July 16, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Quarterly Heritage Report – Q2 2024

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.1) - Quarterly Heritage Report – Q2 2024

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q2 2024” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

2.2   Planning & Development and Building Housing Update – 2024 Year-To-Date

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.2) - Planning and Development and Building Housing Update – 2024 YTD

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

2.3   The London Plan Heights Review

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.3) - The London Plan Heights Review - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “The London Plan Heights Review” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-D22)

Motion Passed

2.4   Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.4) - 2024 Building Division Monthly Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

2.5   Draft Site Alteration By-law

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.5) - Draft Site Alteration By-law

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Draft Site Alteration By-law” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

2.6   Information Report of Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.6) - Information Report of Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Information Report of Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Incentivizing Office-to-Residential Conversions in Downtown

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.1) - Incentivizing Office-to-Residential Conversions in Downtown - Full

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to offering financial incentives to support office-to-residential conversions in downtown:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to introduce the following financial incentive programs focused on downtown office-to-residential conversion projects:

i) Feasibility Study Grant Program;

ii) Construction Conversion Grant Program with a maximum grant of $35,000 per unit; and,

iii) Application Fees Exemption Program;

iv) amend the existing Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant program to reflect the revised maximum grant value of $35,000 per unit (without differentiating by the number of bedrooms) and remove the $2 million cap per property;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the existing Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant Program in the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to increase the amount of the grant per residential unit to match the proposed new program in recommendation a) ii);

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to amend its agreement with 166 Dundas St London Inc. by $110,053 to adjust for the increased per residential unit grant value to be implemented subject to Municipal Council approval of recommendation a) ii);

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to amend its agreements with any future applicants that receive an Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant prior to the new Construction Conversion Grant Program being approved, to adjust for the increased per residential unit grant value to be implemented subject to Municipal Council approval of recommendation a) ii); and,

e) the report “City of London Office to Residential (OTR) Conversion Financial Incentive Program(s) (OTR-CFIP)” from Urban Insights Inc. appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED;

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

  • a presentation from Urban Insights; and,

  • a communication dated July 12, 2024 from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute requesting delegation status;

it being also noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a delegation from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute, with respect to these matters;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-S12)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute, BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1 Fallons Lane (Z-9728)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.2) - 1 Fallons Lane - Z-9728

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London Ontario, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1 Fallons Lane:

a)  the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) the Owner shall provide two (2) additional tree plantings along the Huron Street frontage in addition to the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

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.; and,

-  E. Norris;

  • L. MacKenzie, Chair, Affordable Housing Committee, Society of St. Vincent de Paul London;

  • L. Dollard, President, Society of St. Vincent de Paul National Council of Canada; and,

  • J. Ketelaars, President, St. Vincent de Paul Society, London Particular Council;

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

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability, and initiatives related to the Housing Accelerator Fund that will support the creation of affordable housing units;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road (Z-8720)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.3) - 3614 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road - Z-8720

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a  Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4())Zone; two  Residential R1 and R4 Special Provision (R1-4/R4-6(11) Zones; two Residential R1 and R4 Special Provision (R1-4()/R4-6(11) Zones; two Residential R4, R5, R6, R7 and R9 Special Provision (R4-6(11)/R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R9-5()) Zones; a Neighbourhood Facility, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R9 (NF/R4-6(11)/R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R9-5()) Zone; and an Open Space (OS1) Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision relating to the properties located at located at 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road:

i)    expressing concern with the lack of details provided on the zoning categories for each Block;

ii)    indicating that there is a large difference in the number of parking spaces required for each zone; noting that you need a vehicle to get around this area;

iii)    advising that there are right out, right in restrictions which is a safety hazard;

iv)    outlining that the lack of detail for the adjacent property as the property is landlocked by the east and the south;

v)    the developer is asking for a relaxation of setbacks and lot sizes compared to similar zoning of the same category;

vi)    requesting to go on record as objecting to any relaxation of setbacks and lot sizes;

vii)    reiterating the City of London wording of “The successful completion of the Southwest Area Planning Area depends on the cooperation of the owners and land developers to share in the equitable and fair distribution” of the use of the land;

viii)    indicating that the Phase 1 of the application cannot be completed in isolation and that Phase 2 has implications to a neighbouring property; and,

ix)    requesting that the application be refused until environmental and planning connectivity concerns are resolved;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; and,

ii)    street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited (File No. 39T-16509),  prepared by Sifton Properties Limited,  Drawing No. 1, dated October 25, 2023, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of twelve (12) single detached lots (Lots 1 to 12), five (5) medium density residential blocks (Blocks 13 to 17), one (1) parkland block (Block 18), one (1) school/medium density residential block (Block 19), one (1) future development block (Block 20), and six (6) road widening and reserve blocks, all serviced by three (3) new streets (Street A, B and C);

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

  •    a communication dated July 5, 2024 from R. Uukkivi, Partner, Cassels;

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

  •    M. Paluch, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 

  •    G. Dietz;

  •    M. Harrison; 

  •    G. Campbell;

  •    J. Campbell;

  •    M.A. Harrison;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   3392 Wonderland Road South (OZ-9730)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report - 3392 Wonderland Road South (BH) - OZ-9730

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Old Oak Properties Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design), relating to the property located at 3392 Wonderland Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to:

i)    amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING new policies to the Specific Area Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan; and,

ii)    amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), forming part of the Official Plan, by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor and Medium Density Residential policies in the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone, an Environmental Review (ER) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision/Restrictive Service Commercial Special Provision (LI1()/LI7()/RSC2()/RSC3()/ RSC4/RSC5(_)) Zone and an Open Space /(OS4) Zone; 

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1458 Huron Street (Z-9743)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.5) - 1458 Huron Street - Z-9743

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by OMNI Developments Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1458 Huron Street & 39 Redwood Lane:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

b) Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix G of the associated staff report;

c) should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1458 Huron Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix G of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

i) orient front doors of units towards Huron Street, limit fencing and provide access to the public sidewalk;

ii) provide privacy fencing along shared property lines with low-rise residential uses; and,

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

e) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, including the driveway access at 39 Redwood Lane;

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

  • a communication from M. Whalley, Board Member, on behalf of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, London Region Branch;

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

  • C. McAllister, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  • J. Ferrari;

  • Natalia;

  • L. Glad;

  • B. Durham;

  • L. Ferrari; and,

  • R. Tembo;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas, conservation of cultural heritage, and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit a 22-unit townhouse development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1105 Wellington Road (OZ-9725)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.6) - 1105 Wellington Road - OZ-9725

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by White Oaks Shopping Centre Inc., relating to the property located at 1105 Wellington Road:

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

b) the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in a) above), FROM Regional Shopping Area (RSA4) Zone TO a Regional Shopping Area/Residential R10 Special Provision (RSA4/R10-5(_)H115D750) Zone;

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

i) provide an adequately sized and centrally located outdoor amenity space, either at-grade or rooftop, or a combination of both;

ii) details regarding garbage storage and collection be determined;

iii) details regarding the inclusion of a paratransit layby be determined;

iv) landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

v) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

vi) investigate air source heat pump options; and,

vii) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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

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

  • a presentation from P. Kitson, Vice President, Planning and Development, Westdell Development Corporation;

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;

  • L. Goddard; and,

  • C. Ironside;

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; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of an underutilized site at an intensity appropriate for a Transit Village Place Type;

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)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   934 Oxford Street West (Z-9733)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.7) - 934 Oxford Street West - Z-9733

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2419361 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 934 Oxford Street West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-89*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

  • a communication dated July 12, 2024 from R. and J. Melvin;

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

  • A. Youssef;

  • A. Smye; and,

  • A. Mohseni-Khalesi;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment 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-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   359 Wellington Road and 657 Base Line Road East (Z-9719)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.8) - 359 Wellington Road and 657 Base Line Road East - Z-9719

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 LJM Developments Ltd., (c/o A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd.), relating to the property located at 359 Wellington Road and 657 Base Line Road East:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor 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 July 16, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential/Bonus (R1-6*B-43) Zone and Automobile Service Station (SS1) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone;

c) the requested Special Provision to reduce the required bicycle parking ratio from 1.0 spaces per unit to 0.7 spaces per unit BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)  the inability to accommodate bicycle parking for all units signifies an over-intensification of the site and does not promote the use of active transportation to residents;

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

i) consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of three (3) or more affordable units;

ii) landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

iii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

iv) investigate air source heat pump options;

v) include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots roughed in;

vi) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

vii) provide a minimum 50% transparent glazing on the first storey facing public streets and multiple pedestrian connections from the building to the public sidewalks to promote walkability and transit usage;

viii) provide building articulation and stepbacks to create a human scale and mitigate impacts of the tall building;

ix) provide weather protection and implement the recommendations of the wind study to ensure a comfortable pedestrian environment;

x) explore opportunities to increase the amount of outdoor amenity space; and,

xi) update the Traffic Impact Assessment and implement recommendations, including access restrictions;

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

  • a presentation from F. Kloibhofer, A.J. Clarke and Associates Ltd.;

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

  • F. Kloibhofer, A.J. Clarke and Associates Ltd.; and,

  • J. Herbert;

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

  • the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, promote transit-supportive development and support long-term economic prosperity;

  • the amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies; and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact 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 a 23-storey, 250-unit apartment building in a form 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-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   1725-1737 Richmond Street (Z-9741)

2024-07-16 - Staff Report (3.9) - 1725-1737 Richmond Street - Z-9741

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Richmond Hyland Inc. c/o Paul Kitson, Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 1727-1737 Richmond Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(1)) Zone and an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(15)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(*)) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(**)) Zone;

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

i) details regarding a paratransit layby for Tower 3, separate from the one provided for Tower 1, be determined;

ii) explore options to provide a common outdoor amenity space for Tower 2 suitable in size with features to accommodate the anticipated population of this tower. As the proposal is currently overparked, consider redesigning the surface parking area to replace parking spaces with amenity space, while maintaining access to the structured parking;

iii) provide a north-south pedestrian connection internal to the site from the proposed to the existing commercial buildings to the south; 

iv) explore options to provide a common outdoor amenity space suitable in size and features to accommodate the anticipated population of Tower 3;

v) update the Shadow Study to include existing and proposed buildings in Phases 1, 2 & 3; 

vi) incorporate a creative architectural treatment around the structured parking in the podium of Tower 2;

vii) incorporate green infrastructure and/or features for Low Impact Development (LID) into the site design.

viii) consider alternative options for the design of the parking garage ramp for Tower 3;

ix) update the existing Transportation Impact assessment with additional vehicle turning analysis for Tower 3 ramp and garage exit; Review access management for the North Centre Road driveway;

x) details regarding parkland dedication in the amount of 0.5 ha of land, in accordance with the Masonville Secondary Plan, be determined;

xi) landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

xii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

xiii) investigate air source heat pump options; and,

xiv) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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

  • L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • A. Mustard-Thompson;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is in conformity with the in-force policies of the Masonville Secondary Plan;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, City Building, and the Transit Village Place Type, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use city; and,

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

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)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Requests for Delegation – Centennial Central Public School Sanitary Service Connection

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the request from the Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the Thames Valley District School Board regarding sanitary servicing for Centennial Central Public School:

a)    authority BE DELEGATED to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to approve an agreement between the City and the Thames Valley District School Board for the provision of sanitary servicing to Centennial Central Public School;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this agreement;

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

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024 from G. Vogt, Superintendent, Facility Services and Capital Planning, Thames Valley District School Board; and,

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024 from R. Cascaden, Director of Public Works and Engineering, Municipality of Middlesex Centre;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from the following in conjunction with these matters:

  •    G. Vogt, Superintendent, Facility Services and Capital Planning, Thames Valley District School Board; and,

  •    S. Bergman, Planner, Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That G. Vogt, Superintendent, Facility Services and Capital Planning, Thames Valley District School Board and R. Cascaden, Director of Public Works and Engineering, Municipality of Middlesex Centre, BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the Centennial Central Public School sanitary service connection.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2    Request for Delegation - Middlesex Centre Sanitary Servicing Agreement, 2000

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, BE REQUESTED to report back with an analysis of the Sanitary Servicing Agreement request made by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, including planning, technical, and financial considerations;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Bergman, Planner, Municipality of Middlesex Centre, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024, from A. DeViet, Mayor, Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That S. Bergman  Middlesex Centre, BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the Middlesex Centre Sanitary Servicing Agreement, 2000.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.3   Urban Forest Canopy - Councillor S. Franke and Councillor C. Rahman

2024-07-16 - PEC Submission (4.2) - Trees Motion - Councillor S. Franke and Councillor C. Rahman

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, the following matters be included on the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on the following matters in Q4 of 2024:

i) Urban Forestry Strategy Monitoring Report:

A) a status update of initiatives identified in the Urban Forestry Strategy Implementation Plan; 

B) the requirements to effect The London Plan policies for tree replanting and/or compensation with development applications; 

C) opportunities to establish large designed planting sites (e.g., an arboretum or new woodland habitat); and,

D) opportunities to require better soil amendments in new developments;

 

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on the following matters in Q4 of 2024:

i) Tree Planting Strategy:

A) updated policies and numerical standards related to resident input for boulevard tree planting, soil suitability for boulevard tree planting, and selection of tree species to be planted; 

B) specific planting targets for geographic areas of the City; and, 

C) additional planting opportunities on City-owned lands and partnerships with consenting institutional land owners (e.g., schools, hospitals, universities, colleges, etc.);

 

c) the Civic Administration engage where applicable in stakeholder consultation on these items, including engaging the general public, local agencies, relevant advisory committees and the development industry.  (2024-E04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-07-16 - PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the July 16, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-07-10 CACP Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on July 10, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

The meeting adjourned at 4:59 PM.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 2 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s a little after one o’clock. I’ll call the 11th meeting and planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting, detail information, meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenna Peiwock, and autorodron. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting.

Please contact PEC@london.ca or 519-661-249, extension 2425. At this moment, I’ll ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, before we get into the consent items, WC Major Scott Mathers as a new member of his team, and I’ll go into him. Through the chair, I’d like to take a moment to introduce our new director of building services, Alan Shaw, he’s right over here, I’ll get his hand up.

This is his first meeting, so I just thought that would be a great opportunity to be able to introduce him. Alan is over 20 years of professional building experience. He’s been worked previously with cities, including the city of Sarnia, Toronto, and most recently with the city of Hamilton. Alan has a proven track record, working in high volume municipalities, and working collaboratively with staff and industry partners.

And with that goal of always trying to achieve success, transparency, and positive morale within his teams. So I just wanna let everyone know, I’m super excited to have Alan here as part of our team, and I know he’ll be instrumental in us providing more housing for Londoners. So thanks for this opportunity, and I’ll pass it back to the chair. Thank you, Mr.

Mathers, and welcome. As I feel a very dynamic group under Mr. Mathers, and I look forward to many years of your valuable insight. And I’ll now move on to consent items.

And I’ll look to committee to see what they prefer. Deputy Mayor Lewis, sorry. Thank you, Chair, and just through you, unless Mr. Mathers wants to recommend anything to be pulled to the end of the agenda, so that Mr.

Shaw can get the full experience of a planning committee today. I’m prepared to move the consent agenda so that we can get into any discussion or debate around any of the items, but I’m prepared to move it as presented. Okay, and I’ll remind committee that and visiting Councillors if we move it, and second it was can still talk about it. So I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Frank.

We have a motion moved and second. I’ll just inform the committee, and those here that Councillor ramen is a little delayed. She’ll be here in probably about, well, maybe about 25 minutes or so that will carry on. Okay, I’ll open up the floor for questions or comments, and any items, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and through the Chair, my question has to do with item 2.3, the London Plan Heights Review. I was excited to see this coming forward. I think we’ve noticed that planning a couple times, we’ve been encouraging greater density than what the London Plan currently allows for, and this looks like we’re heading in the right direction. My question was just in regards to moving forward, increasing the heights in neighborhood place types.

I know that these are really focused at more of the higher density areas, but I’m wondering if staff are looking forward and seeing if there’s an opportunity for increased density in neighborhood type places as well. Go staff. Through you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, that’s something that we will be looking at through the Official Plan amendments that’ll be coming forward for the September 10th pack. We will be starting circulation immediately after this meeting, essentially, and through that, we will be considering all urban place types as the potential for increased heights or densities. So that’s one of the things we’ll be doing. As you noted, this report primarily focuses on tall buildings, which is anything over eight stories and design considerations as well, associated with that.

Councillor. That’s great to hear, and through the chair, just to follow up on that, through that process, coming back to us, how will the public be engaged on that as well? Thank you. - Hello, staff.

Through you, Mr. Chair, we will be circulating as we do any normal applications. We will have the normal time period. It will be available on our Get Involved page.

We’ve launched a series of Get Involved pages for all of our major projects that are now coming forward, as we encourage people to obviously follow us along through those pages as well. And we will be having a public participation meeting. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of time based on the fact that these are half-related projects, and they have to be completed in a certain amount of time. So we don’t have the ability to do more fulsome community engagement that we would normally do, unfortunately, but the public will have an opportunity to comment as with any application.

Councillor. That’s much appreciated, and understanding the half timelines makes a lot of sense, and I know that members of council also make our best efforts to make our residents aware and share it on our socials as well. So thank you very much for that information, and looking forward to getting that later this year. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, and so I will pick up where Councillor Frank left off on the London Plan Heights review. Very pleased to see this coming forward. I have to say that I think that this is landing things in about the right spot, particularly when we’re talking about urban corridor place types, transit villages. These new proposed heights make a lot of sense, and they’re pretty consistent with decisions that have been made in recent months to begin with.

I want to also move along in terms of the monthly Building Division Report update. Obviously, great news in the fact that our inspections are 99% to 100% within the provincially mandated timelines. That’s good to see. Obviously, the increases over 1,500 units have had permits issued for them.

It seems to me that since it’s a small number that our single family that most of the permits being issued are medium or high density, multi-residential, which is also good for our infill targets. However, through you, Chair, I do want to ask about the number of permits on the clock versus off the clock, because the majority of the 1,500 and 6 that were indicated 1,100, sorry 1,162 were off the clock. So I’m wondering if we can get a little bit more information on what we’re doing to get more of these permits issued on the clock. That’ll go to stuff.

Through the chair. So the off the clock permits is something that we’re doing a lot of work on right now. As part of that targeted actions that we brought back regarding housing supply, we highlighted that one is the item that we want to be able to spend a lot more time and bring that to the attention of council as well and committee. So we’re actually targeting a September report that’s going to provide further details on our off the clock permits and some strategies for improving those numbers.

So look forward to that meeting, that report in September. Deputy Mayor. Thanks, that’s good to hear. ‘Cause I continue to hear a significant concern about off the clock issuances for permits.

And I know that sometimes that is the applicants doing within complete information as well, but sometimes it’s an internal process that we need to address. So I’m glad to see that that is happening as well. But generally, I just think it’s an appropriate opportunity to highlight the progress we’re making this year in terms of the permits being issued and the construction happening. And I was asked about this earlier this week, it takes a long time to get from something we do today in terms of a zoning approval to occupancy.

And that includes a site plan review that sometimes may include external agencies, upper Thames as section 28 permits. And then after that, the permits have to be pulled and the construction has to actually happen. So some of this is the result of zoning applications that we approved a year or two or three years ago that are now having the permits pulled and being in the ground. And I think that it speaks to the confidence that the industry continues to have in our community.

I think it speaks to the work that is being done through the process improvement table in consultation and partnership with the industry to identify those opportunities. Obviously, there’s some other external factors involved as we see sort of supply chain stabilizing and interest rates dropping a little bit and making things a little bit more economically viable again too. But I don’t want to miss the opportunity to underscore that a portion of that is due to the work of staff to improve processes, get site plan review done, get permits issued and out the door so that shovels can go in the ground and construction can start. So I just want to take the opportunity to thank the staff for the work that they’ve done, both in the planning department through, I know Mr.

Pease has moved on, but through his team at the site plan stage and then of course through Mr. Weiling and now Mr. Shaw in the building division to get the permits processed and out the door. It’s a team effort and it’s starting to show some really positive results.

So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? I’ll go to Councillor Pribble and then I’ll go to Sam and then I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins as well.

Go ahead, please. Thank you, Chair, through the chair to the staff. Thank you for those reports and again, very positive. One of the questions was answered.

I’m looking forward to the September report on the off the clock permits. Very positive on track. Thank you for the building permit housing summer because it really helps us with the percentiles and the changes. It’s very helpful, thank you for that.

In 2.4 in that report we used to appendix A, we used to receive also the monthly one, not just to year to date one. And also my question is if you are gonna be receiving the monthly one as well or just to year to date, which is the appendix A, the current one. Thank you. Okay, staff.

Through the chair, with the changes moving to quarterly, it was hard to do that without providing like five or six more tables in that document, which would pretty much be the same amount of work as we were doing previously. So all that data is available. And once we have the web page that will be able to provide this in closer to real time, you’ll be able to flush out all that information. But if there is any single month that you’re interested in, we can pull that information.

But it’s difficult to show that in this kind of content without having a huge amount of more appendix materials. So at this point, we were just looking at providing that year to date information. Councillor. Thank you for that answer.

And once again, thank you because the numbers that we are seeing from us, we are on the right track. And hopefully we will reach our targets. Thank you. Councillor Trussell.

Thank you. I’m here as a non-committee member. So I really appreciate you giving me the chance to ask some questions. My questions deal with a height framework report.

And this is generated quite a few calls to my office and quite a few expressions of concerns from my constituents already. Probably because this is tied in very much with the Oxford Richmond review that’s going on. I’m trying to understand how this report fits into the broader process in light of the fact that throughout the report these are framed as recommendations. So I understand that the recommendations, but these are going to be at the beginning of a public participation process.

So I’m a little confused about how binding these recommendations are and how the public was engaged in coming to these recommendations. That was staff, excuse me, through the chair. So this is the first step in the heights review, which was to hire a consultant to review the current London Plan Heights, as well as their proposed framework for us to move forward with. We asked them to do that analysis based on development trends, other best practices and other municipalities, as well as interviews with development industry partners and understanding of the development feasibility at different building heights.

So this was their review based on those parameters and the recommendations are from the consultants for us to consider. Moving forward over the summer, we’ll be engaging on these heights and bringing forward a recommendation which is not tied to these, like these are not binding recommendations, this is simply the consultants recommendation for our consideration, but we’ll continue the conversation and the analysis and bring forward a recommended official plan amendment for councils to consider in September. Councilor? Yes, through the chair, I’d also like to better understand the time constraints on this.

I, as I understand this, this isn’t across the board pre-zoning of different parts of the city, but there’s no actual development application on the table. And so I need to understand, since there’s no development application on the table, why we’re using the same statutory timelines as if there were a development application on the table? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the timelines associated with the project are because of the commitments we’ve made through the housing accelerator fund and the plans associated with that and the work plan associated with that.

So we have flexibility to provide more time and more consultation, but because this is, from a planning act perspective, but because this is related to the housing accelerator fund, we’re moving forward to meet those targets. Councilor? Yes, through the chair again. In terms of the requirements of the federal requirements, there’s a document between the city and the federal government regarding the funds that sets out these requirements.

I take it. So go to staff. Through the chair, I’ll just speak to the actual housing accelerator program. So as part of that program, the federal government provide, we had to provide some thoughts on how we could achieve the various objectives that they were trying to get.

One of those objectives was to provide for pre-zoning within certain areas of the city. However, there’s a complete public process and will be driven by council. So we’ve highlighted a timeframe that we think that we can hit if it’s something that council and of course taking into that input from the community, if we feel that that is a appropriate council will be able to proceed. There’s no commitment to sidestep any of our appropriate processes, it’s up to council to make that final decision, but we provided a timeline that could be met and if council decides that that’s where they want to do to be able to align with the targets that we’ve highlighted in our housing application, then we can do that.

But there is no requirement for council to pass that. It needs to still go through that provincially mandated process. So that councilor through the chair, I guess. So that’s not a decision that’s on the table now or when this goes to council.

That would come up at all later time. Thank you. And my last question to the chair, deals with the public sort of engagement process that the consultant used to get to the point of this recommendation. Throughout the report, throughout the report, there are many, many instances of consultation with the development community through various bodies.

I don’t see any evidence in this report at all that there was any engagement with any neighborhood groups with the urban league, with any other civic organizations. Am I missing something or is that correct? That just didn’t happen. I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, so the purpose of the engagement conducted by our consultants was to understand development costs and development feasibility in order to recommend what building heights were appropriate from a development perspective. Our plan is to now take that and use that as part of our public engagement. So broad public engagement wasn’t part of the mandate of the consultants, but it is part of our next steps on this project. Councilor.

Okay, well, thank you. I’d like to say that answers all my questions. It doesn’t, it answers all the questions that I can put on the table right now. And I’m sure I’ll have more at council and I’ll just allow other councilors to continue.

Thank you very much for hearing from me. Okay, Councilor, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me and allowing me to speak to a few of the consent items.

I represent Ward 9, which is all about development. It is a growing ward and there are many consent items here that are really important for the public to understand and know and it’s something that as a counselor, I’m responsible for sharing that information, but I would definitely encourage the city, the more we can share this information with the public. The better off the public will be when it comes to coming here and asking questions as well. So I have a follow-up question on 2.3, the London Plan Heights Review.

And I’m really pleased to see this come forward. I know there have been a number of past applications that we’ve had here at planning where we do these one-offs and change the heights. And I think we do need guidelines to sort of make us understand as well as the public to understand what they can expect in their areas. The follow-up question I have to Councilor Trusso is around the public engagement when it comes to this review.

It’s coming back to us in September. So will there be a public participation at that time? Question number one. Go staff.

Through the chair, yes, there will be. This will be brought forward as an official plan amendment. And as part of that process, there’s a standard public participation meeting Councilor. Yeah, thank you for that.

In September, I think is a more appropriate month than in the summer too, so thank you very much for that. The second question I have, and I don’t want to get too much in the weeds, but it is around the heights. And we see the heights more in the downtown area and of course in our transit villages. And we’ve heard that policies throughout the city are more or less open to these heights as well.

And I would like to, just from a higher level, have a better understanding what determines sort of that transit hub. Do we, is this part of that review? Or if you can just give me on high level without getting too much into the details, how you as staff would look at this review and determining where these transit villages are appropriate just just a general idea through you, Mr. Chair.

Go to staff. Through the chair, this review that’s in front of you today is related to the existing place types and designations within the London plan. So it’s looking at the downtown transit villages, rapid transit corridors and other place types as designated by the London plan. Now, there are separate reviews or projects under way that are considering potential changes to that framework.

One that’s been noted is looking at transit villages and possibly adding a couple more to the London plan. And then that would also be a plot, or then this framework would also apply in those areas. But this exercise in front of you today does not include a review of where place types are designated on the map. That will be through a separate exercise right now.

We’re just looking at what heights are permitted within each of those place types. Councilor. Yeah, thank you for that. I really do appreciate that because when we look at these reviews, we have a whole pile of other questions happening as we’re reading them and this review will assist you down the road when you determine where to make these changes.

So I appreciate the clarification, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors? The committee permit me to have a couple of questions and comments.

Just, there’s a lot in here and consent. I am so thank you for councilors for going through these with really good questions. Just now we didn’t touch on the last item bill 185 and there’s a number of changes in there that affect the city. This is a provincial bill called the cutting red tape to build more homes act 2024.

I’d just like to highlight the staff could kind of just highlight the ones that have cost implications for the city and how that affects us. Through you, Mr. Chair, I can go over some of the Planning Act and Municipal Act considerations but there is also, I believe a representative from Development Finance here. So they might be able to, if you’d like, be engaged to discuss the development charges components.

Sure, let’s do that. That would be pretty, I see him coming to the mic now. Please, sir, if you could just highlight, don’t go into it too deep, but just to give council and public a bit of insight on how this affects us from a cost point of view. Through the chair, thank you very much.

So since 2019, there’s been fairly significant legislative changes to the Development Charges Act, which is bad, a lot of significance. Sir, I’m gonna just ask you to speak a little louder or closer to the mic, got a little better there? Yes, thank you, sorry about that. So since 2019, there’s been very significant legislative changes to the Development Charges Act, which have had significant financial cost implications to the city.

Back a few years ago, we redrafted a report which really qualified and kind of tried to quantify the financial impacts, which we estimated at approximately 100 million dollars. Since that time, we’ve been trying to track and record all of the dollars lost as a result of those changes. The good news is, as a result of the bill 185, there’s been some pullback on some of those changes, one of them being the studies and another being the mandatory DC rate phase in. Those have added a financial impact of actually climbing back about approximately $50 million roughly.

So as really positive sign for the city. Thank you. And just a flip up is gonna hit a couple of things here. On 2.2 regarding the housing update, we’ve got a target of 47,000 homes that we always hear about and we’re always talking about and so we should.

I’m wondering if we can get a number ongoing as to how we’re tracking on that 47,000 target. Through the chair, we have a target to give you that target. So it’s taking us a bit of time to be able to ensure that we include all of the housing that’s available. So that is absolutely something that we want to include to be able to show like since the starting of the 10 year period, we’re gonna ensure that includes all of the housing that’s being provided.

So we know what the province’s metric is which is building starts. However, and this is something that is fairly specific to London because we’ve been doing a really great job in bringing the multi-year department housing. We have a lot of housing that is currently not even, not even at the point people can move in and is not being counted because the permit or the work was done on the site prior to the timeline for our 10 year target. So what we want to do is make sure that we capture all of those units because that’s absolutely appropriate at the housing that is being created right now.

So that’s taking a little bit more time ‘cause it’s not something we’ve collected in the past. So our hope is within the next couple of cycles to be able to provide that in that monthly update. Thank you. And finally, just a comment on the building division detailed report and I’ll echo Deputy Mayor Lewis.

This is very encouraging because 2023, you and your team did a lot of work in processing a lot of rezoning applications. Unfortunately, we fell behind on the permits and getting shovels in the ground due to high interest rates and high inflation. The development community pulled back. But we knew at that time that the work would eventually pay off.

And I think we are seeing that. So good job in using that time to prepare, you know, getting technology in place, getting that welcome reception area on the second floor, terrific. So then when we get hit, which we are just starting to now, I believe, we’re seeing in the May, we’re up 11%, but even more encouraging, we have 50% more in the pipeline than we had last year. So it’s common because the development community sees their costs, inflation and interest rates are peaked and they’re coming down.

So that hard work, I just want to say thank you. And I encourage you to, again, the Deputy Mayor touch on this to get the other site plan and building permits processed expeditiously so we can get shovels in the ground and roofs over here. Thank you very much. Councilor Perble.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Does the one bill 185 pullback, was it 50 or $15 million? Thank you.

Go staff through the chairs, approximately 50 million. So roughly 30 to 40 million was on the DC rate phase in and about five to 10 million was roughly on the studies. Both of those did not impact the city at this time but it would have impacted us during the 2028 DC study. Thank you very much.

No more questions? Okay, got the consent items moved and seconded. If there’s no other questions or comments, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So next on the agenda is 3.1. This is regarding incentivizing office for residential conversions in downtown. I see a delegation is listed here. I’ll look for that delegation if they would like to address the committee.

Through the chair, we’re just gonna do a brief intro to it, but I know that there is a request for another delegation as well. Okay, while we do that first, Mr. Mathers, please go ahead. Through the chair, so early this year, there was a new incentive program that was brought forward to promote conversions of office to residential in the downtown area.

So that program introduced an incentive that was very similar to what we had in the downtown for new residential construction. So that incentive was approximately $20,000 for one bedroom unit and $28,000 for two bedroom units. So we brought that forward to get something out there, to get a program, to get some excitement about it. And we’ve got a lot of great feedback from folks that are interested in it.

At the same time, we wanted to do that diligent research and have someone look at the marketplace and see what the appropriate amount value should be for that incentive, make sure that we weren’t giving away too much or too little. So what you have here today is some recommendations that’s come out of this work. So we’ve had a consultant urban insights and the consultant is here today if you do have any direct questions for them. And we’re providing a recommendation to increase that amount from that $20,000 to $28,000 to $35,000 per unit.

Happy to take any of your questions you might have, but that’s a short summary. Okay, thank you. Now I’ll go to the delegation. Mr.

Walz, are you wishing to speak to this? I was informed by the clerk that I didn’t. I’m here whispering in my ear that she’s changed. So that’s, I’m gonna consult right now, misunderstanding my fault.

Yes, we do need a motion. Councilor Roman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Go please, go ahead, Mr.

Walz, we have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike Walz, I’m the executive director for the London Development Institute.

And on a side note, I happen to agree with you, Mr. Chair, you really shouldn’t have to as a delegate for the public have to have permission from council to speak to. But anyways, that’s a different topic in another day. I’m here in support of the staff report and recommendations of introducing the three programs that are involved in improving the incentive program for the conversion of office to residential in the downtown area.

The report that was done by urban insights and their team was very thorough. I think it was about 80 pages long for me to read. But anyways, I’m sure you all read it. They do have a summary that they have attached to the agenda, which is an excellent summary.

We are supportive of conversions. I think the report shows clearly that it’s not a cheap and easy process. It doesn’t affect every building. But I know a number of my LDI’s and London Development Institute’s members are currently in the process or looking at conversions in the downtown of buildings that are either virtually empty or very close and that this conversion option is something that’s on the table with them and the incentive is needed to make it a viable project.

Just for your information, I sit on lots of committees here and just recently I was sitting on another committee where Collier says done some work. It’s not done yet, so you haven’t seen it yet. But they clearly indicate that on the affordable housing piece, one bedroom is the, it looks like the largest demand in terms of need of housing for the city of London. And in most of these cases, you will see that these will be one or two bedroom units that get converted.

They won’t be very large. There are lots of challenges with the— There are never goes down after it’s done. I’ll ask anyone who’s on Zoom, please put yourself on mute, please. We’re hearing you in chambers.

Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Walz, I will add 15 seconds to your time. No problem.

So there is an interconnection with the ability for the industry to redevelop their properties to residents housing to help support the vitality of downtown and include some more options for a more affordable housing that a single income will be able to support. And so it’s a win-win all the way around, I think. And we appreciate all the work that the staff have done on this project. And I don’t know if the answer is exactly the number that’s being recommended.

We will see in time, but we are certainly appreciative of the support the city is providing on that conversion. And that’s all I have for today. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. So I’ll open this item for committee members, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. And through the chair to either our staff or the consultant, I’m just wondering with these incentives for conversion, are they also stackable potentially with our future affordable housing CIP programs that we know that staff are working on if people can stack across all these CIPs?

Lovely staff. Through the chair, yes, absolutely. We’ll be able to be stacked. And that’s something that we think is going to be very fundamental to be able to help with our roadmap to 2.0.

We presented a caps yesterday, actually. So this is would be something that you could stack with a affordable housing amount as well. Councillor. Thank you.

That sounds very exciting because I know that the more incentives are available, the more likely these things will happen. I am wondering because you did reference that the consultant when they’re doing work was looking around to see like how much is too much and how little is too little to kind of get a good price point. I’m just wondering if the consultant has any information or any scoping on if the incentives that are kind of happening across Ontario, I assume, across Canada, if they’re actually driving up the market in general for some of the, whether the supply or the labor costs, I know that with some of the federal programs for incentives like heat pumps and cold climate, air-source heat pumps, that actually changed some of the price points. And so I’m just wondering if that was taken into consideration.

I know that we’re just one city in Ontario and Canada, but I am wondering at what point there is some cost escalation from the corporate side of this coin. I’ll go stuff. Yeah, through the chair. So we have our consultant here.

Reminds me he’s going to be able to provide a little bit more feedback on that question. Please, sir, go ahead. Thank you for the question. And Mr.

Chair, committee members, we took a comprehensive look of the programs that were specifically focused on office to residential Calgary being the number one, municipality. Everyone talks about Calgary. And so as we looked at their program and understood the differences between the Calgary approach and London approach, this is a made in London approach. I’m not aware of any other program that’s tailored Ontario.

That’s being introduced at which London is considering. And so there are other programs out there that help with conversions. We didn’t look at the detailed micro programs. They all make a difference.

And so when you look at any type of incentive or program, it’s to look at different unit sizes and to achieve a specific type of target. But ours were a little bit more macro at macro scale at the office to residential. And the financial performers that we prepared looked at the cost benefits and the analysis that could lift a project up to about a 30% return on its investment. And so when we looked at that with the financial funding in there, we thought that was a good place for London.

It’s a tiered approach. And so there’s some checks and balances put in place. And so money’s put towards the financial feasibility of the technical studies to help out people that are doing it for the first time. So there’s a range of developers and property owners out there.

So the program’s tailored and is unique in Ontario and Canada also. Thank you, I appreciate the information. And I guess more of my question was interested in knowing if the development community is increasing costs on their side, but I assume probably as a consultant, you would not have that information or those performers, but I appreciate the background on how you came to these numbers. Thank you.

I’ll look for other Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. And through you, while I’m not opposed to enhancing the incentives to get units created, I know we’ve had three, I guess I’m gonna call them expressions of interest for now ‘cause only one grant has actually been issued at this point, so other things are in process. But when we’re talking about increasing the incentive, one of the things that’s in this recommendation is an application fee exemption.

And I’m wondering what the dollar value of that on average might be representative of in addition to the 35,000 that we’re talking about ‘cause if we’re exempting fees that we would normally collect from other builders, that’s another financial incentive. It’s, I know it’s foregone revenue for us and it’s not a direct cost, but it is still foregone revenue and it is still having an impact on the cost of these conversions. So I’m wondering ballpark, ‘cause I know each project would be dependent on site specific conditions, but I’m wondering what typically we are for going in application fees if we grant those exemptions. I’ll go to staff.

Thank you. Through the Chair, including the report is the breakdown of those different application fees and based on the 228 units that we’re hoping to fund, it is approximately 375,000 that we’d before going. Deputy Mayor. Okay, I do appreciate hearing that.

That’s not an insignificant number and based on what I’ve read in this report. It’s not, we’re not collecting that revenue from the half to put back into our coffers. It’s money that we are for going collecting. So, I mean, to be perfectly honest, I would rather see a higher per unit half contribution than for going the revenue that the city is asking from other applicants.

And I’m wondering if that was considered in the development of this proposal. Oh, good stuff. Through the Chair, just to add a little bit of clarity here. So, the maximum incentive someone could get is $35,000.

So, per unit, and that includes all of the different pieces that they could get. So, if those fees would be covered from the overall value in the 10 million dollars that we have from the housing accelerated be able to program. So, this would, they’re not, those items aren’t stackable. So, I’m just sorry if that wasn’t clear, but the goal is to just have a maximum amount, which is that $35,000 for whatever that development might look like.

It just provides some opportunities for different timing to be able to get those recoveries in the costs. Okay, that’s very helpful because in table one of the report where it said for maximum effectiveness, these programs can be stacked. I read that as that these could be stacked on top of the 35,000, but if that’s part of the 35,000, then I’m much more comfortable hearing that answer and can be supportive of that. Councilor Robin.

Thank you and through you. I just wanted to follow up on actually some of the questions Deputy Mayor asked. So, my understanding is that the 375,000 represent six applications of which we’ve received two expressions of interest in one application at this point. Go to staff?

Through the chair, yeah, that’s the estimated value, but again, even for those applications, I’ve been submitted. We provided some value of what the additional costs would be to top them up to the 35,000 as well. Councilor. Thank you.

And then within the motion itself, I don’t see anything related to the $2 million cap. I’m just wondering, does that need to be clarified for the motion? Go to staff. Through the chair, you’re correct.

That wasn’t detailed in the motion itself. We provide a little bit of discussion within the body of the report. So, if that is something that could add clarity, I think that would be very valuable that we are removing the cap of the $2 million. Councilor.

Thank you. I’d be prepared to move that and move that as either included in the initial motion or amend to add that removal of the cap of the $2 million. So, Councilor, we can just include as part of the motion ‘cause you’re moving that. So, the clerk will drop that wording.

I’ll look for a seconder on that. Councilor Frank seconds and the clerk, I’ll let you know when the clerk has that wording. You can take a look at it. In the meantime, are there any other comments or questions from committee members?

Councilor Robin. Thank you. I did have one follow up. I’m just wondering from a reporting back standpoint, how will this be reported back to us in terms of, let’s say those that maybe went through the feasibility study, but that’s as far as they go.

Would we be able to see any of that and how would that be reported back? Go to staff. Through the chair, intention is to bring forward in the fall an update report on the housing accelerator and how that funding has been allocated by councils today or it has been spent, so we could provide some of those details as part of that report. This amount is $10 million, so we would be showing like how that $10 million has been spent today.

Councilor. Thank you. I think that’s really important right now. There’s a lot of public interest and I know people have been following along with the building classification conversation and what types of buildings are more appropriate and so even being able to say a building has went through the process of being looked at, I think is important.

It shows willingness from the development community that these opportunities were explored and it shows that we’ve done our due diligence and made sure that we’ve been able to provide those feasibility studies where possible, thanks. Yeah, Clark is almost ready with the wording. Any other comments or questions for if the committee will allow me, I’ll just quickly comment here. This wouldn’t be possible, I don’t think, without the housing accelerator fund.

We were the first city in Canada to get access to the fund and it’s a direct result of the work that you’ve been doing that I spoke to earlier. The federal government realized that London is ahead of the curve in doing innovative good work and finding ways to address our housing shortage. So good work on that. This is gonna be a very interesting exercise.

I know other cities are looking at office to residential conversion with changes to remote work and the impact it has on downtowns. However, in speaking with developers, I know that there is a challenge in, it sounds good, but there’s a challenge in converting a building that was built for office to residential and it could include considerable cost. So it will be interesting to see if one amount of money will make it enough to make the numbers work, so to speak, for the private industry to address this issue. And if so, if this works, it’s a win-win.

It helps our situation downtown, also helps get more units into the supply for housing. So $10 million to get this off the ground is terrific. And I really look forward to seeing the innovative ideas that come from our people that are actually going to figure out how we do this to get houses out of offices. So I’ll ask the clerk, as the clerk is the wording up.

So refresh your screens, you can get the wording. AIV Councilor is where that extra wording was included. Are you good with that? Okay, if there are no other comments or questions, we’ve got motion moved and seconded.

Look, you’re all called to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Moving on to item 3.2, which is one, Fallon’s Lane.

I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor ramen, seconded by Councilor Frank, I’ll call that. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Are there any technical questions for staff at this time?

Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address this. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee. My name is Harry Frucio, some with Celenka Preamma Limited and together with my colleague, Alia Richards. We’re very pleased to be here this afternoon to on behalf of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation and Diocese of London, Ontario and St. Vincent de Paul regarding the rezoning application at one Fallon’s Lane.

To my right, there are members of St. Vincent de Paul that will introduce themselves and speak to the committee as part of the public process. However, we just want to begin by thanking staff for their efforts in processing this application and also their efforts in processing the other applications that were part of this process as well and doing that in a timely and effective manner. We do support the staff recommendation to approve the proposed rezoning that will permit the construction of a six-story building containing 73 units to be developed by St.

Vincent de Paul. And the proposed development will be on a portion of the subject lands fronting Huron Street that currently accommodates parking for the St. Andrews Apostolic Church. In addition to a six-story building that will fit in with the character of the existing area, there will be ample provisions for amenity space, both outdoors and inside on the ground floor for use by the tenants.

Parking will be provided at a minimum in accordance with the minimum requirements for this type of built form. So overall, this proposed development represents a appropriate form of intensification in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, the London Plan, that takes into consideration the surrounding land uses and provides a heightened density that is compatible with surrounding uses and can make efficient use of municipal infrastructure and is transit supportive. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the proposed development will provide much needed affordable housing units to the community. An open house was held earlier this year on February the 28th.

The open house was well attended and overall the project was well received by the public. We have continued to have follow-up conversations with tenants from Chisholm Place Housing Cooperative. The neighbors immediately to the east of the proposed development. We are confident that any remaining concerns as identified in the staff report have already been or will be addressed during the site plan approval process, which is currently in progress.

We do wanna thank all the neighbors for their valuable input during this process, and we do wish to confirm to everyone that there are no adverse impacts anticipated as part of this proposed development. For the committee’s information, an application for consent has also recently been approved, which will create the lands to be developed by St. Vincent de Paul for the proposed development. We are hopeful that all approvals will be finalized shortly to allow the proposed development to commence later this year in the fall of 2024.

Overall, we believe that the proposed development will be a benefit not only to the surrounding area, but to the city of London as a whole with the increased supply of affordable units. Therefore, we respectfully request planning committee to endorse the staff recommendation to approve the request of zoning amendment, and we do agree with the amended bylaw that has been attached to the added agenda. We thank planning committee for allowing us the opportunity to present this application on behalf of our clients, and we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fusio. I look for members of the public, but would like to address committee at this time. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Through you, Chair, my name is Elizabeth Norris, and I’m here representing units 20 to 25 from Chisholm Place Housing Cooperative. First and foremost, I’d like to say that we are not NMB neighbors, we are EMB neighbors, and we’re excited for this application to go through. We do have some questions. We are on the property line immediately west of the project.

We’re not a large group, because I thought it would be best to keep it small, just for the people that it would affect, not the whole community. We were very thankful to have a meeting with Councillor Cuddy, Lawrence from St. Vincent de Paul, Harry from Zelenka, Priammo, and Steve from St. Andrews Church.

We had a long list of questions that day that were mostly answered. I’d also like to thank Alia from Zelenka Priammo for her excellent email communication regarding some further questions. The two ongoing concerns that we have are the construction traffic. Our concern now is during construction, traffic will be additionally impacted.

Here on a cheap side have become our de facto cut-throughs to avoid the hybrid and Oxford construction. Most days, here on a cheap side are a parking lot from three to six p.m. We’re also concerned with the new application for 1453 here on West on here on, sorry, that will further impact our traffic concerns. The drainage, we’re concerned about plans for drainage during construction.

Most of these have been answered through Alia. We just don’t want our backyards and our basements flooded, considering, I mean, with that flash flood that we had yesterday, I noticed a few buildings that backyards were flooded. So these are Alia assured us that there shouldn’t be an issue with this. But, and again, thank you so much for that.

And that’s really all the, those are the only concerns that we have at this time. Thanks to you for listening and appreciate your consideration when this project is being built. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Norris. Look for other comments from the public. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, Mr.

Chair, my name’s Larry McKenzie and I’m the Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, London. And I have with me today our distinguished guests, one our national president of the St. Vincent de Paul, who happens to live in London.

So she’s delighted to be here today, Linda Dollard. And I have our exit, our local president of the Council of St. Vincent de Paul, would also like to say a few words, Linda. Mr.

Chair, thank you so much for inviting us to be here to speak to you. And thank you, Larry, for the introduction. As he said, I’m the president for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul National Council of Canada.

And in 2021, the National Council promoted or launched a campaign in order to promote the concept that safe, secure, and affordable housing is a human right. And since then, we’ve had St. Vincent de Paul communities across Canada do things in different ways in order to promote this concept. We’ve also had communities across Canada, including Halifax, Nova Scotia, Toronto, and London, Ontario, as well as BC, actually implement projects to build affordable housing units because there’s such a great need, which is amazing.

I also wanted to speak from the international level. St. Vincent de Paul is president in over 150 countries across the world. And the US is actually one of the top providers of affordable housing projects, which is amazing.

I’m also part of the London Project, being a member of the fundraising committee. So I’m really happy to be part of it. And I also want to say thank you so much to the City of London and to our city councilors for your tremendous support of this very important project. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Catalyse, and I’m the president of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, London Particular Council.

We have been in London. Our society has been in London for over 160 years, and we provided those in need with food, clothing, and furniture, and it is only natural that we would extend our services to the need of London with affordable housing. And therefore, I’m pleased that with the help of the city, we are allowed to build like that. And we’d like to be around for another 161 years and build more of these houses.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Chair, I’d also like to thank the people who’ve helped us in this development.

The congregation of the St. Amberthe Apostle Parish, who welcomed this project to their site. It wasn’t an easy decision, but they seen the need in the community and they wanted to respond. The diocese of the London Roman Catholic Diocese have been very helpful to us in this process.

Also, the 15 people on our committee, both in the committee, the Affordable Housing Committee and the fundraising committee, who are working diligently to promote this project. Our professional team is Oinca, Priammo, Devonshire Consulting, Cornerstone Architecture and Degrant Construction. Well, and today I’d like to thank you all, Councillors and committee members and staff for your dedicated and hard work. Help make our dream of helping and assisting people in need with proper affordable housing and making that dream a reality.

So thank you very much. And hopefully we’ll see you in approval. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Look for any other speakers. I’ll ask if, please, sir. Thanks for your coming to the mic. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

I just stepped around, okay, this one. Hello everyone, I’m Ben Durham. My fiance and I live in Huron Heights, fairly close to the 1458 Huron Street development. Over the years we walked, run, biked, scooted, bust, and even driven past 14, 80, still not 1485, 1458 here on street, thousands of times.

And we’ve always wondered what and how this weirdly blocked out piece of land could be used. Other than one, two, or maybe three single family dwellings. And over on what is planned to be the main driveway for that complex on Redwood Lane, we even tried to figure out if it would be possible to maybe make that narrow strip into a coffee shop or something like that. But 22 residential units, yeah, please.

Density is the solution to city’s hemorrhaging money. It’s the solution to keeping property taxes from spiking by high percentage points. Like recently, density along major transit corridors like Huron Street allow transit to thrive, providing viable and efficient ways to move around the city of London. Because density also makes places more walkable and bikeable and navigatable outside of personal vehicles, which all reduce traffic congestion for everyone.

So I want to take a moment to say that this type of infill development needs to continue. So staff have clearly thought through so many different things and putting this report together. Will there be questions or concerns, of course, but we ourselves even sent off a bunch of questions last month to Brent House, who’s the planner who prepared this report for the planning and environmental environment committee. But let’s not make perfect the enemy of good.

This is a great set forward. Two small requests. At the proposed main driveway in and out of the complex, I would love to see a narrow traffic-combed driveway and also raise the sidewalk so that drivers are forced by design to approach the high traffic sidewalk on Redwood Lane slowly and carefully. And to councilors, if there are any problems when it comes to infill, whether it be on this project with 1458 Huron Street or future projects with, let’s say, an inadequate underground infrastructure requiring upgrading, then it just simply must be upgraded, sprawling in order to fund the urban Ponzi scheme is the last thing that we should be doing right now.

So for so many reasons. So let’s not expand the urban growth boundary, develop within it. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir.

Chair, just on a point of order. I think our last speaker may have actually been addressing the application further down in the agenda rather than the one Fallon’s Lane as I heard him referring to Redwood Lane and that’s actually later in our agenda. So I just wanna make sure perhaps if we can ask him to confirm that, I think the comments could simply be appended to the appropriate application, but if we can just check with him on that. Yes.

  • Sorry. I’ll go to you, sir. It appears that you were speaking to another item that’s yet to come, is that correct? That is correct.

Okay, hold that thought. Okay, 3.5, sorry. We’ll get you at some point, okay? All right, thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor for catching that. Any other speakers to this item? Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Raman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll put the item on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

I’m prepared to move the item, but I wonder if through you, we might ask staff if they can respond to the questions that were raised during the PPM from Ms. Norris with regard to concerns around drainage and flood mitigation during construction and how the city approaches that just so that the residents’ concerns have a response. And then I’m happy to move. Okay, I’ll go to staff on those two points that was raised by member of the gallery.

Thank you, through the Chair. Based on the grading plan reviewed through the site plan application, storm water is being contained and controlled within the site limits and will be directed to the city right of way. So no impacts are anticipated to the adjacent properties at this time. The construction traffic will access the site off of Huron Street as that is the only viable rate at this point.

We don’t want them using foul and lane and going through the existing parking lot. So as of right now, the construction access is off of Huron Street. Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

So I’m just gonna ask two questions of staff just for clarification ‘cause I know that Ms. Norris will ask me about them later if I don’t. When you, through you, Chair, to our staff with respect to the flow being directed to the city right of way, I just wanna make sure for clarification for the public that that is towards Huron Street. Post off.

That is correct. The overland flow is being directed to Huron Street. The underground pipe, storm water is being directed to foul and lane. So nothing is being directed to the adjacent properties.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. And just one final point of clarification with regard to the construction traffic. While the crew’s equipment will be accessing off of Huron, it’s not that they will be staging on Huron and creating lane closures.

It’s simply at a traffic access point for them there. And as we see with typical private construction, they would be expected to contain their daily work on site that we wouldn’t actually be experiencing lane closures on Huron to accommodate them. Post off. Yes, through the chair, that is correct.

We also have special provisions in the development agreement that speak to construction mitigation. The only road closures will be on foul and lane. That’s where the servicing is being connected to. NOAA’s servicing is being directed out to Huron Street.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you for that. I think that answers those questions. And I had the opportunity to meet Ms.

Norris in Councilor Cuddy’s office earlier. And I had indicated that, you know, there might be some lane closures as well. Connections are being made, but those are typically not the full duration of the construction, but limited to the period of time when the construction is actually connecting to the servicing. So I hope that answers those concerns from the residents thoroughly there.

And I am prepared to move the staff recommendation on this. And I’d be pleased to second this motion as well. So I’ll go to committee members for comments or questions. Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, and I’ll be very brief in my comments. Thank you, first of all, for inviting me to attend your committee today. I’d just take a moment to thank members of St.

Vincent de Paul, Mr. Mackenzie, John, other members who I haven’t met. Thank you for coming today. I also want to thank Ms.

Norris and her group from Chisholm Place for meeting with us and for alerting us to their concerns. But, Chair, I’ll just go back briefly to St. Vincent de Paul and Mr. Mackenzie and his group.

Chair, this is the most professional group I have ever worked with in my experience. I want to thank them for the hard work they’ve put in. It’s a tremendous project, Chair. You know, Deputy Mayor Lewis and I had the opportunity in 2023 when it was first introduced to speak.

And Deputy Mayor Lewis, while he doesn’t think I listened to everything he says, he happened to make the comment, affordable housing should not be privileged, it should be a right. And he was absolutely correct when he said that. And this is giving people, Chair, the people that do work, that have the opportunity to make an income, but just barely make an income to live a sustainable life. And I am so grateful to St.

Vincent de Paul and the work that they’ve done. And to St. Andrew’s Church and to the Diocese for cooperating. We need to see more of these developments in this city.

And I’d be pleased, pleased to be a part of them in the future. And again, Ms. Norris, thank you and your group from Chisholm. Thank you for working with us and staff.

Thank you for all the work that you’ve done on this. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cudi. There are any other comments or questions.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’m gonna be really brief. I don’t need to repeat everything that Councillor Cudi has said.

I think that this is a very good development. I know that Mr. Mackenzie reached out to me very early on and we had a couple discussions. And while this is not a half project, earlier we mentioned how we were the first city to receive the half funding.

Well, here we are now being the first city in Ontario where St. Vincent de Paul is starting an affordable housing project. I know the organization does them in other jurisdictions, particularly in the US. But for me, what is exciting and good news about this is we have a new player in London entering the affordable housing arena.

And that is something that we desperately need. And so I did want to take the opportunity to thank everyone from St. Vincent de Paul for your interest in taking on this challenge and doing it here in London. That’s, again, I said earlier, it speaks some of these things speak to the confidence the industry has in our community.

But I think the work that you’re doing also speaks to the recognition of the need in the community. And that is most appreciated. So thank you for that. Any other comments or questions from the chair?

Quickly, I don’t want to steal anyone’s thunder here. But I have to echo the words from my fellow committee members and councilor. I spoke earlier about the work that staff does. But the housing crisis that we’re faced with London cannot be addressed just by the city.

We need the important nonprofits that are stepping up and the people that raise the money for these things to happen. St. Vincent de Paul and this project, I became aware of when I attended a fundraiser. And I was excited and couldn’t wait to see it become the foreign pack.

I want to thank the first nurse at St. Andrews as well for the great work. And I look forward to seeing you here again with some other exciting projects. And thank you very much from the chair.

Is there no other comments or questions? We have motion moved and second. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. We are now moving on to 3.3 regarding 3614 and 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councilor Robin, seconded by Councilor Frank. And I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0.

Any questions for staff from committee and a technical nature? OK, I’ll go to the applicant if the applicant would like to address committee. Please ma’am, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon.

My name is Martha Palooch. I’m a planner with Montyth Brown Planning Consultants. With me today is Alexandra Hossen, also from Sifton Properties. And we just wanted to say that we agree with Council’s recommendations.

And we’re here to answer any additional questions from the public or from Council. Thank you. I’ll go to the public. Anyone would like to address committee on this matter?

Please, sir. See you up at the top there. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

My name is Glenn Dietz. And I live at 3559 Loyalist Court. I’m immediately across the street on Pack Road. So I face the property from the Pack Road side.

I have five types of concerns about the application. The first one is related to the lack of detail that was provided. Each of the blocks are— there’s a wide range of zoning categories. They’re all residential, so at least that’s— I know that much.

But I have no idea of whether the blocks are a single family, multi-family, could even be six floor apartment buildings. So this isn’t really helpful for really understanding what is being planned for that parcel of land. The second sets of concerns that I’ve got relate to parking spaces. There’s a large number— there’s a big difference in the parking requirements for the different types of zoning.

And this area is really dependent on a car. Walkscape website gives this area a 31 out of 100 walkability score and only a 21 out of 100 transit. So you need a car to get around in this area. My third sets of concerns are related to traffic flow.

The site plan— it doesn’t indicate that there will be any restrictions on right in, right out, exit to this. So there are potentially— there’s the potential for cross lane traffic turns into and out of this property. And that is a safety hazard. And it’s going to disrupt traffic flow into this area.

So my fourth set of concerns are related to the lack of detail about the adjacent property. There is— this small parcel of land isn’t going to be developed in isolation. There is a dependency to the east. There’s a dependency to the south.

And there is no detail in the documentation that was circulated about that. My fifth concern is that the developer seems to be asking for a relaxation of restrictions on setbacks and lot sizes compared to similar zoning of the same category. And so I want to go on record that requesting from the city or from the developer further details about what is actually being planned for this parcel land. I want to— I would like to request details about the traffic flow patterns that is being planned for this area.

And I want to go on record as objecting to any relaxation of setbacks and lot sizes. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for a next speaker.

That’s the clerk if there’s anyone online. Mitchell Harrison. Yes, hello. Thank you very much.

Please sir, go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you. I just want to wish to express an objection to agenda item 3.3614 for 3630 Colonel Tablett Road and 6.621 Pack Road.

Speaking on behalf of my grandmother who lives at 6.499 Pack Road adjacent to the plan and wish to request that the city defer this application as part of a letter that many of us sent in this morning. And we stand by the presentation that will be made by Jeffrey and Joanne Campbell following this. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Last clerk for the next speaker online. I’m not sure if she’s here. Amber Spencer. Ms.

Spencer, are you online? She’s not online. OK, thank you. Please proceed to Jeffrey Campbell if possible.

It’s a clerk for the next speaker. John Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty, are you online?

Yes, please defer to Joanne Campbell. Please, sir, go ahead. You have five minutes. Please defer to Joanne Campbell.

Ms. Campbell, are you online? No, I’m here. There you are.

Please, here I am. Wonderful. I think everybody that’s on that list, as Mitchell just said, they’re asking for Jeffrey to present. And then I’ll follow up after Jeffrey.

And Jeffrey’s online. So you want me to go to another person? Yes. You don’t have to— You guys should get this straight before you come here.

Well, there’s no mechanism to get straight. That’s the problem. So who do you want me to go to? Jeffrey Campbell.

And he’s on the screen right now. OK, Mr. Campbell, we’re going to go to you. You have five minutes, and then we’ll go back up there.

Please go ahead, sir. Hello, and to the chair and committee, thank you for having me today. My name is Jeffrey Campbell. And I’m here representing my grandmother, Christine Flaherty, the owner and resident of 6499 Pack Road in London, Ontario, regarding the implications of this proposal on her property.

The City of London designated 6499 Pack Road is open space and environmental review under the Southwest Area Plan. This original plan was prepared using the ACOM Natural Heritage Study Report, March 2010, which was the basis of the environmental constraints framework used to identify the natural heritage system that required protection. The report identified no natural heritage features, natural heritage systems, or other areas recommended for consideration in the area surrounding 6499 Pack Road. And furthermore, the Dingman Creek sub watershed study identified 6499 as an agricultural property containing no natural heritage features.

To date, no environmental impact study has been conducted on the property. The Southwest Area Plan was referred to the OMB with a decision reached on April of 2014. The parties included the Sifton Properties, Green Hills, York Development, Southside, among others. And in the decision, it was noted that a great deal of time was spent by the relevant parties, including the City to arrive at a resolution of differences concerning the natural heritage and open space policies of the plan.

It’s important to note that despite the above statement, the City of London and relevant parties did not include Christine Flaherty. As a result of the OMB decision amendments were made to the areas designated on the map for open space and environmental review, as well as the policies in the secondary plan. The resolution referred to above was to place the open space designation squarely on 6499 Pack Road and amend the relevant parties properties to medium and low density residential. In fact, the open space environmental review designation now covers 100% of 6499 Pack Road up to the property line as per schedule nine of the Southwest Area Plan.

It’s highly unusual for natural heritage feature to be identified precisely along property boundaries. Given the impact of this OMB decision on 6499 and the City’s participation, it would have been reasonable for the City of London to confer with Christine and complete a natural heritage study and environmental impact study for her property to establish the evidence or lack thereof of natural heritage features. The OMB resolution is the constructive taking of private property as regulatory measures have deprived the owner of all reasonable or economic uses of its land. Furthermore, the Southwest Area Plan includes language regarding the fair distribution of responsibilities and resources.

Section 20.5.16.8 states that the successful completion of the Southwest Area Planning depends on the cooperation of the owners and land developers to share in the equitable and fair distribution of uses as required by the plan. All official plan subdivision zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications shall be required to be included a statement of conformity with the requirements of the plan to be considered a complete application. The Sifton proposal before us today identifies 6499 Pack Road as a future neighborhood park as per their drawing one. Castles, the lawyers for Christine Flaherty, have been in touch with the City regarding their intentions to expropriate the land as a future public park.

And we are in receipt of a letter from the City of London dated July 15th of 2024 stating that the City has no intention to expropriate the property. Sifton’s identification of 6499 as a future park violates policy 20.5.16.8 mentioned above and as a result, their proposal is not in conformity with the Southwest Area Plan. The Sifton proposal and supporting reports rely heavily on the concept of a complete corridor as justification for the removal of wetlands on their development site and for future stormwater management as per the report presented today. Their proposal references many studies within their submission that rely on 6499 for their proposed hydro geological and water balance design mitigation and implementation strategies, which is not permitted.

There are also numerous references to wetland D in their natural heritage reports that are covering amphibian breeding habitat vegetation communities, movement corridors, turtle wintering areas, et cetera. Christine Flaherty did not consent nor provide access to have any of these studies completed on her property, meaning they were either obtained by way of trespass or are speculative in nature and cannot be included or included in this proposal. For the reasons outlined, we request the City of London refuse or at the very least defer this approval to Sifton until they can demonstrate that they are able to develop the land without reliance on 6499 packed road for stormwater management— - 30 seconds. With electrical and water balance design, open space or wetland compensation and restoration.

With that, that wraps it and thank you for your time. And I would just like to state that as a family, we are pro-development and we do understand the need from more homes in the region. We do not feel that it’s fair and equitable to do so in a way that is at such expense to our grandmother who has lived in this location for many years. With that, I thank you again for your time and we’ll turn it over to— - Thank you, sir.

Okay, Ms. Campbell, you have five minutes, please go ahead. - All right, it’s a little close. Good afternoon through the chair.

I’m here on behalf of my 95 year old mother, Christine Flaherty, owner and current 57 year resident of 6499 packed road in London. To identify concerns, impacts and implications of this application on her property. My name is Joanne Flaherty Campbell and I was raised here. Is it a 10 acre property that was purchased by the Flaherty’s in 1967 to build our family home?

At that time, it was underutilized agricultural lamb with a man-made drainage pond, which is not connected to a water course and lacks an outlet. Over the 57 years, the Flaherty children, me included, planted and maintained a 2,000 tree nursery to facilitate future harvesting and transplanting onto the open farmland and dredged the pond to maintain it as a skating rink. Prior to that, the pond dried up pretty much every year. 6499 will eventually be surrounded by subdivisions on all sides in conformance with the Southwest area, secondary plan, London plan.

Their planting of these trees appears to have hurt our family and has become a significant asset to the developers surrounding the property as evidenced by the medium density designation along the East and West property lines as part of the OMB ruling. And Siften’s designation of this property in their proposal as a future neighborhood park. As Jeffrey mentioned, the city of London sent a letter yesterday to my mother saying that they have no intention of expropriating her lands for a park. They went on to say that my mother had plenty of opportunity to challenge the ruling.

I think it is important for the community to understand that during the years 2010 to 2015, my parents split their time between their eighth generation family farm in Caledon and the Pack Road property. My father died in 2015 and my mother, then 85 years old, was having a hard time dealing with it. Up to that time, she did not handle any of the financials or business surrounding the house prior to his passing. My mother did not subscribe to the local newspaper nor did she have access to social media nor did she see any signs posted regarding any potential changes which were not required for an official plan change but are required for rezoning.

At no time did she receive any correspondence that her property was being reviewed and in the end assessed in this way. And a reminder that the OMB hearing consisted of the city of London and developers with all their professional representation. Despite the impact on her property, at no time did the city reach out to protect her interests. My mother is now 95 years old and has reached out to the city planning department numerous times over the last two years to try to find a solution for her property.

She only found out about this hearing when she saw a sign posted and called the planning department for information. We are at this hearing to ensure the city is able to follow their own words when they said that in quotes the successful completion of the Southwest planning area depends on the cooperation of the owners and land developers to share in the equitable and fair distribution of the use of the land. We strongly believe as a family that moving forward with Siften’s phase one proposal cannot be reviewed in isolation. The bigger picture must be addressed for this proposal as well as Siften’s phase two and Siften’s unidentified 6545 Pack Road property that indicates a road connecting Pack Road into this proposed development have tremendous implications on my mother’s property and the fulfillment of the swap plan.

We asked the city of London to defer this application until such time that Siften can prove that they could develop their property independently from my mother’s property. We want to work with the city and the developers towards implementation of the vision of the Southwest area plan. A tremendous amount of work has gone in over the years to putting into the creation of this plan and we are supportive of it. On this side note, I did want to say that the development of the North Talbot village that was alongside a potentially significant wetland has been a very successful development and an asset to the Southwest plan and is really an anchor of the start of what can come in the future.

So on that note, I conclude thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, ma’am. We’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk for folks online.

Betty and Flaherty. Ms. Flaherty, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

I just defer to what Joanne and Jeffrey Campbell both said. Okay, thank you. Maybe what I’ll ask is— Mr. Chairman?

Yes. My name is Marianne Harrison. Maybe I will speak just for a quick moment. On behalf of a number of people that are on the Zoom call today.

Okay. Actually, I’ll name them so that we don’t have to go through this. - Thank you. Mike Valenti, Barb Valenti, Jenak, Baseros, Brittany Harrison, Ryan Shee, Katie Del Rimple, Kelly Flaherty, Sharon Vennstone, Dylan Hotman, Jonathan Harrison, John Flaherty, Betty Ann Flaherty, Courtney Flaherty, Jacqueline Flaherty, Helen Flaherty, Dave Flaherty, Tina Flaherty, Quinton Campbell, Caitlyn Campbell, Betty Ann Flaherty, Amber Spencer, Mitchell Harrison, Ryan Flaherty, Lexi DeRosa, Sheila Flaherty, and Craig Flaherty.

So I think it’s probably gonna be a lot easier if I just express our objection from all of us to this agenda item with respect to 36, 14, 36, 30, Colonel Talbot Road and 66, 21 Pack Road. And we are all requesting that the city defer this application. And many of us wrote in a letter this morning, and we’re all very supportive of Jeffrey and Joanne Campbell’s presentation. So just to save you from having to go through that list, I just, we wanted to go on the record, but thank you very much.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that, ‘cause we wanna make sure that we get the message, which I think we are, and, but we also wanna make sure everyone is heard. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone else. Would you mind asking, is anyone else that would like to— Okay, is there anyone else online that would like to speak? Because we went through a number of names there, and we think we got everybody, but just in case.

I’m not hearing anyone, and I don’t see anyone in the gallery, so I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councilor Robin, seconded by Councilor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put the item on the floor for committee members, Councilor Frank.

Thank you, yes. Through the chair, I will be honest, I’m pretty confused, based on what we’ve heard from the gallery, and what we’ve heard from the applicant. So I’m wondering if staff could perhaps make some efforts to clarify. It sounds like six, four, nine, nine-pack road is an issue, but I don’t see that in this application, so I’m personally confused as to how the two interact in this process.

Yeah, I think that’s a good idea, if we could have staff kind of give us a, sound like there’s some history here, or be involved going back to 2010, so I’ll look to staff to try to help us get a picture. Through the chair, the draft plan does include the surrounding properties and any features that may occur on those properties, on the draft plan a subdivision to provide context for the subdivision and its eventual development on these lands, but it does not include the property at six, four, nine, nine-pack road as within the subject lands, or under consideration today. The requested zoning by law amendment and the draft plan would not approve anything on that property. The assessment of adjacent lands for natural heritage features or areas is required under provincial policy and essential to assess applications.

Although not directly adjacent to the phase one lands, the features that could potentially exist on that property do have implications for development. Just as an example, the EIS has noted that there are great blue heron nests on the property at six, four, nine, nine-pack road, which are visible from aerial photography and provincial regulations provide for year-long protection for these nests. The EIS knows that these site grading heavy equipment operations should be outside of the active breeding season. So it’s those sorts of details in EIS that identify that there might be implications for this property, but it can develop independently from those lands.

Phase two of the Hudson Park subdivision, which is not under consideration today, but is anticipated to be submitted to the city for review in the future, would be more greatly impacted by the property at six, four, nine, nine-pack road ‘cause they directly about each other. Certainly not the practice of the city to use findings from one EIS for one property to determine appropriate development for another. So if the property owner wishes to proceed with any application, they would be required to submit an EIS for that particular property that have examined that in detail and its surrounding context. But the lands under consideration today for the Zoning By-law Amendment can develop independently from six, four, nine, nine-pack road.

I’m sorry. Thank you, two follow-ups. I assume that there are some significant habitat and environmental features then at six, four, nine, nine. So I just wanna confirm that everything that is in the planning application today is complying with our EMGs with all the setbacks.

And then as well, I’ve another question, but I forgot it’s perhaps we can answer that one, I’ll come back. Okay, I’ll go to staff on the question. Through the chair, I call it your staff reviewed the EIS submitted and the application. They provided draft conditions that might help us consider some of those features on that property as we move forward with the subdivision.

So they’re fine with what’s been proposed and what’s contained within the EIS and that’s reflected in what we have for draft conditions. Councilor. Thank you. And now I remember I was gonna ask.

I did hear some reference about drainage and storm water and making sure that overland flows are not being directed towards six, four, nine, nine-pack road and just want to confirm that has been looked at and that wouldn’t happen if this was to move forward. Go to staff through the chair. The storm water strategy for the site consists of sending the minor storm water flows to an outlet on Colonel Talbot, which is currently being constructed as part of the Colonel Talbot road project. Major flows are attributed to a future storm water management facility on lands to the south.

Councilor. Thank you. Those are my questions for now, but perhaps I’ll let some of my colleagues have a chance. Okay, I’ll look to other committee members who are visiting Councilors.

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. I’m not on the committee, but I am the word counselor.

And I do have a couple of questions based on the public participation. I wanna thank the public for coming out. This is a draft plan of subdivision. So I know the request was to get more details.

I wonder through you two staff, what the process will look like going forward when zoning applications, or will there be zoning applications on this phase one? I know we’re only here for phase one, not phase two, which is the phase just east of this property, but through you two staff, if you could just give the public the process going forward on getting further information on exactly what is going to be built. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, the specific plans for each of the medium density blocks aren’t known at this time.

The applicant has requested a number of zones that would permit a range of different types of residential housing forms on those particular blocks. And that allows the future property owner, future builder to respond to the market at that time in terms of what set of housing is needed or the public is interested in. So that provides some flexibility going forward for the builders and property owners. The more detailed aspects of the site, like traffic flow ingress and egress from each of the blocks is Omar probably assessed at a future site plan application when the building form and layout is known.

So those details will be assessed through a future site plan application. Right now we’re looking at applying some zoning that would align with the draft plan as subdivision that’s been submitted by the applicant. Yeah, I’m sorry. Yeah, I think that’s really important information for the public to have.

So thank you for that. Is there an opportunity for the public to reach out specifically as it goes through a site plan process to have a better understanding how traffic patterns and the form, how that is going to go forward? Go ahead, staff. Through the chair, to my understanding, there would not be a public process for those future site plan applications.

Okay, I’m sorry. Yeah, thank you. And that’s why it’s important that the public is here to speak and address their concerns. I think that is important.

And also for the neighbors at 649.9 to address their concerns as well, it is going to be on the record. I want to thank you for coming out. And I would encourage you to work with the city when it comes to understanding the zoning of your property. I do think that as we go forward though, one of the things that is really important to understand with this application are the wetlands.

Nothing will be done until those three wetlands are moved over. There is that channel that runs through this area. There’s a lot of water. It is all to be addressed with this application as well as the sanitary capacity too.

I want to thank the applicant in particular for being reasonable with the request for height. And maybe I’ll just want to confirm the height. I know staff are recommending the 20 meter height. What is allowed is the six to four stories in this area.

But I read in the report that the applicant was requesting 22 meters. So I just want to make sure we understand the height implications of this recommendation through you. Council, you want me to ask the applicant to confirm that? No, I’d like to just confirm with staff.

Okay, I’ll go to staff on that. I saw two numbers. I just want to confirm that it is the 20 meters that we are approving with the height. Okay, I’ll go staff.

Through the chair, it is a maximum of 20 meters, which would be six stories. Some of the special provisions circulated had requested 22 meters, which is more in line with the seven stories. So staff spoke with Siften. They agreed to bring that height down to 20 meters, which is more in line with the maximum of six stories.

No, I’m sorry. Yeah, thank you for that information. It’s important that we sort of have a good indication. I want to thank the applicant for being reasonable as well in your request.

The other question I have is, I’ll speak to the recommendation and the resident addressed some of the concerns about movement in this area. This is an area that is buzz rural and you can see it becoming urbanized right now. And in the recommendation, it does speak to the accessibility of sidewalks or how we move around. And I think that is a really important thing to note in the recommendation.

And I would really encourage the committee to really understand those connectivities because there’s very little connectivity in this area when it comes to accessibility. And as we put in subdivisions, how we move around without having the use of cars, it becomes even more important that we do that connectivity. So I want to thank staff for putting that in the recommendation. I also want to, you know, this is an area that is very much underutilized.

And this is an opportunity to develop it. I appreciate going step by step. And maybe another question through you, Mr. Chair, as we do phase one and then go into phase two, will the considerations of the moving the wetlands and we know we want that there’s no loss to our environment when we lose those wetlands that it will be done in phase one.

It just want to have a better understanding on what that process is going to look like going forward. Go to staff. Through the chair, as part of the draft plan of subdivision, we have put together a set of draft plan conditions that the applicant must satisfy prior to registering their subdivision. And there’s a set of draft conditions that relate to the relocation and compensation of those wetlands within the complete corridor.

So they can certainly submit their applications for phase two, we can move forward those, but before phase one could be registered, those draft conditions have to be satisfied to the before that can happen. Councillor, thank you. And I think that’s really important to know that that has to be satisfied before any type of development goes forward. So I am supportive of the recommendation.

I appreciate the neighbor, the Campbell’s, coming forward family and expressing their concerns. And again, would encourage them to work with the city, going forward with their property. And the last thing I want to note is notification. And this comes up many, many times when we develop in rural areas, who is notified.

And we work with the 125 meter area of notification. But when you’re in a rural area, you could be far away and still be a neighbor. I do think we need to address our policies. I may be coming forward at another time to see if we can do a better job with our notification area in rural areas.

But with that, thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak. Thanks, Councillor, Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you. And thank you to the ward Councillor for her comments.

I find it very helpful to hear from her when applications like this come forward in her area. I had some questions around page 243 and part one, which talks about the tree relocation or tree location, sorry. In one line, it says in accordance with the policy, 886 replacement trees are required. Then later it says to this end, 86 replacement trees would be required.

I’m just wondering if I could get more clarity on why that’s different. I’ll go to staff. To read the chair, the sections you’re looking are comments that we received from our partners for that. So as part of the implementation is through the engineering review, those details will be determined the exact number of trees if they’re removed that will be replaced.

So where there’s a discrepancy in the trees, those will be confirmed through our engineering review process with more detailed review. Councillor, please go ahead, Ms. Bieling. Thank you through the chair.

We’re dealing with a policy framework that under the London Plan that allows for up to in terms of the difference in terms of the numbers. However, we’re working with the tree protection by-law, which has a specific number and that’s applicable in terms of when’s a policy framework, which provides guidance and the others more technical in nature. So we’re working with the technical and that’s the difference. Councillor.

Okay, so just to clarify the technical difference and the policy difference is between 886 to 86. All right, staff, that’s correct. One is, we’ll say more restrictive and because one is a by-law, we’re working with the by-law, which provides fewer trees. Councillor.

Thank you. It’s my hope that the developer sees this tree loss as significant as I do and wants to do more than that. Part two talks about the 90 trees that are considered to be boundary trees due to their proximity and the requirement to protect those boundary trees as per the by-law and that permission has to be granted from the neighboring landowners when boundary trees could be impacted. One of the things I’m trying to understand is notification for, and Councillor Hopkins has spoke about it, notification when an application’s received versus when, for instance, boundary trees will be impacted.

I think at the time that we know that there’s going to be impacts to an adjacent property, I’m not saying that this is the exact property, but that there’s going to be impacts to boundary trees. We provide notification or it’s up to the applicant at that point to notify about those boundary trees. Good stuff. Thank you for the question through the chair.

They would be up to the applicant. It’s a landowner to landowner. It’s a private matter, but there is the obligation that they do connect with the neighboring property owner. Councillor.

Thank you. And from what I’ve heard today, it sounds like there’s a lot more work to be done in terms of ongoing conversations. And I appreciate that what’s in front of us right now and some of the considerations that have been given, supportive of doing something with this property and the fact that phase one has less implications to the surrounding neighbors, I think is good. But I am looking forward to receiving more details in the future.

Thank you. Okay. Other comments, motions? Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Ramen seconds, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I’m just going to take the opportunity to offer a couple of brief comments. First of all, appreciate the consideration that’s been given within phase one, the setting aside of school block.

At this time, the inclusion on block 18 of some park space, these medium density blocks, obviously we don’t know the bill to form yet. They could take the form of stacked towns. They could take the form of up to a six-story apartment, but that is to be worked out as at a site plan application, not through a zoning for a draft plan of subdivision. So I think what we see here makes sense.

I appreciate Councillor Frank’s earlier question, asking staff to connect the dots on 6649, because that was a couple of different moving parts there with information coming in early today that we had to absorb in short order. So appreciate the clarification we received there as well. And I agree with Councillor Hopkins that notification is something that we hear regularly. However, we meet the provincial standards and those come pretty standard.

And if we start changing the notification zones for particular areas, then we are potentially changing them for all and not at an insignificant cost. So I’m quite comfortable with the notifications being at the provincial standards that are required of us. So for those reasons, I’m quite happy to move the staff recommendation. I do appreciate Councillor Hopkins as the Ward Councilor.

Joining us just as I appreciate Councillor Cuddy earlier, it’s always helpful to hear the Ward Councilor perspectives. Thank you. Thank you. For other comments from committee members, visiting Councillors.

Seeing none, we have a motion moved and second. I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4.

This is regarding 3392 Wonderland Road South. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Robbins seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff this time? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. Please, sorry, so you’re at the mic.

Give us your name and you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design. I’ll be super quick with my comments today.

We’re here representing our client, Aldo Properties for the owner of this property on Wonderland Road South. For those of you who use Wonderland on a day to day, you’ll see the renewal efforts that Aldo is undertaking on the property, investing in new facades, new interior space, landscaping. These amendments are part of that renewal effort. This is going to expand the range of uses permitted on the property, add some commercial, complimentary commercial uses.

I want to thank Mr. House for his work for preparing the staff report. We’re in agreement with those recommendations. There was quite a web of regulatory complexities to untangle.

Mr. House did a great job with that. Here to answer any questions, thanks. Thank you.

I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address committee on this issue. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Hey, no one online is seeing no one in the gallery. I’ll look for motion to close.

I’ll like participation meeting. Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. I’ll put it on the floor now for committee members. Mr. Mayor Lewis.

I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation on this. Can I get a seconder, please? Councilor Frank is seconded. Any comments or questions?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. 3.5, this is regarding 1458 Huron Street.

I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Raman. Call that. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Any technical questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon.

My name is Keene McAllister. I’m a planner with Selenka Primo. I’m also here with my colleague Matt Campbell. We are here on behalf of the developments for the Zoning By-law Amendment application at 1458 Huron Street.

I’d like to thank the committee today for the opportunity to speak to this proposal and to staff for the positive recommendation regarding this proposal. We are in agreement with the by-law and the recommendation for the heritage designation. And we’ll leave it open to any questions you may have for me. Thank you.

I’ll look to any members of the public that would like to address the committee. What does that you do for them? Does that you do? Madam, just a minute, please.

So I’ll go to this gentleman first. I saw him up and then I can go to you. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Jack Ferrari.

I live at 1242 Basswood Road, which is right next door to the development. I found it very, I mean, this came to my attention a month or two ago. It’s very hard to know how to respond to it because there’s been absolutely no rationale that I can see for this particular proposal. 22 units, 23 parking spaces.

Now, at the top of my head, that sounds like an unlikely way to plan something. I don’t know if the traffic patterns have been looked at. I don’t know if the effect on Huron Street has been looked at. The subdivision we live in, it doesn’t get the snow cleaned out of it very, very well in the winter.

So this is gonna probably make it a lot worse, but I mean, that’s a secondary thing. And the main thing is the general effect and the traffic and the parking along Huron. There’s already problems with parking at St. Anne’s Church at the people dropping off their kids.

There’s going to be that development of St. Andrews Church just down the road. And now there’s gonna be another 22 units with 23 parking spaces plunked next door to me. And I don’t know why I haven’t been given any rhyme or reason to it.

What else can I say? Sometimes sitting listening to this, it sounds like you have to argue against motherhood because who cannot be in favor of lots of cheap housing? Well, yeah, but you have to look at how it affects the existing neighborhood with the traffic patterns. I’m repeating myself.

Accessibility, a number of things like that. So I hope we start to get some rationale. Why 22 units with 23 parking spaces? What would happen if, for instance, if there were 12 units with 18 parking spaces and can somebody work the numbers out for me?

That’s about it. I thank you for your attention. Okay, thank you. Look for other speaker.

Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi, I’m Natalia. We live in the neighborhood and support this development of 1458 Huron Street. There is a housing crisis and infill needs to continue to happen in our city.

We have housing scarcity where housing is inflated in price and also desperately rare. The people who are trying to get basic housing products are struggling financially. We have trapped ourselves and in order to get out of the trap, we need to build within our cities instead of spreading out. By investing in density, we get taxes that support local quality of life in our neighborhoods.

The shift to local ownership means that the wealth is being built here and there’s more collaboration here as well. What I ask of you is to be mindful of active transportation methods that are safe. Cars don’t live in the homes, it’s people. The end users are people of all walks of life who have different needs.

My concern is when you’re talking about affordability, what is the dollar value of these homes? Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

I’m going to go to the lady at the top there and then I’ll go to you, sir. Hi, my name is Lynn Glad and my husband and I are original owners in that community. There are a number of us that are left there that have been there all this time. The current owners of the property didn’t do anything to the property for the first few months that they owned it.

And then they received it just to cut down four or five 50-year-old trees. And for the next two weeks, at least, our whole neighborhood could hear all the squirrels and the birds chirping and ruckassing about where’s our home and where do we go? So whose homes are we talking about? The heritage home has been broken into a number of times and the police have been called.

One intruder climbed into our neighbor’s backyard and was bleeding and refused a 911 call and was obviously on drugs. The owner did nothing to the property until recently. They started to cut the grass more periodically. Now they want to build 22 homes where the deal was when we bought our home 35 years ago and we sit right kitty corners of that property.

The deal was the farmer’s grandson who took over the farmhouse was allowed to build three or four houses on that property depending on the size of those individual units. Now you want to put 22 stacked pencil boxes in our backyards. Our community has been built with the appropriate subsidized housing and townhouses. There are residential high rises, row houses and single family homes going up all around us.

But the real kicker is where are all the visitors and friends and family going to park and the second family vehicles? Every weekend, Redwood, Maine is already packed with vehicles parked on both sides. The city will have to issue parking permits for Redwood, Maine so that residents only can ensure that their parking is available on their street that they pay property taxes for and it’s based on the value of their home, as you well know. And then there’s the other impacts, not only the parking and the other utilities.

We’re talking garbage collection, green bin collection, mail service. We’re talking about the traffic concerns, files idling, especially on here on street where all this construction and everything’s going to be going on, ongoing and ongoing. And then continually with that many housing. I’ve looked at the site map and the heritage farmhouse property proposed is basically to turn it into 22 residents and a parking lot, that’s what it is.

Cars idling, because of all this traffic, is going to have a very negative impact on the quality of the air just in our area. So aside from where everybody’s going to park and all of those issues, so I had to write this coming down here because I was working up out of town and we were lucky enough to have a rain day, but the construction and the flooding delayed us getting here, so we were late. But the negative impact on the longstanding community to the end of time isn’t really worth it from what I can see. The quality of our lives, that of our children and our grandchildren is going to be so negatively impacted.

And this is not why we bought our home there. We bought our home there so we could have a dwelling where we’re safe and we know what’s going on and we know the people around us. You want to dump all these people in our backyard when we already have multiple housing units all around us, including what the college has built, what’s being built down across from Oxbury Mall, the proposal here by the church. And I feel that there needs to be a lot of community input and availability to know exactly how this is going to impact us because you’re asking to put 22 units coming onto a street where we already have 22 or 23 houses.

You’re going to double the traffic on our street. Not to mention, they’re called to sex at the end. And we’re the only way out. So you’re rooting all that traffic right in front of our door.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Lisa, give us your name again and you have five minutes.

Should we use what I had before or do I do it again? Why don’t you just start from the beginning so we can kind of get it in context. All right, sorry about that previously. Yeah.

Hello everyone, I’m Ben Durham. My fiance and I live in Huron Heights, fairly close to 1458 Huron Street. Over the years we’ve walked, run bike scooted bust and driven past 1458 Huron Street thousands of times. And we’ve always wondered how this weirdly blocked out piece of land could be used other than one, two, or maybe three single family dwellings in there.

And over on what is planned to be the main driveway for the complex on Redwood Lane, we have even tried to figure out if it would be possible to make that narrow strip into a coffee shop or something like that. But 22 residential units, yes please. Density is the solution to cities hemorrhaging money. It’s the solution to keeping property taxes from spiking by high percentage plants like recently.

Density along major transit corridors like Huron Street allow for transit to thrive, providing a viable and efficient way to move around the city of London. Because density also makes places more walkable, bikeable, and navigatable around personal vehicles, outside of personal vehicles, which reduces traffic congestion. So I want to take a moment to say that this type of infill development needs to continue. Staff have clearly thought through so many things when putting this report together.

Will there be questions or concerns, like today even? Of course, we ourselves even sent off a bunch of questions last month to Brent House, who is the planner who prepared the report for the planning and environment committee. But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. This is a great step forward.

So two small requests, though, at the proposed main driveway in and out of the complex, I would love to see narrow traffic-combed driveway and a raised sidewalk so that the drivers are forced by design to approach the high-trafficked sidewalk on Redwood Lane slowly and carefully. And counselors, if there are any problems when it comes to infill, whether it be the 1458 Huron Street project or feature projects with, let’s say, an inadequate underground infrastructure requiring upgrading, then simply, it must be upgraded. Sprawling in order to fund the urban sprawl Ponzi scheme is the last thing that we should be doing right now for so many reasons. So don’t expand the urban growth boundary, develop within it.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. I’ll go to you, Madam, if you can give us your name. And you have five minutes.

I’m Linda Ferrari. I live at 1242 Basswood Road, and our property backs onto this proposed development. I would like to say two main things. One is the— I object to the density of this proposal.

22 units on less than an acre seems quite unreasonable. The units are very small. We haven’t been given any information as to how they will be operated, whether they’ll be rental units or condo units or what. We have no idea about that.

But we do know that there’s only 23 parking spots, only one handicapped, which also seems rather low, in my opinion, in this day and age. The traffic pattern onto Redwood is terrible. It’s so unfortunate for those people who live on that street. It also bisects the walkways to the park area.

So to put more traffic into that area just seems quite unreasonable to me. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe there’s someone online on us, Clerk.

Reggie? Please go ahead. You have five minutes. My name is Reggie Tembo, and I live at 35 Redwood Lake, which is a property adjacent to our 1458 year-on.

Overall, this application will bring a welcome development and a higher use of land, as this lot is often in ISO with broken transactions, overgrown vegetation, and general neglect. My concern and most of my neighbors’ concerns are around the traffic and parking provision. The report and site plan don’t indicate a provision of any visitor or overflow parking, which points to an increase in street parking on an in-enabled road that is already under tremendous strain. We have six licensed rental units on Redwood Lane.

That path, often between Redwood Lane and Vasswood Road, where this development’s traffic will be funneled to, is often reduced to a single lane access way, simply because of the street parking offer utilization. The report to the committee dated July 16, 2020, for references of the London plan, 1-5-7-7-1-5-7-9, number 6. They say that that was satisfied. And number 6 reads, potential impact on adjacent and nearby properties in the area and the degree to win such impacts can be managed and mitigated.

My first question is to get parity on how the impact of visitor or parking overflow to the neighborhood as a result of a 22-unit development will be managed or mitigated. Question 2 is somewhat related, and it is why access to this complex, taking into account this increased traffic flow, was determined to be through an established family neighborhood, where this access will impact two sidewalks, two very long sidewalks, including access to a public parkway kid’s play, versus maybe making that access come through a high order civic boulevard, which it actually fronts on, which is Euron Street. And lastly, are there any assurances that can be provided to the 10 properties adjacent to this lot, that during and post construction, surface overflow will be managed to prevent flooding from our backyard and basements? 27 trees will be coming down for this development, which are the imaginary increase, the accumulation rate of stormwater.

Never mind the open ground that will be lost and replaced by the buildings. So my ask to console be made to defer to the developer before decision is made, just for them to reconsider the access to the complex or the number of units proposed relative to the parking spaces available. Because honestly, 22 units and 23 parking spots for this specific lot and its layout is overkill. The housing crisis needs to be addressed by increasing the number of units period.

That’s a given. But I don’t think it should be done like horses in a horse race, just wearing blinkers and only focused on the finish line. There are other things on the side we need to keep an eye on as well as our outline. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll see you in the gallery. I’ll just click if there’s anyone else online.

I’ll look for a motion to close public participation meeting, Councilor Robbins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. OK, I’ll open this floor for committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, I am prepared to move the staff recommendation. And then I’ll speak to it once it’s been seconded. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Frank seconds.

Did you want to speak to it? Deputy Mayor, please go ahead. Yeah, I will speak to this briefly. And I appreciate the public comments.

I really appreciate the residents who are encouraging a positive step forward here in creating some housing in fill. It was just the last planning committee cycle in my own ward where we approved a similar size development on Avalon. And I heard many of the same concerns raised for an 18 unit townhouse complex on a low volume traffic street. But in fact, it is those low volume streets that can absorb gentle densification like this.

And absolutely, that this was mentioned by one of our presenters. I mean, this is how we create in fill that helps keep sprawl managed and keeps property taxes down because it is cheaper to service homes where we already have servicing there. So I’m very supportive of this. Earlier, we approved the St.

Vincent de Paul application. But that St. Vincent de Paul application, once the consent to sever is provided, only allows for access onto Huron. Whereas this application, the owner has access through the property addresses 39 Redwood Lane.

And so to have the traffic flow through there and then access to Huron in an orderly manner at Sanford is exactly the sort of transportation consideration that we want to see. I think that it’s absolutely fair that the site plan authority, because of the public comments we heard today with regard to the traffic com entrance, that that would be considered by the site plan authority as part of the public record. So by raising that, that will be looked at at site plan as the detailed design gets worked out on that. I will share from my own personal perspective, just having seen these sorts of things before, I wouldn’t be particularly supportive of requiring a raised sidewalk.

Those come with their own challenges, drainage, and snow removal, and things like that present some other challenges. But I think that traffic calming within the entryway does make some sense. And so I know that’s part of the public record now, and that will be forwarded. So that is absolutely appreciated that that was raised, and now it’s part of the record.

And with that, I’m just going to say, I think this is a good development. These sorts of infill projects have to be happening around the city. And I’m going to say the same thing. I don’t know, I got the preliminary draft earlier today.

I know there’s another one coming in my ward in Clark Road that I’m going to say the same kind of thing about. And I believe it’s 22 units, and it’s the same sort of thing where we’re seeing that gentle densification on some large lots, which right now are not being utilized or being underutilized. When we talk about a lot not being maintained, that’s exactly why we need to develop it, so that it is maintained. And so the concerns about maintaining the yard and things like that, those go away when the property is actually utilized and developed so that people are living there.

And the fact that we are talking about a place where we’re going to incorporate an existing heritage feature into the plan that’s coming forward, I think, makes sense. And it was referenced about going on to Huron, but that would actually decrease the number of units in addition to the traffic implications that it would create. And the result of that might be that the project doesn’t go forward, and it sits there undeveloped for years to come. I know our very first presenter asked, what’s the rationale for this?

But the rationale is it’s private property and it’s developed by the owner at a level that they see as appropriate for the neighborhood. The city doesn’t tell them 16 or 22. They come in with a plan, and we assess it according to our official plan, and that’s what we’ve done here, and that’s why I’m supportive of this application. Councillor Cudi.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, and thank you again for allowing me to speak at Committee, although I’m not a member. And I won’t repeat any of the things that Deputy Mayor Lewis has just mentioned, the road access. So, actually Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I had this discussion last night, so I’m fully aware of why this development can’t access on to Huron Road. And I do want to speak to my constituents, and I really wish that we talked about this before, because Zalinka Prambo did have a public meeting, which many residents did attend online, and we discussed a lot of these things.

And I will say, Chair, that I’m fully in support of this project, because this development does provide housing for Ward 3, badly needed housing, but it’s also a nice development. It’s well prepared and well thought out. And Chair, I will say that when I was canvassing in campaigning during the last election, many residents on Basswood and Redwood said, “Redwood Lane said to me, ‘Peter, if you’re elected, “please do something about the heritage for our house,’ because it’s derelict right now, and it’s going to be torn down, and someone’s going to set it on fire.” And the developer, the applicant wasn’t required to do anything to that house. He probably could have applied for a demolition permit, but instead, Chair, he’s developing this property, and it’s going to be great.

It’s going to be really, really nice, and I appeal to the residents that to think about this, what’s going to happen to the house? It’s going to be redeveloped. But finally, and I will reference what Deputy Mayor Lewis said, we are seeing more developments in our East End wards, in Ward 2, Ward 1 and Ward 3 and Ward 4, because land is available, infill land is available. It’s cheaper, and we need it.

We really need the developments. I am supportive of this. I am sorry that the access is off of Redwood and not on to Huron. It’s not possible, it can’t be done, but I do support this, and I will be supporting it, Council.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me again. I know I didn’t use my full five minutes, and I did occur to me that one thing that was raised by members of the public, and I think it was important to loop back on, and sorry, Councilor Cuddy, I’m gonna create some more work for you, but if there’s concerns about volume of on-street parking, local parking regulations can be amended by residents if they petition, and if through a neighborhood vote process, they support changes to on-street parking regulations. So if the residents want to see parking restricted to one side of the street or something to that effect, they can do so, but I will say in the city of London, the on-street parking is a first-come, first-serve for anyone. It’s not the right of the homeowner to have a guest park in front of their home.

The guests come and go as they will through the day, and those public parking spaces, which is what they are, they’re public right-of-way, they do not belong to any one particular homeowner. There’s no permits to a homeowner to have on-street parking spaces, but if on-street parking is a concern for you, then there is a process by which the parking regulations for your street can be reviewed, and if the street supports it through a process of a neighborhood vote, then they can change those regulations, but that’s up to the residents to drive that. We’ve created that process so that it can be resident driven. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.6, this is regarding 1105 Wellington Road.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Omeno, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions of the technical nature for staff?

Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant. Please sir, give us your name, you’ll five minutes. Hi, good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC Planning. We were acting on behalf of the registered owner of the White Oak Small, as well as West L, the project proponent. West L has provided the committee with a letter in response to the planning staff report, particularly the staff recommendation to reduce the proposed building height and residential density. I’d like to briefly comment on, touch on seven of those matters in the letter and knowing that members of our project team are available to answer questions.

At the outset, we’d like to advise the committee that we generally are supportive of the city staff recommendation with the primary exception that the staff is requesting that the building heights be reduced from maximum of 32 stories per minute to 27 stories and that the density reduced residential density from 750 units per hectare to 595 units per hectare. We respectfully disagree with the recommendation, the recommended height and density permissions that is and related zoning regulations that reduce the overall intensity of the project. As outlined in the West L letter, the proposed high-rise design was carefully considered by our project team and the intended project is to promote a compatible prominent design that helped broaden housing supply and housing choice locally while also intensifying the White Oaks Transit Village and the city’s BRT investment. In particular, requested building height allows for 568 units to be contained within a compact point tower form while also accommodating area’s apartment units and structured parking in the pedestrian-oriented podiums.

From our perspective, the amendments recommended by staff do not support the core objectives of the intended tower design and a particular reduction in residential intensity would detract from the overall merits and viability of the proposal. We also note the intended building height generally lines with the 30-story and maximum height recommended for transit villages in the London Plan height review discussed earlier today. Notwithstanding our project team, acknowledges concerns with the staff report relating to certain design-related elements. With Council approval of this application, we will look to explore these matters further with city staff as part of the site plan approval process.

To conclude, in light of these considerations and those set out in the West L letter, we respectfully request that the committee support these applications and endorse a recommendation to permit building heights of up to 32 stories or 115 meters in the residential density of 750 units per hectare. An alternate recommendation has been provided as part of the West L letter and as well as alternative red-lined amendments for the committee’s consideration. Thank you and we’ll gladly answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you.

I’ll look for members of the public who would like to address a committee on this item. I’ll see, Claire, if there’s anyone online. Lori. Yes, hi.

Please give us your full name and you have five minutes. Lori Goddard, this is a very, very busy area and I really am just curious. This is a huge project. I live right around the corner from White Oak Small.

So I would just really like to know, for example, how many stories, I understand that center question and how many apartments are going to be built and how they felt with the traffic and the parking because it’s especially a Christmas time or Easter. It’s parking lot is already full and I know we have a lot of good transit there but there’s just so many questions. I hope that we have a special public meeting where members of the public who live in the area can really ask a lot of questions and give a lot of feedback. I think that’s very important.

And my last question is, how affordable will these apartments be? Will they be just high-class luxury condos or will they actually be affordable? That’s all, thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address a committee? Claire, does there anyone else online? Kathy, iron side. Is iron side?

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Hello, I just unmuted. There we go. Thank you for listening, for letting me speak today.

I have concerns about the, as someone just reiterated earlier, about parking and the volume. Right now on JONA, Boulevard Behind the Mall, you can barely, I live in the high-rise that’s behind the mall. And there are days we can’t get out for, I’m gonna say at least three to four, maybe five minutes, we have so much volume. And so that was one for, and the parking area.

But that was, those were my two main concerns. So thank you very much for listening. Okay, thank you. Anyone else quick online?

Seeing no one else in the gallery, I’ll look for motion to close BPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Raman, I’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, for the committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m prepared to move an alternate motion, which was provided to the clerk, that notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development, the following actions be taken, and that we approve the application with the applicant’s requested height and density form. And Councilor Frank will be happy to know that I’ve also included in the site plan review that her components that she was suggesting as an amendment to the original, the landscaping 50% native species, renewable sources of energy be investigated, and the bird-friendly policies for some of the glass at the lower heights be investigated at the site plan as well. So I’ve had those built in so that we don’t have to further amend it. Hopefully that addresses that, and so I’ll look to see if there’s a second to re-fry, say anything more.

Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hill here is second. So we have motion moved in second. I’ll open the floor for discussion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So I want to share first that this alternate recommendation is coming forward with the support of the Ward Councilor. This is in Ward 12, so that would be Councilor Palosa as colleagues, and as I’m sure that the members of the public are aware as she’s posted photos on social media, and she gave me permission to share.

She experienced over seven feet of water in her basement yesterday with flooding and is not able to join us today. But she did, we spoke yesterday and again this morning and she’s supportive of moving this forward. This is very consistent with the heights that we approved recently at Oxford and Wonderland for 233 story builds. It’s also not out of character with what we’ve approved for the century development by true lone Auburn across the street, which we’ll see a maximum height of 27.

I see Miss McNeely nodding, so I just wanted to make sure I had that number right. I was pretty sure it was 27 there. Even as we heard from a member of the public who lives in a high rise building in the neighborhood already. So that we already see some of this intensity in the neighborhood, and so it’s not going to be out of place with what is there and what is contemplated across the street for the century development as well.

So for those reasons, I am supportive of moving this forward. This is a transit village place type. As we discussed in the consent agenda, the heights review does envision the transit village place type as getting to 30 stories. As of the fall, this is 32.

As I said, the Oxford and Wonderland was 33. So this is in general alignment with those perceived heights. And I am with that, I’ll just wrap up my comments there and say, I do believe in terms of a transportation impact, obviously the builders will be providing parking for the residents of these buildings. But from a traffic perspective, when residents of residential towers have the amenities right there in the neighborhood, when they can literally go downstairs to the bottom of their building and visit stores and wait Oaks Mall to get their needs met or across the street to get their needs met with food, with amenities, entertainment, those kind of things.

There’s a Walmart, there’s a Canadian Tire. Well, it’s closed right now. There’s an LCBO across the road. There’s all of those things that people in their daily lives need to visit, but these folks will be able to walk to those because it will be right there at their corner.

So they won’t have to drive. And that’s a good opportunity for us to see this kind of infill happening. Thank you. I’ll look to other committee members who are visiting counselors.

Could ask the deputy mayor vice chair to take the chair? I will take the chair and I have no speakers on the list. I see Councillor Layman. Thank you.

Yeah, this is to follow up on those comments. When I supported the Wellington Gateway, rapid transit, this is what I add in mind. We saw that a while back with the Drew Auburn project and I’m fully supportive of this motion and the higher density it provides. This is a type of development that we’ve been talking about.

It’s walkability. We heard traffic concerns. Well, I’m hoping there’s a lot of folks here that will not need a car. They’ll be able to get downtown, jump on the Wellington Gateway, Lake and get down to work or shop or go to the night’s game or go shopping in the mall that’s right near the other commercial businesses that are closed by.

I’m excited about this and I can’t wait to see that Lake get finished and its development gets done and to see what’s been talked about for so many years actually put to you. So I will support this. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I will return the chair to you and I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Thank you and I’ll look around again for any other comments. Councillor Robin. Thank you, I’ll keep my comments brief but I’m supportive based on the fact that this is in where we’ve designated transit in a transit corridor.

And so what I think is important is as we continue these discussions and around height and increasing heights in certain areas I’ll be supportive where it makes sense to do so because we have adequate transit or have planned for that but where we’re still lacking I think that we still need to consider the perspective of those that are living in the area that are seeing increased traffic volumes and are seeing that those are not going to be dressed in the short nor medium term at this point. So supportive of where we are going with this. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? 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 3.7. This is regarding 934 Oxford Street West. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Romans seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any questions of the technical nature for staff?

Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee. Good afternoon. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Yeah, my name’s Ali Yusuf.

I’d like to take a moment to express my strong support for the committee’s positive recommendation on the rezoning application for 934 Oxford Street West. The proposed rezoning is a significant step forward for our community, aligning perfectly with our goals for sustainable development and responsible urban planning and aligning with the official London plan. This change will allow me to make more effective use of the space, foster an economic growth and creating new opportunities for businesses, residents alike. Importantly, it addresses the pressing need for housing in London, ensuring that we can accommodate our growing population.

Oxford Street West is a main artery in our city while serviced by public transportation. Intensification along this road is not only logical, but also beneficial, promoting efficient land use and supporting transit oriented development. This will enhance accessibility and connectivity, further improving the overall quality of life in the area. Additionally, the civil engineering study confirms that the services are well adequate to support intensification along Oxford Street West, ensuring that the infrastructure can sustain the proposed development without any issues.

I want to command the committee for its thorough review and thoughtful consideration of this application, your dedication to balanced and forward thinking urban planning is evident and deeply appreciated. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now I look for members of the public that would like to address the committee.

Please sort of give us your name and you have five minutes. Thanks very much, Marty Smai. We are neighbors living in behind the proposed development. And speaking to issues we have, we’ve been there for 30 years in a beautiful, mature neighborhood.

I guess our main concern is traffic congestion, obviously. We’re with building out West and in Kilworth and Mount Bridges and certainly our support of that in the city. And living here for the mid ’70s, so. So I guess number one concern for us is traffic congestion.

And with that comes, we think safety for day cares and schools in the area and so on. So on not only, you know, during the construction of this potential project, but certainly afterwards in traffic congestion being a main concern there. There’s no secret Oxford Street as main artery. It’s been an issue for actually a number of years as far as congestion and so on.

Other concerns we have, of course, would be during construction diverted traffic down Deer Park Circle where we live and ensuing parking, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which has also been coming, becoming a problem in the past and currently. So further to that is the actual construction in behind our property, as far as aesthetic quality of our property, which we’ve lived, as I said, for over 30 years now. Removal of trees, et cetera. Site lines for the building in behind our yard and so on, so on to us disrupts the quality of the neighborhood and the maturity of the neighborhood.

So those are our concerns and we’ve spoken to this before. We’ve had a previous meeting when the actual application was turned down. So that concerns us again in the reapplication of it. And of course, the other concern we have is the rest of Oxford Street and the rezoning properties there as well.

So it’s going to become a continued process. So we thank you for our time. Speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, those are our obvious concerns and serious concerns we have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I’ll look for anyone else that would like to address committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Ali Mosini.

I live in 940 Oxford Street. I would like to let you know that if we prevent poor development, our community will not grow up. We have to let them to come to develop because not all, most of houses in that area are old. And old houses usually has mold and people get cancer, something like that.

Usually the loper doesn’t come to build in that area because they go to buy a land and they make more houses and is more valuable for them. We have to change the zoning because the loper comes to make new houses, new building and grow up or community. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

For any other speakers, I’d like to address Betty. Is there anyone online? Seeing none, I’ll look for motion to close PPM. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote.

Was in the vote, the motion carries five to one, or sorry, five to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for a committee now for discussion motions, et cetera. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I’ll move the staff recommendation. I seconder. Councillor ramen, the motion moved and seconded.

Any discussion, I’ll ask the Vice Chair to take the chair. I will take the chair. Thank you. Yeah, I understand what you’re saying.

It’s my word and you’re worried about all those concerns. There is gonna be more traffic on Oxford. It’s coming in from the West and there’ll be more, I imagine more of these type of developments along that major arterial road. I understand the impact and the properties behind it.

And I was worried that this was gonna be a higher development. Thank the developer for bringing it down. I think it was three and a half and got down to three, so that’s great, thank you. The units alone will not have impact on traffic, but you multiply that by the number.

I don’t know what’s coming down, but I’m certain that there will be others for sure. I’m very aware of the height of these buildings because of the closeness to the residential backyards. For example, your property and others or your neighbors, et cetera, and all the way down to Oxford, in Oak Ridge there for sure. However, I have to weigh that against what we’re faced here with housing and higher intensification.

As London grows from a smaller town of less than 300,000 to a town of half a million, this is gonna happen along our major arteries. So I will support this as I’ve supported others in other areas of the city. It would be a critical of me not to, but I will do what I can to really monitor the impact. Along Oxford, there’s a concern ‘cause we’re going to be, we’re looking at expanding the bridge to bring more traffic in from the West End, which I think has to be a discussion point, a master mobility plan, as well as other traffic on Wonderland and Oxford all the way through, I think with the development that we’re seeing, it’s of high concern here at this council.

I’ll turn it, oh, that’s my end of my comments there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will return the chair for you, just asking for a point of clarification that you meant city, not town.

Did I say town? Yeah, city. Thank you for the, another correction to my chair. So I’ll look for any other further comments or questions.

We have motion, move and second, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.8, this is regarding 359 Wellington and 657 baseline road east. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM, Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Raman, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions of a technical nature? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant is here, I’d like to address committee.

Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. Oh, there you are up there. Way up here.

Please give us your name, you have five minutes. Certainly, my name is Franz Klypo, for and I’m a partner and registered professional planner with AJ Clark and Associates out of Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Chair, I had prepared a presentation that I was going to provide to committee today.

However, as I look around the audience here, it is getting rather sparse, and I believe there are mostly just consultants, if I can guess correctly here in the office, or sorry, in the audience. I’m happy to forego that presentation, if there are no members of the public online, perhaps we could have the clerk pull the audience, or perhaps online to let me know if that is, of any benefit to make that presentation, Mr. Chair. Well, what I would tell you is, we have the staff report in front of us.

You’ve got five minutes to use as you see fit, so please continue. Well, if that’s the case, then, Mr. Chair, we have had the opportunity of reviewing the staff report. We’re in full support of staff’s recommendation, and are thrilled to be working here in the city of London.

I commend you, Mr. Mayor, on building a great planning team. They’ve been an absolute pleasure to work with. Thank you.

Well, thank you for the promotion, not Mayor. Oh, sorry. If I was Mayor, I wouldn’t call the city a challenge, so. (laughing) But thank you.

I’ll go to any other members of the public that would like to address committee. Are there anyone online? Jean Herbert. Of course.

There. Ms. Herbert, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Okay, thank you.

My name’s Jean Herbert. Thanks for letting me speak. I know there would have been a couple other people, unfortunately, they’re at work and not able to. So my family has owned a family home on High Street, almost at the corner of High and Baseline since 1962.

And I’ve put down some of their thoughts together. We have concerns, huge concerns about the height and size of the two buildings. They are absolutely not in keeping with the size of the buildings in the neighborhood. I will just maybe go forward with some of my concerns, our concerns.

A lot of that is traffic. We currently have Sylvan Lane. I know people are gonna be riding bikes, but people are gonna drive a car to go visit them. That building is not occupied.

Our seniors building that I can actually look at from my backyard has not been occupied yet. So we don’t even know what the traffic impact on that very busy street is going to be. Baseline Road at this point already came back up at High Street and Baseline at the busy times for about a block and a half. People are using High Street right now between commissioners and Baseline as the cut through.

Last week it was backed up going to commissioners as high as 398 High Street. Whatever how high it is, 23 floors or whatever is way too high is a residential area. Even the seniors building that’s just been built and at some point they’re gonna inhabit is actually higher than the local hospitals. Neighbors don’t want to stare at skyscrapers.

Where are the local green spaces in our neighborhood? I’m especially concerned about the building at Baseline and Wellington is not a big lot. How are people gonna get in and out of there? That corner is already so busy.

Are we gonna make it another high accident corner just like commissioners and Wellington is? Not everybody is gonna be taking the bus. Noise level is gonna be high. I am concerned that we weren’t given notice of this development and I’m only one very long block away from this development.

Is there sufficient power? Is there sufficient sewer for this neighborhood? How can they widen the street for future traffic concerns? My another question that came from a neighbor that came from actually an urban planner, what has the developer studied about future traffic concerns?

And how can we actually do that already because the bus transit has not even been built yet? The bus transit hasn’t been built. Our senior building hasn’t been moved into. What proposed mitigation measures have they actually proposed for the traffic concerns?

So there is current enhancements to the active transportation are still being done. Like road widening, the buses, it’s not even done. And two huge high rises are gonna be put onto an area that we don’t even know what the traffic’s gonna be like. It’s out of place, it’s not the same intensity that any of the neighborhood is around here.

If there’s gonna be buildings there, built there, fine, but bring them way down, way down in height to match the height of what the local hospitals are and that’s so senior’s building. We need fulsome community involvement. Does the community actually know that this is happening? So yeah, those are a lot of my concerns.

I’m really shocked, especially at the baseline in Wellington one, how that’s gonna affect that traffic area that already is congested, already congested. And there are gonna be a lot of cars and traffic coming in and out, thank you. But we don’t even have the buses going and people will be driving cars. I absolutely thank you for your time.

And my request would be sometime kind of meeting like this where the neighborhood can speak to can a meeting ever be done in the evening? I know my neighbors wanted to speak but they weren’t able to because they were working. Thank you for your time. And I appreciate, I would appreciate updates for my counselor.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers. I don’t see anyone in the gallery, I’ll ask Clerk, does anyone else online?

Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the BPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ramen. I’ll close in the boat, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I would like to put the staff motion on to the floor and move that and then I can speak to it if there’s a seconder. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds and go ahead, Councillor. Yes, thank you. So as the word Councillor, I have had numerous conversations with both the applicant as well as members of the community. Some of those communications were included in the package by also receive emails and phone calls.

And it’s a bit of a mixed bag. So I think there are a lot of people who are excited to see people looking to develop along the rapid transit corridors. Again, as was mentioned, this area will be part of the Wellington Gateway project. And so there will be actually a rapid transit stop right at baseline and Wellington, as well as close to the hospital.

It’s close to commercial opportunities. So there was a lot of communication regarding that. And then as we heard as well, there is some concerns regarding height and density and the amount of cars. And so overall, I think though, that this application from the applicants, they have tried to address some of those concerns.

And my understanding is that they understand that they do need to have the required bicycle parking as recommended by staff. I’d also like to highlight that the applicant is willing to engage in discussions about having three affordable housing units within this building, as well as looking at a variety of different green infrastructure enhancements onto the building as well. So such things as air source heat pumps and renewable source of energy and including 50% native species. So trying to address some of those green concerns that were coming from residents.

So I’ll be supporting this application, including having the staff recommended bicycle parking amounts. And yeah, happy to see what other people’s discussions are on that. Thank you. Look for other speakers.

Deputy Mayor Loz. Thank you. Happy to support the word councilor on this and support it in general. I know the staff recommendation is for approval.

I think it’s important to just take a moment though to Mr. Chair, you referenced this on the 1105 Wellington application earlier that, you know, that was why you supported the Wellington Gateway and the kind of density that we’re seeing at the White Oaks Mall area. But similarly, although this is further up the road, it’s why I supported the Wellington Gateway too, because we want to see that infill along Wellington Road. And while I know that it was referenced by a member of the public who is speaking, that the rapid transit line isn’t even built out yet.

While that is true, that construction is underway. And I think it’s important to know when we’re talking about developing residential towers like this, the process is often one that will not see these buildings in the skyline and occupied for three, maybe four years. And by that time, the rapid transit system will be built out along Wellington Road and accessible to people. So I think that it’s just important to highlight that there’s always a piece to this where timelines are involved that’s often not really clear to people.

The assumption automatically becomes that this will happen, you know, tomorrow or next month or whatnot. But there’s a number of steps to go through with site plan, building permits, all of those things. And so it will be a while before these buildings and these units are in existence. And by then the transit system will be there to serve folks.

So I just thought it was worth taking the time to note that, I know we’ve said that on a couple of other applications recently with respect to infrastructure coming at the same time and that these buildings timelines matter and that the pieces kind of come into place at various points along the route that they don’t all happen overnight. Thank you, other comments? Seeing none, we have motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote.

carries five to zero. Okay, 0.9. This is regarding 1725 and 1737 Richmond Street. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM.

Councillor Ramen, second by Councillor Frank, I’ll call that vote. Opposed in five to zero. Any questions of technical nature, staff? None, I’ll go to the applicant.

Please 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 Zalinga Priema here on behalf of the applicant Westdale Development Corporation to discuss these owning bylaw amendment before you. First and foremost, we would like to thank staff for their work on this project to date. I would like to note that we are in support of the recommended alternative bylaw as proposed by city staff for approval today. The subject lands are located at a key intersection in the city where development proposals are encouraged to be high-rise mixed use buildings to contribute to a transit oriented and walkable neighborhood.

This proposal will provide two towers, one of 22 stories and one of 20 stories, both with ground floor commercial spaces, podium parking and generously sized outdoor terraces to create a pedestrian oriented community with access to a variety of uses and amenities nearby. Overall, the height and intensity of the development containing a total of 337 residential units is appropriate given the direct and convenient access to transit and nearby uses, including grocery stores, recreation and entertainment facilities. This proposal meets the goals and intentions of the transit village policies of the London Plan and the Masonville Secondary Plan policies by providing a high-rise mixed use development in place of single-story commercial buildings in a plaza with abundant surface parking. Overall, the proposed development represents appropriate and desirable intensification at an ideal location in a transit village, which supports the future planned vision of the area.

I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public like to address Mitty, anyone online, Kirk.

Arthur, mustard, Thompson, please. Please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the planning and environment committee.

As I wrote previously in a letter included in city staff for court regarding this application, I’m wholeheartedly in approval of the Masonville Secondary Plan and its intention to transform the lands surrounding the intersection of Richmond and Fanshawe, Maloo’s collection of jury big box shopping clauses into a more vibrant uptown district. With this in mind, I was pleased to hear that applications had finally been submitted for the parcel at 1725 to 1737 Richmond Street. Unfortunately, I believe that the proposed developments for this plaza fails to meet the true intent of the carefully crafted secondary plan. Of my most prominent points of contention with that with this application is in regards to tower one and three, specifically the manner in which they address North Center Road.

Under the Masonville Secondary Plan, this portion of North Center Road is considered a flexible character street where new developments must have quote, either active ground floor commercial uses or active residential ground floor uses or a combination of both. These two towers do have commercial uses on their east sides, which face the interior parking lot, but they fail to include other ground floor commercial or residential units on the west side of the buildings, which face North Center Road, resulting in a streets kit that is lacking any activation. Ideally, I envision this tower’s commercial tenants having second entrances on public street and access to the residential portion of the tower of tower three along North Center Road being made more visually prominent. Even better, the developer could consider including ground floor residential units for town homes along the public street.

This new development is also in contravention of multiple policies in section six of the Masonville Secondary Plan, that is comprised of rules regarding built form. Code 6.1 number two states that all developments should quote, “establish a human scale facade.” Well, section 6.1 number four and five dictate that buildings should cultivate a pedestrian oriented development. Most importantly, section 6.1 number five says that, quote, “building should have articulated facades that create a human scale rhythm along the street state. No extensive blank wall should be visible from public or private streets.

Together, towers one in three form a monolithic gray wall along North Center Road, which is imposing to pedestrians due to its height, lack of active ground floor usage, and absence of variation in massing. The white podium that houses stacked parking on tower two is also deeply unattractive for the same reasons. The Masonville Plan envisioned the neighborhood streets lined with patios, cafes, and visible entrances. A pointless development has clearly missed.

Towers two in three also stricken and comfortably imposing size and scale due to lack of any meaningful use of setbacks. Again, towering blank walls prevail throughout this application with no differentiation in height. The use of setback was a constant theme throughout the secondary plan that has been ignored in this application. Ideally, townhouse or commercial units visually distinguishable by height and massing from the rest of the structure were comprised of the entire bottom floors at the closed towers along internal and external streets.

Finally, the secondary plan calls for all new private streets created under the under its purview to meet or even succeed city standards. It’s where the use of attractive streetlights, trees, and other streetscape factors. Although it is not due to be completed for another decade, the final site planned for Highland Center seems to possess none of this public realm beauty, instead seemingly placing high rise towers at random throughout this field of asphalt. The fact that these new buildings will be surrounded by a sea of parking lots is not only unpleasant for future residents, but also very poor in terms of design.

I hope that you with members of this committee and the developer of this project will consider this feedback. Thank you so much for providing me the time. Thank you. Look for, I don’t see anyone else in the gallery.

Clerk, I’ll just double check again. There’s anyone online. There’s no one online, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PVM. Councilor Robbins, seconded by Councilor Frank.

I’ll call them. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councilor Robbins.

Thank you, I’ll have to move it. I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis, the motion moved in second. I’ll talk for time for discussion.

Comments, questions? Councilor Robbins. Thank you and through you. I wanna take some time to speak to this application, which I’m pleased to have been involved in the discussions on from an early point, having joined council.

Although, Tower One for this project had already been improved, I’ve been involved in subsequent discussions since about Tower Two and Tower Three. So thank you to the applicant for involving me and those. I’ve had a lot of conversations with neighbors in the area about this development, specifically those living in Masonville Manor, those that live on North Center Road, and those that live on McGarryl. And I hear their concerns.

They’re concerned mostly about the height of the building and their concerns I think are those that we hear quite often in this committee. So I’m supportive of the recommendation that’s in front of us with the updates through the shadow study, as well as some of the other things that are requested as they move forward with site plan approval. I also appreciate the comments from the community around the consideration of design, and I hope that those are heard by the applicant as well. And thank you to Councillor Frank for her amendments to this motion in front of us today.

That includes some additional considerations for green standards. The other thing I did hear from the community was around Parkland dedication and the access management plan for the North Center Road driveway, as well as how pedestrians will be able to move around that area, which is as we know right now under construction and causing a lot of concern for the neighborhood, especially with an aging population around that area, looking to be able to continue to live in a very walkable part of the city. So I know that those are things that staff took into consideration and made to worked with the applicant to be able to address some of those pedestrian concerns as well. The one question I did receive quite often, and I know this was shared a few times during the discussion was, why more of the parking was an underground and why it’s contained in the podiums above ground.

So I’m not sure if that’s something that I can put to staff to see if they might be able to help address that question that was heard. Yeah, we can start with staff on that. To the chair, I believe that question should be directed to the applicant. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant for a question regarding parking underground.

Yes, absolutely, through you, Mr. Chair. It simply comes down to the cost of underground parking. It is very, very expensive.

I think we’re looking at about $100,000 per parking space to go underground. So to try and alleviate some of those costs, we did propose podium parking. I will also note that in the proposed tower three, the podium parking is actually like completely contained internal to the podium of the tower, and there are residential units around that, facing both the interior of the site and to the exterior of the site, which I know this was a public comment earlier. It does sort of help to alleviate some of those concerns about a human facing facade, particularly on North Center Road.

Thank you. Councillor. Thank you, and that’s, I appreciate you sharing that and on the public record, because I do think it’s important for the conversation. One of the things I noted is that if we had went with more underground in the building like this, it probably would have pushed the height higher in order to make the numbers work.

So appreciate the comment on that. And as mentioned, supportive of what’s in front of us. Thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and happy to support this. Again, this is very much in the areas that we wanna see the infill happening. So it makes sense to me and I wanna say, well, I appreciate some of the concerns raised by the resident we heard from with regard to, you know, more ground floor commercial.

The reality is that post COVID, the market demand has really changed. And we see vacant commercial space right across the city right now. And so the concern that I would have with requiring more ground floor commercial is that we’re gonna end up with a lot of vacant ground floor commercial, which is not good for streetscape activation or frankly, even as we’ve heard in other applications today, community safety and upkeep areas that are vacant tend to get neglected and tend to become an area where less than preferred behavior sometimes occurs. So that for that reason, I’m quite satisfied to not see any additional ground floor commercial beyond what’s already included here.

I think it meets the intent of the secondary plan. And I mean, we’ve even done this in the downtown where we’ve said outside of Dundas place and Richmond Row, we no longer are going to require ground floor commercial in every development. And that was a decision that we made not that long ago. And I think it’s honestly something that throughout the London plan, we need to be updating all of our secondary plans for as well because the ground floor commercial space, the need for bricks and mortar shops in an era of Uber Eats and Amazon deliveries is just not what it was in the time when these plans were being put together.

I know it sounds like 2021 wasn’t that long ago, but the work that went into creating the secondary plan started pre-pandemic. And then there was an oil tea appeal. And so while the plan itself may not be here to be that old, there was a long process that led up to that and a pandemic in that process that really changed how commercial space demands are being met today. So just wanted to share that thoughts with committee, given the comments we heard from the resident with the concern about not enough ground floor commercial.

I think this actually meets the intent of the plan, provides some, but not an overabundance that may in the future just be vacant. So I just wanted to share those thoughts. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

The clerk would like to just a clarification on the motion. Clerk, do you wanna go ahead and ask? Just for the public, the motion that is being approved is the staff recommendation with additions to the site plan which include X to XIV landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species with no invasive species planted. Investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building and geothermal for interior heating and cooling.

Investigate air source heat pump options and utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard. Is that what you intended, Councillor? Yes, thank you. Okay, and the seconder is on board, Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, okay. We’ve got a motion moved and seconded. Any comments or questions before I call the vote? I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We’re now just after three hours, Councillor Ioannon. Thank you, I’d like to move a break.

Yeah, I was going to ask that. How many minutes would you like, Deputy Mayor? Well, personally, since some folks have made me aware that today people with the first name, Sean, get a free slice of the pizza at Stobes, I’d like to have 45 minutes to take a walk, but I won’t ask for that right now. I’ll wait and do that after and just see perhaps a 10 minute break.

The committee, do I need to? Yeah, I’ll move 10. Okay, we’ve got mover, a seconder, hand vote. Good, we’ll break for 10 minutes.

It’s, we’ll meet back here at 4.30. Okay, bring this meeting back in session. We’re at four items for direction. We have a request for a delegation, so I will look for a motion to accept that.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. All that vote. - Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I understand we have the delegation online. So I’ll ask that those who are speaking, give us your name and then you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Jeff Boat and I’m representing Thames Valley District School Board. Centennial Central is a kindergarten to grade eight school that resides in Middlesex and services families from both Middlesex County and the City of London. All growth at this school is coming from the City of London. We’re here today to support the request from Middlesex Center.

We have consensus on the technical aspects of this request with Middlesex Center and City of London staff. As a result of growth at this school, we’ve engaged San Tech to review our infrastructure. The only feasible option is to connect to the City of London. Sanitary services are letter details this further.

If this request does not go forward, we’ll need to reduce the size of the school and disperse London students to schools with space around London. A number of holding zones have been established to support growth in North Central London. The ultimate solution is a new school in North Central London, which has been previously submitted to the Ministry of Education and will continue to be submitted to the Ministry of Education until approved. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Boat. Is there anyone else that would like to speak of part of the delegation or is that it?

I assume that’s it. Okay. Hi there. Who do we have?

Do we have the mayor online? Sorry, this is Stephanie Bergman. I’m the manager of planning development with Middlesex Center. Okay.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you. After you actually, I just wanted to say on this matter that we’re here to support the school’s request. So we’re also here to answer any technical questions that you may have as well.

So thanks. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, I think that’s it for those that are online. So I’ll go to committee, Adele, Councillor Robin.

Thank you and through you. Are we permitted to ask questions of the delegation? Yes, please go ahead. Thank you.

And I just, I want to start by saying I’m supportive of providing the additional services as requested by Thames Valley District School Board and exploring those from Middlesex Center and later in 4.2. But I do have some concerns that I just wanted to get a better understanding of perhaps some of the additional growth challenges in the area that as it relates to Centennial Central. As Mr. Vote mentioned, the growth right now that they’re seeing is a lot of students in the Northeast part of the city that are going to Centennial Central.

And it’s very important that we’re able to continue to send students to the school. I’m just wondering, will the increase your capacity allow for any growth at the school itself? So I’ll go to the delegation for that question. Yeah, thank you through the question, through the chair.

Yes, this will allow us to continue to grow the population using the school. There ultimately are constraints at some point that just don’t allow the school to function properly, but this will allow for some continued growth and allow us to continue to have some time to hopefully receive approval from the Ministry of Education for a new school to support those communities. Councilor. Thank you.

And I know that as you mentioned, there’s a number of holding schools that have been designated for the growth that’s supposed to take place in the Northeast already, potentially some of that’s already occurring, but would that growth that you’re speaking to and that ability to take more capacity? Could you give us an idea of how that capacity would be absorbed and how that would increase school population? Mr. Vote.

So this will allow us to add additional portables at Centennial Central, potentially. Certainly the sanitary capacity will allow for that. And we can continue to do that until we have further site constraints. We are establishing holding zones in that area and have established holding zones to divert new growth that is coming to that area to other schools with available capacity.

And again, our ultimate solution here is more capital and new school in North Central London’s support growth. Councilor. Thank you. And I just wanted to check in as well.

If this increased capacity, I know it will be beneficial for the school and the community and likewise, we have students in the Northeast part of the city that this is their homeschool and are very used to going to this school and for that reason, we wanna continue to offer them services at that school with that in mind. Do we have a community use agreement between Thames Valley District School Board for Centennial Central and the city of London? Mr. Vote.

Yeah, through the chair, we don’t have a community use agreement per se for that school. It is a community use school available for use and we do work with city of London staff to ensure that there’s a space throughout the community and happy to consider this school. Councilor. That’s wonderful news.

I’d love to see some expanded programming to students that live in the Northeast part of the city to be able to utilize this space where we have our constraints already with using some of the other schools in the area for recreational programs. So very glad to hear that. I do have some questions related to 4.2, but I do have a motion to capture 4.1 and 4.2, so let me know when you wanna put it on the floor. I think if you’re ready to do it, you can go ahead.

Thank you, but I do hope to speak after the delegation for 4.2 as well. Absolutely, yeah. So if you wanna move that right now, I’m gonna look for a seconder. Thank you.

So some language has been provided in order to help to capture both 4.1 and 4.2. I’m not sure if I need to read it out or. That’s just, yeah, why don’t you read it out just for the public record? If it’s not too long, I’m not sure the length of it.

Councilor. Okay, that the following actions be taken with respect to the request from the municipality Middlesex Center and the Thames Valley District School Board regarding sanitary services for Centennial Central Public School. Authority be delegated to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve an agreement between the city and the Thames Valley District School Board for the provision of sanitary servicing to Centennial Central Public School and be that the mayor and the city clerk be authorized to execute the agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and see that the city administration be authorized to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary to connect with this agreement. Okay, thank you.

Look for a seconder for that, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Do you want to speak to it now or do you want? Okay, just from the chair, I just want to make sure that staff is good with that language and the motion. Thank you, through the chair.

Yes, staff is comfortable with the motion and with the request from Thames Valley School Board. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we got a motion moved in second. Any questions for staff or the delegation at this time?

Just make a comment from the chair of the committee allows. Yeah, it’s good that we can work together. That’s good neighbors. We, you know, I’m thankful for the councilor to look for other opportunities of sharing.

And I think we’re going to see this with our northern neighbors probably more as our city grows to the north. So I don’t, I expect to have these further of these types of conversations, but I’m in support of this motion. Okay, any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Say no, no, call the vote.

Close in the vote, the motion for clauses 4.1 and 4.2 carry five to zero. Thank you. We’re now down to 4.2, regarding the report’s canopy letter put forth by Councillor Frank and Councillor Robin. Sorry, Councillor Robin.

Sorry. Okay, I thought I was moving the recommendation just for Middlesex Center and Thames Valley District School Board for Centennial Central, but 4.2 is still going to be heard. My apologies, yeah. Okay, I think there was some miscommunication there.

We think I thought 4.2 was part of it. You probably were clear that it wasn’t my apologies. Okay, we’re going to go to 4.2. It was not included in what we did.

Thank you. And what we want to hear from the mayor of Middlesex County. So I’ll look for a motion to do that. Councillor Robin, seconded by Councillor Frank.

And that’s called that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, Mayor, I apologize. We were late in the day and the chair of the pack is getting a little punchy.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you. And just to clarify through the chair. So my name is Stephanie Bergman.

I’m here on behalf of the Municipal Valley and Middlesex Center, I’m the manager of planning and development. And I also have Rob Casketon, who is the director of Public Works and Engineering with us, just to speak to the letter that was provided by Mayor David. And so related to the discussion we just had about Arva, we are here today. I think most of you know that there is an agreement between Middlesex Center and the city of London to provide services, servicing to a portion of the Arva community that agreement has been in place since 2000.

There has been some recent changes last year where the cap on yearly units was removed. But we’re here today in the hopes of kind of having a discussion about some opportunities to take another look at that agreement to, as you can imagine, having a certain capacity limit. We do have a bit of land available in Arva that we really feel is important to ensure that is planned in a comprehensive way. It’s been in the community settlement area of Arva for quite some time.

But of course, we haven’t been able to do too much there because of the limits on the sanitary servicing. There’s been some work we’ve done to look at alternative servicing options. And of course, those are costly and also have some greater environmental impact. So we do feel that there’s a good opportunity here.

We’re all working towards the same goal of addressing the housing crisis and providing housing options to the communities. So yeah, we’re here today. We wanted to have that discussion to see if council would be willing to take a look at that agreement to look at revising that capacity limit that exists. We think there’s lots of opportunity here.

We are border communities. We do, we have been working together. And I think there’s quite a bit of opportunity to continue to do that as we see developments occurring on our borders. So thank you very much.

I do have Rob Casket in here, as I mentioned, if there are any questions. Okay, thank you Ms. Bergman. I just had the mayor down on a list of delegates.

So I made an assumption that thank you for that. Councilor Raman. Thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion.

And I’m happy to move a recommendation that’s been shared as well. And it’s, and I’m happy to read it and then follow up from there if seconded. Okay, so that the following actions be taken with respect to the request from the municipality and Middlesex Center, the Middlesex Center sanitary servicing agreement. A, the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure be requested to report back with an analysis of the request made by the municipality and Middlesex Center, including planning, technical and financial considerations.

Okay, I get a lot of stuff. They’re comfortable with that language. I know we had communicated earlier with some suggested language. Thank you, yes, through the chair, we are comfortable with that staff and we’ll be prepared to report back.

Okay, good, okay. So you’re making that motion. Do I have a seconder? Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconded.

Okay, I’ll go to Councilor Raman. Yeah, thank you. And again, really appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion and to put this forward for further report back from our staff. I was hoping also to be able to speak to the mayor.

So I hope to connect with her in the future as well on this matter. I do think, you know, we’re very interconnected. We work collectively and we work well together. And so I do think that we need to continue to do so and look for opportunities to be mutually supportive of one another’s communities.

And where, you know, there’s the need for increased sanitary service capacity from ARVA, you know, we’re happy to take a look at that and look what can be done. I’d hope the same thing can be said for Middlesex Center and our ability to be able to use and utilize parkland in that area as city users without having to pay a fee. And recently that is something that the city, that ARVA did put in place, that those that live outside of ARVA, so those that live in the Northeast, Northwest part of the city of London have to pay to be able to access parks. So again, in the spirit of mutual cooperation and working together, I hope we can address some of those impasses.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I just wanna echo Councilor Robbins’ comments and reinforce them. We heard the Thames Valley District School Board indicate that, you know, the growth that they’re seeing is from London.

Well, with that growth comes the necessity for families from London to participate in events in public spaces in ARVA. And so I wanna take this opportunity to actually reinforce and express my own objections to ARVA charging London residents for parking when they’re coming out to attend school board hosted events like track meets. I think it’s wholly inappropriate to come and ask for us to support sanitary service for school capacity that is expanding as a result of London, but then charge those very Londoners to attend school events in ARVA. So I hope that our Middlesex County staff can relay that message back to the mayor and elected officials there.

Because if that’s the approach that we’re gonna take, it becomes much more difficult to continue mutually beneficial partnerships like this. Thank you, any other comments or questions? And just from the chair, I’ll echo exactly what I’ve just heard and leave it at that. Okay, now we have motion moved and seconded, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We’re now at 4.2 of our state canopy, and this is regarding a communication from Councillor Frank and Councillor ramen. So I will go to Councillor ramen. Oh, I’ll go to Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, happy to introduce this and happy if my colleague Councillor ramen wants to add some items to it. We had just been discussing the importance of trees in the urban canopy, and we know that staff are working on bringing back an update to the urban forestry strategy. So we just want to make sure there’s some specific items that we had heard from residents and other groups that we’re interested in seeing looked at through this update to the report and the strategy. So it’s there in front of you.

There’s some that would be included more on the planning side of tree planting, and then some that’s more included within what is the realm of the city and where we can find locations from our trees within our parks and within our existing land and on partnering lands for institutional land owners. So happy to discuss this with other Councillors. We did run it by staff and they didn’t have any concerns. And it’s my understanding that Mr.

Yowman is online as well. So yeah, with that happy to turn it over to Councillor ramen if needed, or Yowman, sorry about that. Yowman sounds good though too. Thank you.

Councillor. Thank you, through you. I’ll just follow up with that. I understand there’s interest in more discussion with the development community and with other stakeholders and we’re open to that as well.

And we’ll include that in the amended motion that’s in front of you. Thank you. Thank you. So would one of you like to make that motion?

Happy to make that motion with the amendment that was circulated this afternoon, I think, to the— Right, yep, okay. Seconder, okay, great. Any discussion? Mr.

Yowman, can you weigh in here on your thoughts? For sure, thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, happy to have this coming forward.

It’s lining up with some work that we have actually been working on for a number of months now. So we’re looking forward to having two companion reports to you this fall. Lots of exciting things going on in the forestry front and happy to be covering all these matters in those reports. Thank you.

So we have motion moved and second, seeing no Deputy Mayor Loz. Just a quick question through you two, our staff, I guess. When we’re developing this, because we’re talking about development agreements, would this be something that’s happening through the housing supply reference group table or wanna, sorry, we’ve got a couple of different tables, so if I’m referencing the wrong one, but our customer service tables that we’re holding with the industry as well, is that the mechanism where we would get some feedback from the folks who are actually doing the building? Mr.

May, it’s through the chair. So it’s not one of the items that we’re working on currently, but it is like a forum to be able to have those conversations. So I’ll leave it with Mr. Yeoman to select how he wants to do that engagement.

That’s an option that’s available. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks. I was really kind of curious as to whether we were gonna have to create a new mechanism for that, or whether one of the existing things could cover it off.

So I’ll leave it in Mr. Yeoman’s capable hands to figure out where he wants to do that. It just seemed to me like one of those reference tables might be the appropriate place for that. So that’s just the comment.

I’m supportive of investigating this. Okay, any other comments? Motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Moving on to deferred matters, 5.1. I’ll put that on the floor. Councillor Ramen, the seconder.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, any comments for a call to vote? I’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

It’s down to adjournment for motion. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Two, seven through four of the community advisory committee on planning, I’ll put that on the floor. Councillor Frank seconded to receive it.

I’m assuming you’re moving to receive it. Seconded by Councillor Ramen. Comments or questions? Councillor Ramen.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank, we had a resignation from the committee. I just wanted to thank the committee member for their service. Thank you, and I’ll go with that one as well.

It’s a lot of work that folks do in the advisory committees and thank you for the service. Now, I could go to a German, right, Clerk? I have to vote. Do we not vote?

Move the second. I’ll call the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Yes, please, now adjournment.

I’ll look for motion to adjourn. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ramen. Hand vote, cum, done. Thank you, everyone.

You guys, thanks.