February 19, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   2024 Annual Development Report

2025-02-19 - Staff Report - Annual Development Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the 2024 Annual Development Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   2024 Annual Heritage Report

2025-02-19 - Staff Report - 2024 Annual Heritage Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the 2024 Annual Heritage Report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Seasonal Building Division Report - December 2024 - Year End

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (2.3) Building Division Report - December 2024

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Seasonal Building Division Report December 2024 – Year End, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   LJM Developments (London) Inc. - Application for Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Incentives - 359 Wellington Road

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (2.4) 359 Wellington Rd - Brownfield CIP Application

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of LJM Developments (London) Inc. relating to the property located at 359 Wellington Road:

a)    a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $2,100,000 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, under the following program in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives (‘Brownfield CIP’):

i)    to provide a grant through the Development Charges Rebate Program for the eligible remediation costs, as follows:

A)    that if development charges are paid in one lump sum amount, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in one instalment;

B)    that if development charges are paid annually over six years, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in six annual instalments, noting that any interest charged by the City of London for deferred development charge payments is not included in the rebate;

b)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP. The agreement between the City of London and LJM Developments (London) Inc. will be transferable and binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

c)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to provide the additional soil and groundwater investigations proposed by the applicant’s consultant as well as the correspondence with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks through submission of the Conceptual Site Model to support the Record of Site Condition;

it being noted that no grants will be provided through the Brownfield CIP until:

i)    all remediation work approved under this application is finished;

ii)    the payment of development charges has begun;

iii)    a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Government of Ontario’s

Environmental Site Registry;

iv)    the City of London receives receipts showing the actual cost of the

eligible remediation work; and,

v)    the City of London receives the additional information requested in the above-noted clause c).

Motion Passed

2.5   Heritage Easement Agreement, 39 Carfrae Street

02-19-25 - Staff Report (2.5) 39 Carfrae Street HEA

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, for the following:

i)    the Heritage Easement Agreement as appended to Appendix “A”, Schedule “1” between the Corporation of the City of London and the property owners of 39 Carfrae Street relating to the heritage designated property known as “Carfrae Cottage” BE APPROVED;

ii)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED delegate authority to execute the Heritage Easement Agreement on the City’s behalf; and,

iii)    the release of the existing 2021 easement agreement from title to 39 Carfrae Street upon the registration of the Heritage Easement Agreement as appended to Appendix “A”, Schedule “1” BE AUTHORIZED, to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services.

Motion Passed

2.6   (ADDED) The 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

(ADDED) 2025-02-12 CACP Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on February 12, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1484 Gore Road (Z-25002)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.1) 1484 Gore Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Richfield Custom Homes (c/o Stantec Consulting Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1484 Gore Road;

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6( )) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Authority BE REQUESTED to consider limiting western-facing windows to the ground floor only;

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

-      R. Hagath, Stantec;

-      K. Bailey;

-      T. Mackenzie; and, 

-      E. Caleb  

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 residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned 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.

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

the Site Plan Authority BE REQUESTED to consider limiting western-facing windows to the ground floor only;

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion be approved, as amended.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   1390 Dundas Street (Z-9817)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.2)1390 Dundas Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Southbridge Healthcare LP (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1390 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, 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 Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Regional Facility Special Provision (RF1(_)) Zone;

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

-    M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priarmo Ltd.; and, 

-    M. Wallace, London Development Corp.;

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 Urban Corridors Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit complementary uses that are considered appropriate within the surrounding context; 

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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   4023-4096 Meadowbrook Drive, 4474-4500 Blakie Road, 169-207 Exeter Road (Z-25001)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.3) 4023-4096 Meadowbrook Drive 4474-4500 Blakie Road 169-207 Exeter Road

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Bluestone Properties Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 4023-4096 Meadowbrook Drive, 4474- 4500 Blakie Road, and 169-207 Exeter Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone and a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone;

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

-    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design Policies, Urban Corridor Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   Holding Provision Symbol Review - Property Update (Z-25011)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.4) Holding Provision Symbol Review-Property Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the based on the application for the City of London relating to the Holding Provision Symbol Review Property Update the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Section 3.8(2) (“Holding Zone Provisions”) of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to add the “h-213” holding provision and to adjust the zoning of the subject properties to reflect Section 3.8(2) of the Zoning By-law No. Z-1.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   1782 Kilally Road (OZ-9811)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.5) - Edgevalley Phase 2 - 1782 Kilally Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1782 Kilally Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016:

i)    to revise Map 1 – Place Types to amend a portion of the subject property FROM Environmental Review and Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    to revise Map 5 – Natural Heritage to remove the Unevaluated Vegetation Patches, and Potential Naturalization Area and amend the Environmentally Significant Area; and,

iii)    to revise Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources to AMEND the limits of the Maximum Hazard Line and the Conversation Authority Regulated Area;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The London Plan, as amended in the above noted part  a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, TO: a Residential R1 (R1-13) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone; a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4()) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE REQUESTED to report issues to the Approval Authority, if any, raised through the application review process for the property located at 1782 Kilally Road; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-24506);

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

-    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings;

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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   1378-1398 Commissioners Road West (Z-9815)

2025-02-19 - Staff Report (3.6) 1378-1398 Commissioners Road West

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Tricar Properties Limited (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1378 - 1398 Commissioners Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H25) Zone;

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

i)    to screen all parking areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping, as well as from neighbouring properties to mitigate any noise or light pollution;

ii)    to explore opportunities to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped area; and,

iii)    to ensure units fronting the public streets are oriented to the street by including principal unit entrances on the street-facing elevation and sidewalks to Commissioners Road West;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reassess the timing of sidewalks along Reynolds Road from Commissioners Road to Helena Montague Avenue as noted in the City of London’s New Sidewalk Program;

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

  •    a communication dated February 11, 2025, from J. Fleming - City Planning Solutions;

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

-    J. Flemming, The Tricar Group; 

-    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo;

-    S. Fletcher; 

-    F. Callahan;

-    D. Bennett; 

-    V. Mitchel; and, 

-    D. Shea;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and 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 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 redevelopment at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor A. Hopkins BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 2 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

4.   Items for Direction

It be noted that, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law and at the consensus of the committee, a change in order of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda to provide for Item 4.2 in Stage 4, Items for Direction, to be considered before Item 4.1 Stage 4, Items for Direction, was approved.

4.2   Councillors E. Peloza and A. Hopkins - Motion to update Business Improvement Area by-laws

2025-02-19 - Councillor E. Peloza and A. Hopkins - Motion to update Business Imporvement Area by-laws

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and update the Business Improvement Area By-Laws, including the addition of a mechanism to encourage Business Improvement Areas to submit their annual reports on a more timely basis, and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.1   Councillor S. Hillier - Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South

2025-02-19 - Councillor S. Hillier - MZO for land municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South:

a)    the request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to issue a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South, to designate these lands for Light Industrial uses, accommodating essential employment activities BE APPROVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work collaboratively with the owner of the Subject Lands and relevant provincial and municipal agencies to ensure that the development of the Subject Lands aligns with best practices for sustainable and strategic employment growth; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward this resolution to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local Members of Provincial Parliament, and other relevant stakeholders as a formal endorsement of the MZO request; 

it being noted that a verbal delegation from M. Cory, MGP, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from M. Cory, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis - Motion for immediate need for road rehabilitation of Dundas Street between Burdick Place and Beatrice Street

2025-02-19 - Deputy Mayor Lewis - Motion for Dundas Street Repairs

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to suspend any further considerations of the “Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area” with regard to the immediate need for road rehabilitation in 2025 of Dundas Street between Burdick Place and Beatrice St. due to extremely poor pavement condition (low PQI rating) and proceed with the rehabilitation planned prior to this plan;

it being noted that funding for the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan CIP was not included in the 2024-2027 MYB or annual updates;

it being further noted that reducing costs on capital projects for non-essential elements is consistent with the “Strong Mayor” direction to the Civic Administration to bring forward options for a budget rate of under 5% for 2026;

it being further noted that Planning and Environment Committee Received the following communication with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication dated February 13, 2025 from B. Mejia and R. Graham - Argyle BIA

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting Adjourned at 3:09 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 25 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It is 1 p.m. So I am going to call the fourth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to Order. And I will begin as we do by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawanderin.

And 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 peoples, and as representatives of the people of the City of London, we’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

I will begin by noting that Councillor Layman, our regular committee chair, is away, following his happy marriage last week. He is away on a short honeymoon, so he’ll rejoin us for the next planning committee cycle. But as is Vice Chair, I will be chairing today’s meeting. There will be an item that I’ll be moving, and I will go to Councillor Palosa to chair when that time comes.

I’m gonna look to colleagues for any disclosures of pecary interest, seeing none. We’re gonna move on to the consent agenda. I have not been asked by anyone to have any items pulled to be dealt with separately. I’m going to ask committee now if there’s anything you wish pulled to be dealt with separate.

Seeing none, can I have a mover and a seconder for the consent agenda? Moved by Councillor Hillier and seconded by Councillor. I am going to, before we go to any questions or comments from colleagues on any of the items, I’m gonna go to Mr. Mathers and his team to see if he’d like to offer any highlights from the annual development report updates.

I know that there’s some good news in there, and I thought you might want to bring a couple of items to people’s attention. I will note that we had some record numbers for building permits issued. I will note that it was 46 and a decimal point that I forget percent of our new builds that were happening within the built area boundary, and that fully 74% of the units that are under construction right now are apartment units. So our intensification efforts that this committee and the Council have made in the last year are really showing results in those numbers, but Mr.

Mathers, if there’s other numbers that your staff wish to bring to our attention to highlight, now would be a great time for that. Absolutely, thank you so much through the chair. I just, I’m gonna have some further details that Travis is gonna provide as far as some of the key numbers, but I just really wanted to highlight just what a great year it was for development in London. It’s really testament from all of the hard and dedicated work that our staff team has done, and as well as all of the important approvals provided by Committee and Council, and all the hard work with the industrial, the industry as well, being able to bring forward all of this wonderful, new development and housing in London.

It’s been so incredible to be able to get so much work done this year. So there’s some really great highlights that I’m gonna pass off to Travis to be able to provide for you. Thank you, through the chair. So before you after this afternoon is the 2024 Annual Development Report, it highlights a major rebound in development activity from a low year of 2023, with including significant increases in housing approvals by Council, and strong progress towards the affordable housing targets.

It’s an annual update that provides commentary on development activity, and it serves as a critical monitoring tool for Council developers in the community. It also helps inform the Annual Growth Management Implementation Strategy, which in particular, actuals versus builds, and that in turn informs things like infrastructure planning. In addition to some of the highlights that the Deputy Mayor identified, some key points from the report include, 22,890 new housing units approved by Council, including major projects at the former London psychiatric hospital lands at Oxford and Highbury, and at the Oxford Street West and Proudfoot area near Cherry Hill. 3,700 building permits for new units issued.

That’s 114% increase over 2023. Almost 2,200 affordable housing units are being tracked. So working towards the goal of 3,000 affordable housing units in the road map. In addition to the housing side on the industrial, commercial, and institutional, those sectors all grew by 100% or more over 2023.

And then based on ongoing process improvements and streamlining of approvals, there’s also been a reduction in review time and more as demonstrated by significant increases in the percentage of applications that are meeting their statutory timelines from the province. So 100% of temporary zones, consent, and site plans, 91% of zoning by-law amendments compared to 45% in 2023, 88% of combined official planning zoning compared to 69%, and 95% of minor variances compared to 80% in 2023. The city also met its housing accelerator fund unit, annual target, which was also reported at the end of last year. And then additionally, one other thing that’s a bit outside of this report, but related, a new city webpage has been created to track housing and council approvals.

The webpage will replace monthly reports that have been rocked to planning an environment committee throughout 2024. Communications will be sending out media releases in the coming days that will identify the webpage, the URL itself, but in those monthly reports, we’d identify it was transitional until the webpage was ready. That webpage will now be shortly released. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McBeth. And I’m gonna look to colleagues for any questions or comments on any of the consent agenda items. Seeing none, then I’ll just take this opportunity to again, extend thanks on council’s behalf to the entire staff team.

I know that we have certainly been pushing hard and sometimes perhaps been a thorn in your side on occasion on some of these files as we try and move them along, but we really appreciate the hard work and moving the city forward. And I know when Mr. Mathers was thanking the sector that Mr. Wallace was walking in, and I think I’d be remiss to not thank our industry partners too, because as much as we can move approvals through and staff can implement and get the building permits out the door, shovels don’t go into the ground without our partners in the building community.

So thanks to everyone, 22,000 approvals, 3,700 permits, plus issued. That’s a remarkable result for a year in review. So thank you for all that work. And since we have no other speakers on the list, I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on the consent agenda.

I’m losing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. Moving along, we have six items on the scheduled section of our agenda.

These are all public participation meetings and decisions on applications for approval. I’m gonna look to see if perhaps to, in the interest of efficiency of Councilor Plozen, Councilor Hillyer are willing to be the mover and seconder to open and close all the PPMs, and save the clerk just a few minutes of time there. And I see nods there. So we’ll indicate both of you as the movers and seconders for the opening and closing.

So our first item is 3.1. This is a public participation meeting with respect to 1484 Gore Road. We have the information in our packages. I will ask the clerk to open the vote on opening the public participation.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. So I’m going to look first to see if the applicant is here for 1484 Gore Road. Welcome.

If you can give us your name, please. And then you’ll have five minutes for up to five minutes for your presentation. Thank you. Through the chair, my name is Rachel Hagith, and I am an urban planner at Stantec Consulting.

I am representing the applicant, Richfield Custom Homes for the Zoning By-law Amendment for 1484 Gore Road. I would like to thank City staff for working with us through multiple revisions and for their support on this application, and we support their staff decision. The plan that is presented here today contains a good mix of unit types and price points while considering comments received from City staff and the public. We hope that the committee will support our Zoning By-law Amendment application, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for that. I will look to now see if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak to 1484 Gore Road in the gallery or online. If you’re in the gallery and want to speak, if you can make your way to a microphone and just conferring with the clerk, we have no one online. Welcome.

And I will just say the same thing. You have up to five minutes. So if you can give us your name, please. And then you have up to five minutes to share your thoughts on this application with us.

Great, of course. So my name is Karen Bailey. I have been working with our community to put together a response from our neighborhood to the opposition of this planning. Of course, as most planning, we are against the changes to our neighborhood under the fact that it does not fit with the neighborhood.

I do want to address the question, sorry. I noticed that in the planning application, it was mentioned that it follows the strategic plans of housing and homelessness, well-being and safety. And I wanted to inquire on how those are being addressed in the price points of what these houses will be, how they will be affordable to the general public, especially the demographic in the area where the houses are being built. Can I ask, will my questions be addressed now, or should I continue speaking?

Yeah, I’ll pause your time there. Sorry, I’ll share this with everyone. I am jotting down the questions that are asked. After the public participation meeting is closed, then we will go to staff to respond to any questions that we’ve received from the public participation.

So, and by the way, I will give you a wave if you’re getting close to your five minutes, at about 30 seconds, I’ll just wave to let you know you’re nearing the end of your time, but you have used only about 52 seconds so far. So you got lots of time left, go ahead. Perfect. I will mention the survey that I put out.

We had 75 responses and 82% were opposed. Some community concerns is the overcrowding and density that a 24 unit building will incur. Some things to note is the schools in our area are overpopulated already, and there are no plans to add any additional schools. And if you’re adding in 24 townhouses, we’re just gonna add more children.

There are some privacy concerns with the surrounding lots being one story. And I saw in the proposal that it’ll be anywhere from two to three and a half stories and city planning is urging to increase to four stories. So again, the privacy concerns of the surrounding lots, how would this be addressed? Lack of community resources.

We recently lost the Bob Hayward YMCA. There are no community centers in walking distance of our area and everyone in our area has to use resources at a distance. All the YMCA’s are not close. We have no community centers.

And now we’re adding more people with less resources. Of course, this isn’t something for the developer to address, but it would be something that should be considered by planning as we are increasing the density of homes in our area. Environmental impact, there are beautiful mature trees and wildlife on that property. How will this be addressed?

I see that there are some trees that will be preserved, but not the entirety. I think that is all of our concerns at the moment, but we do urge council to reject this proposal, rejecting it in its entirety or at least exploring lower density alternatives. Thanks. Thank you.

Looking for other speakers. This is for 1484 Gore Road. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon.

Just as I shared with the previous speaker, you’ve got up to five minutes. I am noting questions and concerns. We’ll go to staff after the public participation meeting has closed. So you have your five minutes.

I’ll give you a wave with about 30 seconds to go if you’re getting close to your time. Okay, my concern is, my name is Tom McKenzie. I live next door to the property. And our concern is too many units in the place for a small area.

Plus, they have not enough parking as it is on the map as it is now. And it’s not enough space for that many units in that area there. And parking has to be in the streets all around. We don’t want that.

I mean, all of us are opposed to the parking on the streets everywhere there, but that’s our concern. Too many units and not enough parking either. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Tony.

We appreciate you coming down to share that with us today. Great, Kelly, I live on Fundy Avenue. Good afternoon, Ed. - Good afternoon.

Again, we’ve got up to five minutes and I’ll give you a wave when you’re getting close. Fine, I don’t think I’ll take that much time. My concern is it’s three meters or 10 feet from the property line. And it’s a two-story building by having an issue with privacy and the lack of trees or just a privacy issue, mostly.

You’re talking a two-story building and you’re looking over a six-quatt fence directly into my yard. No, not too crazy about that. And I think it should be, the margin should be wider. More and more property should be between the fence and the building, pretty close.

So you’re gonna rip out, there’s I think eight trees there, fully mature trees that are gonna rip out. Now you’re just gonna replace it with a six-foot fence. Big privacy issue. So that’s my concern and the number of people, the number of houses on this little square lot is excessive, I believe.

That’s my beef, thank you. Thank you and we appreciate you coming down to share that with us today, looking for any other speakers on 1484 Core Road. Last call, sorry, yeah, you can only speak once. Seeing no other speakers, I will ask the clerk to open the vote to close the PPM.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Two colleagues, so before I go to questions, comments from counselors and visiting counselors, I’m just gonna go to staff for any comments that you want to provide on some of the concerns we heard. I will start on the one that staff really can’t respond to, which is the school board planning. That’s not something we decide here at City Hall.

That’s gotta go through the school board. So that’s not something that we can actually take into account under the Planning Act regulations we have to consider. That’s something that you would have to take up with your school board trustees. I do appreciate the concern.

I know there are some portable springing up on some school yards in the slightly larger neighborhood. So I understand where that concern is coming from, but that would be your school board trustees and I know your word counselors here. I’m sure he’d be happy to provide the contacts for the trustees if you’d like. Staff, we heard a few questions there that I’m going to look to you to provide a little bit of context or response on.

I think I’ll start with the parking and whether or not there’s enough parking on site and also ask you to address, at the same time, the lot line setbacks, those were raised as a concern, I think on a couple of different interior and rear yard setbacks. So I’m going to ask if you can give us any comment on those two items. Through the chair, the applicant is not seeking a parking reduction, there are 25 parking spaces proposed for the 24 units, which is more than double the minimum required by the zoning. In terms of setbacks, there is a minimum rear yard setback of nine meters being provided, as well as four meters on the interior side for the standard townhouses and 5.2 meters proposed, or rather 5.5 meters proposed for the stacked townhouses.

Through our review staff have determined that these setbacks are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts of the proposed development. And there were some concerns raised about the tree removal and privacy. I know that the plan that’s in our package indicates a privacy fence and some tree preservation, Ms. Matt, can you just comment on those two concerns around the privacy issue and the tree removals?

So through the chair, trees are proposed to be retained on site, which will assist in alleviating the privacy concerns. That’s a matter that will be addressed through a subsequent site plan process, as well as additional landscaping. So we’re satisfied that there is sufficient space through the proposed setbacks to offer landscaping and buffering, which will be finalized through the future site plan. And finally, I’m just gonna ask, there were questions about the ties to the strategic plan and the affordability.

And I know this is a private development. This isn’t a public led one that we’re likely to see at Fairmont Public School down the road, but I’m gonna ask if you can comment on the ties to the strategic plan and the questions around what these units will be renting for. Through the chair, in terms of the rental rates, I’d have to defer to the applicant on that. However, how we believe this contributes or supports the housing and homelessness strategic area focuses by increasing housing supply and meeting intensification targets, while also ensuring London’s growth and development is well planned and considers use intensity and form.

Thank you, Ms. Matton. And I will go to the applicant if you want to, and if you’re able to, I know you’re representing the applicant, but if you can comment on the affordability piece, if you have that information, what happened to hear you? Yeah, there’s no specific rate right now that we have discussed with the client.

I’m unaware of those. However, these will be owned units, not rentals. Thank you for that. Okay, so I’m going to look to colleagues to see if there’s a motion to be put on the floor.

Councillor Cutty, and you’re moving the staff recommendations. I’ll move staff for a combination. And we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that. Councillor Palosa.

So we have that moved and seconded. We’ll go into discussion and debate around that now. I do know that the ward councilor is here. So while I normally go to committee first, I’m going to see if Councilor McAllister, you want to start as the ward councilor.

If that’s okay with committee, if there are other questions, I’m happy to entertain that, but if everyone’s okay, I’d like to go first. Okay, I’m not seeing any. I’m a visiting member of this committee, so appreciate the chance to be here. I also want to say thank you to the residents who have reached out.

I understand whenever you see these sort of infill developments come, big change for the neighbourhood. It’s the first one, especially in Fairmont. We haven’t seen something like this. There are a few things I want to address that they have kind of already been touched on, but just in terms of the school being a capacity, obviously when Fairmont closed, Tweetsmere, a lot of students ended up there.

These are decisions made at the school board level. Laurie Ann, Pizalato, and Sherry Pohill are your two trustees if you do want to reach out to them. When the Fairmont School closed, the other school boards did pass on the opportunity to purchase the property. The city did, when our turn came, purchase it, and we are looking forward to having some affordable housing built there.

It’s much needed in the community, and so I support that one. In terms of the Y closing, again, that was a decision made by the YMCA. I have tried in terms of getting other publicly owned facilities to see investment on those. With the Fairmont School, there will be parkland that is set aside behind the school, so I’m happy to see that.

And there are some other amenities in terms of current parks in Fairmont that we are working on getting some public investment. So there are some things coming. I’m happy to see that. I know it’s a challenge in the area.

I do have an amendment, but before I get to that, I do have some questions that haven’t been addressed yet in terms of the roundabout, which is planned, to begin construction in 2026, unless that’s changed. And I would like to ask in terms of planning, in terms of coordination between the development and the roundabout to ensure that those two align. Well, let’s go to staff. I saw some heads turning.

I’m not sure which one of you are taking it, but if you wanna go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. And just to confirm, it is still scheduled for 2026. This site is actually relying on a storm sewer being installed as part of that project.

So a site plan approval will not be granted until that project is complete. So there’s gonna be coordination from beginning to end of between the two projects. Councilor McAllister. Okay, thank you for that.

And just to confirm, in terms of the road, ‘cause I know they have to build a road that will feed off of the roundabout, and there’s no issues that have been flagged in terms of traffic volume, and have we made any adjustments for that? Thank you, through the chair. Actually, the two acts as proposed are not on that extra lane way, it’s actually on the main road. In installing this roundabout, will greatly improve traffic flow in the area, improve site lines, pedestrian movements, and decrease speeding along Hamilton Road.

So it is definitely a big benefit for the area. Councilor. Thank you, and through the chair. Yeah, I look forward to the roundabout.

I definitely think that wider section is very hairy, so I know any improvement we can make on that greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time to circulate this to committee, but I would ask for them to entertain an amendment. I can’t put this forward, as I am not a member of the committee, but I would like, through the site plan authority, that’d be considered to limit exterior windows, to ground level on the western facing sides. Recognizing, as it has been said today, it’s very close on the western side, in terms of residents, especially along Fundy, the property lines do go right up against each other.

So I would ask to put forward that amendment for committee’s consideration. I can repeat that if you need the wording. I think we caught it, but give me just a minute with the clerks here, and make sure that we’ve got that, and then we’ll take it from there. Yes, Councilor, I’m just gonna read it back to you, that the site plan authority be requested to consider limiting western facing windows to the ground floor only.

That’s correct, seeing a knot. And Councilor Cutty, you’re indicating you’ll move that? Yes, I’ll move that motion. Okay, and do we have a seconder for that?

Councilor Hillier. Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded. I am gonna go to staff for an opportunity to comment. I know this is only a site plan authority be requested, so it’s not necessarily what’s going to be implemented, but it’s something to look at through site plan.

So I don’t know, Ms. McNeely or Ms. Matton, if one of you want to respond? Thank you, through the chair, I’ll respond.

I just wanna caution that there may be OBC, Ontario Building Code matters to take into consideration, but it would ultimately be up to the applicant and the developer to design their internal operations of the units that then are compliant with OBC. And I think that’s a good caution that while they can consider this, the Ontario Building Code may still say that’s not possible, but it does provide something for consideration and it looks like through the designs, the draft designs that we’ve been approved that most of the windows appear to be forward and rear facing, so, and I see a little bit of nodding from the representative of the applicant up there. So that’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion, Councilor Cuddy?

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I wanna thank Councilor McAllister for bringing forward this motion. I think it’s a really good improvement over what they’ve had and what we’ve heard from the neighbors today. And, you know, the only other thing that I wanna comment about both this development and it’s, I think it’s a great development, but the only caution that I would have, Chair, is what Councilor McAllister has mentioned and what one of the residents has mentioned. That is the issue of the schools and I know Councilor McAllister is gonna be speaking to the two trustees and I would offer my assistance as a former trustee to work with Councilor McAllister if there’s something we can do.

And I’ll leave it at that, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy. Thought you were gonna remind people that there’s a provincial election on, so now’s the time to talk to their MPP candidates as well since education is ultimately their purview, but I think the trustees are also very interested in hearing that too. So looking for other speakers, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and appreciate committee considering this. I have heard on privacy concerns, obviously from many residents, doing what I can on this front, recognizing how close they are, trying to create some privacy, but also recognizing that the province ultimately can decide these things, but I still think it’s fair to put something forward for consideration in the site plan, so thank you to the committee and thank you for the residents for their input today. Thank you. I have no other speakers, so, oh, sorry, Councilor Palosa.

Thank you, I appreciate the work Councilor coming out. I’m gonna be, I realized it’s only asking to consider it. I’m gonna be a no on this request though, realizing that row housing, townhouses are already small, sometimes and feel internally in any natural light air flow and other things. I know there’s always building codes to be considered, but there’s frost windows, and it’s something to say that the people on the second floor of a house is gonna be really interested in looking into your backyard more so that you’re gonna be looking at what they’re doing in their home.

Thank you, Councilor Palosa. Anyone else on the amendment? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the amendment for voting. Losing the vote, the motion carries three to one.

Thank you, colleagues. So we’re now on the main motion as amended, as long as we have the same mover and seconder, Councilor Cuddy and Councilor Hillier, you’re okay to remain on the motion, looking for any further debate now on the main motion as amended before we call the vote. Seeing none, I do wanna take the opportunity myself if committee will indulge me just through the chair, particularly around the on-street parking concern that I heard from one of our speakers. It’s certainly something to approach award councilor vote, so restrictions on on-street parking.

So you can create a no parking zone on your street through a neighborhood petition and vote. Councilor McAllister would be able to provide you the information directly on how you can proceed with an evaluation of that, but if on-street parking is a concern, if this moves forward, you can certainly submit a request to the city to make an area no parking along the adjacent streets. Obviously on Gore Road already, we don’t have on-street parking, but on El Dorado and some of the other side streets, I know there are, and that is a process that’s available to the neighborhood to consider as well. So I wanted to share that with the members of the public who expressed the concern about the on-street parking, there is a second process that you can go through that would limit where on-street parking can happen and not happen.

As I have no other speakers on the main motion as amended, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, our next item on the scheduled agenda is the public participation meeting with respect to 1390 Dundas Street, and we will move to open the vote to open the public participation.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We’ll look first to the applicant for 1390 Dundas Street. And if you can just give us your name, sir, and you give me your five minutes to make your presentation.

All right, good afternoon, committee. My name is Matt Lippenchuck, land use planner works the link of preamel, planning consultants for this application, working on behalf of self-bridge healthcare, and this application is to allow a limited number of additional complimentary uses within the five-story building currently under construction. I’d like to first thank staff for all their work on this project today, working with us, and self-bridge. We have been working with staff over the past few months to work out the details of the zoning bylaw amendment, have reviewed the staff report, and are pleased with their recommendation for approval.

We also note that today there have been no comments from the public regarding opposition. Of course, the purpose of the zoning bylaw amendment is to add several additional complimentary uses to the subject lands to give self-bridge the flexibility in the future to implement one or more of these uses within their long-term care facility. Of course, this is going to provide additional amenities and services to both residents and public. I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have.

We encourage the committee to endorse this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir, and we’re looking for any other speakers on 1390 Dundas Street. And we have no one online.

Oh, we have Mr. Wallace in the gallery. Welcome, Mr. Wallace.

Thank you very much. Mike Wallace with the limited development institute, very much in favor of this application. But I just couldn’t let it go by. In 2025, we have to get the ZBA zoning bylaw change.

The complimentary use is that these folks had to pay for and come here to deal with the long-term care facility. It doesn’t make any sense that that’s not automatically allowed under the zoning bylaw. I understand the zoning bylaw needs to be updated with three-think zoning. Let’s get at it.

So we don’t have to have this kind of delay in great projects for this city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Looking for any other speakers on 1390 Dundas. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Hey, colleagues.

I’m looking to see if there’s a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation. And let’s move by Councillor Cuddy. And I’m happy to second that as the ward councillor. And looking for any questions or comments.

Seeing none, if committee will indulge me. Mr. Wallace, I would say I appreciate the comments. I agree that for a long-term care facility, like the one that Southbridge is building, these complimentary uses fit very nicely.

No objection to this at all. I think it will only enhance the property. So very supportive. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

The vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on the next item, 3.3 is the public participation meeting with respect to 4023 through 4096 Meadowbrook Drive, 4474 through 4,500 Blakey Road, and 169 through 207 Exeter Road. And I ask the clerk to open the public participation meeting.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. And I will now look to see if the applicant is here. Welcome. And if you can just give us your name and you have five minutes.

I get afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of committee. My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with Zalinka Priemmo.

Here on behalf of our client, Bluestone Properties, who own the subject lands, commonly referred to as the Meadowbrook Business Park. Firstly, I’d like to thank staff for their work on this file. It’s more or less a technical request just to expand the permitted juices across the entirety of the subject lands, rather than having certain permissions apply to certain areas for standardization across the lands. We haven’t received any comment or opposition from any members of the public.

And all things considered, this application will be a great benefit to the operation of the business park. We appreciate staff’s recommendation for approval of our application. I’m here to answer any questions that any members of the committee may have. And thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. And we will look to see if there are any other speakers on this application. Seeing none and confirming with the clerk, no one is online for this one. So we will open the vote to close the public participation meeting.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. So I’m going to look to see if there is a motion to be put on the floor, Councillor Hillyer. I will move the staff recommendation.

And is there a seconder in Councillor Cuddy? Looking for any debate, discussion, questions for staff on this item? Seeing none, I appreciate you all making my job as chair easy today. I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. Moving on, the next item on our agenda is with respect to the public participation meeting for the holding provision symbol review. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Councillor Hillyer. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you colleagues. This one, the applicant really kind of is the city.

And I’m going to go to staff. Ms. McNeely, did you want a speaker? Did you want me to go to Ms.

Bolivar directly? Okay, we’ll go to Ms. Bolivar. Hi, thank you through you chair.

So we’re just bringing forward a housekeeping amendment to address 17 properties that weren’t covered in the previous citywide holding provision symbol review, wherein we introduced a new list of holding provisions under new numbers. So these 17 properties were unable to be addressed during that initial bylaw amendment due to appeal periods or overlapping applications. And we were also proposing to add the H-213 holding provision back into section 3.8 as we had and inadvertently removed it during the previous bylaw amendment. And it is required to be in there for now.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bolivar. And we will look to see if there are members of the public here to speak to this.

Seeing none, I thought for sure that Mr. Wallace and Mr. Fleming would have praise for staff on cleaning up the holding provisions list. But I guess that they’re here to speak to some other items.

So seeing no one else, I will look to the clerk to open the vote participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries part to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I’m gonna look to see if we’ve got a mover for the staff motion.

Councilor Cuddy, Councilor Palosa seconds. We’ll look for any discussion on this. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries part to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, our next item, 3.5, is the public participation meeting with respect to 1782 Kalale Road. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries part to zero.

And I will look now to see if the applicant is here to speak to this. Welcome, Ms. O’Brien. If you can, I guess I already gave your name for you.

So I will ask you to proceed. You’ve done this before, so you were five minutes. Are yours? Thank you, Chair.

We’d like to thank staff, particularly Michael and Peter, for all of their hard work to move this application forward within the statutory timelines under the Planning Act. It’s greatly appreciated. As highlighted in the staff report, the proposed development represents over 1,000 units in the form of single-detached dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise apartment buildings, both in the form of traditional home ownership and purpose-built rental. The development includes a small park block slash servicing corridor for the expansion of the adjacent Drew Park, as well as approximately 37 hectares of open-space lands that will be dedicated to the city.

This area includes sufficient space offered from the identified features to allow for the continuation of the Thames Valley Parkway and is about 15 acres more than was needed to satisfy the previous Matthews group arrangement, as mentioned in the report. The remaining element of the previous park land agreement is to be satisfied on the Southlands representing approximately seven acres of table land for programmable park space. That area is between Webster and Samford. We’re currently working with staff to figure out their characteristics and location of that park space before we bring forward more formal consultation on the future development of these lands.

The development, along with the urbanization of Kalale Road, represents necessary servicing connections for future developments to the South and the East, and we’re very excited to advance much-needed housing in this area of the city. We’ve reviewed the recommendations of the staff report and are supportive of the proposed amendments, and I am available for any questions of the committee as needed. Thank you, Ms. O’Brien.

Anyone else in the gallery looking to speak to 1782 Kalale Road? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote to close the— Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I will look to see if there’s a mover, Councillor Cuddy, you’re the word councillor, so you’re prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Yes, sure. And I see a second in Councillor Hillyer. So that is on the floor, looking for any questions, comments, debate. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, and through you. You know, in the three years I’ve been in this job chair, I’ve never met with a more agreeable group of developers than the drill-o group, and Carrie’s smiling as I say this, because last week I asked her a favor, and without even hesitating, she helped me out. And that’s the way it has been with drill-o, and with residents in the area, not only on Kalale, but all through that area off of Highbury, they’ve just been so helpful, and they build great properties, and I’m just so excited to continue to work with drill-o, and with the staff at drill-o. So please take that back to your office.

I think you guys are great to work with, and I’m looking forward to this project. It’s exciting. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cuddy, and I will go next.

I have no other speakers on the committee, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Chair, to recognize me, I just wanna make a few comments. I wanna thank staff for the work on this one.

It looks like there’s a lot of history with this development, and appreciate the work that the applicant has done here, especially maintaining that 30 meter buffering around the woodlands. Also, I know there’s more work to be done too, with the compensation of some of these wetlands. I understand that’s gonna go through the side plan process. Just on a side note, though, I would have loved to have seen a little bit more intensification in this development.

I know it came up a little bit, but those are my comments, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, looking for any other speakers, and I see none, so I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Thank you, colleagues.

So moving on, our final item under scheduled items, 3.6, is the public participation meeting with respect to 1378 through 1398, Commissioners Road West. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote for the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Thank you, colleagues.

And I will look to the gallery to see if the applicant is here. He’s kind of hard to miss, ‘cause he’s a fairly tall fellow. Welcome, if you can give us your name, sir, and you have five minutes to proceed. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I’m just gonna start out and then pass it to Ms. Crowley. My name’s John Fleming, and I’m just gonna say a couple of words on behalf of Tri-Car.

As folks around the horse, you would know, Tri-Car is one of the largest builders in the city of London, and they also have not only a reputation of building thousands of housing units in our city, but delivering with excellence in it. I think that’s an important factor when considering building within existing neighborhoods and knowing that a developer, such as Tri-Car, is going to deliver with excellence and what you see on the plans are actually gonna be delivered. I just wanna wrap up my part by saying that Mr. Carapella has indicated that he’s gonna begin immediately on his project.

Should approvals be granted, so this is a project that would contribute towards council’s targets for housing development in the city and addressing housing shortage. With that, I’d like to turn it over to Ms. Crowley. Thank you.

Thanks, John. I’m Caitlin Crowley, planner with Selenka Priema. Here is the authorized agent on behalf of Tri-Car. I first would like to thank staff for their work on this application.

We have read the staff report and agree with their positive recommendation. I would also like to thank the neighbors in attendance here tonight, as well as the ones that came to our community information session, which Tri-Car hosted on November 11th, 2024. We were able to get approximately three, a little over 30 people in attendance for that community information session, and they were able to provide comments at that time, and the consulting team was also there, and so their input in that meeting was valuable. This project is a consolidation of five single family lots, spanning from Reynolds Road to Stephen Street, along Commissioner’s Road West.

I would like to note that this proposal for a six-story apartment building at this location is contemplated in the London plan. The height is in line with council’s direction for building height along a civic boulevard, such as Commissioner’s Road West. There are a few notable items that I would like to point out as positives about the proposal. As John said, Tri-Car does have a very good reputation, so we did receive some comments regarding the safety of the sidewalk along Commissioner’s Road West at this location.

So through this proposal, Tri-Car is proposing to relocate the sidewalk further south, so that there is a landscaped boulevard strip between Commissioners and the sidewalk. The proposed building does create a positive pedestrian frame for the street. The ground floor units in the apartment building are proposed to have pedestrian connections to the new sidewalk. We are not proposing a traffic vehicular entrance on Stephen Street due to the school across the road, so in order to avoid as many traffic conflicts as we can, that was why Reynolds Road was chosen for the vehicular entrance and exit.

Parking is located at the rear on the property behind the building. That is to be able to provide a screen for the parking as well as provide for landscaping along Commissioner’s Road West. Garbage and loading is addressed on site. There is an indoor garbage room proposed with garbage wheeled out on garbage day.

The way the site is laid out, it was intentional to maximize the separation of the proposed buildings, of the proposed building from the neighbors to the south in order to provide sufficient separation there to avoid any privacy concerns. There has been substantial tree plantings along the perimeter of the property as well, and parking is proposed at grade as opposed to underground. This will minimize disruption to the tree roots of the trees on site that are proposed to be retained. One of the common concerns that we received from the neighbors as well was traffic congestion, both existing and as a result of the development.

So we did have paradigm transportation solutions prepare a traffic impact brief, which determined that approximately 18 car trips are generated on Reynolds during AM peak hours and approximately 26 car trips during PM peak hours. Sorry, the project will generate additional traffic on Reynolds Road, but it is considered a low trip generator and negligible in the grand scheme of things. These consolidated properties are an ideal location for intensification in the city of London. The property is within easy walking distance to shopping, medical, recreational and other daily needs.

The residential use and form are needed to add to London’s affordability, and the proposed height of six stories is suitable for a lot consolidation of this caliber and still similar to recent nearby developments on Commissioners Road West. So we would like to urge the committee this afternoon to consider all of these factors in their decision this afternoon and to permit a six story residential apartment building. And I would like to thank everyone for their time this afternoon and myself and John from Tricar will be available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we’re looking now for other speakers to this development. And the clerk has made me aware that we do have a participant online. I’m gonna go to the gallery first, but then we will go to the resident that’s online as well.

So we’re gonna start up there. Welcome. Thank you. As you’ve heard me say a few times already today, if we can get your name and then you have up to five minutes, I will take any questions that you have.

I’ll jot them down and go to staff afterwards for some response for you. So when you’re ready, please go ahead. Thank you, my name is Sherry Fletcher. And we wanna thank the Councillors on this committee for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the staff recommendations for this development.

We’re a group of neighbors on Stephen Street who live immediately south of the proposed development in early January in response to the notice of planning application we created in Canvas approximately 250 homes in our nearby neighborhood with petition to adjust the proposed development from a six story, 67 unit structure to four stories with 43 units. 127 people signed the petition supporting the proposed adjustment to the development plan. And we had really good support as evidenced by the people signing, but also people who continued to be in touch in regards to what was happening with the petition. And unfortunately, a lot of them had other commitments today and weren’t able to attend.

Of course, you’ll have seen our full comments in the agenda package. And I know that you’ll have reviewed all the comments. We just wanted to highlight a few things from our discussions with people as we made our way with our petition. One of the things that we heard from the neighbors was not really being in support of having a development of a six story building.

As you are aware, I’m sure Byron is a small village that was incorporated by the city in the early 1960s. And we have had a very nice small town feel to the community. And so the idea of having a development of this size in our backyards was quite a concern for us. So the neighbors certainly, many supported a lessening of the height of the building.

And also there have been concerns expressed by neighbors in regards to vehicle and pedestrian safety with additional traffic as a result of having 67 units added to the neighborhood. We’re including our concerns for the children that are in the neighborhood walking to and from school. Other concerns that we heard were concerns about privacy, air, noise and light pollution and into the neighboring homes in the development. And there was also a concern expressed about the loss of the single detached dwellings, the five single detached dwellings that are currently on the site, some that are over 70 years old and the displacement of those occupants.

We acknowledge the city’s commitment through the London plan to increase housing to support our growing population. The area to the south and west of the development is comprised of single detached dwellings. Recently, this committee approved a four story, 22 unit development at 1408 and 1412 commissioners road, which is a few doors west of this proposed development. It would be in keeping with that recently approved development to lower the proposed height of the 1378 to 1398 commissioners road development.

We believe that the infrastructure and original plan of the neighborhood was designed to support single family dwellings as opposed to large apartment buildings. In addition to the concerns that are already listed, we do have concerns about construction of this development and we recognize that this isn’t, this isn’t Tricar’s problem per se, but with the development at 1408 and 1412 commissioners, road having been approved. And then there’s also been a recent application to the London consent authority for the severing of a lot at 1303 Reynolds Road, which is just almost across from what will be the entrance into the development. And so we just are concerned about the number of construction sites that will be potentially happening at the same time.

And again, safety with that happening. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you bringing those concerns forward, sharing the neighborhood’s thoughts with us.

We’ll look for other speakers. Welcome, sir, if you can give us your name and you have up to five minutes. Good afternoon, I’m Frank Callahan. I’m a resident on Reynolds Road.

And I definitely will keep my comments. Frank, can we, sorry to stop you there. Yes, I was gonna say, can we just get you to raise your mic a little bit so we can hear you click better? That’s much better.

Thank you. I’m Frank Callahan. I’m a resident on Reynolds Road. And I just wanted to make a few brief comments about this particular proposal.

Before I start, I did want to recognize the work of Sherry Fletcher and her team. They did a heck of an effort in terms of discussing the issues with the neighborhood and providing input into this discussion. So thank you, Sherry. In reviewing the comments provided to this committee, you’ll note that there’s a majority who are not opposed to the development per se.

In fact, from my own perspective, if you look at some of the more recent developments from Tri-Car, including 1200 Commissioners Road West, or more recently, the two five-story condominiums on West Alborn, they build a quality design and product. So the issue here really is the scale of this development in relation to the neighborhood. I believe it’s as currently proposed, it’s excessive from a couple of perspectives. First, if you look at the definition of the front lot line description, it’s designated now, or to be designated as Commissioners Road West.

Therefore, you use that as a basis to say, Commissioners Road West as a civic boulevard can handle a higher density. Yet in this situation, all of the traffic is going to be onto Reynolds Road. And then in terms of the front yard depth and West side yard depth, both are significant reductions in terms of the required distance there. I’d say these factors all suggest that this development as proposed is too large for the small plot of land involved.

The proposed density on the development is 100 units per hectare. And again, I think this is considerably higher than anything that has been approved to date on Commissioners Road West, including the two apartment buildings across the street. As I pointed out in my letter to the committee, the lands west of Rounds Road, right through to Chestnut Hill, will all be developed going forward at some time in the future. I would view this development at a six story height as establishing a new benchmark.

And I would rather suggest to the committee that they look at approving this development, but at a reduced intensity 75 units per hectare would be a much more reasonable approach. And I think provide a better transition into the residential neighborhood immediately to the south. Thank you, Chair and Councillors. Thank you, sir.

We appreciate you taking the time to come down today. We’ll look for the next speaker. And welcome, sir, if you can give us your name and you have five minutes as well. Thank you, yes.

Hello, my name’s Cam Bennett. I’m a resident on Reynolds Road, along with my wife, school aged daughter and young son. I’m in full support of the other residents in what they had to say, but I also wanted to draw attention to the traffic access and safety section of the document that was provided. A lot of thought and focus was given to Commissioners Road as the civic boulevard and the frontage of the property, but Reynolds Road seems to have kind of fallen by the wayside.

In the city’s future plan for sidewalks, it looks like Reynolds is not due for sidewalks for at least 10 plus years. And with this addition of traffic, as well as more pedestrians in the area, that’s gonna become a higher risk for the residents involved in the area. Again, with the school right next door, every morning on a school morning, it’s become extremely just busy along that road, especially along Reynolds. And having this extra building with all these extra residents would just add to that congestion.

The plan shows that it has a small section of sidewalk just as a fire safety area for the residents of the building, but I would propose to have the sidewalks along Reynolds kind of advanced, waiting 10 plus years with more development in the area is just going to lend itself to safety issues and injuries for people involved. If we could advance that either at the same time as the construction of this building or even before, so that they’re in place and pedestrian safety is put to the foremost in this area. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

And we will look to see if there are other speakers. Good afternoon, ma’am. Welcome. Just as with the other speakers, if you’d like to give us your name and then you have up to five minutes.

Thank you. My name is Valerie Schultz. And I won’t take five minutes. And thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I completely support all the comments that have been made. I’d like you to make sure you take a note that there were like 31 applications. There are notes sent in from the community, many of them with multiple signatures. So you can see that this has been a great concern for the community.

In particular, I’m gonna chat about Reynolds Road. The building itself is using a commissioner’s address. There, when people use, put that in their, you know, Google Maps, they’ll come to Commissioner’s Road and there’ll be no driveway. So think about how confusing that will be for the people, you know, coming to go to this place, visitors and delivery people and ambulance emergencies and so on, when there’s no driveway where the address is.

And then the other notion is just to support other comments that were made that the impact, they’re using the medium to large volume road, civic boulevard to be able to put the structure in place but putting the impact on a low volume road that does not have any, it does not have safety so it doesn’t have speed control limits or traffic calming or sidewalks down its length. And so unlike these things are just vacant and missing. So if they could please be addressed, Reynolds Road safety really needs to be addressed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And looking for other speakers in the gallery and while I give people an opportunity to see if they wanna come to the mic, we do have Diane who’s been waiting patiently online. So Diane, if you’re still with us, I’m going to go to you now to get your comments. And to figure out how I’m mute here.

No problem. Welcome and we appreciate your patience there. And if you’d like to go ahead with your comments on this project, we’re standing by to listen. Okay, thank you.

My name is Diane Shea and I live on Reynolds Road. Hey, you go ahead when you’re ready. I understand that London desires to increase its population density and I am aware of the limited rental availability in around London. Changing the heights and units of the proposed buildings to 22 units, this is my math now, is a change of over four times the population density that it was, there were five houses.

Let’s say they had two people each, that’s 10. If we make it a four height building, I understood it was to be 22 units times two, that’s 44. That’s an increase of 4.4 density. Again, that’s my math.

My concern as people have mentioned is the traffic. We have a school on the corner and as most of you are aware, schools become very congested around the schools in all four corners in the morning and at night during pickup and drop off. My one question was, how is the angle of where Reynolds Road meets commissioners to be handled? Right now, it’s awkward.

It’s hard to see left around the corner, which makes it a little more dangerous when there’s more people around. And in my opinion, we need to consider all the residents in buyer. It’s an aging population. I suggest, and this is probably past the time when I can do it, but I suggest that the new building apartment should have some designated units for the needs of seniors.

For example, at least one bathroom with a shower and grab bars instead of only bathtubs. That seniors in Byron would be able to have a combination to transition to and at the same time allow a young family to move into the area, that’s encouraging growth and vibrancy. I ask you as good planners and responsible builders to consider all of this. Planning for the future.

Sorry, I get really nervous and get teary, so. No, that’s okay. If you need to pause for a second, Diane, go ahead and we will wait until you’re ready to go ahead. One more sentence, planning for the future is not about just packing people in close.

It’s about keeping community engaged and sustainable. Thank you. Thank you. And we certainly know that, in particular, public speaking, even through Zoom, can be intimidating and challenging for some folks.

And so, we appreciate you taking the time to still come and share those thoughts with us. We will look to see if there are any other speakers. We’ve seen none in the gallery, and we now have no one else online. So I’m gonna ask the clerk to close the public participation meeting.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. A few colleagues, so before we look for emotions or engagement debate on the floor, although I’m gonna preface this with, I believe Councilor Ploza is bringing forward an amendment on sidewalks on Councilor Hopkins behalf. So I think we may hear some more about sidewalks when we get into debate. I know that was raised.

So I will ask for staff for comment on that as well. But before I go to staff, I’m actually going to see if either of our representatives or the applicant can comment on whether or not any of the planned units are planned to be accessible. That was a question that our last speaker raised, and with respect to accessible washrooms. And again, you may not have that information with you, but do you know if any of the units are planned to be accessible?

I’m just gonna have Adam from Tricar. Thank you. It’d be in the order of 15 to 20% of the units will be accessible. And a number of units do have showers versus the tubs, like one of the members of the public indicated.

And we do a number of times also install grab bars in those units in our developments, typically the end user for the product, whether it’s a rental or condominium development, is a lot oftentimes a senior. And that really helps with the housing containment, like the one individual was speaking of moving from their current single-family home and buyer into one of these apartments or condominiums, allowing freeing up that single-family home for a young family to move into. So certainly there’ll be a number of options with respect to accessibility. Grab bars, wider doorways, even five foot turning circles in bathrooms and kitchen areas, that sort of thing to accommodate that.

Thank you, appreciate you updating us on that. I think that was important to be able to share with the committee as well as with the members of the public. We did have a number of concerns around traffic safety, where the entrances are sidewalks on Reynolds. And so I don’t know if I know we’ve got Mr.

Yesfanny online, and we’ve got Mr. Lambert here in chambers. I don’t know if one of you wants to share Mr. Lambert, you’re nodding your head, so I’m gonna go to you to see if you can provide some context and comment on both with respect to the sidewalks as currently planned, understanding an amendment may be coming, as well as with respect to the traffic.

One of the things that I heard from members of the public is that it’s coming in off of Reynolds and exiting out onto Reynolds rather than commissioners, and if you can provide some context as to that for us. Sure, thank you through the chair. I’ll try to do my best at covering everything here. So Reynolds Road was included in the traffic assessment, and no upgrades were warranted through that report.

Connecting the access to Reynolds Road is preferred from a safety perspective, because the volume of traffic is much lower, there’s less chance of conflict versus the civic boulevard. This also follows our London Plan policies and our access management guidelines. As the applicants aged pointed out, there are many improvements proposed to address the pedestrian safety. Within the site plan application, a fee to note are the removal of the five existing driveways connected to commissioners road.

Road widening and site triangle are being dedicated to the city which provides adequate sight lines at the Reynolds Commissioners intersection, existing sidewalk along commissioners is being relocated further south, providing greater setback from commissioners road. And then as mentioned before, a new sidewalk is being installed along Reynolds Road to the limit of the subject property. Now any sidewalk extension beyond the site limits would need to be completed by the city through our transportation staff in our sidewalk program. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Mr. Lambert. And bear with me my screen timed out. The other issue that was raised by a number of speakers was with respect to the height and the density.

I know even the applicant addressed it in their presentation that the six stories is as of right on a civic boulevard. I don’t know if whether Ms. Heinz or Ms. Batton, if you want to provide any further comment on the density per hectare or the height, but if you have some comment to share with us now would be appreciated.

Through the chair, as you mentioned, the six stories is permitted under the London plan as the property does have frontage onto a civic boulevard where we like to see a bit more intensity and the property is designed so that the height is closer to commissioners road with quite a significant setback to the rear yard mitigating for some of those height impacts. And the other point that I had noted from the public participation was concerned around privacy, light pollution. Can you speak to what components may address concerns around, for example, lights on the parking area or headlights of vehicles coming in and out and shining into people’s windows and that kind of thing. If you can just touch on the steps that will be taken to mitigate that.

Through the chair, many of those issues will be addressed through the concurrent site plan application where they will be required to do a landscape plan and provide landscaping buffering and also fencing and they’re also in a photometric plan as well. We’ll be done at that time. Okay, thank you for that. That in general covers the range of questions and comments that I had written down here.

I am gonna go to committee now and I am going to go to Councillor Palosa. I know you indicated you’re prepared to move on amendment. So do you wanna move the staff recommendation with unadditional clause seeing a nod of your head? So I’m gonna go through it.

Absolutely, I appreciate efficiency. So I am moving the staff recommendation of A and B as circulated already in the public agenda. Adding on a part C that committee would have seen ahead of time, but not the public. So it reads civic administration be directed to reassess the timing of sidewalks along Reynolds Road from Commissioners Road to Helena Montague Avenue as noted in the city of London’s new sidewalk program.

This was previously from Councillor Hopkins as she’s not a member of the committee. I am moving on her behalf and need a seconder. And I see Councillor Hill your seconding. So that’s been moved and seconded.

Just as we did with the earlier application, if colleagues will permit, I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins first as the word Councillor, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. And this is on the amendment to the recommendation. If you can give me more time later on, I’ve got a lot to say, but I really appreciate your thoroughness. So I do want to indicate, Councillor Ploza moved the whole thing.

Okay. So we’ve got the staff recommendation with your amendments embedded in it. However, certainly if you needed extra time, I’m sure the committee would consider indulging you in that. Okay, thank you.

And I’ll speak away. And I really appreciate the thoroughness that you have taken in making sure that the residents here have as many answers to the many questions that the community has on the amended. Thank you, committee and hopefully we’ll support the reassessment at the timing of these sidewalks on Reynolds. You heard from a resident up here in the gallery.

We’re waiting 10 years for sidewalks on Reynolds. We approved a four story before Christmas on the other side of Reynolds. So we have a school, we have many, many challenges for pedestrians to walk around. I want to take this opportunity since we’re talking about sidewalks, the applicant even in their zoning application and recommendation have created a safer sidewalk on Commissioner’s Road.

That’s how important it is for us to move around in this area and then connecting that side sidewalk on Reynolds doesn’t go anywhere, at least going up to Helena Montague, which is the next sidewalk. There is some connection. So that is really, really important for pedestrians safety. Just want to make a few comments about the recommendation.

Really pleased that they screening on all parking areas from the public roadway and neighboring properties to deal with the light pollution. I think the screening is so, so important. That buffering, since I have a captive audience here with the applicant and the consultant encouraging evergreen, any coniferous kind of trees for buffering always makes a difference when we have neighbors backing on to developments such as this one. I’m really pleased that through the site plan process that we’re encouraging the applicant to reduce the paved areas in favor of more landscaping, there’s a lot of opportunities to create more landscaping.

There’s a lot of space for this development and of course ensuring that the frontage that the units are fronting onto Commissioner’s Road and having that connection to the Commissioner’s Road and the sidewalk. I want to continue just sort of, there was a lot of height. There was a lot of concerns from the height on this development and I know the frontage, the front yard setback is quite close, but it gives that opportunity of having a greater rear space. So there’s more space again for the neighbors to the south there.

So even though it is small, it creates that height closer to Commissioner’s Road. I do want to sort of express a few maybe disappointments. I was pleased to hear from Tri-card that these units 15 to 20% can be accessible. It’s really, really good to hear we in Byron, we are, I think even throughout the city becoming an aging population.

So accessibility and how we move around and how we age in place is also important. I am a little disappointed to see that there’s no true affordable housing units. I know the province has taken opportunities to provide these units, but it is a challenge as we displace tenants, we move them around and trying to get my son out of my basement would also be a great opportunity to have more true affordable housing in this area. We have a bus route on Commissioner’s Road, that’s why this location is desirable for intensification.

But when I see those parking spaces where one to one, which is what we see quite a bit here are planning, but I often wonder how can we reduce the parking spaces to allow for, you know, sort of encourage more transit and different ways of moving around. I wanna thank the applicant as well and the consultant for holding an open house. They did that in last November. And it’s so important to have those information in open houses at the beginning of an application or in this case before the application was put forward as opposed to at the very end.

Councillor, I don’t wanna interrupt your train. I thought too much, but we’ve got about 20 seconds left. So would you like a time extension? Yeah, maybe you can give me a minute on top.

I see movers and seconders and Councillor Hillier and Councillor Pelosa. Why don’t we move for a two minute extension? And I think we can do that by hand, all those in favor, and that carries. So Councillor Hopkins, please continue.

Sorry to interrupt your— That’s okay, I appreciate beginning a little bit more time. I appreciate it because the community is here. They have been quite invested in making sure their comments are heard not only by this committee, but I think having that greater conversation on how we do these intensification is a commitment from the community, going through a petition, creating getting 129 names. There’s a lot of work that goes into that, but there’s a lot of work that goes into understanding our city policies, and I really wanna thank the community for taking their time to make sure that their voices are heard.

I wanna just more or less finish it off. I hear a lot of frustration. I think a lot of frustration comes from at this application zoning application stage. There’s no appeal process.

There’s no way going forward for the community to give input. So this is why we really need to keep, take the time, understand the concerns. I wanna talk a little bit about the growth in this area. In the past eight years, we have seen two five-story apartment buildings go on the north side of Commissioner’s Road.

We just approved a four-story. Now we’ve got that six-story. There’s a lot of changes going on in this community. Added to that, there’s other areas of intensification going on in Byron, and developments in the surrounding area of Byron.

These are true concerns because Byron is changing, and change is difficult. And our infrastructure, how we move around, don’t have a lot of opportunities, really is lagging far, far behind as we approve all these intensification projects, which we know are policy support, and we must build. So I just wanted to bring those comments forward. I really appreciate the committee supporting the reassessment of sidewalks on Reynolds, and I just wanna remind the committee that this is an area, it is a school zone, it’s a community zone, there’s lots going on.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I’m gonna look for other speakers. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, through you. And I wanna thank Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Palosa for coming up with that amendment. I think it’s a great amendment. Thank you very much.

I just have a few questions to the applicants. Mr. Fleming, I don’t know if you wanna take this, or Ms. Carley, but we’ve heard a lot about traffic on Reynolds Street, and I’m sure we don’t wanna hear anymore about it, but I know you did a traffic study, so I’d like to hear a little bit about the traffic study if I could.

Yes, through you, Mr. Chair. We did complete a traffic study. Paradigm did complete that as part of our site plan application.

Primarily, the number of trips generated from the traffic study as a result of the development was 18 trips in the morning, and essentially 26 trips in the evening. So this was based on their report, so they did note that this development is a low trip generator based on a standard mid-size residential apartment building, and they also noted that no improvements or left-hand turn lanes were required as a result of this trip generation. Thanks. Okay, thank you, Councillor Chia.

Thank you, Chair. ‘Cause I know that has had a lot of interest and a lot of questions today. Mr. Fleming, this is a question you may wanna take.

So I’m curious about how this works with the London plan, and I know you’re familiar with that. So if you wouldn’t mind addressing that. So actually, Councillor, that would have to be directed to staff. Staff, okay.

Do you mind? Do you mind if I— With no disrespect to Mr. Fleming, I know he worked on the London plan a little bit. I think he contributed a footnote or two, but— I apologize to staff for directing.

There’s also been a number of changes to the amendments to the London plan since Mr. Fleming’s time with us, so I think we need to— Can I rephrase that? Thank you, and to staff, if you wouldn’t mind how this affects, how this works with the London plan, whether or not it’s consistent with what we wanna see, thank you. Which I see heads looking back and forth, so we’re— - Through the chair.

Through the chair, this application is consistent with both table 10 and table 11 of the London plan, which permits low-rise apartment buildings at six-story heights. Thank you, Councillor. And I do apologize. I have one last question if you don’t mind, Chair.

You know, we’ve talked about the neighborhood and how we can mitigate impacts on the existing neighborhood, and maybe you could just address that in bullet point form if you don’t mind. Well, again, I don’t think that we can go to the applicant for that. That’s, I mean, I think you’ve heard some staff answers on a number of the questions that the residents rate. I’m just sorry, Chair, I’m just interested in how we’re going to limit noise and so on around that with the construction that’s all I’m asking for, so.

Okay, so you’re asking more about implementation Yes, thank you. that mitigation plans. Yes, please make it happen. Okay, that I will say is in order, so we’ll go back up to the applicant to respond to mitigating impacts during construction.

Yeah, so track hard, again, like we’ve said before, this isn’t their first kick at the can. So they have done quite a few projects in the area, you know, through construction fencing and traffic schedules, we are required to comply with the city’s noise by-law. So again, construction won’t occur outside of the area that we’re allowed to, and like we said, we are motivated to complete the project, but again, respecting the neighbors and using construction fencing and traffic schedules, we will comply with the city’s noise by-law for that. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair. Any other speakers? Seeing none, again, if the committee will just indulge me from the chair briefly. So often we have folks come to the gallery and tell us why they don’t want sidewalks in their neighborhood.

I’m really supportive of the amendment that Councilor Hopkins has brought forward and heard the community loud and clear about the desire to see sidewalks brought online much sooner. And I’ll tell you, I personally publicly extend to Councilor Hopkins anything that I can do to assist you in making that happen sooner than later. Happy to do that. As I noted, we’ve got a provincial election on and Councilor Pribble’s absence.

I know there was some folks in his ward that didn’t want to sidewalk. Maybe we can borrow his and move it over to Reynolds for you. We do have to re-prioritize those from time to time based on how the city’s growing and developing. And I think this is an excellent example where the previous assessment can’t hold.

I agree with what I heard from the residents 10 years from now is way too long to wait for a sidewalk. We’ve got to try and advance that within a reasonable timeline of the construction starting and the development being built on the site. So certainly, I hope that we can work with our staff to make that happen. And certainly would understand why folks, particularly in a school zone, want that safe walkability.

So very supportive of that amendment and thank the Councilor for bringing that forward. With that, I will say last call and seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. I’m hoping to vote the motion carries four to zero. Okay, colleagues, that concludes our scheduled items.

I did want to see if Councilor Hopkins, just before you leave, sorry. I know you had your co-signer on 4.2 with the business improvement area bylaws. And I wanted to see if there was a desire to just change the order and deal with those first so that you can continue with the rest of your day as you need to do. So if colleagues, unless there’s any objections, we’ll deal with 4.2 first.

That’s Councilor Palosa and Hopkins motion on the business improvement area bylaws. Then we will move to Councilor Hillyer’s item for direction on the MZO. And then we will move to the added. So no objections, we will move to 4.2 first.

And this is an item for direction from Councilor Palosa and Hopkins. So while we have both of those Councilors here, I will go first to Councilor Palosa to introduce it. And then we’ll give Councilor Hopkins a chance to speak to it as well. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I’m happy to put this one on the floor. I do have a seconder in Councilor Hillyer. Simon Stanley, Councilor Hopkins and I, we’re both researching this.

And then luckily we cross pass. So we jointly sign this and it is asking that civic administration be directed to review and update the business improvement area bylaws, including the addition of a mechanism to encourage business improvement areas to submit their annual reports on a more timely basis and report back to future meeting the Planning Environment Committee. And I’m happy to speak to it, but Councilor Hopkins is welcome to go first. Okay, so we’ve got a motion on the floor moved and seconded.

Why don’t we go to Councilor Hopkins first to speak to it and then Councilor Palosa, I’ll come back to you. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me again. I do sit as a member of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee and that committee approves the or receives the financial statements from the BIA’s and approves the budget going forward.

And I think it is very, very important that our bylaws, and that’s why we are here at Planning, the bylaws come through the Planning Committee that they be updated. To me, if we’re just receiving, we have to make sure those bylaws are in place. I would really like to have a question, maybe two clerks on the process going forward. This is to ask for a report to come back on an amendment for the addition of a mechanism to encourage business improvement areas to submit their annual reports on a more of a timely basis.

And of course, a report will be coming back to this committee. I’d like to know a little bit more about the process. I’m making a nutshell if we need a public participation meeting for these amendments, ‘cause there may be other amendments coming forward as well. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

I will see if our committee clerk or Ms. Skielinski has any, and I see the hand up online, so go ahead. Thank you, through the chair, public participation is not required in that. Sorry Ms.

Skielinski, we can’t hear you very clearly. Sorry about that, is that better? Much better. Through the chair, a public participation meeting is not required under our public notice policy, nor do I believe is required or know the Municipal Act.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, does that answer your question? No, I’m hoping that the committee will support the update to the by-law and look forward to the report coming back here. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, and just to highlight Councillor Hopkins’ comment that this is the right committee for it to hit, as I also chair audit, and I went there, but it does not.

So just having some concerns of legs and some of the annual financials, realizing the city is the one to collect the money and redistribute it and making sure that we’re doing everything we can for timeliness and transparency of those funds coming in and being dispersed back out. So just looking for process improvements going forward across all BIA’s as the city has five, thank you. Thank you, looking for any other speakers on this? Mr.

McCauley. Thank you, through the chair, just a comment. When we did see this come up on the ICWS discussion, it was timely enough ‘cause the next day we did have a BIA coordinating meeting where we did have our friends from financial policy and planning there to kind of work through with the different BIA’s about how we could approach this. So it is on the radar.

We are expecting a report to come forward in Q2 2025. Thank you for sharing that. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

So, I mean, yeah, getting these sooner, I can totally understand that and no objection with that. I do just have a question in terms of the wording because the way I read it is it’s to review and update the business improvement bylaws, including are the council is looking for anything else or is this just referencing the annual budgets? Well, I don’t want to speak for the councilors. So I’ll go to either one that wants to take that.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, my understanding is that if we’re reviewing the bylaw, we’re reviewing the bylaw and updating it. So if there are other amendments coming forward, it will be reported back to us as well. And Councillor Palose, do you want to know?

Okay, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through you. Yeah, so I guess just my question is in reviewing it, is there anything else we’re looking for? Is this meant to be a council driven thing?

Or is it a staff review? What exactly outside of the budget are we looking for? Or is this just to open up the bylaw for a discussion? ‘Cause I’m just confused ‘cause I have a BIA meeting tonight and I already have got questions saying, what is this entail and what’s on the table?

Like I just, I worry when we open up a bylaw, we have the discussion a lot. Like what are we talking about in terms of the discussion? Like is this something we’re putting back to the BIA’s to say, do you have anything you want updated? I’m happy to provide that feedback.

I have a meeting tonight, but I’m just looking to know if this is staff driven or if this is council driven or what we’re looking for. Councillor Hopkins. I think it is to support staff as they review the financial statements and it’s not really putting an onus on any of the BIA’s to do anything at the moment. It’s the bylaw itself that needs to be reviewed and updated to support staff viewing the financial statements since that’s what we do, we receive and then we set the levy going forward.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. My main focus of interest was for anything we do for adherence to submitting their annual reports. I know some other cities have different bylaws and acted which might be of use to London, but certainly as it does state that the administration be addressed to review the BIA’s bylaws, that if there is something the BIA is aware of that they have an issue with, I think it’s a good opportunity.

I know that when the parking stuff comes up, we get a bunch of priority in there. We just had the holding provision stuff that if there is outstanding administrative staff to clear up, I’m happy to learn about that at committee too. Though my main focus was just the annual reports. Yeah, and I think just before I go back to you, Councillor McAllister, the language speaks to review and update, including the addition of a mechanism to submit annual reports on a more timely basis, but also to report back to us and so at that point, there could be additional directions and the BIA’s themselves may provide some feedback.

Once staff has brought forward their recommendations, the BIA’s themselves may have some other suggestions that they want to offer. I’ll go back to you though, Councillor. Thank you and through you. No, I just appreciate like having more information because operations versus governance, I just know, you know, I want to kind of steer the conversation a little bit.

I don’t want to open a whole can of worms, but I appreciate like we need to update bylaws periodically. But I guess two staff, my question would be, you know, just keeping us in the loop, you know, whatever is brought forward, just giving us ample opportunity to have those engagements with our BIA’s because we have monthly board meetings is my schedule. So I would imagine the same for everyone else, but just to allow us enough time to be able to have those conversations at the board level. Thank you, Councillor.

I don’t have any other speakers on this before we vote. I’ll just share a quick thought. And I know that the clerks are listing it online and I know Mr. Macaulay is here.

Right now our BIA’s have bylaws that come through PEC. They report to corporate infrastructure and corporate services. And then they also report to audit if thought could be given to how. And I know that planning and environment committee has to approve the boundaries.

And that’s probably why the initial bylaw is approved here. But if there’s any process improvement, wherein for the future bylaws and governance are dealt with by one standing committee, that would probably be preferable than having to come to planning and then report to corporate services and then be a final review from audit on the financials. So if we can just bend our thoughts to that a little bit, that would be my ask as staff look at this moving forward. And with that, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

So seeing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We will now move ahead with the next item for direction. Thank you for letting us deal with that one first.

Councillor Hopkins, thank you for joining us today. Have a great rest of your day. We will move on now to item 4.1. This is a submission from Councillor Hillier.

And I will go to him now to introduce it. Thank you, colleagues. As we know, the urban growth boundary in London is stretched to the limit, especially on Mayan of town. And we are trying to develop lands going towards St.

Thomas and where the industry is taking place. Now, this property I’m asked to consider is at 4423, Highbury Avenue South, not currently inside the urban growth boundary, but it could be brought in under the Development of Employable Lands Act with respect to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I am asking you to please vote yes and move this forward and look for provincial approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. So, before we look for a seconder for your motion, we also have a request for delegation. The request was submitted by Mr. Corey, but I understand he’s on remote today ill, but I know that Ms.

Denucci and Mr. Ford are also both here as applicants or sort of applicants on this because we don’t have an actual application through the Planning Department before us. We do have this motion from the Councillor though. So, I’m gonna look for a motion from you, Councillor, to approve the delegation.

We can hear from our delegates and then we can move on to your motion. So, you’re moving that. Is there a seconder for the delegation, seconded by Councillor Cuddy? So, we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote to approve the delegation.

Will you think the motion carries forward to zero? Thank you, colleagues. So, Councillor Hillyer has sort of introduced what he wants to bring forward. I’m going to leave it up to Mr.

Corey and Mr. Ford and Ms. Denucci as to who wants to speak, but I see Mr. Ford pointing to the screen.

So, we’re gonna go to you, Mr. Corey, and you’ve got five minutes for your delegation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And yes, I do apologize for not being there in person, though I have this wicked stomach flu that seems to be going around. I don’t think anybody would appreciate me being there to share it with you. So, do really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. As you noted, Mr.

Ford and Ms. Denucci are in the audience. They can obviously speak to any other details that they can in person. We’re obviously here to support the motion of Councillor Hillyer.

I think this is a very important strategic opportunity for employment for the city. I’ve been in and out of the city’s growth management work. I know there’s a lot of work being done by staff, a lot of good work to try to figure out what is required going forward in terms of land need. And it’s always a challenge with a constantly moving target of the province changing everything in terms of the rules and the rental policy statement and the Ministry of Finance numbers.

That being said, there’s a significant amount of growth coming to London. I heard the development statistics earlier in the meeting. It’s wonderful that London’s really booming. There’s a lot of growth happening, a lot of the right kind of growth.

And key to that is having employment opportunities and employment opportunities in the right places. And this Dancor is looking at this property. It’s got servicing potential. It’s close to the highway.

And very importantly, they’ve already got potential users who can come in and develop and are willing to commit and invest in London to bring green technology, green energy and support of electric vehicles and the other recent investments from Volkswagen into the city. So it really is a great opportunity. The challenge we have is that waiting for the GMS work, the growth management work, as well as the official plan to conclude. And then a further process of zoning would take years and years.

And it may really jeopardize the opportunity to realize these opportunities. This land is immediately abutting the urban boundary. It’s not off in the middle of nowhere. And it really provides a great opportunity to add some strategic employment lands on a timely basis.

I know the city was, as many other municipalities, trying to determine what the right course of action is, we’re regarding MZOs. And there is a new framework relatively new that the province has put forward that is completely contingent on having city support for such an MZO. And the main reason for doing it would largely be to save time and to advance things in advance of the typical process. And for Dan Korr and the work that they want to do, having city support for the MZO and having the certainty that there is a commitment these lands will eventually go to development and can proceed is critically important for them to invest further and keep the investment opportunities that they think are here.

And the MZO process now is not like the one of the past. It is contingent completely on your support. It’s contingent on doing all the study work that’s required anyway for development. And there’s still quite a lot of controls that come after this in terms of draft line of subdivision site plan applications that have to unfold.

What really is the ask here is certainty that this is going to happen, that this is something the city would like to see happen. And then working with you and your staff and with the ministry to advance this in a more timely fashion than one otherwise occur. So with that, Mr. Chair, those are— just wanted to speak in favor of it.

Obviously, we’re here to answer any questions. Again, apologize for not being there in person, but really appreciate the opportunity to do this virtually at least. And yeah, thank you very much. We’re here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. And so I will ask you to stay online in case there are questions that colleagues want to direct towards you. We’ve used four minutes of the delegation time. I know things did not go as planned today with Mr.

Corey not being here in person. So I’m going to use a little bit of chair flexibility here to see if Mr. Ford or Mr. Nucci wants to add anything from the mic.

But it would have to be within the minute or so left of— and I’m seeing a wave off there. So we will receive that delegation then. Thank you, Mr. Corey.

Do stay with us as there may be some questions for you. So that delegation has been concluded. Now I will go back to Councilor Hillier. Should you wish to put an emotion on the floor now that you’ve introduced the purpose of your item for direction?

Thank you. Yes, I’d like to put a motion on the floor. That the following actions be taken respect to the Ministry of Zoning Order for the Lands Miskly known at 4-4-2-3 Hibering Avenue Selfs. A, the request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issue of Ministry Zoning Order, MZO for the Lands Miskly known as 4-4-2-3 Hiber Avenue Self to designate these lands for light industrial uses accommodating essential appointment activities be approved.

B, the civic administration be directed to work collaboratively with the owner of the subject lands and relevant provincial and municipal authorities to ensure that the development of the subject lands aligns to the best practices and sustainable to strategic employment growth and see the civic administration be directed to forward this resolution to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local members of Provincial Parliament, and other relevant stakeholders as a formal endorsement of the MZO request. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hillier. And do you have a seconder and Councillor Cuddy?

So that is now on the floor, and we’ll look for questions, comments, debate around that. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair, and through you, and I want to thank Councillor Hillier for bringing this forward. I think this is a great opportunity for us to continue working with our partners, Dancore.

And Dancore has been a chair of great partners for the city, and they’ve done some tremendous developments. And if you look at this from a business perspective, Chair, building on this site, it’s a perfect corridor coming down from St. Thomas, where we’ve got the development, where we will have the development of the battery plants by Volkswagen, an opportunity for downstream with suppliers and the supply chain management. So I couldn’t think of a better opportunity and a better place to position this.

So I’m fully supportive of this. And thank you again, Councillor Hillier. Looking for other speakers. Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions through you. Not sure if our staff can answer.

Realizing part C is that we put it forward. So I know that has to go through Council first, obviously. Realizing that they’re in the middle of an election, and I know some departments have held off on work that they could be authorizing, as they claim they’ve been told not to. Just looking forward to seeing if we know if Council does approve this, how long it would take to normally hear back, or realizing the middle of an election, how long it could potentially take to hear back, or have someone sign off on the authority?

Well, we will go to staff, Mr. Adema. Thank you. And through the chair, one of the challenges with MZOs from our perspective is that there is uncertainty with regard to timing.

So there is no prescribed timelines that I’m aware of for an MZO. We have heard that we won’t be seeing many decisions, if any, from the government during the election campaign. So I think that’s unlikely to happen. There’s also standards on the ministry’s website with regard to processing of an MZO request.

So there is typically a posting on their public engagement, website for a minimum of 30 days. But again, none of these are standard requirements in legislation. That’s just typically what we’ve seen. Thank you.

And just before I go back to Councilor Palosa, I will note if this passes committee today, it wouldn’t be ratified until Council on March the 4th, by which point the provincial election will be over. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I’m not sure when the provincial election’s over, if they’re seated immediately, if there’s a leg time like us before the new people take over, should there be new people?

A question through you to staff. I know when the city projects happen, like the Bradley Ave extension, we need to do trimmables before the migratory birds return. Looking to see, does that also hold true to site preparations in this case for industrial use that they need to make preparations outside of migratory birds or other considerations? Just looking to see as we get further along in our process or waiting to hear back if there’s a time in which they’d have to pause.

Again, through the chair, so part of the MZO processes to identify additional approvals or planning processes that still need to be undertaken. So that could include something like a site plan approval process. So the MZO doesn’t necessarily supersede that. Instead, that would have to be identified through the application, whether those approvals are still required.

Councilor? Thank you. Also, through you to the applicant, which everyone would like to take it, just as per Dancor’s letter, it says that they need to hear back by the end of 2024 or January 2025, all dates of which have passed. And they cite that they require a decision within 60 days to secure 1,300 new jobs for Ontario.

So as all these dates have passed, I assume they would still want the application to move forward. But looking to make sure that those jobs are still in play as we’re being encouraged to make this decision. We will direct that question to the applicant. Then, Mr.

Ford, did you want to respond to that? The jobs are still in play. The clients have been advised that this is being extended, but they need some certainty that we’re advancing so that we can continue our work with staff for all of the reports and site plan approvals that will be required. Councilor?

That concludes my questions at the moment. Looking for any other speakers? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. The motion carries 4-0.

Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, we have one more item on our agenda. And that is the added from myself. So at this time, I’m gonna ask Councilor Plaza to take the chair.

Thank you. I have the chair, but as I’ve left all my phones at home, which is also a stopwatch, can I ask the committee clerk to time the gentleman to your right and be brutally honest with him when he approaches 30 seconds. So, Deputy Mayor Lewis, the floor is yours to introduce your motion. I will notice that it is in the added and for members of committee, photos of the potholes were also circulated by the committee clerk this morning to exemplify the issues he will speak to.

Yes, thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I’m gonna try not to repeat too much of what I’ve outlined in my letter for you, but I will touch on just a couple of key points there. And I will advise that the photos that I was able to capture this morning, I will forward through the city clerk for an appendix addition for Council meeting. Essentially colleagues, I’m asking for your support to move forward so that civic administration can proceed with the road rehabilitation on Dundas Street East between Burdick Place and Beatrice Street in the summer of 2025.

I spoke to Mr. McCrae to see what the timing was on this following a number of complaints about the road degradation this winter. I know we’re experiencing that all over the place. The reality is that through various chains of communication, first it was committed to me that this would happen in 2022.

I completely understand why it did not. We were in the midst of a pandemic. Things had to be delayed put off. I do not blame staff for that at all.

I completely understand why. It was then communicated that it would be happening in the summer of 2024. Summer of 2024 has come and gone and this work has not proceeded. When I followed up expecting that, we were just behind because of construction schedules, tenders, those kind of things.

I was told that the delay would actually be until at least 2026 because this committee had approved in principle the Argyle core area master streetscape plan, which is all well and good except that the plan has actually not been amended to the London plan. The OPA has not been brought forward for accounts as approval. The Argyle streetscape CIP component of the multi-year budget business cases was not included by the mayor and I actually supported him not including that because we are under significant tax pressures right now. And quite honestly, there is no budget for the extra bells and whistles on this construction project.

We simply need to move forward with this road rehabilitation. The PQI, sorry, the pavement quality index, I cannot use acronyms here, is extremely poor. I will say Mr. Gillard’s team has been exceptional at responding to the best of their ability to my request for temporary patches, both cold patch and hot patch when it’s been available.

Hot patch of course is always in short supply during the winter months because the asphalt plants are simply not producing it at this time of year. Those patches do not hold when the road degradation is where it is at, more freeze law cycles, mean more moisture penetrates, the cracks open wider, more potholes appear. You cannot fight a PQI that’s this low with patches. You have to do a millen-pave.

This was committed to the community in 2022. It was recommitted in 2024, we’re in 2025. It needs to happen. So I’m asking for your support to suspend consideration of the Dundas master streetscape guidelines because they’re not in force and effect yet.

And just let Mr. McCrae’s department proceed with the road rehabilitation. So my motion is that civic administration be directed to suspend any further considerations of the Dundas streetscape master plan for the Argal core area with regard to the immediate need for road rehabilitation in 2025 of Dundas street between Burtick Place and Beatrice Street due to extremely poor pavement conditions and proceed with the rehabilitation plan prior to this plan. It being noted that the funding for the streetscape master plan CIP was not included in the MYB annual updates and further noted that reducing costs on capital projects right now is actually consistent with the strong mayor direction to civic administration to bring forward options to keep our budget rate under 5% for 2026.

So I hope I have a seconder for that. And I believe Councilor Hillier is seconding that to your right. I need to see a hand, Councilor Hillier. Thank you, it is true.

Yeah, and you’re just hanging out to my left. Okay, so it’s moved and second, it’s on the floor. The Councilor has used up how much time? Four minutes and 13 seconds.

Okay, yeah, I’m watching you. So it’s moved and second on the floor, looking to committee members to see if there’s any questions or comments. I will also acknowledge visiting Councillors, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through you, I’m the presenting officer.

Yeah, it makes sense to me, everything that the deputy mayor laid out. I do just have a question regarding with the immediate rotary rehabilitation and obviously with the streetscape master plan, CIP not being funded, down the road, would you then look to have the work that would previously be done incorporated into the plan? Or would we kind of be in one of those situations where we have to backtrack and work would be done twice? So just kind of looking timeline wise, what the deputy mayor down the road would be looking for.

Thank you. I recognize the deputy mayor also realizing that it’s a multi-year budget cycle that did not receive funding. So that would be potentially a concern for next term of council. Deputy Mayor, and I do have my own timer now.

So please proceed. Well, I will note that I’m responding to a question. So I’m not actually using my speaking time. However, I will be as succinct as possible, Madam Chair.

And the short answer, Councillor McAllister, is no, I do not envision coming back with a request for retrofitting. However, what would happen, and I would note that there’s a communication from the BIA that was attached to this as well. They’re in support of this, is that once the OPA is passed and the streetscape plan is now part of the London plan, it would guide future redevelopment projects. So, you know, we approved two cycles ago, I believe a new 10-story development on Dundas Street.

There’s a couple more that are in the loop. And so considerations around streetscape guidelines would be relevant to redevelopment, but would not be, we would not be coming back to look to retrofit into this section of road, until it’s time for that road to be rehabilitated again. So, it would guide future works, but we would not be from a, I can say from a council perspective, and from a BIA perspective, we are not coming back to you in 2027, saying rip it up and do it again, now that we’ve got the streetscape plan funded, if it’s in the next MIB, it would just apply to future projects. Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and through you. I guess my next question would be more to staff, but in terms of, is it just road rehabilitation, or were there any underground projects scheduled to be accompanied with this? Thank you to staff. Through the presiding officer, we don’t have that information, but we could have it available for council.

Oh, hello, Mr. McRae. Go ahead. Yeah, you’re welcome, Madam Chair.

So I think if I understood the question, are there any other projects potentially influenced by this? Essentially, yes, and making sure that is to do the road rehabilitation, it wouldn’t have actually included underground road work too, that we would accidentally miss if we did this work now. Yes, the project in under consideration right now is road renewal without underground servicing, so that would proceed without any additional street street measures. Thank you.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through you. Yeah, just anytime we don’t have to duplicate and do it twice, it’s always appreciated, but understanding that obviously the road is a primary concern here, and recognizing the delays too, I think is a big driver for the deputy mayor, so I can understand that, so I’d be supportive of this at council as well. Thank you, looking for other questions or comments from committee members or visiting counselors, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I’ll just share with Councillor McAllister, I got a great little map that Ms. Ramlu provided me about where the underground stuff is in this area, so thankfully the work that we did on Second Street last year and the work that we did on the previous phase of Dundas between Burdick and First Street captures where the major sanitary and storm sewer trunks are, so it kind of actually goes up behind Dundas after that and heads over Long Pottersburg Creek, and there actually is a separate project, again, happy to forward you to the files that are dealing with that more along the CP rail tracks. Thank you, that concludes your time with seven seconds remaining.

I see no further hands in chambers or online, so calling the vote of all in favor in the system. Closing the vote, the motion carries part to zero. Thank you, I’ll return chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you colleagues, that concludes our agenda for today, the only thing we have left is adjournment, so while we weren’t quite as efficient as Councillor Layman’s last meeting in his absence, I’ll note that we got through a lot more items than he did in his last meeting and I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

And I see that from Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Cuddy and by hand, all those in favor. All in favor. That carries, we are adjourned, thank you everyone. Have a great rest of your day.