November 12, 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 Item 2.1 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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

2024-11-12 Staff Report - Monthly Housing Update 2024 (BC_TM)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated November 12, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3640 Dingman Drive (OZ-9771)

2024-11-12 Staff Report - 3640 Dingman Drive (IdC) OZ-9771

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 The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 3640 Dingman Drive:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Commercial Industrial Place Type and Environmental Review Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM Commercial Industrial TO Open Space and Environmental Review;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2024 as Appendix “B” 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, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Open Space (OS1) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i) explore opportunities to provide enhanced all season landscape buffers and appropriate privacy fencing along the eastern property line;

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

  • a communication dated November 8, 2024 from J. Kennedy; and,

  • a communication dated November 11, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  • M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Try Recycling; and,

  • A. Johnson;

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

  • the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which promotes healthy, active and inclusive communities by planning and providing for the needs of persons of all ages and abilities in the distribution of a full range of publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails and linkages;

  • the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building Policies and Green Space Place Type policies, and will facilitate recreation facilities that play a significant role in creating healthy communities; and,

  • the recommended amendments facilitate a regional sports park to support the City’s commitment to provide exceptional recreational opportunities to the residents of London;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   383 Clarke Road & 1906 Whitney Street (Z-9779)

2024-11-12 - Staff Report (3.2)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of DBNM Investment & Management Ltd., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design), relating to the property located at 383 Clarke Road and 1906 Whitney Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 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 R2 (R2-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2/Residential R8 (h-89*R2-3/R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

  • the Project Fact Sheet from D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

  • a communication dated November 11, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial 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;

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

  • the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability, and initiatives related to the Housing Accelerator Fund;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1195 Gainsborough Road (Z-9782)

2024-11-12 - Staff Report (3.3)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of 1966822 Ontario Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1195 Gainsborough Road, the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on 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 Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI1) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial Special Provision (h-17LI1()) Zone and an Open Space Special Provision (OS4()) Zone;

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

  • the revised by-law;

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

  • M. Litwinchuk, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • P. Bielman;

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;

  •  the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Commercial Industrial Place Type policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   145 Base Line Road West (Z-9783)

2024-11-12 - Staff Report (3.4)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1000915350 Ontario Inc., (c/o Siv-ik), relating to the property located at 145 Base Line Road West:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-1) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(_)) Zone;

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

i) in consultation with Municipal Housing Development, a provision of entering into a temporary rental unit accommodation agreement for existing tenants be entered into; and,

ii) a parking management plan be included in the site plan approval process for the following reasons:

A) the current lines are not clearly painted;

B) the current angle parking is not being utilized correctly;

C) establish designated parking spaces for each unit; and,

D) accommodate parking on site;

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

  • a communication dated November 7, 2024, from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

  • a communication dated November 10, 2024 from E. Wilcox and J. Sutherland;

  • a communication dated November 8, 2024 from P. Morris; and,

  • a communication dated November 11, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  • J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

  • Courtney;

  • Bethany;

  • C. Afanador; and,

  • P. Cano;

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

  •  the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, by promoting densities for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active and public transportation; and,

  •  the proposed intensification can be appropriately accommodated on the subject lands and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

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)

3.5   566 Southdale Road East and 818 Easy Street (Z-9785)

2024-11-12 Staff Report - 566 Southdale Rd E and 818 Easy St (AR) Z-9785

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 Paradise Homes Inc., (c/o Siv-ik), relating to the properties located at 566 Southdale Road East and 818 Easy Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone TO a holding a Residential R3/Residential R8 Special Provision (h-18*R3-2/R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the Owner shall consider removing surface parking to accommodate additional amenity space.; and,

ii)    screen the proposed parking area from Easy Street using an all-season landscape buffer;

iii) opportunities to consider an increase of 1.5 metres between the parking lot and the property line;

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

  • the Project Fact Sheet from C. Taylor, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

  • a communication dated November 4, 2024 from G. Pepe;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended 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 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 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 C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   Site Alteration By-law

2024-11-12 - Staff Report (3.6)

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a proposed fee structure prior to the November 26, 2024 Council meeting

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 26, 2024, introduce a new Site Alteration By-Law to expand the by-law’s coverage to encompass the entire limits of the City, with specific exceptions, addressing the limitations of the existing by-law and repeal By-Law No. C.P.-1363-381;

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   1408 and 1412 Commissioners Road West (Z-9780)

2024-11-12 - Staff Report (3.7)

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 Domday Developments, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1408 and 1412 Commissioners Road West:

a)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 12, 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 C, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) enhanced landscaping along the interior and rear boundaries that exceed the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law; 

ii) the front face and principle building entrance shall be oriented toward Commissioners Road West; 

iii) installation of a board-on-board fence that exceeds the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law. 

iv) the two northerly parking spaces in the front yard will only be permitted for temporary parking (for visitors and/or drop-off/pick-up), with a setback of not less than 4.0m from the front lot line;

v) a tree preservation plan be submitted for the rear lot line to the satisfaction of Urban Forestry; and,

vi) the photometric plan include light cast ratings for wall mounted lighting;

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

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

  • a communication dated November 3, 2024 from B. Fink; and,

  • a communication dated November 11, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  • D. Sikelero, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  • B. Moore;

  • Jeff;

-  Judy;

  • C. Krupicz;

  • A. Ward;

  • A. Goossens; and,

  • M. Krupicz;

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, which encourages growth in settlements areas and encourages land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; 

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-11-01 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the November 1, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

6.1  Land Acquisition/ Disposition/ Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality relating to the property located at 39 Carfrae Street.

6.2  Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice/ Litigation/ Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

6.3  Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice/ Litigation/ Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal arising out of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation relating to the property located at 142 Wellington Street.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session from 4:03 PM to 4:53 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 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 (3 hours, 15 minutes)

sound check. I can hear you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone.

I’d like to call the 17th meeting planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwaak, and Ehrwanderan.

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

Please contact PEC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, let’s move on to consent item. One consent item.

I’ll look for a motion from committee. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Robin. I will now put this on the floor for any questions or comments. Councillor Preble.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I have a question if you can go to the first page of the report, page 4. By the way, thank you for including current council term approvals, which we are just over 27,000.

I just want to ask if I understand it’s current, it is truly from the beginning of our term, because when I added up there were few extra, but I think that was the November, December of the start of our term. So I just want to make sure that this number reflects the entire term of our council. Thank you. I’ll go to staff.

Do the chair. So we can confirm if maybe if we can, Councillor can make sure those that date with us and we’ll just reconfirm it. That’s the correct number, but the expectation was that it was to include all of those that proved during that term. So we’re happy to look at the other calculations that were prepared.

Councillor, thank you for that. And again, thank you for including that. On the next page, and thank you again for including now the, based on the average kind of our year and projection with having kind of, I don’t know, six, seven weeks left to the end of the year, do we feel confident we can get over 3,000? And the reason why I’m asking is because actually I was hoping that that’s our goal to get at least over 3,000.

How confident are we? Good staff. Through the chair to the Councillor, the numbers that were used for the November and December figures were the average for the last five years and taken into consideration the same timeframe in the season. I’m sorry.

I did read it. I was hoping to be more confident, but let’s go get there. I know we all do. For 4.0, 4.0, it’s the CMHC.

And there’s one in the middle where it says apartment starts fell in the first six months. And when you go on the CMHC report, it says number one reason are high interest rates. And what kind of a little bit worries me because this is the highest number or very high number that we’ve been approving. And now with the interest rate is going down, do we feel kind of that this is going to change here more in favour?

Because again, we need to put the shovels for these units as well, which was the highest number of approvals staff. Through the chair, absolutely, we’re always very concerned about the interest rates and the impacts they can have both positively and negatively. We’ve been kind of bucking the trend in London where we have actually been approving a lot of apartment dwellings and homes. So we’re hoping that it’s only going to get better as the interest rates start to drop.

And hopefully, ideally, that some of the single family homes and the other types of housing that hasn’t been moving forward in the last couple of years will start to accelerate. So I think that’s a positive thing. It’s going to be more work for us, but we’re excited about. But we definitely are really seeing that we’re hoping that that’s going to have a very positive impact on housing in London.

Thank you. And last question, 5.0 completed housing initiatives. What other months are we expecting to complete before the year end? And are there going to be some outstanding months that we plan to complete and they will not be completed?

Thank you, good staff. Through the chair, so we’re for the most part on track with all of our targeted actions. So probably the biggest one that we’re on time for as well is bringing forward a report on our land needs and the housing analysis that was done. And that’s going to come forward in December.

So this is really the report that will set the stage for what we’re looking at as far as urban growth boundary adjustments. So that is going to be coming forward in December at the PEC meeting. So that’s the most significant. Also in December, you’ll see a report at SPPC related to housing accelerator.

So it’s going to be a summary of all the work that we’ve been doing over the past year, give you an idea of where that funding has been allocated to and give an update on those various initiatives. Councillor. Thank you very much. No more questions?

Other comments or questions from committee? Committee will allow me just briefly from the chair. This, you know, continues positive track. You know, as Councillor Pribble alluded to, there are external factors that affect seeing what we change zoning on to actually seeing, you know, properties built.

And I do see a trend with our building permits, which I believe is best indicator of that by correlating with interest rates. So I’m hoping that continues. And as we’ve discussed before, if that’s the case, we will see an acceleration number of permits coming towards our to our planning group. So I’m confident that we’re prepared with staffing and procedure related to to get those turned around as quickly as possible.

We have a motion moved and seconded. So I’ll call that vote closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Okay, moving on to scheduled items.

First item 3.1. This is regarding 3640 Dingman Drive. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Raman seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call that vote closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Any technical questions for staff from committee at this time? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant, which is us to to kind of present this.

You don’t have to. I think we all through the chair, we can proceed and if. Yeah, well, there are many questions and staff. Yeah.

Okay, then we’ll just go to the public then on this item. Just in the past when we’ve had a staff requesting staff one to say a few words, but that’s fine. We can go that way. So I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item.

Please forgive us your name. You have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Matt Campbell here with Zelenka Priammo here on behalf of the budding landowner to the subject lands here at Tri-Ricycleing. So I want to start out first off saying Tri-Ricycleing is certainly a supporter of this proposed regional sports park. I think this is a great asset to the city. There was a big radio segment saying that city certainly needs more sports facilities and Tri-Ricycleing is certainly supportive of that.

We do have some concerns regarding the compatibility of these two uses. So Tri-Ricycleing operates a heavy industrial use right next door to this proposed regional sports facility and that heavy industrial use involves taking in approximately 100,000 tons of waste and household waste and construction materials. That’s then turned into other products. There’s also contracts for waste processing services with the city and that use obviously involves, I mean, it’s a heavy industrial use.

It involves loaders, grinders, heavy truck traffic, typical of a very heavy industrial use. Typically, we can expect emissions of noise, odor, dust, vibrations and those would likely be perceived offsite. And we just want to be sure that Tri-Ricycleing and their ongoing operations, which again is partly contracted with the city of London, we want to make sure that their operations are not hindered here. Again, Tri-Ricycleing is not opposing the city’s regional sports park.

We just want them to be appropriately protected. And there’s a couple of mechanisms that we can use to ensure that Tri-Ricycleing is protected. One of which is already in the city’s staff report, although I’m going to suggest some augmentation to that. And that is the recommendation that the site plan approval authority be requested to explore opportunities for landscaping.

We might want to go a little bit further on that to request that site plan have a robust landscape buffer along the city’s easterly property line, as well as fencing. We want to make sure that no one is crossing over onto Tri-Ricycleing’s property. You can imagine a situation where you have a big soccer tournament going on with a bunch of little kids. And if you’ve been to a soccer tournament with a lot of kids, there’s a lot of kids running around and eyes are not necessarily on everyone at all times, we want to make sure that no one accidentally ventures onto Tri-Ricycleing’s property.

We think that landscaping and a robust fence would be a great way to mitigate those potential impacts and ensure that users of that sports facility have a great experience. We just want to avoid any negative experiences from those people who are going to be using that great facility that may fall back onto Tri-Ricycleing who are just doing their normal day to day operations. Now I will request that planning committee and through council put together a council resolution that requests that the site plan approval authority enter into an agreement with Tri-Ricycleing to ensure no adverse impact to both their existing operations and their ability to expand north on that property. There’s a significant amount of land that is zoned for a recycling facility and Tri-Ricycleing does have plans in the works to expand that facility.

Again, we want to make sure that this is a highly compatible relationship. Again, Tri-Ricycleing is very supportive of this use. It’s a big booster for all events in the city and we want to ensure that compatibility is maintained so that facility can be as best as it can be. I’m happy to answer any questions on behalf of our client.

Thank you. Thank you. I’d like for other speakers from the public. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Angus Johnson and just to clarify, I’m going to be commenting on actually three different proposals here in the course of what I’m doing so bear with me. First of all, I can see. The last time I talked to this committee, when the Oxford developments were up for consideration, I expressed concern about thousands of vehicles on their resulting transportation emissions. I think that scenario needs a little correcting.

My mistake was to predict that new developments would create large increases in emissions by bringing in new vehicles. Google environmental information about transportation emissions in London in 2023 shows that London’s transportation emissions increased by 4 percent. Significantly, those emissions are higher than pre-COVID 2018. The roughly 273,000 vehicles in London were responsible for roughly three metric tons per vehicle of emissions.

London’s population grew by 0.776 percent, about 4,000 new residents and they brought about 2,500 more vehicles to the city which was responsible for about 7,600 metric tons of emissions. That’s less than one fourth of the 4 percent increase. So most of that 4 percent increase was caused by vehicles already here that were just commuting more. So it’s just a mistake to make too much of a connection between new housing and increased emissions.

The future is going to imitate the past. Only a fraction of new housing will actually be occupied by new population. Most of it will be bought up or rented by population already here. So as most of the 6,700 houses that were sold in 2023 were already purchased by households already here.

And there are probably different factors that contributed to that increased commuting but one major factor still relates to the pandemic. Before the pandemic, 6 percent of London’s workers worked in a home or hybrid model. By May 22nd, it was about 24.5 percent. Since then employers have changed more work back to the non-remote model.

And as the May 24th, the amount of London’s was reduced to 19 percent. So in 2023, a significant number of workers returned to driving the work and contributed to transportation emissions that are now— Mr. Johnson. Yes.

Right now we’re discussing the development at 3640 Dingman Drive. Yeah. So I’ll ask that you keep your comments to that specific item please. All right.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

You have two and a half minutes left. Okay. That message that I intended delivered by the developments, at least two months ago. Unfortunately, my plans for things changed a little and they were turned upside down when I had to deal with three hurricanes in the last 13 months that descended on my home in Tarpen Springs, Florida focusing more my time down there than here.

On the heels of that experience, I have some comments about the relationship between emissions and catastrophic flooding and how it should affect our plans for development here. Like northern hemisphere hurricanes, Helene formed an immense clockwise rotation to wind near the center of the cyclone moisture was actually pushed to the top and rotated to the bottom. So the dangers of the top of hurricanes are wind and rain on the bottom and storm surge. As Hurricane travels further north through the Gulf, the prayers of coastal owners are that it won’t directly hit your backyard or at least that it will make landfall south of where you live.

So you’ll just get rain and windnut storm surge. Helene may landfall near Perry, Florida and the northern nature coast caused unprecedented storm surge flooding for 300 miles to the south. But the real game. Excuse me, sir.

Excuse me. Hold on a second. We have a point of order. Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you, Chair. I’m just wondering if you can remind the speaker again that we have the content of his letter and he’s reading it verbatim and he has one paragraph that’s related to this exact item. I’m just wondering if it’s possible to move to that paragraph. Yes, I thank you for raising that point of order.

I agree with you. Mr. Johnson, again, please get to the point of what we’re discussing here, which is okay. I think I will do you can tie it in.

Please. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right.

Catastrophic rainfall events are developing faster, increasing in size, traveling further and causing more flooding. The science that connects all this to global warming is 300 years old. To this point, London’s closest brush with a massive rain event happened in August 23 in southwest middle sex. What was termed a once in a century deluge implications, a catastrophic flooding risk for the projects considered in this meeting, 3640 Dingman Drive.

The park proposed for 3640 Dingman Drive is an excellent example of a flood mitigation strategy. Green spaces needed to be protected and increased across the city because of their ability to absorb flood waters. For the same reason, we should be limiting growth of pavement and impervious surfaces and increasing water retention areas. Regarding 566 Southdale, easy street and 142 commissioners.

30 seconds. Now, do I get a little more time for doing this because it’s a second item? Sorry, sir. We get five minutes.

These developments need to be redesigned to accommodate the mature trees on these properties that should not be removed. The root structure of these trees creates channels for accelerating the displacement of flood water and easing the effects of flooding. In this way, trees are an important flood mitigation strategy. Regarding 145 baseline Roan West, 383 Clark Road, in these areas, only above-grade buildings should be considered.

That’s your time, sir. Underground parking. That’s enough. Thank you very much.

I’ll look for other speakers. Ah, so clerk, if there’s anyone online, seeing no one online and no one else in the gallery, I’ll look for a motion to close to PPM. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you all. I’ll put this on the floor for committee members looking for a motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis, who’s it?

Councillor ramen seconds. We have motion, move in a second. Look for discussion. Questions.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So, very happy to see this coming forward. It’s generated a lot of excitement in the public already.

And I think that the timing with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update on the Community Protective Services Committee agenda yesterday speaks to how these things move hand in glove across the Corporation of the City of London. We do look at things in coordination. They don’t always line up. That’s the reality of our jobs sometimes.

But in this case, they are lining up. You know, I’ve heard a lot of suggestions already. So, I think it’s really important to not align today. This is a zoning housekeeping change that we’re making.

We are not deciding today what is going to go into that space once the zoning is taken care of. That will be part of a larger conversation that will be held with the community. There will be public consultations. I’m going to presume that when the Parks team takes over, they will be looking at a get involved site and things like that.

But we certainly know that we have a need for outdoor sports field amenities in the City of London. We lost a number of soccer fields when the province sold off the land at the former psychiatric hospital. Excited that there’s 8,400 units of housing coming there. But at the same time, we lost some sports fields.

Soccer might be an option here. Certainly, the game of cricket is or the sport of cricket is exploding in our community. And I know that there’s a lot of interest in perhaps having some appropriate cricket facilities available. Baseball, you know, these things are draws.

I’ve had already some conversations with the folks at tourism London because these kind of regional sports field attractions. While they may not always put heads in beds, and sometimes they will for tournaments, but even when we have played for a day visits to our city from around the region, that does have an economic impact from tourism as well, even those day visits. So I know talking to Mr. Jarvis already over at tourism London, our sports tourism team is excited to see the potential here, too.

And they will engage with our park staff as well. So I hear the excitement. I think it’s important to underline for folks. This is just the first step of what is going to be a long process before we actually develop the site out as parks amenity space.

But it is an important first step. And I think it will also provide some great space in the future as we see more development in that part of the city. I will now take the opportunity, though, to suggest that while I prepared to move the staff recommendation, I do want to move an amendment with respect to the site plan. And it’s a very small one, but I do want to add that the site plan authority be requested to include in the following design.

When we were talking about clause di, they explore the opportunities to provide the enhanced all season landscaper buffers along the eastern property line. I would like that to read all season landscape buffers and appropriate privacy fencing along the eastern property line, because I think the point that was raised by Mr. Campbell on behalf of tri recycling is quite valid. And I have been at sports events where kids wander off.

The eyes are not on a whole team at the whole time. And given the nature of tri’s work next door and tri recycling has always been a great community partner. But given the nature of the work, we don’t want kids wandering over into their facility while the adults are watching the play and misplaced where a player happens to be at the moment, or a ball gets thrown or kicked or whatever off the property, and then they go to retrieve it, and those kinds of things happen. So I would just like to make that small change in part di to include all season landscape buffers and fencing along the eastern property line.

And I’ll just double check with your seconder that that’s fine. She’s not in yes. Okay. So your motion has been changed.

Are you finished? Okay. And I’ll go to Councilor Raman. Thank you.

And through you, you read my mind on the amendment. So thank you for adding that in. So very supportive of the opportunity that’s in front of us, and had very similar concerns to what tri recycling had raised as this is a unique and needed facility, of course, in our community. So definitely want to make sure that we can have facilities that coexist with tri recycling as well.

I’m not sure how many people saw the article from the London Free Press talking about London High School football and the need for football. So of course, you didn’t mention that Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll throw that in there as well. The need for football and astra turf in our community. And so creating more opportunities for that is also really key to keep athletes that play and live in the city in the city for championship games and things like that, as well as our field shortages.

So it is for sure something that I think we’d all like to see. And it’s great to see these amenities coming to this part of the city. We’d love to see more of those as well in the Northwest. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee or visiting councillors? Okay if a committee will permit a comment from the chair. Yeah, this has generated a lot of interest, which I think from the community, which I think gives us an indication that, you know, while housing obviously is our focus here.

There’s no question about it. These other things make cities littable and great and fun, desirable to live in. And with the progress and rush to get rooms over people’s heads, we cannot forget about this aspect. And so I commend staff for being having foresight to be proactive.

Usually these things are thought of once housing is all around. No, we need some facilities here for those folks living there. I think this is the way to go, find areas that we’re going to be developing and get ahead of the curve, set aside land and start making plans for it. And then the development will come around.

So fantastic to see that. I’m glad the deputy mayor mentioned that the uses of this facility and potential uses will be not decided at this committee, but the other committee where the master plan for parks will be presented. And then this facility will be going out for public participation. But within the guidelines of that master plan, everyone has different ideas of what they’d like to see there.

For sure, big fields like soccer, cricket, football, baseball, those are the natural things. I too noticed that our high school championship was being played in St. Thomas, which I don’t think is a good thing. So I’m hoping as we progress with this facility and others that we keep these things in mind.

Okay, sorry, the clerk has advised me that Councillor Ploza has joined us and wishes to speak. So I’ll go to you, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the word, Councillor, thanks for having me today. You’ll have me a couple of times today, actually. Just on this one for you to staff, as you did mention that even in South London, we have lost the sports fields on extra road. So glad that this green space is coming to South London.

But through you to staff, residents are also asking if part of this accommodation could be for a dog park in the area. I know that’s been on the city’s radar as well with this park and outdoor space. Also looking to know there’s a cycling trail that comes down South London past extra road and currently ends at a fence line on city property. Is there any chance that that route could be routed through part of this area to make it to Digman as currently it ends at the fence line.

And you kind of need to go into the creek. That’s just the other side of tri recycling. So I’ll go to staff on that. There’s a question regarding the cycling paths and dog park through the chair.

It’s John Griffin from Parks Design and Construction. I think those two, thanks for your question, Councillor. We can evaluate those types of alternatives through the detailed design process for the project and look at pathway connections and possibly dog amenities for the site when we get to that point. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. I know just sometimes we have different departments working on different things and just letting you know what the public’s feedback so far has been or this last last six years of terms of council. Just supportive of this development and the application.

I know we’re not to cite plan yet, but just realizing the report also says in 2025 you will do public engagement just hoping that the residents who serve in the public liaison committee for the W12A landfill can be made aware of this great project as well. I will do my part in extending it just realizing that they are greeting some space out there anyways and would love to be involved. So thank you and those are my comments. Thank you, Councillor.

I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I have to, I want to respond to something that was said because I think it’s important to underscore this and it relates to this item and the fact that we may need to develop partnership opportunities as well. And with all due respect, Chair, through you, you referenced the Thames Valley District School Board football championships, but I think it’s important to point out that the Thames Valley School Board is not limited to the London City of London boundaries that in fact the final was still played within the Thames Valley School Board catchment area.

And this is one of the challenges I think that we’re going to face in the future as we look to these these regional designs is that we funding is limited at the municipal level as we all know. And I think as we look to partnerships, we’re going to have to keep in mind that some of these lines on maps are sometimes rather arbitrary and that our partners may not always align with the City of London’s municipal boundaries themselves. So whether we’re talking about the school board, we may want to have in a case like this, you know, a purchase of service or a memorandum of understanding with neighboring municipalities like St. Thomas for their ability to use the fields as well.

That might include a financial contribution at some point to developing the site. But I think it’s really important, especially as we look at at areas that are if not on, but in relatively close proximity to the edges of our city that we are cognizant of the fact that there are partnership opportunities that may not align to see these things serve just the residents of London. There may be regional partnerships involved in those. Okay.

Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 383 Clark Road and 1906 Whitney Street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any questions of technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant.

The applicant would like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon members of the committee. My name is Dan Murphy.

I’m a planner with Civic Planning and Design representing our client DB&M Investment and Management Limited. I was the owner and the developer of the property at 383 Clark Road in 1906 Whitney Street. We’re very excited to be reaching this exciting milestone with this development which proposes a two and a half story 10 unit residential development on the subject lens. The site was purchased by our client with the vision to provide infill and intensification through transit oriented development within close proximity to Argon Mall and its transit hub.

As part of this project we underwent our our own community engagement program designed to engage nearby residents early in the planning process. Over 50 postcards were distributed to surrounding homes and businesses, notifying them of this proposed development. We would later host an online webinar on July 30th of this year to share and gather information directly with those residents. Based on the feedback we received we were able to make changes to the site design to address concerns surrounding privacy and the access to the site.

Among those changes a lower buildings a lower building height than what was typically permitted in the R8 zone is being proposed at 10.5 meters or 2.5 stories. The proposal is in keeping with what is existing on the site today and acts to minimize privacy concerns onto adjacent yards. The internal layout of the building has been designed to orient buildings and balconies to the rear and front of the buildings reducing the amount of overlook from the side yards onto neighboring properties. Furthermore privacy fencing will be installed along the boundary of the site to reduce overlook and other privacy concerns.

In response to the site’s the city’s access management guidelines, vehicle access has been provided via Whitney Street removing the potential for vehicle conflicts on Clark Road. This proposal provides for contextual respectful infill and intensification and contributes to a range and mix of housing options within a highly accessible location in East London. Just footsteps from Argonne Mall and the transit up. This proposal meets the intent of the neighborhood’s place type and the London plan.

I want to thank Chloe Serenac and the rest of the planning and development staff for their work on this proposal. We are in full agreement with the staff recommendation and we appreciate your time and consideration of the application today. Thank you. Thank you.

I look for other speakers that would like to address committee ask if there’s anyone online. Seeing none online and no one in the gallery, I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councillor Ramen. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. I’ll look for motion from committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis, motion moves it seconded by Councillor Ramen for discussion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. I’m going to be brief on this one. This is award to development.

Happy to see this coming forward. There were some neighbor concerns expressed during the meeting that was held by the developer. I think that they addressed the majority of the concerns around the privacy part of it. It’s through the architectural design and how the balcony design is done.

This is much needed. When you look at the location, they could have sought a higher, more intense use. They did not, but at the same time, it will be intensifying the use and is infill and will provide some much needed rental units in the east end. Also located directly across the road from Argyle Mall, lots of amenities immediately available to the residents.

A large transit station right across the road for those who need to rely on transit to get around. So it’s a great location for what I would describe as fairly gentle but valuable infill. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0.

Okay. Moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 1195 Gainesboro Road. I’ll look for a motion to open to PPM.

Councilor Frank moves it. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries 5-0. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. Please, sir.

You’re the applicant. That’s right. Okay. You go first.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. All right. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Madeline Wenchuck, Landy’s planner with Salinka Priemel.

We’re the planning consultants for the applicant and this zoning by-law amendment to permit an additional single-story light industrial building on 1195 Gainesboro Road. I’d like to first thank staff for all their work on the project today. We have been working collaboratively with staff to work out the details of this zoning by-law amendment. We have reviewed the staff report and are pleased with the recommendation.

Not only is the purpose of this zoning by-law amendment to permit the permit an additional light industrial building on the subject lands, but also to formalize some of the existing uses within the existing building, as well as add complementary and relatable additional permitted uses on the subject lands. The proposal also provides an appropriate servicing solution, which is to bring servicing from High Park and Gainesboro out to the subject lands in addition to providing enhanced protection to the abutting municipal drain, the Stanton drain, and environmental protection area. Further details regarding this will be defined, redefined through the SPA phase. We have also had extensive discussions with the UTRCA.

We have responded to their questions and concerns and they have expressed satisfaction with the proposal to date. So it’s our professional planning opinion that the policy from a policy perspective, the proposal was supported by all levels of provincial and local planning policy. And finally, which is I think the most important thing, the introduction of this new facility and uses will directly aid in job creation. Lots of people will be employed from the city and surrounding area, thereby contributing directly to the local economy.

That’s all I have today. If anyone has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you.

I look for other members of the public that would like to address this committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Phillip Bielman from 1164 and 1198 Gainesville Road across the road. We’ve owned the property since 1990 and it was within the township of London when we purchased it and it was zoned light industrial.

In 1996 with John Brant, the city moved to annex our lands into the city, which became part of the city of London then. In 2015, the city initiated a move to change the zoning of our property to neighborhoods type and it was concluded in 2022. We have two light industrial buildings there, a 6400 square foot building and a 39,000 square foot building. Subsequent to the move to alter the zoning to neighborhoods type, we have applied for an IPR initial proposed report.

Prior to COVID 2018, there was approved in principle with many requests for studies which we’ve embarked on and completed the archaeological one, for instance, and that’s been registered at the ministry. Some of the concerns I have is that our proposal presented the city was for a fairly well-developed low density residential development, falling in line with the change of zoning for our property. With 70 and 85 foot frontage lots, hopefully to accommodate the net zero approximation in construction and you can’t really do that very well with smaller residences, it’s too expensive. So that’s what we projected and proposed and embarked on doing the studies.

Prior to COVID, continuing to do that and continuing to hope to do that, the concerns that I have is the congruency of uses. Largely in a residential area on the north side of the road, of Gainesville Road up to 1195, there are nine detached homes and two commercial properties. On the south side, there are two commercial properties and a dentist’s office and a mid-rise residential building and then on the Prince of Wales, two side yards onto Gainesville Road. So the concern is with the mix, increasing the couple concerns.

One is with the mix of zoning, light industrial intensifying and yet in our side on our property, it has been taken away from us without consultation. So I’m just wondering, do we change our directive? Do we move toward intensifying in industry or do we capitulate and change the type of development that we’re going to have on our property, which would really be a big disappointment for us? So that would be the main concern is the lack of congruency, in my opinion, of the development going on to Gainesville Road, there are largely residential homes.

It continues to be largely residential. The second concern is that the drainage ditch, the Stanton drain, the Upper Thames Conservation Authority requires a 15 or asking for 15 meter buffers on each side of high watermark. And this proposal for the second building actually encroaches within that for laneway and parking within the buffer. I’m just wondering if this is a direction which the city and the Conservation Authority are willing to accept if that’s going to become a benchmark for development.

If so, I mean, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t. I’m just pointing it out that if that’s the case, we would like to have consideration in that regard as well. So 30 seconds. So I would request that the Council would have a resolution in agreement with our company Trevgar Incorporated that there would be no negative impact upon our plans to ensure compatibility between both types of developments, the low density industrial as zoning changes in a memory of an understanding with the city and our neighbor, if possible.

Thank you. For the next speaker, Clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone else in the gallery. I look for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Robin, I’ll call the vote. Was in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. So there was one question raised there by the gentleman regarding the buffer encroachment of a 15 meter buffer.

I’m not sure if our 15 foot, I wasn’t too clear at the dimensions there, but wondering if staff could comment on that. Through the chair, there’s some existing parking on the subject lands that are encroaching within the 15 meter buffer that is proposed. That parking has existed well for a long time on this site. The proposed parking is outside of that existing buffer or the 15 meter buffer and that’s closer towards the building.

It remains outside of the current LI1 zone that’s on the property. That’s why we’re requesting the proposed zone of the OS4 to have a special provision to permit that parking within the OS4 zone as that’s not a permitted use within that. So we’re trying to provide more parking on the site and allow for the parking to that’s existing to be put onto the site. And there was also a comment that this could be used as a benchmark or a precedent staff comment on that.

To the chair. So every development is reviewed on its own merits and on the policy and regulations of the day. If there was a future development to the south, it would then be reviewed and those setbacks would be established based on what’s proposed and what the rules of the day are. Thank you.

Okay, so I’ll put this to the committee. I’ll look for discussion motions, etc. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I was going to ask a question about the buffer, but given that was answered, I’m fine to move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. So your motion moved in a second now.

I’ll look for comments or questions. Councilor Robin. Thank you and through you. So first, I want to thank the applicant and the guest who spoke to his concerns as well.

And you know, it’s the reason why we have public participation meetings is to learn more about some of the other development plans in the area, which I was not aware of, the additional residential uses in the area for that particular property. So that is good to know and for consideration. I did want to just inquire with staff about the about the change in use. And it’s outlined in the report a number of times that there were permitted uses.

And then there were additional uses that were taking place on the site. And that this helps to address some of those additional uses. Specifically have some concerns around the bus storage in the area. It is quite an extensive amount of space that’s being used for storage of buses, school, yellow school buses.

Just wondering if staff might be able to comment on with the proposed additional building, whether or not all of that use will continue to be the same. All those staff through the chair, the use will be permitted, but it’s up to the applicant to determine where that storage and what is going to be established on the site as it’s currently used for the parking for the buses. But it may be changing based on where the location of that new building is going. Councillor.

Thank you. And with the change to open space, I mean, this does about the High Park Rotary Trail as well. And these were not permitted uses to begin within the trail area. So I’m just wondering why we see this as highest and best use for the use of parking and keeping vehicles.

But also, there’s lots of comments in the report about inadequate parking or concerns around having adequate parking at 150 spaces. I’ll go staff through the chair. The proposal is permitting 130 parking spaces on the site. Some of those parking spaces without the parking spaces in the buffer, it would be well below that limit.

We’re trying to give the applicant flexibility for the uses on the site to permit that 130 spaces. They really require 199 based on some of those uses. But with the reduction, it gives them that flexibility to allow for more parking or less parking up to that 130. Councillor.

Thank you. So one of the uses currently is for a recreational facility or recreational space with cheer strike and other groups using that space. It is quite a busy area. And it is not very easy to get to by transit.

There’s no sidewalks as far as remember in front of this property. And the bicycle, there is no bicycle link to it right now currently on that stretch of Gainesboro. So it is very car-centric and very car-reliant in this area, particularly for this use. And they do get quite a bit of traffic.

Now, there is a mention of driveway extensions, and I’m just wondering whether or not you can comment on the driveway capacity as this has become actually quite an accident-prone area in this part of the ward. Go staff. Through the chair, the driveway extensions are to extend the driveway towards the rear of the site. There’s no changes to the existing access, so we have no concerns.

Councillor. Thank you. Yeah, so I appreciate all the answers to the questions that have been put forward. I’m a bit torn on this.

I appreciate the answers regarding the property across in the zoning and where they were in pre-consultation. I’m, yeah, I’m appreciative to staff for answering the questions that have come up regarding this proposal. I’ve not heard from any members of my ward or community around any particular concerns, other than that this is an essential facility for a lot of young people that use it for recreational purposes. So and from the bus company that it’s a very needed storage facility for their buses, so I’m inclined to support it.

For other comments or questions, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Moving on to 3.4 regarding 145 baseline road west. I’m going to look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon chair and committee. My name is Jersey Swarck. I’m a partner at Civic Planning and Design here in London and we are here representing the owner of 145 baseline road west.

I want to thank staff for the review of this planning application, although we respectfully disagree with their recommendation. We believe this project is a great example of gentle intensification within an existing neighbourhood where units can be brought to market rather quickly. We also believe that the proposal meets all local and provincial planning policies. Just for context, just want to explain how the site currently works.

There are currently five triplex buildings on the property. Each building has two two bedroom units and one one bedroom unit. Each unit has a finished main floor and an unfinished basement. The site currently has an informal parking area with 16 parking spaces accessed by a one-way driveway from baseline exiting out onto west street.

When we were brought on board, oftentimes as we are as a planning firm, we were asked what’s the highest and best use of this property? What could be done on this land? And one of the things we look at is the official plan. The London plan in this case for guidance to understand what the plan future intents of the lands are.

In this case, it’s on a neighbourhood connector in a neighbourhood street. So until recently, which staff has approved but we’re waiting on approval from the province for potentially stacked towns, otherwise at that time it was just townhouses. However, we also looked at the potential within the existing zoning. So today, as a zoning that exists today on property, the R31 zone and the size of the property would allow us to actually request for severance of this lot into 10 lots.

With the demolition of the five buildings, we could build 10 buildings with four units in each one, totaling up to 40 units. However, we looked at other options, because that is an expensive option to do to have to tear down the properties, build brand new from scratch. One of the options we looked at as well was what is there any space within the existing buildings that is underutilized and how could that be better used? Looking at that, it revealed that the basements, which are unfinished, range in ceiling with ceiling heights between 7 and 11 feet in height, it would be very easy to actually separate those and create 15 independent units with some cosmetic renovations to the upper units, adding laundry facilities to those units in that main floor space.

This option would only require two special provisions in the existing zone and allow for the quickest way to add a decent amount of units with the least amount of construction. Additionally, these basement units will be more attainable due to the fact that market rates for basement apartments are less typically less than main floor units. Some of the, I want to address some of the staff concerns that were brought up in the staff report. Staff had cited that unit size, egress, access to sunlight and unit location are all things they are concerned about.

However, none of those things are actually covered by the official plan or the zoning by-law. In fact, those are covered by the Ontario Building Code, which is something that has to be met for these units to actually be built. Secondly, there’s a notion and a mention of a lack of amenity space. This was mentioned early on and we had wanted to show through our application process that there actually is, in fact, in alphabetity space on the site.

In fact, with the area that we show on our concept plan, we have 14.5 square meters of amenity space per unit, which is much more than even the application that was just approved previously at 383 Clark Road. The only metric that we received where it measures intensity from staff where they felt that it was too much intensity on the site was the fact that the R3 zone requires 180 square meters of lot area per unit and that we’re asking for 108, so 108. One thing that this doesn’t take into account is the fact that there are five triplexes on one property, which share a lot of those functions that typically one building would. So if each of these lots were separate, each of them would require a driveway, a parking area, a way to have garbage function, their own amenity space.

And in this case, because it’s a cluster, we are able to share a lot of these spaces. And in fact, the minimum requirement landscape open space on the site is only 20% and we’re able to achieve 40% because of the fact that we’re sharing a lot of these amenities. 30 seconds. Lastly, I just want to refer back that 40 units are already allowed on this site if we were to sever it into 10 units or 10 lots.

I did want to just address one last thing that the client, our client wanted to say is that we are bringing forward a proposal of committing to keep all tenants on property. All the existing remaining tenants on the property, there’s seven of them. There remain, there’s 15 existing units. We are committing to moving those tenants into temporary housing on the site until such a time that their units are renovated and they’ll be able to come back.

And that is actually something that’s included in our added agenda item as well. Thank you. And I’ll here to answer any questions if there are any. Thank you.

Look for other speakers. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, I’m Courtney and I’m currently a tenant at 145 Bay Sign Road West. And I’d like to take an opportunity to talk about the bigger issue here and its Renault Fiction.

So you are looking at a Renault Fiction in real time. We have 10 different units. A lot of them are vulnerable populations. I have a single mother beside me who has six children.

If 40 or 30 units are permitted, we lose half of our space. Could you imagine seven people living in 650 square feet? I measured my apartment yesterday and my upstairs unit is 680 square feet. Right now I rent the upstairs and the downstairs.

So we got an issue for eviction four days after they took possession of the property. I don’t believe them when they say that they’re looking to keep us on site. They’re looking to get rid of us so they can make three times as much. It’s important that our elected officials stick up for our tenants and our rights and our contracts that we have with these individuals.

And I don’t agree with predatory investing and that is what’s happening here. So please, please, please consider me and all my neighbors. Thank you for your time. Thank you, brother speakers.

Please man, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Stephanie. I’m also a resident of 145 baseline. I apologize if mine is not as formal as everybody else here today.

One thing that really resonated with me today is Councilor when you mentioned the joy of the importance of having the city being enjoyable place to live. We’re talking about putting 60 families in five houses. I don’t see how that’s an enjoyable environmental live. Also, if you’ve ever had the pleasure of coming by 145 baseline on garbage night, you will see that there is a wall of garbage already.

Adding 15 more units to this house would be very unappealing to the city as well. Not to mention that I’ve lived there for 10 years. I also grew up in the house across the street. I’ve been in this area for about 27 years now.

It is a very beautiful residential area and I think by allowing 60 families to live in these five houses would definitely affect the appealiness of the residential space. Also with parking, there is already a very narrow driveway which does have 16 spaces but half the people don’t drive and it’s already full. It’s very hard to get through. I don’t even let my friends come I tell them to park on the road.

If you do have extended parking or I don’t know what the parking plans are for that area, I could just imagine the parking on the road as well if I’m already getting people to park on the road. Thank you guys. I hope I’m just speaking from my heart. You did a good job.

Thank you. Any other comments from the gallery last clerk if there’s anyone online? Carlos. Please give us your full name and you have five minutes.

Hello? Okay, can you guys see me? Okay, we can hear you. Okay, sounds good.

Hi there. I’m an applicant. Yeah, and I just wanted to answer any questions that might come up. You can hear from the horses mouth.

I just wanted to touch. Oh, can you guys still hear me? We can hear you. Okay, so I just wanted to touch on the so-called rental eviction, this buzzword that keeps going around.

Nobody’s getting evicted. I’ve been in talks with Councillor Frank for quite a bit. We have proposed a temporary housing for all tenants while their units are being renovated. So this is not a rental eviction.

A rental eviction, what you see on the news is when landlords kick people out and then they raise rents and they’re not allowed. It’s a little bit different from this. This is temporary change in unit while we add units because much like these tenants want to have a roof over their heads, other people want to have a roof over their heads as well. And that’s what we’re trying to do.

We’re trying to add more units. There’s been three articles on the London Free Press about this and there is probably thousands on the housing crisis. So there certainly needs to be more housing. I know Councillor Layman, you said that housing is a primary concern.

Councillor Lewis, you said that there’s much needed rental units. I mean, there’s no surprise that there’s supply here in London. And that’s what we’re trying to do. In terms of parking, we’re surpassing the parking requirement of 0.5 parking spots per unit.

We are going to improve the garbage situation because right now there’s no bin. We’re going to propose a bin and the bin is in the justification report. I’ve been in deep talks with Councillor Frank and have addressed every single point that these tenants have mentioned because I don’t know if they understand that they’re not getting evicted. They’re simply being moved over to another unit within the same complex.

So they’re not going to be moving locations while we build more units that way other people can access housing. In addition to that, I want to make it clear that everyone’s rent will remain the exact same. So it will not be touched. It won’t be touched from what it currently is.

And that’s the message that I wanted to get across. So and I’m here to answer any questions if you wanted to hear from the horses bus itself. Thank you. I’ll look for, I’m sorry, you’ve had your time.

Any other comments or questions? We have another person online. Please go ahead, give us your name in your five minutes. Hello, can you hear me?

We can please give us your name in your five minutes. My name is Paula. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for listening.

I want to share why I support the new project plan for 145 baseline. I bought a unit in the building right next to this property where my mother-in-law lives. We look directly onto the 145 complex and I’ve noticed that it has been neglected for some time. Unfortunately, the property shows signs of four maintenance with visible garbage, cigarette baths, and at times for this presence.

I really believe that with this new owner, things will get much better. They’re planning to invest in the property and make a look nice and manage well. This would make a big difference for the neighborhood, which right now could use some improvement in that spot. Also, the plan for the 15 more units is a positive thing.

There is a big need for housing in our area, especially smaller carments that seniors and others are looking for. Many people who live around here don’t drive because it’s easy to walk to places like nofials or choppers. So I don’t think more people here will add to parking problems. This project will fit well with all the new buildings that have gone up recently and I believe it will make the area look better and meet the needs of people looking for affordable small apartments.

I believe this project will be a positive addition that aligns with the growth and needs of our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Any others that would like to address the committee?

That’s clear if there’s anyone else online. Okay. Seeing no one else, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Robin, I’ll call that vote.

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

Councillor Frank. Thank you. As a word, Councillor, I want to share some thoughts and ask a couple of questions of staff to start because I would like to hear some from some other Councillors their thoughts on this one as well. I’ve spoken with some of the remaining residents and you can read their feedback and you’ve been able to hear from two of them today.

As well, I have been speaking regularly with the applicant, the consultant, to try and figure out a way to make the best of this project. I think it is a very unique project given the attempt to do gentle density and build within the building envelopes. At the same time, there are existing tenants, so that brings its own complexities. And I’m sure as you have read the report, there are 15 units.

As we’ve heard, there are seven that are still occupied, eight that are vacant. The tenants today who are living there pay a very affordable rate compared to today’s market and would be very difficult for them to find something comparable. And as you’ve probably read in the news or in the report, the basements are being reported as used as storage, but we’ve also heard that they’re being used as carpentry space, lounge area, workout spaces, rec room. So it does sound like the tenants are using them and have the right to use them for a variety of uses, especially the folks with children, it sounds like that space is well used.

And I do appreciate as the applicant mentioned, offering temporary placement agreements, so trying to shuffle the tenants through that are existing. We have been discussing that as an option, trying to keep the tenants housed throughout this process. I think the only issue remains that they would lose their basements, which is a significant amount of space that they are using. Whether we approve 20 units or 30, the basements would be gone.

And those tenants are actively using that space. I did ask if possible, if the consultant would consider moving the existing tenants into two houses and then just renovate the other three, because none of the actual buildings, none of them are empty fully. But unfortunately, given that this is all one parcel as well, there’s no way in my understanding for us to say, like, you can renovate this unit that’s empty, this unit that’s empty, and this one, it would have to be essentially, you can have this many units and you decide. So that adds another layer of complexity, because in my opinion, I feel like the eight empty units, I don’t imagine anyone would mind having a basement apartment given that the unit is now empty.

But like I said, you can’t pick which ones. On the other hand, I do worry if we refuse the application, it could go to the Ontario Land Tribunal, get approved, and then everyone would be probably out of their entire apartment. And there’s no temporary affordable or temporary placement agreements in place. Also, as we heard from the consultant, if the applicant tore down the building and built new ones, everyone would lose their housing, which isn’t great, because it would permanently displace the tenants, they wouldn’t be able to come back.

And it would make the future building more unaffordable. So there’s a con to that side too. And as you can kind of see, I don’t really feel like there’s necessarily a win situation for everyone. We need more units.

We also don’t want to lose affordable units or living space. And I’m finding that to be a bit of a struggle. I really wish we could pick which units you could renovate and then take the ones that are empty and do those ones. But I’m worried that reducing the unit sizes will definitely under house some of those families.

So that’s a variety of my comments. I do have a couple questions for staff. One of them I kind of hinted at, but if possible, are we able to dictate which units can be converted? Example, there’s eight empty ones.

Can those ones be converted into basement apartments through the zoning process? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, it’s my understanding that we could actually possibly direct the number of units per building in specific zoning. I’m not sure how that wording would play out, but it is a possibility.

Councilor. Thank you. I’d like to follow up with that just because that does make sense. So it’s like right now you have three units per building.

If you do four though, would that then just mean though the whole basement could be turned into one unit or would it be like associated with the empty unit? Go to staff. Through the chair, we wouldn’t be able to direct the size of units. That’s not within our zoning by-law, but you could for example say two buildings with six units each and three buildings with four units each as an example.

Okay, I didn’t realize that. I’m going to have to ponder that because I had thought actually we weren’t able to dictate given it’s all one parcel. And then my follow question as we had heard from the consultant is the rationale provided in the staff report defensible at OLT because there were kind of some indications or suggestions that perhaps it was not entirely focused on planning matters. Go to staff.

Through the chair, all applications that come to us are considered against the entirety of the London Plan and the provincial policy and zoning by-law. So they are the arguments are embedded in the policies. Thank you. I appreciate both of those answers.

I’m going to ponder the ability if we are able to assign certain amounts because again, I personally don’t see a problem with having the empty units have the basements renovated, but I don’t want the existing tenants to lose their space. So I don’t want to throw throughout that. So I might consider that for a minute and see if I can think of something in the meantime, but would love to hear what other Councillors’ perspectives are on this application. Go to other committee members.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate the Councillor wanting to get some comments and thoughts. I think it’s important that we though frame where we’re going in some sort of motion.

And so I do want to move notwithstanding the recommendation of the director of planning and development that the application be approved. I also want to make sure that we capture a couple of very specific things in that approval mechanism. And I apologize, the clerk’s going to have to do some work here transcribing what I’m saying because this is one that’s kind of developing on the fly based on some answers and some information that came in at the last minute because I do want to have a clause and I know we’ve used a clause like this prior and I’m going to read the language that was used in a prior application and I’ll seek some staff guidance in terms of I think this falls under a site plan condition but there would be a clause that would read in consultation with the municipal housing development division provision of entering into a temporary rental unit accommodation agreement for existing tenants. So I’ll just make sure the clerk’s got that language.

Sorry, Deputy Mayor. It was municipal housing development corporation. Councillor, sorry, can I speak for a second? No, go back to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Yeah, so I want that condition in there because I think it’s well I appreciate the applicant has indicated they are more than willing to do that. I think it’s important to have that specifically in the direction to our site plan approval that an agreement has to be brought forward with eight units available to reallocate to the existing tenants while renovations happen. I agree with what Councillor Frank said. We don’t want to displace these folks into the open market but at the same time I do think that we need to recognize the landlord does have absolutely the right to renovate and make some changes to the property and so I think including that is very important.

But also like another clause in there and again it was it’s referenced. I know that the parking minimums are met but with the addition of these units I’d like a clause and I think again this also is appropriate site plan that again staff can correct me if I don’t have the language exactly right here that a parking management plan be included in the site plan approval process. I’ll look to staff to see if that language is appropriate. Through the chair through the site plan process we will look at the parking arrangement already if there’s something specific you want us to look at maybe that you put that in your direction but we will look at the parking arrangement as it is set up today.

Deputy Mayor. So maybe to provide a little clarity because I did do a drive-by of the site visit the site and one of the things that I noted is that the parking lot itself the lines aren’t clearly painted it’s supposed to be angle parking it’s not all happening is angled parking right now some of its parallel parking so a parking management plan that would designate sites like this this parking spaces for this unit this parking spaces for that unit like designated parking spaces so that it’s it’s not the what I’m going to respectfully call the hodgepodge of parking that we’re that I saw on site when I visited so if that’s helpful to staff in terms of what I’m suggesting and then I see Ms. McNealy’s got her hand up Ms. McNealy.

Thank you through the chair just want to get some clarification because when we think of parking plans we think of on-street parking I believe you’re talking about on-site parking arrangements so I think we need that clarification and that would be something that would be a standard to make sure that all parking is accommodated on-site. Okay so if if we can include that that parking is accommodated on-site as part of the site plan approval process I think that clause is important to have in there too there are there is a space per unit but making sure that we have those clearly delineated is important so I think I don’t know what language time we’re captured from staff but if so what I’ll do is I’ll check with the clerk and and have her readout draft and make sure you’re you’re good with the clerk can you read out what you’ve been typing this site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following I in consultation with the municipal housing division corporation temporary rental accommodation agreement for the existing tenants I’m missing something be entered into thank you thank you sorry about that double i parking management plan be included in the site plan approval process lines are not clearly painted angle parking designated parking spaces for each unit parking accommodated on-site great that captures my intent perfectly thank you okay I’ll look for a seconder for that motion council ramen seconds okay so we have a motion on the floor I’ll look for discussion on that Dr. Mayor Lewis thank you so now now that we’ve hammered out an actual motion I’ll speak to my rationale here and a little earlier in the meeting I spoke to an intensification in my own ward the applicants agent referenced it but I agree I think this is very similar to the two between the two I understand the tenants concerns with the loss of of basement space whether it’s finished or unfinished I’m not arguing that because I haven’t seen the basements but it is within the property owners purview to consider subdividing and and that I would say you know I heard the the applicants say that the rents would remain the same I would suggest that in fact for a loss of space that’s currently usable under the lease the tenants actually have a leave to approach the landlord tenant tribunal for a rent reduction because of loss of space that’s available that might be something that the tenants may wish to consider depending on what arrangements they reach with the landlord but I also heard the landlord indicate that provision of of laundry services in each suite is going to be provided and I do know in talking to the applicant and so I almost feel like I’m talking to buy Councillor Frank some time but at the same time I know in talking to the applicant last week that they indicated the basement is actually the foundation walls between the units extend right into the basement so it’s not one open basement space it’s actually three basement spaces one that matches each unit for above so I’m not sure how we could say or where we would be able to say this building can contain this many units another building can only contain this many when the foundation walls go right from the basement through the building and provide the dividing the sort of the firewall breaks between the units as well so although that said I understand where the Councillor is coming from if we could accommodate the tenants who are using the basements in existing buildings and have the renovations only happening in buildings that have been made holy vacant I see where she’s trying to balance both needs here but I think in terms of moving forward here that you know the alternative as was suggested is the landlord could given the size of the lot demolish these buildings and come looking to put in a six-story apartment and they’d be within their rights to do so they could come in and look to demolish these five buildings and based on the the size of the lot at the moment I think they could come in for a severance to look at creating 10 single-family unit lots there potentially as well and so and that’s rough math I’ve done in my head I might not have that exactly right but there are options that could see the tenants completely displaced and I think what the landlord’s offering is an option that provides some intensification while at the same time accommodates allowing the folks who are currently there to stay living on the property even while the improvements happen and that’s something we frankly I wish we saw a little bit more of in some of these redevelopment situations but I think that that is admirable that the applicant is willing to do that and so I’m willing to support this application okay other comments or questions counselor thank you and through you and I’m wondering if you might permit a question then maybe I can hear from the ward counselor and then come back if that’s true by all means thank you so my question just regarding the amendment more we’re talking about parking is around the accessible parking component and I’m just wondering are they subject to the Ontario building code because it’s not clear to me on one accessible parking space per per that for rental buildings or it is mentioned in the report that they are that there was a need for one accessible space in zero we’re provided and I’m just wondering if that’s something or maybe the applicant can answer that question in terms of that they’re willing to provide that I’ll go to staff first through the chair that’s a requirement through the pipeline review process for accessible parking spaces so if one is required they would be required to accommodate on site through our process counselor thank you so no additional language is needed in the amendment can you confirm that no additional language is needed in the amendment regarding cesspool parking through the chair yeah we don’t need any additional language it’ll be covered thanks counselor sorry and just my second question just in terms of the number of units there was the concern around how many individuals lived within a unit and whether or not they’d be underhoused if they were for instance to take another unit while their unit is being renovated I’m just wondering how does that how could that be addressed if the applicant might be able to comment on that at all I’ll start with staff see if they want to make any comment I’ll go to the applicant okay I’ll go to the applicant either you’re representative here or if you’re online would like to address that go please go ahead sir sir could you just get that question just for counsel can you just repeat the concern sure so if someone’s unit is being renovated and they are like a larger family and in a in this motion we’re we’d like to see them rehoused while that unit is being done and on site what kind of accommodations can we ensure that those accommodations will be able to handle the size of the family that’s in need of housing okay go ahead yep so in this case what would happen is we will move any existing remaining tenants into units that have two stories still and have those units that they move out of actually be separated for basement unit and main floor unit so if somebody’s living in a three-bedroom unit we’re hoping to get them into a three-bedroom unit they’re living in two-bedroom unit we can get them in a two-bedroom unit so they’d have the same amount of living space during that time that the renovations would take place counselor thank you and through you so I know that that addresses the issue obviously of while they would be in between units but I suspect there’s impact if they for instance have a unit and they’re under housed right now they could be further underhoused if their unit is renovated please go ahead I’ll take a stab at this answer here I think at the end of the day we’re looking at the units that exist the current finished space finished livable space where there are windows access to sunlight there are two-bedroom units on one floor and three-bedroom units on one floor the situation of what’s happening within those units is it is you know up to the tenants at the end of the day we they will still have a two-bedroom unit that is finished with access to sunlight egress and all that whether they’re in a two or three-bedroom unit they’ll just lose the use of the unfinished non livable space basement counselor thank you much appreciated I understand the complexity of this from the perspective of those that are perhaps making do with what they have other comments or questions counselor may I say something this is the applicant no I’m conferring with the clerk right now I’m going to go to the mover the clerk has informed me that she needs reasons for approval given the staff recommendation and I can confirm that I have just sent those to the clerk’s inbox there you go I’m just going to wait and make sure that she has that received she has it okay thank you okay any other comments or questions council Frank thank you yes I just want to follow up because I’ve been pondering how to try and break up the units per building but I just received comment that we can’t actually do it each individually be you know you could say all like these ones have three units these ones have four units and there’s no way to dictate which one has which so that does not necessarily work so I just will provide perhaps some comment on the motion on the floor I can appreciate the direction that my colleagues are going in again given the housing crisis and the desire to keep people housed again I think I’ve heard from the tenants that losing that space that they use even though we’ve heard from the consultant that it’s deemed not livable space it seems that a lot of people do a lot of living in it so for that reason I don’t think I can support this because of the need for people to have this space that they currently have at the current rate that they rent so thank you thank you other comments or questions I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair I will take the chair and recognize councilor layman thank you this is a very challenging one and I think you can feel that from this discussion we’re having on one hand we need housing I think this property has new ownership and is welcome for the renovations and clean up there is that concern of a demolition and another type of building to be put there if this should not be approved on the other hand it’s an extremely tight space which staff have recognized in their refusal I think you know we’re going to have 15 units I believe from what I’ve heard they’re using the space below probably for storage and other things with the way they’re living while there is the rent eviction aspect has been I believe addressed they will be moved into another building on the site so I find this very hard I was hoping that councilor frank would find a way to find a compromise here but apparently she has and so it looks like it’s either one way or the other give it from what I’ve heard well I addressed I see the need for housing I just think the impact on the residents here is too great so I will not be supporting it thank you councilor layman well under your five minutes and I will return the chair to you thank you noting you have council ramen next on the speakers thank you go to council ramen thank you and through you I’m just wondering the applicant had indicated that he wanted to address us on something that was being said around the rent eviction perspective I’m just wondering if we can get any additional comment from the applicant on if there was something that we had missed in what he was trying to outline to us sure the applicant is online that councilor has asked that you proceed with your comments in the committee so please go ahead hi there yes I just wanted to again confirm that this is not a rent eviction I’ve actually sent I believe five pages worth of documents to councilor frank I hired a paralegal to give me a temporary housing agreement that was sent to councilor frank so not only do you have me speaking over the over on record right now not only do you have emails from me sending sending this to council frank you also have my paralegal sending two agreements saying that we will house people within the same complex while the renovations take place so I don’t know how else to confirm that I’m going to move people within the same units my intentions not to kick people out my intentions to add more units it’s not a rental eviction nobody’s getting evicted for me to increase the rents that’s not what it is so I just really want to make that clear because it seems to be like some confusion on something that’s very concrete and sound which is this is not a rental eviction there is an agreement I believe it’s five pages with councilor frank should have and obviously I’m willing to give it to all the counselors and the tenants if this is approved for 30 units we can more than we can I’d be more than happy to to go through with it and as councilor Lewis mentioned this can be a clause if this is approved so that clause can be connected to the agreement so it’s only approved if there is an agreement in place which is what I’ve done so that’s what it what that’s what I want to do address it seems to be like this is not so much of a planning issue as much of a social issue so I’m addressing the social issue as best I can so everyone is personally on what I mean and that’s all okay thank you councilor thank you um I appreciate that assurance I like that we’ve included it in the wording of the motion um again I I feel that there are huge difficulties right now and as we look at what’s in front of us and the options that are in front of us um it really is my goal to keep people housed where they are and to provide those opportunities and realizing some of the changes that are currently pending um for for ministerial approval but that could allow for even more intensification on the site going forward I think that uh this is right now um a good option to use the current building envelope and therefore I’ll support it thank you any other comments or questions we have a motion moved in second I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries three to two moving on to 3.5 regarding 566 Southdale Road East and 818 Easy Street I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meaning uh Council Rob removes it seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time so you know I now look for the applicant if you’d like to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon mr chair members of committee Mike Davis here with civic planning and design here today on behalf of our client paradise homes who are the owner and developer of this this new project at 566 Southdale Road East and 818 Easy Street I’m really excited to be kind of reaching this milestone in the project today um this project we’ll see the development of a 16 unit walk up style building here on this property we are in full agreement with the with the staff recommendation obviously I always want to thank them for their support in helping us achieve this milestone with this style of project this is really we feel kind of hitting the missing middle and it’s gonna fit well along the emerging and of redevelopment context along Southdale it is kind of modest in scale but obviously gonna provide a much needed form of kind of rental housing in a location that is very walkable and close to the rapid transit station planned at Wellington and Southdale so appreciate the brief opportunity to speak today and the teams available to answer any questions of the committee thank you and I’ll look for other speakers want to address the committee toss clerk if there’s anyone online there’s no one online I don’t see anyone in the gallery wishing to speak so I’ll look for motion to close the ppm council robin seconded by council frank i’ll call the closing the vote the motion carries five to zero i’ll look for a motion on 566 Southdale Road East council robin moves moves the staff recommendation look for a seconder deputy mayor Lewis seconds so we have motion moved and second i’ll look for comments or questions council robin thank you just briefly I just wanted to say i’m in support of this development i just wanted to just reiterate the what’s included in the emotion around additional amenity spaces because I do think removal of parking spaces to allow for more amenity spaces in a project like this would be beneficial to those that will live there i’ll go to staff three mr chair in the recommendation through the site plan approval authority requests we have included that the ownership consider removing the surface parking to accommodate additional amenity space council thanks okay other comments or questions step to mayor Lewis so i’m supportive of where this is going i will say for me i’m and i know this is all site plans so be discussions going in i’m less concerned about removing parking spaces to accommodate an additional amenity i’m more concerned because it’s in speaking with the word counselor and i i noticed that she had her hand up that there was a concern about the landscape strip the setback which is only set at 1.5 meters i know the applicant had indicated to the word counselor that they’d be open to allowing a bit larger space once sort of final floor plans are are work through the site plan process but my understanding is that part of the limitation on this site and if staff can confirm through you chair is that the city’s actually required an eight meter road widening allowance and so there’s actually that limits the applicant’s ability to to provide a wider buffer so i’m just wondering if staff can confirm if that’s the case i’ll go to staff to confirm that through the chair that is correct through the site plan process there is a sizable road widening dedication that will be required so the reduced front yard setback will assist with citing the building as proposed but also maintains a consistent straight line with the existing single detached dwellings long so down deputy mayor okay i i appreciate that um to staff have and i mean i we if we need it we need it um a timeline not withstanding but i i do wonder if staff have a timeline as to when the anticipated road widening it so the old road uh is in terms of capital works planning i i i know we’re moving more into um mr mccray and miss shares area than planings area so if you don’t i’m happy to reach out to them offline but i’m just wondering if there’s any idea when that um allocation might be required uh do staff wish to comment on that through the chair uh we don’t have that answer for you but we will get that for you before council your deputy mayor that’s okay i won’t even ask you to get it i’ll go get it myself i i know who to talk to and i know they’re not here today but um i i just wondered if it might be something that you had um available and since you don’t um i will hunt that down and and get that information um so uh i i think i’m in the end my comments there i did see the word councilor had her hand up so i’d be uh interested in hearing from councilor ploza on this all right well let’s go to council ploza thank you mr chair um and to committee um and for um the applicant um just thankful that um we talk about we do committee work at committee but sometimes we also do award work before we even get this far so if the residents who reached out and gave questions to mr davis who answered them in it there was questions about the setback and because it’s abouting someone’s fence line he did say that there’s gonna be visually privacy fence to help with any headlight glare that he spoke to not being able to realign the parking lot just do the setback on south dill road but he did say that the team would be open to considering the increased depth through the site plan approval process once their final floor plans are developed um so looking to see to committee if you would need i’m not on committee to do a motion but if it would be procedurally correct to do a motion along those lines today just that um they would be requested to consider it uh in part b realizing the applicant um had already said it wouldn’t be an issue to consider it once they fill their floor plans because it’s going to be a mix of one and twos at this time and we are still waiting to see what those floor plans come out like um staff to require a specific motion on on this uh the concerns of the counselor through the chair again most of that will all be covered off through our site plan approval process um if you want reassurance in the directions welcome okay well i’ll look for committee members if anyone would like to but that specific wording on the floor deputy merlos yeah i’m more than happy to put a clause three in part b so that would be b i i i um where site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following design issues through the site plan process uh opportunities for an increased an increase to the 1.5 meter landscaping strip uh between the parking and the property line um and and i think that’s probably all we need is just to consider an increase um if staff want any uh or need any more specific language uh i’d love to hear from them but i i think that captures the intent okay i’m first i’ll go to staff to see if that if that satisfies them or if any suggested um additions or missions through the chair that would be sufficient for me to uh take that through site plan approval and let me go to councilor paloza does that kind of encapsulate what you were uh getting at yeah uh yes it does i had had some mass corresponds with deputy merlos beforehand so he was aware of the conversations with the applicant and uh the resident’s intention so i am completely happy with that in support of the application thank you okay and council roman has uh not at her head that she’s cool with the uh the change in the uh in the motion so we’ve got uh this motion is now uh been updated to councilor do you need or deputy mirror louis do you need uh the clerk to read out um that addition are you fine um i i think it never hurts to have the clerk read out what what’s been in e-scribe i know not everybody uh watching remotely or even in the gallery can see it until it actually pops up for a vote so if we can have okay i’ll have the clerk just read out the addition from the uh deputy mirror opportunity sorry part three opportunities to consider an increase of 1.5 meters between the parking lot and the property line and that’s an odd so okay so we’re cool with the uh the motion as is we have um moved and seconded any other uh conversation seeing none i’ll call a vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 3.6 and this is regarding a site alteration by law before we get before we get into the public participation i just like to go to staff for a brief verbal presentation on um why we’re here why this has been for us and kind of the major uh impacts uh from this through the chair uh this is m stuff i’m so agile development inspections um the existing side alteration by law scope is limited uh to environmental protection areas and draft line approved subdivisions the proposed by law expands side alteration regulations to cover the entire city uh with specific exemptions in place these exemptions were developed based on benchmarking with other municipalities and practical considerations for residents for residents for example lots under half a hectares are not subject to the by-law except in specific uh cases that can be addressed through a permit uh process additionally the new by-law recognizes the need for balance fostering growth and community community development while protecting our natural heritage and soil quality in line with the city’s climate emergency action plan the by-law will also enable the development industry to carry out side alteration works ahead of planning application approvals on lands within the city limits subject to the permitting process and certain exemptions and restrictions the proposed by-law aligns with many other municipalities in Ontario now have for a side alteration by-law the current by-law requires entering into a side alteration agreement which can be time-consuming however the new by-law introduces a streamline permitting process with the flexibility to enter into a side alteration agreement for special circumstances when necessary the proposed by-law also uh includes a robust and transparent enforcement mechanism with clearly defined fines and penalties ensuring compliance with compliance while promoting accountability this new by-law offers a balanced approach enabling faster development while enhancing protections for natural environment by addressing gaps in the previous by-law it supports well-planned community-centered projects facilities efficient approvals and strengthens uh safeguards for soil quality and natural heritage this aligns with uh london’s climate emergency action plan broadening environmental oversight and improving long-term sustainability i’m available to address any questions you may have okay uh thank you um committee members and visiting counselors will be free obviously to uh to get into more dialogue after our ppm so we’ll hold off of that so i’ll look for motion now to open the public participation council ramen seconded by deputy mary louis i’ll call the vote listen the vote the motion carries five to zero so i’ll look to uh members of the public that would like to address the committee uh i see a young gentleman up there please give us your name in the five minutes uh thank you mr chairman and members of committee i appreciate being called a young gentleman it’s 61 but anyways um uh this is an important uh by-law i know it when you see the title of it site alteration like it’s um an issue that the industry deals with uh and uh this is really a rewrite it’s not it’s a brand new by-law in a sense that it’s a different approach than what had been taken in the past um we have a couple of comments one we’re fully in support of the recommendations that are in front of you uh for for this by-law we appreciate the consultation process that went along with creating this by-law there was a working group which was in your report talks about it that was very active and i would need to give credit to uh peter and mustafa for and and their team for uh looking at the input that they got from industry and tried their best to incorporate the changes that are needed to to make this more effective it is important to the industry particularly uh in two areas one where there’s an opportunity now to do site alteration moving dirt that’s basically what it is around uh prior to uh application to get ready to move things along faster this if this by-law is in place correctly and properly enforced it should be able for us to be able to move uh faster to produce more homes in a in a more efficient manner um the one item that we i just want to be on the record for is that currently the by-law has stated that uh there is no fee uh for this there will be a fee but there is no fee set yet and they’re going to wait for the the fee process that’s just beginning for the development fees application development application fees and this will be part of that discussion we you won’t normally see the industry saying okay to a new by-law that’s going to have fees in or without knowing what those fees are going to be so we just beyond the record that it would have been great if this happened after the fees were determined we understand that uh that that process is about to begin and we look forward to that but otherwise we want to thank staff for the for forming the working group and the uh proactive approach they had with industry in determining uh how this new by-law uh will work going forward thank you thank you i’ll look for other speakers i’ll ask if there’s anyone online seeing no one in the gallery would like to address committee and there’s no one online i’ll look for motion to close ppm council robin seconded by deputy marlow so i’ll call the vote those in the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this one on the floor council robin thank you um i’m happy to move what’s in front of us from staff but i do have some questions as well sure okay so we’ve got a motion that’s moved staff recommendation i’ll look for a seconder councilor frank has seconded so if motion moved in second i’ll go to your council robin thank you and through you so uh generally um in favor and thank you for the uh report that’s in front of us today um my concern also uh relates to the fee permit uh schedule for this item as well um uh i do think that we’re not particularly in a place in time where we can say we’re not going to put in place in put in place a fee as of right now um so i personally would like to see this come forward with a fee recommendation uh before council uh in order that we move forward with a fee at the beginning and onset of this i understand there’s a process that we’re undertaking but just looking comparatively at hamilton brand oakville and other nearby municipalities in the same um uh vein uh of this type of site alteration bylaw uh this fees are pretty standard uh from what i see and so from that perspective i do not think that uh we should start without having fees in place i’ll go to staff uh further comments on that uh through the chair thanks for the comments on that currently the site alteration bylaw doesn’t have any fees uh the process is mixed with the engineering review which uh does accept fees for reviewing not only engineering drawings but also the site alteration drawing package we felt it was appropriate to hold off on um recommending a fee structure until the the fee update process um get started underway because there’s going to be quite a lengthy consultation process with that project um so it will enable the development industry as well city staff to comment on what the fee will be um and then we felt um getting the bylaw in front of uh committee and council now would just enable us to to work through any efficiencies there might be with this bylaw prior to setting a fee and we fully recognize that um city of hamilton has that fee structure as well that’s when we were looking at when coming up with the fee um and uh tendively the the fee update project i think is slated for q three twenty twenty five thank you councilor thank you and even if during that that interim period between q three twenty twenty five and now uh when this isn’t acted if there was even just a nominal fee i think that again it just uh where we are in terms of our budget and in terms of other things that are priorities for the city i don’t think it where it’s appropriate this time in place to not have any fee and that’s just my own opinion on the matter i’ll go to deputy mayor los thank you um at the risk of sounding repetitive and annoying the young gentleman in the gallery who’s not quite as young as i am um uh which isn’t a great qualifier mr wallace so i’ll tell you that’s that’s not a great qualifier but um i am uh not inclined to support this uh without a fee i would have preferred a quick environmental scan pick the middle number adjust it through the consultation process q three of twenty twenty five is far too far away for me further to be a fee uh that or no fee attached so um i’m not inclined to support this without a fee um i don’t know whether uh there was some additional comment i did see mr mathers raise his hand so certainly here happy to hear a staff comment on this um but i’m not comfortable proceeding without a fee i’ll go to mr mathers through the chair so just to give you a little bit of update and this is maybe some information that uh sir caffic didn’t didn’t have um we’re actually presenting to our in turn into our external customer service and process improvement group um to on thursday uh our first presentation on our proposed uh fees moving forward and and a new structure entirely for those fees so i think what i’m what i’m definitely hearing from my staff is that currently our fees include the cost related to the to site alteration agreements so if we’re looking at a different structure that would have a separate fee then that also should have a court spawning reduction in in the fee that’s associated with that where that’s included currently so um and the timing is no longer q3 we’re looking for q1 actually to start bringing something back to council for consideration that has a public meeting associated with it as well so and we’ll be looking at a restructuring of the fees to align with what we’re seeing at some other municipalities and we have Watson associates that is advising us on this and are going to be providing us like a very detailed methodology to ensure that we’re both covering an appropriate amount of fees um to support the work we’re doing but also that we’re uh doing we’re uh have a structure that’s similar to other municipalities as well deputy mayor thank you chair so i’m happy to hear q1 i’m much more comfortable with that um i still struggle that this is a bit of a cart before the horse for me i at the same time i recognize we’re we’re trying to do some process improvements trying to keep things moving along um i don’t want to inadvertently create uh some sort of additional bottleneck um but at the same time um i i struggle with and this is where the real problem is um that for me uh we are about to get into some very difficult budget discussions next week and yet we have a a report here that that indicates without a a charge associated with it i appreciate hearing that it’s built into other charges right now i don’t think that was perhaps as clear as it could have been in in terms of the report i think that it’s very very important though and i’m i’m not going to belabor the point um uh mr mather’s you and your team have given me no reason to not believe that when you say q1 of 2025 that it won’t be q1 of 2025 i have every confidence it will be so i’m i’m a little happier to hear that um and i i hope that our our friends in the gallery will be uh genuine in their engagement in fees because i hope that they recognize we can’t have uh everybody wants something for nothing and that’s not the way that the world works um that includes with our development community we need to recover our costs at the municipal administration level two so i i was tempted to move move a referral and to put this um to when the uh fees and uh schedule comes back um i’ll hold that for my own consideration later because i have some new information now that i didn’t have when i was considering referring that see what other committee members say um so i guess i can tentatively support it at committee today um but i’m going to pull the right to refer it at council if i am feeling uncomfortable after my own environmental scan on things okay i look for other comments or questions from our committee members are visiting counselors pelsor hawks thank you mr chair for recognizing me and i’ve been listening quite intently to the conversation here uh the uh deputy mayor did mention uh that we are going through budget discussions right now and maybe through you mr chair to staff i want to have a better understanding what we can expect coming back in q one which is not too far it’s i would hope at the beginning of the new year uh but we’ll it will it reflect any changes in our budget discussions that we’ll be undertaking and just uh would like a better clarification there mr mathers through the chair so it was even entering into the multi-year budget process a plan to be able to do a review of our planning fees we of course just finished off the building fee review that was earlier this year and now we’re getting into the planning fee review um where expectations is that there wouldn’t be a change to the actual budget dot till the budget until the next update because there’s also a time frame that we did for public meetings to be able to bring forward a fee review as well so um this would be uh most likely to make a change in the next uh 20 25 uh 2026 update for 2025 update versus uh in in this year’s update councilor yeah appreciate uh hearing that so there will be no changes in the review that we’ll be undertaking for 2025 and uh i’m glad to hear the uh report or the amounts will be coming to us in in the first quarter i would really encourage you to have it to us sooner than later as well just so we understand how we can move forward and really would uh encourage the the committee to um uh support the recommendation um other comments or questions uh our council approval thank you chancellor uh through you to the staff maybe mr mr mathers you said it will not be in this update but it will be in 25 update but we are currently doing 25 so i was just wondering if you can clarify please mr mathers sorry i think i was right the first time is the 2026 update because that’s for the following year you’re absolutely correct it’s not the 2025 update that that’s being undertaken this year councilor again this kind of on the floor but personally if i had the choice i really would love to see before the council to have an amount and then when we review it then we potentially adjust it but maybe look at the benchmarking with the other municipalities and to go something which is reasonable to our size of the city and so we have something in place everyone knows where we stand and then if we decide otherwise then we just make the adjustments but guess what we would already have this for 2025 please consider thank you other comments or questions if the committee would allow me um i think the committee’s fine with the by-law changes for sure as is the development community for for no other reason the um it has efficiencies to the process there is concerns which i share around the fee structure so i just wanted to ask staff first of all when you bring you’re looking at a comprehensive fee um modeled that would come to i’m assuming this committee so at that point we would discuss whether you know if we will approve that that fee structure or not so um i think that would go to the concerns that were raised by um members um now that fee structure are used i’m still a little confused is that fee structure would that be enacted on immediately upon approval by council or would that be enacted like in 2026 which i heard that year through the chair so that that would be at the decision of council at the time we haven’t um usually for example we did with the building fee review we did update that um in march of this year i believe that it was uh so what we didn’t have at start at the start of the following year but that is a council decision we’re likely to try to recommend that it’s uh that it comes into place as soon as possible with possible phasing if that’s something that council wants to consider as well so um there might also be the opportunity of just uh because we we have done our preliminary review at least highlighting for council what approximately that fee might look like uh there’s a bit of a chicken and egg where you do need to have a by-law that uh provides for um the uh the requirement to undertake this work and then there’s the charges fees and charges piece that usually comes after it and there’s usually a ppm related to that as well so um we could provide that high-level amount of uh information to council um i just had to work with my team on that before um before we actually get into the the council meeting to give you an idea of what that fee might look like and we can even present that to the development community as possible knowing that that would be um further confirmed as part of our overall um fee review okay so for me um i i don’t see the need for referral although i was thinking along with similar lines uh when the discussion was happening because we need we need we all agree and the need for the by-law change uh there will be a fee attached whether what that will be is yet to be determined and that will be coming pretty close to you know in the next uh next quarter um and you even mentioned that it there might be not a net gain like it might be because we’re not doing work over here a few over here so might be just shifting chairs to the deck so uh for those reasons i’d like to get on with this and uh so i will i’ll support it okay any other comments or questions from a committee or visiting counselors so we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll call the vote okay moving on to 3.7 this is regarding 1408 and 1412 commissioners road west i’ll look for a motion to open the ppm councilor frank seconded by council robin will be using the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you um any questions of a technical nature for staff seeing none i’ll look let’s see if the applicant would like to address any please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes thank you good afternoon mr chairman public members committee members um my name is danielle cicoleiro i’m a planner if zalyn kapriamo and here if my colleague harry we are pleased to be here representing the land the honor of this lands to present this abey application for the proposed development firstly would you like to thank city staff especially malony for their work on this file we have carefully reviewed this staff report and we welcome the approval recommendation however we would like to request an amendment to item two point eight point iii of the drive development city staff has imposed a restriction that does not allow parking spaces in the front yard even though there is no restrictions or parking in the front yard within the proposed ra zone category we request that the proposed by law be amended to allow a maximum of two parking spaces be permitted within the front yard to be utilized for temporary parking only for visitors and delivery drop-off vehicles with a setback of not less than four meters from the front lot line we believe that a maximum of two parking spaces permitted in the front yard with a minimum setback is an appropriate compromise to balance city staff concerns public concerns and property honor objectives to provide an appropriate supply of parking within a site that is outside of the primary transit area the proposed forest story 22 unit development was presented to the neighbors and consular ward and a hopkin at an open house head on dune 25th the primary concerns raised by the community members were related to traffic and safety however transportation staff did not raise any concerns or requested any further studies there were also concerns about the provision of sufficient vehicle parking and potential for spillover parking on nearby streets the requested revision to the draft provision amendment to permit a maximum of two parking spaces in the front yard will help address the public concerns by no further reducing reducing the supply of parking spaces for this development additionally concerns were raised about the proposed reduced front yard setback however only the easterly side of the building has one point a one meter setback from the ultimate road allowance the setback increases towards the westerly side of the building due to angular configuration of the road compared to the positioning of the building also the location of the building will promote an active street presence neighbors also express privacy concerns and to address these we are proposing to install a 2.8 meter high fence along the lot lines and also we are proposing enhancing landscaping on the interior and rear boundaries finally the proposed intensification is consistent with the applicable policies of the pps confirms if the london plan and the vision for the neighbors neighborhood place type being a positive addition to the neighbor hood and helping meet the housing needs if you have any questions i would be happy to answer them thank you for your attention thank you i’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this issue take your time name is bonita more i live at 14 11 wood bind so this property will be backing right onto my home the parking lot that they’re planning it backs right onto the back of my yard i have sent pictures which you have of the way my backyard looks i have spent a lot of time and money to develop a yard that is private that is quiet that i see a lot of wildlife and the way they have designed this property is not going to encourage any of this from my way of life i have spoken personally with the builder he did not realize the problem with the trees in the back there’s a lot of very large trees with border my property that are on his property he has assured me that these would remain and that they will be maintained but that is his own personal assurance i don’t know that that’s actually going to happen i feel like this needs to get written into somehow the proposal for this property he has told me he’s going to leave all those trees he’s going to put another fence and then he’s going to put a whole other set of trees and at this point i would not be able to see this building but if this does not go as he is planning they’ll be able to look right into my kitchen right into my backyard and i will lose all privacy i bought this property in 2013 because of the privacy because of the fact that you felt like you were living in a park i’m going to lose that and i don’t think that that is a fair thing for me to have to do right now there is a building right across the street that as a sign up there they’ve got rentals two months free because they’re not they can’t rent it they’re having problems this is the one right across the street on steven on commissioners also try car wants to put in a 67 unit building right on the other corner Reynolds has no sidewalks everybody walks around Reynolds people walk their dogs people walk their children there’s the school one block away we don’t have safety protocols in place to make it a safe environment for people somebody is going to get hurt the traffic on commissioners is getting uh much more dense because of people coming from kamoka into the city and wanting to use commissioners we don’t have great public transportation out of Byron so it’s very much a car-centered neighborhood and there’s a lot of planning going into this neighborhood but i personally with this property going into my backyard i’m having a very hard time with this because it’s not the way i want to live i don’t know what else to say other than if you have any questions for me but you have the pictures of my yard and can see that it’s a beautiful space and i will lose that if he because the drawings that the planner put together do not address this at all the planning he did was putting some shrubs back there that’s not going to address this issue they need to maintain the trees back there oh i can say okay thank you take your time there’s no rush please please give us your name and you’re five minutes my name is jeff um a resident of Byron i’ve only been in Byron since 67 so i guess i’m kind of a newbie there but as bonita was mentioning the density of the proposal is trying to put in is not necessarily something that blends in with the way Byron has been or the way Byron should continue to be when you see five or six stories or even four stories going up where there’s now i think it’s one story maybe two it just seems i don’t know unfathomable in some ways um the safety issues that are created when you take two units and all of a sudden put 22 in it does change the dynamics of our neighborhood significantly um i can’t remember who said it but you’re not supposed to pave paradise and put up a parking lot i’m worried about the runoff that happens every time you take basically a whole lot and fill it full of concrete or asphalt and expect the rest of us that are living in that community to have to deal with that i’ve also got four kids and because we live so close to the schools we’re not allowed to take a bus so our kids have to go on foot i’m concerned with foot traffic when you introduce that much more car traffic into the community um and like bonita mentioned i’d like to see some type of study that would see how the trees would affect our community a little better i know every tree is going to hold at least a hundred gallons of water what we do get significant rainfall i’d like to see much of that vegetation kept in place if at all possible um once again the the safety and the density issues are the best we’re a low density spot in buyer and yes we have yards yes we keep them up yes we’re proud of them we would like to keep that going on and like i say we would not like to see something as uh big go in there i know we need to develop i know we need to provide housing you can certainly do that without going the maximum and going five six stories high like i say two or three stories i think would be adequate and like i say that’s that’s still being progressive but not progressive to the max um thank you for your time thank you look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name you in five minutes okay thank you hi my name is judy thanks for letting me speak i’m at 1420 commissioners west and the house uh the proposal will be at 1408 and 1412 i’m concerned about the traffic it’ll they’ll exit off of commissioners onto commissioners and there’s commissioners has already stopped and go at sometimes of the day that sidewalk in front of my house and the new apartment building is very busy with school kids and people walking walking their dogs picking up kids from school and um and the proposal was tricar where they exit onto Reynolds this lady was exactly right Reynolds has been used by many people to go walking there’s no sidewalks and it’s very unsafe the next sidewalk up from commissioners on Reynolds is a major crossing for school kids in the morning and you need to put a lot of safety features in before uh before you can let all that traffic flow there thanks very much oh and i’m also concerned about my property value my my mother um bought the house in 59 i’ve been there over 25 years and i’m very concerned that my property value is going to um go down because of being the proximity of rental units thank you help city takes that into concern when they tell me what my taxes are thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes my name is Claudia Kripich i reside at the corner a lot of Reynolds and commissioners i have been residing there for over 10 years um the traffic has significantly increased in the past um 10 years i actually grew up five houses down from my current location um so i have been in Byron actually on the same street for over for over 30 years um the traffic um has significantly increased especially with the development of west five commoka um and kill worth area commissioners happens to be one of three main arteries through the Byron neighborhood um and for the most part coming on to commissioners even trying to attempt to make a left hand turn is next to impossible um regardless of what time of the day you decide to leave um the commute to downtown London used to take me 15 20 minutes max um now i’m looking at over an hour i try to avoid coming in through the city at all costs at this point um my biggest concern is of course vegetation trees that sort of speak the congestion of the roads um daylight coming into the home especially with this new proposed tricec tri-sec proposition of 67 units immediately next door to me on the opposing side of this development uh proposition as well um i definitely feel like the uh property value may decrease um especially being on the corner lot between um both apartment buildings that they’re planning on erecting um sidewalks obviously non-existent um there have been accidents um where a child got hit by a car on their bicycle right at that intersection because of the visibility issues um this proposition apartment building for 22 units um actually impedes the vision from the left side turning onto commissioner’s road already um parking spaces is obviously going to be an issue we have over flooding um people parking there because of the school we actually have Stephen Street Reynolds Street or Reynolds Road from commissioners all the way upwards to Norman Street or Norman Avenue even exceeding past that of and even going as far as Grandview um or Griffith uh through Helena Montague of parents coming to pick up their children from Byron Northview Public School it is extremely congested um there has been times where i couldn’t even get out of my driveway because people are parked along my driveway waiting for people um or waiting for their kids to get out of school there’s clear indication for no parking um people still choose to do so uh causing and posing an issue for people taking a right hand turn off at commissioners on the Reynolds um there there have just been a mass um there’s just a lot of issues that i find um wrong with this whole proposal privacy being another one it’s going to be literally against the wall or against the fence line which was just um updated actually within two years and that of course having people overlook um the yard and everything that we’re trying to enjoy and have tranquility and um some kind of you know enjoyment out of so i hope my concerns get taken into consideration also um and that’s all i have to say for that so thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have four minutes five words that’s uh my mom’s house um there are currently um so much traffic they’re doing this traffic circle at Glendon um vennex closed Jeffries is closed there’s only two ways in and out of Byron right now try cars doing a development on the other corner they did a traffic study there’s 900 cars an hour at rush they go through through commissioners right past that that intersection where they’re putting this development this is only going to make it worse when they built the apartment buildings on spring bank um that road was closed so often that it would take an extra hour to 45 minutes for me just to get in and out of Byron this is my big concern when we asked the planner about any studies that were done they hadn’t done any uh traffic study infrastructure sewer we haven’t heard anything so um yeah directly against this proposal that’s all i wanted to say thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes hi my name is alicia gooseens i reside at 1409 woodwind street um i have some concerns about this property as well but i support my neighbors and i’m going to try to keep it short because i agree with everything they’ve said and support them and everything that they’ve said well they’re up here as well some of my concerns are safety when we went to that development meeting the the developer said it’s going to take at least two years for construction for this building to be built i’m not exactly sure where all these construction vehicles the people who are going to be building this building are going to park during the day but woodwind street does not have any sidewalks or curbs um in my previous email to this city i sent a photo of our street i’m in my safety concerns about people coming and going from that street during construction um the proposed height of this building does not meet the current zoning requirements for low density single family homes so i have concerns about that and sitting in the meeting today i was happy to hear that there was some sort of consideration when three eighty three park road and those plans when they listened to the neighborhood and hopefully made some concessions to see what the neighborhood wanted to be built in their neighborhood i also like vanita sent in photos of my backyard we use our backyard we spend a lot of time in there we have lived there for 25 years in that house on our side of woodwind street there are very few occupants coming and going most of us are long-term 25 plus year residents and there’s a reason for that it’s a beautiful quiet place to live and we’d like to keep it that way thanks thank you for the next speaker please forgive us your name you have five minutes my name is my name is Matthew Krupich i own uh the house on the corner 1404 commissioners west uh the house which will be on the left hand of the proposed building this building will overlook my entire backyard and overlook my house as well bedrooms are both the main level in my house and i will be covered with a shade there was no study made you know how this proposed building will affect my front yard we recently have did some work on pruning pruning branches in order to get a little bit more sun but from noon to the late evening the sunset is my front yard right now full of sun in case that we don’t have a cloudy day but it was a proposal building i won’t get any sun another question that i would like to rise is the building takes a particular amount of square footage the backyard will be completely paved so we are talking about water which is not saturating the ground anymore so our ground level water will drop the other thing is a accommodation of the snow in the winter what we do is that so the parking has to be cleaned not only from leaves but also from the snow the snow has to be removed because there’s no place to even accommodate any so merging the street which is so packed i came to run at nine o’clock in the morning and i was already stopped by traffic at ground view because kids they were going to school they activated the flashlight on the crossing to the score so there was such a accommodation of the car and i was already stopped at the ground view and then i was going like a hitch car okay going to Reynolds going from Reynolds to commissioners and turning left is the challenge to the right side it’s much easier because you may see some cars approaching from kamoka direction but there is so many of them any time of the day snow removal garbage removal leaves an old maintenance will cause a lot of problems turning left from a bowler route to the proposed building will also cause some disturbance on the street you have just spent so much money making a new construction new asphalt on the road water main and sewer now you are going to dig it out and rebuild it this is not economical i guess plus you know i would like to say a word for some of the who is not present today because he could make himself free this is a team who is working who is who is uh my neighbor to the south uh his property is affected uh as well as uh mr. gooseens uh he has a swimming pool there we have a privacy fences but those fences they are seven foot tall and we don’t interfere with each other we we are living in harmony but we don’t have uh you know anybody who is looking for on us from the top of the fall story so um another question is you know there’s so many questions that i probably will uh you know ruin the five minute time than i have so i definitely opposed to this proposition of building the house of thank you for stories and 22 you don’t need with 22 parking lots i’m sorry but this is not going to have thank you i’ll look for the next speaker i’ll ask if there’s anyone online okay i don’t see anyone else wishing to speak so all of promotion a close of ppm council ramen seconded by deputy mare louis i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this on the floor deputy mare louis uh thank you chair and through you i had circulated to uh through the clerk uh to committee members uh a slightly alternate motion from what was in the staff recommendation which would have added a part four to uh the site plan approval authority which speaks to the two northerly parking spaces in the front yard be permitted for temporary parking for visitors and drop off and pick up with a setback of not less than four meters from the front lot line um i did listen to and i i’ve shared just so that colleagues are aware uh listening to the concern uh from the neighbors particularly those backing on at the rear yard lot line um that i would also like to in addition what was circulated include a part five in the site plan uh approval authority uh that a tree preservation plan be submitted to the satisfaction of urban forestry and uh i understand that another counselor was going to add a uh a piece that spoke to uh the photometric plan to include light cast ratings for wall mounted lighting um so to in the in order to be efficient i’ve indicated with clerk i’m prepared to include that all in in one motion to move so we would add the tree preservation protection plan uh and the photometric uh light casting for the wall mounted lighting in addition to what i’d circulated through the clerk’s office uh on approving this to accommodate the two front yard parking spaces uh i’ll speak to the rational a little bit once i see if i have a seconder okay i’ll just ask the clerk do you have that wording including the tree preservation in the lighting okay um so you’re moving that um council are you seconding that okay so we got a motion moved and seconded that i’ll go to you uh deputy mayor thank you so with respect to the uh density and the intensification here as we’ve seen uh in the staff report it is uh consistent and supported with the provincial policy statement and the site plan i know that the london plan policies uh discourage front yard parking um but i think that uh as was mentioned by the applicant the r8 zone does not uh prohibit it and i actually think um in the longer term we need to revisit the the front yard parking particularly with respect to the temporary parking i think we’ve all seen it right across the city in every neighborhood uh the propensity for driver delivery drivers um often meal delivery or or package delivery drivers just throwing on their hazards blocking Elena traffic creating some additional congestion when there’s driveway space or parking space available and i think creating the two front spaces for that temporary drop-off pickup um really does make a lot of sense um it’s something i think we have to consider more often than we have been um but for this site um the four meter setback from the front lot line i think is reasonable it’s two spaces uh there to be in the site plan it speaks to permitted for temporary only visitors and drop-off pickup um with that there’d be a concurrent uh change to the by-law i ran both of those through um our planning uh staff and and made sure that the language was consistent um so that’s that’s there i think the tree preservation plan and the photometric plan really speak to the privacy concerns raised by the rear yard neighbors to make sure that um the trees that can be saved uh are saved um i understand the developer has has said they will but i also understand the concern that you’d like it in writing and so putting it in writing in this in this site plan approval process i think provide some additional surety uh that urban forestry will take a look with the developer and make sure that every tree that can be saved is saved so uh with that um i i will just add i hear the concerns about traffic um but when we’re talking about traffic concerns uh we really have to take into account that planning decisions and traffic impact studies and when you look at a road like commissioners the volume that’s already there 20 units uh or 22 units doesn’t actually move the needle to change the classification in the road design specs you’re actually talking about thousands of of vehicles um added to a roadway often to change how the design perspective is approached uh i know your uh ward counselors here and she’ll probably have some some comments to share as well um but certainly i think when it comes to the sidewalks that’s not something that we can require developer to install retroactively but the sidewalk does have a new sidewalks plan and that’s a discussion to have with your ward counselor uh about um the installing sidewalks on Reynolds or or in other streets in the neighborhood that you feel need them uh because there is uh an allocation every year for sidewalks to be retrofitted into existing neighborhoods and so that’s a discussion to take up with the ward counselor thank you i’ll go to other committee members for comments or questions uh counselor uh thank you and through you can i just clarify within the motion itself um that uh five the the tree preservation plan it’s part of the out already part of the application so i’m just wondering is this to preserve the is the intent to preserve the trees that are on the adjacent neighbors yard and do we need to further stimulate that or rear neighbors yard sorry um okay uh deputy mayor what’s your intention i’ll go to you first because you added that added clause regarding tree preservation uh yes so we heard specific concerns about the rear yard uh lot line and trees that may actually you know without a formal survey may be a part of another property or part of this property or some of both and so uh i just want staff to take a look in particular at the rear yard lot line tree preservation if that’s if they need that clear language i’m happy to provide that um but i you know i just pulled a standard piece of language from another application that’s at a tree preservation uh protection plan be submitted to the satisfaction of urban forestry but if they need something site specific for this happy to include their requirements to meet that intent okay i’ll go to staff to further comments thank you through the chair as part of the site plan control by-law we require um protection within three meters of the property owner a property line for the adjacent properties so that’s a standard requirement um we would be looking at boundary trees and that’s all things that we look at through site plan control however having the additional language for the purposes of alleviating some concerns is is as welcomed um we would be looking at that so for that assurance um and if um what we have typically received is um with these types of site infill type developments and council hopkins is aware of this is where we have enhanced landscaping or fitting in to work within the existing landscape treatment um so that may be something that the deputy mayor may want to consider um those are things that we’re working within existing conditions um on the on site and making those enhancements okay i’ll go back to council robin is that so where you want to does that answer your concerns uh thank you um so uh not entirely so i it talks about enhanced landscaping along the interior and rear boundaries which is great i think that’s what you mentioned as that additional motion and i know councilor hopkins has had many of these um so i think that addresses on the applicants property line and and so forth uh and i like that we have the language around a tree preservation plan but i do see that it wasn’t the initial application what i heard was applicants saying they’re concerned about the trees that are in their property but as far as we can do we can only uh look at the three meters from that property line to to those trees so i haven’t read the the tree um the the tree preservation plan well enough to understand whether or not those trees actually fall in that three meters or not so i think keeping the language of the tree preservation plan actually makes sense because then if it is captured in that three meters it’s it would be covered there okay all right you’re good talking mayor okay great um any other committee members visiting counselors councilor hopkins how you knew you were chomping at the bit to go so please go ahead yeah thank you and um and just speaking to the amendments i haven’t seen them all um but i understand the tree preservation plan if we can underline that even though we are going to be doing enhanced landscaping i i think is really important as it relates to the the privacy that is needed i’m pleased to see the photometric plan include light cast for wall mounted lighting be part of that site plan process and the reason that is very very important that a study be done if it is wall mounted so the light does not disperse into the backyard it comes it goes down and we’re really not sure what that lighting is going to look like at the moment so having that in there so thank you committee for uh addressing that and there was a third piece yeah the third piece is about the two parking spaces so maybe a question through you i do have a number of questions i hope you will be patient with me um addressing uh the two parking spots at the front and when i did read the recommendations it was recommended not to uh to have them removed and i would like to understand the reasons why i’ll go and staff through the chair staff are recommending um the special provision to limit parking into the interior and rear yards only and that’s informative with the London plan policies to keep parking away from the street frontage the intent of that is kind of keep it behind the building um have a dominated streetscape by the building not from parking typically sites of over a certain number of units contain laybys in this situation it does not meet the threshold for a layby which is why the applicant is proposing it two spaces out front parking on site is over parked based on the minimums of the site of the zoning by-law so we believe there’s adequate space at the rear to provide those temporary spaces as needed thank you counselor so they could be moved to the back then through the chair sorry um i don’t believe they have space at the back to add them that would be up to the discretion of the applicant if they need to relocate them to the rear um from our perspective we’re just looking to have them at the rear or interior side yard and away from the front yard thank you closer thank you for that and um i just want to make a comment about these spaces because they can’t be accommodated to the rear i think having them at the front is is a bit of a challenge and one of the challenges at the front of this proposal is that this commissioner’s road there’s a sidewalk attached to that road and then there’s a little space and we have heard loud and clear the congestion the challenges the safety are moving around um this area is is going to be challenged with this development so i’m not sure if having the uh two parking spots at the front will create another impediment in terms of how how the community moves around safely in this neighborhood and i do have concerns about that and i would support staff’s recommendation when it comes to those two parking spaces um that’s a comment i’ll leave with the committee i do have a number of questions um mr chair if you allow me just as a follow up to the community coming out and i i first of all want to thank the applicant for holding an information session i really appreciate that it was done a number of months ago i was hoping that the recommendation coming to us today would be slightly less i was hoping for some townhouses less intensification in an area that is very um challenged with how how it functions and moves around and i think it that would have been a better um um recommendation but uh staff are recommended it is allowed in our policies to go with the four story 22 units and fortunately uh the community too has very little recourse here in appealing it and that’s why it’s really important and i want to thank the community for being here and to me um it’s really important that we hear the concerns and it’s not uh about nebeism when it comes to privacy and how we move around in this area those are really true um uh concerns with with any kind of development and we’re going to see more development in this area so it’s only going to get even more challenging so thank you for bringing those concerns to us here um just uh following up on uh question from um the gallery about water runoff and maybe um through you mr chair this sanitary servicing if that is available and the shadow shadow study if there was a shadow study and concerns around that uh just want to have staff comment thank you i’ll go to staff on the issue of water runoff to neighboring properties and uh shadow impacts thank you through the chair i can speak to the engineering questions uh so the sewers along commissioner’s road have been confirmed to have capacity so we have no issues with that um the area is currently sloped towards commissioner’s road so we’re not expecting drainage impacts to the Jason property um as part of site plan drainage will be controlled and stored on site by way of grading and catch basins okay and would staff like to comment on shadow impact uh through the chair a shadow study was not required as part of this application typically the threshold for shadow study requirements is around uh six stories in residential areas but i do want to note that the position of the building and the orientation of the lot lines uh does push the building further towards commissioners uh which means uh the shadows wouldn’t actually cast into the uh neighbor to the east backyard uh so so that alleviates that concern don’t sort uh thank you for that and i would like to just follow up with some other questions that i’ve already reached out to staff that i’ve heard from the community uh and it is regarding um the placement of the garbage cans and the applicant is proposing the use of a deep well garbage system which is currently proposed along the west interior boundary before the parking begins and a detailed review of the garbage collection will occur again it’s through the site plan process also the snow removal uh this will be also reviewed through um the site plan process and we heard about the tree preservation plan again uh going through that and i just want to let the community know uh there were conversations uh i know when we had the initial open house around you know the important you know what what what can we get when it comes to um having these infills in our in our community and i’m always wishing and hoping that dedication coming going to parks and planning or cash and loo are opportunities that the developer has to give back something uh to the city in this case it will be cash and loo um maybe i’ll just finish off with my comments then um as well uh again i i have concerns about the parking at the front uh again that sidewalk and how we move around it’s going to be a challenge uh and we’ve got the school down down the road and we’ve got more development coming forward and um it’s very very busy and uh again i want to thank the committee for addressing the privacy concerns of the neighbors around that is very important there’ll be the fencing there’ll be increased fencing when it comes to the height um as well as uh um the uh enhanced landscaping and i would hope there will be something evergreen in that landscaping as well um when that comes forward but i do want to address the big big concern in this area and it is how we move around on commissioners road west and um as much as you know housing units are important to have it is even more important that we are able to move around our neighborhoods in a safe manner and that is not happening on commissioners road west and i was disappointed i’ll just say it out loud and clear because it’s going to be something you’ll be hearing from me over and over again as a counselor of ward uh a 9 um that um we didn’t even uh council didn’t support our recommendation coming from staff to reduce on major roads by 10 kilometers in community zones and school zones which this area is in a reduction in the speed limit and that would go a long way in how we move around and as as we increase not only um putting more vehicles on the road but also has as we walk the street safely um and and you’ve heard from the community uh accidents in this area it’s not uncommon and we’ve got a lot of increased traffic and construction vehicles coming from the west um so i i think i just wanted to share those thoughts and concerns that i am hearing from the community there was a letter as well that is attached to the recommendation about the the need for other ways to move around such as transit better transit Reynolds road we put in i put in a request to see where we are with sidewalks i hear over and over again sidewalks are needed it creates a safer way Reynolds road is very wide we can put sidewalks there um but also traffic calming measures may have to be looked at as we uh intensifying this in this area so i just wanted to share those thoughts and concerns i think we do have our hands tied here as a committee uh there is a recommendation it’s support that this does support our policies um and i um have concerns about that parking i’m hoping the committee would not support that so i will just listen to um the rest of the debate thank you thank you i’ll look for other comments or questions uh councilor omen thank you i just had a further question about the uh amendment and around the parking um in on page 171 i don’t know if that’s right page now um the uh comments in appendix c it says uh to address public concern regarding loss of landscaping and privacy staff may consider a special provision for an increased setback from the parking area at the rear to retain the existing hedge of approximately 2.5 meters i’m just wondering where that left off and if this parking in the front we’re let’s say moved to the back or that additional parking was at the back could we still have the privacy that’s needed at the rear i’ll go to staff through the chair in discussions with the applicant um in order to have the front yard parking removed um we did remove that setback of 2.5 meters um that was to accommodate all the parking in the rear with the removal of the two spaces at the front um the recommended provisions to site plan for the increased height and in and enhance landscaping will still remain um and then we would look for that at least an adequate setback to accommodate the tree planting for that enhanced planting at the rear okay uh so if i’m understanding you correctly if i’m in support of the two additional uh drop in parking spaces i’ll call them temporary parking spaces that would be in the front um you would be able to accommodate those alongside this special provision if i were to mend it in although staff through the chair uh to maintain the number of parking spaces on site um if the front yard parking was removed and moved to the back that setback would actually be reduced um so it may make it difficult to provide that enhanced landscaping in that specific setback with the removal of the front if the front parking spaces remain um we would be looking to maintain that large setback that’s currently shown on the concept site plan counselor thank you do you need the special provision rewritten in or no staff through the chair um i don’t believe so uh that is something that we can work with the applicant through the site plan approval process and ensuring that there’s adequate space for that enhanced landscaping counselor thank you um i hear the word counselor and her concerns on adding additional drop in and temporary spaces in the front um however i know that in my ward this has come up quite a bit as well um with some of the newer developments um i think for me the privacy concern uh and that additional approximately two and a half meters i think uh is um sufficient if we’re able to provide those two parking spots so i will support the amendment okay any other uh um yeah i first of all i want to thank counselor ramen for asking that question because i think it’s very important to understand when we push parking to the rear we’re impacting the rear yard neighbors and we can want uber and skip the dishes and whomever amazon we can want them to go to the rear parking lot the reality is they won’t and we’ve all seen that on streets throughout our wards they throw on their hazards and they block clean a traffic so providing an actual drop off space in the front which because i want to underline in in the site plan uh approval authority request was setback of not less than four meters from the front lot line so i really struggle with the the position that it’s going to block sight lines or or make it harder to see decrease safety because four meters is a significant distance um so a four meter setback allowing for that better buffer in the rear yard i mean these are the trade-offs we have and and i said this earlier the London plan policy made discourage front yard parking there is nothing in the r8 zone that prohibits it um in fact you know on other sites it’s allowed um uh and if this was a higher more intense purpose the accommodation of the parking would probably require the building to be setback and more parking visible up front so i i think we have to be cognizant of the fact that when we speak against parking out front there’s trade-offs and one of those trade-offs is a direct impact on the privacy buffers at the back so i i really encourage colleagues to support this and and support it through at the council level as well okay um other comments or questions we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on we have no items for direction uh i will go to deferred matters the deferred matters list on the floor uh um got a motion to move it by uh counselor ramen second and by counselor frank i’ll call that vote oh so i’m sorry i should for discussion sorry counselor please go ahead no problem and i’ll make it quick um just within the uh dates i just noticed that uh there are a couple items item nine and item ten where there’s uh there isn’t a status update um and i’m just wondering if that could be updated for the next uh meeting go go stop through the chair for item eight we’re targeting q2 2025 as a target oh sorry thank you nine and ten it’s just a the status column wasn’t data yes uh for item nine uh we will certainly fill that in um and uh we’ll follow up with um the city engineer um for item ten counselor uh so i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so that leaves us with uh our confidential items so i’ll look for a motion to move in camera counselor ramen seconded by deputy mayor loess and we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero five to zero okay we’re good okay um i’ll assess the deputy mayor to report out uh thank you chair and through you i’m happy to report out that progress was made on all three items for which we went in camera thank you so before i call for a German this is the last uh meeting of this particular group committee i want to thank everyone very much um in particular i want to thank uh counselor ramen and counselor frank for uh your thoughtful insight and um tremendous value that you added to the decision-making of this committee and i wish you well in the next committee and they’re lucky to have you guys so thanks very much okay i’ll look for a motion to oh thank counselor ramen thank you and i just want to say to counselor ramen thank you so much for chairing these meetings you’ve done a great job as chair being balanced and effective in in your uh your chairing uh learned a lot from you in this time and thank you to deputy mayor loess for serving as vice chair and uh i want to see the next committee and see if they’re moving things along but thanks again uh deputy mayor uh yeah i just want to uh echo your comments chair thanks to both of our departing from this committee colleagues counselor ramen and counselor frank i think we’ve had uh the most uh finely tuned and and well-oiled machine at planning committee that we have seen at the city and perhaps a decade or two um this this group has really found ways to move things forward and and even when we uh disagree we do it agreeably and it’s been uh i’m gonna miss counselor frank’s fun fun quips um but i want to assure her that i will continue to make sure that we’re looking for 50 uh naturalized uh plantings in our uh landscaping uh and that we are considering bird friendly windows as we look at uh applications coming forward as we wait for that um those to get finalized into our site plan controls moving forward but i’ll keep those in mind and i know that you’ll uh keep on me if i don’t so um but thank you both and counselor ramen i assure you uh that i continue to know that there are concerns about that oxford street corridor in wonderland um and i haven’t been able to convince the mayor that we should buy a property and and give it to cost go to move so that you have less traffic there um but i i know that as the master mobility plan rolls out we’ll have a lot more discussion about that too so it’s been a great year working with both of you yeah great great place for a community center counselor frank now i have to add something but dido to all of that and i also want to say thanks to staff as well because we’ll i’ll be heading off and i don’t think i’ll see you guys as often much to your delight but uh maybe i’ll chat more with you guys offline but uh i have appreciated uh working with your staff they’ve been really delightful so thank you um and you too heather i don’t forget to clerk okay um yeah and thank you heather and i assume you’re going to be with us in the next uh iteration so good okay on that uh i’ll look for a motion to adjourn deputy mayor luis seconded by counselor ramen and all favor hand vote motion carried meaning adjourn thank you