August 13, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Item 2.1 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

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

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (2.1) - Planning and Development and Building Housing Update

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated August 13, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   379 Southdale Road West (Z-9746)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.1) - 379 Southdale Road W (Z-9746)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1787377 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 379 Southdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA3) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)/ASA3) Zone;

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

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

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment will permit an additional complementary use within existing building stock;

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.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   553-557 Upper Queen Street (Z-9747)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.2) - 553 and 557 Upper Queen Street (Z-9747)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by John MacArthur and Derek Sloan, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the properties located at 553 and 557 Upper Queen Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone; and,

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

i) re-orientation of Units 9 and 10 to provide a minimum driveway length of 6.0 metres to avoid encroachments into the drive-aisle; and,

ii) complete pedestrian connections through the site;

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

  • a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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

  • M. Campbell, Zelinka Prfiamo Ltd.; 

  • E. Vogel;

  • A. Johnson; and,

  • R. Orr;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   455 Highbury Avenue North - (OZ-9739)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.3) - 455 Highbury Avenue North (OZ-9739)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Highbury Self Storage Equities Limited, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 455 Highbury Avenue North:

a)    the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to AMEND the Brydges Street Area Specific Policy in the Light Industrial Place Type of the subject lands, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available; and,

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016), including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design, Intensity and Form policies of the Light Industrial Place Type, as well as the Brydges Street Area Specific Policy;

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(22)) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval; and,

iii)    the proposed development and requested zoning represent a negative impact to the subject lands as a whole, as the area does not promote outdoor storage within a gateway to the City of London;

it being noted that should Council approve the proposed development, Staff recommend that a holding provision (h-18) that will ensure the development will not occur until such time as that archaeological matters will be addressed;

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

  • T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •  the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

-  the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval; and,

  •  the proposed development and requested zoning represent a negative impact to the subject lands as a whole, as the area does not promote outdoor storage within a gateway to the City of London;

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.

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   4452 Wellington Road South (Z-9729)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.4) - 4452 Wellington Road South (Z-9729)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2858637 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a holding Light Industrial (h-17LI6) and holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial (h-17ASA1/ASA2/ASA6) Zone;

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

i) provide a high-quality gateway image along Highway 401 East and Wellington Road South and enhanced landscaping along the gateway corridor shall be required in conformity with the policy framework of The London Plan and Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

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

  • a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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; and,

  • A. Johnson;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates a broader mix of uses on a serviced site with the urban growth boundary;

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

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   757 Southdale Road East (OZ-9742)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.5) - 757 Southdale Road E (OZ-9742)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Judy Kojlak, c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd. (c/o Matt Campbell) relating to the property located at 757 Southdale Road East:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a compound Holding Residential R1/Office Conversion Special Provision (h-18*R1-4/OC5(_)) Zone;

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

i) closure of driveway nearest the intersection of Southdale Road East and Dearness Drive; and,

ii) the owner enter into an Encroachment Agreement and Boulevard Parking Agreement with the City of London to permit the existing parking area, drive aisle, and proposed second access from Dearness Drive to encroach within the City’s right-of-way;

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

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

  • M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would facilitate continuation of the existing standalone medical/dental office building on 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.

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)

3.6   267 York Street (OZ-9736)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.6) - 267 York Street (OZ 9736)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Citi Plaza London Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 267 York Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Downtown 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 August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Holding Downtown Area (h-1h-3 DA2D350) Zone to a Holding Downtown Area Special Provision (h-17h-()*DA2()H150D2280) Zone;

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

i) no windows to habitable rooms should be provided along the west façade of the proposed podium that abuts the adjacent property on York Street;

ii) provide a minimum of 50% of transparent glazing on the buildings podium on the North (York Street) and East (Wellington Street) facades;

iii) provide a high-quality gateway image of the south façade and design the top of the building to integrate mechanical and elevator penthouses into an architectural feature that will add to the visual interest of the skyline;

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

v) investigate air source heat pump options;

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

vii) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

viii) a rail safety study be required to identify details of the mitigation measures (crash wall) and how it will be integrated into the design;

ix) an encroachment agreement be entered into to permit the underground parking garage to encroach into the daylight triangle;

x)  details regarding garbage collection and storage be determined;

xi) the recommendations of the Noise and Vibration Study be implemented; and,

xii) the recommendations of the Wind Study be implemented;

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

  • a communication dated August 11, 2024 from C. Butler; and,

  • a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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

  • T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendments facilitate the development of a prominent site within the Downtown, Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area; and,

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

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

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)

3.7   1368 Oxford Street East (Z-9745)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.7) - 1368 Oxford Street East (Z-9745)

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 Ashishkumar Patel, Hetalben Sevantilal Patel, (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 1368 Oxford Street East:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix A BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R1/Office Conversion Special Provision (R1-9/OC5(_)) Zone;

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

i) provide enhanced salt resistant all-season landscaping to screen the parking from Roehampton Avenue & Oxford Street East; and,

ii) four (4) short-term bicycle parking spaces are required for the proposed medical/dental office conversion;

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

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

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context; and,

  • the recommended amendment would provide access to medical/dental offices in a convenient and accessible location to meet the needs of neighbourhood residents;

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.

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)

3.8   539 and 543 Topping Lane (OZ-9737)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.8) - 539 and 543 Topping Lane (OZ-9737)

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 South London Investments Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 539 & 543 Topping Lane:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) provide a dedicated paratransit layby;

ii) consider revising the parking layout to ensure all parking spaces are more easily accessible;

iii)  ensure a high degree of transparent glazing is provided on the ground floor along both public street frontages;

iv)  enhanced tree planting, particularly along the western and northern property lines;

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

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

vii) investigate air source heat pump options;

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

ix) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and,

x) consultation with the Municipal Housing Developmet division for the provision of affordable units;

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

  • a petition from K. Benke, with 63 signatures; and,

  • the project summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

  • K. Benke;

  • A. Crawford;

  • M. Pryciak;

  • R. Scholtes;

  • J. Bosdale; and,

  • I. Driscoll;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   Not to be heard before 1:30 PM – 2060 Dundas Street (Z-9547)

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (3.9) - 2060 Dundas St (Z-9547)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2783142 Ontario Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to a portion of the property located at 2060 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 a portion of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

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

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Communication from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Board of Directors – Extension of Minister’s Direction for Conservation Authorities Regarding Fee Changes Associated with Planning, Development and Permitting Fees

2024-08-13 - Submission (4.1) - UTRCA Communication - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor BE ASKED to write a letter requesting the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry of Ontario, Graydon Smith, to reverse the decision to freeze the fees conservation authorities can charge in regard to planning, development, and permitting fees;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from B. Petrie, Chair, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Board of Directors, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve delegation status to B. Petrie, Mayor, Town of Ingersoll, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation and litigation or potential litigation, with respect to appeals related to 247 Halls Mill at the Conservation Review Board (“CRB”) and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session from 3:31 PM to 3:38 PM.

6.1   247 Halls Mill Road – CRB Appeal and Instructions

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

The meeting adjourned at 3:42 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 (2 hours, 40 minutes)

Good afternoon. It’s just past one o’clock. I’d like to call the 12th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to Order. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed via livestreaming on YouTube and the City website. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, and Lenapeiwak, and Adirondron. We honor and respect the history languages and cultures of the diverse Indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Mete, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people in the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC@london.ca or 519-661-249-extension-2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Seeing none, I will move to a consent item. We only have one to date regarding our housing update, so I’ll put that on the floor looking for a motion to receive. Councilor Robin, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll open the floor for comments. I’ll go to the Mayor.

Yes, thanks. I’ll just make a brief comment on this. I think this has been really good work by Municipal Council and our staff over the past year to ramp up Council-generated approvals. When you look at the change on the things that we can control and that’s permissions that Council can provide, it’s dramatically up from where we were.

And if we set a target of 47,000 new homes for the province, the one thing that we have control over is how many approvals we’re actually going to make in this chamber, how many permissions we’re actually going to give. But what we know is not all of those permissions come to fruition in the short timeframe. They do over time. So there is absolutely work to be done on the side of transitioning the Council-generated approvals into permits being drawn and issued and actual homes being created, because ultimately our goal here isn’t just municipal permissions, it’s places for people to live.

Recently, I met with Minister Klandra and representatives from the development community just here at City Hall to talk about some of the challenges that are being faced by the development community, the not-for-profit community, and those who are involved in the home-building spectrum. I certainly feel like the province is committed to trying to reduce those barriers, and I know that this Council also has tried to remove barriers, streamline processes, and continues to do that work to bring permissions to fruition. The economic climate, too, is beyond both of those government’s control with interest rates being a significant barrier to home buyers entering into the market. That can create some challenges with the demand that we’ve been seeing.

But what we see is the Bank of Canada sending signals that they’re moving in the right direction on that. And I think our municipal permissions that we’ve created through the first half of this year have positioned us very well to take advantage of improving economic conditions and have those backlogged pre-approved permissions transition into units for this community in a time frame that is reasonable to try to meet the demand that’s out there. So I know Minister Klandra himself was very impressed with the numbers. I don’t know if it’ll come up at the AMO conference.

I know he gets to give a big speech, but not every community has been in the position that we’ve been in to actually generate the types of permissions that we have. And there was a lot of discussion about what have we done to try to foster that in this community. So I just wanted Planning Committee and Council to know that this sort of work is being recognized and noticed by the Province of Ontario that we continue to have a collaborative discussion with the development community, the not-for-profit community, the Province of Ontario, the federal government, and as a municipal government as partners within the housing spectrum with the view of shared responsibility to work on what are the barriers in changing the municipal permissions that we’ve been able to drive in London into actual homes for people to build and live in. And I think that that is really important work moving forward, but I also think we need to continue to generate the types of numbers that we’ve seen.

And I just appreciate the work of this committee as a key component in that process. So I just came to share some of those thoughts today with committee. And certainly it’s a report to be received for information. So there’s no decision points right now, but this is certainly something that I think members of this committee and municipal council should be proud of the work that they’ve done on the number of permissions they’ve been able to generate through the first half of 2024.

And of course, thanks to all of the staff who do the work on the back end to make sure that we have the opportunity to have these before us for our decision. So I just want to share those comments, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. I look for other comments from committee members.

Seeing none of the committee will permit me a few words. Just I won’t repeat what the mayor has said. Over the last few years, we’ve seen the committee do good work with staff on getting many units zoned for building. I think today we see 1,000 plus units on the docket as well.

Quite an ambitious target of 47,000 homes, but there was concern for me personally, and I think others in the committee. And we were doing okay and getting, you know, rezoning done, but it’s getting shovels in the ground. I think economic circumstances with interest rates, probably being the primary one in inflation, driving costs up. We saw that lagging behind the rezoning efforts.

Now that we see interest rates, at least leveling off and with signaling that they will start to come down, boy, we’re seeing building permits go crazy. So Mr. Shaw, great work with your team because they’re going to be busy, which is good. And Ms.

McNealy, always fantastic work by your team in getting these planings rezoning to the committee in good shape. You know, I know there’s a lot of work that’s done behind the scenes to before it comes to us that we can deal with it in the proper way. So thank you to both and thank you very much to your team that works very hard on behalf of London to address our housing concerns. If there are no other comments or questions, then we have a motion moved in second.

I’ll call the vote. Oh, yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero.

All right. Thank you. Moving on to scheduled items, 3.1, dealing with 379 Southdale World West. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councilor Robin, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Any questions of technical nature for staff committee? Seeing none, then I’ll ask if the applicant is here. I would like to address committee, please, sir.

Give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Dan Murphy. I’m an urban planner with civic planning and design. Representing our client today, Lost Cycle, who is the applicant for the Zoning By-law Amendment at 379 Southdale Road West.

Lost Cycle is a proudly local spin studio with two locations in the city and just celebrated their five-year anniversary of opening earlier this week. The basement unit within the existing multi-tenant commercial building was recently leased by our client with their goal of being to relocate and re-establish an indoor cycling facility there. The proposal before you seeks to add the commercial recreation facility use to the list of permitted uses within the existing ASA1 zone, which would ultimately allow for this cycling facility use. There was one public response that was received in relation to this application, which related to storm water and sanitary capacities in the area.

And just to clarify that this Zoning By-law Amendment is simply requesting for the allowance of an additional use and no changes to the existing building or site are proposed whatsoever. I want to thank Brady Benello and the rest of planning and development staff for their work on this proposal. We are in full agreement with the staff recommendation. We appreciate your time and consideration of this application and I’m available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee regarding this item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone in the gallery so I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Council Raman seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay. I’ll put it on the floor for committee members.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor. I look for a seconder.

Councillor Raman seconds. The motion moved in second. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to item 3.2.

This is regarding 5.5.3 to 5.5.7 Upper Queen Street. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions from committee or staff? Seeing none, then I’ll look for the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address the committee, please, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon committee. My name is Matt Campbell.

A partner with Zilin Capriema. We are very excited to be in front of planning committee this afternoon for this townhouse proposal over on Upper Queen’s. I’d just like to let the committee know that we’ve worked very well with staff and we want to thank staff for their participation and work with this project. We did have a public engagement session and open house on February 13th in which quite a few members of the community came out.

There was there was some constructive criticism that we took through that process and made some changes to the plan and that’s the plan that is in front of the committee today. Happy to answer any questions and certainly would support the staff recommendation to approve the zone change as we have requested. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Campbell. I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. Please, sir, give us your name. You have five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Eric Vogel. I live three doors down from where this planned urban blight is set to begin. I understand that this meeting is nothing more than a foregone conclusion and that this meeting’s only be done to fulfill a legal requirement.

To those watching at home, I would let this serve as a cautionary tale to you. While urban blight or infill is not happening in your neighborhood, it will be coming to your area next. The first question is as far as asbestos in these units, what will be done to mitigate exposure? My other question would be to the council members in general, when did building a house with a yard become so unpopular, like a yard with a child that could actually have a sing-swing set and play in their own yard?

Now we just rely on parks. Well, parks don’t create revenue. Parks cost money. They cost money because they need to be maintained.

But we want to build parks instead of building houses with a yard where a kid could play. Finally, infill, or as I like to call it, urban blight, is being sold to the population is the way to ease the population boon to the area. If infill is the only way forward, then how did the development south of Pack Road between Kern and Talbot and Boston get approved? Because that’s not infill.

That’s nothing but vacant land. And if infill is the goal, we have plenty of vacant buildings downtown that should be converted. Why not them? Now I know the goal and we keep sharing the goal is to revitalize a downtown core.

But we’ve heard that for 30 years. If revitalizing the downtown core was so vital, why hasn’t it been done already? Thank you for your time. Thank you.

My brother members of the public like to address the committee. I swear, if there’s anyone online, please go to the mic and give us your name and you have five minutes. Is that okay there? That’s great.

My name is Angus Johnson. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you today. Most recently, in the context of the Oxford developments, we raised a concern about the potential these developments have for significantly increasing transportation emissions by housing thousands more cars in the city. Our proposal today for councilists consider a strategy that could have adopted actually work to reduce the number of new commuters being added to the city and also prevent a significant amount of increased emissions that new commuters could potentially create.

To accomplish these objectives, a strategy would require new developments offering units for sale or rent to one offer incentivized pricing of no parking units and to protect a reserve parking for commuters within the London CSD for the rest of the units. So with regards to the developments under construction under consideration today, our ask would be to delay final approval for these developments until it’s clear that the pricing and parking policies align with these requirements. Re-number one, in theory, intensification is supposed to reduce car dependency, encourage walkability, and actually reduce emissions accordingly. Instead, developments being approved are gateways for thousands of cars.

To reduce the number of car commuters that instead attract buyers who are walkers, bikers, or transit riders, incentives are needed to encourage purchasing or renting no park units. The price reduction for no park units should at least reflect the removal of the amount that is included in the other units for the cost of parking. The federal government is offering millions of dollars in grants to support global warming mitigation strategies. Additional subsidies for renting or renting no park units would seem a very appropriate way to spend some of that money.

The ratio of cheaper no parking units to more expensive units that include parking should be at a minimum of one to three to ensure a healthy complement of no park units. It’s important to make them available in more than token amounts and to market them aggressively. As to number two protected parking, the most serious problem currently as of the 2021 census is with commute emissions created by commuters who live in London and commute to work to destinations outside of the city. This is what the breakdown of commutes for the London CD looks like.

You can see that on my print copy. This shows London from left to right commutes within London to all the surrounding seven CSDs to areas out the CD and the total. And I’m going to leave you to look at that. The outgroup, although smaller 39,214,000, is uncomfortably close to producing the same amount of missions as that cohort that commutes within the city.

Our calculation is there and I’m not going to take your time to look at it now. Please look at it at your leisure. The point of the calculation is that comparing the total of these groups within the city, there’s approximately 1,700,000 minutes of emissions to out emissions of 1,873,000 daily, which means the 26% of the total commuters are producing at least the same amount of emissions as the in. In short, commute out cars are producing conservatively three times the emissions of cars commuting within the city.

The point of reserving the sale of parking for commuters who work within the city is to protect parking for these shorter commutes and prevent the number of longer commutes from growing. In practice, it would be a matter of requiring that buyers who are buying parking for units show proof that they work within the London CSD before they can make the purchase of the parking. So, for example, in the context of the ISAM development, which could embrace another 6,000 cars, assuming the same demographics, 1,560 of those commuters would be expected to buy a base for traveling out of the city to work. If this pricing policy was in place, they’d be looking for parking somewhere else.

A motto suggestion for this commute, emissions reduction strategy, might be live, work, and walk in affordable London. That’s my two cents worth. I just want to take a moment here to thank all of you for being here at this time of year. My family right now, my younger sons and friends, and my daughters in Italy, and my other sons up at the cottage at Sausage Lake, and my wife has beat my chops back home saying, “Why are you down at City Hall when we should be out there, too?” And I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you are in the same position with your significant others.

So, thank you. Thank you, sir. I’ll look for other speakers from the public. Please, sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes.

My name is Richard Orr, and I live at 565 Upper Queens, two doors from this proposed development. Our family has lived at this site since 1958, so we’ve been there well over 60 years. I have a question for you that I’d like you to answer. I think I know what the answer is going to be, but I want you to tell me as representatives of the city yourself what the answer is.

If the zoning for the subject properties is amended from R1 to R5, which will provide a much higher density in the area, of course, this will be a downgrade for adjacent property owners, a number of whom have lived on Upper Queens Street for anywhere from 50 to 60 years. In our case, more than 60 years. My question is, what amount of municipal tax reduction can adjacent homeowners expect to receive from the city as a result of the downgrading of this area, where two homes, two residential homes once were, and now are being proposed to be occupied by 28 units. That’s my first question.

Secondly, I’d just like to let you know that I know the front door from the back door of any unit. The, and I say that having worked in three architectural firms, both in London and in the town, city of Windsor for over 46 years, for 46 years. The site concept plan that’s been submitted actually shows those units which face closest to Upper Queens Street. It shows that the rear door, the rear entrance, is going to be facing Upper Queens.

Now, I’d like each of you on council to just think of this for a moment. If you looked out your front door and you saw a development going into your community across the road from you, and the rear entrance was being proposed to face the street, what would you think? Would you appreciate that? Not likely, but that’s what’s being proposed here.

If you look on the site concept plan, that’s what is being proposed. And I think that you need to take a long, hard look at this proposal. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers that would like to address the committee on this topic. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Seeing none, I don’t see any further speakers.

It’s all a promotion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. There was one question raised regarding property tax assessment on values of property. I just wanted to see if there’s anyone from finance that could kind of speak to just kind of give a indication of tax assessments and that. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I’m just going to interject here because I don’t think that it’s within staff’s purview to comment on how MPAC assesses property values. Property values are not actually assessed by the city of London.

They’re assessed by a provincial body, the Provincial Property Tax Assessment Corporation, and so that is really outside of both our scope and of staff scope. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. That’s actually what I was hoping to hear from staff because I just wanted to be, you know, the question answered that property assessments are done from a provincial body, not from the city. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor.

Oh, the second, please. Thank you. Before we go on, the clerk reminded me, and it wasn’t audible to me. There was a question with asbestos in the buildings.

I wonder if a staff could comment on that. Thank you, through the chair. I believe that would be a question for the applicant. However, that would be a matter dealt with a demolition of the building.

Okay, so that would be covered off when the demolition permit comes forward. Again, I believe it’s a question for the applicant, but that might be my understanding. It would be dealt with at the time of the demolition. All right, I’ll go to the applicant on that if they could comment on how you’re going to handle asbestos have found in that building.

In the building, and as Heather mentioned, that’s not something that we would typically deal with at this stage. That would be done through the demolition permit process. If there was any special program that would be required for asbestos mitigation, our client would undergo that program. It’s a very serious issue and that would be dealt with appropriately through that process.

Okay, thank you. Now I’ll put the item on the floor for committee members. Officer Pelosi, welcome to committee. I’ll go to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me as the word counselor for this application and a visiting member to your committee. I do have one question if I can through you to the applicant, just looking for confirmation that units are going to be for sale. I know people can buy them and then rent them out, but just they’d be for sale.

I believe I saw that in the report and also looking for your proposed construction timeline. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. Thank you through the chair. The question was when, sorry, the units for sale.

So that hasn’t been determined, but I can say that our client is looking through going through the condominium process. That would be a vacant land condominium. We are in the early stages of that. That would come after zoning, usually in concert with the site plan process.

In terms of timing, our client would like to move forward with this as soon as possible. Because we’re coming up at the tail end of construction season, they would likely be looking to break ground in the spring. Sorry, spring 2025, 2026. 2025.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I’ll move into general comments and some questions for staff then. For residents in conversations with you and within the reports of your comments, I do believe that like one of the two homes coming down is definitely an iconic neighborhood home and a jewel in neighborhood. But staff have noted that it’s not on the heritage list and has no found cultural significance that would prevent this development.

As for the proposed timelines, also a resident in the area myself and aware of another construction project that was already approved on Upper Queen Street as we went through this together not too long ago. That one also has a proposed spring 2025 start line for construction. So just letting residents know that as we move through this, I’ll be if approved, I’ll be working with both applicants to let them know of what each other are up to as they are somewhat close together in a really small stretch between Chittington and commissioners. My question to staff realizing this proposed application only has an open space of 40%.

And as noted on page 38 and 39 in this report, talking about sewer capacities and over land water, this area on multiple sides of Highland Country Club received flooding and sewer backups in the recent water events myself and other residents I’ve been out meeting with amongst those, looking for confirmation of how that be mitigated through this process, realizing we can’t tie into Chittington and Upper Queen needs to be extended. And any over land water will need to pass through the site highlighting concerns from current residents of what they’re experiencing. And as we would potentially welcome 28 new residents in the neighborhood of them potentially becoming flooded themselves if they move into this area. I’ll go to staff.

Thank you through the chair. As part of that future site plan engineering design, storm water will be contained in controlled on site, in directed underground in Overland to Upper Queen’s Ave. So we have engineering standards that will be in place as part of that review. And we’ll use a combination of law grading storage on site through the parking areas.

All that will be maintained to pre-development levels. So through that review, we’ll ensure that there’s no negative impacts to the adjacent properties in that they’re following our engineering standards council. Thank you. And just on page 39, seeing the advance of Overland flows from external sources and the storm drainage servicing reports, the proper storm water management practices.

How will this be addressed when the area already seems to have a problem with Overland coming? I’m not sure part of this would circle back to storm water management that’s already in the area. Or I know the storm we got was a one in 1%, less than 1% chance coming from Ms. Ramaloo.

I did read the reports and appreciate where we’re at. But this area, even with residents taking up the city’s sewer mitigation and other levels, did seem to have a high rate of issues of just how can we make sure that we fix it while moving forward with new development? Like what can be done in addition to just the need to do a report? Thank you.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. So yes, we do recognize that there was a significant Overland flow issue during the last 250 years storm that we experienced just a few weeks ago. And there were a number of properties flooded in the area because of this.

However, I would say that yes, those flows were external to this site. We don’t actually believe that this application and the work going on on this site will contribute to that. That said, we also, although this site will have to deal with any external flows that are already naturally directed through their site as part of their stormwater mitigation. And that does include some flow from the golf course based on the topography.

This site, they won’t be able to fix the entire area of course. So that would be a separate issue for us to study with stormwater engineering and see if there are other external works that we may take on as the city councilor. Thank you to staff for those comments. And just for residents and certainly the applicant would now be well aware of the other issues that regards if they do condos sold or whatnot.

Just a thank you to staff of the current residents as you’ve seen their comments within these reports to once the water event occurred that still working with staff and working towards a fall ward town hall type meeting focused around flooding and stormwater management and mitigation efforts with staff just to make sure that residents can have access to this information. As current residents, I know their questions will pertain to this development application and questions to you even in person as we move into the fall. So thank you for that. And I will continue with work through with residents should this application move forward for any traffic mitigation in water and other concerns within the neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you. I look for other committee members. Councilor Robin.

Thanks. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor and I do have a question. Okay. I have a seconder.

Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. Councilor Robin. Thank you. And my questions for the applicant and I just wanted if it’s possible to comment on you mentioned that during the consultation period there were some some valuable feedback from residents and that that was incorporated into the final design.

I’m just wondering if you can comment on that further. I’ll go to the applicant through the chair. Thank you very much for the question. The feedback that we got through the public consultation process back in February was related to the interface of the units with the neighbors to the north and the south.

So the interior side lot lines. We had some commentary from the golf club which they were just asking for a little bit of an increased setback which we accommodated as well as there was commentary regarding the actual design of the buildings. So I can tell you that we increased the distance from the building to the lot line and provided some visuals for what the treatment of that area is going to be. So in all of the developments that are firm works on we encourage our clients to put up privacy fencing and minimum six foot board on board fence.

In some cases our clients are successful in doing higher than that as well as robust landscaping on the inside of the fence. So on the client’s property. So that provides a very strong visual barrier as well as a nice landscaped interface between the two properties. There was a change in terms of the aesthetics of the building itself.

The previous version was a very modern looking building which the commentary was well this doesn’t really fit in the neighborhood and quite frankly we tended to agree with that. The property then changed hands. One of the partners exited and the current developer took that feedback and said okay well let’s look at something different here and that’s why we have the more contemporary look that you see in front of you today. Councilor.

Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I appreciate the comments from Councilor Palosa. I shared the same concerns around the issues related to flooding in the area and I see that repeated in the comments from residents in the area.

So do have some great concerns about that but I do understand that this is reflected in the report and that it will be mitigated through the site plan. Okay. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Moving on to 3.3.

This is regarding 4-5.5. Highbury Avenue North. I look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Raman moves it seconded by Councilor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Seconded. The vote. The motion carries 5-0.

Any technical questions for staff and council members. Seeing then then I’ll go to the applicant if they’re here. I’d like to address the committee. Hello.

Can you hear me okay? I can please give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure. Thank you and through you chair.

Good afternoon committee. My name is Taylor Whitney. Intermediate planner with the link of PPM Unlimited. We plan a consultant representing the landowner of 4-5-5.

Highbury Avenue North. I do apologize for not being able to be there in person today and but we have a COVID positive household to figure that this would be the most appropriate format. I am here today to respectfully request that this committee grant a deferral of this application. Following the release of the staff report last week we had reached out to staff to request this deferral.

However they advised that there was insufficient time to circulate a notice of cancellation of public meeting and advised that we would have to make this deferral request here in front of you today. The staff report was released less than a week ago and due to summer vacation schedules and other conflicts we have not had the opportunity to have a full swim discussion with the landowner relating to staff’s recommendation for refusal. As such we would appreciate the opportunity to review the staff report in more detail with our client in order to gauge whether there is any opportunity to make changes which could better align with city staff’s position on this application. It’s our opinion that there is no harm in granting this deferral considering there has been no public interest to date with respect to this application.

And while a deferral is our preferred approach procedure relief if this committee is not willing to grant the deferral I would respectfully request to have an opportunity to comment on the merits of this application through this forum. Thank you for your consideration and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you Ms. Whitney.

I’ll look for any members in public who would like to address the committee. Officer Clerk if there’s anyone online I don’t see anyone here in chambers so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Robbins seconded by Councilor Frank I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries.

So we have a recommendation from staff for refusal on this help with this on the floor for committee. Councilor Robbins. Thank you before moving forward with either staff recommendation or referral I just wanted to ask staff or the clerk to comment on the process and if there’s any issue with a referral. Okay I’ll go to staff for their comments on a referral option.

Thank you through you Mr. Chair. Until just now we were unsure of the reasoning or rationale for the referral back to staff and it’s unclear to us what changes the applicant would be proposing to better align with the London Plan policy framework. So it’s difficult to know whether a referral back to staff would be productive.

It also would depend on the meeting which the applicant would be seeking to defer to if we were to go to September 12 or pardon me September 10th. We are right up against our timelines for report deadline and so it doesn’t leave much time for meaningful discussion. So that would be my commentary. Councilor.

Okay some things to ponder then. I would I’d like to hear from the rest of the committee on where we should go. Okay I’ll look to a Councilor for her. Thank you well if we are debating the merits of this application then I do have lots of questions regarding the tree protection by-law and the trees on this location and I’m not sure if that would require an in-camera discussion or if I may be able just to ask them on the floor.

I’ll go to I’m not sure who to ask. I’ll just go to staff and see if that requires in-camera discussion or if we even at that point yet. Through the chair could we have a little bit more clarification in terms of what you mean by the in terms of the tree protection. Thank you.

Councilor. Sure happy to. Based on the report it’s my understanding that trees had already been cut down in the TPA site the tree protection area site and I’m just wondering the process for that if there have been any penalties if that goes against a process and what that’s looking like between staff and I guess the applicant as to the allowability of having those removed. Go staff.

Through the chair it’s a technical question with our forestry team if if applicable if we could have those answers free for Council. Councilor. Sure yeah I think that they would heavily weigh on my decision-making ability at this point so not having them at this point would be difficult for me to be able to make a decision on this file but I understand if you don’t have those answers available. Okay Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you chair and through you I too have a number of questions about this and I’m I’m not sure where the deferral given the the report deadlines would get us but I think that there’s a number of questions that several of us have with respect to different components perhaps even of the application whether that be the removal of the special provision whether it be the tree protection area considerations. I will say that the applicant in terms of revitalizing an old building and making it look much more appealing from a street perspective has been great. This is at high berry and bridges. I cannot come to City Hall without passing this building every day so I would say that they’ve done a good job in terms of revitalizing but this extra component recognizing that we the original proposal was to be fully self-contained.

I think we all have some questions and we may have a variety of ways that we need to approach staff or have a discussion with the applicant as well for some some more understanding. So I am going to suggest that this be referred to the council meeting without a recommendation from the planning committee and give us an opportunity to ask some questions before this reaches the council meeting for a decision and then should a referral be necessary at the council meeting then that can still proceed but that may give us some time. Now I’m not sure and through you chair I would like to ask our staff what they would need from direction for us leading up to a council meeting if we wanted a couple of options available to us because I know that you know there may be by-law changes or things like that that have to be adapted so I’m just wondering through you chair staff can comment if we forward the this with no decision do you need any additional direction from us at this time that would still allow you to meet statutory deadlines and I’m also concerned about a deferral with regard to our 90 day decision periods and the fact that we we are not supposed to be deferring applications we have a 90 day obligation for a decision so looking if staff can give some shed shed a little bit more light on what if we just forward this to council and then take a little more time to get some more information I’ll go to staff through the chairs so the current recommendation from staff is refusal there’s no by-law attached to it too so that would be prepared if there’s going to be discussion and consideration of approval of the requested amendment we are happy to field questions in this form right now for anything that can be can be addressed I will know just on the tree protection as well some additional information that the city did grant permits for the cutting conditional on the replanting of the trees which has not yet happened um any discussion about um uh or yeah implementing the tree protection by-law and um any follow-up action or course correction would be a matter that would have to be discussed in camera with legal I’m just uh advised the deputy mayor the applicant has her hand raised so I don’t know if you want to hear from from her first or continue on uh through you chair if if the applicant wants to offer a comment on the potential of just sending it to council without a recommendation I’m I’m happy to hear their thoughts as well um uh for me if I can just preface this a little bit um for the applicant’s sake uh I’m not sure what has changed in terms of a self-storage unit that was contained within the existing building to now requiring self-storage exterior to the existing building um I was fine with it inside but adding additional coverage and exterior um units as well um I’m not sure why with the existing building already in place uh why we’re seeking some addition now um so that if the applicant wants to comment on that as well I’d appreciate that Ms. Whitney um uh over to you thank you and through you chair um if I may provide some background information um as the deputy mayor has has correctly suggested in April of last year council approved a zoning bylaw amendment which permitted the self-storage use in the existing building on the subject lands uh and this application seeks to permit the expansion last year when we made this request for the self-storage use within the existing building a tree protection overlay applied to the southerly portion of the lands which recognized an existing wooded area however the wooded area has since been removed to address vacancy issues on the lands the client retained a landscape consultant and obtained all necessary permits and approvals from the city prior to removing the majority of the trees and we’ve reached out to the city on several occasions to discuss the replenishing strategy and those conversations are in progress now that that area is generally clear it now provides an opportunity to the client to consider utilizing the remaining area of the site deputy mayor so through you then chair um I guess a follow-up for um the applicant to comment on um if you’re utilizing this area uh then where do you see the tree replanting of the compensation for the trees that were removed being replaced uh because from the site plant it looks like this really eliminates any area for uh replanting uh that’s required for the trees that were removed oh go to the applicant thank you and through you chair that is a good question um through consultation with the landscape consultant we’ve provided several meters of uh applicable landscape area along the uh along the frontages along the southerly boundary and the westerly and the easterly uh to accommodate the required replanting we’ve confirmed that it would provide enough area for the replanting requirement through the tree removals and also any additional replantings to help screen the buildings deputy mayor um thanks i i appreciate um that i don’t know if we have any forestry staff uh we’re able to comment on the replacement trees as well um who are are with us at the meeting i i’m seeing some staff shaking their heads that we don’t so that’s um i i appreciate the applicant things that they can accommodate it i would like to hear from our staff if they feel that they can accommodate it as well um so i i don’t have any further comment to offer i i’m not prepared to approve it um but i’m not sure that refusal is is necessarily necessary either so i’m not sure how the rest of committee feels okay i’m going to go to counselor frank and then counselor ramen thank you yes um perhaps a question from you to the applicant it was it correct in my hearing that the trees removed because there are people using that wooded area whether they’re experiencing homelessness or accessing it for other reasons is that the primary reason that the trees are cut down miss Whitney thank you it’s for you chair that that would be correct yes and with self storage being a particular use that requires security it was an issue we had multiple conversations including the ward counselor and London police about the issues on the lands particularly involving multiple repeated break-ins into the existing building counselor thank you and could you tell me a little bit about the your ability to secure your property using fencing and other methods miss Whitney thank you and through you there is an existing driveway from registry that would be utilized um my understanding is that there there would be a gate and and perhaps a security building to allow vehicles uh in and out and there would be fencing surrounding the lands uh generally those types of details would be refined through the site plan approval process so i don’t have a fulsome answer for you but that is the decision as of right now counselor thank you and so i don’t think i was clear is there existing fencing that completely secures this location right now miss Whitney yes sir don’t sir thank you i appreciate that i was just worried that we’re cutting down trees that we’re perfectly fine and healthy um for reasons that could be properly secured through other built infrastructure methods um i’m actually prepared to put the staff recommendation on the floor to refuse this i don’t personally like the approach that has been taking at this point and given that the requested um reasons for for uh approving this location don’t even meet the provincial policy statement and other reasons that staff have outlined i’m happy to put the staff recommendation on the floor to refuse okay we have a motion moved i’ll look for a seconder counselor ramen thank you yes a second then i can provide comment okay so we have a motion move in a second i’ll go to you counselor thank you um i appreciate the dialogue here at committee i think it’s been helpful just to clarify some of the concerns um i think uh under part b of the refusal uh part three the proposed development and requested zoning represents a negative impact to the subject lands um we do not want large storage facilities is gateway markers to the city of london that’s not something that we’re looking to do and i i appreciate the fact that staff looked at it from that lens um when we’re looking at facilities like this i think the expansion of it would be detrimental to the community around it so i’m not in support and support the refusal okay i look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors okay seeing none we have a motion um to go with the staff recommendation moved and seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on to item three point four regarding four four five two i’ll look for a motion to open the pvm counselor ramen seconded by deputy mareluis i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions at this time seeing none i’ll look for uh the applicant the applicant would like to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes certainly thank you mr chair my name is scott alan i’m with mhbc sorry planning um we were acting on behalf of the registered owner in the app at this time mr chair we’d like to express our support for the staff recommendation which effectively um would establish the western portion of the property a subject property that is to be commercial in nature and marginally increase the eastern portion of property for light industrial purposes at this time mr chair i’d also like to advise that our client is actively pursuing a site plan approval application or a site plan approval for the eastern portion of property for truck transfer terminals that application was brought before the council like one or two years ago i’d also like to thank city planning and city ecology for their assistance uh in attention to this application we’re gladly uh available to answer any questions thank you thank you i’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address committee on this item please sir i apologize i was asked for your name again my notes are on another page and then you have five minutes my name is angis johnson and to thank you chair through you uh to the committee uh my comment on this property i’ve entitled insignificant trees and i’m having trouble the idea of cutting down apparently hybrid butternuts because they’re not significant any trees growing in this particular area have to be significant i’d say they’re about the only thing around here that’s worth saving unless there’s something significant about acres and acres of useless pavement um how you could describe this whole area the city is vibrant is beyond my imagination uh normally maples can process emissions uh shade our houses and uh do a lot of other things that are very very good and i have concerns with the attitude that if something is non-native and that it doesn’t have a purpose and shouldn’t be part of our canopy i have a couple of mature trees growing in my yard that have grown 30 feet and 15 years and even the experts can’t figure out what name to put on them i read we should be studying washing washington dc to figure out what to plant here because that’s where our environment is heading but you don’t need to be an expert to see that cutting mature trees of any kind and planning to replace them somewhere else with saplings when they’re already lined up by thousands looking for homes it’s just not a good idea maybe not a significant idea thank you thank you look for any others that would like to address the committee i’ll ask the chair if there’s anyone online there’s no one online in seeing no one else in the chambers i’ll look for a motion to close the ppm councilor ramen seconded by councilor frank and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this item on the floor for committee members deputy mayorless uh through you chair i’ll move the staff recommendation i’ll look for a seconder councilor hell your head seconded we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll sorry councilor yes i’d account a question as well yep okay i’ll uh i’ll go to you right now thank you very much um just regarding access and exiting of this property regarding the uh part c can i get confirmation that access and access this property will be off of castleton and not dangman i’ll go staff on that true to chair that is correct the access will be of uh castel guard councilor thank you very much thank you go to committee for any other comments or questions councilor frank thank you um my questions are mostly about the um the woodlot and the wetland i know that the eis uh indicated that they it was not significant um but i am just wondering because it did include that two to one to two species of uh frogs and toads have been recorded and i’m just wondering if all the trees are moved and then i know essentially double the amount trees will be planted nearby um is there any uh opportunity for any kind of wetland feature for those amphibians to be able to move to in this process i’ll go staff thank you and true to chair um during the eis one frog was heard calling from the trees um we are of the opinion that the habitat can be replaced in the composition area where the trees will be replaced and planted along the north east and south side um no actual natural habitat is being removed regarding the wetland but there will be habitat on site for the frog councilor thank you and if i may um could you explain a little bit about uh i understand the end like the trees are being replanted but my understanding is so are the frogs living in the trees are in the wetland feature if that is and information you’ve available to how about staff thank you and true to chair i don’t have information where the frog is actually living as it wasn’t actually seen it was just heard during the site visit um again the wetland itself is deemed non-significant so therefore it is um allowed to be removed and we are confident that the habitats can be replaced in the conversation tree area councilor thank you and one last question um would we at this point have a list of the tree species that are being replanted i’m just wondering given that we’re moving hybrid butternut and katalpa if those are on the the replanting list if we have that information i’ll go staff uh true to chair thank you for the question at this moment the exact details of um the trees to be planted have not been determined they will be determined to true the septland process but generally speaking um the majority of trees that are proposed to be removed are invasive or non-native species and they will be replaced with native tree species councilor thank you those are all my questions and thanks for talking about the frogs so much i’ll look for any other comments or questions we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion passes five to zero thank you moving on to item 3.5 regarding 757 self-doreau east i’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting councilor frank moves it seconded by councilor ramen i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions from committee members seeing none i’ll go to the applicant the applicant is here please sir repeat your name and uh you have five minutes hello again committee my name is matt campbell partner was the link of preamel again we’re excited to have this in front of planning committee today um just in a nutshell this is a bit of a story about something that happened 40 years ago that we’re trying to make rights so this property is owned by uh dr jerry codgelock he’s a chiropractor and he is looking to wind down his business and wanted to ensure his property was all completely compliant with the zoning by-law so we gave us a call we found oh this property actually isn’t compliant with the zoning by-law and the reason is because when he purchased this property 40 years ago he lived in the property and then subsequently moved out of the property while operating his business there so at the time 40 years ago uh that was a um you know an accessory use uh since he moved out and there’s no residential use in this property anymore it is essentially illegal non-compliant with the zoning by-law uh jerry still operates out of that building it’s a going concern it’s uh it’s a you know entrenched in the community and we want to continue that uh and hopefully we have another chiropractor that’s going to be taking over that practice so this application is essentially to recognize an existing use uh simply because the zoning by-law never recognized it that specific use uh and neither does the London plan so that’s why we have an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment uh in front of you today again this property has been in existence more or less in this condition for you know longer than i’ve been alive uh and has been you know a great use in the community and we certainly uh we thank staff for their assistance with this uh with this application and uh we’re hopeful that uh that committee will find a way to recommend approval to counsel for this happy to answer any equal questions that you may have thank you thank you any members of the public that would like to address committee on this item ask clerk if there’s anyone online no seeing none i’ll look for a motion to uh close the ppm councilor frank seconded by councilor ramen we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and councilor ramen i’ll move the staff recommendation thank you and we’ve got a seconder from councilor frank any comments or questions seeing none i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on to three point six is regarding two six seven york street i’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting councilor ramen seconded by councilor frank i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions from committee members seeing none i’ll look for the applicant um like to address i see um miss whitney uh assume you’re you’re representing the applicant um please go ahead do you have five minutes thank you and through you chair i’ve got option in committee my name is two other whitney intermediate planner was linked to preamma limited the planet consultant representing city plaza london ink the landowner of two six seven york street we’re very excited to be here today with this application i would like to thank staff for their work and collaboration on this project to date and appreciate and agree with their recommendation for approval thank you for your consideration and i’m available and happy to answer any questions you may have about this application okay thank you i’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address committee i’ll ask the clerk there’s anyone online seeing no one in the gallery and i’ll look for motion to close the public participation meeting councilor ramen seconded by councilor frank we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll vote this item on the floor for committee members councilor ramen thank you excuse me i’ll move the staff recommendation okay we have a mover i’ll look for a seconder councilor frank is seconded i’ll put that we have motion moved in seconds i’ll look for comments or questions councilor pream thank you first off i just want to say thank you for including some of the sustainability aspects within the site plan approval so that we don’t have to add them in here so i appreciate that i also wanted to say to the consultant i’m sorry you’re sick i’m going to say that earlier i hope you’re feeling better and your family’s feeling better soon i did one question through the chair to staff just regarding the sanitary and the sewer system we had a little discussion of it works but i was hoping to hear a little bit more about this file and how we can move forward with making sure it has sufficient capacity yeah this is a substantial development so we’ll go to staff to hear about commenting on the sewer capacity for this project thank you through the chair the city is undertaking some sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements intended to be completed by the end of 2025 this will open up a limited amount of capacity at the time for the downtown area which this site is located within so that’s the first step and then the second step is part of the 2028 dc bile update there’s going to be further discussions regarding infrastructure upgrades in the downtown and these transit village areas built areas so we’re progressing towards some future projects in 2025 will be the start of it counselor thank you glad to hear that i’m always happy to see surface parking lots being turned into housing especially ones that go right along our rapid transit route so i appreciate everyone’s work on this one i’ll be supporting it go to counselor fair if there’s any other committee members like to jump in first don’t counselor fair here cheers thank you chair thanks for recognizing me as not a member of the committee counselor frank asked some of the questions that i was going to go around with the capacity issues but i do echo what she said um i do i guess i’ll just expand a little bit on the capacity um so i wanted to make some clarifications uh from just kind of what we’ve seen in the discussion um the applicant approached us you know a long time ago approached me i had uh at least one or two meetings on this with the applicant and several meetings with staff on the infrastructure component when it comes to the sanitary system and i guess i’ll just kind of narrow in on to the trunk work that we’re doing the sewer trunk work at the forks of the tems from what i understand that will increase the capacity by about 17,000 units and this application is about 1,067 units which leaves us with the remainder of about 16,000 units for more a new development downtown so i just want to go to staff clarify that before i continue i’ll go to staff yes thank you through the chair so yes that is correct so the work that we’re undertaking to upsize the trunk sewer that goes underneath the forks of the tems we estimate it will add about 17,000 units worth of capacity once it’s completed so it’s currently in design phase and is scheduled for construction in 2025 and is a high priority for staff counselor thank you um so um and also uh this is a very significant application like we got a lot of units there two big towers um and with the extra capacity that we still have after that trunk sewer the sewer trunk work we have uh pretty good runway for uh developments coming in the future too so we’re open for business um in that aspect so i wanted to clarify on that too again i guess i’ll keep it really short i really like the reuse of uh you know that concrete um just island just in the middle reusing the surface parking lot is very good this is a space in the city um in the downtown area that’s not necessarily utilized to the max potential so this is definitely going to bring that new that new use is going to bring new life to that area of downtown and very supportive of that i will be supporting it at council when i’m able to vote on it so thank you to the applicant thank you to staff thank you to council frank for stealing my questions and uh i’m done there so thank you thank you you have your comments or questions from committee members we’re visiting counselors if the committee will allow me i’ll just make a quick comment um this is uh again uh another development along the wellington gateway so very very exciting that we’re starting to see these developments uh come along remember the discussion on that particular leg of the rapid transit um and we’re finally seeing um more more intensification and what was the idea behind um transit along this route um we’re changing the skyline of london um we’re we’re a big city our city will be uh hitting half a million no doubt um in the near future and the skyline is reflecting that this anecdotal uh comment is that uh we have recently hosted the interior of summer games and the uh metals that were provided the um for the athletes um i really need uh feature of course they showed trees because we’re the forest city but for the first time i saw building and i heard uh the designer i interviewed on tv and and the reference was there to a skyline and i hadn’t heard that comment made for london um i had never heard that comment made for london that we know uh will have a skyline and we see it every day i see it when i go to the ballpark the watch london majors um over um the right field and left field um and this is another great example of uh breeding proper intensification uh to the downtown of the core uh which i think we all like to see because it’ll multiple good news people work live and play right where they uh right in one area to cut down on transit actually but also give the ability to uh to whip to the uh north and south end uh for the retail down there along the route so uh very exciting any other comments or questions before i call the vote seeing none i will call the vote closing the vote for motion carries five to zero okay thank you moving on to three point seven thirteen sixty eight oxford street east all of our motion to open the ppm council robin seconded by councilor frank will open the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions at this time so you now now look at to see if the applicant would like to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes hello again members of committee my name is dan murphy urban planner with civic planning and design today representing our client doctor as she’s kumar patel the owner of the property at 1368 oxford street east property was recently purchased by our climate client with her primary primary goal being to establish their own dental practice within the existing building while maintaining the residential permissions uh for the existing dwelling units in the basement this proposal seeks to add the office conversion zone category to the site to allow for the conversion of residential space to a medical dental use providing desirable and convenient medical uses on a highly accessible site along oxford street east in close proximity to fanchor college is also the intent of our client to improve the existing site condition by removing redundant driveway accesses improving the existing substandard parking situation by providing an updated bicycle and vehicle parking area uh in addition to increase landscaping all of which will be addressed through the site plan control process uh no significant alterations to the exterior of the existing building are contemplated as part of this proposal uh lastly i want to thank mckayla hines and the rest of planning and development staff for their work on this proposal uh we’re in full agreement with the staff recommendation and i’m happy to answer any questions thank you i look for any to any members of the public would like to address the committee i’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online okay see no one in chambers and no one online i’ll uh look for a motion to close ppm council robin seconded by councilor frank call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this item on the floor for committee members councilor frank thank you open the staff recommendation on the floor can i have a seconder deputy mareluis seconds any comments or questions i’ll call the vote the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 3.8 this is regarding 539 and 543 topping lane i’ll look for a motion to open all the participation meeting councilor frank seconded by councilor ramen and we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero technical questions for staff seeing none i’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee please sir uh go ahead give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon mr chair members committee uh mike davis here a partner with civic planning and design here in london here today on behalf of our client self-london investments uh group of builders who are the owner and developer of this project at 539 and 543 topping lane um firstly just want to acknowledge the work of your planning staff in uh their thoughtful evaluation of this proposal uh their work with us and ultimately bringing it forward um today um through this process i want to let you know we did undertake uh public consultation and communication strategy i think in this case you know we did not reach a consensus i would say with uh with surrounding neighbors but we did work really hard to provide quality information ask for thoughts and opinions and be transparent with residents about how we were making decisions through this process every project in sight that we work on is unique starts with an in-depth analysis um by planners engineers and other technical specialists to determine what’s possible or appropriate on a given site some of the key attributes that in our opinion lend itself to this specific form of development on this property uh firstly we have direct frontage on topping lane which is identified as a neighborhood connector street uh in your london plan um the site has the advantage of uh being in corner location these two lots are surrounded by a larger block of cluster town homes um and that really provides what we see as a logical boundary between lower forms of development to the west on eden park drive and stepping up towards topping lane and then similarly uh it’s a barrier providing a stepping up point from um tall along topping lane so north you have lower forms of development and then as you get closer to commissioners we have heights uh in densities increasing immediately across the street um we have a former school site zone for the development of four-story apartment buildings at the southeast corner of topping lane and eden park we have a significant area designated for high density residential uses up to 14 stories uh the site’s also very well served by by transit close walking distance to commercial amenities um there are a number of points we’ve obviously spent considerable time reviewing the public feedback um just want to proactively touch on a few of those points for the benefit of residents and also members of this committee one of the key themes is around the zoning and how the proposal does not align with various standards contained in the r-aid zone um the city of london zoning by-law frankly is outdated it was developed in the early 90s the standards embedded within those zones tie back to previous planning paradigm um and don’t really reflect contemporary development trends or expectations for these infill projects so with almost every infill project you see through this committee uh there are a package of variances required uh i know this council has initiated the rethink zoning exercise so hopefully at some point we get to a place where that’s no longer the case uh but until this time this approach is quite common um the city’s independent professional planners uh have agreed with the variances that that we have proposed here and worked with them on um noticing a number of concerns about traffic we did have a traffic impact assessment prepared as part of this project this development will generate 20 trips in the AMP power 22 trips in the PMP power we’ve confirmed with transportation staff that both eat and park and topping lane are operating significantly below their intended uh design capacity so the volumes on those roads are below 50 percent and 30 percent of the design capacity the intersection of eat park and topping lane was analyzed carefully and there’s no traffic control improvements warranted there the the stop control will continue to be sufficient for this volume of traffic um lastly there’s a concern about loss of trees in green space as with most new infill developments there of course will be an initial loss of trees however eight existing trees are able to be maintained preserved as part of this development that is significant the context of a new infill development um there’s going to be a row of trees along Eden Park Drive that are preserved and a row of five trees along the north property boundary that will be preserved along with two hedges um i think it’s also important to note that whether this site is developed as proposed or whether it’s redeveloped under the existing R19 zoning there will be impact trees and a comparable impact to trees would happen in any any scenario all conclude by comments at that of course i’m going to be available to answer questions appreciate your consideration of this application today thank you yeah look for members of the public that like to address the committee please give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon my name is kim banky i live in a townhouse on topping lane in the Berkshire village i represent more than 60 residents of topping lane eat park and west moorland road who signed this petition and or made written submissions to the planner’s office objecting to the variances note that we are not objecting to the proposed zone change from r1 to r8 we understand the need for housing in our city and we were ready to welcome new neighbors we fully expected more town homes might be built we only object to all the variances in height and setbacks that will result in a density of 188 units per hectare which is equivalent to zone 10 having read the staff report we are outraged frustrated and saddened at what our neighborhood will look like a year or two from now but we still want to trust this process we trust the pec members to represent us the residents of all the neighborhoods and we still believe your loyalty lies with us we have recently discovered that south london investment sink is located in marcom their directors live in missus saga civic planning are newly installed on richmond street it doesn’t feel like they have a stake in our neighborhoods and will use their money and creative talents to truly enhance our city we feel manipulated by them on february 29th civic invited us to a meeting where they were vague about their intentions and dismissed our concerns they told us they had not decided what they were going to build leaving us no course of action but to wait and see so at the second online meeting in may the 21st they showed us four stories with 55 units for the first time but we know that they submitted plans in january that showed four stories with 46 units and 47 parking spaces it seems they must it seems that they misled us to make sure that by the time we knew what there was really planned we had only one month left to submit our concerns to city counselors they told us to just ask city hall for parking restrictions if their 55 tenants cause a parking problem so should we all give up our limited on street parking privileges because they didn’t provide sufficient parking for their tenants they told us they had no obligation at all to preserve any of the 30 mature trees because I guess they knew that they would have the option of paying a mere 350 dollars for each tree they didn’t replace and that’s on page 204 are we to remain the forest city or not much of the city planners recommendations to the pec starting on page 177 are copied verbatim from the civic design brief posted on their website there are some additional recommendations by staff but we have no reason to believe that they will be implemented they seem to be optional please consider our email submissions beginning on page 208 we put many hours into this effort with no prior experience or orics expertise we analyze the developers proposal we read the London plan and the London zoning bylaws we attended our counselors town hall we went door to door to make sure our neighbors were well informed about the proposal we are a stronger community now for having gone through this together but then we attempted to understand how this proposed building could possibly be considered sensitive to compatible with and a good fit within the existing neighborhood context to quote the London plan 953 if the burden of proof is now on city staff then we believe they failed this specific policy area is not unique every neighborhood in the city has corners where a neighborhood street meets a neighborhood connector do you really want to set this precedent allowing four-story apartment buildings at the sidewalk or near the sidewalk throughout our neighborhoods civic calls it creating a more urban condition what are we doing urbanizing random properties in our suburbs 30 seconds do you want one of these buildings on your block how do you propose to stop them after you let them build one on mine thank you for your time and service to my fellow landowners thank you look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes hello my name is Alex Crawford I own a townhouse at Eaton park drive and it’s a wonderful place to live I’ve used one of my vacation days from work to be here today and instead of making memories with my family I’m forced to come to city hall to defend the neighborhood from a predatory developer a developer that bought a house with a developer that bought the house external to London they’re not even a London company next door to my two-story townhouse our two bungalow houses the developer wants to bulldoze the houses and all the trees and build a four-story apartment with a fifth-story hardy balcony this would be more than double the height of any house on the street this building would block out the sunrise for me and three additional neighbors casting us into darkness every morning the building would also be pressed to the maximum extent possible up to the property line creating a dark alley every time I barbecue on my deck over 100 people will smell my cooking and be annoyed by my smoke I’ll be forced to listen to the noise generated by over 100 people every day and night if my neighbor had a massive party with over 100 people and 45 vehicles parked in the backyard I’d be entitled to phone the police and complain however this zoning amendment would make everyone in the neighborhood deal with that massive party every day and night forever if these two bungalows were replaced with 20 townhouses that each had a garage it would be a tenfold increase in densification and and no one would have any problem with that that you know densification needs to happen the London plan needs to happen but replacing two bungalows with a four or five story depending how you look at a apartment building is absurd it’s an insult to do to replace it on the street this building would destroy the neighborhood’s ability to use the roads and would be more than double the amount of commuters on the street having 45 people and only half of the 45 units and only half those units having one person going to work every morning I think that’s an absurd point everyone has to go to work in the morning except those few lucky ones that get to work from home it’s already very congested first thing in the morning and coming home at four o’clock and visibility is quite poor as well I’m not familiar with any study that that has been quoted the next municipal election is in 25 months London voters need to know if their neighborhoods are safe from having a high density apartment building put in the middle of their neighborhood it would not be topping lane that gets all the traffic from this it would be eaten park drive the side street that’s a residential side street so saying how the frontage is on topping lane I don’t know why that’s relevant since about 100% of the people who would live in this building would have to come through eaten park drive approving this development would set a precedent in London where Londoners have to live in fear that their neighborhoods will be destroyed and turned into dangerous slums with no protection thank you for your time thank you look for the next speaker from the public please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon everyone my name is Mira Staprysek I’m the close neighbor from plan and developer 551 topping lane across the street I live there for the past three years so basically when I recognize the plan for the two residential lots 200 by 75 two of them so basically 200 by 100 and the 140 50 planning to do 55 units plus four is six parking lots it’s in my opinion this is so destructive and basically I don’t know how this is going to happen how they’re going to do that that stuff but definitely going to the today meeting I try to just back up from my property and get to the traffic it takes me about three minutes because I cannot go because traffic it’s so already it’s so hot so when I imagine other 50 cars probably gonna be twice that I don’t know how the people gonna live over there they’re gonna walk over there or something like that and then companies just only one little thought who did the research by the for the developer about the traffic about other things at the end of the old reports they says they basically not sign up not not prove that because during the life the true could be totally different not not exactly what they said and the paper in the report nobody can can imagine what kind of impact gonna be there for the whole community definitely not good just negative thank you very much thank you I’ll look for the next speaker so clerk if there’s anyone online Rob Schulte’s please mr.

Schulte’s hello you hear me we can you have five minutes please go ahead thank you I’m a resident on toppy lane and the uh Middlesex kind of corporation 240 and a member of the board of directors thanks for listening to our concerns many of us have lived in the neighborhood for decades and as long-term residents it’s only natural we’re gonna have strong emotional feelings towards changes however we’re not opposed to intensification and the redevelopment of these lands as we know how important the need for more housing is we are here today because our concern is the size of the proposed development and its impact on the neighborhood we’re generally supportive of a low-rise apartment being constructed especially if it’s done so in accordance with the London plans recommendation for our eight four zoning the London plan is touted as our city’s official plan a plan that was vetted through many stakeholders a plan that survived an appeal to the Ontario land tribunal and in the end a plan that received provincial approval their last municipal election most councilors supported that plan the plan is supposed to guide growth and development in the city for 20 years so this developer wants to make changes to the our eight four zoning on the variances but they would have bought that land knowing that the city plan would only allow for his owning of our eight four developer would like play also know before making an investment what building types would be allowed so why would the developer propose the building of a property type that exceeds the parameters of height density and setbacks the cynic would say it’s because they know that it will just get approval for us who have no experience in this process it seems like the cards are stacked against us as you read through the report the rationale for approving the amendments is based almost entirely on the opinion of staff staff appears to be a planner whose opinion is reviewed by maybe a couple more people in the department that opinion and the amendments and the resulting development are consistent with the provincial policy and the London plan so please take a moment though to look at the visuals on pages 201 and 216 they show the monstrosity of this development and how compared to the neighboring buildings why would staff agree to push this building type to the edge of the sidewalk and let it tower over the existing buildings the London plan thoughtfully through study and debate set parameters that would not allow this to happen again we’re happy to have a three-story apartment building set back in line with existing housing we’re not saying no to intensification we’re saying no to these amendments or and to the variances we understand there are housing targets says the city is trying to achieve and they’ve done an impressive job this year i might add if this proposal is declined what impact will 15 or 20 less units have on the overall total of the tens of thousands of new units that the city has already approved in the first half of this year minimal but that construction of that property on Eaton park and talking lane will have an impact for decades and decades to us yes there’s a potential for larger buildings across the road but when that land is set vacant for decades i’ve lived there for over 12 years the city can’t compel the development of that land so it doesn’t it seems like a silly argument to make even if those taller buildings were built tomorrow doesn’t justify changing the streetscape on our side of the neighborhood the request by the developers to ask for amendments when the clear London plan clearly outlines what can be built on that parcel of land is puzzling the PEC is now tasked with making a decision you’re presented with a recommendation from staff professionals i know educated and trained in experience in planning and engineering and those professionals might have some pressures to reach certain targets so maybe you know developers have a relationship with the planning department that we as residents can’t have it appears that developers you know sorry our relationship with the city is through the counselors so we’re asking the counselors to to vote on their campaign of leadership and integrity we also stand before the committee asking for our voices to not only be heard but to feel that we’ve been listened to it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing decision we asked the counselors who lead the committee to stand with the developer by approving the change to r84 but we also want them to stand with the residents by not approving the amendments to the variances this decision would maintain the streetscape consistent with the existing streetscape by allowing a three-story apartment to be built to a size that is not towering over its neighbors and of a density suitable for the neighborhood while adding to the new number of housing units the city is targeting to achieve thank you and we hope that you’ll support us in our efforts thank you I’ll look for a speaker from the public please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes my name is jennison spousdale and i have lived thank you uh in the area since 1975 when we moved in i had a meadow behind me and my children ran across to play with the little boy in the red brick house on topping lane for all those years the two houses on topping lane have access topping lane with their drill with driveways now they’re proposing to change the driveway to eat in part which and and very close to a corner i don’t know when they check their traffic but i think it must have been close to midnight um they also proposed cutting down all the mature trees there if they would move their proposed apartment building or condos back to be in line with the condos that are presently there they would save most of those trees on topping lane and they would um could save the trees on Eaton park which would save almost all of the mature trees and we do call ourselves the forest city i really think we should save mature trees um lastly the building as it is proposed has a number of calm units but not as many parking spots as there are condo units and i really feel that if you want to buy your groceries you’d i really like to have a car and the grocery stores are not within walking distance but uh the salvation army church and the london gospel temple and the number of other churches are available to the people who will be living in that condo development or apartment development and i think they might need them thank you ma’am look for uh any other speakers please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes um i mean driscoll i live on Eaton park drive three units down from the proposed building i just have a couple of quick questions about parking i’m really i don’t quite understand the the design of how the cars are going to be half under and half open in the parking lot to me that’s going to be um very noisy for us um in the neighborhood there’ll be 46 cars 47 cars i’m not sure about the noise level secondly um i just wonder about the um community care house that’s on topping lane they have wheelchair residents and they are often on the streets whether of the sidewalk or the road because of access to the sidewalk with their wheelchairs so i just had those two questions about that kind of safety and noise thank you thank you for another speaker possible clerk if there’s others online okay i don’t see anyone else standing to look to address us so i’ll look to committee for uh motion to close with public participation meeting also frank seconded by deputy mayor closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this on the floor for committee members i’ll go on council frank thank you and through the chair i did want to start off with a few questions that we kind of heard from the residents um in the first one being through you to the consultants given the input from the residents and what we’ve heard so far today i’m just wondering if they could explain a little bit more about why they didn’t select a three-story apartment or uh stacked townhouses as their building structure yeah i’ll go to the applicant i think on that one three mr chair to the ward counselor one of the primary reasons behind primary drivers behind the form of development that we’re proposing here is really the the target demographic um there’s a significant um empty nester and downsizer um market in this area of the city um an apartment form of development is more conducive to that style of living with the townhouse arrangement you have multi-floor living uh tends to cater more towards uh a young family demographic um uh this will be uh a building with significant amenities it will have accessible units um elevators built into the building so that’s a significant driver here uh that’s informing the apartment style of construction uh the question of of three versus um four stories is really one of of of practicality and costs and and and ensuring that we’re setting up the conditions necessary to ensure that this project is viable to move forward um as you can see from the the site plan uh we have strategically integrated the parking into the main floor uh of the building and so really what you end up with is is three livable floors and that’s kind of the minimum um that’s required here in order to ensure that we are setting up the conditions for a viable project that can move forward so um uh that’s a key driver behind the four stories i think the other thing too as we mentioned with every site um uh that we’re involved with there’s an in-depth in-depth technical analysis that’s carried out at the outset at planners engineers and other technical specialists we look at the context of each site obviously being a corner site in and of itself is not unique uh but being positioned uh uh directly adjacent to uh significant lands planned for high density residential as tall as 14 stories looking at the positioning of this property relative to other forms of development in the area it is truly a logical kind of stepping point for this gentle transition from the two story forms up to the four uh and when you uh move south on topping lane or east you’re going to experience a taller building so all those factors are really informing uh the type and shape of development that we’re proposing counselor thank you appreciate your explanation i’m also wondering i know that uh between the initial proposal and our current report um you have done a bit of setbacks on the north side i’m just wondering given again some of the comments from the residents were there any other setback considerations you’re able to make to try and open up a bit more green space go to the applicant yeah through you mr chair so um there’s a few things that i’ll point out one thing that was completed uh prior to finalization of this concept plan was the tree preservation plan um and understanding you know what would be the setbacks necessary in order to retain as many as possible as i noted there are five mature trees along and two existing hedge hedges cedar hedges along the north property boundary um those are able to be preserved in this scenario uh as our uh three boulevard trees along Eaton part drive um we did uh we did further increase uh the north interior yard setback through the planning process um from three meters to to four point five to provide a little bit of a uh a greater buffer to the point where our setback from building face to existing building face on both sides is now generally equal um the other you know significant change that we undertook uh was originally we had proposed two driveway locations on Eaton park that was going to provide uh in our opinion a more efficient uh opportunity for waste collection um but obviously hearing the concerns uh about about traffic and access points on Eaton park drive we have consolidated that into a single access point uh it’s not um that does come with a significant added costs cost we now have to raise the main floor of the building to accommodate waste collection vehicle navigating into the site but it was an investment that the the developers willing to make to uh to help improve the quality of the public realm along Eaton park counselor thank you yes appreciate that explanation as well um uh i don’t have any current questions but if other counselors do i i welcome them uh i did want to provide some backgrounds as the word counselor i have heard a lot of feedback from this application from local residents and i thank you all for attending and taking time out of your busy schedules uh there were a majority of feedback as you’ve heard requests for less density less stories switching from apartment to townhouses or to a three story uh as well as rejecting some of the site specific amendments um and i’ve also heard from few residents they’re not here but i will say that too uh we’re generally supportive of the application from this area um and we also heard that a lot of residents are wondering why there isn’t a dev isn’t a development application in for the adjacent property known as the brick school site um which i will say i have heard from julo that they have been waiting until they finish other projects before moving forward with that one but they do plan to bring forward an application uh in the next year or so um so i have received lots of emails and phone calls uh as well as some discussions at my town hall in june and the residents have been very engaged on this process again i really appreciate their time and effort um i know that a lot of them got up to speed really quickly on development applications and planning matters in the london plan um and i’d like to thank him as well because she’s done a lot of great work educating her neighbors and discussing this project i also have had multiple meetings with the consultants on this file um discussing the possibilities making some of those changes that the residents have asked for um and while they were able to make that small adjustment for setbacks on the north side ultimately they didn’t make any of the other requested changes and uh have moved forward with the application at this time so just want to provide that background um one of the really tough parts i find about being city counselors balancing residents local concerns and citywide priorities you know as a city as was mentioned we’re really focused on building more housing everywhere and providing info which um you know as we know offers more density and uses existing services it avoids the costly reliance on sprawl and trying to increase single family homes on the edge of the city that said info also can you know alter neighborhoods and disrupt the livelihood of um residents in that neighborhoods and their experiences and brings new concerns and also new neighbors so i have heard a lot or have heard lots i’ve thought long and hard about the application and overall i’ve read the feedback from residents alongside the development application and our citywide priorities and i will be supporting this application much to the disappointment of topping lane area residents i wanted to hear all of their feedback and understand their concerns before making an ultimate decision but at this point we do have provincial housing targets we’re trying to meet this would add 55 new units to the area um we have a desperate need for rental units and so i do think that moving forward with this um while it will be not what the neighbors want is ultimately in line with our city targets infill is the best way that we can use our existing city resources without having to buy build new roads and new schools and new infrastructure it is on a bus route and it’s near multiple bus routes so um having less parking i think you know i’m hopefully people in this building will understand that they should be using transit and cycling since they won’t all have parking spots available um and hopefully being more walkable and also just so residents know i’ve sat on planning for two years and i pretty much approve every single uh infill project and other counselors wards and so i personally would feel a little hypocritical if i didn’t approve them in my ward but that’s my own personal feelings towards infill um so i know you guys will be disappointed and i’m sorry um and i understand why but personally i ran on platform to address climate change in affordable housing i do see this as an opportunity for that um so i would like to move the staff recommendation with the added amendment regarding affordable housing units included um i personally will also attempt to work with residents and the applicant to try and make sure that the construction impacts are as minimal as possible and whatever else i can do to avoid disruption um but again i understand the residents will be disappointed so apologies towards you um but i would like to move the staff recommendation given the reasonings okay we have a motion move the look for a seconder deputy mayor luis um look for comments or questions deputy mayor sorry uh through you chair i just want to make sure council frank is moving her she not the staff recommendation but the amended staff recommendation which includes a discussion with municipal housing uh thank you for for highlight as what she’s doing that the clerk has the wording so if we update our uh our screens we should be able to um see her uh motion with the amendment regarding affordable housing did you want to uh deputy mayor are you still are you okay okay good um in the other comments or questions vitty um councilor ockens thank you mr chair for recognizing me uh i’m not part of this committee uh but i do have a number of infills in my uh ward that i represent and i appreciate the councilor’s comments and uh also appreciate the importance of still working with the community as well i do have a question uh found the uh conversation and thank the public for coming out as well about the um the rooftop amenity i i know the applicant uh mentioned that uh it’s a compact development there will be a rooftop at the top and sort of aimed for that older generation if i can say it that way i would like to uh maybe ask uh get a little bit more information on what exactly that rooftop amenity will look like if there are ideas or plans right now is we approve this compact development i’ll go to the applicant to kind of highlight uh kind of watch uh in in mind for uh whatever top amenity yeah through you mr chair and to the councilor um there’s not specific uh we don’t have a specific detailed kind of landscaping uh plan yet prepared for the rooftop amenity space we have uh worked kind of closely with planning to uh bake in some regulations in the zoning by-law that provide some controls and restrictions all around where that amenity space will be located so as to achieve as much separation as possible from from existing dwellings so it’s going to be positioned as closely as possible towards the intersection of uh of topping lane and need in park drive uh and there will be a a combination of a small interior space as well as uh uh an exterior space as well uh it will be set back um a minimum of of three meters or just over 10 feet from the sort of edge of the building so again it’s trying to kind of keep it uh contained in focus as possible uh and as far away from existing residence as possible counselor thank you thank you any other comments or questions for committee members we have a motion moved in second i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero moving on to 3.9 this is regarding 2060 Dundas street i’ll look for motion to open the ppm counselor verlman seconded by deputy mary lewis i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions at this time for staff saying none i’ll look to the applicant the applicant would like to address committee please sir give us your name you have five minutes good afternoon mr. Chair committee members my name is harry frucio’s principal planner with selinka preamma limited i’m here today with my colleague matthew litman chuk to uh present this application to you on behalf of our client which is the numbered company the developer as well as a dicey so if you’re on who is the the current landowner um initially i want to thank staff uh for for bringing forward a recommendation today we we appreciate their efforts this is a process that has taken over five years and we certainly appreciate their efforts uh unfortunately we we do not agree with the recommendation before you today and for the reasons that have been uh brought forward clearly the staff concerns relate principally with the natural heritage features and the protection of those features and then determining a very proper development boundary there don’t appear to be any concerns from a land use or intensity perspective and any concerns raised around the form again relate to the to the natural heritage features we did submit a letter in advance of today’s meeting it’s on the add of agenda and it it included a letter and a memo from mt consultants uh regarding the regarding their professional opinion on the proposed development from a biological perspective including support for the proposed boundary of the natural heritage feature and the buffers from the proposed development we also note and this was not included in the staff report but mte did provide responses to the latest staff comments and ecac comments that were provided and we provided those responses on june the 14th the mte memo has concluded that there are no at net impacts are anticipated on the natural heritage features as long as proposed mitigation measures are implemented and followed and their opportunities do exist for net benefit to wildlife habitat and the floristic quality and the retained vegetation patch so we respectfully request that the committee have regard for mt’s opinion regarding the protection of the natural heritage features based on the recommendations contained in the es where it has been demonstrated that appropriate regard has been made for the provincial policy statement the london plan as well as the city’s emg guidelines for the protection of natural heritage feature and misled better and mr haman who wrote the memo offered the memo in attendance today and could insert answer any questions that you may have on on their opinion should peck see merton endorsing the application as proposed we have included a zoning boundary sketch in our submission package which also was prepared by mte to be consistent with the recommendations of the es the zoning boundary sketch provides for a noise five boundary to separate between the natural heritage feature and the remainder of the development site which would be zoned a site specific r9-3 and the remainder of the end the the site specific zoning regulations that are required as part of the development we’re listed in our in our attached correspondence as well so it is our opinion that the proposed zoning boundaries together with the site specific zoning regulations would ensure the continued protection of the natural heritage features we do note that staff had suggested that we include more lands in the south to provide further separation between the proposed building and the natural heritage features we can assure you that there is no further opportunity to add more land to this development through our through the landowner and also that there is no opportunity to share any parking facilities with the existing church site so considering that we were unable to reach a consensus with staff on the natural heritage matters matters and the proposed development boundary prior to consideration of this zoning amendment we do believe that any outstanding matters relating to the access any compensation that might be required any any issues with UTRCA those can all be dealt more properly through the subsequent planning stages in in other words you know towards site plan approval stage and adding to that mr. hather jaggard and mr. carl macintosh of are all also available online to answer any questions you may have from a hydrogiological or a civil engineering perspective so in addition to the natural heritage merits that were provided an mta mte’s memo we do believe that the proposed development is consistent with london plan policies relating to use height and intensity it represents an efficient use of vacant underutilized lands and it provides much needed form of housing for for housing in the in the argal community for new residents as well as those who want to stay an age in place in the argal community we had a public open house on November 4th or so in November 24th 2022 there was overwhelming support for this proposed development and there was quite a few requests to actually for people to secure units within this development also we do acknowledge correspondence that was submitted by the neighboring landowner to the east rule old holdings and their support for creating an access between the two properties and we thank them for providing that that course 30 seconds just wrapping up thank you not withstanding the staff recommendation we believe the proposed development of a six-story apartment building containing 77 units warrant your consideration and recommendation for approval of the applicants proposed zoning amendments and thank you for your time committee i’m happy to answer any questions you may have thank you i’ll look for any members of the public would like to address committee on this item i’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online i don’t see anyone in the gallery so i’ll look for motion to close ppm w mareluis seconded by closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you i’ll put this side i’m on the floor i’ll go to apity mareluis thank you mr chair and through you uh colleagues i had met you yesterday that uh i’d be bringing forward an alternate uh motion on this um i have sent it to the clerk uh i did advise that we were continuing to work on language yesterday so there’s been uh some back and forth there’s also been some technical difficulties because i sent it to the wrong clerk so it didn’t get into e-scribe um quite in time and get circulated to everybody ahead of the meeting but i am uh putting forward uh an alternate recommendation uh to approve uh this proposal now um i just want to check with you chair and see if the clerk does have because i sent it again as an attachment uh i’ll have to clerk comment um thank you in e-scribe it’s um recommendation five okay so um i’ll read it quickly and then if uh you’ll allow chair i’ll provide some rationale and i do believe that i have a seconder uh in counselor hillier um that notwithstanding the recommendation of the director of planning and development the following actions be taken with respect to the application uh related to portion of the property at 2060 Dundas Street uh a proposed by-law uh be introduced at the meeting to amend the zoning by-law z1 in conformity with the London plan to change a portion of the subject property from a light industrial uh l-i-1 l-i-17 zone and restricted service commercial uh there’s actually four r-s-c zones on there two three four and five to a residential r-9 special provision so it’s an r-9-3 and an open space o-s-5 zone um and that it also be further reserved uh a result pursuant to the sub sub section 34 bracket 17 of the planning act that no further notice be given it being noted that the amendment is recommended for the following reasons the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement 2020 which encourages a regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide a range of uses and opportunities for intensification or redevelopment and two that the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighborhood so i i’ll just see if uh chair if you can confirm that i have a seconder uh and then i’ll speak to the rationale here counselor hillier has confirmed that he will second the motion uh thank you so if i can speak to the rationale now uh as was mentioned by the applicant um five years this application has been in process almost as long as i’ve been here at city hall it is overwhelmingly supported by the residents of the ward um and the congregation of the church and the diocese that is looking to sever a portion of the land uh it’s the only public meeting i’ve ever attended for a planning application where there were no objections where it was universally well received and in fact the applicant left with a list of names and emails and phone numbers of people who wanted to be put on the waiting list for these units uh it’s 78 units of uh very much needed geared to seniors housing in ward two uh as the applicant indicated most of the um discussion has been around uh the quote unquote wetland and the woodlot feature um and i think it’s really important to committee that i i put this in some context um there are there is some woodlot to be preserved and and that’s why there is an os5 component of this um proposal um but a significant amount of the coverage on what is being described as a woodlot and a wetland feature is buckthorn i’ve been out to the site myself i know what buckthorn looks like and i know that it’s an invasive species we’re trying to preserve an invasive species on on a big chunk of this land i don’t think that’s the intent of our woodlot and our tree protection bylaws um and regardless the applicant is actually committed to preserving the woodlot they actually have realigned this building in this location on the property twice to get the maximum amount amount of uh preservation of the feature as it is the drainage issue and i’m going to call it a drainage issue because i continue to i i do support what mte has done with the esi and looking at the history of the site you know if you start looking from 1998 aerial uh photography that’s available even on the city’s website um up until 2004 pops was using this to stockpile things it wasn’t anything except um really a an inventory lot uh similar to what drewlo has a couple properties down um only in 2004 when cops finally ceased and and moved their operations away from there um did this area even start to get wet and i would argue that’s in part because of the manmade drainage ditch that is under Dundas street that runs along the city’s unopened road allowance we created this manmade feature because of the drainage ditch that we put in so when we’re talking about wetland what we’re really talking about in in significant part here is actually just stormwater management which can be accommodated in a development application through site plan work um and really even more importantly when you look at the the feature piece and again you go back through the aerial photos it doesn’t even really start to appear significant until about 2016-2017 so this growth is not that old um and there would be a compensation piece required and the city has land immediately to the north that the applicant has offered to provide tree planting compensation on i’ve been a part of the conversations with our staff our parks team does not want to commit to allowing that land to be uh the location for compensation until a decision is made on the zoning um but the applicant is willing to enhance the city’s own land to the north with compensation to make up for the work that they’re doing on this site i cannot stress enough as the word counselor i am ready to see this move forward we need this housing if we don’t approve this i will tell you that what we’re going to have is another unused piece of land sitting there for decades to come because the consent with the church to sever the land will die the church has already come back once and gone through a long process to transfer to the applicant a little bit more land in the consent for severance they will not give any more that’s actually part of what has held up this application not the only piece um but it is part of it because there’s a long process for a diocese to make a decision to sell off land um they have done that now twice the severance actually expired once already so a new consent for severance has to come in along as well um but there is no other option here so what we’re going to have is a large piece of vacant land behind the church um which by the way with mountain baton um has an existing neighborhood behind it um even the neighbors there once they found out the access was on Dundas no longer had any concerns there was originally some transportation concerns but that’s all been addressed uh through multiple changes to the site plan so i’m really encouraging colleagues to support this alternate recommendation uh as the applicant mentioned there will still be some things to work through site plan uh with compensation with uh the water management um but there is providing an open zone and an r9 on this space to respect both the existing woodlot and the opportunity for residential development thank you all look for any other speakers from committee uh counsel prayer thank you i do have some questions for staff on this file um so through the chair to staff um i’m just pulling them up um i was wondering regarding the EIS um to me because this site is somewhat complex in my opinion i don’t i’m not following this close as the word council are obviously um so i’m just wondering based on the EIS it looked like there is uh two different scoping in each i’m just wondering how did the mapping change between the first draft the EIS and the second one i’ll go stuff uh through the chair the 2022 version of the EIS notes that the entire area included as light green as significant woodland and recognizes that uh per our policies and based on the environmental management guidelines framework however the resubmission in 2024 removes these areas from significance and only acknowledges the wetland component of the feature uh so that would be the the reason that the mapping changed between the two versions also thank you uh that makes some sense um and i’m just also wondering why these features are considered uh significant from the staff side i also did a site visit on the weekend um and i did notice buckthorn but i also noticed things like cottonwoods and aspen so i’m just wondering um given that they’re all mixed together you know how how is the decision made that to determine that these are significant good stuff uh through the chair the environmental management guidelines has us uh go through a woodland evaluation process the scoring is based either high medium or or low on multiple criteria and a score of one high establishes that the feature is considered significant uh there is a hydric feature on this site in the form of the uh deciduous mineral marsh or swamp marsh uh that is on the site and that immediately scores one high therefore the entire area associated with that and the woodland that is contiguous with that wetland feature is considered significant woodland it’s a it’s a very challenging conversation to begin to parse out uh feature components that are invasive uh based on the fact that they’re invasive we would uh many of our esas have instances of uh invasive species throughout and uh it would set an undue precedent whereas whereby unmanaged lands could become unconstrained simply by holding by having invasive species on them so our delineation rationale in the emg’s uh specifically includes the entire compound the entire feature component not simply the wetland piece counselor thank you appreciate that um my understanding is the es report hasn’t been accepted by staff um so maybe that’s uh correct me if i’m wrong and then i’m just trying to understand what are the deficiencies then within the es given that it hasn’t been accepted accepted by staff from my understanding i’ll go staff through the chair that is correct uh the 2022 version was much closer to something that staff would accept we sent back comments and a completely new report appeared in for the 2024 version hence we were able to provide those figures to demonstrate to committee uh in terms of the deficiencies at this stage we are looking to establish and agree on the delineation of the features and establish the significance of their associated functions and because we are not able to agree on that at this point um we aren’t able to move forward in the process to the other es components such as establishing buffers um the the compensation discussion from our perspective uh is a non-starter in so far as parks is unwilling to provide land uh associated with that work uh and the mitigation hierarchy that we are uh compelled to follow per the provincial policy statement uh and is initiated by um establishing if we can avoid uh feature destruction moving on to if we can mitigate the associated impacts and then finally compensating for any unness um if you are unable to avoid uh the feature itself so compensating for that loss um we don’t believe that we are at the compensation stage and that some of these issues can be addressed through either mitigation um but predominantly through avoidance counselor thank you yes i appreciate that background um i’d been hoping that this would have come forward perhaps with less parking or avoiding some of having the parking or the building within the buffer zone or within the actual feature itself um because obviously as uh the previous application i love infill even in my own ward when it’s contentious um but at this point given um a lot of the issues have just been raised and discussed with regarding the EIS and the existence of a wetland and a woodlot on this property and um i understand that i’m sure that the applicant has done their very best to try to avoid it um but it still is uh a fairly significant amount that’s within the buffer zone uh i personally i know that the emg’s are guidelines but i do think that they’re there for a reason and um i think that this goes beyond would i be willing to alter from from the emg’s i try to stick to them as closely as possible and this is a significant uh variance from them so i won’t be supporting this design as is although i do want to see uh infill on this site but um not specifically this one given the deficiencies with the EIS so unfortunately apologies to the the word counselor but i will be able to support this for the environmental reasons thank you any other comments or questions we have a motion moved and sucked at deputy mare los thank you chair for recognizing me again i’m going to try and be brief um uh i appreciate uh counselor frank’s points i i didn’t expect to have her support on this um but i think that um uh from my perspective from the ward perspective um it’s also important to share um through the time that this application has been in various iterations as we’ve tried to find a way forward um and i i want to be very clear this is not meant uh to be a criticism of the current staff uh who are working on it we’ve had three different colleges from the city side providing comment on this file and those comments have not been consistent throughout so when we have a situation where staff’s commentary changes from staff person to staff person as files are inherited that to me really emphasizes the guideline part it’s it’s open to interpretation these are guidelines they are not regulations um and that’s a really important difference that i think needs to be underlined um and again um just as our staff have some different opinions uh mte also professionals in their field uh have a different opinion yet again so i i’m really encouraging colleagues to prove the zoning and let the applicant and our staff and probably at some point upper tems as well uh work through some of the specific details because uh as to the the comment that we heard from our staff mitigation um is there are still mitigation opportunities here i actually agree with that i think there are still some opportunities for mitigation um but that comes through a detailed site plan um not through more studies and more back and forth on whether or not we’re gonna allow residential here um so i do encourage colleagues to please support this any other comments or questions council Frank thank you yes and i appreciate um uh you reminded me of one thing i did want to add i understand that there were three ecologists from our staff team on this site i also understand that there are two from mte who also had very different opinions so perhaps five different ecologists in the kitchen is too many ecologists on this file but um yeah i suppose if this moves forward we’ll see how it all shakes out in site plan and given that upper tems i think it’s already said that they are unwilling to offer section 28 we’ll see how that turns out as well thank you any other comments or questions councilor ramen thank you um appreciate the discussion here just want to add a question for staff regarding what’s in front of us right now i understand that um you know this isn’t uh what staff had put forward as the or had presented as a recommendation but um i’m wondering if it gives enough of an opportunity to put in mitigations just based on the conversation that we’re having it to me it seems too loosely defined to be able to put in proper mitigations but just wondering if we can do anything to tighten that up a little bit more to allow that go to staff we typically find that when these environmental items are pushed to the site plan phase that we lose a lot of our capacity to ensure that they are appropriately implemented typically site plan is not when you are addressing the environmental constraints you do it on the front end during zoning establish your developable limit at the outset again there are minor mitigations that can be that are addressed through site plan but large wide wide brush pieces like compensation and those are things that we would want to address at this stage and it’s unclear if we would be able to um fully have them implemented at a subsequent phase councilor thank you i appreciate the answer for that reason i won’t be supporting what’s uh being proposed thank you um i’d like to turn the chair over to councilor ramen if i could thank you i have the chair councilman go ahead so thank you it’s been a good good discussion um and uh you know observing my thought i was having some thoughts on what we’ve seen in this discussion and what has occurred today and what occurred occurs many times in planning um whenever we do infill infill is a major uh tool for our ourselves to get to our target of 47 000 homes and every time we do infill there’s impact a lot of impact quite frankly is on people i mean today we had a petition of 60 people that felt that their lives are going to be impacted and which i don’t disagree with quite frankly uh for the development that we approved for us today is uh uh development uh request in the east end um that uh has impact on some natural heritage features um there has been different opinions on the level of that but in my opinion uh um not significant um if it if it was we’d hear uh we wouldn’t hear that differing opinion um so yeah um i’m gonna i’m gonna accept that impact uh because we could get up to 78 units or thereabouts uh in this development um in its development in the east end and that’s where i see significant opportunity for infill we’ve covered the north northwest um i believe um uh the east end is is really a key opportunity for us to find lands that aren’t being used right now for much needed housing um so for for those reasons uh i will be supporting um this motion thank you returning the charity with no one on the speaker’s list thank you um i’ll look for any further comments uh from committee members seeing none we have a motion moved in second and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries three to two thank you we move on now two items for a direction we have one item four point one and this is regarding communication from upper tems and um we do have a request for a delegation mr petri um so i’ll look for uh to get a motion on the floor to uh allow that delegation uh councilor frank’s motion did i go seconder from councilor ramen and we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero please sir uh go ahead you have five minutes thank you very much uh chair lemon and the rest of the pet committee uh most of what i want to say is in the letter uh in the correspondence that i sent to the committee uh really here to answer questions really we we heard at the board that uh council really wants to find ways to uh not have upper tems affect their budget and this is one of the areas that we found is that uh with a fee freeze that’s been placed on us by the ministry we don’t have the ability to switch those uh those costs to user fees and it all has to come back through levi so this has been going on for a couple years we did meet with the minister a group of us about three months ago and he did uh he was really open to feedback about all the changes that made in the conservation act and uh certainly he was open discussion about this but he did ask you know uh give me some feedback and some evidence so this is why we’re here today we’re going around every minute uh miss pally that’s a member of the upper tems and making sure that we get that feedback seeing where everybody is but really we want to do everything we can to mitigate costs to our largest uh member miss pally you’re paying 64 percent of the bill there’s a significant amount of funds that can be coming from user fees that we’re just not able to uh do right now so we’re under 30 percent funding from user fees in this area and uh we did have a plan prior to the fee uh fee freeze to increase that but again that’s been put on hold so we’d like your help you’re a big voice and so we’d like to have that uh with the province to be able to say hey um let us do the same thing the city does set our fees to our usable amount where we can recoup the cost that uh make us viable and i’ll leave it there thank you uh thank you sir um so i’ll put this item on the floor now for council Dr.

Mayor Lewis thank you chair uh if you’ll allow i just want to um through you see if our delegates um can respond to just a couple of quick questions um i know that we uh approved a uh service review uh funding piece uh for upper tems uh i i i just wonder if he can provide any information on how far along we are with that um i believe we provided two hundred thousand dollars for a service review for efficiencies um i am certainly not opposed to asking the province to uh lift the fee freeze um and and i just wonder because we’ve got a budget allocation i know it’s not lost on you as i mean this poor representative that property tax dollars are few and far between and it’s much better if we can get income and consumer taxes from the province so can you tell us how things are proceeding we may be too early in the process but is there any opportunity to provide us an update on where the service review is um and whether uh you’re you’re currently expecting to come back with yet another uh budget ask of the partner municipalities or with the service review and potentially getting these uh fee freezes lifted if you’ll be in better shape that way Mr. Petrie certainly to answer the first part of the question i know it’s uh at staff levels right now uh the board does not meet in in july and so we’ll be meeting in august and i expect we’ll see the update on that so certainly uh still willing to move forward with uh uh always trying to make us a streamline as possible and be as efficient as possible that way we we value that uh investment uh with the second part you know these have a chance to have really significant amounts of dollars come into our coffers which can save your coffers so we’re not talking ten thousand dollars we’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars and you’re the biggest uh you’re the biggest shareholder if that’s put that way and uh you’ll be the biggest benefitter because uh that’s just the way it works so certainly we’re looking at staff and the board are looking at every stone to go okay how do we make it more efficient we didn’t like coming nobody around that table we’re all elected officials we didn’t like coming to our member municipalities with a large increase that we did we certainly don’t want to repeat that this year i don’t think we will but it’s it’s all pieces of the puzzle to make it uh come together step together um thank you i appreciate that um and i i hope you want this year because we do a multi-year budget i know other municipalities uh may not be in that boat but uh and i appreciate that the board doesn’t meet in july i wish more boards wouldn’t meet in july um honestly i think we can all use a break now and then but i do appreciate knowing that it’s at the staff level and that things are moving forward there um through you chair i’m prepared to move the uh request um that the mayor be directed to uh on council’s behalf uh communicate to the province a need to lift the fee freeze for the conservation authorities now look for a seconder councilor frank any further discussion we have a motion moved in second i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay we don’t have any deferred matters or additional business uh to discuss so we’ll move to the confidential side of things to all ask staff to prepare the room for that question so uh we have to vote to go on camera my apologies um moved by council ramen seconded by deputy mayor Lewis and i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay we’re back um i’ll look to uh the deputy mayor to report uh thank you chair and through you i am happy to report out the progress was made on the item for which we went into two confidential session thank you um that brings us to a german i’ll look for a motion to adjourn councilor frank second by councilor robin handbook the motion carries five to zero thanks everyone