October 22, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-10-09 CACP Report (1)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 9, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Quarterly Heritage Report

FINAL Heritage Q3 Report (KG)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q3 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

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

FINAL 2024 Building Division Seasonal - Fall (KW)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the amended staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Development Pipeline - Developer of Lands within Open Site Plans, Open Condominium Plans, and Registered and Reference Plans (Subdivisions)

FINAL Dev

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Development Pipeline - Developer of Lands within Open Site Plans, Open Condominium Plans, and Registered and Reference Plan (Subdivisions)” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.5   Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area

2024-10-22-PEC-Dundas Streetscape MP Presentation-AODA

Binder1

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Environment and Infrastructure and Deputy City Manager of Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area:

a) the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area and the Executive Summary from the Plan appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix A, BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area, BE APPROVED as a plan identifying infrastructure and urban design guidance for future capital projects and redevelopment; and,

c) City Staff BE DIRECTED to initiate an Official Plan amendment to add the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area to the list of Council approved Urban Regeneration Guidelines in The London Plan.

Motion Passed

2.6   Reducing Off-the-Clock Permit Applications

2024-10-22 Staff Report - 2024 Reducing Off-the-Clock Permit Applications

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Reducing Off-the-Clock Permit Applications” BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   763-773 Dundas Street (Z-9777)

2024-10-22 Staff Report - Z-9777 - 763-773 Dundas Street (MH) - REVISED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of London Cross Cultural Learner Centre (c/o Valerian Marochko) (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 763-773 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(19)D250H46) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)D550H82) Zone;

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

i) provide second paratransit lay-by for south tower or relocate proposed paratransit lay-by to a central location with a protected waiting area;

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

iii) investigate air source heat pump options; 

iv) include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots roughed in; and,

v) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

c)    MTCS compliance letter indicating that all archaeological licensing and reporting requirements for 773 Dundas Street is submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the execution of a Development Agreement;

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

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

  • T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • V. Marochko, Executive Director, Cross Cultural Learner Centre;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Land Use, Built Form, Public Realm and Housing Options policies.

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

  • 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; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   2118 Richmond Street (OZ-9770)

FINAL OZ-9770 - 2118 Richmond Street (AC)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Encore at Upper Richmond Inc., relating to the property located at 2118 Richmond Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to amend specific policy 1069 of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 Holding Residential R6/Residential R8 Bonus (hh-5h-11h-183R6-5/R8-4B-30) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-183R9-7(_)H40D211) Zone, and to delete the B-30 Bonus Zone in its entirety;

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

i) incorporation of underground parking;

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

iii) enhanced landscaping to include a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

iv) nine mature trees (minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of 11cm) be incorporated as part of the landscaping plan between the south building face and Sunningdale Road East;

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

vi) investigate air source heat pump options; and,

vii) apply bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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 changes made to the application are technical in nature;

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

  • N. Dyjach, Associate, Planning Division Manager, Strik Baldinelli Moniz; and,

-  T. Cottle;

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

- the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan; and,

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

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

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 S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   566, 568, 572 and 578 Colborne Street (Z-9775)

FINAL Z-9775 - 566-578 Colborne Street (BH)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Victor Anastasiadis,(c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 566, 568, 572 and 578 Colborne Street, the proposed revised, attached by-law dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 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 R3/Residential R11 (R3-2/R11) Zone  TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-18*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

  • C. McAllister, Planner, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of infill 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)

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. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   313-323 Horton Street East (Z-9616)

FINAL 313-323 Horton St E Z-9616 (AR) (1)

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 of M. Tkaczyk (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 313-323 Horton Street East:

a) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 Arterial Commercial (AC4) Zone, TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone;

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

i) retain the vehicular passageway with openings at grade allowing light and ventilation into the spaces and alleviating potential CPTED issues;

ii) retain the terraces on the 7th storey along the north and east facades;

iii) retain a step-down to 6 and 7-storeys to the rear of the building;

iv) consider replacing the single door with double door for the principal residential lobby entrance facing Horton Street East to promote accessibility and wayfinding;

v) provide an adequate all-season landscape buffer along the south property line to avoid any negative impacts on the private amenity spaces of the adjacent residential uses;

vi) add all or a portion of the long-term bicycle parking on the ground floor to provide convenient access for cyclists without needing to use elevators between the storage areas and ground floor;

vii) ensure permission is received from the Transportation Division to allow the proposed lay-by in the City right-of-way; and,

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

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

  • A. Richards, Planner, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future; 

- the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, the Urban Corridor Place Type policies, and the SoHo Main Street Segment policies; 

- the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the SoHo Community Improvement Area Plan;

- the recommended amendment facilitates an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

  • the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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 S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1856-1910 Oxford Street West (O-9484 & Z-9458)

FINAL O-9484Z-9485 1856-1910 Oxford St W (AR)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Oxford West Gateway Inc., (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz), relating to the property located at 1856-1910 Oxford Street West:

a) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Riverbend South Secondary Plan forming part of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a Site-Specific Policy to the Commercial Land Use Designation Section;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2204 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, and the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h-149*R9-7(_)/CSA5(6)) Zone;

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

i) increase the amount of transparent glazing on the ground floor elevation to provide increased passive surveillance and activation of the public realm;

ii) provide a pedestrian walkway that connects between the proposed landscape parkette and the rest of the pedestrian network on the site;

iii) provide a paratransit layby;

iv) provide a loading space for the commercial uses within the proposed mixed-use apartment building;

v) provide a direct pedestrian connection to nearby open space to the west to provide for off-site outdoor amenity space;

vi) provide a connection to the SWM block to the south;

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-laws as the recommended amendments are 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 noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  • a communication dated October 21, 2024 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  • communications dated October 16, 2024 and October 17, 2024 from C. O’Brien, Land Development Planner, Drewlo Holdings Inc.;

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

  • N. Dyjach, Associate, Planning Division Manager, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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

- the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

- the recommended amendments conform to the Riverbend South Secondary Plan;

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

  • the recommended amendments facilitate an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the context of 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)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

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)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Oxford West Gateway Inc. (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz) relating to the property located at 1856-1910 Oxford Street West:

(a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 5, 2024, to amend the Riverbend South Secondary Plan forming part of the Official Plan, The London Plan by ADDING a Site-Specific Policy to the Commercial Land Use Designation Section;

(b)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, and the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h-149*R9-7(_)/CSA5(6)) Zone;

(c)    The requested special provisions to permit a reduced rear yard depth of 5 metres whereas 16.8 metres is required, and a reduced landscaped open space of 20% whereas 30% is required, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    That the proposed special provision permitting a 5.0m rear yard setback is not sufficient to provide an appropriate transition between developments of different intensities per London Plan Policy 298_ nor sufficient space for natural stormwater retention, vegetation growth, enjoyable outdoor recreation/amenity, habitat and more, and given a 16.0m rear yard setback (1.2m per 3.0m of main building height (or fraction thereof) but in no case less than 7.0m) would be required by the standard R9-7 zone. And that the request for 20% landscaped open space is not sufficient to provide the landscape areas for visual amenity, stormwater management and reduction of the heat island effect per London Plan Policy 282_ and given 30% landscaped open space is required by the base R9-7 zone.

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

i)    Increase the amount of transparent glazing on the ground floor elevation to provide increased passive surveillance and activation of the public realm;

ii)    Provide a pedestrian walkway that connects between the proposed landscape parkette and the rest of the pedestrian network on the site;

iii)    Provide a paratransit layby;

iv)    Provide a loading space for the commercial uses within the proposed mixed-use apartment building;

v)    Provide a direct pedestrian connection to nearby open space to the west to provide for off-site outdoor amenity space;

vi)    Provide a connection to the SWM block to the south.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i.    That the proposed special provision permitting a 5.0m rear yard setback is not sufficient to provide an appropriate transition between developments of different intensities per London Plan Policy 298_ nor sufficient space for natural stormwater retention, vegetation growth, enjoyable outdoor recreation/amenity, habitat and more, and given a 16.0m rear yard setback (1.2m per 3.0m of main building height (or fraction thereof) but in no case less than 7.0m) would be required by the standard R9-7 zone. And that the request for 20% landscaped open space is not sufficient to provide the landscape areas for visual amenity, stormwater management and reduction of the heat island effect per London Plan Policy 282_ and given 30% landscaped open space is required by the base R9-7 zone.

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

3.6   279 Sarnia Road (Z-9774)

FINAL Z-9744 - 279 Sarnia Road (IdC)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Palumbo Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 279 Sarnia Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 20224 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-213*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval;

ii) provide a low-height all-season landscape buffer for the below-grade units fronting onto Sarnia Road and/or the parking area to provide privacy and avoid headlights shining into the spaces;

iii) consider providing additional windows on the side elevation of the corner units, and minimizing any portion of blank wall facing the public realm, to create an active streetscape and offer passive surveillance; and,

iv) relocation of the existing Hydro Pole and London Transit Commission shelter pad at the expense of the applicant;

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

  • D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • S. Levin, Orchard Park / Sherwood Forest Neighbourhood Association Executive;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

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

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

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)

3.7   1210-1240 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9778)

FINAL 1210-1240 Wharncliffe Road South (IdC) - Z-9778

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of G.R. Investments Ltd. & Sub-Subsational Inc., (c/o Dillon Consulting Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1210-1240 Wharncliffe Road South:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 Restricted Service Commercial (RSC1/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone and Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i) further refinement to the site access location and design; and,

ii) explore opportunities to screen any parking areas exposed to the public street with enhanced all-season landscaping and incorporate significant mature trees;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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

  • C. Wilkes, Planner, Dillon Consulting Ltd.;

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

  • the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

  • the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary plan, including but not limited to the North Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

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)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Hyde Park BIA Boundary Expansion Request

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to expand the boundary of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations and received a communication dated October 8, 2024 from D. Szpakowski, General Manager & CEO, Hyde Park Business Improvement Area and T. Delaney, Hyde Park Business Improvement Area Chair.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That D. Szpakowski and T. Delaney, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association boundary expansion request.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-10-22 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the October 11, 2024 updated Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) A. Badillo, Urban Roots London

21 Norlan Ave Severance

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

The Civic Administration be directed to allocate $23,167.00 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to cover the cost of severing the residential portion of the Urban Roots property at 21 Norlan.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That A. Badillo, Executive Director, Urban Roots BE GRANTED delegation status; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated October 16, 2024, from A. Badillo, Executive Director, Urban Roots London, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

The meeting adjourned at 3:36 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, 48 minutes)

[ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1 o’clock and I’m going to call the 16th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website, traditional meeting, detail information, meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Walk, and Adirondron.

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

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 245. At this time, we’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, let’s move on to the consent items. I’ll look for a motion on that from committee.

Officer Frank. >> Thank you. I’ll move all the items. I’ve got a seconder and Councillor Raman.

So I didn’t want to pull 2.5 and 2.6, but I do want the staff to give us a brief presentation on both. So I don’t know if committee members would like one after the other, or just will do 2.5, and then maybe if you have some questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Chair, I do have questions on both for staff, so while I don’t need them pulled, because I’m happy to support them, but I do have some questions on both.

So I’d prefer that we get a presentation questions, presentation questions, just so that we don’t have to have two lists of questions going and tracking. >> But let’s do that. Before I get to those items, let’s see if we have any questions or comments on 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4. Councillor Premon.

Thank you, Chair, and through you to the staff. I do have a few questions regarding 2.3. And if I can start on page 8 of the original report, which is actually same as the revised one, when we look at the number of inspections, when it says total, when I start with the building, 16,008 and 17,668 conducted. Is it the higher because the multiple inspections needed to be done, or what is the reason for that?

Both of staff. >> And through the chair, thank you very much, Councillor. So you’re correct. It’s say an inspection such as the, you know, an insulation inspection was called in that day, but there were still a few items that say from the framing inspection that existed, or was still there concurrently.

So when the building inspector goes out, even though that inspection wasn’t called in, he takes a look at that item and closes that process off in our system. So that’s why sometimes there’s more numbers than were called in. >> Councillor. >> Thank you for that.

And the 4-in-1 deployment. Some of them have 1,000 received, 9,900. Sorry, I go back, cold compliance, 8-4 received, but only 8,100 conducted, so less. But we are stating that 8,482 were conducted within 48 hours.

Can you explain that one for me? Thank you. >> Go to staff. >> And through the chair, the best explanation for that, Councillor, is that at times permits get canceled, or inspections get canceled, so that when the inspector comes in in the morning, they believe that that will be an inspection on the day.

However, until the inspector actually shows up on site, the contractor has the ability to go in and cancel that building inspection for the day, too, meaning that it didn’t need to be completed, but it was previously called in. >> Councillor. >> Thank you for that. By the way, congratulations on all three areas.

100% was in the provincial guideline for the 8 hours, so congratulations on that. Page 9, bottom. If you were to calculate the average rate of units completed, completed, does that mean move in? >> Go to staff.

And through the chair, yes, that would mean building inspections that are completed and occupancy permits have been issued if they need to, or those units are ready to be, or move in ready. >> Councillor. >> Thank you for that, and last question. Bottom nine, when we look at the cumulative units, 23rd and in regards to the building foster fund, when we look at the provincial guidelines for our targets, is it, I know it’s not the permits, I know that, but is it shovels in or move in completed?

Thank you, go to staff. >> And through the chair, just to clarify, Councillor, are you speaking about the CMHC numbers? >> Councillor, can I get your microphone? Thank you.

Oh, thank you. So maybe I’m going to ask this question. Is this regarding only CMHC numbers, or is it totals for staff? >> And through the chair.

So the CMHC numbers are not necessarily shovels in ground, but a foundation in the ground. So the shovel would be there and the foundations were there. So a lot of these numbers, a lot of them are building permits that have been issued and what, like, work went through the building department that day, but the numbers regarding the CMHCs will be foundation starts or housing starts. >> Councillor?

Thank you for that, I actually have one more. Additional residential units, the ARUs. When I look at the report, let’s say, on page 11, if we have additional ARUs, would they go to residential alterations and addition? Is there where would we add this number?

Go staff. >> And through the chair, yes, that is correct. They’re added under the alterations section. >> So thank you, so based on our decision or our new policy that we have introduced, it seems like it’s working, but my question is, when you get a feedback from the residents applying for these applications, are there any issues concerns or anything that we can even improve?

Go staff. >> And through the chair, yes, we are working closely with industry and we’re, our relationship with our industry partners. We’re asking them to flag any issues that they do have along the process, and we’re immediately taking that information back. And as we go through our PPI or our residential permit process improvement group, we’re actually trying to address all of those questions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that if we do have issues pop up, they don’t pop up again.

Councillor? >> Thank you very much for all the answers. No more questions? >> Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from committee? Just on those first four items, before we get into staff presentations. Oh, Councillor Frank. >> Thank you, yes, I did have one question on 2.4, the development pipeline.

So I appreciate the work that staff did with the community to develop this list, and we’ve received some communication regarding how this is a positive report and how staff and the community will be able to move these items forward. I am wondering in the case that there are applications that don’t move forward in a reasonable time, and there’s reference to use that or lose it within the report. I’m wondering at what point do we consider taking different action if no progress is made? >> I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, this is, of course, is our first foray in actually taking a more active approach related to some of these parcels that could be moving forward with housing. So we’re going to take a progressive approach. One is that just providing information, trying to be able to provide a ability for folks to come in and try to move these projects along. The next stage would then be then looking at ways that we could try to, through any kind of new powers that are provided by the province, there isn’t a lot of specificity of what we can do under the new legislation.

So as we learn more, and then we’ll be able to apply whatever new tools that frameworks the province allows us to, but that is definitely part of the progression of us trying to ensure that we’ve got more housing moving forward. >> Councilor. >> Thank you. I appreciate the information, and I will stay tuned with keen interest as we can use all the tools that we have in our toolbox.

Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor Loz. >> Yes, thank you, Chair. I wanted to comment briefly on this one as well.

I will say, I recognize fully, this is a first attempt at one of a report of this nature. And I think in general, it is a positive report. I will say that on some of these, I’ve heard some feedback from some developers that the numbers are not necessarily accurate in terms of properties that are still under their ownership, where lands have changed hands, and they’re still being reflected as not moving forward under one company’s name, when in fact that company doesn’t own the land anymore. So I’m just wondering through you, Chair, if staff can comment on, again, recognizing that this is a first attempt, what sort of steps we’ll be making to sort of address some of those concerns moving forward in terms of accuracy, and what challenges there may be in terms of you having those numbers available, because I know sometimes you’re not necessarily made aware after zoning has been approved that properties have changed hands as well.

So I recognize there’s both opportunities and challenges here, what could we expect to see change in the next iteration of this? >> I’ll go to staff. >> Through the Chair, so we very much do rely on the information that’s provided in the first application that comes forward. What we try to do with this report is we actually provided some of that information so to be able to do the development address that we’re showing on the report to try to validate the information.

So we will continue to do that. So if there is some corrections that people are hearing about that need to be made, we’d be happy to make those corrections. And we know that the development industry and the way that the development process works can be very complex as far as ownership. So we’re happy to ensure whatever’s in this table is accurate and we can update as we go.

Deputy Mayor. >> Thank you. So I just want to pick up and offer a couple of comments on what Councilor Frank was just speaking about with regard to the use it or lose it. I’m not sure that we’re going to see tools that would be essentially giving us the opportunity for temporary zoning.

Once we’re granting zoning, I think it’s very hard for us to start taking it away based on whether or not a shovel has gone in the ground. And it may actually disincentivize someone from acquiring a property where zoning is in place who has the ability to move forward when another partner has not been able to do so. I also recognize that some of these listed developments have partners in the not-for-profit sector. Residents of affordable housing is in there, the Roman Catholic, London Diocese is in there, and well is in there.

And I think that there’s more opportunity for use it or lose it around incentive programs, whether those are DC waivers, whether those are funding applications. But I also recognize that in some cases, the hold up is with our senior levels of government in getting things approved too for some of these organizations that are doing affordable builds. So I just want to share that I caution use it or lose it, although I love the catchiness of how simple it sounds is a lot more complicated I think than has been expressed. And I think we put ourselves in really, and I’m not gonna drag us in camera and ask for legal opinions today.

I think we put ourselves on very soft legal footing when we’re approving zoning on a temporary basis. So I need to be very cautious and take a look at the tools that are brought out moving forward. We heard very clearly from Mr. Wallace and LDI that another factor here is that when you get subdivisions, they roll out in phases.

And so we approve the zoning. In fact, we just approved the zoning for 8,400 units and the old oak development on the psychiatric hospital lands, but we know full well, that is going to be a 15 year to 20 year build out. The fact that some of those buildings aren’t going to be moving forward in two years is actually not a concern for me that building permits have not been pulled. So there is a pipeline issue here where the reasons are perfectly legitimate that projects have not moved forward yet.

And I think we need to keep that in mind too. Some of these companies are doing very large projects with multiple phases involved. And if you’re pulling building permits in a phase one of a subdivision, it doesn’t mean that phase four is never going to be built. It simply means that phase four might be six years, eight years down the road before you’re building out that fourth phase.

And so I think we have to keep that in mind when we absorb the information that’s provided to us in this report as well, because there are factors beyond just when the zoning was approved that impact when building permits are pulled. Thank you, any other comments? And just if the committee will allow me a brief comment from the chair, I love this report, this pipeline report. While we don’t have, I agree totally with the deputy mayor on the user to lose it, municipalities do now to have any, I guess jurisdiction or what you might call it about moving for forcing people to build once they have zoning.

However, this does allow us to get a snapshot of where we are, ‘cause we have a target, 47,000 homes, of where we are on that target. And I think this would help identify maybe some potential areas that might be getting off the rails. Non-profit was mentioned by the deputy mayor that perhaps we can focus in on see what the city can do to partner with the applicant and perhaps their partners as well to see if we can get anything to move this thing forward once they’re getting into two years, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, for sure, I know it, accuracy, et cetera, when you first come to us with a report is of concern.

On that front, I want all of us, committee members and staff to be looking at numbers that are present to us that we’re not using. I don’t want you to be wasting time doing report after report that no one’s looking at. So I want us all to be vigilant. When we see stuff come before us, go, you know what, I haven’t looked at this.

It’s great that it’s here, but to me, it’s not a value. I don’t want time wasted producing numbers that are being used by anybody, including yourselves. This one, however, I think is very important. So thank you for the first kick at the can at this one.

I see my comments have got some conversation going. Councillor Ramen, first, and I’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Thank you and through you. I just want to get a sense from staff based on the comments here at committee.

It doesn’t sound like this is an actual tool to spur construction. And the challenge for me is that is how it has been sold in a way to the public as a tool for the province to use or the province has given the municipality to use. And so Road City, sorry. And so one of the challenges I’m struggling with is how do we have, and I think this conversation’s helpful, but how do we have a conversation with the public that there are still very limited tools that we can use to move developments forward?

And I was really appreciative of hearing from LDI this morning on their thoughts on this. And I appreciate the conversation here. I just think there is a false dialogue going on that we have more tools now under Bill 23 and 185. But ultimately, this is not something that I see is giving us a lot of ability to spur construction.

So I’m not sure if you can comment on that and whether or not you see perhaps further on down the road, there is more opportunity for us to use this, but I think just based on the report, which by the way, I really appreciate the report and the comments here. I don’t think this actually gives us a tool in our toolbox that’s going to be valuable for us and therefore help us here housing target. I’ll go with stuff. Through the chair, yeah, those are some really great and point on comments.

So one of the goals of this report was first to like, let’s shine a light on this item. And then also at every point when we communicate and have conversations about these types of things, we need to be able to know that this is like a shared approach moving forward. So it’s not just the city, it’s not just the development community, it’s us working together. Our part of our goal in bringing this forward was to be able to just highlight that any of these projects that may be off track, it’s helpful for us, it’s helpful for the developer that’s involved, and maybe that will in itself try to motivate folks and also help bring about more housing more quickly.

So the next phases would be to look at being able to, is there any new tools, which we know there isn’t right now, that we could be able to use, but I think is in our communications, whenever we’re going and speaking about these types of things, that we have to just know that this is a shared relationship that we have, that we’re trying to bring more housing together forward in the city of London, and then just highlight that as far as our ability to require or enforce or force people to move forward, that those aren’t tools that we have. And we’re gonna do our best to make sure that people move along as quickly as possible, but we can’t do it alone. Yeah, sir. Thank you, I much appreciate that comment.

And as I said, I think this is something where on the political side we need to communicate that it’s great that we’re trying to find new tools, but this isn’t one of them, that gives us some ability to actually move forward and move towards more housing. So I think that that’s really important and key for us to share on the political side. Deputy Mayor, thank you. So picking up on both yours and Councillor ramen’s comments, and I know I spoke a lot already, so I’m gonna try and be brief.

One of the things that LDI flagged, and I know there’s a real world example here in London, and Councillor Pribbles Ward, and it’s the app with development. Where developer went bankrupt, new ownership has come in, they’re ready to build, and yet in a prior phase, we have not assumed the subdivision, and therefore the infrastructure is not allowed to be connected to because we have not assumed the sanitary and storm sewers. And so the developer who has acquired the property and is ready to go is blocked by another land owner, not moving, well frankly, they don’t seem to be moving at all in terms of the assumption process. And so a two-part question for staff, can we, in a future report, delineate those projects that are stalled because of infrastructure in a separate category?

So whether that is, you know, we’re waiting on a storm water management pond, whether it’s the assumption of subdivision lines, can the infrastructure delayed projects be identified separately, because to Councillor ramen’s point, from an advocacy piece with the province, when I’m talking to MPPs, I need to be able to say you need to give us tools to take over infrastructure so that we can allow other developers to move forward and build housing, ‘cause we’ve got a developer who’s blocking that. So if that can be separated out from an advocacy piece, and are there, second part of that is, based on analysis so far, are there any tools, whether through the new legislation, or even through strong mayor powers? And if you don’t have the answer to this, ‘cause I’m throwing it out on the floor, completely understand, and maybe it’s something you can follow up with me on later, but are there any tools that would allow us to force an assumption to move forward, when the delay is actually blocking housing lands from being developed? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, so I’ll start with the first element of the question. I think it actually would be very helpful to provide some categories for what might be the, some rationale for why some of these applications might be in a pause mode. So it could be anything from what was previously stated, but infrastructure, or it could be that there’s some third party requirements for that approvals, like conservation authorities, things like that. So if there are ways that we can categorize these to be able to highlight what is the factor that’s causing the problem, then I think that would be very helpful regarding the ability to enforce assumption of a piece of infrastructure.

So we do have some tools to be able to do that. It is very specific to the subdivision and the relationship there, but as part of our subdivision agreements, we have the ability to call security and to take over some of those pieces of infrastructure. That’s of course, there’s some risk associated with that. So we want to do that mindfully, but there are some tools that do exist in our subdivision agreements.

Deputy Mayor, that’s great. I will take that under advisement and follow up offline about some specific barriers, I think where we need to investigate some of those options. Any other comments? Hi, again, briefly from the chair.

This is exactly what I’d hoped to see. We see it already from stimulating discussion questions, deep dives perhaps on areas where some of these things would just kind of get lost in the big work that we’re all doing here. And I think over the coming months and quarters, it might be a very handy tool to figure out where we can direct things, do things like, you know, Deputy Mayor spoke to, you know, bring a highlight to the province that Councilor ramen spoke to with actual numbers. Say, you know, here’s where we’re at.

We’re doing all this work rezoning and yeah, we’re not getting units built. Now, we do know the big elf in the room is interest rates when I speak to developers and now that they’ve settled and they look like they’re going in a downward direction. I think we’re going to see more action. You know, we’re going to be talking about building permits in a bit and we’re going to seeing a good spike in that that we’re already seeing.

So hopefully we’re going to see, you know, the pipeline of the zone where there’s no action. Hopefully we get that effect happening as well. Okay, let’s go to two five, which is the Dundas streetscape master plan for the Argyle and I’ll go to staff for just a brief presentation on this to supplement what we already have in our agenda. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair, for the opportunity to introduce this item. For the purpose of that, I’ll introduce Andrew Genome. Andrew is a transportation design engineer in our transportation planning and design area. He’s been leading this project, so I’ll pass it over to Andrew to introduce.

Thank you, through the chair. In 2021, the city completed a community improvement plan for the Argyle core area, which identified the need to improve the pedestrian realm and prioritize active mobility. And the plan recommended the creation of a streetscape master plan, which was initiated last year. The streetscape master plan recommends comprehensive strategies to improve mobility, neighborhood safety, and reinforce the identity of the Argyle core area.

The streetscape master plan will guide future public improvements by defining design standards for boulevards, sidewalks, active transportation facilities, street lights, bus stops, and trees and planters. This tool will be an implementation tool for future renewal projects and development in the area. Finally, the plan recommends some access management improvements, including modifications to driveways, which will serve as a guide through detailed design and consultation with business owners. The development of the Dundas streetscape master plan was informed through extensive engagement with the community, including the Argyle BIA, the Argyle Community Association, business owners and operators, residents, and homeowners.

And three, public update meetings occurred during the project. As future capital work programs upgrade existing infrastructure, and as new redevelopment occurs in the Argyle core area, the recommendations identified in the streetscape master plan will be implemented just to give you an idea of upcoming capital programs in the Argyle core area. They include the Dundas Street East pavement rehabilitation between Burdick Place and Beatrice Street, which is aimed at improving the pavement condition. During this time, streetscape improvements and access management improvements will be included in this project.

As well, there is an upcoming, in the near term, a bridge replacement on Dundas Street East over Pottersburg Creek, which is funded through the major bridge upgrades program. And it’s also funded through federal sources of funding. And it will aim at providing improved active transportation connections from LPH lands to Pottersburg Creek. Thank you.

Terrific, thank you. All right, I’ll look to committee members for comments or questions. It’s over to you, Mayor. Thank you.

So some questions/comment and certainly if staff want to respond to some of them, I’d welcome that. I will say that I have some concerns that are not necessarily reflected in the report in whole. I think maybe they’re there in part. And I will say, particularly the emphasis around in some of the language around the active transportation and the streetscape stuff, we want to be very cautious about duplication and redundancy.

And so, for example, there is ultimately a connector from the Wavell bike lane planned up Hale Street. But at the same time, we have a multi-use pathway already running through Quannas Park that in this streetscape plan now provides a connector on Dundas Street over to Hale Street. With all due respect, we don’t need two. We need one good one.

We don’t need two. And when we talk about planting and planters and it’s definitely heard from the community, the desire to have more tree planting along the boulevards, which I completely agree with and think it would be a great idea, there’s a lot of concern that the in boulevard median divisions, the breakups in the turning lane, becoming planters and frankly the lack of maintenance in the future that we may see there. I get a lot of concerns about the fact that, and I recognize that there are some provincial pieces here around where we’re allowed to spray. And I recognize that there are some budget concerns around where, how many times we cut along places like Veterans Memorial.

But I get complaints every single year about the weeds in the lane dividers and along the shoulders of Veterans Memorial. Perhaps a lesson on why we don’t name expressways as a Veterans attributes because they’re very hard to maintain to begin with. The province has taken away some of our ability to spray. But from a visual perspective, it looks bad to the community and people do not want to see that on the main BIA corridor in Argyle as well.

And so there’s been some concerns raised about the nature of what these lane breaks would look like and how they would be maintained. I know we’re not approving any sort of specific projects today. And in general, this is an overall plan. And bits and pieces will be looked at as different pieces move forward.

The second street work is underway right now. We’ve already had some paving between Highbury and First Street where the bridge replacement will come in the near future. But I wanted to share those concerns in terms of some of what’s in the report. While it reflects some positive feedback, I don’t feel necessarily reflects some of the community concerns that were raised about some of these things as well.

Thank you, Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you. And I appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments. And I know how plugged in into this area that he is in his ward.

So I’m just wondering if he can clarify on the direction that’s provided here. Again, where it’s a master plan approval as the plan identifies the infrastructure and the urban design. If are we currently being asked to approve the design and principle? Or are we being asked to, at this point it says receive and approve?

So just I need a little bit of clarity because what I heard you say was that this isn’t exactly what the community was looking for when they were looking for the streetscape plan. And that, again, it really identifies some particularity around some of the cycling lanes and that you said that you would take, or that one good one would be good and that you already have one through Kiwanis Park. So I’m just wondering if that can be clarified a little bit in terms of the direction that’s in the motion. And on Gainesboro, we’ll take that extra bike lane if possible as well.

But I do like the idea of a streetscape plan in general for our main streets. I think this is the direction that we need to go in. So I’m very pleased to see that the BIA was able to move this forward. I’d like to see our other BIA’s be able to do the same, but looking for a little bit more direction on this motion right now.

Okay, I’ll go to staff. Counselor, I believe, is asking for, what are we approving here? Is it with specifics with concerns that the deputy mayor raised? Like would he need to make an amendment to have those concerns addressed or is this general approval that his comments could be worked in without specific direction?

Thank you, through the chair. Yeah, we’re certainly receptive to the comments. What is being presented here is concepts that will then be developed further through whether it’s development applications, development opportunities or capital projects. So a couple of different streams.

And it’s through those mechanisms, it’s envisioned to be a long-term plan. So more scrutiny and more design efforts would go into the lead-up to any of those implementation measures. And at that time, we can get the pulse on the neighborhood, pulse on our ability to operate the infrastructure. And where, with specifics to the active transportation network, where opportunities have arisen that we may not have envisioned and rationalize the infrastructure at that time.

Council Raman, is that satisfactory, that response? Yeah, I think so at this point. Thank you. Great.

Well, the deputy mayor, just are you good with what you heard, you know, addressing your concerns? Yes, so just to share a little bit further, I guess, in specific what’s in the motion here, in part B, it says that the master plan for the Ariacore area be approved as the plan identifying infrastructure and urban design guidance. And it’s that guidance piece for me. We’re not saying everything in this proposal is going to be there in the future.

These are concept options for the future. I’m also gonna take this opportunity to note that on slide five of the slide deck that was in our package, you’ll note that the active transportation lanes are marked as in Boulevard, so they wouldn’t be impacted by the recent provincial comments. So if they still make sense and something else in Argyle doesn’t counselor, I’ll take them. And if they don’t make sense, then I’ll happily trade them to you for Gainesboro and let you develop some active transportation in the west as well.

But it’s the guidance piece in the staff recommendation that makes me comfortable supporting this today. I’ll go to Councillor Preble next. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.

This morning at the Civic Works Committee, we talked about master mobility plan and entering stage two. And I just wanna know, because again, as we all know, master mobility plan is gonna be tremendously crucial for our municipality, if we are going ahead and potentially approving sooner or later sooner before master mobility plan, for example, this area, is it gonna potentially limit us because master mobility plan is taking us so long? And again, I would say rightly so because if we did it a year ago, we would never expect this kind of number of units and fills, et cetera. So I think it’s actually a good timing that we are still working on it.

But is this potentially gonna limit us when we see the whole picture, and we decide this, how do we prevent it that if we make this decision that the master mobility plan, which includes all the details, all the units, all the numbers, if we make a decision so we don’t retract it, and we said we should avoid it. Good staff, through the chair. Thank you for the comment. I think that’s manageable in that again.

This, what’s presented today on the agenda is design concepts. If the mobility master plan identifies a future infrastructure improvement along the corridor, these concepts can be layered onto that. So I don’t think there’s a reason to hold back on this. It provides future guidance that can be incorporated into any sort of future modifications to the corridor.

Councillor, thank you. No worries. Any other comments on this item before I move on to 2.6? Okay, 2.6, and this is regarding off-the-clock permit applications, so I’ll go to staff for a brief overview to supplement what we have in our agenda.

Thank you very much, and through the chair. So what we have here is a report on reducing our off-the-clock permit applications. So off-the-clock permits occur when an application, when applications are incomplete or non-compliant, causes delays and increases workload. This report highlights strategies to reduce off-the-clock permits, improve processing efficiencies, and to meet our housing commitments.

So to explain what an off-the-clock permit is, first, or what an off-the-clock permit is, I’ll first explain what an on-the-clock permit is. So the on-the-clock permits are permits that come in with all required documents that we need to be submitted and take a look at to ensure that the drawings and the application submitted and meet all of the applicable laws and meet all of the standards. So this means that the building permit is kind of pulled in. We’re legislated to specific timelines within the Ministry of Housing and Affairs guidelines.

Those permits are reviewed within that timeline. And if there’s no deficiencies on the drawings, the building permit is simply issued. And it’s a very smooth, streamlined approach. When it comes to the off-the-clock permits, this is where not all of the documentation has been submitted.

This can also mean that not all applicable law has been met presently. So we could be getting into, you know, they’re not fully through the site plan approval process. Maybe there’s a section 28 permit, and they’re still working through our conservation authorities to have it done. And unfortunately, these permits can sometimes just lead to some increased workloads and they can lead to some inefficiencies.

So some of the challenges that we presently have is we’re noticing that we have permits that are sitting unresolved for over two years plus. You know, these permits, by the time that we go back to kind of review them, it takes additional time to familiarize with yourself with the projects. And of course, it’s just not good from a statistic standpoint to have these permits just sitting around. We wanna make sure that the permits that are in our systems are ones that are gonna ultimately be built.

So other issues that we’re having here is it increases, like I said previously, it increases the workloads, it increases the number of times that we have to touch each one of these permits. So that is just not a good thing either. So what we’re looking to do is just get these older permits kind of moved out just so we have an ability to focus on the on-the-clock permits, the permits that we know are gonna be built in the ones that are, you know, much closer to getting these aspects done. That doesn’t mean that when we’re looking at the building permits for some of our larger developers and some of our largest sites.

As you know, a few of the counselors have referenced here, there are permits that take multiple years to go through it and there’s buildings that are gonna take multiple years to do it. We are working closely with our industry partners to ensure that building permits that are still gonna be constructed aren’t gonna be the ones that are on the chopping block because we will have confidence that those files are gonna be moving forward. So some of our current policies that we’re kind of looking at is we’re going to go back to our building bylaw where we’re looking at inactive building permits and if it is an inactive building permit for over six months, we will look into canceling that. That doesn’t mean that one day an applicant is gonna open up their email to have, oh, my building permit got canceled last night.

There will be back and forth with industry to make sure that these are stalled projects or projects that aren’t going through. So we will work with them to make sure that those permits are, in fact, ones that need to be canceled and/or we are now formalizing a standpoint and a process for getting these processes and these extensions kind of moving forward so that we have a tracking and history of why all of these permits were extended, how long they were extended to and when a follow-up then needs to go back to talk with developers as well. Another process that we’re kind of working with our partners in site plan on is when it comes to partial permits and issuing for foundations and site servicing permits or even getting permits moving quicker than later. What we’re doing is we’re working with our site plan partners to ensure that we come up to specific guidelines as to when we can then classify a building permit as on the clock, even though maybe there might be a few of those elements that we talked about on the off the clock permits still to take place.

But what we will be at that point is we’ll be comfortable that the design is in place. It’s not gonna create, you know, redesign work that’s gonna create efficiencies of having to re-review drawings that are just being revised only because of, you know, how far ahead we are in the process. So we’re really hoping that these combined efforts as well as, you know, the communication that we have with our industry partners really helps to expedite things overall and create some new efficiencies in the building department to help keep our heads above water. Thank you.

Now look to committee members now for comments, questions, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So a number of good things in this report in terms of making some progress on this. And I know even from a couple of development applications in my own ward in the industrial category, you know, partial permits were issued so that foundation work or even shell work could start while other things were being finalized.

And that’s appreciated. That’s a step in the right direction for sure. When it comes to off the clock applications for me, though, the thing that I see missing here or if it’s, if I just didn’t read it properly in terms of there’s a strategy to address it that I didn’t take out of it when I was reading. I apologize for that.

Is the concern that I hear regularly that, and I’m trying to, I’m trying to word this in a way that, ‘cause I don’t want to be sound like I’m being critical of our staff, but that we’re not necessarily doing it right the first time. And so we get an application and we flag three deficiencies and we send it back to the applicant. And the applicant corrects those three deficiencies and sends it back to us. And then we send them a list of new deficiencies that should have actually been in the list the first time, ‘cause nothing has changed on those areas.

And yet, only on second review are staff now flagging them as deficiencies. For the applicant, that’s now twice that they’ve had to go back and revise their drawings with some significant expenses at some points. And in some cases, I know this is the result of an application changing hands. And one plans examiner has interpreted things in one way, and another plans examiner has interpreted things in a different way.

And when it comes to building code, I don’t think that there’s a whole lot of interpretation. I think there’s a lot of very black and white rules. And so it continues to frustrate me when I hear that the application has gone right back to square one, and now new things are being listed. And so I’m just looking through you chair to our staff to provide some comment on what we’re doing to reduce the number of times we are sending a file back to the applicant, because we’re making sure that we do it right the first time and list all the deficiencies on the first return of the application to the applicant so that they can correct all of their deficiencies at once, come back, have it signed off, and move forward.

So I’ll go to staff. I think I hear two concerns on the deputy American, correct me, yeah, I’m wrong. One is identifying issues that need to be resolved, their result, and then new issues are highlighted. Why didn’t you just bring those forward all together in one package?

And the other one is when there is a different staff member assigned to the file. And I don’t know if that’s true, if it’s black and white, ‘cause I think there is some gray areas and interpretation, and different people have different opinions, I guess. But once an opinion is made, is that do we stick to it going forward? So I think that’s where the deputy mayor is going on those two issues.

So I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair. Absolutely, that’s, again, a really great comment. I call that the moving the finishing line effect.

So you start with somewhere, there’s three comments, and then they come back, and then you keep adding, and that’s not something that’s fair to anyone. At the end of the day, that means that there was either something missed or something on either side, but either way, we need to be able to address those things to ensure that we’re getting it right the first time, and we don’t have multiple turnarounds, ‘cause that’s one of the other pieces that’s killing us too. It’s not just that wanting to ensure that we’ve got a minimum number of time that it takes us to provide a second round of comments, we also can’t have many, many rounds of comments, ‘cause that’s something that is on both sides of the equation is gonna cause people a long time to be able to build some housing. So what we’re doing to address that, and it’s something that we have flagged, and one thing that’s kind of making that even more difficult or more likely situation right now is when we have, so we have some really great, but very junior staff, so we need to be able to provide them with that starting point to be able to know how to comment, what is reasonable to comment, is maybe a little bit more over, it is not required comments.

So what we’re doing to be able to address that is developing actual formalized processes and procedures for a number of different activities. It’s not something that we’ve had before, so we’ve actually, as part of the new funding that was approved by Council, as part of the multi-year budget process, we now have somebody that is been tasked with developing those processes and procedures to ensure that we have consistency, it’s valuable for a couple of reasons. One, it’s giving consistency in how we’ll be approaching these applications, but it’s also allowing for that knowledge transfer for that can be imparted with new people as well. So that’s what we’re doing internally to address that.

That, of course, will also help with the off-the-clock permits, but it wasn’t explicitly stated in the report. And then, can you also address when there’s a staff member assigned to a file, and that member changes, and previous decisions or opinions are changed with the different staff that’s down side to them? Through the chair, absolutely, that transfer of the application from one to the other, that will be part of this consideration as well. So we need a really great process for when you’re transferring a permit or a review from one reviewer to another, because if that’s not done well, then the new person may not have the background of what has been addressed or the other comments that have been provided in the past.

We have to ensure that that person who’s restarting that next review is starting from the point where they’re fully informed of the status and everything to date. So ideally, you don’t have to transfer a lot of these pieces over, but if you have a very complex project, that especially with all of the wonderful apartment buildings that we have, there’s sometimes a requirement to do that, but we have to make sure that when we do it, that the communication goes along with that transfer of the application. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that it’s a work in progress and you really owned in on it, Chair. If reviewer Steve is working on the file and then wins the lottery and leaves and reviewer Sean gets the file, I don’t want to be, as reviewer Sean, revisiting the decisions you’ve already made. I want to be addressing the deficiencies that were flagged the first time and only those and that’s sort of the thing. And then I also want to cut of your lottery ticket for putting extra work on my plate, but those are the kind of situations where when a file changes hands, I’m really concerned that we sometimes have been starting back at square one rather than continuing from square three or square four in the process and that sets us back and it sets the applicant back as well and then adds cost to every project and that has an impact on the affordability piece as well, especially on the housing side, a little less on the industrial side, but I’ve seen it happen there as well.

And I asked this ‘cause there was an example in my award where an application was reviewed by at least two different staff and went through a cycle five times of having deficiencies, fixing the deficiencies, new list of deficiencies, fixing those, new list of deficiencies, fixing those. And you can imagine how frustrating that is for an applicant. So I appreciate hearing the staff are working on addressing that through the process as well so that we minimize the number of times that that happens. Other comments or questions from committee?

I’ll just come here for a few comments. We fully recognize, you know, we’ve had new hires and there’s junior staff and it takes a while to get the experience and experiences needed. Like it’s a lot, it’s very complex what you’re dealing with and we appreciate that. But I also think it’s a great learning opportunity as Mr.

Mathers highlighted because every time you go through that one thing, the junior staff gets that experience that will allow them to go faster the next time. The issues that the deputy mayor raised, which I totally agree with, I’m glad he raised them. We’re also, I’m experiencing with upper temps and so I’m looking to Councillor Cady who I know is on the board at upper tems and I ask you, Councillor, to raise those two specific issues and you probably have at upper temps. So the case where issues have been resolved and a new person is assigned to the file and they get either we have to revisit those issues or here’s a new set of things that you haven’t met because both the city and upper tems have to sign off and these things to get things going.

So that’s just a comment, Councillor, if you could bring maybe this discussion that we had at this committee to your next board meeting and kind of raise that. Yeah, if you’d like to respond, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Thank you for raising that with upper tems and you know, I’ll reference my two colleagues, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Frank who are also members of the upper tems conservation authority board with me and they’re also present today.

And you know, this has been a problem, Chair, as we all recognize and we’ve had this conversation with the chair of upper tems and device chair and currently Chair, we know that this is a problem because you and I have experienced it as recently as a couple of weeks ago. So this is something that needs to be dealt with. It’s something that Deputy Mayor Lewis is aware of, the Mayor is aware of and the Chair of the upper tems conservation authorities aware of. So I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody.

We have to work closer together with upper tems in our planning department. And for the remainder of my term on upper tems, I will be working towards that goal. And I’m sure that my colleagues would agree with that. And so thank you, Councillor and I apologize to Councillor Frank, Councillor Hopkins.

It’s the right hand in this of my head that I just kind of tend to look this way and I should move everyone over to here so I can, yeah, by all means, if you could join Councillor Cudi and just expressing what you heard today, whether you agree with it or not. You know, but if you’d like to comment, please go ahead, no comment terrific. Okay, yeah, so that’s just, okay, Councillor Hopkins. Since you are seeking a comment, all I can say is that we have updated a report on especially when it comes to section 28 permits and having more of a detailed report given to us at our board meeting.

And I think it’s fair to say that we really do want to work with the city to move these projects forward. So we are doing everything possible as well. And I think we need to communicate and engage with one another. Okay, good, thank you.

Any other comments or questions before we close the consent items? Okay, we’ve got a motion moved and seconded. So I’ll call the vote. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, moving on to the scheduled items 3.1. This is regarding 763 and 773 Dundas Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councilor Almond.

I’ll call the vote. Yes. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time from Mini?

Seeing no, no, I’ll look to the applicant. The applicant would like to address us. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members, staff and members of the public.

My name is Taylor Whitney. I’m an intermediate planner with Selenka Priam Unlimited, the planning consultant representing London Cross Cultural Learner Center or CCLC. I’m joined today by Vali Moroshko, the Executive Director of CCLC, who may say a few words through the public participation meeting process for this item. We’re very excited today to be here in front of this committee with an application that has been years in the making.

Our team would like to thank city staff for their hard work and their continued support of this application. We also appreciate their recommendation for approval to facilitate some much needed affordable housing for both newcomers and other individuals who require affordable housing in the community. Our only request to this committee would be the consideration to have the requirement of the holding provision suggested by staff to be removed. The holding provision is to ensure that development cannot proceed until the Ministry clearance letter for the archeological study is received.

And it is our request that this matter be deferred to the site plan approval process rather than a holding provision. We have no reason to suspect that there will be any issues with securing the required Ministry clearance letter. The lands are made up of two parcels, purchased at different times and the clearance letter has already been received for the first parcel. Because this is an affordable housing project, the additional application fee does generally make a difference to the overall success of the project.

And any additional application processing time could interfere with both the ability to secure the necessary CMHC funding as well as construction timing. Considering this, we respectfully request that this committee remove the holding provision requirement and rather choose to defer the requirement of the Ministry clearance letter to the site plan approval process. Thank you for your time and consideration and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address a committee on this item. I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online. I see a gentleman up here. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Vali Moroch. I’m the Executive Director of the Cross-Culture Learner Center. I’m here with Quinton Long, our board chair. The Cross-Culture Learner Center has been providing temporary housing for newcomers close to 40 years.

This is a project that would allow our community organization to do more of what the community needs. Housing is tough. We are able to find permanent housing for the refugees and other vulnerable newcomers who come to our door. And this project would facilitate more affordable housing in the city.

So the project prioritized for the ability is designed to be energy efficient. We emphasize accessibility by having 21% of the unit accessible. It’s transit oriented and the development is socially inclusive. The priority groups are recent immigrants, including refugees, young adults, seniors, women and children fleeing violence.

People with disabilities, people dealing with trauma issues, rationalized groups and unhoused people. We are here to continue building a welcoming community where newcomers can succeed. We also want the counselors and the staff to emphasize the fact that it’s also about providing safety and dignity for this vulnerable people and powering the newcomer families and starting a new chapter and strengthening the ability of all this village to become a strong economic contributor to the economy of the city. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I’ll look for anybody else that’d like to address us going online. I don’t see anyone else at the mic. So I’ll have a promotion to close with PPM.

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

Okay, I’m advised that Deputy Mayor Lewis has a possible motion that he’d like to put on the floor. I’ll go to you. Yes, thank you, Chair. So I’m gonna move a slight alteration to the staff recommendation, which accomplishes what the applicant was asking for.

It is an affordable housing build. It would move the archeological compliance to the development agreement being prepared rather than as a holding provision. It saves them a little bit of funding. I did check with our staff.

It still meets the intent of clearing the archeological requirement because it’s still the letter from the province, clearing it that will be required. But as it is an affordable housing project, I think it just makes sense to save the applicant that little bit of time and money there. So that is a motion for in eScribe on this item that I’ve provided to the clerk and run by our planning staff in advance. With apologies for not running it by everyone else in advance.

It was a little bit of a last moment alteration. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Ramen seconds it.

If you look at your eScribe, you should see the motion there. Oh, I see a thumbs up over there that I’m looking to my left. Any comments or questions on this? Seeing none, we have motion moved in second.

I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.2, this is regarding 2118 Richmond Street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Ramen seconded by Councilor Frank, and I’ll call that vote. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Questions of a technical nature first off. Committee, don’t see any. So I’ll look for the applicant if you would like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and do you have five minutes?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you. My name is Nick Dajak.

I’m with a company called Stric Baldwin Moniz. I’m the agent on the file on behalf of Encore at Upper Richmond Inc. Just to provide some context, I’d like to say that this application is coming to you today as a way to upsize, or not upsize, but to right size the building. The previous application to rezone these lands came some 10 odd years ago with a bonus zone.

So since then, fresh eyes have been looking at the building and the site in general. Just to kind of expand on the right size, the building height has been looked at in terms of four to four heights. So there’s a request for an increased height to the building. That’s four to four height, but also at including a level on the top of the building for a many space.

There would also be a review of the internal layout of the floor plan of the building, which previously had some very large unit sizes, which just isn’t right for the market today. So that would include the townhouses that were incorporated into the ground for the podium. So a number of changes have been made to the building itself, as well as the site plan to incorporate some of the engineering review that has been done. So in light of all that, we have reviewed the report from staff.

We’re in alignment. We agree with the recommendations. I feel like there is a good chance to have this building come forward, now that there is a more appropriate building that is marketable and would be more of a good fit for the community today. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for anyone else from the public. I would like to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online, seeing none online too.

Please go to the mics, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes and I’ll just make a list of your questions and minutes. My name’s Tony Coddle, C-O-T-T-L-E and from 2058 Richmond Street, which is the fourth house to the south of the subject site. Okay, there’s a, which hasn’t been mentioned, just it’s probably previously been mentioned, but in other meetings, but I haven’t been able to make the last two.

So there’s the access off and onto Richmond Street have previously been proved as a temporary access only until the interior subdivision had been developed. Is the right in, right out, going to be permanent? It’d be one of my questions. And I can actually get my questions to Jerry for follow up answers.

Okay, and now the, at previous meetings, the setback from the imperial oil line had not been determined as this distance been established. That’s another question that I need an answer from. Now, previously also the sub to the uplands community residents had concerns about the building being stepped back, site line into the backyards. And I see that the, well, I had a couple of questions here.

Is what would the distance be from Sunningdale and to the edge of the townhouses? And I do see that that one of the recommendations is 21 meters. And to the apartment building is 29 meters. When I look at the appendix D drawing, I see that I do not see that there’s a difference between eight meters.

This is probably just a rendering on appendix D. So that’s just a concern. I just can’t see that it’s eight meters before it goes up with the high rise, which is roughly 26 feet. The building is going to have 11 stories.

However, it appears that there’s going to be a deck. And it was just mentioned that this deck, is it for public use? And if so, then it would have to be accessible to people with compromised abilities and have housing around the elevator. And technically the building would then be 12 stories high.

So is the upper deck for public use? And will it be accessible by an elevator? And my last point question is previously, a large group of citizens had concerns about the removal of young trees on the subject site. And actually, this was in the demand and free press covered the story.

And unfortunately I wasn’t able to find that quickly last night, I find that the article. But the city counts ensured our community that the mature trees would be replaced. So my question is how many trees will be planted between the townhouses and Sunnydale? And how many trees would be planted on the subject site?

Those are my questions and concerns. I’m representing a few people in the community that couldn’t be here today. Thank you. All right, thank you, sir.

We’ll get to those answers for you once or finish the public participation meeting. Speaking of that, is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? I don’t. Is there anyone online, Clerk?

Okay. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by. Councillor Robin, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 40-0. Okay, there was a full of questions here. I’m sure Councillor Pribble had them down as well. But I’ll just go through what I had on my list.

And Councillor, if I miss any, please let me know. The access on the Richmond Street, will it be permanent? Through the chair, that access will be permanent. And there was a question.

Has setback been established? I think the speaker referred to it actually, setbacks identified. So I take it, it has been established. I’ll just want confirmation on that.

Through the chair, that setback has been established and is mandated by the Imperial Oil. And it is 20 meters. Any new development has to be setback, 20 meters from the pipeline. Thank you.

There was a referral to Appendix D as a rendering there, accurate. I would defer to the applicant as to the accuracy of their rendering. But the setbacks that were addressed to the 21 meters and 29 meters, those are included in the zoning by-law, in the special provisions. Okay, thank you.

The top floor that was mentioned by the applicant, will that be accessible for the public? Or will have, it’s a public allow to use it. Through the chair, to our understanding that access and that amenity space would be private. That’s our understanding, I would defer to the applicant if they have other intentions for that area.

Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. She would like to comment whether the public will have access to that or is it just for your tenants? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to confirm it would be privately accessed. And to the other point is the pentas for the mechanical would also be incorporated into that 12-hour lead story. So there would be no 12-story. Okay, thank you.

And finally, trees. Do we have a number of trees that will be replanted after the project’s completed? Through the chair, the exact number of trees to be replaced on site has not been determined that. That will be assessed during the detailed design phases of the site plan application.

But we have included indirection to site plan approval that the nine mature trees that are identified on the site be incorporated into the landscape plan for their site plan application. Okay, thank you. That’s the end of the questions that I believe I got from the public. I apologize if I missed one.

I’m sure committee members and visiting counselors will correct me. I’ll go to committee now for motion conversation. Councilor Raman. Thank you.

I’ll look to move the staff recommendation would like to speak to it. Okay, I seconder and deputy Marilos. I’ll go to open it up for conversation. Councilor Raman.

Thank you. Before I begin my comments, I just had a couple of questions. I’m wondering if staff might be able to address on this application, just for further clarity. So the first is around the school that’s designated here.

On the application, it says that Masonville Public School is the school that is in close proximity. However, the school boundary is closed and the school board is now in a holding provision sending all of these students to Evelyn Harrison Public School is just about 25 minutes from this location by bus. So I just wanna make sure that that’s captured and the information for the purposes of the public being aware, it’s really important as we continue to deal with school pressures in the area. As it relates to this particular corner of the city, as many people are aware, there is a expansion plan for Sunningdale Road that is absolutely necessary to address all the density that we are putting in this part of the city that is already there.

And so this is at the corner where we were supposed to do an intersection improvement this past year, but we were held up on that awaiting some approvals from Imperial Oil. But to my understanding, those approvals are now in hand in terms of the permits for the intersection improvement. And thus we’re going to be able to move forward in 2025, which is why I’m okay putting this on the table today for the committee, because we are seeing some movement in that area and in that corridor. Otherwise, as I’ve mentioned, I won’t be supporting applications if we’re not going to be able to expand in that corridor.

There’s already too much pressure. The other thing is that this property will, and this was discussed just now, the entrance point is off of Richmond and not off of Sunningdale. So that does help in terms of traffic flow and management in the area. So those are my comments initially on this proposal.

It’s why I’m willing to move it forward. Yes, it does increase density, but I have to say considering what I’ve read in the application I’m supportive. I also like to see the increased landscape plan or landscape open space that’s included in this application, which is promising and hoping to see some of those trees preserved in the 24 that’s outlined in the report also on the property. So thank you.

Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors? Councilor Perbal. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. I do have one question. And as my fellow councilor Raman just mentioned, there’s the permit and moving, moving kind of working around with the pipeline. Are we considering the setback already?

Is the plans to get this transportation that we are gonna fulfill this requirement being certain 20 meters away from it? Are we already considering it? Is the improvement of the intersection? Through the staff.

Through the chair, just to clarify, is the question as if the proposed development is appropriately set back from the Imperial Oil Pipeline or is the question relating to the intersection improvements and they are set back from the pipeline? Councilor, can you clarify, please? I haven’t seen the details yet in terms of how we are gonna address it with the pipeline and the intersection in detail. But what we have been told is that we did receive the permit from Imperial Oil to go ahead with these improvements to the intersections, to this intersection.

If that is the case, are we, is this development within the guidelines, both city as well as Imperial Oil? So it’s actually both of them because I don’t know currently what’s gonna happen in that spot with the pipeline. If it’s staying this way, if we are working around it or if this part is gonna be moved, allocated, three, four meters to the north. So that’s why I just want to make sure that we are within the guidelines so we don’t approve something and then potentially we don’t have a call back from Imperial Oil.

Yeah, I’ll go to staff on that concern. Through the chair, I can’t speak to the permits for the intersection improvements. That’s certainly something I can look into and follow up with the Councillor. Based on the current location of the Imperial Oil pipeline, the development is appropriately set back from that pipeline and I can follow up in terms of the intersection improvements.

Councillor? Okay, thank you for that. And I’ll just make a comment that I did at the end in August we had the information meeting that the applicant organized. I attended, I’ve spoken also with the developer and with our staff and I do recommend this project.

Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Video visiting, Councillors?

Okay, we have motion moved and seconded, I’ll call a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 566, 568, 572 and 578 Colburn Street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff?

Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. I’d like to address this. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

My name is Kate McAllister. I’m a Plano Zelenka-Priamo. Here on behalf of Victor Anastasidis, the landowner of 566 to 578 Colburn Street. We’re here for the zoning bylaw amendment seeking to rezone the subject lands to site specific are five dash seven zone.

And this is to permit two new three story townhouse buildings that will be placed at the rear of the existing buildings of 572 and 578 Colburn Street. And then those two buildings, 572 and 578 Colburn Street are currently existing lodging houses. Those are to be converted to three unit dwellings and the existing semi or duplexes on the site as well are to be retained, bringing the site to a total of 18 residential units, 12 of which will be new to the site. We’d like to thank staff for their report on this and we agree with their recommendation for approval.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public like to address us. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

No one online. I don’t see anyone in the gallery going to the mic. So I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Raman, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look for a motion from committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Prepare to move the staff recommendation.

For a second here, please. Councillor Frank, second. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll open the floor for discussion, comments.

Councillor Frank, Deputy Mayor, can you shut your mic? Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, yes. I had a comment and two questions.

One, I just want to say this looks super cool as an info project, so thank you. Two, my questions are, one was about how much surface area the parking is taking, just based on the rendering. It looks like the entire backyard, but I’m just wondering if that is compliant with our parking requirements of like how much space is allowed to be paved on an area, and if that would cause any undue flooding issues for any of the adjacent properties. That’s my first question.

I’ll go to staff in those two questions. Through the chair, on the first question regarding the parking, there’s no actual provision within the zone by-law that requires parking to be addressed, but they do meet the landscape open space requirements and the building lock coverage requirements. So staff has satisfied that they will be able to provide enough landscape open space, building that kind of thing for that. And can you just repeat the second question, please?

Sure, I guess I did two part on the first, ‘cause I have another one. But second part of the first question was just in regards to if there’d be any like undue flooding in the area if we are increasing how much is paved on that lot. Go to staff. Through the chair, there was no indication or any flooding or anything in that matter from our engineering department with this development.

So through the site plan approval process, that would be addressed as well. Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate that. And then my only other question, and I don’t know if staff will have the answer perhaps the applicant would know, but it does appear that there’ll be some renovations in the interior of the existing buildings.

And I’m just curious as to know what the plans are if there are tenants that live in that building, if they’d be shuffled through or if they would be receiving N13s or if they are able to stay throughout the renovations. I think I’ll go to the applicant on that. One of the plans for current tenants where the renovations will occur. Thank you.

At the moment, we currently don’t have any information on that. Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I hope if you can convey to your the applicant that I’d be very interested in keeping people housed.

So if there are existing tenants in those buildings, if they could be shuffled through or given some sort of other alternative accommodation, that would be greatly appreciated. But I know that’s likely outside of the control of our staff and the consultants. But anyways, it’s a cool project. Thank you.

Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 313 to 323 Horton Street East. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Robin, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of technical nature for staff? Seeing no, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address committee.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee, staff and members of the public. My name is Alia Richards. I’m a planner with Selenka Priemmo and I’m here with my colleague, Matt Campbell, representing the client, Mike DeTruck, for this application to rezone 313, 317, and 323 Horton Street East.

I want to start by thinking staff for their efforts in processing this application and for their recommendation for approval, for this rezoning application that will permit a mixed use development on the subject site. I wanted to respectfully request that committee members endorse the staff recommendation for approval and I’m here to answer any questions from the public or council that you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for any other members of the public that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online, no one online. I see no one else going to the mic, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll look for a committee for a motion, Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Look for a seconder, Councillor ramen.

We’ll open it up for questions, comments, and committee and visiting, Councillors. Councillor Frank. Thank you, I just wanted to say I also like this piece of info. Well, very succinct, thanks, Councillor Cudi.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, and thank you for allowing me to attend your committee meeting today and speak as a guest. I want to thank the applicant for this proposal. This is the scenario that has been underutilized for years since it was another trophy shop years ago. I think this is exactly what we need, Chair.

This sort of intensification, it’s a great project. I fully support it, unfortunately, I won’t be able to, I’ll have to recuse myself, I actually own property, but it’s 100 meters from the site, but I fully support it, and I hope my colleagues do the same. Sorry. Councillor, go ahead.

Councillor Hopkins, I think you had first heard of me. Yeah, thank you, I’m not on the committee, but I just wanted to raise a point of order. Councillor did say he was going to have to recuse himself and he’s speaking to it, so I’m sure of the process. I apologize.

Councillor Cudi. Yeah, you’re not a member of the committee, so you didn’t have to disclose between your interests, but now that you mentioned that, I’m going to have to stop you from speaking there, and I’m sure you’ll disclose that at council. Okay, thank you, thank you, Councillor Hopkins, and others there for catching that one. Any other comments or questions?

I’ll just, I’ll allow just a brief comment, not as brief as Councillor Frank, which is, she wants a great leadership there. I concur with her, I’m really happy to see this come forward. It’s an area that has commercial activity on it, and I’m glad to hear the commercial component of this project, and also as Councillor Frank indicated, a great example of infell downtown, so very excited to see this move forward. So, if there’s no other questions or comments, we have motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.5, this is regarding 1856 to 1910 Oxford Street West. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Robin, and I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature from committee for staff? Seeing none, and I’ll look for the applicant, that the applicant would like to address committee. Please, sir, give us your name again, just for the record, and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Nick Dijak from SBM, representing the owner, Oxford West Gateway Inc. Just wanted to briefly say thanks to the staff on this one. This one has taken a few years to get in front of you, so a lot of work has been done. This original application was submitted back in 2021, and obviously there was a few years of work beforehand before that, so this one has been complicated one, and day one, we knew that it would be a challenge, but we are seeing this trend in filling our commercial sites and getting residential developments that are provided the biggest bang for the buck, and these underdeveloped, great field-type parking lot.

So this is another application just like that, where we’re providing an apartment building, 10 stories and 11 stories at night, along the southeast portion of this commercial site, that’s been built out for the most part, this would be the last phase of that development. In general, it’s a good development in the Riverbend area would provide additional apartment housing and higher density uses. As this area continues to grow and densify, it’s gonna provide that valuable foot traffic that does kind of warrant additional traffic and transit and shopping opportunities, so it keeps that little community node very vibrant. So on that note, I did want to address a couple of concerns that were raised by the neighbors.

One would be obviously the servicing issue that a holding provision would be required to be put onto the site. We are aware of the servicing capacity issues in this area, and we are aware of several other sites that are or would be impacted by this capacity issue. And I just want to relay to yourselves that SPM, as well as other consultants and property owners, are working to find a resolution to this. So that is underway, and I’m sure that through the engineering process, we can find a way to resolve the issues.

So that is for future discussion. The other item I wanted to address was the setbacks. And from day one, along the self-profit limit, there is a residential land uses proposed designated and zoned. So that interface was always a critical talking discussion through this application.

So as a commercial film, we’re always aware of these residential interfaces and try to be accommodating to the future residential use, whether that’s nuisances, noise, parking, traffic issues alike. So if this were a typical commercial development, there would be those back-of-house uses that could be impacting those residential uses in the future. Waste garbage pickup trucks, that kind of thing, as well as HVAC systems and noise from mechanical appliances. So from my perspective, one of the improvements to this site would be creating a mixed-use building that kind of interfaces with residential development has different types of impacts imposed on the adjacent lands, but I think from an aesthetic purpose and from a land use functionality perspective, this seems to be a good development.

From a setback perspective, we also address that item. Previously, we initially submitted the application. We didn’t know what the future land uses or development would be to the south, and since then, we have been notified and made aware of a proposed development going on those lands. So subsequently, when we were addressing the issue, the applicant was amenable to moving the building further from the original setback.

So we are approximately six meters from the private line, which is not uncommon for mid-rise buildings. So I think we’ve achieved that interface and can provide a good development for this area. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for other members of the public. I would like to address committee for anyone online clerk. OK, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone else looking to speak to us.

So I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ramen. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. OK, I’ll look for committee members. Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I appreciate the comments from the applicant consultant.

I did circulate not very long ago, but before the meeting, an alternative motion. I’m not sure if I was seconded or so. I won’t speak to it, but it is regarding these setbacks and open space requirements. So I’m not sure if you want me to introduce a little bit to see if I have a seconder or if folks had enough time to review it.

Let me see if we have a seconder right out of the gate. And if not, then I’ll let you kind of describe your motion a bit. I know I think I did see here. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you, I’ll second to hear the reasons. OK, fine. So we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll go to you.

Thank you, Councillor. So I maintained everything else that was proposed as per the staff recommendation. But specifically regarding the special provisions about reducing rear yard deaths of five meters where 16.8 is required and reducing landscape open space of 30%, which is required to 20%. I’m suggesting that we stick to our zoning requirements and our London Plan principles in these two areas.

In my opinion, we evaluate development applications on case by case method. And typically, in my perspective, how I look at these is if this was a tiny parcel and there is no available space for there to be appropriate setbacks, that in my opinion is when I’m OK with reducing them. There is a sea of pavement at this location, and it is owned entirely by the single applicant. Therefore, given in this case by case method, honoring the setbacks in order to be able to have the appropriate amount of natural vegetation, stormwater management, habitat, to be able to address some of the issues that come with having a hard urban pavement space.

That is what open space is for. It is really important in order to be able to address those urban heat island effects and provide residents and visitors a more enjoyable experience. So specifically to me, in order for trees to be able to develop in between these two buildings, we need to have more space. And right now, my understanding is on one side, it’s about five meters.

And on the other side, it’s about seven meters. And even within that, I’m sure there will be other things other than trees between those two buildings. So in order to be able to have a healthy vegetation growing between these two and given the amount of space on this property, that would allow the building to be set back more. I’m seeking support in order to keep the proper setbacks.

So I’ve outlined and circulated that motion. And it does include the rationale as well in the motion. Thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. So I won’t be supporting this. And if this is defeated, I’ll be happy to move the staff recommendation. This is 223 units.

Recommending the refusal for the setbacks has no consideration for the number of unit reductions that we would see from that. But it also, when staff are recommending something, it’s one thing when staff recommend refusal. And we say, you know what, we’re going to approve it. Maybe with some changes anyway.

That’s one piece. When staff recommend approval, and we then say refuse it, that is going to the OLT. And then it is going to require outside legal counsel because we did not support staff’s position. Which is going to add to cost for everyone.

Every time we do that, we add to the gap in affordability when we add cost to applications. And I honestly don’t think, when we’re coming forward with an application that has a staff recommendation to move forward, that we are putting ourselves in a good position from an OLT defense to say, we’ve decided arbitrarily that even though staff said it was OK, we’re going to stick to our guns and hold everything to the London plan principles. The reason that we make changes is because we’re able to do that. But it’s a variance from the London plan that we typically make changes on.

It is not generally to refuse something that staff is recommending is appropriate on a site. I recognize that a couple of the neighbors had some concerns. We’ve heard some of those have been addressed. But honestly, I’ve heard concerns from those same neighbors in reverse when they’ve wanted more density.

When they’ve wanted more height, they argue that the variance is fine and that we should accept their proposals. So I’m not going to get into— and I generally have. And so I’m not going to say no to one applicant. When I have said yes to other applicants who are now today making the exact same arguments against an approval.

So this is a non-starter for me. I’m going to support the work that our staff have done in recommending this. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions.

Councillor Hopkins. Thanks for recognizing me. I do want to save most of my comments. So on the amendment, I would encourage the committee not to support the change.

I do appreciate the Councillor’s concern around all that concrete and also the landscaping and the planting that’s being considered. But I do think this has been a long time coming and there is a recommendation that I’d like to speak to further. So I would encourage the committee not to support the amendment. Look for other comments or questions.

Councillor Roman. Yes, thank you. So I appreciate the discussion here. And I wanted to second this to allow a conversation.

So I appreciate that we’ve been able to have that conversation. But I won’t be supporting the revision. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair. I will take the chair and ask Councillor Lehman to pause just a moment while I open my timer. And go ahead. Thank you.

Yeah, I echo Councillor Romans view it. This is worthy of a conversation. I just want to ask staff, what was your reasoning behind recommending this application, given the concerns about setbacks? Well, let’s go to staff for their response to that.

Through you, Mr. Chair, we did our review of the London Plan policies in the Riverbends of secondary plan policies. And we felt that this intensification was appropriate through those policies to implement reduced side yards as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so I’m not going to be supporting the motion. This is becoming a very unique area of the city with West 5 and Riverbend. In fact, I was down there there in a restaurant down there.

It’s a growing viable node, I think, of the city that has this type of development going on. So I will support that. And that’s the end of my comments, sir, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

And I will return the chair to you with no one else on the speaker’s list at this time. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor. To have a motion moved and seconded, I will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carry or fails two to three. Thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Loz. And, Chair, I just— I voted incorrectly on that one, but the motion failed.

So I’m not going to ask for a revote. I will just put the staff recommendation on the floor. OK. I’ll look for a seconder for that motion.

Councillor ramen is seconded. I’ll look for discussion or comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me. I am the ward councillor for this area. And I know this application has been a long time coming. It is— I do have a couple of questions.

My first comment, I guess, is I’m pleased that there’s a holding provision here. I think it’s important that the sanitary considerations in this area be taken into account. So that holding provision is there. I have a question around the recommendation.

And as it relates to Part C, there is a trail that goes around the swim pond, which is just to the west for this development, just south of Oxford at Westdale. And if you look at that trail that goes around the swim pond, it sort of ends up where the commercial building is. And it’s fenced in. I have had a resident reach out to see if what the plans for this trail are.

I understand in the recommendation in C, it does speak to providing a connection to the swim pond block to the south. But it’s not really specific to how this trail and where it goes to— there’s no point having a trail that goes nowhere, be it fenced to the commercial. Through this application, will that trail be considered being completed around the swim pond? It is an area that many residents in the area use and walk the trails.

So that’s my first question. Yeah, I’ll go to staff on that. OK, through you, Mr. Chair.

After some discussions with perks planning, we went through this proposed request for site plan. And they had noted that through this whole process, the applicant has proposed a connection from the jot down to the south. So it’s not right along the south lot line. It’s actually along the west lot line.

And it will connect and open up, like you were asking for, to the pathways to the storm water management plan. Councillor. Good to hear that. Thank you very much for that information.

I just want to make— just to further comment, supporting the recommendation. But I know this is going to go through a site plan process. And I really do appreciate the applicant doing that tearing down on the river bend roadside to sort of look into that residential development that’s on that east. I would encourage the applicant through that site plan process to maybe even look at tearing to the south for how that’s going to work forward.

I’m not exactly sure. But I would like to encourage the applicant there and supporting the application. Thank you. Thank you.

Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.

OK, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 279 Sarnia Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the BPM. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look to the applicants.

See if the applicant would like to address us. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members, public city staff. My name is Danieli.

I’m here with my colleague Harry Froses and the property owner Marco Palombu. And I’m pleased to be here this afternoon to present his MBA application for 279 Sarnia Road. Firstly, we’d like to congrats, city staff, and thank them for their work, especially Isaac, for preparing the staff report and reviewing the application. We have carefully revealed the staff report and we are thankful for the recommendation approval.

We have also reviewed the additional special provisions and the holding provision and we are happy with them. Just to highlight the few details, this proposal is to redevelop the lands, to have two blocks of three story back-to-back townhouses. And it’s going to have 20 units in total with a density of nine units per hectare. This is a great addition to the area.

That’s much needed in housing. As outlined in the staff report, there are some public concerns in regards to the parking spaces. And I would like to remember that we are currently providing a parking rate as 0.5 parking spaces per unit, which meets the zoning requirements. And if you have any questions, I will be here to answer.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address us. Mr.

Levin, good to see you. Good to see you. You have five minutes, please go ahead. I wanted to say on behalf of the Orchard Park short forest neighborhood association executive that we want to thank the staff from Zalinka Priemmo, as well as Mr.

Palumbo for having a non statutory community meeting to explain the proposal to us. Our executive has met and discussed it, and we feel it is the appropriate development in an appropriate place. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for other members of the public that would like to address committee. Last second clerk, there’s anyone online. Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close BPM, Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, Councilor Raman. Thank you. I’ll look to move the staff recommendation.

I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Frank, motion moved and seconded. Any discussion, questions for staff? Councilor Frank.

I like this infill too. I’m gonna start counting your words and get to a record. Many other comments or questions. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, 3.7. This is regarding 1210 and 1240 Warren Cliff Road South. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM.

Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. Can you hear me?

Are you online? Oh yeah, please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, committee and staff.

My name is Connor Wiltz and I’m a planner with Dillon Consulting Limited. I’m representing the owners of 1210 and 1214 Warren Cliff Road. We are currently seeking to rezone the site from the existing UR4 zone to a site specific R5-7 zone to permit 108 stacked town home units. We support staff’s recommendation for the rezoning and I’ll be available for any questions.

Thank you. I don’t see too many people left in chambers. Looks if anyone willing to address us. I’ll start clerk if there’s anyone online.

Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor ramen seconded by councilor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look to committee for the motion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll move the staff recommendation. For a seconder, councilor ramen seconds. The motion moved and seconded any discussion, comments. Then I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that concludes the scheduled items. We have one item for direction. This is regarding the Hyde Park BIA boundary expansion request.

This is an interesting topic. We haven’t had a BIA expansion since, I believe, downtown put Richard Row into their domain. There is a request from a delegation from Ms. Cowsby and Mr.

Delaney. So I’ll look for a motion to approve that. Councilor ramen seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. And we’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, Donna, we have five minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the planning and environment committee and staff. And thank you very much for your time and consideration of our request. My name is Donna Smikowski. I am the CEO and general manager of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association.

And along with me is our chair, Tom Delaney. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about our request for your support and approval for initiating a BIA boundary expansion process. Excuse me, in northwest London. It’s important to note that we are not asking for a boundary expansion to be approved at this time.

But to approve that the Hyde Park BIA work closely with city staff to engage further with property owners and tenants, ensuring all voices are heard before a final vote in about eight to nine months. Excuse me, asthma all of a sudden kicking in. We believe this process will lead to a favorable outcome that supports not just the businesses but the broader community. Without losing sight of the work we have done in creating what we believe is a strong and established BIA and a commercial area in Hyde Park, we look forward to continuing our work within the expanded boundaries as identified.

Since inception of the BIA in Hyde Park, our vision has always been with an expansion of this nature in mind. And as such, we trademarked the words uptown London a number of years ago. Our request to expand the Hyde Park BIA boundaries is rooted in a concept of interconnected commercial nodes that will form a cohesive collaborative network across this growing region. Hyde Park, Sherwood Forest, Oak Ridge for example, would be recognized as distinct yet connected commercial nodes under the banner of the Uptown London Business Improvement Association.

Our intention is to create a unified identity by fostering a sense of belonging for our businesses across Uptown London while defining and maintaining the unique character of each commercial node in the BIA. By expanding our boundaries, we can offer the same structured resources, advocacy, streetscape improvements, and promotional opportunities to businesses in these areas. Businesses that are facing similar challenges but don’t have access to the collective strengths a BIA can offer. We are keenly sensitive to the concern of maintaining the characteristics of identity that has been built in Hyde Park and believe that we have the insight and capacity to preserve that while creating a BIA experience other offers value for businesses across Uptown London.

Why would geographical boundaries are significantly larger than the existing BIA, now about 400 businesses and property owners? The actual number of new businesses in the expansion would be approximately 250 businesses in addition, a size that remains consistent with BIA’s across the province. Last to address Wonderland Road, it’s a busy corridor where we believe there is opportunity to work with businesses in these commercial nodes in helping them capitalize on traffic that currently passes through. This is in addition to helping to facilitate connections between transit and the business community.

We respectfully ask for your support in initiating this process so that together we can continue to help local businesses thrive in Northwest Uptown London. Thank you again for your time and your consideration. Thank you. I’ll go to the committee now.

I believe Councilor Raman had a motion prepared, so I’ll go to your council. Thank you and through you and to help frame our discussion for today. I’d like to move the following recommendation. That civic administration be directed to take the necessary steps to expand the boundary of the Hyde Park BIA.

It being noted that the planning and environment committee received a communication date at October 8th from Donna Spikowski, general manager and CEO Hyde Park BIA. I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Councilor Frank seconds. So I will open the floor for comments.

I’ll go to Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I’ll be speaking as a member of council, not in my role on the BIA, but I wanted to share some of the reasons why I’m supportive of the application. But first I wanted to just clarify some process questions if it’s okay with Mr.

McCully through you. And specifically, and I know that don’t, sorry, Ms. Spikowski also made reference to the next steps in the process. But I know that the BIA undertook some engagement steps already and they’ve provided us with that feedback.

But what are the next steps in this process? Should this motion go forward today? I will go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

It’s important to note that this is a very initial step in the expansion process. What happens next is once we get approval from council to undertake an exploration of this, is we will work with the BIA to establish and scope a boundary that will engage business owners interested in the expansion process. We will work to provide notice of the process, the steps involved. And then we can provide some information on the proposed levy and some levy scenarios as to what businesses can expect.

Should we undertake the next step, which would be returning to committee with a draft by-law and asking for that approval, approval for the second phase of the project. During the second phase of the project, that’s when we would send out formal notice to all assessed commercial and industrial rated properties within that expansion area. And we would provide them with an opportunity to review the by-law. We would host open houses with the BIA in order to provide further information.

And then ultimately we provide a 60 day notice for any businesses within that area to object to this by-law. We would then return back to council a third time and ask for the by-law to be approved or quashed depending on the results from that polling scenario. So again, it’s important to note that an expansion process is quite large long. We have an internal process with about 36 steps.

This is step four on the list. Thank you, councilor. Thank you. That was very helpful.

Step four of potentially 36 steps. How long do you see this process taking? And I also wanted to ask a question about the objection threshold if you could comment on that. Those stuff.

Thank you through the chair. So we are estimating approximately eight months to 12 months for this process to unfold. The biggest thing that staff we want to make sure is that all intended businesses and property owners and tenants within this expansion receive notice and are aware of the proposal that’s going to be put in front of them. So we want to make sure that that engagement piece is thoughtfully developed and explained and questions are answered and that the business community has an opportunity to engage with us and engage with the BIA on the next steps in this process.

And then the second piece, when we actually come forward with a draft bylaw and send out notice, individuals that receive that notice, property owners and tenants, they will have a 60 day period to voice any objections in order for the bylaw to be successful in the expansion to be successful. We require no more than one third objecting to it. So in other words, if more than one third of individuals inform us that they object to this bylaw, we would quash it and provide that recommendation and it would not pass. It is important to note that individuals that do not respond to the bylaw, that is taken in the affirmative.

Thank you. Our counselor. Thank you and I appreciate those answers. As I stated, this is the next step in the process to allow city staff and the BIA to engage further and to discuss the merits of an expansion with owners and tenants.

And to me, this is a very, very needed conversation at this point, not only because engagement started in the summer, but mostly because what I’ve heard from the parts of the boundary expansion that are within my current ward was a desire to have representation of a BIA. And this came up a lot last year for tenants and businesses in the area that reached out to me about how they voice some of their concerns and unifying that voice on some concerns. And so I do think that there is a desire. It’s interesting too, because I sometimes receive calls or comments when I go out to visit a new business or a business in the area.

And they think that they are part of the BIA already. And then I have to go over the current boundaries and say, unfortunately, actually, you’re not right now, but they express an interest and a desire to be part of the BIA because they are in close proximity or have had a relationship for some time. And that kind of exists throughout. I like the idea of having a BIA that then has different nodes and different commercial nodes within it to allow for further discussion.

And again, this being step four, I do think that there’s a willingness here to have these discussions from the staff side from what I’ve heard. And then take that feedback to the BIA who will be part of the engagement as well. And then there’s right sizing that can happen. There’s other modifications, if should the feedback be not what that is exactly here in the map.

So for that reason, I think this is a good opportunity for us to continue to move forward on an economic development initiative. Unfortunately, I think we do not have enough economic initiatives right now going on in this city. And this is one where we’re engaging with the business community in a way through the BIA, through city staff, to talk about some of their and reach out. And I think in any kind of engagement right now has the opportunity to provide us with some really valuable feedback.

And for that reason, I’ll be supporting it. Thank you, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Councilor ramen, for sharing your thoughts.

And Ms. Bukowski, you and I had a great conversation on the phone about this. So I’m gonna take this opportunity to then express that I support a boundary expansion for the Hyde Park BIA. I’m gonna share a few comments about some reservations I have about the proposed boundary expansion and ask a couple of questions of staff about the next steps in the process ‘cause I wanna make sure I understand it fully.

First of all, I will say, and I’m gonna put my Argal BIA head on here for just a moment, I like the idea of a BIA with different notes. And in fact, this is the first in a while, but it won’t be the last boundary expansion you have coming your way, because I know that the Argal BIA is working on a proposal for an expansion as well. And we may be in a similar situation where we actually wanna have a secondary node. And so I like the approach and the labeling of the node.

I’m concerned though that this is perhaps biting off a lot more than we can chew in terms of the geographic area of coverage. And particularly when we start getting down Wonderland Road and into the Costco site and some of the other chain franchises in there. And one of the things that I appreciate about BIA’s is the voice it gives to the owner operator, the mom and pop businesses. And I get a little concerned when some of the larger franchises get involved and either A, don’t participate, but complain a lot.

Or B, participate at such a rate that the mom and pops get sort of drowned out. And so I’m a bit concerned about the size, but I can see some logic in a further expansion down Fanshawe Park Road, a further expansion down Hyde Park Road. That makes a lot of sense to me. The Wonderland Road piece, I’m a little more hiffy about to be quite honest.

And I’m not sure. I also don’t spend as much time in the ward as the word counselors do, both of them who are on this committee. So maybe there’s connections that I’m not as strongly aware of as they might be. So I’m open to having this discussion.

What I want to make sure we’re not doing today is that we’re not saying these are the boundaries that we’re going to approve an expansion on. And so I want to understand a little bit more through you chair to our staff, through the engagement process. When you are coming back to us, would there be a phase where you’re going to come back to us and say, okay, this is where we are at this point. We haven’t yet gone to an objection vote, but based on our preliminary feedback, we’re actually recommending Council consider a smaller area.

This is what the smaller area would look like before we go starting to look for supporter objections, is Council okay with this? Or do we go right to use set the boundary and do the engagement and see the support and objections? And we only see it come back when we’re looking for a vote. I’ll go to staff through the chair.

If that’s something that that committee and ultimately Council is looking for, this might be an opportunity to provide like a, like a bit more of a comprehensive report back first, just to set some of our principles of why BIA’s exist and provide some more details on maybe some best practices for BIA’s. That could help us in working through any future applications, but also through this, the most recent request by Hyde Park. Councilor Wier. Okay, and that’s helpful because I, you know, I know there was another motion prepared in East Drive that says staff report back and I liked that option, but I’m not opposed to supporting what’s here in terms of going forward, working with the BIA and following through maybe up to step 22 or something, and then coming back to us seems like you got a lot of steps to go still.

So as long as there’s sort of a touch base point with us again in the process, I’m amenable to the work being started and see where things go. I think it also creates an interesting opportunity for some discussions around what other BIA’s may do. And what right sizing there looks like. I’m going to apologize in advance because I have not said anything to Councilor McAllister about this and I know it impacts one of his BIA’s, but you know, maybe this also spurs a conversation about is a small, too small BIA’s like OEV and Hamilton Road, more appropriately, two nodes of a larger BIA.

And so that they’re not struggling with funding because they’re now funded sufficiently through a levy. I like that kind of thing I think is potentially a discussion that’s held here. I think even for the downtown BIA, the node concept actually offers an interesting approach to the Dundas place sort of merchants and the Richmond Row merchants, where I know that the issues and the desires are not always aligned. And I know that that causes some push and pull between the downtown BIA members, too.

So I think that there’s lots of interesting opportunities to explore here. And so my only concern was making sure that there was a touch base or a couple of touch base points with us before we were getting a final map. So I don’t need you to run through all 32 steps the remaining of the 36, but I just want to understand a little bit better what that looks like. Councilor Pribble.

Sorry, can we have Mr. McAllister? I’m sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Please go ahead and answer it, Deputy Merris.

Thank you. Through the Chair, just to clarify on the process, there will be two more touch points that we will have with committee. So again, after today’s meeting, we will go back and we will work to scope that boundary depending on the interest level and the numbers, the polling numbers that we get back from engaging with the business community. The next touch point that we would come forward is with the draft by-law.

That’s when we would have a prepared map with all the identified properties in what we would consider a finalized boundary. It is at that point we present the draft by-law and principal to committee and council would pass that. And then that starts the clock where we send out formal notice to all those identified properties and tenants and begin the by-law notice period and then receive those objections. And then the third touch point with committee and council is when we return after that 60-day period with the noted objections.

So there is an opportunity for council to weigh in on the final boundary when we return next prior to formally going out to the community with the intended boundary. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. That’s knowing that you’ll be back before us twice.

That gets me to a comfort level where I can support this today. I guess my only other comment would be, I don’t know if I love the branding uptown BIA, maybe the Spakowski BIA considering all the work that you have put into this over the years. I know it’s been a labor of love and blood, sweat and tears along the way. But I think a lot of us might still think kind of of Masonville as more of the uptown along Richmond.

But that’s your branding. So you do what you will with it. But I really appreciate the work that you’ve and the thought you’ve put into this, particularly around the nodes piece and how that might interact for other BIAs in the future. Because I think this feels like a new approach to me.

Certainly in London, it would be a new approach. And I think that there’s some lessons that we can take from this as we move through this process that we can apply to other BIAs as well. So thank you. No, Councillor Permeau.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When it will come to the Council, I will be supporting you based on what I heard today. And also thank you, Mr.

Delaney and Ms. Spakowski to return my calls. But I want to say a couple of things. The first one is when we do do, or when the work is done with the area, it needs to be done with both property owners and operators.

Really both. And I want to clarify one thing. When I was told when the staff mentioned that we’ll be going out and talking to both, are we going to be presenting to them also in this time? Approximately how much the costs would be.

So they know. And a couple of things, why I think it’s really important to owner operators. Because as we all know, it’s going to the property tax. Some owners, building owners, property owners, they will not increase the rent leases some will.

And I think that both sides, they need to be right from the beginning. They got to know all the details. So I just want to clarify if they will be advised how much, because I’m quite sure some of them don’t know if it’s $5 or $50,000 a year. They have no idea.

Oh, good stuff. Thank you. Through the chair. So there’s a couple of things to consider when we talk about the levy rates that are assessed to the owners and operators.

When we go out and engage with the community, what we can provide is the current 2024 levy rate, as it was assessed. The way the BIA levy works is when the budgets are tabled and council approves, administration will then go back and based on the approved budget, then determine the levy for the upcoming tax year. The second thing to consider is that when an expansion takes place, it is possible that the new budget that the BIA returns with might include a reduced levy because of the additional businesses that have been included in that area. So we can provide a couple options.

Part of the process is some levy scenario exploration. So I believe what we will do is provide notice when we do engage with the community of the historical levy rates assigned in that BIA area, and then also some potential or a range of levy rates for the businesses so that they can take that into the consideration prior to us sending out the formal by-law notice and going through that process. Also, thank you. Just last comment.

Be prepared for two things. How much is it going to cost me and what am I getting? That’s, I believe that 99.9% will be asking you. Thank you.

I’ll go to council for it. Thank you and also appreciate the conversations I’ve had regarding this application. I’m generally supportive of it. The only question I have and through the chair to Donna, we had chatted a little bit about it on the phone, but I just wanted to reconfirm the intentions that if in this area if it was to move forward and get approved and the whole boundary expanded and collected all those areas, that it doesn’t prohibit the future use or plans for social services or hubs within those areas, as we know there has been some tension regarding BAA’s and having social services.

So I just wanted to reconfirm the intention with that. So I will go up to Ms. Zapakowski, which I always apologize for not rolling off. It’s probably the cow going down.

Please go ahead. Thank you, Skyler. Councillor Frank. Yes, we will continue to work with the city when we are asked to meet the needs of our growing and ever-changing city, especially when it comes to some of the issues that you’ve identified, for sure.

Councillor. Thank you. I’m glad to hear that, because I think that every part of the city needs to be making sure that we’re pulling in the same direction. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair. I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Layman.

Thank you. So I’ve sat on the I-Park BIA board. This has been on the radar for a while now. I do have some concerns.

And not both positive and perhaps the other way. The biggest concern I have is that the High Park BIA is a terrific BIA. I think you do a great job. And I’m concerned that that has a potential to be harmed because of dilution, because of the sheer size of the geographical area.

We’re looking at adding, I think I counted up like maybe five different nodes. We’ve talked about nodes. I think there’s Wonderland and Fanshawe. They’re sure would force mall.

There’s Oxford and Beaver Brook. And then you come farther down Wonderland to Oxford and Wonderland. And that’s just the Wonderland portion. So across the top down the South Long Wonderland, then over into my ward, even though my ward does stretch to the West side of Wonderland there, extending down High Park down to Oxford and High Park.

So a lot of different interests, I think, in different shopping areas. Divergent that will be, I think, a challenge, quite frankly, for the board of this expanded BIA. But not something that I’m saying that can’t be met. Like, I think I can, but I just want to recognize the challenge that I see there.

On the other hand, each of those areas aren’t, on their whole, aren’t big enough for their own BIA. Perhaps maybe Oxford and Wonderland up to Beaver Brook, theoretically, is big enough. And it’s a pretty big commercial hub. But all the other areas that I mentioned, I don’t think that they would be big enough to support their own BIA quite frankly.

So this might be an opportunity for those merchants to have a voice in a BIA that that they’re currently not getting. And with concerns about the levy that Councilor Pribble raised, I share those concerns as long as they know what they’re getting. And they might say, “Hey, that’s a great deal.” You know, for 1,000 or 1,500 bucks or whatever. It is a year I get a voice in the actions of the BIA.

And for what they’re going to present to me in terms of enhanced commercial experience, that will enhance my business. Yeah, that’s a great deal. So I believe that has to be clearly pointed out. And I think it’s an opportunity.

I see here two parties are willing to work together. I don’t see this. I see it’s a collaborative effort that we want to get right here. So in determining the levy impact, you mentioned that the levy might be not as large because now there’s a ton of new revenue coming in that could raise the actual levy for all individual members.

I think that’s a great point that could be worked with the Board of the BIA to see where that lands. So those are just kind of my thoughts where we are here today. I’m glad to hear that there’s a step process because I want to hear back from staff, you know, early on, where they think we should go on this or concerns. That might be raised ourselves and to the current BIA Board as well and where they’re doing it.

And I’m not opposed either, quite frankly, to, you know, Deputy Mayor Lewis raises is maybe does it have to be the whole area? Or does it maybe just consider going across the top on Fanshawe and down Hyde Park, you know, as an option? I don’t know. I think those are just areas that to be explored.

So those are just my thoughts that I want to present. I’ll support the motion for sure to carry this exploration on, but I just want to get that out there at this point. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I am going to return the chair to you.

I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Okay, thank you. We’ve got a motion moved and seconded. I don’t see any other speakers, so I will call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So we’re on to five, 5.1 for matters list.

I’ll look for a motion to receive the list. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions? Councillor ramen.

Thank you. And this is in regards to the revised deferred matters list. I’m just wanting to make sure that by moving these to some of the items to other committees, it won’t affect timelines or anything like that. I’ll go to staff.

To the chair, I don’t believe it would change the timelines, but certainly if there are delays or other information that needs to be done, they would be in connection with through council. But ultimately, I know that we’ve postponed, let’s say, the green development standards, and we’ve been in touch with the council that raised that request, but due to other projects and implications that way. Thank you. And maybe I’ll just follow up with parks and forestry, because a lot of them are moving from this committee to another committee once we restructure after November 30th.

So I just want to confirm that that’s the case, and I’ll do that before council. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the deferred matters list?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

I’d like to welcome those of you that just joined us. You missed all the fun in the action. I’ll just let you know that today, this committee approved zoning for 875 units. You might have read that London faces as Canada faces a housing crisis of getting homes and units built to add to supply to keep a lid on prices.

So it was a good day. This has to go to council with our recommendations. And that’ll be two weeks. Yeah, two weeks.

So council will take recommendations from this committee, plus other standing committees and for final approval. So thank you for joining our portion of our day today. Chair, we still have one more item on the additional business list. No, I’m sorry.

This was not my original note. So we do have a request for a delegation from urban routes. So I’ll look for a motion to approve that delegation. Council Raman seconded by Councilor Frank.

I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll delegations ready to speak.

Please. Oh, there we are up there. Sorry. Thanks, Councilor.

I see you up there. Please give us your name in five minutes. Hi, my name is Anna Badeo. I’m the executive director of urban routes London.

I just wanted to express my gratitude to be able to speak to the proposed motion that will be following that will greatly impact the future of urban routes London and the food security work that we’re providing in our city. As a small organization that is rapidly growing to keep up with the increased demand for affordable produce, we never intended as an organization to be a long-term landlords. Purchasing the land was a means to secure our growing location in the city and to increase the growth of our capacity. Since we’ve started our project to grow affordable produce at a commercial scale since 2017, we’ve been able to distribute over 100,000 pounds of food, organically grown produce to our city.

And I just want to specify that in 2017, that was 500 pounds of food. Whereas now in 2024, we can produce over 22,000 pounds of food on just one acre of land. And 60,000 pounds of that 100,000 pounds was sold at an affordable rate, 25,000 has been distributed out through donations to other organizations providing frontline work for food security in our city. We’ve impacted over 7,000 individuals and 2,500 families since 2021.

That’s not including the statistics from this year. Just through our community pop-up markets alone. For over the years, urban routes London has become a stable local produce supplier for our city. And we wish to be able to continue that rewarding work for the years to come.

In order for us to be able to do that, we need to severance the house and the land so that we can sell the house to pay off our loans we took out in order to purchase the property back in 2021 without having this daunting looming debt over us. We’ll be able to focus more of our efforts on growing affordable produce for our community to continue to increase food security for those who need access to it the most. I just want to end on this notion that if this motion is supported it gives a great example of collaboration across many actors and stakeholders for a community urban farm to be established. It took social finances, large and small donations, a non-profit organization, neighbors and the city to work together in ways to make it possible.

I just want to leave it there and I’m open for any questions that you may have. I also submitted a letter that gave background information of purchasing the land and where we’re at right now. Thank you. I’ll go to committee now, Councilor Frank.

Thank you and I appreciate the delegation from Urban Roots and all the hard work you guys do. I love your produce and your events. I just wanted to highlight and I realize now that members of our committee did not receive this but there was a motion that was submitted on Tuesday, October 15th to this agenda and just realized that it’s not on here but it was a motion from Councilor McAllister myself regarding a bit more background on this but I’m happy to speak to it and then perhaps have it added to the council agenda. I think that might be the most feasible thing but there is a motion included in that and which is also included in e-scribe which is great but again specifically supporting the works that Urban Roots does and supporting their requests for funding from the community investment reserve fund in order to cover the cost of severing this land.

I think we heard quite eloquently the rationale is to why it’s required but being able to support food security in the city and being able to support the work that Urban Roots does in the community I think is incredibly important and they don’t often come to us for support or funding and given we do have money in reserves and the amount they’re seeking for is minimal and very difficult to fundraise for. I’m supportive of making a motion for civic administration to be directed to allocate that funding as per the motion e-scribe and I imagine that the word one Councillor would like to speak to this probably more thoroughly than myself. Okay thank you do I have a seconder for that motion Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. Councillor McAllister do you like to speak to this?

Yes thank you and appreciate the the committee recognizing me I’m not often a peck but I appreciate being here today and really I’m just here to lend my support to Urban Roots. They do so much good work not only in my award but across the city. I know this committee often focuses on the housing but as part of that food security is always top of mind from my residence and I know a lot of Londoners also feel that as well. They’ve been just great partners in terms of what they do in the ward largest urban ag farm we have.

They support a lot of the community organizations we have through their donations and really getting produce out there as a healthy alternative for families is so very important. As Councillor Frank said they don’t often come to us this is something that they do need to do to kind of right size their operations. They do have a residential component which they don’t really require so they’re looking for our support and I would kindly ask the committee support this. They do a lot of good and I really think this is part of our initiative to support a lot of our strategic goals to support an organization like this so thank you.

Thank you all. Go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you Chair so I’ll speak to the merits and my seconding of this in a moment. The key question I have through you though to our staff is from a planning perspective any concerns with the severance request.

Now I know severance is a delegated authority now at this point but are we doing anything now that will present a problem to staff from a planning perspective in terms of severing the residential property from the ag use. I’ll go staff. Thank you through the chair the process that we were talking about and my conversations with Councillor McAllister were primarily on the cost to do those those application processes so it wouldn’t have any that may be an outcome that is favorable or not favorable but having said that it’s the to cover the fees for those applications. Deputy Mayor.

And so in a very real way we are transferring some of our community investment reserve fund to the planning and development division to cover the fees for the processing. Go staff. Thank you through the chair my understanding at the end of the day as long as there’s application fees that are paid it is a there is a by-law fees by-law so we as staff cannot waive fees we can reduce fees we can at the end of the day as long as there is some recognition of the notice that goes out the staff time that goes into those applications so that’s where the application fees come in handy. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor. Yes thank you and that’s kind of what I wanted to get to is really in the grand scheme of things we’re not really giving urban routes 23,000 and some change to go off and pay a bunch of bills of their own they’re actually going to be paying city bills to continue to do the work that they’re doing and because and I recognize and I absolutely agree that we can’t and we shouldn’t look to change policies to start allowing fee waivers but I’m I’m happy to support this I will say I’m going to take a slightly different approach than my two previous colleagues that I know we have had urban routes come before us before through the community grants process and and then they have been successful in that but I think that is one of the examples of community grants that has been excellent and a successful investment and and a good return on investment for the community I don’t think that all the community grants have been that way but I think urban routes is actually an example of an excellent excellent applicant who’s taken the grant funding that they’ve received and put it to excellent use so this is a very very small amount from a an investment community risk investment reserve fund that has a fairly substantive balance at the moment so I don’t have any concerns I have been to urban routes events I have also heard those secondhand stories from some of the partnerships that they’ve had with the school boards in terms of education and opportunities for young people and in addition to the food growth I think that that partnership in educating our young people brings a value that we don’t or shouldn’t underestimate and those are opportunities that would not exist for Thames Valley school board students if urban routes was not there so I’m also aware that attempting to rezone the property in the past was problematic we are dealing with floodplains we are dealing with upper tems and there would be section 28 and there’s servicing challenges there all of which are significantly more money than this amount of money would be so I’m very pleased with this motion happy to support the word counselor and the mover on this and support urban routes and continuing to the work that they do thank you other comments or questions the committee will permit me just a quick comment from the chair thank you miss bidilla on your team for coming today I think this is a good example for other nonprofits to use I’m very impressed with the fact that you’ve reached out to all aspects of the community I see some good pro bono work being done you’ve done good work before coming here like the tempting thing is just come here and ask for money and as you know it’s challenging for taxpayers in London so this type of effort from my perspective is very much appreciated and for sure it leads me to supporting this motion there’s no other comments or questions we have motion moved in second at all call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero now I believe that’s the end of the agenda I get the hot the head nod from the clerk and from council frank so that’s all powerful so all the promotion adjourned deputy mayor Lewis seconded by council roman hand vote all in favor thank you thanks everyone thank you folks for coming today stuff yeah do you think so they’re all going to move so staff and