with adding that wording? He’s okay and Deputy Mayor, you okay as a seconder? Okay.

So I just wanted to get that taken care of before I go on to further Councillors that wanna speak to this. Okay. Seeing none, I’d like the Deputy Mayor Vice Chair to take the chair for me so I can comment. Thank you.

I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Lehman. Thank you. You know, we’ve touched on a very complex question of the day and how do we deal as a city with what’s being experienced across Canada with homelessness driven by addiction and mental health? The hub system, well not perfect, was an attempt by the city to address this in a very unique way and I was supportive because it provided the medical supports that well not in a hospital or rehab center was that step up to above and beyond just a shelter.

And I think I heard some comments today that we’re just comparing a hub to a shelter and they’re very different. The hub system is a longer term stay with proper medical supports to transition folks into a more of a stable housing unit such as Inwell as the Deputy Mayor alluded to. That being said, part of the process I always felt that location was a key factor and each location presented to us would have to be looked at on the merits in my opinion of who was going to be operating, who was going to stay there and how was that operation going to look. I think a concern was raised today about the actual zoning which states that’s up to six weeks and anything longer than that really doesn’t apply and it’s a bit of a murky field and I do agree with the comments that were made by members of the committee that we need to, I’d like to see more specific zoning specifically for hubs and I think that requests for that zoning change if it needed should be part and parcel of a whole hub application that would come to whether it’s this committee or SPPC or council.

I don’t know because I need to see who the operators are. So in this particular case, while this is not a hub request, there is a backdoor that has been I think feared by members of the community and I can see some justification in that. So it has turned into essentially a hub application but it’s not being that we’re there anyway. I have trouble with it because I don’t know if it did turn into a hub but somewhere down the road.

I don’t know who the operators are and I understand that there would be further council involvement in that but I don’t want this to be used as a backdoor into that. I understand what Councillor Frank is saying either we’re on the board with the hub system or not and the idea is to spread help across the city and not in one location. I’m still on board with that but with that caveat that it has to be in the right location. Now that being said, Mr.

Wallace did raise some realistic attributes to this plan is that we’re finding it hard to find suitable locations. We can see that today and quite frankly, I think we’re finding it hard to find suitable operators or operators with the expertise that’s needed required by the hub plan stepping forward. So you have to find the right operator, the right location and then funding that was raised today. We have funding I think for a few more but we’re gonna need quite frankly a province to step in at some point if we’re gonna go the distance with the 13.

So for those reasons, I will support the amended motion and other further rezoning that comes here. I think we have to look very carefully at getting some clear wording in our zoning before those applications are brought to this committee. So thank you Vice Chair for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Councilor Layman.

I’m gonna return the chair to you. I’m gonna note that you’ve got Councilor Raman on the speakers list and then if you’ll return to me, I have one additional question for staff. Okay, I’ll go to Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you and thanks for those comments.

I just wanna return to our conversation around the emergency care zoning and I’m wondering if through the chair, the applicant might be able to comment on what other potential intended uses under the emergency care establishment zoning. He may be looking to promote or introduce within that space. If he has any— - If the applicant would care to respond to the Councilor’s inquiry. Thank Councilor Raman, through you Mr.

Chair. Right now as we noted, there is no active pursuit of anybody within that emergency care establishment definition. Mr. Rains is actively looking at other tenants that would fit the other uses that we’ve asked for.

So no, simply answer your question. No, there’s no one right now that’s been identified as a potential user. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you and through you Chair to staff, I’m wondering whether or not the staff can give any indication of different establishments that currently use that designation?

Go to Council, go to staff. Thank you through the Chair of the Councilor Raman. The emergency care establishments is a zone that is permitted in many zones, so business, district commercial, material, commercial facility and some residential. In terms of actual facilities, I don’t have a list of where they are, but I will say that across the street at the London Tourism Center, that is actually a permitted use at Tourism London, across the street.

Councillor. Thank you, sorry, I’ll be more clear. Could you give examples of where we may have used an emergency care establishment zoning for what the establishments are? ‘Cause my understanding, I’ll give you an example, is that if somebody was having a outpatient day surgery for eye care, that that could be fall within the emergency care establishment permitted use because they may have an overnight stay or temporary stay at an establishment where they’re getting some outpatient service.

Can you give me examples? I’ll go to staff, through the Chair, just to be fair to the staff that are here. The folks that are here aren’t the ones that interpret the bylaw and they would be the ones that would be probably the best to answer that. What we can do is prepare a list of some of those other businesses that have been used this use in the past and provide that to you before a council.

Councillor. Thank you, follow up. So thank you, I appreciate that in preparation for council, that would be helpful. I just wanna gather as well, if let’s say next week, the applicant finds himself approached by one of those potential examples for a potential application or use of that sword on that property.

What’s the process for the applicant to then come back to committee? I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, just to confirm your question was if they are not permitted, their emergency care establishment through this rezoning, what would be the process? And that would be that they would have to come in for a rezoning again to add the use.

I’m sorry. Okay, thank you. So this isn’t something likely to face an appeal or anything of that sort because it’s a simply that they could just come back in for a rezoning. Go to staff.

Through the Chair, this application, whatever direction committee and council go is subject to appeal. As with another application with the emergency care establishment adding that use is also subject to appeal. They’re both subject to a public process. Thank you, sorry, I should be more clear.

I was looking to find out if the appeal mechanism or the rezoning both are equally attributable to the application, that’s great to understand that. Yeah, ‘cause my concern is removing the emergency care establishment is a limitation to the owner in terms of the types of use that might be proposed at the location. However, I also wanna give the community some assurances around what direction this committee is taking at this time. So I’m struggling with that from that perspective.

So I’m trying to find the avenue that makes the most sense to allow the business owner to operate in that realm that to and attract the types of businesses that may be desirable in that space, but also to give the residents some more clarity and transparency around the next steps in the process. Before I go to Deputy Mayor, I just wanna further clarify a question. When we grand, when we rezoned something, it’s not based on the actual business that’s going in there. So for example, I could say I’m having emergency walk in clinic and we rezoned it and then they change their minds and that tenant doesn’t move in.

The zoning doesn’t go with that specific tenant, so to speak, it’s rezoning for whatever tenant, which choose to use it. Yes, that’s correct, Chair. Once the zoning is established, it stays with the land until there’s another change to add other uses or to remove the use. Right, thank you.

Okay, I’ll go to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair, and through you, my follow-up question was very much in alignment with what you and Councillor ramen had asked around appeals. And I think that we’ve heard from the applicant that they are pursuing potential tenants who would not require the emergency care establishment and that the timelines here, given that the city doesn’t actually have an active RFP out for another hub site at the moment. And while we do have capital dollars, we do not at the moment have provincial operating dollars.

It seems clear to me that there’s at least some chance of a public appeal if the zoning were to go ahead with the emergency care establishment. If that was the case, the property owner would also be restricted during the appeal period. They would not be able to fill the space with any of the tenants, potentially, that they’re seeking other permitted uses for here at the same time, is that correct? So that would hold up tenants in other categories that this rezoning would apply.

Go to staff. Through the Chair, you’re correct, Councillor Lewis, that additional uses they’re seeking would not be permitted until decision was made by the Board. Deputy Mayor. And what are approximate timelines through you, Chair, right now for an appeal hearing at the OLT, go staff.

Through you to the Chair, or through the Chair to you, Deputy Mayor, a fully litigated hearing likely wouldn’t conclude for at least one and a half to two years. Resolution would occur potentially earlier, but to go through the entire process could be up to two years. Deputy Mayor, thank you. That’s helpful, because I think it’s also a concern about the property owner wanting to fill a vacant building.

And if we make a decision that lands in an appeal process right now, they can only have the permitted uses. But what I’ve heard, and this would be my final question, but I believe that was answered when Councillor Raman asked it, is that nothing in a decision today in terms of an emotion that’s on the floor currently an unamended version of the staff recommendation, nothing would preclude the property owner from coming back in the future for another rezoning to add another permitted use, whether that’s an emergency care establishment or any other use that might be, that they might seek for this land. Is that correct? I’ll go to staff.

Through the Chair, that’s correct. They can come back with the same application in the future. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, so again, that’s helpful for me, because I want the property owner to be able to fill this space.

And if they’ve got a medical walk-in clinic or something like that, that might be able to move in in 30 days or 60 days. I don’t want that held up over whether or not, at some point in the future, undetermined, ‘cause we have no RFP, we have no operating dollar funding source yet, that there might be a future hub there. So I’m gonna support the amendments so that the property owner can move forward with other potential tenants. But I do think that it’s really clear or really important to be clear with the public that doesn’t preclude the owner coming back in the future and seeking to change the use again.

But what it would do today is allow them to move forward and seek potential other tenants, well, June 4th after Council approves it, not today, but it would not preclude them from seeking other tenants on other uses that are available today. So it’s that process of clearing the lane so that this property owner can find a tenant, whatever use that might be, is why I’m gonna be supporting this. Okay, Councilor Robin, did you hand up? Thank you, yeah, just to clarify, something that Mr.

Wallace had said is that he’s currently, and there’s currently discussion, I’ll call it almost pre-approval, not a pre-approval, let’s say consultation, where those that are interested are going out to look at potential properties and have these conversations. But within our original criteria, we said that the first three to five had to be within emergency care establishment zones already pre-zoned, but then when the first three came in and one was not an emergency care zone, it would have had to have gone through the rezoning process. So again, I’m just clarifying, from a zoning perspective, is I’m still stuck on whether or not this is the right way to go in terms of zoning, ‘cause I think it leaves this gray area, and I would really like to see what those uses are, that we may be also having to consider that how this impacts at this point, because I don’t want it to set, especially as we have, you know, medical recruiters and people that are looking to set up MRIs, for instance, that I know of right now, and they’re having these kinds of discussions, and I worry that we’re getting confused over what this zoning means. So more definition would be helpful, but I just want to understand that that’s the criteria right now, that it’s conditional on for the fall discussion, is that emergency care establishment zoning.

I’ll go staff. Thank you, through the chair. I 100% don’t know the answer to the first question in terms of the zoning, that for these emergency care facilities, ideally, to allow the five to come on sooner, that would be the path to look at pre-zoned lands, that would already allow for it, but we can certainly have that information for you before council as well, and then I’ll pass it off to Scott. Through the chair.

So one of the things that helped define the emergency care establishments as being a bit different than some of the other zones, is that ability to have people residing in it for short amount of time. So some of the examples that it suggested like an MRI machine, that wouldn’t have that component to it. So this would, removing this would likely not have an impact on some of those other uses. If it was a location that had beds and people were staying there, so maybe situations like sleep studies and things like that, it may, but this is also for a longer period that up to six, generally to six weeks as well.

So that’s the key part of this emergency care establishment that probably wouldn’t be required for a lot of those other uses and medical uses that you mentioned. Councilor, okay, we have a motion moved in second. We’ll look one more time if someone wants to speak to it. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Okay, moving on. 3.4, this is regarding 530 Oxford Street West. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Robin, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Do you have any questions of technical nature waiting for staff? Seeing none, I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHVC Planning.

We are acting on behalf of the applicant and with me this afternoon are several members of our project team, available to answer questions. At this time, we’d like to advise the committee that we have reviewed the planning staff report and support its findings and recommendations. In particular, we concur with the finding that the application is consistent with the provincial policy statement that is in keeping in aligns with the policy direction of the London Plan and that the site is appropriate for the proposal and as is the local development context. These findings also reflect the recommendations and findings of our planning staff planning justification report submitted in support of this application.

Mr. Chair, please be advised that with approval of this application, the applicant intends to advance the project expeditiously to site plan approval. Thank you to staff as well for all their work involved with this application, particularly crafting the proposed zoning. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. We’re glad to answer any questions can you members may have? Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee.

Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Anne Marie Velostro. So this whole area is being planned in a piecemeal fashion. There’s absolutely no strategy to make this area work for the people that currently live there and for the people that will be living there.

This building has no green space. It has no place for mothers to take their kids out and play. There’s no place to walk your dog. There’s no place for the dog to go to the bathroom except on the sidewalk.

There’s no green space in the entire area. There’s no parks unless you’re gonna start including private property like the cemeteries or Cherry Hill Mall or the older buildings across the street, which actually have grounds and community gardens for their residents. It just feels very disorganized and badly planned. You’re approving buildings and your rubber stamping developments as the developer brings them to you and you’re not considering how it’s gonna work as a community, as a whole.

And so if you have children, would you live in a building like this? And if the answer is no, then this building has to be thinner. It has to have grounds. It has to have a place for people to go.

It has to have a place where dogs can go to the bathroom and there has to be a place where people can walk. Okay, there’s no place for people to walk other than walk in traffic. There’s no relief, it’s too dense. It’s not that you can’t put a tall building in this space, but it’s time that this committee start planning for people what it’s like to live in these buildings, what it’s like to live in these neighborhoods and understand the fact that we need green space everywhere, but in particular in this neighborhood, I challenge anyone on this committee to point to a space that is green where people can go and get away from their heavy traffic on Oxford Street, on Wonderland Street, and on Beaver Brook.

And I just want to remind the chair of this committee that it wasn’t that long ago that he made the same comments when they wanted to build towers on Capulet. He raised the same concerns on behalf of his community. And so those still stand today. So you’re planning this neighborhood in a piecemeal fashion in the eyes of developers that bring things to you.

You don’t scrutinize them, you don’t, you rubber stamp these applications. This neighborhood is already hot. There are climate change issues. This building isn’t going to absorb any of its own runoff.

My guess is that it’s gonna hold its dirty water somewhere at the bottom of the building and then slowly release it into the Thames River. That just causes flooding downstream. There’s no low impact development applied to this building which apparently is something we’re supposed to do. And if you’re thinking that children and families and mothers aren’t gonna live in this building, it’s not designed for those type of people, then you’re segregating populations.

And my understanding is that’s prohibited. To make decisions about who’s gonna live where. So every building that you approve has to work for every person in this society and not includes children, and includes senior citizens, and includes families. And this building doesn’t work because there’s no green space and the entire area is just traffic, traffic, traffic.

Thank you. Well, look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Angus Johnson.

Thanks to Chairman and Committee for giving me an opportunity to present my ideas to you. Mitigating global warming will require unprecedented efforts from industry, agriculture, and cities. The main responsibility of cities is dealing with the greenhouse gas emissions of their cars. I’m gonna talk about the specific implications of this development on the GHG emissions being produced in this city.

By first looking at the current picture of the emissions in the city. The only document I know that really shows this pattern is the random Dalhousie map which is attached to the information I’ve given you. What is unique about this map is it displays emissions by area and it does show considerable variations in the amount of emissions present in the city. For example, there are words with four different emission amounts.

Lending like other cities in Ontario has a commitment to reduce GHG levels by 2050. If that commitment isn’t lived up to, is lived up to, this map should look different. If the Uranium team, for example, was able to return and test again and record results on a new map, we should see the colours overall change downward, refracting what should generally be lower levels of emissions in the cities. The problem with the 530 Oxford development with all the projects for this area is the potential increase in GHG emissions they’ll cause.

This building is completed. It becomes a base for 646 cars, our account. Adding the daily traffic in the existing complement of emissions in this community. Inevitably, raising those emissions in another areas on commute routes and effectively pushing emission reduction targets further away.

In Toronto, 25 storey and higher buildings surround subway stations with much less car accommodation. Torontonians car dependency rate is half of London’s .33 and every day a half a million people, London’s population, by the way, commute to school or work or whatever back and forth, a million trips in total using mass transit. If London had a real mass transit, cars would be reduced. But building out the Oxford area to imitate young and saying Claire without a subway underneath is a lunacy that could produce a mass of emissions spewing congested traffic.

With the rate of map also shows because of a detailed look at London, is vegetation’s reduction effect on emissions. The emission reduction helps to reach targets, effectively shortening the time to get there. Those emissions vegetation removes are just as much the needs to be dealt with. Admittedly, 530 Oxford is built on existing pavement and it isn’t removing vegetation to create housing.

But neither does it really create significant vegetation in its planning. That sort of thing should now be a requirement for any development to actually create new vegetation areas. While we’ve been working hard to deliver that dual message, we’ve not delivered another message that follows from the map about Londoners who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting and protecting vegetation in the city, a protection which benefits not just them but everyone else, a kind of example. My neighbor and I are lucky enough don’t houses on well-treat lots, more common say from a hundred years ago.

The vegetation we own is making a considerable contribution to the reduction of GHD emissions. And we pay for that with our own effort and expense. If I clear the vegetation, transform the yard into an apartment complex, putting a few hundred cars a day out on the street, I leave my neighbor and his vegetation with a harder residual job of reducing existing emissions now in my dime. We’ve not begin to show the public and the non-public the importance of protecting vegetation.

And this means any vegetation you can think of, much private residential but also parks, cemeteries, playing fields and golf courses. And it doesn’t matter if this vegetation contains invasive species or trees that are out of favor with naturalists, it all removes emissions. More needs to be done to recognize and support the contributors and to underline the responsibilities we all should be sharing. Thank you, thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay, seeing no one else in the gallery wishes to address the committee, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Frank. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d like to put these staff’s recommendation on the floor with some additional site plan amendments that I’ve circulated. I forgot my rubber stamp today, so I just wanted to add a couple of these amendments here to deal with some of the issues that I noticed, including recognizing that it is in an area that has a heat island effect, given that it’s surrounded by parking lot.

So some of these amendments clear that up, but I would need a seconder perhaps before I continue speaking. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Do you wanna speak to it now, Councillor, please go ahead. Thank you, so I’ll just read the additional items for the people online, just in case they can’t see them.

So the additional site plan amendments include utilized visual markers etched or stained glass to provide bird-friendly glazing, adhering to the bird-friendly CSA, investigate renewable energy sources for the buildings and non-fossil fuel-based energy sources for heating and cooling, and provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect. These are similar additional site plan amendments that we have done on other buildings in the past, and I thought it was important to include them on this location. I do agree with some of the comments that there’s not a lot of green space in this area for people who live in these two, or people who will live in these two apartment buildings if it moves forward, although there is, I know that there’ll be some access to Mud Creek. When we’re done all that work, there’ll be some active trails through there, but it is a bit of a jaunt if you do have kids in a wagon.

So trying to reduce as much of those impacts as possible, I think is important, but recognizing, I was trying to figure out ways to include a little park or parkette on the ground, although it’d be a very hot little parkette ‘cause it would be surrounded by a parking lot, so perhaps not the most ideal location either. That being said, recognizing that infill is better than sprawl, although I know no one likes that word, sorry, I used it, but recognizing that infill is our preferred approach, the ideal being that we’re gonna be building a better transportation network out in this area, and thanks to counselors at Civic Works this morning for reminding us of the need to look at this area more thoroughly from a transportation management approach. So I will support the staff recommendation, hope to have support on these additional amendments, and appreciate the work of the applicant to continue providing more housing within the city. I look for other comments.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair, and happy to support Councillor Frank’s amendments there. They certainly are amendments that we’ve applied to some other applications in the past, and I agree that they’re worth looking at at site plan approval here as well. As we know with site plan approval, it’s not gonna mean that they’re all, or any of them get included, but at least it gets looked at in the site plan review process.

So happy to support that. I wanna pick up on a couple of things that Councillor Frank referenced though. I’m not gonna call it sprawl, but I’m gonna call it ex-urban growth, because that’s the real danger. And actually, while I appreciate Mr.

Young’s passion, it’s the same, or Mr. Johnson’s passion, sorry, it’s the same challenge that I have with this heat map that we see over and over again, being submitted on development applications. It actually doesn’t speak to the fact that London is not an island, and we have, every time we develop infill within the city, we are actually protecting prime agricultural land from ex-urban growth sprawl out in the county. That has to be taken into account as we address our housing needs, because we’ve certainly seen sprawl develop out in the county on pieces of land that used to be prime agricultural or woodlot lands.

So London does not stand alone. Even within the city, yes, I actually do expect there to be areas that are more heat zones than others, because that is where our industrial and our commercial realities exist. And when those are concentrated in an area out in my ward, I’ve got a significant industrial area. I expect emissions to be higher along Veterans Memorial Parkway, where goods are being shipped in and out of the city every day.

That’s the reality of living in the city. And the same with green space, not everybody is gonna walk out their front door and enjoy green space, just as not everybody’s gonna walk out their front door and have a transit stop in front of their home or walk out their front door. And in some cases, in some of the developments we’re approving, not everybody’s gonna walk out their front door and have a parking space, because we’ve adopted reduced parking requirements and gotten rid of some of the requirements that we’re creating these islands of asphalt out there. And what we have now is a proposal that’s gonna turn some commercial space into mixed use, create two attractive looking new buildings, provide many more units of housing.

But I think it’s important to recognize as well that as we talk about these developments in this area, because it was alluded to about the transportation in the area, these buildings aren’t gonna all appear tomorrow. There will be site plan approval processes, there will be tenders that go out, there will be construction that happens. And what we are going to see is development over time. At the same time, the work that our staff is doing right now on the master mobility plan will be coming forward.

And believe me, I know that Ms. Sharon, her team, are looking at where the growth is happening as they’re developing that MMP as well. And so these things will come together at the same time. Nothing is going to change overnight for anyone.

It will be a slow, progressive change in how the neighborhood looks as buildings come online, as transportation changes happen. So very supportive of getting this application moving. We know that we’ve got a builder here who’s got a reputation for building. They’ve said they’re gonna move as quickly as they can on this.

I believe they will. And we will bring more housing online in the city through this so very supportive. Thank Councilor Frank for her amendments though. She’s always mindful of that bird-friendly etching, which I know is important to a number of people.

So glad to see and happy to support that being in there. Thank you, other councilors that we should address. Councilor Trusson. Thank you very much.

And I’d like to address my comments through the chair. In many ways, I could cut this short by just incorporating by reference the comments that I made with respect to 735 Wonderland. But I think that there are some differences between this project and the last one. So I do wanna make some comments.

In my view, to take the position that infill is better than sprawl, that’s a truism. But there’s all sorts of infill. I’m looking at some of the other projects that are gonna be coming down the way that are built on ample open space where people are gonna be able to walk out of their apartment buildings and not have to step on a hot heat zone parking lot with no human amenities that one would expect in a residence. So yes, while it’s true, infill is better than sprawl.

Bad infill is not as good as infill. And in my view, with all due respect to the successful developer, this is an example of bad infill. And I don’t think we can do better. And just because we do not want to engage in sprawl type activities, does not mean that we have to without criticism and without adequate study of other unanticipated consequences, go down the line of saying, well, we’re trying to get to our housing goals.

And yes, this is a bit shoehorned from a parking lot. You know, and again, it’s kids go down and play in the parking lot, go walk the dog on the parking lot. I just think we could be doing better than that. Now, I would like to raise the issue that I raised with respect to 735.

And I won’t go through the more lengthy process of asking staff questions. I mean, ‘cause I know what the answers are from reading the reports. And there’s just not an adequate attention to the cumulative, and I’m stressing the word cumulative. That’s the operative word here.

There has not been enough attention to the cumulative effects of intense development in the same facility when the reason why we’re able to go this high in the sky is because we’re in a transit corner, or we’re in a transit area and that anticipates, that anticipates being able to go in this case, pretty close to what you’d expect downtown. Now, I think that we need to be taking another look at that. And I understand that there is not going to be support on this council for a serious holding provision to have some adequate traffic and transit study to support what’s going on here. But even if we could do that with respect to this project, I still think there are fundamental flaws with this project.

I most certainly will be voting against this project at City Council. And I really want to applaud the folks that came to speak out against this, because I know it’s difficult. It’s difficult in this atmosphere of we have to build, we have to build, we have to meet our targets. If you’re against the building, you’re in NIMBY.

These are not NIMBY issues that are being raised here. These are serious, substantial, environmental, and transit, and traffic-oriented, human-oriented problems. So again, I think that this is not the type of development that we want to be promoted. I will be voting against this at the City Council.

I can see where the direction is with this committee. On this, I understand that, I respect that. But I am going to continue to raise these issues. So with that, I think I’ll just thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here again.

Thank you, Councillor. Other comments? Councillor Permullen. Thank you.

I completely understand and agree with the cumulative effects in terms of the transportation. And as we talked about earlier today, they need to be, and they will be addressed, no doubt. I keep hearing, we do have the targets, 20, 31, 47,000 units. And yes, would I like to accomplish it?

Absolutely, I would. But that’s not my priority. My priority is affordable housing for many, many people that need it. And when I say affordable, I’m not talking about deep and affordable for homeless or anything like this in this perspective of this development.

But I’m truly a believer in, if you look at economics, 101, supply and demand. And that is what it comes down to. And we do need the supply to increase drastically, to get the pricing that is affordable. And I truly believe that that’s our path.

And I’m going to say that this is the supply that we are going to see 30, 40, 50% less than what we see now. No, but if the supply is there, before the pandemic, there were apartment buildings that were offering one month free. Why? Because the supply was much higher than the demand.

And we’ve got to get to that situation, so we do have— so yes, we keep saying that we look after these targets, the 47,000 units. For me, that’s a number. I would like to achieve, but more importantly, we need to have high supply so we can affordable housing for the many, many lenders who really, truly need it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Other comments? Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and through you, I will be supporting the application that’s in front of us, mainly because one of the issues I have concerns with, not within this application, but from a transportation perspective, we’re working on addressing through our conversation at CWC, as well as conversations that we’ve had at Council.

The transit village designation— yes, it allows for the higher density, but again, I feel like it’s a bit of a misnomer when we don’t have that higher order transit in the area already, which is, again, to Mr. Johnson’s point as well. I think that ultimately, that’s the chicken and the egg debate that we continue to have, the problem, I think, is that the public thinks that it is also in our hands whether or not we get that higher order transit and it’s not entirely as a partnership between funders at the federal level as well. And so I think by even approving these, and as Deputy Mayor Lewis said, these aren’t all going to be built tomorrow, but by approving applications in this area, we are setting the stage for the conversation with other levels of government around the density that we’ve approved in the area to then make for the case for additional transit support as the MMP master mobility plan is put forward that hopefully supports that addition of more transit in this area, as well as other transportation solutions to help address the issues.

But I did have a question for staff, and it relates to the notes around amenity space. I saw that an I-2 would like to see some sort of connection amenity space or something of that sort, and I understand that that’s not part of this application. When I’m trying to look at the location and relationship to Mud Creek and whether or not there’s any pathways or consideration for access, I’m just wondering if that’s something that will be discussed during site plan. Is there a way to access some of those trails that people are talking about?

I’ll go on staff. Thank you, and through the chair. To start off with your last question, there is an existing connection through Mud Lake Creek. As part of the project, there are additional trails will be built.

This also will be looked at through the site by an approval stage within the property itself. Further, the applicant is proposing both indoor and outdoor amenity space in the podium on the sixth floor, as well as on the rooftop of the two proposed buildings, providing additional space for families or children or residents in the building. And as part of this, there will also be improvements to the parking area. There’s a landscape plan attached to this project that will prove both the frontage on Oxford and Wonderland Roads, as well as the existing service parking lot with additional trees and green space.

Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. That’s good to hear, and I’m pleased that those considerations and conversations have been happening.

And with parkland dedication, what does that look like for this property? Staff. Through the chair, parkland dedication will be required as part of a set been approval. I’m sorry.

Thank you. And I just want to quickly talk about, again, when we talk about cumulative impact, I do think we need to be having more of a conversation around cumulative impact as it relates to park and naturalized spaces in the area. Right now, our parkland policy is that funding for a parkland dedication fund doesn’t actually directly support that neighborhood of which the funds are being taken from. So this, because the developer has put money towards this developed the parkland dedication, it would not go into this specific area necessarily.

And personally, I think that that should be something we look at considering, and I’m not sure how we would do that, but considering that there’s so many developments planned in this area that are going to require parkland dedication if they do not have green space, we need to be looking at how do we offset that and what kind of green space amenities are potentially in the area that we could be looking at, whether they belong to us or not, to be able to do more offsets within the area. And I know this is an issue that we got into in the Northwest. It’s partially the reason why I think neighbors feel the way they feel about the lack of green space in the area. And so I agree we have to think about these as full community conversations as we’re planning and welcome that conversation further at the right committee.

Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors? If the committee would allow me a few comments from the chair. Right now, this is currently a pretty big commercial plaza.

So to replace concrete with concrete, as far as heat map is concerned, I think right now, I look at this as a good trade-off. It’s a high-intensity development, providing over 400 units, which is substantial. As Councilor Perbal alluded to, the way we’re going to get to affordable housing is increasing the supply in the market, and this goes a long way to that. There was comment by the gallery about my non-support of a development farther west down the road.

The reason for that was because I didn’t like the transition into the neighborhood right beside it. And this is different. This is right at the corner. What’s around it is commercial.

I see it as a step along to what we had discussed on the greater idea of where the city wants to move in planning neighborhoods, where you can actually get to commercial stores and services without having to take your car or take your bike. There’s a substantial amount of services right at this corner that tenants of this development could access just by foot. So from that standpoint alone, I think that goes a long way to achieving the idea of a smaller carbon footprint. When faced with challenges, such as homelessness, as we talked about earlier this afternoon, and affordable housing or housing, there’s never going to be a perfect solution.

People don’t want intensity because of concerns of heat mapping or traffic congestion. But we also don’t want urban sprawl because you’re going farther out and paving over farmland. And those people are coming in by cars the longer distance. You’re never going to find that perfect solution.

That being said, you can get to a good solution. And I think this provides that. I do have concerns, obviously, about traffic congestion in the area that has been touched upon by Councillor Trozzo and Councillor Raman. I think I look forward to the mass mobility plan.

I keep touching on that. I can’t wait to see it because with intensifications come severe challenges in how we get around. And get around effectively, for sure, transit. But transit that does provide a credible, cost-efficient solution to make people consider using mass transit opposed to their private cars.

So I look forward, and we’ll be pressing for solutions to be presented to Council. As this wonderland awks for a corner, which is already heavily congested, we’ll only continue in that regard, as well as the whole stretch of wonderland between Springbank Drive up to Sarnier Road, especially. And again, on Oxford Street, the bottleneck at Oxford and Warren Cliff, which unfortunately, that project was put on hold to the cost overruns of BRT. The developer has been a terrific local asset in bringing on much-needed housing.

They get stuff done. Councillor Frank’s additions there. I know they’re open to such suggestions in developing not only a lot of housing, but very good projects. I look forward to seeing the one downtown.

Very excited about that, because like that one, this one too will change the skyline in the West End. So I am supportive of this. I look forward to seeing this come online, but I also look forward to the city answering very concerning questions about how we get through these areas. So I’ll look for any other further comments or questions before I call a vote.

I’ll motion moved and seconded. I’ll call an open up for a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.5.

This is regarding environmental housekeeping amendment to the London Plan. I understand the Deputy Mayor wants to speak to that, so I’ll go to you first. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m prepared to move staff’s recommendation, but there is one exception to that, which is Independence A policy 1335, which speaks to the process that involves the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. And I just wanna refer that, that particular policy back to staff for some clarifying language for it to come forward.

So I believe that the clerk has some language prepared in eScribe. I’m just gonna refresh so I can read what’s actually in there, rather than what I sent by email, because I know it had to be adjusted slightly. Sorry, Deputy Mayor. This is part of the public participation meeting.

So we need to go to the public first. I was a little quick off the mark there. Oh, sorry. Well, then you were quick off the mark, so come to you.

Come back to me when you’re ready. I will, my error. So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll open the vote.

Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And I will now go to the public.

I see Mr. Wallace is there. I was probably wondering what I was doing. (laughs) No.

But please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you for committee for hearing us. Well, listen, we sent this out when it came up from staff. And I think this is the third or fourth housekeeping report that we’ve gone since the letter plan was approved a couple of years ago. We agree 100% that there’s nothing wrong with housekeeping amendments that say the province of Ontario has changed the name from natural resources or is natural resources.

Now it was something in forestry before. Those are truly housekeeping wording changes that need to happen. But we want to be on the record that going forward, Mr. Chair, that there are a number of changes that are in here that have our eyebrows raised and we don’t consider them housekeeping.

And just for an example, you’ll see in the report it talks about maps and that a number of applicants or a number of landowners, the recommendations that had come forward, those have been in this report have been changed. So we thank you staff, staff for doing that work. But just so you understand what it was, they were allocating on maps that are in the London plan that are policy on properties that were not evaluated yet, but there have been no application on. So all we’re saying going forward, and there’s a number of changes, and I’m not sure what the councilor’s, which clause he’s after, but dealing with those, you’ve got underlined here before it was the Ontario wetland evaluation system and confirmed by the mystery of it was development mine and Northern development mine is now not resources, but they’ve added in by the city and accepted since when.

So this is 78 pages, it’s not housekeeping. My recommendation going forward to work with the industry on these items in advance. So we’re not trying to do this at public meeting. And of course we’re here so that if one of my members, and my members decide that we need to appeal this, we’re at the public meeting putting on notice that we’re not happy with some of the things here.

We’re not moving anything, we’re not asking for any changes. We staff are very good at working with some of my members on specific items, but I think coaching it as housekeeping for you people, for council is inaccurate. And so I think that we want to be on record that there are some very much some housekeeping things here, but there’s some other things that have more substantial ramifications than housekeeping. So thank you for your time, and I wouldn’t mind knowing what clause he’s referring to.

Thank you. Thank you, other speakers. Please ma’am, can you give us your name and you have five minutes? Thank you.

My name is Stephanie Pratt. I’m here from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Some of the information I’m gonna speak to today does align with the information that was provided earlier by Tracy Annette and Jenna Elaine in regards to the work we’ve been doing with the city. So I would just like to thank the opportunity to thank staff for all the work we did back and forth on these policies.

There were a fair share of changes that came from the initial circulation to the circulation you see before you today. We did provide comments both from our regulatory perspective as well as from our landowner perspective, and some of our landowner comments did align with those brought forward by Mike Wallace as well in relation to the changes to some features on our lands that were mapped. Most of our comments were taken into consideration and updated through this of the policy updates. Largely most of the changes that came forward were as a result of the new draft BPS that was released in April of 2024.

This new PPS did come out after the policies were circulated and so some of those inclusions were included in the original draft but have been included today as part of the revised submission. So one of the biggest changes was in regards to collaboration with the Conservation Authority and planning authorities, especially in regards to mapping and other policy changes as they come forward related to natural hazards. In regards to mapping, we do have a number of updates that we’re doing and working closely with the city to make sure that those are included. It’s really important that those updates to mapping within the official plan as well as our regulatory mapping are consistent to make sure that it sets appropriate development standards moving forward.

So we look forward to working with staff as those mapping updates come forward in the future and as Jenna alluded to, we’re gonna begin the public consultation process later on in 2024. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to the next speaker.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. I’m not sure if you, back if you realize this but when Mr. Waller speaks, he’s never asked to give his name, he’s just told to speak. So that to me is very problematic.

He’s here all the time. I’m gonna stop you right there. Okay, I’m making a point. That’s not true.

I asked Mr. Waller’s name earlier today. Yeah, well. As I did ask you, but this time around, I did not ask you again because you already addressed this committee.

Okay, I appreciate that. So if the building association has problems with some of the issues in the environmental changes, I see that as a positive thing because they’re always fighting environmental protection regulations. I understand the upper terms of a conservation authority having issues, if their mapping doesn’t align properly, that’s important. But as far as threatening an appeal, simply because they don’t like some of the changes, I find that really offensive.

And because the public doesn’t have the same weight, it does not have the same weight as a Mr. Waller’s. And so if they don’t like the changes, I see that as a positive thing because that means that there’s strong changes or they’re considering impacts that are independent. It’s an independent audit and that’s the way it should be.

So if they wanna appeal something, let them, but as far as threatening and influencing this committee, I don’t see anyone seeing that as a threat or asking them to slow down or stop talking. So I don’t like that. And I don’t think it’s the same comments that were made by the upper terms. Those comments, do you need to have mapping that’s aligned to make sure everyone’s on the same page?

But just ‘cause you don’t like something and you’re gonna threaten an appeal, I don’t think that should influence the decision here today. Look for other speakers. It’s clear if there’s anyone online. I see no other speakers wishing to address the committee.

So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Robin, seconded by Councilor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Opposed and to vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. And now I’ll go back to the deputy mayor who was so rudely interrupted by myself, mistakes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And so through you, I’ll just start again. I’m moving the staff recommendation. However, adding with the exception of policy 1335 in Appendix A and that policy 1335 be referred back to civic administration to provide some clarifying language to reflect that the MNRF has jurisdiction over approving the OS submissions. Okay, thank you.

And I believe the clerk has that up in front of us now. I’ll look for a seconder to the motion. Councilor Robin seconds. So we have a motion moving the second and I’ll open the floor for discussion debate.

Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and I’m just going to be brief on this. Mr. Wallace touched on it, but I’d already had this flag and I talked to staff.

They can provide some clarifying language if this comes back just to outline clearly in our policies what the process is when those evaluations happen and that it is in fact the ministry that makes a decision and then forwards that decision or that decision to both council and the conservation authority. So that’s really their provincial jurisdiction and that needs to be reflected accurately in the London plan policies as well. So that’s the reason for the amendment to this. I will say on the main motion from staff, I did have some questions and actually a couple of them were around particulars of the mapping, but there is where I would say to all colleagues there’s real value in chatting with staff ahead of time about some of this because I found out that in fact, it was just a little bit of an adjustment that needed to be made in the report in terms of where the lines were on the map.

It was never intended to change a particular thing. That happens as I referenced earlier today, when you draw lines on the city’s website map, yeah, those meters can have a meter or two of error because they are aerial and they’re approximations. So I appreciate the work that staff has done on this. There was a concern that I was going to raise but I don’t have to raise it now because staff was able to answer it for me and that’s the kind of back and forth that I think is really helpful to have when these kind of things, ‘cause there are a lot of changes in here but I think a lot of them are, I was keeping, although I hear Mr.

Wallace’s point that some of them aren’t and hence that’s why 1335 is one, I think it needs to go back because I think we need to be a little more clear in terms of what that policy is saying. Thank you. Other comments? Questions from committee members or visiting counselors?

Clerk has advised me that the same additional wording needs to be added. So section 34, bracket 17 of the Planning Act, no further notice be given. You can add that to your motion, are you okay with that? And the seconder is good with that.

So we are good with that. So given there’s no further discussion, we’ve got motion moved and seconded. I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, moving on to 3.6 regarding 193 to 199 College Avenue. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Raman, all the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you all for anyone that would like to address the committee and the public. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Steve Tanton, I live at 189 College Ave with my wife Marianne and just have a statement. Obviously we are the closest property being right next door to, and of course, okay.

I’d like to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for more affordable housing in our city, this project will have a detrimental impact on our neighborhood. First and foremost, the proposed development is too large for our area and the street. It’s a very narrow street.

The increase in population density would put a strain on our already busy street, leading to an increase in traffic congestion and noise pollution. I know there was a traffic study done regarding this project. It did not include the new tower at St. James and Talbot.

So that traffic assessment report is obsolete. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant damage to the existing historic homes, destroying the nuance of the immediate area and putting our financial and mental health at risk. These existing homes, replacement values are in excess of millions of dollars. They’ve been there forever.

Ours is a historic monument, priority one, historically significant and architecturally significant. Of course, we’re gonna be the most affected and our insurance company has given us a replacement cost in the excess of millions of dollars. So any damage with this type of construction, it’s inevitable with the noise and vibration. If you limit the, if we don’t change the zoning and have no amendments or don’t pass the amendments, that limits them to build, if they wanna develop it, it limits them to build a more reasonable, smaller project that will not create as much noise and vibration.

A six-story concrete tower requires a lot of digging and vibration. So furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not keeping in character with their neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of residents with no obvious interest in historical architecture, which could lead to other negative social effects. This would also drastically alter the aesthetics of our area, replacing an existing historic streetscape with a monolithic high density tower that will be obsolete in a few years.

Finally, I’m deeply concerned about the impact this development will have on the property values in the surrounding area. This development will leave us isolated as the only house left on the street and will obviously result in a decline in our property values. Myself, as a real estate broker for over 20 years, know this fact all too well. In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed zoning change while I recognize the need for affordable housing.

This project is not affordable. And I believe that this project is simply not the right fit. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for other speakers. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. So when Londoners supported the London plan about inward upward, they were also promised neighborhood preserving neighborhood character, leafy streets, it was a balancing act. And that hasn’t been happening.

That’s not happening anymore. And so the houses that this building is replacing were heritage houses, they were affordable housing. And now we have a building that’s oversized on a tiny little street and staff is correct. It’s burgeoning and it’s insensitive to that neighborhood and it defies what people thought the London plan would be.

And so in my personal opinion, the application just ahead of this one was Robert Stamps with minor amendments. And I don’t think you can do anything to this building other than make it smaller, give it more space to bring out the character of that neighborhood. It’s very stressful for residents to feel like their neighborhood is out of control because committee has become insensitive to their comments. And so neighborhoods should be preserved.

Obviously there’s change coming, but the change needs to be sensitive to what’s going on in that neighborhood. So I hope you do respect staff, the staff recommendation for refusal. If you’re not familiar with this neighborhood, you need to be familiar with these streets when you make these decisions. And as a landlord, I can tell you that when you offer people one month free, that’s been going on forever.

It has nothing to do with a housing glut. They have their own reasons for doing that. It’s not an indicator that you’re being successful in creating more units. And you have to keep rubber stamping these buildings because somehow you think it’s working.

Okay, that’s not true. I just had to say that I’m a landlord, I had to flag that. Mr. Counselor Prabell, thank you.

Any other speakers? Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Jacqueline Farqua and I live about two blocks from the development that you’ve been talking about. I would like to take a second just to give you a little background.

This application came to our neighborhood and we had a meeting with the developer or his representatives in the year 2016. So we have been waiting with baited breath for eight years on this application. It is, I agree with everything the previous speakers have said, Anne-Marie and Mr. Tanton.

I’d just like to give you the size of this street. It is a very tiny street. It’s a one block between Richmond and St. George.

And on the north side is Marionville long-term care. And on the south side where this building is being proposed, it is six stories high on this tiny little street. And six stories high at the front and four stories at the back. This, the back four stories are going to be, and any construction will be very destructive to Mr.

Tanton’s property and all of the properties on St. James that back onto it. Lovely houses, it’s a very intense development of a tiny property. Now, it looks like a nice building, but I would maintain it is completely improperly located.

I would think that York would do far better to remove that, or to take that building elsewhere. It’s certainly not site sensitive or compatible to the single family homes on Old North. So the staff recommendation is great. They obviously have done a lot of work on it.

They are recommending refusal. And I hope that that carries. I also am curious, I don’t know whether anybody can tell me, but I understand that it’s already at the OLT, the Ontario Land Tribunal, and it’s being heard on June 6th. We public can be part of that by Zoom, but I’m curious to know how the OLT, what the OLT decision course will come down, and whether we have any right of appeal if that OLT decision goes in favor of the developer.

Is there any staff member who can advise us on that? Thank you, sir. Thank you, look for the next speaker. Anyone online, there’s no one online.

Seeing no one else hold up for a motion to close the BPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote. Close in the vote. The motion carries by zero.

Thank you, and I’ll just go to staff on the question raised by our one speaker there. Can we have an update on where this stands with the OLT? And I’m not too sure if you can comment on appeal, appeals by other parties, other than the city, but if you could speak to that as well. Thank you, through you, Mr.

Chair. So the attendance is on June 10th at the Ontario Land Tribunal. It’s a case management conference. So the substance of this matter won’t be dealt with.

It’s a first appearance type of proceeding, and at that time, neighbors or any interested parties can attend, can request status as either a party or a participant, and the Ontario Land Tribunal’s rules would explain the difference in those rules, how to make those requests, et cetera. So I wouldn’t provide legal advice to anyone that’s interested in doing that, but direct them to the tribunal’s rules. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to committee now, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So I’m actually going to move an alternate motion, which is, and I think it’s important to be clear, we’re not approving a zoning today. What we’re doing is endorsing a position, either support or refuse for the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing on the 10th as outlined. So this is not a council decision.

It is already going to the OLT. This is a request for us to take a position that yes, we support the development or no, we don’t from a council perspective. So I’m going to move actually an alternate recommendation to the staffs, which is that council endorse this application as submitted. And then we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder and I’ll provide my reasoning why.

I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hillyer has seconded. So in motion moved and second, I’ll go back to the Deputy Mayor. So through you, Chair, we’ve heard how out of character this building would be, but we heard reference to the Marion Villa across the street, six stories there.

Behind 193 and 199 College Ave, we have a four-story on St. James. At the end on St. George Street, we have both four-story, as well as actually the 12-story at Grove-Nergate.

We have the Mount Hope long-term care center. Again, rising multiple stories. This is not a conversion to a high density. This is a medium density.

This is a six-story. It’s in keeping with what is behind it. It is in keeping with what is on the other side of the road from it on College Ave. It is not out of character with existing buildings on this street.

And so for that reason, I am moving that Council take the position that we endorse the application. This one is a little more complicated because it’s been in the queue so long as one resident referenced that there’s still even in the staff report references to our 1989 Official Plan, which is no longer in force and effect, which speaks to why we’re endorsing a position with OLT. We’re endorsing a position one way or the other because of a non-decision of a previous Council on this application. Not a refusal, not a support, an actual non-decision.

So I’m not gonna go into the history of how it got there, but the fact is, it’s already actually out of our hands at the OLT, but if this application were to come before us today, brand new, I would be supporting it. It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. It is six stories, it is not high density, it is medium density, and it’s the kind of infill that we often hear, we should be seeking. I regularly hear, oh, 12 stories is too big, 20 stories is too big, you know, why people, why can’t people build six or eight?

Well, we’ve got an application four or six, and I’m gonna be supportive of that. Thank you, other speakers. Okay, Councilor Trossau. If I may through the chair, ask the staff, and I’m not gonna ask you to go through your official plan, justifications, ‘cause I think they were very well stated, succinct, easy to understand, sound, and legally correct.

I’m not gonna ask you to go through the same exercise for the general zoning by-law, because I think you’ve done the same thing. And what this demonstrates to me is that there is some really important and valuable sensitivity on the part of the staff to understand the different types of neighborhoods that we have in our community. And this is a very tiny little sub-neighborhood that squeezed within a couple of big streets. Now, if this application were on Richmond Street, this would not be a problem, it would not even be an issue.

In fact, it would be welcome. And to talk about the huge high rise that’s going up at St. James, which is on a huge, huge tract. It’s just not apples, it’s just not even apples in watermelons, I don’t know what you would call it, but it’s not even close to this.

While I’m not gonna go through the official plan that Calculus here, the zoning Calculus, could you at least spend a moment and go through the special provisions that we have for the near-campus neighborhood? Because yes, do you remember the near-campus neighborhood? We just had quite a bit of discussion about the near-campus neighborhood, and this is in the middle of the near-campus neighborhood. Could you go through the, could you just walk us through the analysis as to why this is not an appropriate development on an interior of the block in the near-campus neighborhood, even though it’s across the street from Marionville?

I’ll go to stop. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the counselor. Then the near-campus neighborhoods are planned in such a way to strategically locate growth and plan for residential intensification in a proactive and coordinated comprehensive fashion.

So as part of that, we look for consolidating parcels of land on more major streets and directing those two areas that are planned for medium-density residential and high-density residential forms of development. This site does not meet that criteria. It’s planned for low-density residential, and it’s not on a higher-order street. And so we are of the opinion that there will be impacts on the neighborhood and that it does not satisfy that criteria and the policies for the near-campus neighborhoods.

Councillor. And just to be clear, there’s been a lot of discussion lately about revisions that we’ve been making to the near-campus neighborhood. The near-campus neighborhood guidelines that you’re referring to here are in full force and effect and are not the subject of what is under dispute not right now with respect to the four units on a single residential property. Is that right, go to staff.

Through the chair, that is correct. These are policies that are in full force and effect. Councillor. And in fact, if this application were approved, it would totally up-end, disrupt, and really invalidate any meeting that the near-campus neighborhood regulations have.

Is, or am I over-reacting to that, go to staff? So through the chair, as previously mentioned, through our analysis, we’ve determined that the proposed development does not satisfy the policies for near-campus neighborhoods and is not in conformity with those policies. Councillor. If I went back and talked to any resident of your neighborhood, I’m sorry, the St.

George neighborhood, Roughdale, Bishop Almouth, Old North, and said, really, you need to be very concerned about the fact that all of the work that we’ve done over the years on the near-campus neighborhood criteria are really out the window now, because if a developer can come in and put this in the middle of a street, you really need to be worrying about it on yours. Would that be an over-reaction? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, from a planning perspective, we review every application on a site-specific basis, based on the policies that are current.

So every application will be reviewed against the policies in force, and our recommendation will be based on those policies. Councillor. I’m thinking in terms of an application for a similar-sized building that is not on a main street, that is not on Richmond, that is not on Adelaide, that is not on Oxford, that is on a side street. Even though you evaluate each application separately, is it not true that this would send somewhat of a chill through the neighborhood?

Councillor, I don’t know if they can comment in whether this would send a chill through the neighborhood, maybe rephrase your question, to get away from opinion and more kind of fact-based. Well, what I’m trying to understand is how this decision that’s on the table right now will affect the quality of life and the security of the neighborhood. And the understanding that people have about promises that the city has made to them in terms of planning documents throughout not just this block, but throughout the entire near-campus neighborhoods, throughout all of North. So maybe chill wasn’t the right word, but I do believe fundamentally that this would give people a lot of cost to worry.

And I do not see any countervailing, any countervailing policy in the documents that the staff has provided for us that would override the official plan, the zoning Bible, and the near-campus neighborhood guidelines. So on all grounds, I would argue that the staff report must be sustained, and this is very dangerous territory. You know, this is my opinion, I’ll submit this. This is very dangerous territory we’re getting into.

If we start going back on a lot of the things that many of us in the Old North community sort of take for granted as things that we can rely on. And if you don’t want to use the word chilling, that’s okay. But to me, I know it’s going to be considered chilling. And this is not even a situation where under the new provincial laws, somebody tries to demolish a single family structure and put up a foreplex under our housing code.

This is actually something in a totally different, much larger magnitude than even that. So I guess I’ve made my point. I’ll be urging my fellow Councillors to reject the motion that the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Hill here put on the table. And I think we have to allow the staff in our legal department to just continue going forth on the very, very wise and the very, very prudent track that they’ve been on so far.

So I would urge you to not vote for this. Is this an amendment that’s on the floor that Councillor— Oh, this is a motion. Okay, I would ask you to reject that motion. And after that, maybe we would then discuss about what does this really mean in terms of what’s the relationship between what we did today and what’s going to happen at the LPAT.

But I think that the council has consistently, through the record, through the record that has largely been supplemented by people in the neighborhood based on their own life experience in the neighborhood, they’ve created a very, very strong record here as to why this application should be denied on many, many legal grounds. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Other comments or questions?

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair. I will take the chair and I will recognize Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

You know, I understand what the Councillor is saying and I’m aware of that, but in this particular case, I already see this area’s medium density type area. If it was a loan and, you know, blocks of single family residences, it might be a different case, but you know, as the Deputy Mayor pointed out, there are a number of medium density buildings around the area, including one across the street. So for that reason, I’m going to support the motion, but I do understand what you’re saying, Councillor. And if it was, you know, farther in your campus neighborhood of just purely single family residences, I might have a different opinion.

I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on your speaker’s list.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Okay, we have no items for a direction. Well, just one second. Okay, we’re going to have to go back to 3.1. We have to receive…

Clerk advises me that we have to receive the presentation by Tevis Valley. Councillor ramen, who is that? Deputy Mayor, a second, so we’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

No items for a direction. We have 5.1, the deferred matters list, got on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis from the motion to receive it. Okay, and Councillor ramen seconds, and I’ll go back to the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair, and I will apologize. This is a question I did not get to ask staff earlier, so I’m going to ask them now. This is what happens when I take a long weekend off, is I don’t get all these questions written down and submitted in advance. In the deferred matters list, item five is doing Q2 of this year.

It’s the review of the existing housing related CIPs for opportunities to include and incentivize the creation of affordable housing. I know we’re not all the way through Q2 yet. I’m just wondering if there might be any update staff can provide us just verbally right now in terms of, are we on track to get a report this quarter? And are we going to see all of it, or will it be part of it?

I mean, I know we have got a number of different irons in the fire, breathing zonings going on, all kinds of other things. So I’m just wondering if there might be a brief verbal on how things are progressing on the CIP incentives or affordable housing of those staff? Through the chair, very good news. We are looking at bringing it forward, those reports in June.

So they’re currently my inbox, so I’ll be reviewing them shortly, so thank you. Deputy Mayor. Well, that’s great. I know there’s going to be an announcement about a commercial to residential conversion downtown tomorrow, and I know that I very recently met with someone who’s just purchased a building on Dundas Place, who’s interested in potentially developing some residential on their upper floors.

So knowing that perhaps some incentives around it, affordable might be in the near future. That’d be good news to share with our community as well, as they’re looking at developing those units. It might be great if we could get a couple of affordable ones in that mix. Thank you.

Other comments or questions on our deferred matters? They’ll open the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We’re now at a Germano look promotion to adjourned. Deputy Mayor and Councilor Almond second, hand vote. The motion carries. Thank you.

Thanks, folks. We’re adjourned. Thanks. Yeah, thank you.