April 8, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:02 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, 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 2.2 in Stage 2, Consent, to remain in Stage 2, Consent, following Item 2.1.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   The 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2025-03-20 ECAC Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 20, 2025, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from S. Levin, Chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include in the Ecological Reference Group Terms of Reference a review Environmental Impact Studies, Environmental Assessments, infrastructure reviews, Subject Land Status Reports and Subwatershed Studies.

Motion Failed (1 to 5)

2.2   Amendments and Additions to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Program Guidelines : Vacant Commercial Space Fit-Out Grant Program

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (2.2) Amendments and Additions to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Program Guidelines

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend By-law C.P.-1559-83, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Core Area Community Improvement Project Area, by adding Schedule 4 – Core Area Community Improvement Plan – Vacant Commercial Space Fit-Out Grant Program Guidelines;

it being noted that the written communication from W. Thomas and D. Brown, with respect to this matter was received;

it being further noted that the delegation from K. Morrison, Old East Village BIA, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the delegation request from K. Morrison, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3095 Bostwick Road (Z-9791/O-25032)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.1) 3095 Bostwick Rd

Moved by S. Hillier

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 Southside Construction Management Ltd. relating to the property located at 3095 Bostwick Road:

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2026, to:

i)    change the designation of the subject lands on Map 1 of The London Plan FROM Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type TO Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    change the designation of the subject lands on Schedules 4 and 12 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan FROM Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations, TO Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations;

b)    the proposed by-law attached to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan, from the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Residential R2 (R2- 3(6)), Residential R4 (R4-4(2)), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village Phase 8 Subdivision located at 3095 Bostwick Road;

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

-      C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo;

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

  •     the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •     the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

that part c) be amended to include i) to read as follows:

i)    The subdivision approval authority include a draft plan condition specific to natural heritage compensation for the 1.27 hectares of feature removal, consisting of 0.57 ha of wetlands and 0.70 ha of woodlands, to demonstrate no net loss to the natural heritage features and functions, to the satisfaction of the City. If the Owner is unable to compensate for the full 1.27 hectares on the subject lands, the balance is to be provided on non-City lands external to the subject lands.

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   2826 Dundas Street (Z-25024)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.2) 2826 Dundas Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Dancor Construction Ltd. relating to the property located at 2826 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Light Industrial (h-108LI1) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial Special Provision (h-108h-9*LI1/LI6(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider design issues through the site plan process that incorporates measures to relocate the building closer to the street with parking in the interior side and/or rear yard, and design the street facing façade to reduce large expanses of blank wall along Dundas Street; and,

c)    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 as the key map provided in the Notice of Application and Public Meeting correctly depicted the subject lands, the change in address has no major impacts on the nature of the application, and no public concerns were received in response to the Notice of Application and Public Meeting;

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

-      A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo; 

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of industrial lands with an appropriate use and form of development;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

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)

3.3   1622 Evans Boulevard (OZ-25010)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.3) 1622 Evans Blvd - OZ-25010

Moved by P. Cuddy

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 Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1620 Evans Boulevard (formerly 1622 Evans Boulevard):

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025,  as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.- 1 (in conformity with the Official Planfor the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R6/Residential R8 (h-100*R6-5/R8-4) Zone, TO a Residential R6/Residential R8 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()) Zone;

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

i)    opportunities to reduce hard surface areas in favour of increased trees and landscaping; and, 

ii)    tree planting along the rear of the property to provide screening from Highbury Avenue South;

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

-      C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings Inc.; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

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)

3.4   8530 Longwoods Road (Z-25014)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.4) 8530 Longwoods Road

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Rosella Merucci relating to the property located at 8530 Longwoods Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan of the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-15) Zone;

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

-      P. Saker; 

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, Rural Neighbourhoods Place Type and Our Tools policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

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. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1398 Wellington Road (Z-25015)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.5) 1398 Wellington Road

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1398 Wellington NDB Limited (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 1398 Wellington Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 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 Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial (RSC2/LI1) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial/Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (RSC2/LI1/ASA1(_)) Zone;

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

-      A. Legrew;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate range of uses at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible within the surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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)

3.6   825 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-25021)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.6) 825 Wharncliffe Rd S

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Hafiz Qaddafi c/o Creative Structures - Kenneth Gakuhi Ngacaku relating to the property located at 825 Wharncliffe Rd S, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC4( )) Zone;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates adaptive reuse of existing building stock with a use that is compatible within the surrounding context without precluding future comprehensive redevelopment.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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)

3.7   801 Sarnia Road (OZ-25017)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.7) 801 Sarnia Road

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 Royal Premier Homes (c/o Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 801 Sarnia Road:

a)    the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by adding a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and adding the lands to Map 7 – Specific Area Policies, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies; and;

ii)    the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of residential intensification that is sensitive to existing neighbourhoods and does not represent a good fit, as required by the intensity and residential intensification policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (h-8*R8- 4(74)*B-40)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

ii)    the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Residential Intensification policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

iii)    the proposed density cannot be appropriately accommodated on the subject lands and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

iv)    the requested amendment would result in over-intensification of the site and no provision of affordable housing units;

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

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

-      Emilina; 

-      A. Johnson; 

-      N. Sana

-     S. Sana; and, 

-     A. Babanski;  

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

-      a communication dated April 4, 2025 from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and, 

-      a communication dated April 7, 2025 from A. Johnson;

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

Motion Passed (4 to 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. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) and Process Update (O-9595)

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (3.8) Official Plan Review of The London Plan

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan:

a)    that the Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas)as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for continued consultation with the community and development industry;

b)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to receive landowner requests for candidate industrial properties to be evaluated for potential inclusion within the urban area of the city as part of the Urban Growth Boundary Review, noting an expansion is warranted based on the findings of the draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) contained in the above-noted Appendix “A”;

c)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of Ineligible and Unsuitable industrial lands, as identified through the Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas), for possible land use redesignation; and,

d)    that this report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that following consultations, the Industrial Land Needs Assessment for Employment Areas will be presented to future meetings of Council;

it being further noted that the findings of the Urban Growth Boundary Review, including evaluation of landowner requests and blocks identified for evaluation by Civic Administration, are to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for Council adoption and circulation to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for Ministry Approval;

it being further noted that the development of lands within the Urban Growth Boundary Review expansion area will proceed as approved by the Municipal Council through future planning approvals and the annual Growth Management Implementation Strategy process;

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 Institute;

-      S. Pratt; 

-      S. Ford, Dancor Construction; and, 

-     Serabethra;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. 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)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Planning Fees and Review Recommendations

2025-04-08 - Staff Report (4.1) Planning Fees Review and Recommendations

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic

Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the fee changes included in Schedule “A” as part of the 2026 Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to phase-in the subdivision drawing review fee increase over two years, in addition to annual inflationary increases; and,

c)    the City of London’s Internal Auditor MNP BE REQUESTED to include a value for money audit of the Subdivision Review Process as part of Proposed Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan for 2026; and,

d)    the appended report dated April 8. 2025 as Schedule “B” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the second annual subdivision drawing review fee increase will proceed subject to the Subdivision Review Process audit recommendations; 

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-04-08 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the April 2025, Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:47 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 (3 hours, 2 minutes)

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, it’s just after 1pm and I’m going to call the sixth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting to order. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishabakh, Haudenosaunee, Lenna Peiwok and Adawanaran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people in the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 519-66-1249 extension-2425.

At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to the consent items. I’ve had a request from the Mayor to pull 2.2. As is normal in our practices when a consent item is pulled, we deal with it at the bottom of our agenda.

In this particular time, the Mayor has indicated that he won’t be able to stay for the entire meeting. So I would like to look to Committee for a motion to allow us to change the order, to have 2.2 go after 2.1 Councillor Hill here as Mayor Motion. Councillor Cuddy has seconded, and I’ll call that. I’m closing the vote.

The motion carries 6-0. Thank you. So going on to 2.1, this is regarding the fourth report of Ecological Community Advisory Committee. We’ve had a delegation request from San 11.

So I’ll look for a motion from the Committee to allow that delegation. Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, and we’ll call the vote. Mr. Clerk has informed me that we do not need to vote through e-scribe, just a hand vote.

So all in favor? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you.

Mr. Levin, if you have five minutes, please go ahead. The last report or the last ECAC meeting, we have one last request that’s on your agenda, page 3, item 5.1. We ask that you make the new ecological reference group more efficient and effective by adding to its terms of reference that you’ve passed, the reviews of environmental impact studies, environmental assessments, infrastructure reviews, subject land status reports, and sub-water shit studies.

We had a very good discussion at our last meeting with staff and as well with Councillor Pribble, who has regularly attended our meetings over the past few years. The reasons to add these is that really the items are part of policy implementation and it provides the data for regular reviews and improvements to the policies. So without that, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to be able to provide the advice back to staff and council in terms of improving what the policies are. And if you don’t include them, they’ll be that gap.

And the gap would be kind of like the DC reference group, which exists for development charges and not only works with staff on policies, but it also is involved in the GMIS process, it’s involved with master planning studies. So it receives and reviews those and it receives and reviews the DC. If you don’t include these studies with the reference groups, terms of reference, you basically would have like a development charges reference group without ever looking at the DC itself. So this completes the loop, it’s a continuous improvement process, and we ask you to support the request from your ECAC.

It’s our last request. I don’t even have the blindfold before the firing squad, but I think it’ll make things much more efficient and effective on a growth forward basis. Thank you and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr.

Levin. I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Deputy Mayor. I’ll move we receive the report.

I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hillyer. I’ll look for any discussion. Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to staff, having heard what the delegation noted in regards to the report for terms of reference, looking for their feedback of it, of if something that’s already going to be included or would be of value and looking to see if a motion would be required or if staff would just take it into advisement as they make that. Thank you.

So, go staff. Through your worship, just to be very, very clear, we have a resolution that’s before us that Council has already approved that just speaks to what this reference group is going to include, includes review of the official plan and any kind of policies related to that. It doesn’t get to the detail of looking at these very technical studies. So, based on what we’ve already been provided with Council, that’s not what we’d be including in terms of reference.

So, if it is something that you’re wishing to have included, then we should have a resolution to that effect. Thank you. I’ll go with Councillor Palazzo. Thank you.

I see that Deputy Mayor has his hand back up, too. I’d be looking to move then that recommendation as it’s outlined in 5.1. So, we already have a motion on the floor to receive? So, amendment to that.

So, if you want to make an amendment, is that what you’d like to do? Okay. So, Councillor would like to make an amendment. Look for a seconder on the amendment.

Councillor Cudi seconded. So, now we have an amendment that we’re going to deal with, so I’ll look for discussion on the amendment. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I will not support the amendment at this time. I want to remind colleagues that the governance working group spent a year working on the terms of reference for advisory committees. I am not, at this point in time, prepared to start expanding that mandate for one particular advisory committee, opening the door for other advisory committees to ask for changes to their mandates and to just open that piece again, we’ve seen what happens before with expanding mandates of advisory committees.

We end up with multiple advisory committees doing duplication of work. I respect if colleagues want to discuss the terms of reference further at a future governance working group, that might be appropriate. I’m not going to support changing the mandates of an advisory committee on the floor at a standing committee of Council after months of work went into adjusting and developing these terms of reference. I look for other speakers.

Councillor Perm. Mr. Chair, to the staff question, based on what we heard from the delegation, is there a benefit? And yes, as the Deputy Mayor said, it’s been a long time that we spent on determining the terms of reference, but having said that, is there an opportunity with this additional terms of reference added to the mandate that we actually more eyes seeing certain things and potentially making it more effective and efficient for our administration for your team?

Go, staff. Through the Chair, and just to be very open with this, this currently we have all of these reports going to ECAC, so it wouldn’t be much of a change from what we have now. I think some of those benefits that were highlighted previously were possibly more efficient and approval timelines if we didn’t have this step in the process, because we need to make sure that we have meetings set and scheduled to be able to review these studies on a prompt basis. I’ll also just highlight, just for the sake of my team as well, that this was a function that was originally done by the Clerk’s Department as part of their committee and their structure.

Now it’s being provided to our groups, so that will be additional work we’ll be taking on anyways, so if we want to have these additional types of — and the timeliness required to be able to move these developments forward as well, if you want to have that in a very efficient process, then we’ll likely be using a lot more of our capacity and staff capacity for having these meetings as well. So I would not necessarily say there would be a huge amount of efficiency. There would be, however, much more opportunity to have some of that external input from an environmental perspective, and that’s the balance that we really would want to have, and that is important to have in these circumstances. But we do also have very strong staff to be able to read these reports as well.

Councillor Permeble. No more questions right now, thank you. Thank you. Other committee members are visiting Councillors?

Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me and allowing me to speak here to the committee and just following up on the conversation that I’ve been listening to and staff’s response. I’m wondering if there is a possibility of referring that to the staff working group, the environmental piece.

I know the governance working group made a decision on the terms of reference quite a few years ago, so we also have that opportunity of it going back to the governance working group as well. But I would like to encourage the committee to at least move forward with these conversations. We can go two ways, but I would like to encourage the committee to do so. Okay, we’ve got an amendment on the floor.

If the amendment, to try to see how we can do this, I mean at any time we can approach the working group, governance working group, and without this particular committee’s initiative for that, Councillor. So I think right, well, I’ll leave it in committee’s hands. Now we have an amendment on the floor that we’re dealing with, but you’ve heard Councillor Hopkins input. Councillor Preble.

Chair, is there appropriate? If I want to, after these comments will be heard, we heard the delegation, then we heard comments from around the horseshoe and the staff. Is it appropriate to hear the delegation, if there is any comments based on what has been heard? No.

Back to the delegation? No. No. He’s had a chance.

Right. Any other comments on the amendment? No. Vice chair to take the chair, please.

I’d just like to make a few small comments here. I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. So I can’t support this amendment.

I appreciate Mr. Levin’s concern for sure. Mr. Levin has been a terrific member of the ecological community, advisory committee, and I hope that we can see you again on the ecological reference committee as well, Mr.

Levin. The council and staff did a lot of work to provide terms of reference on this change. That’s saying, down the road, can we do things better? By all means.

I think we always should keep our ear open, and I think, you know, Councillor, you made a good point, you know, if this is something that the working group, governance working group might want to look at, you know, down the road, I probably would encourage that. As it stands now, I just like to, I don’t want to make a decision on this particular committee, and I’d like to just have things proceed as Council passed at this particular time. So I will not support this amendment. Just a quick mention.

It’s no longer an advisory committee. Sorry, Mr. Levin, Mr. Levin, your time to speak has been given.

It’s not a back and forth. Councillor Layman, I’ll return the chair to you. Sorry, chair. I jumped in on you there, yes.

Okay. Any other comments? Perk is just going to read out the amendment, Councillor. Civic administration be requested to include in the ecological reference group terms or reference a review, environmental impact study, environmental assessments, infrastructure reviews.

Is that correct? Thank you. I think we’re just missing the last bit of subject land status reports in sub watershed studies. And it’s accurate and approved.

It looks accurate. Great. It should be live on eScribe. Okay.

All right. Look for any further discussion on this amendment. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion fails one to five.

Thank you. And now we’re back in the main motion, which is to receive the fourth report. We moved and seconded any discussion. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Okay. Item two, this is regarding amendments, additions to the downtown community improvement plan program guidelines regarding vacant commercial space and fit out grant program.

We have a couple of delegation requests. So I’ll look for a motion to to receive those delegates, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Palauza. I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Thank you, Chair and committee members. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. I was informed yesterday that there is a possible amendment being introduced to this staff recommendation. And I see a couple head nods.

And so my deputation here today has changed somewhat. That being said, there are a few points that I would like to make and address concerning this matter. First off, it’s a very welcomed initiative and one that will have a significant positive impact, I believe, on the core area as a whole and not just downtown. London’s core area includes downtown, midtown and the oldies village.

And it was in June of 2023 that the core area land and building vacancy reduction strategy was presented to council with the key emphasis being on the word core. And after receiving this report, I must express at the time my deep disappointment that with the recommendation as it is currently, that while downtown is significantly a very vital part of this city. The decision to exclude midtown and oldies village from this program feels not only a bit sighted, but at the time, frankly, I found it insulting. The possible amendment is certainly going to cover this, I hope.

Section 2.1 of the report suggests that downtown has the largest volume of vacant commercial space within the core area, however, I did have this confirmed yesterday by the planning department that per capita, actually, oldies village surpasses downtown in terms of vacant commercial space, which is a critical distinction and one that should not be overlooked when determining the program eligibility. Since taking on the role of the general manager of the oldies village, BIA, in October of 2023, I’ve worked alongside our property owners, our local businesses and community partners, and many of you sitting here at the horseshoe today, to drive renewed energy and investment in the oldies village, and despite the challenges we face, including the highest concentration of social service providers within the business district, we’re beginning to see encouraging results, and in fact, some of that is attracting now private investors. I hope to have one here today, but he was called to an important meeting, so we are moving forward. With the continued multimillion dollar investment just east of our district at 100 Kellogg, private investors are now turning to their attention to oldies village, and this is a pivotal time for us to reinforce and accelerate that revitalization and not be left behind.

Collaborative efforts with London Police Services, which was even discussed this morning at a press release that a few of you were at, bylaw enforcement and the coordinated and foreign response team are helping to address the street level crisis in our area, and positive momentum is growing, but we need to continue to have that staff and elected representative support to maintain the build on our progress, including our district and midtown in the vacant space fit out program would significantly amplify the work that’s already been underway, and I’ve confirmed again with the planning department that amending the report to include midtown and oldies village would not be that difficult, and funding for the program is certainly there. As pointed out in the letter from midtown community organization, I too would like to reiterate that the city’s own corporate strategic plan supports inclusion of the full core area, downtown midtown and oldies village as part of its vision for economic growth, culture and prosperity, and the plan highlights a commitment to equitable economic growth and celebrates the core as a vibrant, attractive, distinct destination that is truly our shared vision, if that is our true, truly our shared vision, that we must ask why would midtown and oldies village be left behind. I thank you for this, and I think it will have a significant impact on the core area as a whole. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison. Just to inform the committee that Mr. Thomas is unable to join, so we will proceed.

That takes up our two delegation requests. So proceed now, and I’m going to go to the mayor. I believe the mayor has a motion. Yeah, it’s my intention, Chair, to the committee to introduce an alternate to the staff recommendation, which would essentially expand this program in its geographic area to include midtown and oldies village under the current parameters.

It would identify a different bylaw and different CIP plan to amend, which includes the core area one. I’ve worked with our staff on that. That’s no problem. They can bring the updated bylaw to council in time.

So I guess I’d look to see if there’s a seconder for that, and then I can read out the actual amendment and make some comments. I’ll follow your lead, Chair. Okay. I see Councilor Hill here.

I was agreed to second it. So I’ll go back to you. Well, given I wasn’t able to put this on the added agenda, I’ll read the amendments just so it’s in the public record. Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of housing and community group.

Okay. Sorry. I’m going to read the one that’s in the describe. And then the following actions we’ve taken with respect to the introduction of a vacant office space fit a program guidelines, the core area, community improvement plan, civic administration be directed to bring forward a bylaw to municipal council meeting on April 22nd, 2025 to amend bylaw CP1559-83 as amended, being a bylaw to establish financial incentives for the core area community improvement project area by adding a schedule for community area improvement plan vacant commercial space fit out grant program guidelines.

And then the it being noted that we received delegations on this matter. The reason why I think this is important is as was articulated by the delegation, it does align with our strategic plan that we’re really trying to support not just the downtown, but a wider area of commercial office vacancy that has been impacted. I think we’ve seen successful programs initiated by this council to the office residential conversion. We now have a transit oriented incentive plan, which would apply to portions of the core to just simply restrict this to the downtown area, which certainly does have a need.

I think would would limit the opportunity and scope for Midtown and all these village, which certainly do have challenges with vacant office space. And I think that this program, I believe, will be successful. I think supporting up to 50% of the costs up to $50,000 is a significant amount to assist those in looking to refurbish an open vacant space. And I think we want to give every possible opportunity for that wider area to participate in such a program.

Again, having such programs in place allows us to start off, see how it works, and certainly can come back to council and modify them in the future if we feel like there’s a way that we can make them better. But I think my preference would be and why I put this motion on the floor. Let’s start off with a wider area that we know has a need. We can see how it works and we can take appropriate steps from there.

And honestly, my goal here is to get the money at the door. I think the time for providing an injection into the core area, given the office vacancy rate, is now, by expanding this to a wider area, I think we can deploy the resources that we have a lot quicker, a lot more effective, and create a larger catalyst within the downtown core area for all the other work that we’re doing, some of which was mentioned today with the launching tomorrow of the open air drug strategy. The work that we’ve done with the downtown and core area, quick start actions, the work on developing the actual comprehensive plan. I think this is one of those short term actions we can take to support the area while we’re working on all those other projects and they all work in unison and in combination together.

So happy to move this. I look forward to the committee’s comments and appreciate, really much appreciate the committee allowing this item to be dealt with first, given my other obligations today. I’ll go with committee. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just want to thank the mayor. We had a meeting yesterday morning and it didn’t take long at all for this amendment to come forward. So I really appreciate that.

There had been a growing concern that possibly the downtown strategy was to move the issues east, particularly with the letter from downtown London and from City Plaza. So this should reassure that area that this council does have a commitment to it that the funding and opportunities will be there. I think that along with the London police service announcement this morning about the open air drug use that there is hopefully a lot of hope now coming back into that area. There’s so much potential and I think all that investors and business owners and residents need is an assurance that we’re committed to urgent change there and I think we get to look forward to now celebrating the results that are going to come from this.

So I really thank the mayor for bringing this forward and reassuring that area that it is going to be a great place to invest. Thank you. I’ll look. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, I think it’s important just to go to staff quickly on this one for those who maybe don’t get into the weeds on all of these reports. It may sound like we are incentivizing renovations for landlords. And in fact, it’s my understanding and I’m going to ask staff to just give a few comments on how this program is going to work, but this is actually tied to tenants.

This is tied to bringing leaseholders in and filling spaces. This is not so landlord X or landlord Y can get a renovation on the city’s dime, but it is actually when a business is going to locate, we would be helping them with some renovations to get that business ready and those doors open. So I’m just wondering if staff can maybe give us a really, really high level quick overview of how we’re going to make sure that this actually leads to occupancy. I’ll go, staff.

Thank you. Through the chair, very happy to introduce the vacant commercial space fit out program for committee’s consideration. The vacant commercial space fit out program, which I don’t have a snappy acronym for just yet, but happy for any suggestions, will provide a 50% grant up to a maximum of $50,000 matching dollar for dollar to eligible applicants to renovate and fit out a vacant commercial retail or office space in order to open for business. When we observe the many different incentives and programs that council offers across the city, many are focused on the property owner.

This program is unique in that it focuses on providing economic support to the business tenant. This program is to reduce the rising office and retail storefront vacancies across key areas in London. Eligible works for this program that are eligible for funding under the incentive include the necessary work for any requirements under the Ontario building code, for example, an additional accessible washroom, but also things like additional signage, lighting, permanent fixtures and fittings, flooring, doors, painting, and other work required for a business to actually open a vacant space. And we also are offering the incentive if a business wants to expand into an adjacent vacancy.

The grant funding is provided to the applicant after they have completed the eligible investments, and we have entered into an agreement to maintain the space as a targeted use for a minimum of two years, which will align with the leasing agreements and the leasing part of the leasing requirements under the application. The financial incentive program, as previously mentioned, was identified as one of the strategies under the council approved core area, land and building vacancy reduction strategy from June 2023. It is funded through the multi-year budget, and it’s estimated support between 15 to 25 projects annually starting this year, pending council approval, and then continuing 2026 and 2027. Deputy Mayor.

No, that’s good, Chair. I just thought it was important to make it really clear, members of the public, those in the gallery watching remotely, that this is really about getting businesses into the vacant spots. It’s not just about a renovation, but it’s about doors open and commercial spaces filled and I’ll work with Mr. McCauley on a snappy name for it offline.

Councillor Permeau. Thanks. I just would like to make a comment. I think this amendment makes lots of sense, and I hope I encourage you, my colleagues, to support it and enlarging from downtown to core.

We do need to address this in the entire core area. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I think the midtown organization for their advocacy, they were on social media bringing awareness to this. They put a submission in. Kevin Morrison from the old East Village BIA has taken the time to be here and submit the delegation request, and it does matter, and I know the people in the area do really appreciate the advocacy and representation.

It’s even more exciting hearing it all right now, so thanks to everybody. Councillor Permeau. Thank you, Chair. So I’m sure you’re wondering if I would support something like this.

But council, and I will. For me, you know, it’s not about just downtown, it’s about the city as a whole. I obviously do oversee the ward of 13, which has the downtown in it, and I am happy to see that this amendment is there because when it comes to midtown, you know, I’m the one who put to midtown on paper at the strategic plan. Midtown asked me in the beginning, can we get our name on the strategic plan so we can get recognized for items like this?

And I said, absolutely, yes. So I’m glad that we’re starting to see this development come through, and it’s going to be including midtown. Or I guess some comments with the downtown BIA, there’s no, there shouldn’t be any concerns with issues being moved east or west because we’re talking, we’re talking about space, we’re talking about commercial space that cannot be moved. But in the end, when it comes to this amendment, I’m glad that we can, you know, bring this incentive and start bringing units back online, bringing the commercial space back online.

So I’m going to, obviously, I’m going to be supporting this. With that, I would say, you know, this is a good step for us. I have been speaking to many residents, many people downtown, and there’s a sense of excitement in the air. They can see these steps that we’re taking, and they know that there’s more to come.

They see what’s happening with a whole bunch of other items that are with this, and, you know, we’re talking about some of the real priorities that we’re always speaking about here in downtown or within the core area. One of those big items, especially what we saw with the core area they can see, is making commercial spaces. So this is one step that you’re going to see at the beginning, and there’s going to be more steps to come to bring units back online. Again, you know, it’s about the evolution of the city.

It’s about the evolution of downtown, and, you know, and I’m very excited to see that. So everybody I’ve been speaking to are excited. I was speaking to someone today, a very big stakeholder in downtown. They’re absolutely excited to see programs like this, grants like this, and just the overall momentum that we’re taking here.

I got to say thank you to the mayor. This is the mayor’s item. He’s been spearheading this, and I’m very grateful that he has brought this to the city, because in the end, you know, we need to get a handle on things, and this is, like I said, one of the big steps that we’re bringing here. Council, I have seen support from Council.

I’m very appreciative of that. I feel like we’re going to get support for this the way it is crafted right now at Council, and I’m grateful for that. And I would just say this is one of several or many items that will be coming to this horseshoe for basically making sure and ensuring that our downtown and the areas around Midtown and OEV are on the right track. And to position ourselves in a place that is going to leverage all of our current assets that we have in the city right now and create new ones to really make the city to show what the city really is.

We have good bones. We have good assets. We just need to bring them to the limelight. We need to bring them up for everybody to see, to attract people to come downtown and see really what the city is all about.

Staff, obviously, you guys have been doing some great work. I’m very appreciative of the work that you’ve been doing. I really, you know, I’ve said this already, but I’m going to say it again. I really appreciate just the level of detail and just, you know, how hands-on you are right now, because this is a very big item for the city.

This is very important. So I’m very appreciative of that. And like I said, you know, speaking with people and just kind of informing individuals who have a stake in downtown, Londoners in general, there is a sense of excitement in the air. And I’m really, really grateful to see that.

And I just know this is going to be the beginning of something really great. So I’ll leave my comments there for now, but I will be supporting this council the way it’s crafted at the moment. Thank you. Other Councillors and members of the committee will permit me.

I’ll just have a brief comment, it’s just to the general gist of this program, you know, we’ve done a number of action items to address the challenges we have downtown. Office to residential being a key plank, I think, and this follows up. When a new business opens up in a vacant building or anywhere, for that matter, there’s an incredible risk that that location will work and that risk is heightened when there’s a number of vacancies around you. The challenge for us is to make this into a virtuous cycle as more vacancies are taken up.

There’ll be more demand for other businesses, more people coming down, other businesses seeking remaining spots and it just keeps growing. The challenge when you’re first going in to along with that risk is capital that’s necessary to get things up and going. And leaseholds are a big portion of that plus, you know, inventory, staffing, et cetera. A lot of money going out the door before money’s coming in the door.

What I like about this program, it’s a dollar for dollar. So it’s not a grant, there’s skin in the game from the tenant that we will match up to 50 grand. And the other thing I like is that it’s not, as Deputy Mayor pointed out in the staff comments, it’s not just for a landlord to improve his building, it’s going to the tenant to ensure that it is occupied and getting that storefront up and going. So I’m fully supported of this and I understand where the mayor is going to address the concerns of the community to expand it to midtown, et cetera.

So if there’s no other comments or questions, I have a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Scheduled items, first one is 3.1, just guarding 3095, Bostwick Road.

I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hill here, seconded by close, and I’ll call that vote. I’m in favor. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

And I understand the mayor is on his way, so thank you for participation. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant, if the applicant would like to address committee, please sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of committee and members of the public and staff.

My name is Casey Cole-Chicki. I’m a senior associate with link of PPM Unlimited. I’m joined by Ali Ledbetter from MT Consulting. We’re here representing Southside Construction Management Inc.

on the proposed phase eight of Talbot Village community that is before you today. I just want to take the time to thank staff, particularly Michael Clark, Peter Kavick, and Heather McNeely. There was a lot of back and forth emails, meetings, a lot of collaboration between our respective teams to get this recommendation before you today. We’ve had a chance to review the staff recommendation of the report and are happy to be in agreement with the recommendation for approval, and we look forward to being back here in the near future with our draft plan, a subdivision application, and the draft conditions.

I’m available if there are any questions, and Ali is also available if there are any questions regarding natural heritage. Thank you. Thank you. This is the public that would like to address the committee on this particular application.

I don’t see any in the gallery, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone in the gallery. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM to Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Karyen.

We’ll call that vote. I’m closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Okay.

We have a staff recommendation. I’ll look to committee for direction here. Councillor Hillier. I will move the staff recommendation.

Okay. I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis says I can all look for comments or questions on that. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me again, and I want to start off with my thanks to staff on this one. I know it’s a complicated file, and also to the applicant for working along with staff on this one. And I do recall the development just to the north that we approved a number of years ago for the intensification of development along Southdale, and how we were going to implement the services with the development to the south, and what to do with the wetlands, and the natural heritage feature, and here we are today with this application.

And I want to sort of start off with saying that there still remains a few key issues when it comes to the natural heritage. I know that staff are recommending moving those two wetlands, and the third one from the previous application down towards that east side of the woodland lot as well as sort of cutting into that woodland for residential units, and how do we sort of get that no net loss to our natural heritage feature, which we have to maintain? I still have concerns around the buffering. I just want to make a comment, so I know we have guidelines when it comes to buffering, but the five meters and the 10 meters, I would have liked to see being greater especially around the woodland.

I am, and I know committee have read some of the letters received from the public around the importance of the natural heritage features in this area, and how important they are to the community. And I would like to make an amendment to the recommendation, I don’t know if you’d like me to read it first, and looking for committee members to move it, and maybe have this discussion. I’m going to go on Councilor Palosa. Thank you.

I’m happy to move it, trying to do committee work at committee and its amendment to Part C, adding on an I, and if committee members refresh their e-scribe, it’s actually already in there as Part 4, but there’d still need to be in a need for a seconder. If members committee want to read it. Okay, so the proposed amendment is in e-scribe, Councillor Palosa has moved it, and she is looking for a seconder. For the public, would you like myself or Councillor Hopkins to read it out?

Yeah, while we’re hunting it out, Councillor, if you would allow me to read the amendments so the public can hear it, and it is an amendment to see, adding an I, the C part, the Planning and Environment Committee report to the approval authority, the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village, phase 8 subdivision located at 3095 Boswick. The I reads, the subdivision approval authority include a draft plan condition specific to natural heritage compensation for the 1.27 hectares, a feature removal consisting of 0.57 hectares of wetlands and 0.7 hectares of woodlands to demonstrate no net loss to the natural heritage features and functions to the satisfaction of the city. If the owner is unable to compensate for the full 1.27 hectares on the subject lands, the balance is to be provided on non-city lands external to the subject lands. It has been mentioned in the recommendation, some of the concerns with this application, and I’d like to have it be no to clause in the recommendation supporting the concerns of the community.

Thank you. Okay, I’m looking for a seconder to Councillor Palazzo’s amendment. Councillor Hill here as seconded, so we have a motion moved and seconded, an amendment. So we did have the main motion which was to accept staff recommendation.

This is an amendment to that main motion, so we are just discussing the amendment right now. I’ll look for speakers to that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

So I won’t be supporting this. Here we are asking for more than what’s recommended in the staff report. I, to my knowledge, no discussion has been had with the applicant on requesting this additional compensation. It’s not staff supported, which I think would mean a very tough time defending imposing this kind of condition at the OLT, should it be appealed.

But beyond that, I also have an issue with language that speaks about not being allowed to provide compensation on city land. And I’ve had this discussion with our staff on other files too. It is great when that is possible, but sometimes it is not. And sometimes if we have an applicant who’s willing to provide enhancements to existing city land through compensation, I think we need a mechanism to do that.

And I recognize that there are staff resources being devoted to other things right now. And at the end of the day, our staff can only work so many hours in the day. They deserve weekends off. They deserve sleep.

And so I realize that that’s going to be a long time coming. I’m okay with that. But in the interim, I’m not going to start what, in my opinion, is holding up development and housing that is desperately needed in our city to ask for more than what our staff have brought forward in a recommendation, particularly when I’ve seen in my previous term on council, and even the term of council before that, the result of prior councils and prior planning committee decisions to impose extra conditions beyond what staff we’re seeking has led to plots of land in our city that continue to be vacant properties, that continue to be for sale today, places where we approved hundreds of units of housing, some of them affordable housing that we count on our roadmap to 3000 as units that are in process that don’t exist yet, because we’ve imposed so many conditions that the builder has decided it’s not economically viable and they’re not going to move forward with it. So particularly now, in the economic climate that we’re in, when we have no idea what next week the cost of housing is even going to be, I’m not going to support starting to add extra conditions beyond what our staff have recommended onto applications that are seeking development approval.

And I do think the end results, in my opinion, will be a challenge to the OLT that will simply spend time and money on lawyers to end up with a loss because it’s not something that came forward in the staff recommendation. Thank you. All look for other speakers. That’s our Hopkins.

Thank you. I would like to just respond to a comment and I truly do not believe that this added amendment will hold up development. It is already in the recommendation. It needs to be done.

It’s just being noted in the recommendation that we do it. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I am supporting it. I do want to see how this comes back as it’s considered through it.

Realizing, especially the wetland features, you just can’t create another wetland and this one’s actually split between three subject properties. Also caring about housing. Also that yes, staff has opportunities to sleep and enjoy their time. That one was close to myself calling upon a personal privilege.

No one’s saying that staff doesn’t work hard and no one deserves time. But this is the process of doing committee work at committee. If committee members prefer happy to make sure that we can have these conversation at council instead and those meetings will just go longer than they already do. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Mr. Chair, I don’t want to engage in cross debate with another member of council. But when we talk about meetings going longer than they do, there was no amendment circulated on the added or even to the committee members prior to the start of this meeting on that which makes meetings go longer than they do as well. All right.

Other comments or questions? Committee will permit me. I just have a couple of questions from the chair. My understanding is that this particular area has been an extreme challenge not just for this application but for other applications around it.

I just wonder if the staff could comment on that. Through the chair, my name is Michael Clark, the planner on the file. Yes, this application is, as was previously mentioned, surrounded by development, including 735 Southdale to the north. And so sanitary services to service that previously approved development need to come through this subdivision to the top of Mercy Street, which is at the south end kind of in the middle of that woodlot at the bottom of these subject lands.

And so that’s one of the complicating factors. So yeah, there’s a lot of there’s a lot of history and complication around here that’s been going on for a while. Thank you. And again to staff, how does this motion or amendment differ from the staff recommendation and dealing with wetlands?

Through the chair, thanks for that question. I just wanted to highlight to the draft plan condition process and approval of a draft plan of subdivision is delegated to director of planning and development. That was delegated from council to approval 30, which is director of planning and development. So it won’t come forward to council.

All that comes forward is the zoning and official plan amendment. So the amendment in front of a committee today, it’s obviously different than what staff brought forward. But the amendment that is brought forward can also be included as part of our draft plan conditions. So it is something the city would endeavor to work through with the applicant at a later stage.

And yeah, we’d be able to work through that with the applicant with the similar language that we have here today. Okay. Thank you. And how many units are we looking at in this particular application?

Through the chair, we’re looking at 113 new single-family dwellings and some townhouses. So in total 113 new units. Thank you. Okay.

I’ll look for any final comments or questions before call the vote amendment. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three. Okay.

I’ll move back to the main motion. Any comments or discussion on the main motion, which is to accept the staff recommendation. Seeing none, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 2826 Dundas Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Motion moved, Mr.

Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cutting. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

I’ll look for the applicant. If the applicant is here, I’d like to address committee. Please give us your name, M, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members, staff, and members of the public.

My name is Alia Richards, and I’m here with my colleague, Harry Frucios, and we’re planners from Zelenka-Prayama Limited, and we’re here representing the client on this application for the rezoning at 2826 Dundas Street. I’d like to start by thanking staff for their efforts in processing this application and for the positive recommendation to approve the rezoning that will permit LI6 uses on the subject lands. In reading the staff report, we have one requested amendment to it, and that would be that we would hope that committee would endorse the staff recommendation, but without the holding provision pertaining to the archaeological studies ministry of letter of acceptance. Given the circumstances of this archaeological report, the most recent submitted report that was given to staff was updated in accordance with the ministry’s comments, and as such, this will expedite the review of the archaeological report with the ministry, and we should be receiving a letter of acceptance within a few weeks.

In the event of approval, it’s likely that this letter of acceptance will be obtained before the appeal period is up on this application. So given this, we respectfully request that committee consider endorsing the staff recommendation to approve the requested zoning by-law amendment without the holding provision. I want to thank committee for allowing us the opportunity to present here, and I’m available to answer any questions you might have about this application. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for any other members of the public like to address the committee on this particular item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online.

I don’t see anyone in the gallery coming to the mic, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hillier, closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Okay. I’ll put this on the floor for the committee.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Happy to move the staff recommendation on this. This is in Ward 2.

Once we have a seconder, I do have a question for staff so that I can- I see Councillor Hillier has seconded, so I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, and thanks to Councillor Hillier. Through you to staff, I’m just wondering hearing the applicant’s representative on expecting the letter of acceptance anytime soon. I do understand that this holding provision would be a delegated authority.

It doesn’t have to come back to Council for removal. So hearing their concern about the appeal period and the potential acceptance overlapping from a staff perspective, does that prevent you from lifting the holding provision once it’s been met prior to the appeal period? What are we talking about in terms of timeline potential overlaps or hold-ups here? Are we talking a matter of days or are we talking potentially months of the staff?

Through the chair, as the applicant mentioned, we still are not in receipt of the letter. It’s been our standard practice where prior to PEC, we have not received that letter to apply the holding provision. It’s my understanding that the appeal period would have to lapse prior to removing the holding provision as the holding provision would not technically be in full force until such time as the appeal period has expired. We could potentially look into beginning the administrative processes behind that, but it is delegated to staff.

So it does not have to return to Council, as you said, but there is a circulation period associated with that as well. Deputy Mayor, thank you. So sorry just to follow up on that. There’s a circulation period for notification to remove the holding provision.

Go staff. That’s correct. It’s circulated to any members of the public who have requested written notice as well as the applicant. Deputy Mayor, thank you.

And so sorry because this is an unfamiliar one to me. What is the notification period required? And then what is the comment period? I mean, if the condition has been met and the holding provision is being lifted, I can understand the notice, but I need to understand what the process is beyond that, because if it’s simply notifying the public, and there’s no other mechanism for them appeal-wise or anything like that, that’s a little different for me than notifying the public, and then there’s an appeal period and whatever that looks like.

So can you just expand on that a little bit for me, please, through the chair? Please go ahead, staff. Through the chair, thanks for the question. Typically, the circulation period for a holding provision removal is 21 days.

And then shortly thereafter, the approval authority report is signed by the approval authority. There’s no appeal period, and then the bylaws enacted. Deputy Mayor. Okay, I appreciate that.

So 21 days, we’re talking about three weeks. The appeal period on the zoning would potentially overlap part of that time period, assuming that the acceptance letter does come before the appeal period on the zoning has lapsed. So we might, and again, I know I’m talking a little bit of speculation and conjecture, but we’re not really talking a delay of months per perhaps a couple of weeks at the most. Is that what I’m hearing?

Understanding that there are potential other complications, but all things being equal. And by reading that right, that we’re talking perhaps a couple of weeks, go, staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. It is an expedited process.

The uncertainty and the reason why we’re recommending the holding provision is because we don’t know when that letter will be received. Deputy Mayor. Thank you for that. So I appreciate the applicant’s desire to move quickly.

But in this case, I’m going to I’m going to lean towards leading the holding provision in place, primarily because the provincial legislature hasn’t even resumed sitting. I know this is with bureaucrats out of ministry, but given the realities of where we are with the province right now and hearing that it’s potentially a couple of weeks, I don’t think that it’s going to be that onerous situation. You know, I will say as the word councilor, certainly if the applicant does run into problems because of ministerial overlap and then there’s something that we can do to help expedite things, certainly reach out and I’ll talk to staff about what we can do there within our within our allowed processes. But in this case, I think that the holding provision, we’re all assuming that the ministry letter is going to come back good.

And knowing that the property has previously been used for agricultural purposes. And so anything that perhaps had archaeological value is probably long tilled under and gone. But at the same time, I don’t want to presume that the acceptance letter is going to be 100% cleared off. And that without that holding provision, we potentially put ourselves in a little bit of an awkward position.

So I see both sides. I think in this case, I just want to air on the side caution and leave the holding provision in until we get that letter. Look for other speakers. We have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call a vote closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero moving on to three point three regarding one six two two Evans Boulevard. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor cutting moves it seconded by the deputy mayor.

I don’t call the vote closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant the applicant like like to address committee.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes through the chair. Carry on Brian on behalf of Drulo holding zinc. We just wanted to quickly thank staff both on the zoning and site plan teams for their help in processing the application. We’ve reviewed the report.

We’re happy with the recommendation of staff and I’m available for any questions if they are from the committee. So Brian, that’s 12 seconds. Well done. Look for other members of the public like to address committee on this issue.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Catherine Button. This is my first time doing this. So I apologize.

So I am so I’m just going to say that I am not opposed to the the townhouses rather. I’m concerned about the apartment buildings in the intensification in the area. So the medium density. I have no issue with that.

I just want to say that as I go around the city of London and I see other apartment buildings being built, I do see them on major roadways like commissioners. There’s a wonder land. There’s Kalali. There’s also belly as well too, where Drulo is located with nine buildings as far as I can tell the could be more because they’re still being built.

I just want to say that this particular site, which I live like pretty much next door to it. So I have a little bit of skin in the game here. Like I find the site is really far back into the subdivision is in the back quarter. So there’s not really any easy access to commissioners.

It does take almost a full kilometer to get out to commissioners. So the traffic is going to I think really flood the area if there is more than what was planned originally. So the other issue is that these streets that enter going to Evans Boulevard and enter into the rest of the subdivision. Actually, there’s three schools in the area.

So all this traffic is going to flood into the school areas. And that’s a major concern for myself. There isn’t really any major shopping or businesses. Realtor.ca gives it a three out of ten for walkability.

There’s not really much in the area. So it is very car dependent. And I really feel like all of this extra traffic is going to be a problem. There’s one street in particular on Evans Boulevard that does connect over to Meadowgate, which is the main road through Somerset there.

And that particular road on Maguire, it does empty out in right in front of the school. That’s where the T intersection ends. So as far as I can understand from reading the plans that there is going to be about 175 units in this one particular area. I went on a stat scan and it says that 2.4 people usually generally live in each unit.

So that’s about 400 people. I also do want to point out that it’s not just this one site in particular. This area is not developed. There’s still single detached homes to be on the other side as well as town homes still to be built.

So there’s two other sites right next door to this one in particular that so of course my concern is that if we open the floodgates to put in apartment buildings back in this back corner, that they could also be added to the other two sites as well. Of course, apartments are needed in this area. I do appreciate that. I have no issue with apartments.

And like I said too, there’s all those apartments from Jerusalem going up on the other side of Bradley, which is perfect. But there’s also other apartment buildings going up on Jackson and commissioners. So I really don’t feel like this would desperate in this back corner. I really feel like this is not the proper place to be putting apartment buildings in it to level parking structure as well.

And then finally my last concern is just the green space. I’m finding that there’s not a lot of green space in the plan. I really feel like even the people who live in the apartment buildings would appreciate some area to walk their dogs or their children to play. So I think that that should also be considered.

So that’s it. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Look for any other speakers.

It’s correct if there’s anyone online. There’s nobody online. I don’t see any other folks coming to the mic. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillel, vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we have a staff recommendation all put that on the floor for committee members. Councilor Hill here. Yes, thank you.

And I’d like to make a few comments and give us a brief history lesson on the Somerset area. So everyone knows this area has been going through renovations and initial changes since September of 1993. And we’ve had 19 phases. The last communication came through as of November.

And it was still for townhouses. I’m looking for interpretation of London plan. I am getting to that. Hold on a second, Councilor Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, here you get the mic. Councilor Hill here. It is one. There we go.

Okay. Just before engaging in debate or comment about an application, we don’t have a motion on the floor. So like I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. The Councilor started speaking, but we need a motion on the floor.

We, you know, it’s not in order to just provide comment without a motion. I appreciate that being in committee. There’s sometimes that there is discussion before a motion is made. And I wasn’t sure where Councilor Hill here was going.

Councilor, do you have a motion to go ahead or do you need to ask some questions before you get to that point? I do need to ask some questions before I can. I’m going to allow that. May I continue?

God, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, as I was saying before, the last time this came up was November 8th, 2024.

And it was for townhouse developments. Now, if you look through the proposal and we get, here we go, we get to page 96 and we’re talking about land use. We’re going to use the London plan as the argument of why we can have this broader ranges permitted include apartment building, stack tonos and direct higher order streets where services in closer proximity are more accessible. Well, if you look through this, you’ll understand that hybrid is being used and it’s showing Evans as a connector.

Evans as a connector right now is backed up beyond use in the mornings and in the afternoons, especially around school time. This entire area has been designed for townhouses and the summer side area has been very, very friendly with all the developments going around the periphery on our major roads. But this appears to be going on a major road, but it’s not. It’s on hybrid.

There is no access from hybrid as a kilometer into the subdivision. We are changing the density, but we’re using the London plan to defend it. There is no transit. There is no access to a high order road.

This is a small little side road within my neighborhood. Now, if you go a little farther into the report, sorry. Do you have a motion in mind here? I’m trying to refuse this.

Okay, let’s, why don’t we, why don’t we go down the road suggested by the deputy mayor? Sure. And maybe we’ll get a motion on the floor and then you can argue against it or for it or wherever you want to go. Okay.

So I’ll look for a motion. Councillor Cudi, what’s your motion? The motion on the floor? Okay.

And Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds it. Okay. So now we have got a motion of floor. Point of order.

Yes. Sorry, just Councillor Casey put the motion on the floor. What motion specifically? Staff recommendation motion or Councillor Hilliard’s motion of don’t do it.

Councillor Hilliard did not make a motion. I’m sorry. Chair, I’ll rephrase it. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor.

Sorry. I thought that’s what you had said. Thank you, Councillor. Okay.

So we’ve got a motion on the floor supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Hilliard, now I’ll go back to you to make your points against that motion. Thank you very much and I shall continue. First of all, I forgot to say thank you to resident Catherine.

I really appreciate you coming down here and I do have your communication and I echo everything you’ve said. What concerns all the residents of Somerset is this is supposed to be a one-time use but if you look at the map, looking at the subject site, just below it is 1688. What the residents are very, very concerned with is we’re going to get a copy and paste all the way down this development. Instead of townhoses, we’re going to be getting high rises.

We didn’t ask for this and they didn’t. No one agreed to this in 19 different phases of this subside subdivision everyone has assumed this would be townhoses. Now, just since January, this is flipped. Seventy what?

Seventy 80 homes were notified? It’s affecting the entire area because we have school access there and this is going to drain right out into where, well, where everybody tries to use the main road now and it’s backed up. It can take 25 minutes to get out on Bradley Ave right now. I believe this is going way too intensification in the middle of subdivision versus the periphery.

I’m hoping my colleagues will refuse this because I don’t feel this is how the London plant should be interpreted. If we’re going to be putting things along transit corridors in our higher and our higher order areas, I agree, but this is not one of those. So please refuse this and bring it back to what it was originally planned. Thank you.

I look for other speakers. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Through you to staff, I’m somewhat familiar to the area just as I ramble through the south end and there does seem to be backups.

I know traffic engineering comes at different stages, but as there is backups and it’s always a concern for first responders and people trying to get in and out. What is the traffic mitigation efforts that would be near term? I know Council decides in the master mobility plan to extend Bradley, which near terms never fast enough. So just looking to see what is in place for this area to help with traffic and the protection of the children in the school areas.

I’ll go to staff through the chair. Just give me one moment, please. Sorry. I’m not sure if IT can also turn up staff’s mics.

It’s just a really hard time. Actually, thank you. I was just about to say that when you’re addressing us the way the acoustics are in here, I ask that you maybe get a little closer to the mics so we can hear you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Through the chair, I just want to touch on the zoning. So these existing zoning currently on the subject site allows for 75 units per hectare. What’s being proposed today is 85 units per hectare and the applicants actually bringing forward site plan that’s currently being reviewed by the site plan team.

I believe it’s close to drawing acceptance as well with 82 units per hectare. So the increase in density isn’t significantly different from what was previously approved back in 2004. In terms of traffic impacts, in this previous subdivision, the phases came forward. I believe in 2021 that traffic impact study would have been completed at that time.

Through that review, there was no concerns addressed. In terms of the mobility master plan and the growth implementation strategy or other projects outside of this neighborhood that will help support transit. Commissioners Road East is currently identified as 2036. But that timing could change.

There’s the 2028 development charges background study which could change that timing as well as council endorsing the mobility master plan may change that timing as well. So hopefully that addresses your questions there, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Palazzo.

Other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you. I appreciate Mr.

Kavic mentioning this. But we are talking about an application and zoning that’s going from 75 units per hectare to 85 units per hectare. It is not actually a substantive increase. The zoning that’s already in place would allow a 13 meter maximum height which can get you and correct staff can correct me if I’m wrong.

But I think that gets you at least three, maybe four stories depending on the design of the building. So I see some nods from our team in the back row there. So we’re talking about two additional stories on two buildings. With all due respect to Councillor Hillier’s comments, six stories is not a high rise.

It is one of those missing middle sort of mid rises that are typically described for buildings that are that six to eight story sort of height. They are also what is quite honestly in the current times what is attainable and affordable for folks where the single family home or the townhouse model may not be. I appreciate the traffic concerns and particularly around the school. You know, I had a conversation with a resident in my own neighbourhood last night on Vancouver Street about the traffic around St.

Pius school. And at the end of the day, the traffic around the school is from parents driving their kids to school rather than walking or taking active transportation options. And I know that not all parents can do that every day because there’s soccer practices and dance recitals and all of those things as well. But a lot of our traffic generated around the school is just drop off and pick up really could be reduced by walking school bus programs, walk to school efforts, those sorts of things.

And I recognize that the school capacity is overflowing because of the terrible way that the province funds school bills and the expectation that they’re at capacity on day one. But that’s an issue that we have to deal with through provincial advocacy and not something that we get to consider through planning act considerations on developments. So for me, you know, and there is a chicken and an egg piece here. We don’t get transit until there’s enough density to support transit.

I appreciate the residents saying, you know, there’s not a lot of shopping available in the area. And I get that. But we don’t get the commercial opportunities until there’s enough customer base to support it. In fact, we’ve seen some businesses up at commissioners and metal gate in that area actually open and not thrive and succeed because they just didn’t have a big enough customer base to sustain themselves right now.

As the neighborhood grows out, that customer base grows as well and provides opportunities for commercial establishments to locate there too. So yeah, there is a chicken and an egg piece. And I get the frustration that folks have that the egg isn’t there when the chickens are moving in. But sometimes you have to have the chickens before you can get the eggs that they’re going to be enjoying in the neighborhood.

So that’s to me, that’s why this is a yes. It is a 10 units per hectare increase. It’s not a significant increase. It’s not a significant increase in height over what would be currently allowed.

So I hear the word counselors frustrations with the traffic issue. But for me, I think part of the traffic issue is how people are choosing to move around. Whether or not we’re going to get enough density for transit to be more functional there, which I’m sure that new members of our new interim transit board will be happy to discuss with the counselor. But I think for now, we have to look at this from a planning perspective.

And that’s why I’m supporting this application. I’m going to counsel earlier. Yes, thank you. And I appreciate my colleagues’ comments.

But for me, six stories is quite tall, especially when it’s out of place and not on a major route. It’s off of commissioners. It’s off of Bradley. It’s not actually accessible from hybrid.

So to me, it’s not. I think for my residents, if it would be allowed, if we could have some sort of acknowledgement from the developer that they’re not planning the exact same thing in every block along that, because if you look at where you’re starting there, the next block behind is 1688. And my resident’s concern is that they’re planning to do a copy and paste right down the block. And if I could get some sort of reference or some sort of acknowledgement from the development of that won’t happen, I know my residents would be a lot happier.

Look for other speakers. They have a motion moved and seconded. I don’t see anyone else wishing to speak. So I’ll call the vote closing the vote.

The motion carries four to one. Moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 8530 Longwoods Road. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting.

Council Hill, you’re seconded by Councilor Cutty. And we’ll call the vote. Using the vote, the motion carries 5-0. I’ll look for the applicant.

The applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name’s Dee Saker. I’m representing the owner of the property.

We would be happy to just go with what the zoning has suggested in their comments. Everyone seems to be in favor. There’s just going to be one single family home built. Thank you.

Look for anyone from the public. I’d like to address committee on this item. I’ll just click if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online.

I see no one approaching the mic. So I’ll look for motion to close. Councilor Cutty, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote closing the vote.

The motion carries 5-0. I’ll look for a motion from the committee. I will move the staff recommendation seconded by Councilor Cutty. Any discussion?

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I do have a quick question through you to staff.

Just want to make sure the MDS requirements are met there. There’s a lot of rural property around this area. I want to thank the applicant for being here as well. I just want to make sure the measurements all handled.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you for the question. All the MDS requirements have been met. Thank you.

Councilor Hopkins. Any other questions, comments? We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. 3.5. This is regarding 1398 Wellington Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councilor Cutty, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call that. Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m Adam McGrew, here from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’ll just hold on a second, sir.

We’re just going to find out from the clerk. I think we know where the vote’s going, but we have to keep. Okay. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0.

Okay. Thank you. Now, give us your name and away you go. Sure.

Adam McGrew from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. We’ve been retained by the owner of the property for this zoning by-law amendment, and we’ve reviewed the staff report on our supportive of their recommendation of approval, and we’re here to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you.

I’ll look for any members of the public. I’d like to address the committee on this item. It’s clear if there’s anyone online. No one online, so you know one to speak, I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Hadi, seconded by Councillor Hill. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. I’ll look for a motion from the committee.

Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I’ll move staff’s recommendation. Look for a seconder.

Councillor Cuddy, or discussion, comments. We have a motion moved and seconded by a call to vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Going on to 3.6.

This is regarding 825 Warren Cliff Road, South. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here. We’ll call that vote.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant. I’d like to address the committee.

The applicant online. One last call for the applicant, address committee. Okay. I’ll look for anyone else from the public that would like to address committee on this particular item.

Anyone online? One last check. Okay. I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here. We’ll call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay.

I’ll look for a motion from committee. Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I’ll move staff’s recommendation.

Thank you. I’ll look for second. Councillor Cuddy, seconds. Look for discussion.

Councillor Ploza. Thank you as the neighboring word Councillor across the road. I’ll note that there’s no current animal care hospital and veterinarian carrier available in this area of the city. So welcome to addition to those who are seeking care for their pets.

Also glad that they’re going to be utilizing the open green space for their small furry clientele. It’s going to be well used and happy to support it. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.7. This is regarding 801 Sarnia Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here.

We’ll call the vote. Lasting the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant.

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

Mike Davis here with civic planning and design. Here today on behalf of our client, Royal Premier Holmes, to speak to this plan, which is a lawfully designed and, most importantly, economically viable path forward for Phase 2 of their Western Prestige Village development. Western Prestige Village is a comprehensively planned multi-phase residential development by Royal Premier Holmes. It’s a mix of housing types.

Phase 1, 5th Saw 57 townhouse units completed. Phase 2 has always been envisioned as an apartment component to this and really was meant to serve kind of the growing demand for these diverse housing styles in this growing area of Northwest London. I think this application really kind of underscores the complexity of working together to build the city that we’re striving for. We have, in this case, neighbourhood input.

We have recommendations from the planning department and we have economic feasibility. I wish I had the time to fully dive into kind of all of those elements, but I think for today’s purpose, I want to focus on the key points. In our professional review of the staff report, the issue at heart seems to be around the additional height from 6 to 10 stories. There is a notion in the staff report or a perception that this could be over-intensification.

There is also reference in the staff report to the fact that the city has recently completed a review of the heights framework of the London plan. And I think the important piece for us that we want to convey is the counterpoint to that. Fundamentally, when the city of London makes policy decisions, they do so at a high level using broad strokes and that’s completely valid and important for policy decisions. But both the Planning Act and your own official plan do have a mechanism, a built-in mechanism to consider amendments where the unique circumstances of the project or the site warrant that.

And we actually think that this situation is a textbook case where these amendments are warranted because of the uniqueness of this situation. Building upon that a little bit, you know, firstly with respect to the notion that this could be over-intensification. We looked at that very carefully in coming up with this plan. And I think that the staff report fails to appropriately recognize or give sufficient weight to is the fact that this is in fact a multi-phase comprehensively planned development.

And when we look at the total site area for phase one and phase two, we get a combined density of 91 units per hectare, 91 units per hectare. That’s actually relatively low and within the typical thresholds of what is permissible within the neighborhoods place type. For example, you know, if we were to look for all prepare homes was to target this site for an apartment development completely from the start and not have that mix that we’re seeking. Even at the four story level, we could have seen densities of closer to 105, 125 units per hectare.

So I just wanted to kind of underscore that. I felt that was not appropriately addressed in the staff report. The second piece is, you know, what is the impact of increasing from six to 10? This site is very unique in its context.

It is somewhat an island of its own. To the north, we of course have a city pathway, a block that was previously dedicated by rural premier homes to the city. Beyond that, we have the rail line. It provides over 70 meters of separation between this site and single family homes to the north.

To the east, the site is a triangular in shape. So to the east is truly Sarnia Road. There’s no neighbors to the east. To the south, we have Sarnia Road itself, which is a 36 meter red of way and an existing four story building on the other side of Sarnia Road.

And then of course to the west, that is in fact part of the same master plan development by rural premier homes. Additionally, there is a 1.5 meter building step back that has been incorporated on that site to provide some further relief to the massing along that west interface. I think the last kind of piece that I want to highlight specifically with regard to the planning evaluation that’s been presented by staff, there’s references that reduce setbacks that are being sought, reduce open space ratios, or increase coverages, are indicative over intensification. In this case, those are not over indicative of those are not signals of over intensification, but rather a side effect of the planning history where previously rural premier homes has dedicated significant open areas here for city use.

I think those are the points I want to make so I’ll wrap up and certainly look forward to dialogue with all the stakeholders here today. Okay, thank you. I look for members of the public that would like to address committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Can you guys hear me? Good afternoon everyone. My name is Emalina. I live on 8/11 Sarnia Road and I actually own the property.

Can you guys hear me well? Yes. That’s good. Just making sure.

It’s the first time I’ve done this. So the reason why I’m here today is because I strongly support this development. And the reason why I’m saying that is because as a young professional, I see how much this is going to benefit myself in the community. I myself know that I live with my two aunts and one of the biggest struggles I’ve noticed is there’s two levels, so there’s a lot of stairs on my house.

So I can definitely see how I would probably be renting because I own the property on 8/11, but I would definitely be renting there and this would actually benefit me because they’re like 57, 65 and I don’t mind walking up the stairs, but for them, it’s becoming a struggle because I have so many health issues. So personally to me, I see how this will benefit me. When we first bought the property, I always understood that this was part of phase two. I generally believe that this will help myself and my family.

I have so many friends. We’re always talking about the house institution in London and the problem is there’s not enough buildings that are newly built or there’s not enough places that are accommodate for people between my age groups and there’s not enough places that we can be renting. So I truly think that this building, whether the height is changes, I don’t see how that will affect us because it would just allow for more opportunity for housing for all of us. So many of my friends are in situations where they try to get an apartment building and someone else has it and they have to start all over from scratch.

I feel like this will definitely help. And as well as we bring more of a sense of community because I noticed that at night, the community is super, like starting a road, there’s no pathways there and the two, I think the building and the townhouses will connect, which will be really nice because it will add a bigger sense of community to us. So I personally don’t have any issues. I do ask for just a sense of updates.

If the desks move forward, I do think that transparency from both ways from the city as well, just letting us know what’s happening. And if anything were to change throughout the construction phase, we’ll just ask for updates because we do live in the area and we want to be informed. But overall, I do support this and I definitely see how this will benefit me as a homeowner in the area. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for next speaker.

Mr. Chairman, please sir, give us your name. You know, five minutes. My name is Angus Johnson.

Thanks to the committee for hearing me today. I’ve subtitled my letter that you saw on your notes as London’s growing bedroom city. The 2021 census indicates that 40,000 London commuters get out of their beds each day and commute to work outside the city. The bedroom city where commuters live with their families is a population of around 100,000 people.

It provides a sleeping place for these mobile workers in an off-work employee parking lot for various out-of-town employers where workers presumably park their house when they’re working. The city within the city is located, not in any one area, but scattered across the city. Less than half the commuters work in communities on the city’s perimeter, more than half go further afield. The emissions problem with the bedroom city is the high emissions the bedroom cars produce.

That one quarter of the city’s commuting cars is actually producing 80% of the emissions of the rest. Each bedroom car creates two and a half times the emissions of the average within the city commute car. If the bedroom factor ever got to 30% the total emissions in and out would be about the same. If 801 Saudi Road becomes reality, the 91 units that don’t have car parking won’t be part of that bedroom city because those owners and tenants will be driving out of work.

They won’t be buying if they don’t if they can’t have a car, but in-city and bedroom commuters would be competing for the other 91 cars included units. Using 2021 metrics, we can assume those 90 units will be sold to roughly 24 bedroom city owners and 67 work in the city owners. Until the 2026 census, we won’t know exactly what’s happening to commute out numbers in the size of the bedroom city now. Based on the most recent numbers about transportation emissions from Google environmental fear, my fear is the commute out emissions are growing.

And I’m certainly not advocating for rejecting this project because it allowed 24 units to the bedroom city. Every apartment project in the city that includes parking will be adding bedroom units and the emissions the cars will be producing the same proportion by the thousands. Having no car units that helps to put some limitation on the growth of the bedroom city. This particular project will have bike parking, which of course is a good idea for reducing emissions, bike paths, transit improvements around about such are all good ideas, but basically these good ideas are focused on reducing emissions from in-city commuting.

To this point, no one from this committee city council or anyone else has shown me any interest in plans for reducing the emissions produced by commuters from the bedroom city. And any idea is to be welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for another speaker. Please, ma’am. Go to the mic. Give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Michelle Sejad and I’m a resident at 8-1-1 Sarnia Road. I’d like to speak in opposition of this apartment building. To start off I’d like to talk about the traffic. Sarnia Road is not a two lane road.

I am many residents struggle with everyday traffic flow while turning right or left from our townhouses and near the proposed building entry location, especially for school bus stops. Sarnia Road becomes one lane road after Aldersburg Road intersection and the curve of the road near the proposed building is very sharp that even I have to put my right turn indicator on from afar for the vehicles behind me to give me space to turn safely in my residential complex. 182 units means an abundance of cars traveling on Sarnia Road to enter this building and if a questionable decision is made then the construction vehicles will cause traffic delays, congestion, noise and dust pollution. This creates an unsafe environment for the nearby residents and their families along with the Oak Ridge retirement retirement house that’s right across the proposed site.

I’d also like to talk about the active railway line. Builders or realtors often lie about the noise and the vibration of the trains. When we bought our house we were only told one or two freight trains pass every week and a few houses close to the rail line have a sound barrier. After living there for almost five years I found out almost everyday freight trains pass in the early hours of morning or late at night and you can feel the vibration from the far distance.

I tolerate the inconvenience but many residents are not happy with the sound and vibrations of the passing train. My neighbor whose house was cleaned by the builders being built with sound barrier is uncomfortable with the loud noise and the freight trains. For instance it shows that the builders and realtors are unclear with what they present as they want to get approval by city to start building set projects. Unfortunately this is to generate tons of money at the expense of peace and security of its residents and buyers.

Next I want to address the green space. The proposed area is a small green space for many trees and wildlife. Open green space gives a sense of happiness, calm and mood elevating effect and the Oak Ridge retirement house is windows open towards the space providing a scenic view to the old age residents. Building 10 stories not only disrupts the ecosystem but also restrict the view of the residents of the old age home.

Next is the following that long-term care residents and children safety. Oak Ridge retirement house seniors living there are our vulnerable community who deserve peaceful living and prompt medical attention when needed. This building not only impacts the others by increasing loud noises dust but trapping suggestions while it’s being built but also after completion it blocks open view from their windows. In our townhouse complex children play on the streets which increases the risk factor of any accidents.

We lack a proper park in our area for the children to play safely. A 10-story building construction site will become a hazard for all the children who out of curiosity sometimes venture into open spaces including the heavy construction equipment moving in and out. Worst case scenario if the building is approved, where would all the children living in those units go to play? Safety risk will always prevail with very close active railway line and busy traffic road.

I strongly recommend to build a park at the site for a community instead of a 10-story apartment building and that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi my name is Chazia Sejan and I’m a resident of 811 Sarnia Road and I oppose this building like when I strongly oppose this building because we’ve been living in this area for quite some time and I don’t know how many people who are going to plan this building or who are going to approve this building will be living in that area. So I feel my comments should be regarded as something very important because this is something which I face every day like the traffic congestion, like the noises and everything.

So for me and anybody who is traveling on Wonderland Road towards Sarnia Road or towards Hyde Park, they know in the peak hours it’s really hard to travel on these roads and Sarnia Road is such a nice road. It’s the I feel it’s the best road in London because it’s a small road just starting from an iconic western university towards Hyde Park and Hyde Park and I don’t I mean if you see Sarnia Road there are no tall buildings on it except that retirement home over there. So and that retirement home is there for a reason because you know at a certain age of the people living over there needs peace and good time in the later days of their lives. Just think of the tall buildings standing on Sarnia Road and just blocking all the view for them all the disturbance of the peace and 10-story building is not going to be built in one or two months.

It will take some time to build such a tall building. So just think of all the construction going on on such a small road with we living nearby. I am I honestly speaking this is something which is I feel it’s not good for my mental health it’s not good for the environment it’s not good for the residents of the Oak Ridge retirement home and the children living around us and the homes homeowners over there I’m a homeowner over here and I’ll be living there for a long time none of the counselor none of the staff none of the I don’t know who is living nearby but me my family and whoever is living there maybe they are not here to address this meeting maybe but I have seen that people who even not living in that area don’t want this building to be built over there especially a 10-story building it’s a complete no-no and I hope you guys just understand to the extent that we being the citizen or the public living in that area how we feel every day challenges so if you are making any decision just please consider to the level if you are living in that area and facing all the traffic problems all the noise problems the train active train railway rail line so you guys have to consider each and everything before building this building because if once this building is built over there it will stay over there for a long time and one more thing I just want to point out they said it’s 182 units and they’re only providing 91 parking spaces for those 182 units we are living in townhouses and we are facing the parking problems my god it for five years we are facing in visitor area we cannot find parking space for our guests even we got a we got a ticket for parking in front of our driveway so 91 parking spaces for 102 units 102 units if even if you divide two two cars per unit how many cars are going to be there so please just make sure that if you’re building such a building just build it in a space which is open space not a small road like surrounding our own so and this building if you build this we’re going to stay there forever and god knows I mean our common generations how they’ll remember us for that thank you very much thank you thank you I’ll look for other comments from the okay from the gallery so you know in the last quick if there’s anyone online okay Alex understand you’re online you have five minutes please go ahead good afternoon committee members staff and neighbors thank you for allowing me to provide comments today I apologize for my voice I am speaking through a voice assistant device my name is Alex Babonsky and I live just west of the proposed development on Sarnia Road I already sent my concerns in writing back in February and I trust those details are on record today I want to speak directly and honestly about our concerns I speak on behalf of 221 people who signed my petition on change.org I have sent the details of that petition to the planning committee and to our counselor Steve Lehman and I hope he will share it with the rest of city council let us start with the first issue constructing at this site defies logic when considering the broader implications the proposal places a 10-story building in the middle of a residential neighborhood far from shopping malls far from grocery stores and nowhere near a major transit hub yet it includes only 91 parking spaces for 182 units where will the rest of the cars be parked we all know the answer on our streets let me ask you if you were that unlucky person living in that building without a parking space where would you park your car here is a hint the closest available parking is the lot at the long-term care facility across the road that lot serves seniors who depend on daily care family visits and ambulances if those spaces are taken their safety is at risk the fact that this even needs to be pointed out is deeply concerning in fact it is shameful that we are even considering overflow parking noise construction dust diesel fumes and traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of our most vulnerable citizens they deserve better than that I am sure none of you would want your loved ones to suffer under those conditions second let us be honest about transportation the argument that not everyone will have a car people can take the bus is unrealistic so again a simple question when was the last time you took a bus to do your grocery shopping or carried bags of groceries through snow and slush how many of you expect your families to take two separate bus rides including a transfer just to reach Walmart another question how many of you on this council do not own a car and how many of you have more than one car in your household so why consider approving a plan that assumes 91 households can live without cars in a neighborhood far from any stores in big cities high rises come with underground parking and are located near shopping malls and major transit lines that is not a luxury it is basic functionality this development offers neither my third question who truly benefits from this construction certainly not the neighborhood which has no safe spaces for children to play not the long-term care home which lacks appropriate outdoor areas for its residents not emergency services and definitely not the people who already live here the only party that gains is the developer who increases profits by packing in more units and that brings me to my final point we are expected to follow the city bylaws yet the developer is asking for three major exemptions one reducing landscaped open space space from 30 to 15 percent two building a 10-story building in a location clearly not suited for it three reducing the parking space why are these exemptions even being considered exemptions should be granted only when there is a clear public benefit so i ask a simple question can anyone name even one benefit this building brings to our neighborhood because all i see are sacrifices less green space more congestion more risk and zero gain for those of us who already live here as i mentioned earlier 221 people sign the petition in less than a month people in my neighborhood do not want this construction we feel our voices and our dignity are being handed over to greedy development interests we have seen what happens when governments prioritize money over people let us not fall into the make London great again trap there’s no need to sacrifice livability and decency for a few extra tax dollars that attitude might fly in a country where facts are optional and convicted felons can still run for office but here in Canada we should expect better i ask you to treat our neighborhood the way you would want yours to be treated please do not allow this construction to move forward even a six-story building will bring significant construction noise and increased traffic congestion 30 seconds the lives of those who already live here what this area truly needs is a well-designed park a place for residents families and long-term care patients to safely enjoy the outdoors thank you look for next speaker i’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online i don’t see anyone else wishing to address committee so all the promotion of closed ppm counselor cut he’s seconded by deputy mayor luice and uh call the vote losing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll open the this uh item up for committee members deputy or counselor plowza like deputy budget chair mr plowza mr chair if i still have some questions of staff would you entertain those first you’re looking for a motion i understand proper procedure just uh this one has you know what this is committee uh luck counselor hilly or do the same i’ll permit questions before i’d like to entertain motion okay thank you uh and just thank you to stop the report uh for the presenters and and those who came out in person or virtually to raise their concerns a question through you to staff um as this application or the site property has come several times originally it was five stories in 72 units current approval is six stories with 124 units uh and there was four one bedroom affordable units uh at the time because bonus scene wasn’t played no longer in play um they’re asking for 10 currently um in staff’s recommendation is refusal um just aware that there is uh council directed height review as well in play that’s not back yet just looking to see if that was in play or what would be contemplated should that have been in effect i’ll go staff through the chair thank you for the question so uh staff did consider the council adopted heights review through uh the review of this application recognizing that’s not currently in force and effect uh but is council adopted uh these lanes would be contemplated for a maximum of six stories go to council plowza sorry just to clarify was it six stories i’ll go to staff uh through the chair uh my correction it’s eight stories sorry through the chair where it is in fact six stories i was correct the first time things down sorry so i just saw some consultation still happening uh and just making sure that the six was uh where we’re at um and just just through you i believe the report said that if the developer at this time wanted to build with six that the four units of affordable housing would not be enforceable as bonus thing is left and six would actually permissible under our current plans i’ll go staff uh through the chair if we were to receive an application to remove the bonus zone staff does not have a policy framework or a legal framework to uh refuse that request oh sure thank you um was just grateful for the the clarification i wasn’t sure if the height review would allow eight on the subject lands or if it would still been at six and it looks like it’s still at the six um i appreciate the the conversation uh also uh thank you to the applicant for having reached out beforehand um at this time i having the staff’s information of that the current and or even under the height three view it still be six stories and not eight stories i would move the staff recommendation okay we have the um staff recommendation of florola for a seconder councilor hillier i’ll open floor for debate i’ll answer questions deputy mayor los thank you chair so through you i see we have other motions in these scribes so i’m not sure where those came from um so i’m a little confused because we’ve got the original and then we’ve got a couple of others there’s no movers or seconders so um nothing was circulated in advance um so i’m not sure where those are coming from um so i’m wondering first if there’s any indication on that because i do think um as we heard uh from civic at the beginning we are in a bit of a unique situation here um the rail lands the fact that this is a phase two of an overall development and the fact that the applicant has already actually transferred some lands to the city as open space uh so while we hear the objections to lack of open space um part of that is a result of land transfers have already happened um uh and i recognize that there the earlier iteration had a triangle of land to be acquired from cp i understand cps now withdrawn from that um they’ve changed their corporate policies um and of course we all know that in canada the uh power of authority goes god the railways then the prime minister so the railways will be as they are um but i’m wondering if i can get some clarification um i understand councilor plos is saying their staff recommendation is being moved but um there are five motions in e-scribe um and i’m not sure where most deputy mayor all i were coming from oh well the clerk to explain that sorry that was just my air if you were afresh now they’ve been removed deputy mayor uh so i appreciate that they’ve been removed from e-scribe um but actually that and that’s not on the clerk um but chair i i’m i’d like to know where they came from because i may have entertained moving uh those but nothing was circulated in advance of this meeting and yet alternate motions were submitted in e-scribe so um i’m not prepared to support the staff recommendation without knowing why we had some alternate motions here that that have now been removed go ahead clerk um i was just prepping um they were provided in the added as part of um the civic planning and design package um i was just prepping my apologies no that’s okay i appreciate that um i i do like when there are options available to us so um i just was not sure where they those had come from um so i’m going to say i’m not sure where where i’m going to go on this um because i think that this is actually a location where uh when you look at the two phases together the density is not over intensification i think we have to look at the two phases together um that was how it was always presented and that’s how it was brought forward to us um you know i heard resident concerns i i heard a comment about 220 signatures on a petition quite frankly um with all due respect to the speaker um when i see signatures on a petition that come from places like the Bronx Hawaii Brampton Burlington for an application for a development in London that undermines the validity of the petition to me and i don’t i don’t weigh that uh in terms of my factor and decision-making um a petition should be from the residents of the neighborhood not from residents of other countries um or other cities and so i certainly you know for my decision-making purposes i dismissed the petition um it’s it’s not going to have relevance to me when it’s got signatures from abroad like that um and there is a 36 meter road with here people people uh staying in convocation during the winter times i ask you to turn off your mic please i apologize deputy mary uh stop that please go ahead yeah thank you chair um you know i’ve heard people say build a park on it it’s not our land it’s not the city’s land it’s privately owned the city builds parks on public land not on private land um sarnia road here is a civic boulevard classification it has 14,000 vehicles a day on it um to say that the addition of 91 vehicles to 14,000 is is going to be over intensification i i don’t um i don’t frankly uh hold to that as well uh i don’t think when you add even double it even call it 180 vehicle trips per day um on a road of 14,000 vehicle trips per day i don’t think that that’s anything that we as human beings can notice as a significant change in traffic pattern um so uh there we are i i don’t think that we are um i think we need to look at this application as the whole uh in terms of the phase one and phase two developments um and i don’t feel like the staff recommendation that’s before us today um has fully considered the intensification across the distance of the the two sites combined so i’m not going to support the staff recommendation and if that’s defeated um i’m going to ask the clerk if she can send me those other two drafts that she had because i will review those now and and see if i want to move one of those instead if this is defeated okay i’ll look for other speakers counselor please thank you mr chair um i guess one’s a point of personal privilege and then i’ll speak um i would say some of us do council work behind the scenes sometimes we circulate things sometimes we wait to committee see where the conversation’s going i did not get a chance to see what was loaded and inscribe one them very well might have been mine which uh was not for committee’s consumption at this time so i’m asking that they’re not circulated um at this time mr chair just make sure that they’re not going to be circulated should one have been mine since i didn’t get to see what was loaded i’m sorry what are you asking counselor deputy mare louis is saying things were loaded in east grub before that isn’t what was moved he’s asking that they’re circulated i’m saying one of them might have been mine which i didn’t move publicly right and he’s asking that he get a copy of what was in east grub i don’t know what it was and i’m saying if it’s mine i’m not giving permission for my potential motion to be circulated uh i’ll go to the clerk no it wasn’t anything to deal with yours as mentioned it was just um from the package provided from the civic planning and design added council thank you uh my question to staff um also having followed along deputy mare louis is um planning train of thought of phase one phase two the entire subject property as we had a similar property uh at the prior circulation of peck with the york development property that had commercial and residential had reached out to staff thinking that might be the way forward uh staff had indicated that time that their concern was more the height concern and not so much the units per hectare just looking to see if that is accurate go to staff through the chair that is correct staff’s primary concern lies with the fit and compatibility of this 10-story building height that’s proposed uh as well as um how it fits within the policy framework that applies to the site thanks councilor thank you uh and that was had had tried to find the way forward thinking this area might have been eight stories uh with the height review and not still the six uh had tried to take in consideration the entire uh per unit hectare thought and contemplation uh to see that was staff’s main concern which it wasn’t realizing uh as laid out in other people’s comments that um it does back onto the tracks it does back onto a road they already on the property next door and they they are their own neighboring uh businesses uh and was trying to find a way to to come to terms with that um so that’s why i moved staff’s recommendation just for that colleagues know i did follow that thought path of trying to find the way to yes and i was not at this time able to get there other comments i’ll ask the uh vice chair to take the chair please uh go ahead councilor lame and i have the chair thank you so yeah this is my ward at the very top end um i’d just like to just some i’m want to address some of the things that i heard uh one that was i found a little disturbing who did it benefits a developer you know who benefits the benefits those that are looking for housing we had uh a person speak to that uh today uh London uh is in desperate need for more housing um it’s great if we all are living in our apartments or our homes there are many that do not and until they’re built they will not so uh who does benefit it benefits those that are looking for housing um as far as where this is located this is actually uh an interesting site because um there’s a pathway city design pathway behind um a 11 and also we’ll continue up behind this particular development that will allow accessibility both on foot and by bike down to the um strip mall down the corner of high park in sarnia where there is a grocery store that’s going to be going there so it’s kind of where and we’re trying to get to in the London plan as far as uh you know um way to access commercial spaces without taking your car there is um bus stops direct to the west to western and downtown along that uh along sarnia as was said by the deputy mayor this um this is not a public park um this will be developed there will be a building there um yeah it’s to be zoned for it is zoned for six stories right now uh so it would be higher than the um the retirement home what does concern me though is the height um quite frankly um as was mentioned there’s no other the highest uh building on the on sarnia that stretch of sarnia is four stories which is across the street um and right beside it’s two story town homes um so to have a 10 story behind uh beside a two story um i understand the concerns expressed by the the residents of of those uh properties there the the train tracks behind while that’s you know um that’s up to those that want to rent uh in that uh a building um i understood i lived in apartment right beside train tracks like fully understand uh the noise and vibration but again that’s not uh that’s up to the person that owns that that site and who’s renting but at the end of the day um i i can’t get over going from six to ten that just seems to be for me uh to big an increase here and too much of uh there’s not enough of a um a set down down to the two story right right across so um i will be supporting this motion i’ll look for other speakers hey we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll call the vote saying the vote the motion carries four to one okay thank you moving on to 3.8 this is regarding our official plan review of the London plan um regarding a draft industrial needs assessment so i will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting councilor hillier seconded by councilor cuddy closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you um i’ll look for people rushing up to the mic mic at the mic mr. walls please give us your name and you have five minutes uh thank you mr.

chair my name is mike was i’m the executive director for the london development institute uh thank you for having me here today i won’t be terribly long um we are uh insportable the recommendations that are in front of us here in for this application one on this application but for the review for the needs assessment for industrial land uh just you know actually i’m here often on residential items but uh ldi members do there are a few that are in the also have some industrial land and are major land owners in town that you never know could have industrial land our main issue to be frank with you on this is that we will happily will be actively involved in number c item c talks about the possible uh um land use re-designations and if you look at the charts at the back which we haven’t got completely through but we will during this uh consultation process is there’s lots of uh there’s a number of hectares of industrial lands they’re saying are either uh ineligible or uh underutilized or vacant or there’s a number of categories and and one of the uh unsuitable pieces say that it’s adjacent to residential we’re going to go through this to the fine truth chrome to see which properties are in reality have the potential to be residential and ones that you know realistically there’s not an open heck that anybody would ever develop on it and just so you know so that might mean some land will be stranded if you want to use it that that way but uh having no um lack of revenue available sewer and water infrastructure for an industrial applies also to residential so uh just because the report talks about a couple hundred hectares very little of it based on our preliminary review has the potential to be converted to residential but we know this is just start of the process we just want to be on the record that we’d be happily as a development or organization involved in reviewing that and providing information staff and to you counselors going forward on this industrial land review thank you thank you look for other speakers to this hi my name is Stephanie Pratt i’m here on behalf of her cadence professional services and we’re representing Dancourt um Dancourt owns a majority of property a lot of properties within the city of London for um industrial development some are already developed and some are coming forward for applications in the near future uh there’s two in particular that are noted within the the report that’s in front of you today and we have similar concerns that Mike mentioned to with that adjacent residential uses as well as the ineligible criteria the two properties in particular are 2728 Dundas Street which is located on map three parcel id number 176 the entirety of this parcel is noted as unsuitable because of the adjacent residential development and Dancourt has been working to do the technical studies to develop this parcel in the near future and we think that there is a suitable buffer that can be maintained and a portion of this property can move forward for industrial development the second parcel is at 176 Wilton Grove Road which is shown on map nine with parcel id’s ranging from 377 to 382 it is noted as ineligible uh for hazard and heritage concerns and Dancourt has done technical studies and we’ll be submitting those in the future through planning applications to move forward with this land as industrial development so just want to make sure that those are considered and we’ll be contacting staff directly to to make sure that that’s maintained in the future thank you thank you look for the next speaker please sir give us your name in five minutes uh Sean Ford with the Dancourt I want to thank council and staff for undertaking the review and finally focusing on sort of those lands that can’t be developed or used going forward in other parts of the city that need to be developed for industrial we’re in desperate need of more lands looking at a 30-year horizon not a five-year or ten-year there’s lots of change to come very very soon and we need more spaces we need more industrial sites so we can create more jobs and bring the kind of jobs and professions to the city that everyone’s looking for so again thank you both the council and staff for undertaking the review it’s been thorough it’s been over a year and we’re looking forward to participating thank you thank you look for the next speaker please go to the mic if you’d like to address the committee please sir give us your name in five minutes hello good afternoon my name is set up jitra i’m on behalf of fauna for one seven four one Wilton grove road next to a maple lodge and uh we don’t we didn’t hire any planner city planner we were looking for that and in the meantime we just noticed that the rezoning applications are to be taken um if we will have time we’ll come up with the application request and uh and uh that way we want to request that our one seven four one should be considered under industrial or light industrial something we have a plan to bring the tractor oven school um as it’s called um you know private carrier colleges and plus we want to bring their um self-storage it could be like hundred thousand hundred fifty thousand square foot um it could be one story two story doesn’t matter we just want to request that if it could be considered is in the industrial area so it is appropriate located it is close to 401 hybrid intersection so if we will have time we’ll check with the staff if um they allow us to we’ll bring an application as well thank you so much for your help appreciate it thank you look for the next speaker understand we have kathy online please kathy uh you can go ahead do a five minutes if you’re online um you’re up you know five minutes while we’re waiting for kathy online i’ll look just make sure there’s no one else in gallery like to address committee i don’t see anyone one more time i’ll ask for kathy to address the committee online i have no comments at this time thank you okay thank you last quick there’s anyone else online no okay uh seeing no one else oh sorry sir you already had your but you didn’t use up your four five minutes so i’ll i should just a minute i forgot to if you allow yes you have one more minute left yep i actually um in our knowledge um the usable land would be less than 50 nickers and the rest of the land we are willing to donate to town of london if they want to do any park any recreation or something to you know use it for their own so that was our consideration okay would i so appreciate you what i suggest you do is you speak directly to staff after after this meeting on those details sure thank you uh any other speakers i’ll look for motion to close the bpm councilor cuddy second by councilor we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll put this on the floor for committee members for questions or comments councilor hillier just a comment um as the counselor with the largest land area that really really takes advantage of this employable needs i appreciate this coming forward and i really look forward to seeing the analysis from our building community thank you thank you any other uh good uh council approval thank you sir the chair to the staff i actually had quite a few questions but then i found to 4.0 next steps which actually answered quite a few of them but i did want to ask uh all the points there they have certain they have certain deadlines quarters and tiers but then below which we actually heard review ineligible and a suitable industrial lands and make recommendations on appropriate or a designation or identified lands uh can you please tell me kind of how is that part gonna fit into the other parts because i believe that we are going to be submitting one op to the province which is going to include the industrial as well urban growth boundary i just want to know timing of this part thank you close stuff uh through you the chair so no timing was identified because we didn’t yet have direction to do that um with changes to the pps a comp it uh the change from an industrial to non-industrial use is no longer required to be as part of a comprehensive review it can be a future phase of the official plan review and could be based on um you know staff work plans and estimating end of this year or into early next year it wouldn’t change the timing of the rest of the processes or the rest of the land needs assessment because the community growth side the non-industrial side has already been completed and there is an identified need already and then the industrial one we would factor it in but the rate designations wouldn’t necessarily change the magnitude um because it’s not the quantity of land it’s the actual qualitative issues around the sort of servicing or the suitability and hazards and locational criteria and size so it may factor in slightly but it’s more those are the lands we’ve identified and it would be something that could be added as a future phase of the official plan review councilor thank you so going back to it some of the unsuitable land was designated because of uh not not services being there but if it’s not qualified for industrial then of course it wouldn’t be for residential either so i’m just thinking if we are going with right now q4 2025 to have everything together are we potentially missing some opportunities if we don’t visit some of these areas parcels prior to that go stuff uh through you mr chair so it’s it would be a site-by-site evaluation of those lands to see whether or not the their locational criteria or the reasons for the suitability would would change or just because there’s a certain site condition that makes it so that it is not something the industrial um developers are seeking to develop it may not necessarily permit based on its surrounding uses or or its site conditions it may not actually change to another land use so what we’re seeking is the direction to evaluate the potential for redesignations and then bring back whatever list that could be offered based on the site-by-site evaluation as we go around the map and work with landowners so no change to designation is being proposed for any of those ones that are identified in the appendix in this report right now i’m going to go and miss McNealy as well thank you through the chair it also doesn’t stop anyone from making a site-specific application for an official plan amendment counselor thank you very much no more questions look for other comments questions i’m looking for a motion um to receive can i get that motion counselor earlier second only second i will lose the staff recommendation okay thank you and seconded by counselor cuddy um any further comments or questions the committee will permit me i’ll just briefly oh sorry deputy deputy mayor sorry i’m going to hopefully be really brief here um support what’s in the staff report um you know the 88 hectares of the deficiency we need to find the ineligible lands did raise some questions for me too and and really what it comes down to for me is in the evaluation of these and noting some of them aren’t going to be eligible for residential development either um the the 88 hectares that have been identified so far as you’re reviewing these the ineligible lands is there the potential that this number may change five hectares ten hectares along the way as these evaluations happen whether the ineligible lands actually upon review are deemed that they they could be developed for certain industrial uses or that in fact perhaps there’s even more that’s not suitable i mean we’ve heard a couple of applicants or a couple of participants from the public today say they feel like part of their land can be but that a part of it may be need to be retained for buffer and would not be eligible so we’re starting from this point um but i i just want to ask this now to be really clear this number has the potential probably not by a lot but has the potential to change a little bit as we work through these details you’ll go stuff i’m mr chair that is possible once we do a review in consultation with our development colleagues this is the first time they’ve had an opportunity to review this as well and we haven’t had those consultations um i should also note that there is the simultaneous um uh review through the province of that one specific parcel and that could also change your numbers as well if if they um both sides agree that this is a parcel that should be a candidate into the urban growth boundary deputy mayor uh that’s all my questions thanks any other questions or comments from committee members the committee will provide me just a quick question we have an industrial land bank strategy at the city how does this report impact that so there’s the uh industrial land development strategy that recommends that the the city maintain um uh hundred actors of uh sorry two hundred actors of service land uh so right now our inventory is still pretty strong but what this is it potentially allows the urban growth boundary for the not necessarily the uh cities inventory of land like this corporation but i mean the city of land and as a whole so once lands are added to the urban growth boundary we do have the option to purchase it then and then add it to the city’s inventory of uh our own when i’m using the city of the corporation and the city of the geography but it’ll it’ll uh allow the corporation to add more inventory to its land when if there’s a deficiency at that time okay great what struck me about this report is the amount of um industrial land 468 hectares that are deemed to be unsuitable or ineligible i mean that’s good significant and um i think the you know yeah it’s surprising that’s that large but at least we know it and uh identified it so we’re under a no illusions of what we actually have available and that’s the biggest thing that jumps out at me in this report um this is a very significant exercise you know that we’ve we’ve done our urban growth strategy for for residential but this is for um the future of london as far as providing economic prosperity for londoners and having the resources to offer um various enterprises considering coming to london and having the land ready to go uh i think doing this exercise will um give us opportunities um for the decades to come so just as important on the residential side this is equally important so terrific to see this in front of us and um thank you for the work on this so looking for any other further comments we have motion moved in second and i’ll call the vote saying the vote the motion carries five to zero moving on we are now in two items for direction 4.1 with the uh planning fees and review recommendations we have a delegation uh request from mr wallace so i’ll look for a motion to accept that uh counselor hillier seconded by counselor kite we’ll call that vote losing the vote the motion carries five to zero oh thank you um we’ll go to you mr wallace you have five minutes please go ahead thank you mr chair it’s mike wallace again from uh ldi i’m glad you’re all sitting down because this uh reports about increasing fees and ldi is here to say that we are in support of the uh the recommendations in front of us so uh the uh let me just point out a couple of things mr chair is that if you look at under 2.2 um the actual increase in the so division fee is 29 and listen but we want to thank staff for their very active involved consultation process with the industry on this it is uh development fees hadn’t been reviewed for a little while it’s a contentious issue within our industry um we appreciate what uh watson has done and we appreciate that under staff direction they ask watson to go back and look at comparatives there were actually local comparatives not just stuff like uh uh city berry and so on and if you really look at the charts London is in the middle but are real competitors people my members who own land in these other areas where they can do where they can develop it’s cheaper to develop there on with using the development fee issue just and just so you know just like this takes us to the 30% target on some divisions which council has approved and we can’t really are you with it council approved it and we’re getting there we do appreciate staff’s approach that this is almost a 30 it’s 29 percent increase they’re going to be viewed over two phases which which is great a phase in uh two-year phase in is uh appropriate we are fully supportive of the audit that is also uh in the recommendation to making sure that the fees that we are told that we are that uh that the background that make up the fees is accurate we saw some numbers that we raised a few eyebrows and we weren’t sure this accurate so uh staff said well let’s do an audit an operational audit make sure it’s right we’re not happily as an industry to be to provide information and support to the auditor of this and through that audit to make sure that uh we’re all on the same page and have a clear understanding of what things actually uh cost us so overall we’re supportive of the of the report or recognize the the report i don’t want to support it as a right word uh and uh we do appreciate the phase and approach uh especially on the on the subdivision increase uh fee increase but just to give you like one final understanding of costs so this is this is a real example oh shoot i thought i turned this off anyways it’s off now the um a townhouse that’s worth that’s selling for 579 three stories three bedrooms three bathrooms nice place uh the dcs are over 27 000 for that unit the permit fees are over 2 000 for that permit and parklands about 2200 bucks site plan applications over 5 000 let’s assume there’s a zba as you’re seeing uh based on the need need to do rezoning pre-think rezoning um uh zbays around 16 grand uh the fees themselves the fees they just represent about 6 to 9 percent just depends on the property of the cost of that particular house so every time we are here a title of all the affordability costs like these are real costs that we the consumers buyer this house has is paying for and so uh we’re here in favor of uh in support of what the staff are recommending but we just want it council to be aware that every fee counts every dollar goes to affordability and we appreciate the support that this council and staff have provided over it the last couple of years i’m trying to improve the system to try to keep fees in line and make things applications move faster uh everybody on all three legs of this stool are working hard on that the industry the staff and on council and we appreciate that thank you thank you so now i’ll look for our committee um to either make a motion or uh deputy mayor los i’ll move the staff recommendation seconded by councilor hillier uh deputy mayor los uh yeah i just wanted to take the opportunity to to uh recognize or or to comment i appreciate mr wallace’s comments about the fees i think it’s also worth saying that you’re in london uh those dc fees uh well they do add to the cost of a new apartment or a new home what other wise be born by the taxpayers who’ve already paid those fees for their own home or apartment um we’re not and i recognize that it is an affordability component absolutely and i say that every time people say well where’s the affordable housing well the these costs matter um time is all so money i recognize that uh and so delays add to costs as well uh i’m you know i’m aware that that has an impact on affordability but i think from a dc perspective um and from the fees and and charges that we levy we have to recover the cost of our staff time and and work as well um and we have to recover the costs of of the infrastructure that goes into uh supporting new housing whether it’s infill or uh green space growth and so um i do appreciate the comments i recognize that there’s an impact on affordability um but i will say that the alternative to that uh is higher property taxes for people who have already paid their share in the development of their own buildings and and so for me i think we’re still working primarily on a growth pace for growth sort of approach to things and i think that’s a responsible way to go so i i support the work uh and i would echo uh also miss what mr wallace said about all three legs of the stool i think staff are are working very hard uh to move things through bring reports for us i think council this council in particular has been very supportive of growing the city in the way that we need to grow to support housing as well as jobs and economic opportunity for folks and i think the industry uh has been a great partner uh as well i think we’ve come a long way from the days uh when there was animosity and conflict uh and we had members of council who may have thought that the word developer was a dirty word i i think that we recognize we don’t build uh this city by ourselves we build it with our partners uh in cooperation with our staff uh and with each other and with you um we’re not always going to agree on everything and that’s okay that’s that’s a healthy democracy that includes the members of this committee that includes uh you know sometimes council exceeds where staff want to go to and we don’t always necessarily agree with the staff evaluation uh but it’s everybody is growing in the same direction and so i appreciate the work that went into this report because i think it leads to a responsible fiscal policy to keep that ship rowing in the same direction for everyone thank you all go to council purple thank you sir the chair to the staff anyone through the Watson report and when i look at the different figures there are numerous municipalities and also the one that are close to us except the last one which has 4.5 planning and engineering fees subdivision draft plan and there is kind of nothing around us then i read the paragraph above and it states that they did not include in-house uh the uh municipalities that don’t include the engineering in-house departments can please explain it to me or if they don’t have the in-house how does it work in the municipalities surrounding us mr mathers through the chair so um with the smaller municipalities they won’t have like staff teams be able to do that work on a day-to-day basis what they’ll do is they’ll hire a consulting engineering company to be other engineer on record to do that review and then provide those comments back to the development industry and then that charge would then be on a on a application by an application basis will be charged back to the developer so it will be very much specific to whatever type of subdivision is being developed or contemplated i’m sorry thank you no more questions other comments or questions from many members many of them allow me a couple of comments from the chair um you know i understand what mr wallis is saying um eventually the homeowner bears the cost at the end of the day um and for that reason we have to uh you know i think we’re we’re we’re governed by the competition quite frankly you know what in surrounding areas and and for sure surrounding areas is as mr wallis has not buried it’s you know it’s uh what we’re dealing with locally and so i was i was i was happy to hear that you know about the audit i’m happy to hear about the involvement with with our developers associations in there which we continue to do which is terrific a partnership has been is bearing fruit we’re working together as deputy mayor that said not at loggerheads we’re working together to find solutions um i will say this to the development community um we answered serious concerns um about various aspects of our processing turnaround times etc service um nothing comes for free i i get it we have to be as efficient as possible but on the other hand um in providing better service it comes at a cost that cost is mitigated for sure by what i just described is competitive uh aspects and uh obviously affordability so we have made great strides in that coming to next pack will be a report from the Canadian Home Builders Association which i think will highlight progress that our planning to folks have made um the other the other comment made by deputy mayor which it’s a balanced thing what burden is placed on our property taxpayers and what burden is placed on the person purchasing or renting the new home um that has to be in balance you know as we grow we know the property tax base has been under tremendous pressure over the last three years so that we’re highly aware of that so you know there’s no perfect solution nothing comes for free there is a cost we have to be efficient as possible um work um expeditiously in doing our job quickly to to get uh our development community uh putting shovels in the ground um and i think i think we’ve landed at that’s that point here so thank you for this any other comments or questions for a call to vote seeing none uh we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero look for we’re just on the deferred matters four point two of a promotion to receive that deputy mayor Lewis seconded by counselor cutty any comments or questions we’ll call the vote sir plowza closing the vote the motion carries five to zero we have no deferred matters to defer motion to adjourn counselor cutty second by deputy mayor Lewis all in favor hand vote motion carries thank you folks we’re done