March 18, 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. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 5.1 in Stage 5, Deferred Matters/Additional Business, to be considered in Stage 2, Consent.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   The 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2025-02-20 ECAC Report - FULL

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 20th, 2025: 

a)    the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 3680-3700 Colonel Road, as appended to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Added Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    clauses 5.2 to 5.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Heritage Alteration Permit application by Z. Xiong and Y. Meng for 124 Wilson Ave, Blackfriars-Petersville Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-004-L)

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (2.2) 124 Wilson Avenue - HAP25-004-L - FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the exterior cladding and porch alterations on the heritage designated property at 124 Wilson Avenue, within the Blackfriars-Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED; 

it being noted that the written communication from L. Davies, with this respect to this matter was received;

it being further noted that the verbal delegations from J.M. Metrailler, L. Davies and J. Gard, with respect to this matter were received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from J.M. Metrailler, L. Davies and J. Gard, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.2   Deferred Matters List

2025-03-18 Deferred Matters List (5.1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the March 2025, Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   50 Rollingwood Circle (Z-25006)

2025-03-18 0 Staff Report (3.1) 50 Rollingwood Circle

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 Mrs. Dorothy Pol and Mr. William Pol (c/o Carlyle Peterson Lawyers LLP), relating to the property located at 50 Rollingwood Circle:

a)    is consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2016, for the subject lands representing a portion of 50 Rollingwood Circle, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 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 an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1- 10) Zone;

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

-    W. Pol;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment recognizes the continuous use of the land as an access to the garage at the neighbouring property.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   2634 Barn Swallow Place (Z-25006)

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (3.2) 2634 Barn Swallow Place Z-25006

Moved by S. Lewis

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 Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 2634 Barn Swallow Place:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 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 lands FROM a holding Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision (h-8-h-125-R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)/R8-4( )) Zone; and,

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

i)    to provide pedestrian network connections to the future City sidewalk on Commissioners Road East and Barn Swallow Place, and incorporate pedestrian connections from individual residential units to the city sidewalk along Commissioners Road East;

ii)    to provide active uses on the ground floor adjacent to public streets;

iii)    to relocate the primary entrance at the S/W corner of the site, adjacent to Commissioners Road East and Barn Swallow Place, to establish an active frontage and provide convenient pedestrian access to the public realm;

iv)    to screen surface parking exposed to the public streets with enhanced landscaping, including low landscape walls, shrubs, and street trees;

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

-    N. Nunes

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 which directs municipalities to provide for a range and mix of housing options and densities, and promotes healthy, active and inclusive communities, fosters social interaction, and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment is compatible with existing and future uses surrounding the subject site, and will facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   75-91 Southdale Road (Z-25008)

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (3.3) 75-91 Southdale Road East

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2271075 Ontario Ltd. relating to the property located at 75-91 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/ Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H25/NSA4(6)) Zone, including Special Provisions for R9-7, regulation x) Balcony Projections in Front Yard (maximum) – 0 metres to the lot line;

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

i)    to provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along all interior pathways to allow for tree planting;

ii)    to explore opportunities to wrap the at-grade parking fronting Petty Street in active uses with a high proportion of transparent glazing;

iii)    to provide a direct walkway connection from the principal entrance to the future public sidewalk along Petty Street and avoid the wrapping of the sidewalk to allow additional landscaping in the front yard; and,

iv)      to explore opportunities on-site to address cut-through traffic from White Oak and Petty Roads;

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

-    N. Dyjach, SMB; and, 

-    F. Webster;

it being 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, and the Shopping Area 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 further noted that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2271075 Ontario Ltd. relating to the property located at 75-91 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/ Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H25/NSA4(6)) Zone;

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

i)    to provide a minimum 0 metre setback along all interior pathways to allow for tree planting;

ii)    to explore opportunities to wrap the at-grade parking fronting Petty Street in active uses with a high proportion of transparent glazing; and,

iii)    to provide a direct walkway connection from the principal entrance to the future public sidewalk along Petty Street and avoid the wrapping of the sidewalk to allow additional landscaping in the front yard;

iv)      to explore opportunities on-site to address cut-through traffic from White Oak and Petty Roads;

it being 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, and the Shopping Area 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.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 35.10 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Committee decision with respect to item 3.3 having to do with Public Participation Meeting - Not to be heard before 1:00 PM - 75-91 Southdale Road (Z-25008) BE RECONSIDERED to provide for a correction in the recommendation to include the Special Provisions for R9-7, regulation x) Balcony Projections in Front Yard (maximum) – 0 metres to the lot line.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2271075 Ontario Ltd. relating to the property located at 75-91 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/ Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H25/NSA4(6)) Zone, including Special Provisions for R9-7, regulation x) Balcony Projections in Front Yard (maximum) – 0 metres to the lot line;

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

i)    to provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along all interior pathways to allow for tree planting;

ii)    to explore opportunities to wrap the at-grade parking fronting Petty Street in active uses with a high proportion of transparent glazing;

iii)    to provide a direct walkway connection from the principal entrance to the future public sidewalk along Petty Street and avoid the wrapping of the sidewalk to allow additional landscaping in the front yard; and,

iv)      to explore opportunities on-site to address cut-through traffic from White Oak and Petty Roads;

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

-    N. Dyjach, SMB; and, 

-    F. Webster;

it being 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, and the Shopping Area 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 further noted that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   415-421 Boler Road (Z-9536)

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (3.4) 415-421 Boler Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 822056 Ontario Limited (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz) relating to the property located at 415-421 Boler Road:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)*H21) Zone;

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

i)    to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped areas;

ii)    that the access to Byron Baseline Road shall be removed or restricted to right-in/right-out (RIRO);

iii)    to explore opportunities to incorporate active uses at grade along the Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road frontages;

iv)    to ensure the principal building entrance shall be located at the corner of Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road and/or along the Boler Road frontage; 

v)    that the provision of an accessible paratransit lay-by in accordance with the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law;

vi)     that the photometric plan includes light cast ratings for the rooftop patio specifically; and, 

vii)    that the findings from the noise study be used to update the Development Agreement;

it being noted that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given; 

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

-    a communication dated March 12, 2025 from J. Whibbs; 

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

-    N. Nyjach, SBM;

-    C. Wilton;

-    D. Quigg; 

-    F. Webster; and, 

-    D. Loughlin; 

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

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (3.5) Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan - O-25003

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London relating to the proposed Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to designate the city-wide Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area;

b)    subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to add the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area to Map 8 – Community Improvement Project Areas;

c)    subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to adopt the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan; and,

d)    subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “D” to this report BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to establish financial incentives for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area;

i)    subject to the approval of the above-noted part d), approve the Transit Oriented Development Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Agreement template;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute the above-noted agreement substantially in the form authorized and approved under clause d) i) provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines; and,

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements;

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

  •    a presentation dated March 18, 2025, from N. Barry Lyon Consultation Ltd.; and, 

  •    a communication dated March 14, 2025, from C. Butler;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Corporation;

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

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

  •    the recommend amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit the City of London to provide a financial incentive program to help accelerate development near and within the City’s Protected Major Transit Station Areas—in alignment with the City’s Housing Accelerator Funding application;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Request from Municipality of Middlesex Centre: Arva Sanitary Servicing

2025-03-18 - Staff Report (4.1) Request from Municipality of Middlesex Centre - Arva Sanitary

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, regarding the request by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre for an amendment to the servicing agreement between the Municipality and the City of London, the following report BE RECEIVED and that the request to amend the sanitary servicing agreement BE REFUSED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Bergman, Middlesex Centre, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation request from S. Bergman and M. Di Lullo , as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:29 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, 42 minutes)

Good afternoon. I’d like to call the fifth meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnomic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Wock, and Adirondram.

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

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 Extension-2425. This time I’ll look for any disclosures of pecanary interest. Seeing none, before we get to consent items, the Vice Chair has notified me that he’d like to make a motion regarding order of this meeting. So I’ll go to the Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m just going to propose a change of order, that item 5.1, which is hearing from the Chair of our Advisory Committee be moved to the start of the agenda so that he can share as it relates to the consent agenda items. He can share that as he’s not able to stay with us all afternoon. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for that. I see a seconder, Councillor Palosa.

We have the motion in E-Scribe, so I’ll open that vote up. Vote the motion carries 5-0. Okay, we have consent items of which we have just moved up one item from 5.1 into the consent items. I’ll look for a motion.

Let’s start with 2.1. So I’ll look for a motion to approve that. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I will call that vote. Sorry for that, folks.

I’m just trying to streamline things here. We have three delegation requests, and I just asked the Clerk of the Committee, we could just give the green light to hearing from the delegates as a group as opposed to three separate votes. So I’ll look for a motion to do that, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I’m am amenable to move that, but we did change the order to hear from the advisory committee chair first.

I’m fine with that. We’ll go first to the advisory committee and then to the two other requests. Okay, and I’m prepared to move the request for delegation for all three. Okay, a second.

Second from Councillor Cuddy, so I’ll call that vote. Second the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay, thank you. So we will go first to the chair of the Committee Advisory Committee, Ms.

Mattralier, and you have 5 minutes, sir. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for adjusting that order.

I appreciate it. I wanted to speak to you today to give some context to a somewhat unusual-looking piece of our report on your agenda, and it relates to item 2.2 on this agenda, 124 Wilson. So you’ll see that the recommendation, not the recommendation, the report from the committee says that we received the staff report on this item, and we are unable to come to a majority recommendation. And now I wanted to give you some assurance that the reason it appears that way is not because we didn’t engage and seriously consider the staff report.

We did have a lengthy discussion about it. We were appreciative to have the representative of the homeowner at the committee meeting. We asked them a series of questions. We asked staff a series of questions.

We started with a vote, which was to prove of the retroactive heritage alteration permit. The vote had more yeses than noes, but due to the Council policy on abstentions, of which there were some, the motion failed, so we didn’t get a majority on that. There was a second motion to support the staff recommendation not to approve the heritage alteration permit, and that motion also failed. And so finally, there was having not gotten a majority for a recommendation.

There was a motion to receive and note to the committee that we weren’t able to get a majority. And so with that, the committee was okay with me giving as best as I can, a neutral description of the discussion that happened. It was a divided issue for the committee. There was one side that felt the retroactive approval should be granted.

I’ll say the motivating theory on that side was the contributing resource, the property. It was maintaining the architecture. So the heritage features of this property were really, at least in the view of this side, the architecture. That was maintained.

The issue was really the replacement of final siding, which was in that side’s view, not a heritage feature, at least a way that contributed. And so that side of the committee felt, you know, from a common sense perspective, given the onerous cost on the homeowner, that the application should be granted. I’ll say there was another side as well that felt that the staff report was correct in identifying the manufactured stone as being inconsistent with the black friar’s policy. And the general view there was that exceptions shouldn’t be regularly given.

You know, the view there was that the policy is in place for a reason and it should be respected. I’d say both sides respected the work of staff, but we did have a divided vote on this. And so we regret that we weren’t able to give you more of a final and useful recommendation, but hopefully that context and the fact that it was divided is at least somewhat helpful to you in making your decision on that. That’s all I had to say.

Thanks. Thank you. I appreciate giving the insight into what went on at that discussion. I think it helps us on committee to get some perspective.

We have the next delegate, L. Davies. Ma’am, if you’re ready to go, you’ll have five minutes. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. On 24 Wilson was originally purchased by the homeowners in 2013 as a student rental about two years prior to the 2015 bylaw, marking it as part of a heritage area. It had been renovated many times before 2013 with changes such as different cladding, room additions, and a porch cover and posts.

The home never had valued heritage attributes such as keyhole windows, historic fenestration, stained glass, fan lights, et cetera. Other potential heritage attributes such as the cottage style, roof pitches, and shape scale of the front of the home remain the same with the current alterations. Previously, the home had broken windows, crumbling porch, multiple layers of damaged front cladding and significant black mold. The owners viewed what they were doing as repairs to structurally reinforce the home and make it safe and weather resistant.

It is now a stone front cottage instead of vinyl siding. They chose manufactured stone because they felt it was a strong material that would improve the insulation, strength, and integrity of the home and make it watertight and that it would still fit into the neighborhood. Sixteen properties in the district have a type of manufactured stone on their facade with four contributory properties where stone is applied as a full facade. This home is now a single family residence occupied by the homeowner’s daughter, Kat Shang, and our daughter, Ellen Davies, who is Kat’s partner.

They’re sitting in the gallery. Ellen and Kat are hardworking, respectful, responsible young people, trying to pay off significant school debt, contribute to our society, and make a life for themselves. This is their first home. It is affordable housing and they shared the cost of repairs with Kat’s parents who are hardworking middle class people.

The changes overall were intended to make the house stand much stronger for many, many years to make it more energy efficient and to enable Ellen and Kat to live in a weather resistant home without mold and mildew. We believe the property was taken from being a damaged and decrepit home on the street to one that is a nice addition to the community, adds value to the neighborhood, and is in keeping with other properties in the neighborhood. Many people have commented and continue to comment on the positive contribution of the home, saying things like what a great change, so much better than what was there, the stone looks great, this fits into the neighborhood, and it looks like it was always there. We were initially shocked to learn that the Heritage Department said their hands were tied within the scope of their authorities and they absolutely could not approve this change, that it had to be vinyl siding.

This was a confusing, difficult, and challenging process to go through, especially when you were unaware of heritage requirements and implications from the outset. It also felt very intimidating at every step as we were offered no support for compromise or approval other than the hope, that other than the hope for the best in terms of going through the hope for channels, CACP, HEC, City Council, and ultimately appeal to OLT. We were saddened to learn that their formal report recommended removal of the stone cladding, an application of vinyl siding, which is absolutely no change from the original position, and vinyl is not heritage. As you heard, in hearing both sides of this case, CACP was deadlocked and in fact did not rule against us.

Removing the stone now would have a tremendous negative impact on the home and this young couple. It could compromise the integrity and structure of the home as the work to remove the stone could result in further damage and unnecessary expenses. It would be an extreme and burdening expense for our kids, at least doubling the costs of repair for the front of the house. The labor cost alone to remove and dispose of stone has been estimated at upwards of $25,000, not to mention the incredible stress and emotional impacts of this recommendation on our kids and ourselves as parents.

We are all just trying to do the right thing to support affordable housing for our children, to maintain the integrity of the home, and to resolve the situation without financial burden. We respectfully request your support for approval of the retroactive application for these alterations based on the individual merits of the situation and the properties lacked of original significant heritage attributes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Davies. I’ll look for the next delegate, Mr. Garde. He said you have five minutes.

Please go ahead. Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for allowing me to address you today. I fully support the applicant and their desire to maintain the stone facade. To provide context, many of these owners have expressed that they did not know or were unaware of ramifications of living in the Heritage District.

Many committee members may recall some of these owners. 27 Bruce Street, 836 Wellington Street, 330 St. James, 892 Princess Ave, 182 Duchess, 59 Wartley, 332 St. James.

We frequently hear that owners should have been aware of the designation. The question is, how could these owners have known? Currently, there are 580 properties within the Black Fire’s Petersville Heritage Conservatory District, which was established on May 15, 2015. Since then, 404 homes have sold.

I’m often told that homeowners are unaware because realtors do not inform them. Unless one is involved in the heritage community, realtors are unlikely to be aware. Realtors access property records through jail warehouse, where no mention of heritage designation is made during a search. To make matters worse, London real estate market is completely open to any Ontario realtor.

We have 2,300 realtors in London. There are over 73,000 realtors in the GTA. Over 20% of London homes are sold by out-of-town realtors with no knowledge of our heritage districts. And why would they?

It is also suggested lawyers should have informed purchasers. However, most lawyers no longer conduct title searches. Instead, they purchase land titles insurance, which is more cost-effective. Properties prior to the property owners prior to the district’s establishment would also not have known.

It is timely that staff are discussing public notification methods today. In essence, a homeowner would have no knowledge of a heritage district unless they are part of an extremely small percentage of individuals in the heritage community. The applicant has stated they felt confused and intimidated. Many property owners I have mentioned also have expressed feelings of emotional and stress.

I cannot speak for others, but I can share an example of behavior that I personally experienced. As it is generally understood, bullying involves a power imbalance where individual uses their power to control others. It typically occurs repeatedly and with malicious intent. At several meetings last year, I requested that heritage staff.

Mr. Garde, I am going to question you. This is relevant. No, I am not going to have this version cast.

You can make comments about this particular property. This is directly about the property. Mr. Layman?

I am just going to caution you to stay under that type of approach. I understand. I understand. Please respect that.

Thank you. I do. So this is actually regarding a heritage matter for a cottage. So it goes directly to the heritage process.

At several meetings last year, I requested that heritage staff and a particular individual address me as Jeff Garde. Point of order. Point of order. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the speaker currently is not speaking to the one that is on the floor. I recognize they have experience with this, but they are speaking to another applicant file which requests it as the one on the floor. I happen to agree with that point of order, Mr.

Garde. This is the last warning. Stay with the specific application or we’ll have to end your comments there. Please go ahead.

Fair enough. The heritage process is fundamentally fault flawed. It seems like staff hold all the power and insist the public submit. That is my feeling.

Please send a strong message and support the applicant. Let them keep the stone facade. I would also like to stay in the heritage district in the manual. Stone is approved material.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So that ends the delegates and is going to put this item on the floor.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not looking to put the staff recommendation on the floor. I’m actually looking to put a motion on the floor that the heritage alteration permit be approved.

Does the clerk have that wording or? Okay. The last clerk. Do you have that wording?

Okay. I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Councillor Cutty. So we have motion moved and seconded.

I’ll open it for questions discussion. I’ll go to you first. Deputy Mayor. Yeah.

So I’m going to try and be as tight as I can here. First as the representative of the applicant indicated and it’s it’s in the staff report. Things like the roof pitch, et cetera. We’re not altered.

Those are the contributing features to the heritage district. There are 16. And again, this is in the staff report. There are 16 other properties in the Blackfire’s heritage conservation district that already use this type of stone facade.

This is not out of character with other homes in the neighborhood. There are 16 of them. There is a significant cost to reverting back to vinyl siding, which frankly, I agree with the applicant. This the report indicates that this resident states back to 1885.

Vinyl siding did not exist in 1885. I don’t really see vinyl siding as a material that contributes to a heritage assets. But also the fact that this work is done. So what we would be doing is creating forcing a change, not just at significant financial cost to the applicant, but we’d also be taking off material that’s just going to end up in the landfill, which is also not a good use of resources.

I think that this is a reasonable. I’ve driven by the property. I think it looks great. I think that the applicants have done a good job in making their home look attractive.

Certainly the deterioration of some homes in heritage districts is a concern, whether that’s demolition by neglect, whether that’s vacancy of a property, whatever it may be. We know that that is an ongoing challenge. And here we’ve got applicants who have invested in their property to make it look better. I recognize that staff’s recommendation is coming forward based on the policies that they have to follow.

That’s their job. The advisory committee couldn’t reach a decision on this. And it’s our job to recognize when sometimes policies don’t always fit the intention and the outcome. That’s why we have the ability to make a different decision.

And that’s why I’m recommending we approve this heritage alteration permit. Thank you. I’d like for other speakers. Councillor Ploza.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions in a comment through you to staff. What is the material of this stone frontage that they put on?

I’ll go stop. Thank you through the chair to the best of understanding the material is a manufactured or faux stone. And those are typically made out of a concrete material that is formed like a masonry unit. Councillor.

Thank you. Also going through the timeline of events as later on page 40, realizing staff made a couple site visits prior to their notification on October 29th with the phone call back in apparently on October 30th from representatives of the applicant. Just looking to see as from the pictures, it does appear that staff notified the applicant at that time. It was just not even an application.

But construction still continued. And then they eventually saw it retroactive approval. Just looking to see if that timeline is accurate. I’ll go staff.

Thank you. And through the chair, there were a number of site visits in advance of the compliance issue being identified to the property owners via the letter that was sent. Because there are certain classes of alterations within Blackfriars, Petersville Heritage Conservation District that do not require heritage alteration permit approval. So for example, if they had have removed the former final sighting and put up new final sighting that was matching, that’s not a class of alteration that would require a heritage alteration permit.

So we, staff completed multiple investigations following up on complaints that we received from community members. And once we observed that it had crossed that line of needing approval, that’s where we contacted the property owner. Councillor. Thank you.

Wasn’t quite my question. I do see that you did seven site visits. My question specifically is you’ve done multiple visits. You did research.

You notified them. Did construction as far as we know in the property continue after notification? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, my apology.

When we saw that the work was not yet completed and the work did complete, my recollection of the comment from the representative at the CACP meeting, they estimated between the work was 80 to 85% complete. And I believe that’s an accurate summation based on what we observed as staff. Councillor. Thank you.

I also did a site visit and drove the neighbourhood as it is a lovely area of the city with walking amenities nearby. I guess my other concerns is as a speaker in the gallery laid out of how to make people more aware when they move in these neighbourhoods, they pick them because of the lovely characteristic of the neighbourhood and the charm and then seek changes. Just before they get to the issues in the middle of construction and contracts already being tender, we appreciate that the city, once you’re so far down it, you can’t not keep going of what can be done or how would they have known ahead of time, realizing sometimes people hang on to properties and then they get to construction and things have changed on our end of the city. Through you to staff.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. So the heritage designating bylaws are registered on the title of all of the properties and doing a title search would identify those. But of course, as you heard earlier today, you have to do that title search.

But additionally, the information is available on the city’s website through the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, which is available as a PDF as well as on the city map. So just by clicking on that layer, you can identify the cultural heritage status of any property in London. Staff do regularly receive inquiries from prospective purchasers or realtors about the cultural heritage status of a property. And we’re always happy to respond to those inquiries and requests.

And additionally, staff do send out a postcard every year during Heritage Week to all of the owners of heritage designated properties, trying to offer that friendly reminder that they live in a heritage conservation district or a heritage property and to obtain a heritage alteration permit with our contact information. And that’s been sent annually to all of those heritage property owners. Councillor? Thank you for that information.

Any other comments or questions? I’ll ask the Vice Chair to take the chair. I’d like to say a few things. I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. I always have challenges when we get into Heritage District as opposed to heritage designated properties. There’s a bit more play there. You know, I think this is a bit of a challenge.

As the Deputy Mayor said, I think staff are doing their job, and following the guidelines laid out by the Arben Spont Municipal Act. However, this is the reason why we have this committee is to deal with the nuance. And I think the nuance who is seen and referred to at the advisory committee, the Deputy Mayor alluded to a number of things which I agree with, as did our Councillor Colosa. One, there are many similar homes with this type of facing in the community.

Two, what is the original material in here? How far does it go back? Maybe heritage, do you have to go back when it’s designated heritage or not since the beginning of time? Again, nuance.

And I also look at the circumstances. This is a family that are trying to get their first home for their kids. Maybe if this has been a sophisticated build, I might feel a little differently. So I’m willing to give some slack there as far as getting a proper heritage document or agreements in place before going ahead.

So I will support the motion in front of us today. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I’ll return the chair to you. We have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Thank you. I’ll look one more time.

Councillor Trusson. Thank you for letting me speak at this committee. I’m not a member. I’m a guest.

As such, I’m not going to be voting, but I am going to be asking a very general question. And that is, what is the obligation of the listing agent to diligently understand the nature of the neighbourhood and the heritage requirements even if they’re from out of town? Because they have an Ontario license, I presume. So could somebody, maybe from staff, answer that question for me?

I’ll go to staff. I’m not too sure if the city has governance over agents, but I will go to staff that might know better than I. Thank you, through the chair. We don’t have a response for you on that.

We can certainly find something out before Council. Councillor. Thank you, through the chair. My request would be then that legal department, there’s probably a very simple answer to this, that if somebody was working in the area of real estate, they would know it off the top of their head.

I really would like to know what went wrong here in terms of this family not understanding this situation, because it would just seem to me, as somebody who’s interested in consumer protection, that the licensed real estate agent should have been more diligent here, and I need to understand that better. Because I don’t think it’s an excuse to not follow the law if you entrusted your affairs to an agent, and they were negligent. And again, I’m getting into legal questions here, which is why I’d appreciate it if you would consult with legal. Thank you, before the council.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded. Any last call for questions or comments? I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Moving on to scheduled items, we have 3.1, which is regarding 50, 50 rolling wood circle. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Palazzo seconded by Councillor Hayley. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you.

So, I will look to the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name, and you have 5 minutes. Thank you, your chair and members of Planning and Environment Committee. My name is William Poll.

I’m here with my wife, Dorothy. We’ve read the planning staff report and the recommendation, and we support the recommendation put forward in the report. By way of background, we purchased this house a number of years ago with the intention of having our in-laws move in. Fortunately, that did not happen due to circumstances.

Now it’s going to be our home to downsize and stay in the neighbourhood, aging in place and principal. The area that we’re considering for the, that we’re requesting to be rezoned has always been used as a driveway to number 42 rolling wood circle. And for some unknown reason was actually part of the park. We’re simply trying to address this anomaly, really.

The lands will be rezoned residential R1, 10, the same as the budding property. We’re not looking to rent it to students. It’s currently occupied by a young professional couple actually. In terms of use changes, the lands have never been used as part of rolling wood park.

There’s a slope and a drop off between the lands we’re looking at and the park. So no change is going to actually happen with respect to that. The natural area in the park is going to remain the same. And the area that we’re rezoning is going to stay open space, but it’s going to be part of the residential lot.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I’m available for questions and I’m respectfully asking the committee to approve and recommend the recommendation of staff. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for other people from the public that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask Clark if there’s anyone online, indicating no. I don’t see anyone else coming to the mic. So I’ll look for motion to close the meeting.

PPM, Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here. I’m going to vote the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll open this to the floor for the committee. I’ll go to Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll put staff’s recommendation on the floor. Thank you.

I see a seconder from Councillor Hill here. Any comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Councillor Trassa, please go ahead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer for recognizing me again. I’m raising these questions because I did receive a number of communications from, I presume, adjacent or nearby residents.

And the concerns that they raised were the addition of this parcel to a baseline calculation in the future. Now, the thing is, your representations are well taken. But as we know, the zoning would attach to the land as a condition beyond your potential ownership. Is there some condition that could be put on this that would deal with not including this additional increment in future calculations?

And maybe even more directly, the other suggestion I’ve heard from adjacent residents is can something be done to protect beyond your potential ownership? The open space and vegetation nature of this parcel. I’ll go to staff on that. Sorry, through the chair.

The zoning would stay with the property. However, if the any future owners wish to sever the lands for redevelopment, that would trigger an additional public process through a consent application. Alternatively, if redevelopment beyond a single detached dwelling were proposed, again, the R1 zone only permits a single detached dwelling. So that would trigger an additional zoning bylaw amendment, which again is a public process.

So we can’t rescind any current or future property owners right to submit any of those applications under the Planning Act, but they would trigger additional public processes for review. To follow that up, thank you to the chair. How would the as of right situation with respect to adding additional units be triggered here? Because when did it be possible that a future owner would not have to submit a discretionary application that would trigger a public hearing?

Go to staff. So under the current zoning bylaw, additional residential units are permitted as of right today. So the lands today could be developed with up to a total of four additional residential units. That is a general provision in the zoning bylaw, and that would be maintained.

Councillor, through the chair, my last question is, would the aggregate square footage of the parcel be a relevant factor in any future application from a subsequent owner? Go staff. Through the chair, frontage, lot area and building coverage are things that are affected by the inclusion of these additional lands. Again, an additional planning process would be required for any severance.

I guess I do have another question. My concern would not be a subsequent owner, and I use the term subsequent owner in respect to the applicant who has made credible applications, which I accept is true. Putting aside the possibility of a severance, if there is no severance, we still would have to do the calculation as to the square footage in the property. This additional increment could change what they can do as a matter of right, or do I just have that wrong?

Go staff. Through the chair, building coverage is calculated based on lot area, so in theory, a larger lot area could result in more coverage. Councillor, I’m sorry, I keep saying one more. In the opinion of staff, is this additional parcel that’s going to be rezoned large enough that it could conceivably alter any of these calculation considerations?

Go staff. If I’m understanding the question correctly through the chair, it would increase the ability to add to the existing dwelling. If they were going to be going beyond the permissions of the zoning by-law in terms of lot coverage, that would trigger, again, a minor variance, which would be a public process. Councillor, thank you.

And that was a very important point. There would be, if not a zone change, at least a minor variance in that case. All right, staff. That’s correct.

If they were seeking additional coverage beyond the limits of the zoning by-law, a minor variance at minimum would be required. Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you. Good.

Yeah, thank you for that. That’s a good clarification. Any other comments or questions? I’ll call the vote.

I’m losing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Moving on to 3.2.

This is regarding 2634 Barn Swallow Place. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Also, I’ll hear it. I’ll call that vote.

I’ll close the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name’s Nicole Loomes. I’m with Sifton Properties, the applicant on this file.

I would like to express our support of the staff report that was submitted in front of this Council committee today on this project. I have no further comments. Thank you. I’ll look for any other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item.

I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. No one online and seeing no one coming to the mic. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cudi, seconded by call that vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. Okay, I’ll open this up for committee members. Councillor Hill here.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, I am asking you at this time to turn down this request for one simple reason. This height has gone from 13 metres to 24 metres and is at the top of the hill on Commissioner’s Road. If I’m looking at the artist renditions in here, it’s showing level ground on all sides.

I’ve reached out to staff and they have informed me that the property question, they have been putting their clean fill into over the last of the while and they’ll be bringing it down. It doesn’t really address the height of the final building. I was out there just last week and looking at the sun as it was rising. Where the building is set right now, it is actually going to provide shade if you look at the map at all the properties to the back and back on two streets over.

So I am wondering if we can refuse this and ask them to come back with something at a better height with a shadow study to satisfy the neighbourhood’s concerns. So Councillor, are you asking for a referral here? We only have 90 days, so I’m going to have to ask for a refusal. Refusal, okay.

We don’t have a motion on the floor here, so I’ll look for something to get the ball started here that he can vote against Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Okay, look for a seconder on that. Councillor Ploza, are you seconding it?

Okay, so we have motion moved in second. Councillor Hillier has spoken, you can come back to it again. Councillor, if you have a new stop all your time, that’s fine. I’ll look for other comments or questions at this point.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m trying to keep my comments to this specific application, but it really is relevant to all applications. First of all, the Councillor is right. We have a statutory obligation to make a decision on a complete application within 90 days.

Staff have provided us a report with their best recommendations based on the planning regulations that we have, while we can certainly refuse an application, or we can overturn a staff recommendation, that is the role of this committee, but I respectfully remind colleagues, if you don’t have a valid planning reason to refuse an application that staff have recommended, you might disagree with them on an application where they’ve recommended a refusal, you may think it fits the policies, but where they’re saying does fit the policies and are recommending approval? If you don’t have a valid planning reason for a refusal, it makes it very, very, very difficult for that position to be defended at an OLT hearing. That has been the reality of the experience, both during this term of Council and of last term of Council. There could be neighbourhood concerns, but at the end of the day, we have to make our decisions based on what’s required in the Planning Act, and I see in the staff recommendation here that this application meets all of those requirements.

I also know that the Council are referenced looking at it in the early morning in the shadow study or the shadows cast, but we also have to take into consideration the whole of the day in terms of shadow casting, and I would ask staff, because there was a change in provincial regulations, and I’m not sure that, in fact, shadow studies are something that we can require anymore. I think we can request them, and if I’m wrong, please staff let me know, but I know that there was a change in some of the provincial regulations, and I’m just wondering if staff can clarify where shadow study considerations come into effect now. I’ll go to staff. Through you, Mr.

Chair, the shadow study is a request through the application consultation process. It is not a mandatory requirement that one of the studies to be submitted through this process, both with the zoning amendment application consultation, as well as a site plan consultation. There was no requirement for a shadow study. Urban design brief was submitted, that included building conceptual site plans, building elevations, and cross sections, and some information with respect to the preliminary grading of the site, but a shadow study was not requested here.

Partly the reason is because it was not a high-rise building, it’s not a mid-rise building, it’s a low-rise building, which is permitted by the London Plan policies to a maximum, upper maximum height of six stories. Deputy Mayor? Thank you. So that’s helpful to hear.

Again, I recognize that the Councilor is raising concerns that residents may have raised, but we have to follow what the Planning Act expects of us, and in this case, we also have to be mindful that shadow studies, even when they are or were something that we could require, had to look at all four seasons and different day parts each time, too, because where shadows fall does change through the course of the year, as well. So given staff are recommending this, I would really encourage colleagues to support it. I know that the Ward Councilor may not, and that’s because of concerns he’s heard from residents. I respect that, but from a planning perspective, I think that this application merits approval.

Thank you. I look for other comments or questions on this particular item. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

And I empathize and thank Councilor Hillier for the work he’s done on this, and to show what an able and capable Councilor is that he’s been out there and done the work and listened to his residents. But I’ve also listened to Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I understand that this is, this application meets all of the staff requirements, and so I will be supporting this. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Councilor Hillier. Thank you again. Yes, I understand what the Deputy Mayor was saying, but my problem is I don’t feel we’ve received all the information, because as they’ve stated before, they’ve been building this site, and with the artist representation we’re looking at, it’s not showing the true slope of the area. So I understand what the Deputy Mayor was saying, but I do feel when they’re going from 13 metres, which was expected by the neighbours that bought into this area, and going to 24 metres, I feel that’s excessive, so I’m asking you to refuse it.

Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee members who are visiting, Councillor? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 75 to 91 Southdale Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, and I’ll call that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, you have five minutes.

Give us your name, and where you go? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Nick Dajak.

I’m a planner with SBM Limited, representing the owners of 91 Southdale. The application that is before he is for a six-store residential building, with 56 dwelling units and parking within the building. It’s right next door to a comprehensive commercial development, which is kind of an infilled type development, and we’re looking for approval of the staff recommendation. However, there is a bit of an oversight on my part, making the application and signing off on the submission files.

There was a bit of an encroachment item that needed to be addressed. So, my request to the committee today is that we make a slight amendment to the draft by-law, particularly to item number X on the site-specific provisions, which requires a 1.5-meter setback for property line for balconies. Looking at the building drawings and plans, I was informed by the owners that there are balconies funding onto Petty Road, and an additional or a reduction of the encroachment would be required. So, what we’re asking is for is a zero-meter setback from the property line, which would allow us some flexibility because the front property line is not perpendicular to the building.

It reduces in the setback from Petty Road as you go from north to south end of the building from 2 to 4 meters. So, we’re requiring some flexibility on that regard. And the second part of that is we don’t quite agree with the design considerations that have been provided through the staff report. We feel that they’re either unnecessary or that we’ve already accomplished achieving those, the intent of those requirements.

Partially, because there is a site plan application process, these comments are received at site plan approval, and we work with staff to resolve them. We find that these design considerations are an additional hurdle that are sometimes challenging to resolve at that site at that time, because it is seen as a direction from council. And this is something that we’re already trying to resolve on my number of files. So, I think what we have, the considerations that are provided to you today are already achieved or can be achievable, and I don’t think they’re required.

So, I appreciate that. And if you have a consideration or a good questions, please let me know. Okay. Thank you.

I look for other speakers that would like to address Committee. Honestly, Clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone coming to the mic. So, I’ll look for a motion to close the BBM.

Councillor Gotti. Hold on. Please, ma’am. I’m Fran Webster.

Give us your name, and you have five minutes. I’m Fran Webster. I’m not pleased with the building proposal. This is like seven stories on your building, and it’s a very busy intersection.

It can’t sustain that kind of a building. We had a meeting once, and comments came forward between the gas station there and Metro. It takes forever during regular traffic, and it’s a congested roadway to start with. This is not a good design to be put on that corner.

Thank you. Thank you, ma’am. Sorry, I didn’t see you at the beginning there. Okay.

I’ll look for anyone else that would like to address Committee. Okay. Now, I’ll look for a motion to close the BBM. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

I just make note that Deputy Mayor Lewis had to step away from… Oh, he’s back. Deputy Mayor, we’ve got a motion to close the BPM. We’re ready to come to our vote right now.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. I’ll look to Committee members right now. Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it’s not procedurally necessarily an order, but having heard the applicant request a 0-meter setback versus the 1.5 that’s actually before us. We’re going to hear from staff first of any feedback they might have if they could comment this time in regards to it before we move forward with discussion.

Okay, I’ll go to staff on the setback question. Through the Chair, staff are agreeable to that amendment. Councillor. Thank you.

At this time, to get the conversation going, I am prepared to move the stack recommendation knowing the change of 1.5 to 0 meters in X in the attached by-law and including in the site plan part B and IV that I pre-circulated and the clerks have just for consideration during site plan to explore opportunities on site to address cut-through traffic from White Oak and Petty Road is for consideration. Okay, so the Councillor had pre-circulated that amendment or part of the motion that she’s making now. The clerk will work to get that help and he’s scribed, but to get things going, I’ll look for a seconder. I see Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconded.

I’ll go to you, Councillor. Thank you. And I just want to say thank you for staff. I was on site at the property this morning.

The applicants always welcome to reach out to help the conversations before we get to committee floor. So I was on site. I actually live in that area and staff walk through some concerns I had in regards to setbacks, lock coverage in the balconies. Also looking at the traffic flow through as a resident had mentioned, this is actually not the metro intersection.

That one’s definitely got issues right now, not denying that. This is White Oak Road at Southdale over the Tim Hortons on the corner, absolutely an infill area and some commercial things. We’re hoping that area as a property is by York that has not come to fruition. This building already has a three-story one behind it.

My concern with the site plan that we added in was just the traffic flow through. Some people already cut through the Tim Hortons parking lot to get to Petty Road versus using the White Oak Road, which would ideally be the designated spot to come through, not a parking lot. Also for resident concerns and for the applicant, this intersection is actually slated to have a rebuild this summer, realizing there’s also a bike lane coming down White Oak Road. It’s one of the major thoroughfarers for cyclists to get out of London.

And it’s the bike lane that tends to be used as a turning lane into the Tim Hortons in the area. So just looking to realign the intersection and do some advanced turn signals to help the traffic flow. But overall, supportive of the application. Thank you for other comments from committee members.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I agree with everything Councillor Ploza said. I’ll assure her that when I visit the Tim Hortons, I’m not using it as a cut-through.

It’s just a stop on my way to Earl Nichols for hockey practice. But this is a prime location for some infill and residential development. You know, there’s a number of neighbourhood amenities. You know, a couple of restaurants nearby that folks can easily walk to.

Besides the Tim Hortons, the Earl Nichols Community Center is across the road on Southdale, just on the north side. So some great neighbourhood amenities available provided by the city there. There are parks in the area as well. So to me, this is a great place to have a little bit of infill.

And with the intersection improvements that are coming as well, which will help traffic flow, it makes sense to let this project get moving ahead so that we can get some more shovels in the ground and get some more housing units built. Thank you. I look for other speakers. Seeing none, we got a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. I’m losing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 4-15-4-21 Bullard Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Buddy, and we’ll call that vote.

I’m losing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Thank you. I’ll go to look to the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address committee, please sure give us your name again in the year of five minutes. Thank you, Chief Mr. Chair. My name is Nick Dajak.

I’m a planner with SBM Limited. Representing the owners on this application. Speaking of good locations for infill development, this from a planning perspective is another ideal location with a six-story building, again, with residential development, ground for parking and surface parking as well. The location is ideal because it is located on the transit street, private transit facilities.

It’s been walking distance of several parks, schools, commercial development, institutional, many different uses at the intersection. And I have heard from the public also well that there’s some concerns with the site. The application was submitted back in 2022 for this development. With a much higher or more dense development, we had a committee meeting, or a community meeting, and we received comments from staff.

And since then, a new owner has taken over this application and redesigned it, blank slate, considering all the concerns that were heard, and have made considerable concessions and deliberate actions to try and achieve all the comments that were provided at that time. In terms of the new application and the revised development, the number of units, the building height, the massing traffic have all been tried to be achieved. The building itself has been reduced in mass and density from 92 units to 62 units, with 63 parking spaces. That’s only one parking space per unit.

The previous application not underground parking, this one has been because of the reduced density, it has been service parking is required as well as parking within the building itself. The design has been revised as well to provide an active frontage along Bola Road and Byron Baseline Road. And due to the site configuration location, a considerable amount of road dedication is also required. Almost more than 25% of the gross area is required for road vacation.

That’s 8 meters along Bola Road, 10 meters from the site along Byron Baseline Road. So that building is located directly to that intersection as much as possible to get that building away from the surrounding residents. In fact, a negative plane of 45 degrees has been used from the budding property limits, which is a widely accepted planning tool to be used for transition to lower density residential, like the neighboring single family lots. With the application, all the technical reports have been revised as well, including a traffic impact study, solar shadow study, as well as servicing study, to identify the proposed building and to prove that there would be no considerable impacts or issues becoming from this development.

So there has been a considerable amount of work and effort by the new owners to make sure that this development is appropriate. It uses sound planning policies and tools and everything at our disposal to make it consistent with the London Plan. And that is reiterated in the planning staff report. However, there have been a number of design comments for the site.

More comments have been received and we frankly do not agree with the staff recommendation in the draft by-law before A today. A number of site-specific provisions have been removed from our request from our application and several have been added, which doesn’t make the project viable and is considerable changes, which we just can’t accept. So our request to you today is to utilize the site-specific provisions that have been provided and are consistent with the intended development, have it backed by all the technical studies, and it follows good planning principles. So I’m happy to answer any questions.

I know there’s a lot of feedback that have been provided in terms of public comments. So yeah, I’m happy to address those. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I’ll look for comments from the public on this particular application. Absolutely. Yeah.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Okay. My name is Colleen Wilton. I live at 409 Bowler Road.

From the moment that we saw surveyors next door and in our driveway, we knew that something was coming. I called City Hall and spoke with someone regarding this and was told what the property and area was zoned for. It wasn’t until the application for rezoning when it really struck home. From that moment until now, it has been had an impact on my health from stress and anxiety to downright depression.

We’ve lived at 409 Bowler Road since December of 2002. Since that time, we’ve created a backyard oasis pouring thousands of dollars over the years by planting flowers and bushes, shrubs and trees and milkweed to attract monarch butterflies, which are becoming endangered and other species of butterflies. We have migrating birds that nest in the area such as Baltimore Orioles and more than one species of hummingbirds that we feed in order to help with their numbers and in a long track of migration. We have a pond that dragonflies and toads use to reproduce.

We’re recognized by the Canadian Wildlife Federation for all we do. Being retired, this is what we look forward to every spring through fall. While I understand there’s a housing crisis, I don’t believe a six story and seven, if you count the mechanical room on top in the heart of Byron in the middle of residential homes is the answer. The shadow effect alone, and I have heard your comments before on this, is a huge concern for us as I suffer from seasonal affective disorder.

The shadow from this proposed building would directly impact the sunlight on our house in the winter months and thereby affect the snow melt and the heating costs, as well as the lack of sunlight would have on my house. It’s similar to having trees planted close to a house can reduce air conditioning costs in summer. The entrance and exit in the diagram puts it right beside our driveway, which currently is very, very difficult to get out of. Because of the increase in traffic on Bowler Road and Byron baseline roads, we take refuge in our backyard as a respite from the noise.

Vehicles coming in and out at all hours, recycling trucks, etc., is an awful thought not to mention parking lot lighting. The privacy of our backyard that we enjoy daily would be in jeopardy. This feels like a direct revocation of our freedoms and rights to privacy. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the height of this building.

There are currently three houses on this proposed property that could have been sold to families looking for a starter home at reasonable prices. I know the previous owner of 415 Bowler Road and what she divulged to me as to how much she was asking and how much the buyer paid. The buyers have had their eyes on these properties for years, long before there was a housing crisis. The buyer said as much to the realtor.

We feel this is all about greed and not about a housing crisis. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Hi, I’m Doug Quig. I live in Bowler Road as well. There’s just a few comments here. I understand your comments about the shadow study, but shadow study is used for a reason.

It’s the ones that were presented to us and I got your updated one. I put picture to picture and there’s no difference between any of those pictures. The whole point is what you’ve given us is just a snapshot of a couple of days in a year. You have to keep in mind.

We have to live right beside it every single day. So from November until even now, I go outside and I will look out and I’ll see, you know what? I’m not even going to be able to see the sun right now if I was out there. So that’s every day.

Our grass, our plants, it’s going to affect our heating bill in the wintertime. I’m not so much worried in the summer, but the winter makes all the difference in the world. Our snow is never going to melt. We’re going to have to deal with more and more and it’s just outrageous.

The other thing I’d like to say is, Council, you say London needs to build up and not out. So how is it that on Southdale Road, close to Colonel Talbot, you’ve allowed two apartment buildings side by side to be only five stories high. When 200 yards down towards Colonel Talbot, you have skyscrapers. You have huge apartment buildings, which that area can take.

There’s nobody around there that’s going to be infringing on their privacy. So how can you allow a six story in a residential, vibrant village, right beside us, and allow five story when you could have made the developer go higher. So I don’t understand and maybe you could answer that for me. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, go ahead. You have five minutes.

Okay. I’m Fran Webster and I spoke prematurely on the wrong. I’m sorry. I heard setbacks and that was in my mind that this was Byron.

Okay. So this building is out of character for the area. It’s not part of our fabric. We only have single story houses or double story houses and we’ve got the church and the RBC Plaza, maximum two stories.

Why are we building so high, if at all? You’re right. There’s three lots there. We could have three new families put in there.

My question is, there’s no view of the park. There’s no view of the water, the river. It’s the busiest corner we have in Byron next to the one by TD. So my question is, why are we doing this?

I myself was in a car accident and that stretch between the gas station and TD metro area. Okay. During rush hour traffic, I’m hit from behind on a wet day. The whole road is backed up.

It’s already backed up to start with during rush hour. Now we have to wait for the police and everybody to arrive. In my opinion, the worst location you could have picked in Byron. There’s no other buildings like it.

Why would we put it right there? That’s all I have to say. Thank you. Look for any other speakers.

Clerk knows 5B that there is someone online, Mr. Laughlin. We can go to you now. You have five minutes.

Please go ahead. Yes. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

We can. Yeah. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Laughlin.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I live in Byron just a couple blocks away from the proposed development. I want to start by saying that I am fully supportive of housing development in London. It is good for the economy.

It’s good for the citizens who need housing. We need more affordable housing in London. Too many people cannot afford a decent place to live. We need more densification.

We don’t want more sprawl because that costs money to manage and contributes to traffic. In my opinion, any proposal that requires rezoning should meet a minimum of three primary objectives, adding affordable housing, not making traffic significantly worse, and fitting into the existing street, a street state of the area. While I cannot speak to the affordable housing aspect of this proposal, I can speak to the others. Traffic effects.

This proposal is going to make traffic significantly worse. The people living in this type of building are going to have cars and they’re going to use them. We need smart planning and development so we can avoid adding more cost to the city’s long-term budget. In the past, we have made some mistakes with regard to development that has affected our building and roads.

Our goal should be building our cities to require less cars. Why less cars? Road building and maintenance is incredibly expensive. It adds to the property tax increases.

More cars creates more pollution. Encouraging other forms of transportation is also good for the physical and mental health of citizens. It helps reduce the load on our healthcare system. It creates happier and healthier citizens in the long run.

Great cities build their cities to encourage public transportation and to limit the requirement of cars. Does London want to become a great city someday? We should work to build a city that’s easier to navigate for the majority of citizens. That requires densification from the core outwards.

One bus from the core can get you almost anywhere in the city. You can get along without a car for most trips if you live near the core. But few people in the suburbs will take the bus. Why?

Because you have to take multiple buses to get anywhere and it’s simply not feasible. Few people will bike or walk from the suburbs because it’s too far to walk and there are only sporadic bike lanes. Trust me, it’s not convenient to bike from Byron. If we continue to allow high levels of densification we built all over the place, we are simply adding to the traffic problem.

We are adding the need to build and maintain more roads. We are adding to the property tax increases of the future. A four to six-story building in this particular neighborhood does not fit in. A building right in the middle of Byron is unsightly.

Even if it’s a nice looking building, it doesn’t look good there. This area is surrounded by single-family homes. It was designed for low density residential. Approving this sort of development sets precedent.

Do we want to allow developers to buy up a few properties and throw up a four to six-story building anywhere in the city? You are giving many of us that impression. Can the next developer purchase some properties along baseline or bowler and put up another big high-rise there? Do we want the city with these types of buildings put up all over the place?

The answer is a resounding no. I support, well-planned and implemented developments. We need housing. However, I’m against out-of-place or traffic worsening development.

What I’ve been seeing in the last couple years is decisions being made that result in out-of-place development or road building development. We are signing up the citizens for higher property tax increases down the road. And that is exactly what the proposal at Bowler and Baseline represents. I am a proponent of building a city that makes it better for new citizens and reduces the long-term cost to the city.

That means not adding to the burden of new roads or higher road maintenance. And it opens up the possibility to not need a car. That is a great city. I ask you to listen to your residents who invested their lives into this community.

I have lived in London most of my life. This development is not with the majority of buyer and residents want. If you ignore your residents, you’re going to find them leaving the city and the tax pace getting eroded. Instead of a four to six-story building, ask the developer for a proposal for a small condo or townhouse complex.

It adds housing that does not look terribly out of place. There is a lot of pressure to just rubber stamp all proposals. But I ask you to think about what is actually best long-term for the city and for the residents who have made their lives here. Your local residents are strongly opposed to this development.

That should matter. Thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers.

I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone else online. I don’t see anyone in the gallery that wishes to speak. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hilliard.

I vote. I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

So through you, I’m not moving the staff recommendation, but I am moving the approval. I did provide the clerk with some alternate language. It is an E-scribe. The motion that I’m putting forward supports the approval.

It removes the report clause B, which is the refusal of some special provisions, leaves the site plan. So the site plan piece, which was clause C, becomes clause B. And it adds in two components, and I’ll thank Councillors Hopkins and Pelosi for asking for these two things to be included in the site plan. So it adds a photometric plan that includes light cast ratings for the rooftop patio specifically, and it adds that the finding from the noise study be used to update the development agreement.

So that addresses the concerns through site plan around the fourth story rooftop patio on the one side. And so I’ll put that on the floor, and then I’ll speak to it once there’s a seconder. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi, and I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. And if you could be just kind of maybe a little clearer, I know the clerk probably has your motion, but maybe just read it out for the public to be specific.

Thank you. Yeah, happy to do that for colleagues. It’s item or vote for in E-scribe. And so it’s the same as was published in the staff report with clause A that the proposed by-law be introduced to the municipal council to approve the zoning change from the R1 to the R8 special provision.

And then clause B is that site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following design issues through the site plan process, one to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favor of more landscaped areas, two that the access to Byron baseline road shall be restricted to a right in, right out, or be removed, three that to explore opportunities to incorporate active uses at grade along bowler road and baseline road frontages for to ensure the principal building entrance shall be located at the corner, a bowler road and Byron baseline road and or along the bowler road frontage, five that the provision of an accessible paratransit lay by in accordance with the standards of the site plan control by-law be provided, six that the photometric plan, including light casting ratings for the rooftop patio specifically, and seven that the findings from the noise study be used to update the development agreement. Thank you. So now I’ll speak to that. Again, come back to a few things that we have to consider within the planning act.

Both Byron baseline and bowler road are classified as civic boulevards in the city’s official plan. That, as of right, allows the developer to have six stories here. As we heard, the original proposal was actually an L-shaped building that was going to reflect six stories all around. They’ve reduced that, they’ve removed the L piece, and they have done a 45 degree plane step back on the side of budding a residential property, and created the rooftop patio space instead.

I recognize that there might be some privacy concerns there. That’s why the additions of the clauses six and seven with respect to the rooftop patio in the site plan were added. I know the word Councilor wanted to add those in and Council blows ahead circulated some language. So happy to include those right away off the start because I think that those do matter, particularly when you’ve got a rooftop patio where lighting is and how that lighting reflects down on people can really have an impact.

So I think that photometric study makes a lot of sense. I hear the concerns about traffic, but the reality is we have 14,000 vehicles going east-west, and we’ve got 9,000 moving north-south. Sorry, I reversed those other way around. When we’re talking about 60 units sort of development, that does not move the needle on the road classification.

I do understand that there are some enhancements coming in the near future along Bowler Road. I’ll leave that to the word Councilor to speak to what’s coming there, because I’m sure she knows that much better than the rest of us do. But it is within the traffic volume parameters that transportation uses to assess roads and the transportation impact of a development that it does not change the classification of the building. I really appreciate the applicant incorporating ground floor interior parking.

I think as we look forward, and I’ve heard this from other developers recently, while we may have a .5 minimum parking, we don’t have a maximum parking, and when we had that discussion to reduce to the .5, there was considerable discussion about letting the market decide what they can do, because they need to have parking to lease to tenants who want to live in their buildings. I’ve heard a number in the last six months or so, and particularly in the last three months of builders around the city saying to me as applications come to PEC that you can stop expecting to see .75 or even one, we’re probably going to start coming back with 1.2, because we can’t lease units where there’s not a second parking space available. I’ve heard that even in the downtown core, we heard reference to you can do without a car in the downtown, but even in the downtown high-rises that are coming up, we’re having builders who are saying, I’m not building undersized parking anymore, I’m coming forward with more parking, because that’s what the tenants are expecting. Well, there are other options to get around the city, blocking, cycling, transit, ride hailing apps and taxis.

We see more and more actually issues with buildings that need labis for Uber and other providers picking up and dropping off, food services picking up and dropping off. The reality is that we don’t have outside of the downtown core transit system that people feel that they can rely on, and they choose other alternatives. They also don’t feel that those, the transit system meets their needs in terms of being able to do things like get groceries, go to pick up the kids from soccer practice and bring them home or hockey practice and bring them home. And so those ride hailing apps, if they are not utilizing a car, are an alternative that they’re taking instead of transit.

So I don’t think that we can expect to see people give up their car because transit is accessible. In fact, they’re just looking for other private transportation alternatives. So to me, this one meets the planning requirements. It’s consistent with the provincial policy statement.

There are some setbacks that staff were recommending that I’ve heard very clearly don’t make the project viable. And this is already reduced from the original application that was submitted by the previous builder. 30 seconds. Yep.

So but the other thing with this is this is located at a commercial node intersection. We’ve got some restaurants nearby, a bank was referenced, the church was referenced. That is exactly the location where we do want to see these in infill opportunities start to happen. I recognize that neighborhoods may be all single family home at the moment, but the reality is that’s going to change over time.

And this is one of those situations where some properties have been brought together. And they’re within the London Plan six story as a bright application process to bring this forward. And I’m going to support it. Thank you.

I look for other speakers. Committee are visiting counselors. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me. And I maybe we’ll just start off with a few thank you. So I want to thank the applicant for holding a virtual meeting. I know there’s been this application out in the community for the past couple of years.

And it’s important that the community get the right information with the right applications. So thank you for that. I want to really thank the community for coming out to speak because I know it is a concern with this application in the community. And it is very emotional for people to come here and speak to the changes in their community and to understand the policies as well and to even understand this recommendation.

I want to thank the committee for hopefully supporting the added amendments that Council Pelosi has brought forward and Deputy Mayor spoke to it regarding the photo metric plan, which will include which will include the lighting casting over due to this rooftop, especially to the neighbors to the north, as well as the findings of a noise study going forward in terms of the development agreement. Those things are really important because we need to really understand how this rooftop is going to affect the community. And as much as I would like to see it gone or moved away, I think having a look at it through the site plan process is an opportunity. I want to also acknowledge the shadow study.

I know the community wanted to see it and want to thank the applicant for providing that information. And as we go through the site plan process, hopefully a further detailed shadow study will be recommended through that process. I’m not sure if staff are here to speak to the upgrades on Bowler. If we can just get an update, I know this the community is here and I think it’s important that they understand where that project is.

Thank you. Through the chair, we have a project scheduled for 2026, which includes a two-way cycling facility along the east side of Bowler Road, which goes from commissioners to Southdale. And right now, we’re actually at just waiting on a 90% design drawing submission, so we’re getting fairly close to finalizing the design. Councillor.

Thank you for that, and I would assume that would be in the spring. Staff, sorry, through the chair. Unfortunately, I cannot answer exactly when I will start, but sometime in 2026, I’ve been told. Councillor.

Good to know it’s coming forward. We’ve been talking about it for a while. I know bike lanes are really important in this area for people to move around in. I bike along this area and I have to jump out onto a sidewalk because it’s a very narrow at the center section.

I want to start off with, and I know the deputy mayor is, his motion is to take out the, which staff is refusing, and I know the applicant is disappointed that this refusal is in here. And I want to maybe acknowledge a little bit about how sometimes we have to compromise. Community finds this development too much for this area. I’m not even supportive of the intensity of this development in this area, but I’m willing to make that compromise and understand the refusal that staff are recommending.

And this refusal relates to, they’ve done their due diligence, they’ve looked at the policies. To make this fit, this is what needs to happen as it relates to privacy and buffering. We could see the front. Most of that front is going to be dedicated to road widening.

I really would ask you not to support taking B out, let the process take care of if this building is going to fit. That’s my compromise, the refusal. I know the community, you could hear from the community that they’re not supportive. This has been a conversation for the past couple of years that it is too much.

We’ve gone from 90 units down to now 62 units. It may be too much if we don’t look at those setbacks. And it will support what the community is saying. The community is saying that it doesn’t fit the privacy, the movement moving around this community.

I’ve heard over and over again, it’s going to be a challenge. How it looks at an intersection that is basically in the middle of Byron, and we’re going to have ground floor, the first ground floor will be parking. That, I don’t think, is a great opportunity for a building that could be something that could be adding the benefits in the community that we’re going to have the first floor parking. I would really like to see less parking here, 0.5.

I know Deputy Mayor spoke to, it’s not marketable, but we put these in fills for the reason of creating opportunities for people to use other modes of transportation, not just parking. I’d love to see underground parking here. That would make more sense to me with this development, to go underground, to be a little bit more space, a little bit more privacy, a little bit more opportunities for landscaping and buffering. So by supporting this, staff’s recommendation, not what the applicant wants, but staff’s recommendation to see how this building will go forward.

So again, I appreciate the committee supporting the added amendment through the site plan process, but I don’t like to plead that I am pleading to this committee that they support some of the concerns that this community will have. We haven’t even talked about affordable housing. I hear over and over again, if we’re going to go six stories, why aren’t we putting units in that people can afford? That would be great, but we don’t have those tools.

So again, support staff’s recommendation, let the process be undertaken to see if this building can fit. That’s my compromise. I know the community is not going to be happy about it, but please don’t just bend over because the developer is not happy with this recommendation. Thank you.

Councilor Blosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m looking to move an amendment and put staff’s original Part B back in, realizing the Councilor, it’s contrary.

I was just looking for a way to do it when we get to Council. It’s neater. Fair enough. I’ll just vote no then.

Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor, I’m going to ask for an additional two minutes. I will have to put that to a vote.

I guess seconder on the request for Councilor Hillier. Clerk is just warden that up right now and we’ll we’ll vote on that. Thank you, Chair. So I have to take an opportunity to address a couple of comments that I heard.

I didn’t call a point of personal privilege, but no one is bending over because the developer says they’re not getting what they want respectfully, but we do have to listen to our builders in this community when they say if you do this, we will not build it because it is not financially viable. I heard underground parking referenced an affordability. An underground parking stall runs $80,000 per parking space. If you want to make buildings less affordable, insist on underground parking because it will drive up the construction costs, and those will be passed along to either the condo purchaser or to the tenant if it is a rental building.

That is simply the reality that we face today. When we talk about affordable, there are subsidized programs that applicants can apply for if they wish to provide affordable units. This applicant has chosen not to seek to utilize funds from that program, but when we talk about affordable, I think it’s important to recognize that affordable is taxpayer funded affordability. It is a subsidy, whether it’s federal, provincial or municipal funding.

It is not coming through a reduction in the building itself. We did hear residents ask on another street over, there’s five stories and then there’s taller buildings, but that’s all about the built form and the financing models and all of those things that a builder has to put together when they develop an application. In this case, we’ve heard very clearly that they’ve reduced the units. To me, that is the compromise.

They’re not here with an L-shaped building and looking for 90. They’ve made some reductions. They’ve brought forward a new plan. They are within a height that is consistent with the London plan and in terms of proceeding with affordable or not, you know, that’s up to the developer to pursue through the CIPs.

I will say in speaking to the applicant, I do know that they are planning to have a number and I believe it was 10%, but I don’t quote me on that of units in the building that are fully accessible for those who want to age in place in the Byron area. 30 seconds. We need accessible washroom facilities and things like that in their units and I think that’s an admirable thing for them to be including. But again, I come back to if we wanted to go with the original recommendation, we heard it here today.

It will not be financially viable and nothing will be built on the site. And what that means for our housing crisis is no progress anywhere. So I encourage colleagues to support this moving forward. Other speakers, Councillor Ploza.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis has now encouraged me to speak. How much time do I have? I thought you used anything.

Five minutes. Perfect. Go for it. Yeah.

Mr. Wallace would like this. So realizing as application come forward, committee and council approves an application, we can never force shovels to actually go in the ground and make things be built unless we’re building our own housing as LMCH doing is reimagined Southdale. So always mindful of that.

Also mindful that sometimes we approve things and decades seem to pass before people actually put shovels in the ground. And if a developer has a financially viable business plan or not is also not my concern and nothing I have control over. My question through you to staff realizing part B has been removed and page 136 speaks to balcony and canopy projection. Realizing the application in ward 12 is was a little bit different with how things are laid out.

Looking to see if there’s already reduced setbacks and balconies and canopies with zero meters to lot lines. If there’s potentially concerns of how these might interact with active modes of transportation like sidewalks run off from balconies, canopies if they’re potentially putting water into public areas or if it creates drainage concerns from neighboring partners and potential flooding. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, the balconies would not be permitted to encroach into the right of way.

And in terms of stormwater management, that would be addressed and reviewed and approved through the subsequent site plan process. Councillor. Perfect. Thank you.

Also, I believe it would come through site plan if at which point they would actually discuss what the balcony material would be made of if it’s transparent or opaque just to help with some privacy concerns. I don’t believe that was in here. Oh, that’s good stuff. Through the chair, we can’t control the aesthetic quality of materials through site plan.

So that would be up to the applicant. Councillor. Okay. Also in this application, was there any indication?

We’ve already heard several applications today. What the mixed will be of bedroom units, bachelors, ones, twos, threes, rental versus owned? Staff. Through the chair, I’ll defer that question to the applicant as it’s not necessarily a zoning consideration at this point.

Councillor, would you like me to go to the applicant on that question? Yep. They were here and I believe Nick said he was available. Please answer the Councillor’s questions regarding mix of bedroom units and ownership, private ownership, or rentals?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To answer your question, Councillor, the intent would be for rental units and there would be mix of approximately 25% would be two bedroom units and the remaining would be one bedroom Bachelors. Councillor.

Thank you. Just mindful as some Councillors are speaking to affordability, that we don’t know the rates that are going to be charged. We don’t know if they’re going to do anything with the city for anything off our housing list of people who are looking. I also know some of these areas are absolutely wonderful families in a two bedroom unit.

It’s not going to suit that either. I know we can’t deny based on those things. Just if that’s where Councillors leave me for a conversation, I am happy to follow some days. I’m not usually good at using it my five minutes so you might have to just have enjoyed what I’ve already done.

If we’re looking at the bicycle parking, it was also part of a reduction. I heard some residents say that they actually do bike in the area. Do we have concerns with the reduced parking and just making sure it’s going to be secure? I’ll go staff.

Through the chair, staff are not supportive of the reduced bicycle parking. Further, there are future plans for bicycle infrastructure to be constructed on the east side of Bowler Road beginning in 2026. Councillor. Thank you.

I know the applicant is here and listening. I do appreciate them being here and taking questions, just hoping that they’re mindful of that if there’s reduced parking, but excellent cycling infrastructure going in nearby that they will consider that as they go through the build themselves. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Other comments or questions from committee members? I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair, please. I will take the chair and I recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you.

So this is a challenge that we’ve faced over the last number of years, quite frankly. We’re dealing with infill. Everyone’s recognizes that we have a housing challenge in London, Ontario. Even today, those that spoke out, not in favor of us proceeding here, recognize that.

The challenge is how do we address that when we know there’s going to be an impact on surrounding properties, regardless of where we put it. We try to target downtown areas high frequency roads for large towers of 20, 30, 53 stories, but that in itself isn’t going to do the job. So we’ve looked at infill. And the alternative is, as we discussed in a very, you know, heavy discussion, when we look at urban growth boundaries, we don’t want to pave over farmland, but what’s the alternative?

The alternative is to build up where we can and do infill like we’re doing. And the provinces recognize as well as the federal government because any funding has had that attached as well as changes to the act regarding planning. In this particular case, yeah, I agree with the Councillor. There’s compromise.

I guess where is that compromise point? I look at this property was originally six stories, extremely high density. Now that has been reduced by almost a third, six stories and four stories. It’s at a corner where there’s a church across the street, a commercial mall, kitty corner and a gas station on the other side.

So it is an interior commercial mode, which we discuss about, you know, future development in new subdivisions of encouraging that type of thing. So we’ve also heard from Deputy Mayor about, you know, addressing traffic concerns, a lot of traffic that goes on that road having, you know, some more cars, 60 more cars, approximately not going to change that too much. But there will be an impact, you know, there’ll be an impact as there has been on other properties in the city that we’ve, we’ve gone ahead with to allow more units to be built. In this particular case, I think there’s five homes or three homes that will no longer be there.

And in place, we’ll have 62 units, multiply that by, you know, hundreds of times. And it makes a significant impact on our goal, 47,000 units by 2031. So I will support the motion on the floor, but acknowledging that there are impacts for, you know, the neighborhood in the area. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I shall return the chair to you. I don’t have any other speakers on the list at this time. Okay. We have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll look one more time around our issue here. Don’t see anyone. So I will call the vote. Something about the motion carries three to two.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to 3.5. This is regarding transit oriented development community improvement plan.

I’m going to look to staff for a brief presentation to the committee before we discuss it. Thank you. And through the chair, please present to the committee the transit oriented development community improvement plan. As part of London’s housing accelerator fund application and agreement, the city made the commitment to develop a new community improvement plan and accompanying financial incentive programs to promote high density residential development in and around the city’s protected major transit station areas, transit village place types, and rapid transit corridors.

The goal of the financial incentive program, which is supported through a commitment of $10 million through half, is to accelerate residential development and promote intensification within the existing built up area to help create and accelerate an additional 667 residential units to help the city achieve its housing accelerator fund target of 2187 additional units. While this is a city wide community improvement plan, the financial incentive program itself will apply directly to the downtown, south and east link, rapid transit corridors. The rationale being that these areas are currently developed or currently completed are currently scheduled or currently under construction. I’ll also highlight this financial incentive program is stackable with other existing CIP programs and the current office to residential construction conversion program.

In meeting our half out obligations through the creation of the CIP framework, which will function as an enabling document, the ability to add additional incentive programs targeting other rapid transit areas as possible in the future with additional funding and council approval. The recommendation in front of you today is to approve the CIP framework and the half funded incentive program within. As you’ll see in the report to develop the CIP, the city retained n-berry line consulting as a consultant on the project. The project lead Nick Michael from NBLC is available and should there should there be any questions of a technical nature?

Thank you. I’ll put that in the floor for committee members for questions or comments. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation to get the conversation started.

And then once that’s seconded, I do have a question. Oh, sorry. I will also move the delegation request. Thank you.

So there is a PPM component of this. So I just wanted to get that staff presentation on the floor. It’s my fault for not doing that portion. So let’s get a motion to open the PPM.

Councillor Cudi seconded by Councillor Ploza. That one. Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. We didn’t want to sit here if I’m not speaking. Mr. Wallace, so please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having this PPM. It’s Mike Wallace. I’m the executive director for the London Development Institute. Let me be upfront.

We are in support of the recommendation that is in front of us on this CIP piece. We do have a few comments. I actually want to say that we thought the report. I would encourage everybody to read the report carefully.

It highlights some of the issues that our industry have. And I thought it was very well presented, not just all flowers, but the reality of the situation. We do support the forgivable piece that’s in here in terms of it being alone. That’s forgivable if you actually do the work.

We appreciate that it is stackable, particularly with the conversion CIP. I think there might be some opportunity there. A couple of points. And one basically relates a little bit to what you’ve been hearing earlier in other applications today.

But the first point I want to make is, yes, it’s citywide, but it’s designated for the rapid transit corridors. In our view that transit issues important to the whole city, not just the rapid transit corridors. In the rapid transit corridors, there’s issues going to be with turn down houses and building up. It’s not like it’s green space of any sort or open field that we can build in.

So there’s some neighborhood issues there at the land in terms of its developability is more of a challenge because of whether they’re so in water, all those kinds of issues that go with infill. The other thing is, of course, we would encourage, we’ll see how this goes. We encourage that you encourage this kind of intensification across the city to help support transit throughout the city, to feed the rapid transit corridor system. You need other people, you need transit to get there, to feed that system in our view.

And we do appreciate the flexibility and the timing. I know you’re trying to, this is really to try to get applications to move forward in a more efficient and effective manner by the end of 2026. But just to be clear, based on what you’ve heard previously, just so you understand, and I check with the performer of one of our developers who develops purposeful residential high rise. At the low end, a unit is somewhere between 425,000 and 450,000.

That’s depending on the price of land, of course, and that’s with no underground parking. It then goes to, you know, 525, 550. So a project, just so you understand, it’s like 45 million dollars or more for 100 units. Like, they’re not paying this out of their pocket, they’re borrowing, they’re investing, and they’re taking risk.

Good interest rates went up a few years ago from 3% to 7/8 in a very short period of time. And these aren’t overnight decisions, these are long-term decisions, you make those investments. So the loan that here, you know, as the report says, is 15,000 a unit, which is great, and is stackable, which is fantastic, but, and its purpose is to try to get our industry moving before the 2026 deadline to be able to qualify for that CIP. We think that is a good piece, we appreciate stackable, but we just want to give you some clarity of what the reality is in the marketplace, and that we appreciate the support, and we’ll do what we can to be there in terms of providing more units.

But there are a lot of factors, including what’s happening in the marketplace today, the confidence of people, not just our, not just our developers, but our customers, in terms of what’s happening, and, but we do, are supportive of this opportunity and other CIP improvements that you have made over the last number of years. Thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers.

Ah, it’s clear if there’s anyone online. There’s no one from the public that is online, would like to speak, nor in the gallery, so I look for a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Cudi, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, now we’ll go to committee members, and I’ll start with you, Deputy Mayor.

Now I will put the staff recommendation on the floor. Okay, I look for a second, seconded by Councillor Cudi. So do you want to speak to your motion, Deputy Mayor? Yeah, just very quickly.

It’s referenced in the report, and I just want to understand a little bit better around the stackability, because we’ve got some commentary in the report about the forgivable loan. It’s got to be pulled by the end of 2026. That requires the building permit being issued. Based on the way I read the report, the project doesn’t need to be finished by the end of 2026.

It just needs to be underway, and should, should the project not advance? And we were recouping the forgivable loan portion of this. I’m just trying to understand if that would apply to other stacked incentives at the same time, because like, have we qualified the stacking based on this being a portion of it too, or whether we would evaluate the other stacked CIPs independently? Like, so if they don’t move ahead by the end of 2026, at least with pulling the building permit and getting going, do all of the CIP incentives revert to repayment or just this one, and perhaps others continue?

Go to staff. Thank you. Through the chair, it would depend on the stacking incentive specifically if it was DC charge related or a tax and incrementing equivalency grant. Those are granted back after completion of the project.

Certainly the officer residential program and the current program, those are provided up front. To answer your response about timing of construction, within the legal agreement that would be signed for this incentive program, developers have approximately one year to start the program. They are to start the project. They are to proceed diligently and accordingly, and they have four years to complete the project from the date of issuance of the loan.

There is provisions in the legal agreement to provide an extension staff approval. Thank you. I’m happy to see that that work to begin within one year. I think that speaks to Councillor Plough’s other point on the earlier application.

There’s only so many tools we have to get things actually started, and I appreciate that other stackables might still be in play if this one falls out, depending on how things roll forward on that. I think I’ll just stop there. I might have a couple other questions depending on the rest of the debate, but in general, I’m quite supportive of moving this forward. Okay, I’ll look for other committee members, questions or comments.

Councillor Plough’s. Thank you. A question through you, just looking at page 213 under financial impacts and considerations. Looking for a little bit of historical information of the transit-oriented development CIP, is that 100 percent taxpayer funded?

Where did that money come from? Realizing, I believe the housing accelerated fund was external money that came in. So just looking to see the source of both those finances. Thank you.

Through the chair, the source of the development of the CIP was also included as part of our housing accelerator fund agreement, and the funding for developing the CIP was through CAF. Councillor. Sorry, can that be repeated in a little bit slower? Certainly.

Go for it. Through the chair, the CIP was developed with half dollars. So as part of our housing accelerator fund agreement, we had the provision to develop the CIP. So the development of the CIP was funded through CAF, and then the financial incentive programs accompanied with the CIP are supported through CAF.

So Councillor, if I may, just to get so we got a housing accelerator fund. I believe it was $70 million. Is that correct from the federal government? And this is the way the city can use CAF access to that funding.

But I think we were the first in Canada to get that funding because the work that York, that you have done in getting housing going in London. So that’s where the funding, my understanding is going, Councillor. Thank you. So the transit orientated development CIP, half the money was ours.

We got unlocked some wonderful money. We’re looking to mobilize it. Is there more realizing our plan as we hopefully develop a full transit plan in London? Does that fund have more money that we can tap back into?

Ideally, eventually we’ll have a north and a west leg, or just looking to see if it is successful, if that would potentially be a business case coming forward through the next NYB. Do I staff? Yeah, just through the chair to maybe take another step back here is that with the establishment of this CIP, it allows us to give new options to any type of financial incentive we want to provide in the future. So it gives us not just the one that we’re suggesting today, which we feel is a very strong first step, but it allows it opens the door to provide other financial incentives that may be approved by Council in the future.

So the thought is to start with this one financial incentive and really focus on those areas that have just been built out for transit. And then from there, if it isn’t as successful as we hope it will be, then we could open it up to large area. But there’s a lot of flexibility built into what we could do here. So our intent is to roll this financial incentive out as soon as possible.

And then over the next six, seven, eight months, see how successful it is. And if we need to make some course corrections, we’d come back to committee and Council to be able to get approval for any of those changes. Councilor. I’m just going to keep being in the weeds.

So apologies and reframe as you need to. Looking at how we do the improvement like the approval process and some applications for residential housing in this area has already been approved, but perhaps permits haven’t been pulled. Realizing it seems that we would like to be blessed to build what we’re asking. Can those people who’ve already gone through PAC and Council got approval come back and apply for that funding before they pull their permits?

Just looking. I just got questions. Oh, go staff. Thank you through the chair.

So we have retroactivity back to September 8th of 2024 to accept applications. So individuals who have already pulled a permit and just have not built would be accepted. And certainly anyone who’s in the approval process, we would consider as part of the application project application and eligibility of the project. Councilor.

Thank you. Realizing this will have reports back. Your report said when you report back in the near future for benchmarking. Will your report indicate how many things were already approved by committee and Council that then either retroactively went back and did it versus how many new ones we had get spurred by this investment?

Through the chair. That will be a problem. Our intention is to when we report back, we had our first annual report last December that we provided some details of how the money was spent. So the intention would be to have a more thorough description of all of the approval.

So if you want those two pieces broken out, that’s not a problem. We can provide that information. Councilor. Thank you.

I’ll give you heads up now that I would like them separated out. Hopefully it’s somewhat easy of just when they come into the the pipeline for staff to track what I’m really looking at and try and get into as a South Councilor who does have the transit orientated wonderful higher order transit going on in ward 12. Already seen a lot applications and development interest along the quarter and revitalization of looking to make sure that the program is actually targeting what already wouldn’t be coming forward. And we’re actually finding new interests versus the interest that are already coming.

So that’s where my questions were coming from. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments?

Councilor Pribble. Thank you, sir. Chair, the staff. I just went to a clarification.

So the accelerator, housing accelerator fund was 74 million. And my question actually was how much are we dedicating of this towards the CIP? But do I understood was half? So it would be $37 million.

Is that the amount that we are dealing with? I’ll go to staff. Thank you. Through the chair, there is $10 million associated with the financial incentive programs in this CIP.

Councilor. Okay. So 10 million is the top. So thank you for that.

It states here, additional residential units, 2001, 87. We have a provincial pledge. What is big by 27 that this number would get us at the pledge at the end of the year 27 towards the province? Or is this just kind of a plus that will be closer to the goal?

Or would this be the actually the provincial pledge that we would actually meet it? All those stuff? Through the chair, it can become extremely confusing at times because we have a lot of different targets that we’re trying to meet. So the targets that are being referenced in this report are the housing accelerator targets, which are they, of course, would count towards the increasing the number of units and the provincial pledge.

But they’re not the target for the pledge. So for the pledge, we have the 47,000 units. So London has its own target for that value for the year. I can grab it and just don’t have it on top of my head.

But it’s approximately 4,700 units that we’re getting towards, because that’s 47,000 divided by the 10 years. So the values that are in here are specific to the housing accelerator targets, which are separate set of targets. Councilor, thank you. And the number is still the same, 47,000 by 2031, correct?

I see tonight, thank you. One thing is the CIP that we introduced from the office commercial to the residential, we started, it was about 22 to 28, depending on the size of the unit that we increased it. But there was one thing that was mentioned that this CIP, even though it’s stockable, this one would not be paid upfront. But the commercial office to the residential would be upfront.

Was my understanding correct? Go staff. Thank you. Through the chair, this incentive is provided upfront.

So it functions exactly like the office to residential construction conversion incentive program. As soon as the property owner or the applicant is at building permit, we enter into a legal agreement, lean the property, and we can issue the funds up front. Councilor. Thank you.

No more questions? Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions by committee members or visiting Councillors?

Okay. If the committee will permit just a few comments from the chair, you know, it was a great news to hear that we did get that housing accelerator fund, and now it’s being turned into things that we can use as mentioned prior, our bag of tools to promote building of houses. And the thing that we can’t forget is the city doesn’t build houses. I mean, aside from, you know, our London housing, which we, for the first time, have started to actually build some units.

But for the most part, 47,000 units are going to be built by the private sector. So what can we do as a city to encourage that? Well, we do that on bureaucracy, turning around quick, you know, zoning requests. We do it through helping with funding from other levels of government.

You know, a number of ways. But the end of the day, private money has to see a reason to invest in our city. And it’s challenging sometimes, because I think sometimes, and it’s been heard in some of the applications before us, we would like developers to build in other places and not in certain places. But we can’t control that if we want to see housing built.

What we can do is nudge. And this is a nudge. Another tugboat in moving that big ship of housing in the right direction. So thank you for finding ways to access that funding.

Appreciate that. And I look forward to hearing other terrific ideas coming forth to this committee. Okay. We have a motion moved and seconded.

No other conversations I’ll call a vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Now moving on to items for direction.

This is 4.1 regarding a request from Middlesac Center regarding ARVA sanitary servicing. Sorry, we have a delegation request. So I’m looking for a committee to make a motion on that. Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Hillier, and then I won’t call that vote.

Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I look for the delegate to delegates online. Please give us your name. And you have five minutes.

There. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Lehman and members of the committee. As for the chair, my name is Stephanie Bergman.

I’m the manager of planning and development services at Middlesac Center. And I am actually here with Michael Delulo, who’s our CAO. And we just, we wanted to speak to the staff report before you. We have had an opportunity to work with and to meet with London staff and certainly want to thank them for their time in reviewing the request.

We can also appreciate the challenges that the city is facing. We’ve been sitting here for the meeting and we’ve certainly heard these developments coming forward and the challenges in servicing those developments. And we’re also, Middlesac Center is also committed to doing our part to address the housing crisis. And in particular, you know, the most environmentally and sustainable way.

So in looking at Arva, you know, we do want to see a more comprehensive, complete community here. We don’t want to see that’s brawling a state-style developments, which is more likely to occur if we cannot coordinate services. So in review of the staff report, we do believe that there’s some middle ground here and some options to be explored. Our team is certainly happy to dialogue with city staff to keep that conversation going.

And obviously, I don’t have to explain to this group here how fast and how fast London is growing. And we do know that there are going to be. We’ve lost Joe. I’ll give you a minute or two to reconnect.

We’re just waiting for Miss Bergwin to reconnect with us here. We lost that connection. Mr. Chair, how long will you be waiting?

Pardon me. How long will the committee be waiting? Would you like a brief recess? No, I was going to look to continue the conversation.

They can join back in when they rejoin us. We have two things we can do here. And with the clerk’s blessing, we do have to do a brief reconsideration of an earlier motion 3.1, 3.3, just because of a technical issue. So we’re going to have to do that before we end the meeting.

Can we do that now? We could do that now if it’s okay with committee and if it’s okay with the clerk, do I need a vote to do that? So what’s coming up is a vote to do the reconsideration. Once we approve that, then we’ll have the corrected motion and then we can revote on that.

So I need a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Cudi moves it. Seconded by Councillor Ploza. Closing the vote.

The motion carries 5-0. Okay, so can you put that? Okay, so I’ll just look to the original mover’s. Councillor Ploza and Deputy Mayor Lewis, they’re agreed to move in second.

So we will call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Okay, thank you, Councillor, for taking that housekeeping item off.

So while we wait, oh, okay, I’ve just been informed that Ms. Bergman is back online. Ms. Bergman, we will go to you now.

Wow, thank you. Thank you so much through the chair. I really appreciate that. It’s funny, we’ve been on this whole time and of course it cuts out right when I’m speaking.

So I am not sure where I left off, but I’ll just go. I’ll just jump to the end. We really are just asking the committee to defer this matter to staff to consider more of a phased approach to our request. Our request was really a kind of a longer term and longer term request for, you know, what would represent more of a full build out of ARVA.

We do think that there is some middle ground to be had, noting that we and our development partners are really fully willing to fund our portion of those improvements. So thank you again. I really appreciate you accommodating those technical difficulties and coming back to us. It’s very, very much appreciated.

Thank you. No problem. Thank you. Okay.

So I’m just going to go to committee right now, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Just a technical question to staff. If I may before he gets me on the floor, having the speaker said that they’re willing to fund their portion.

I know it was a funny agreement that covers their portion, looking to see through you if that means they’re willing to fund their portion of the $20 million that would be potentially required to upgrade our facilities. No good stuff. Thank you through the chair. So I don’t wish to speak from Middlesex Center or their developer.

But yes, we would be looking for costs that are recovery that is directly related. So in the previous agreement, that is how it was done. They funded the capital works requirements as well as a lump sum amount to cover the DC charge for the equivalent to units. So we would be looking for a similar agreement in the future if we were to allocate capacity, although like the report says, we are not recommending that at this time.

Councilor. Thank you. If the representative is still on the line, if they would be willing to speak, if that’s what they meant of funding their portion, was the potential $20 million. Ms.

Bergman, are you on the line? Did you hear the councilor’s question? Yes, through the chair. Yes, I did hear the question.

And I think that this is quite a high level estimate. We do understand there’d be improvements. But the short answer is yes, we are fully willing to fund our portion of whatever improvements are required. And we would expect that to happen in a phased manner.

Councilor. I would say the report in the request before us doesn’t completely get into what one would consider to be a phased approach. And also the considerations up, up front. At this point, I would be inclined to go with staff’s recommendation.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. I won’t just say I’m inclined. I will put staff’s recommendation on the floor. And then I’ll speak to it.

Seconded by Councilor Hillier. Go ahead, Councilor Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I’m just going to say respectfully.

I understand where the county’s coming from with making their request. To me, this is just us supporting ex-urban growth. We need the capacity we have for ourselves. The growth that we are experiencing is exponential compared to what we’ve seen in the past.

We know that’s going to continue. I know that there’s another half project coming in the East End this summer on 2nd Street that’s adding capacity for applications that we’ve already approved here at PEC to be built out. So we have a lot of work to do just to meet our own capacity requirements. And I am really, really grateful to Ms.

Ramaloo and her team for all the work that they’re doing to get that capacity online, because everything else we do here at PEC really doesn’t matter if we can’t flush toilets and turn on taps and get clean water and get rid of dirty water. But that to me is where we need to focus is within the city itself and the capacity that we need not encouraging for their ex-urban growth. Because even if we were to provide this capacity, we know what we’re not going to realize the return on investment on is those invisible costs. Those commuters coming in using our services, using our facilities.

And we know it’s not reciprocal. We know that residents are being charged parking fees to attend school track and field meets and things out in the county. And so for me, this is a no. Look for other speakers.

Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. A question through you to staff. Page 264 deals with the provision of sanitary servicing of voids where at least delays the potential of a new wastewater treatment facility discharging into Medway Creek.

Realizing the discharge is treated a high standard. Environmentally, that’s not the concern unless there’s overflow issues during a high water event. Just looking to see what is the concern specifically if it’s just capacity of the creek itself for water flow coming in. Just realizing flooding is always a concern.

Oh, go staff. Through the chair. So the primary concern is that if there’s a substantial investment to develop a treatment plan, it’s less it’s more likely that they’ll be over sizing the capacity to be able to allow for even further expansion of their settlement boundaries. So it would just likely open up and try to make a cost driver for them to even expand further on the outskirts of London.

Councillor. Thank you. Specifically though, was there a creek concern? I get the urban sprawl they’re driving in.

Essentially, it’s just more urban sprawl now about of London. But environmentally, I know that upper towns would always have a say in this too of just what would the specific Medway Creek concerns be? Oh, staff. Through the chair.

So this would be a very modernized plant, especially if it’s being constructed brand new. So it would have to meet all of the requirements for people that discharge to the creek. So the impacts there always are impacts when you have a treatment plan in a location, but they’re likely to be fairly low and they would have to be justified through an environmental assessment process that would be undertaken by the Councillor. You’re done?

Other comments or questions? The committee will permit me from the chair. Yeah, I’m not going to support this, you know, for the reasons mentioned. However, I think it does raise, you know, the question of the future, you know, where London is knocking on Arva’s door.

We’ve been in my, now there’s a second one, or kind of piecemealing this, is this time to have a bigger discussion? I don’t know. What’s the best governance model of us being neighbors with Arva, Middlesex County? I’m sure these conversations when before my time were with, you know, High Park, Lambeth, other areas, even Byron, maybe I think at some point back in our history.

So what I would say to the county is this. We want to be good neighbors. We want to work with you. However, I think at some point the province has to be brought in to maybe have an honest discussion of where we are going with Middlesex and with London, you know, in the next 25 years.

We’re having those discussions from a mass mobility standpoint. You know, I think this particular ask could be used as maybe a starting point to, you know, just have those initial conversations to see, you know, where the city wants to go, where the county wants to go, and maybe where the province is going. Because let’s make no mistake, this region is growing leaps and bounds, and we have to be prepared both from infrastructure, but also from a governance point of view on how we’re going to handle that growth. So that’s it from the chair.

If there’s any other comments from committee members who are visiting, then I will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. We just have a couple of things remaining on deferred matters.

We still have to receive the report from the community advisory committee. So I’ll look for a motion to do that. Councillor Hillier is seconded by Councillor Cudi and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And just need a motion to receive the deferred matters list. Councillor Cudi seconded by Councillor Hillier.

Any comments or questions? I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Motion to adjourn. Councillor Cudi seconded by Councillor Palosa. And vote. All in favour?

Motion carries. Thank you folks. Thanks for giving me the good hints.