Open Council

The 8th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 8th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

May 21, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

This meeting was called to order at 1:06 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.5 and 2.7 to 2.12 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Hillier

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 Items 2.6 and 2.13 in Stage 2, Consent, remain in Stage 2.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2025-04-17 CACP Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on April 17, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   2024 Canadian Home Builders’ Association Benchmarking Study

2025-05-21 - (2.2) Staff Report - CHBA Benchmarking Study

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 2024 Canadian Home Builder’s Association Benchmarking Study referencing the highlights related to the City of London, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   2024 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

2025-05-21 - (2.3) Staff Report - 2024 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the attached report on building permit fees collected and costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act and Regulation for the year 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-Law - Site Alteration

2025-05-21 - (2.4) Staff Report - AMPS By-law - Site Alteration

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law - A-54 to include Administrative Penalties for the Site Alteration By-law.

Motion Passed

2.5   1364-1408 Hyde Park Road Deeming By-law

2025-05-21 - (2.5) Staff Report -1364-1408 Hyde Park Road Deeming By-law

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of London relating to the properties located at 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to deem Lots 72, 73, 74 and 75, Registered Plan No. 33M-219, formerly in the Township of London, and now in the City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act; and,

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the by-law passing and undertake registration of the Deeming By-law, in accordance with the provisions in subsections 50(28) and 50(29) of the Planning Act.

it being noted that the communication dated May 15, 2025, from D. Szpakowski, HPBIA related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

2.7   Housing Accelerator Fund – Amendment to Contribution Agreement and Additional Initiatives

2025-05-21 - (2.7) Staff Report - Housing Accelerator Fund Update Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Housing Accelerator Fund – Amendment to Contribution Agreement and Additional Initiatives, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8   Housing and Community Growth: Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Tracker Update

2025-05-21 - (2.8) Staff Report - Housing and Community Growth CEAP Action Tracker Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Housing and Community Growth: Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Update BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the listed Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Items as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’ be DEEMED COMPLETE for future reporting on the CEAP Tracker.

Motion Passed

2.9   Building Services Report - Quarter 1 2025

2025-05-21 - (2.9) Staff Report - Building Services Report - Q1

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Building Services Report – Quarter 1 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.10   Quarterly Heritage Report – Q1 2025

2025-05-21 - (2.10) Staff Report - Heritage Report Q1

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Quarterly Heritage Report – Q1 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.11   Update on Green Development Guidelines (Framework)

2025-05-21 - (2.11) Staff Report - Green Development Project Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Update on Green Development Guidelines (Framework):

a)    the Update on Green Development Guidelines and Draft Terms of Reference for a Green Development Framework as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix ‘B’ BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a procurement process to engage a consultant to undertake a Green Development Framework; and,

c)    the funding for the Green Development Framework BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix ‘A’;

it being noted that the communication dated May 19, 2025, from B. Samuels related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

2.12   (ADDED) Surplus School Sites Expression of Interest: 70 Jacqueline Street (former G.A. Wheable Adult and Continuing Education Centre) and 1366 Huron Street (severance of surplus land from St. Anne Catholic School)

(ADDED) 2025-05-21 - (2.12) Staff Report - Surplus School Site

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the communication from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing for the surplus school sites at 70 Jacqueline Street and 1366 Huron Street: 

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to express an interest in these lands for the purposes of providing the identified municipal needs of affordable housing, community facilities, and parkland; and, 

b)    this report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.6   Heritage Alteration Permit application by The Canada Life Assurance Company for 255 Dufferin Avenue, Downtown Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-024-L)

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Staff Report - 255 Dufferin Avenue

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Appendix F - 255 Dufferin Avenue - Part 1

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Appendix F - 255 Dufferin Avenue - Part 2

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Appendix F - 255 Dufferin Avenue - Part 3

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Appendix G - 255 Dufferin Avenue

2025-05-21 - (2.6) Appendix H - 255 Dufferin Avenue

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for window replacement on the heritage designated property at 255 Dufferin Avenue, within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District:

a)    the proposed replacement of the north façade (Dufferin Avenue) bronze and steel frame windows on Buildings 1 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 14-17, BE APPROVED;

b)    the proposed replacement of the east façade (Wellington Street) bronze and steel frame windows on Buildings 1 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 14-17, BE APPROVED;

c)    the proposed like-for-like replacement of the east (Wellington Street), west, and south façade (Queens Avenue) aluminum frame plate glass windows on Building 4, BE APPROVED;

d)    the proposed replacement of the west façade aluminum frame sash windows on Buildings 2 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 19-23, BE APPROVED; and,

e)    the samples of the proposed replacement window finishes be provided to the Heritage Planner for review prior to installation;

it being noted that the proposed replacement of the west façade aluminum frame sash windows on Buildings 2 and 3 do not comply with the Principles, Goals & Objectives, and Design Guidelines of the Downtown Heritage Conservation District Plan, do not conform to the policy direction of The London Plan, and are not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024).

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from D. Lecuyer, E. van der Maarel and M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received; 

it being also noted that the visual presentation as appended to the added agenda was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation requests from D. Lecuyer and E. van der Maarel, as appended to the Added Agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.13   (ADDED) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

(ADDED) 2025-05-21 - (2.13) CACP Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on May 15, 2025, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J. M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning and M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   20 Clarke Road (Z-25038)

2025-05-21 - (3.1) Staff Report - 20 Clarke Rd - Z-25038

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 2823522 Ontario Inc. (c/o Randy Mackay) relating to the property located at 20 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone and a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC6) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8h-()*R5-7(**)) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-()R4-6()) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-(_)*R1-1(3)) Zone, and a Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone; and,

b)    the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through the subdivision approval process as draft plan condition(s):

i)    the applicant shall identify a consolidated area to receive Significant Woodland compensation as a condition of draft approval during detailed design which must:

A)     be a minimum of 0.73 hectares in size;

B)     be adjacent or in proximity to current Natural Heritage Feature(s);

C)     be located within the City of London; 

D)     be located within the same watershed and subwatershed as the subject lands; and,

E)     be appropriately zoned and included in the Green Space Place Type on Map 1 and Significant Woodland on Map 5 of The London

Plan to ensure protection;

ii)    the Applicant shall prepare and submit an Ecological Replacement and Compensation Plan, as a condition of draft approval during detailed design, to the satisfaction of the City of London; and,

iii)    the Applicant shall prepare and submit an Environmental Management Plan as a condition of draft approval during detailed design, to the satisfaction of the City of London; 

iv)    a road access to Clarke Road from the western limit of the draft plan and that the road access arrangements be reviewed by the Applicant to determine if a full access or restricted access is permitted in this location; and, 

v)    the road access be constructed as part of the proposed development at 20 Clarke Road;

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

-    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

-    N. Oliver;

-    D. Litt; 

-    N. Oliver; 

-    J. Capello;

-    S. Raspenson;

-    Resident; 

-    A. Valastro; 

-    Jahtmeet;

-    L. Gerrard; and, 

-    V. Warwick;

it being 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, City Building, and Environmental Policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and will ensure no net loss to the Natural Heritage System, if the Significant Woodland compensation measures noted above are implemented; 

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to include new subclauses iv) and v) to part b) to read as follows:

iv)    a road access to Clarke Road from the western limit of the draft plan and that the road access arrangements be reviewed by the Applicant to determine if a full access or restricted access is permitted in this location; and, 

v)    the road access be constructed as part of the proposed development at 20 Clarke Road.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road (OZ-25033)

2025-05-21 - (3.2) Staff Report - 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2857082 Ontario Inc. (c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.) relating to the property located at 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot

Road:

a)    the revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Medium Density Residential policies in the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-9*R8-4(76)) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(76)) Zone;

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

-    O. Alchits, SBM Ltd.; 

-    G. Dietz;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of redevelopment at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed (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)

3.3   1890 & 1900 Kilgorman Way (Z-25045)

2025-05-21 - (3.3) Staff Report - 1890 1900 Kilgorman Way

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Corporation relating to the property located at 1890 & 1900 Kilgorman Way, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 Residential R1 (h- 2*R1-14) Zone, TO a Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone;

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

-    J. Gaudet, MHBC;

-    M. Mousa; 

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential development with consideration of land use compatibility;

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 E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Committee recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 3:27 PM and reconvenes at 3:40 PM.

3.4   168 Meadowlily Road South (OZ-9763)

2025-05-21 - (3.4) Staff Report - 168 Meadowlily Road South - OZ-9763

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Forever Homes Meadowlily Limited Partnership, relating to the property located at 168 Meadowlily Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 20216 to:

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

ii)    revise Map 4 – Active Mobility Network of The London Plan to realign the Multi-use Pathway;

iii)    add a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type for Block 2 of the subject lands to permit stacked townhouses with a maximum height of 3.5 storeys on a Neighbourhood Street, for Block 3 of the subject lands to permit an apartment building with a maximum height of 8 storeys, and for Block 4 of the subject lands to permit an apartment building with a maximum height of 8 to 12 storeys; and, 

iv)    add Block 2, Block 3 and Block 4 of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h- 1UR1) Zone TO Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone, Residential R5/R6 Special Provision (R5-7()/R6-5()) Zones, Residential R4/R5/R6/R9 Special Provision (R4-4()/R5-7()/R6-5(**)/R9-5()) Zones, Residential R10 Special provision (R10-4()) Zone, Open Space OS1 and Open Space OS5 Zones;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE REQUESTED to report to the Approval Authority with issues, if any, raised at the public meeting;

d)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    provision of short-term public bicycle parking within the development of each block, integrated through the site plan process to encourage active transportation;

ii)    incorporation of street-oriented design features, with a focus on creating safe, accessible, and well-connected pedestrian pathways that enhance walkability throughout the development;

iii)    consideration for an enhanced front yard setback at the site plan stage for Block 1, to preserve and maintain the characteristic streetscape along Meadowlily Road South;

iv)    enhancement of the landscape design through the inclusion of additional tree planting for Block 1 along Meadowlily Road South;

v)    incorporate step-backs above the 3rd storey on the east, west, and south sides to enhance the pedestrian environment;

vi)    support landscaped spaces between the high-rise and mid-rise buildings, with walkways connecting the landscaped areas to improve accessibility (TLP 255, 237, 281, 282); and, 

vii)    demonstrate how the proposed 8-storey apartment building in Block 3 achieves a human-scale relationship with the existing and planned context of the area along Commissioners Road East (TLP 286, 288, 289_1); 

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

  • P. Matkowski, Moneith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   1206 Oxford Street East & 17-19 Wistow Street (Z-25036)

2025-05-21 - (3.5) Staff Report - 1206 Oxford 17-19 Wistow

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 509482 Ontario Ltd. relating to the properties located at 1206 Oxford Street East and 17-19 Wistow Street:

a)    being consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the subject lands representing 17-19 Wistow Street and a portion of 1206 Oxford Street East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 17 & 19 Wistow Street FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-101RSC4(22)/RSC6(6)) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC4/RSC6) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-6R5-7()) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (R9-7()*H25/RSC4(_)/RSC6) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process for the property at 1206 Oxford Street East:

i)    that the access to the property at 1206 Oxford Street East to be provided off Wistow Street;

ii)    the façade articulation that includes a variety of building materials and textures, architectural features to mitigate the overall scale of the development (e.g. projections/recesses, parapets, etc.), to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian streetscape;

iii)    the landscaping along the street frontages to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment; 

iv)    the building design which addresses the street, is sympathetic to, and supportive of, the adjacent residential development; and, 

v)     self-storage units are to be located within and accessed internally from the main building; and, 

vi)    explore opportunities for fencing, including the retention or repair of existing fencing, along mutual property lines and designated snow storage areas; 

d)    the applicant BE REQUESTED to ensure existing fencing along the west property boundary of 17-19 Wistow Street is repaired, as necessary;

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

-    M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo;

-    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo; 

-    A. Van Amerongen; and, 

-    A. Valastro;  

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to include a new subclause vi) in part c), and a new part d) to read as follows:

vi)    Explore opportunities for fencing, including the retention or repair of existing fencing, along mutual property lines and designated snow storage areas.

d)    The applicant BE REQUESTED to ensure existing fencing along the west property boundary of 17-19 Wistow Street is repaired, as necessary.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   Demolition Request - 197, 183, 179, 175 Ann Street, 86, 84 St. George Street, on Heritage Designated Property by Street George and Ann Block 

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Staff Report DEMO Request Ann Block and St George Block

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix F - Ann Block and St George Block

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix G - Ann Block and St George Block

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix H - Ann Block and St George Block

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix I - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 1

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix I - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 2

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix I - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 3

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix J - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 1

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix J - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 2

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix J - Ann Block and St George Block - Part 3

2025-05-21 - (3.6) Appendix K - Ann Block and St George Block

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, regarding the application under Section 34(1)(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking to demolish the buildings known as the Kent Brewery (197 Ann Street), Brewer’s House (183 Ann Street), and workers’ cottages (179 Ann Street, 175 Ann Street, 86 St George Street, and 84 St George Street) on the heritage designated property at 197 Ann Street BE CONSENTED TO the following terms and conditions:

a)    regarding salvage that will be applied to future commemoration and interpretation for a proposed development on the subject lands:

i)    prior to demolition, the following items and materials shall be carefully removed and stored in a secure, interior space by the owner for future reuse in the proposed development on the subject lands, in accordance with the minimum requirements of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Z-7812 Deconstruction of Buildings and their Relocated Parts and the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC 2021) and Final Documentation, Salvage and Commemoration Plan (MHBC 2025):

A) two (2) light fixtures on the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street;

B) two (2) wood windows, including frames from the existing building at 197 Ann Street;

C) double-leaf door and carved jamb moulding from the principal entrance on the north  façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street;

D) stained glass transom above the principal entrance on the north façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street; and,

E) wood panelled secondary entrance door on the east façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street;

ii)    during demolition, the following items and materials shall be carefully removed and stored in a secure, interior space by the owner for future reuse in the proposed development on the subject lands, in accordance with the minimum requirements of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Z-7812 Deconstruction of Buildings and their Relocated Parts and the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC 2021) and Final Documentation, Salvage and Commemoration Plan (MHBC 2025):

A) stone masonry from the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street; 

B) wood corbels, modillions, and dentil moulding, and other wood detailing including the east gable and west bay window from the exterior of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street;

C) wooden banister and newel post from the interior of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street;

D) a minimum of 900 square feet of brick masonry that is of suitable quality and finish to accomplish the proposed commemorative installations shall be salvaged from the existing buildings on the subject property, i. A minimum of 250 square feet of brick masonry salvaged from the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street is required;

b)    regarding commemoration and interpretation:

i)    the following commemorative and interpretive features shall be installed by the owner at the completion of construction and prior to the release of any securities held by the City of London in conjunction with the Development Agreement required for the proposed development on the subject lands:

A) commemorative and interpretive concepts and text be revised, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development, to include direct and specific reference to the Kent Brewery, the Brewer’s House, and the workers’ cottages, as well as their interrelationship as a Victorian industrial complex;

B) at least one interpretive panel and a reproduction of the circa 1905 photograph of the Kent Brewery as a perforated and illuminated stainless-steel panel be installed on the crash wall of the north elevation of the proposed building, along Ann Street, in a location accessible and visible to the public as shown as appended to the above mentioned staff report as Appendix “E”;

C) reclaimed brick masonry be installed in the internal courtyard as shown in the above-mentioned staff report as Appendix “E”;

D) reclaimed brick masonry, as well as light fixtures, double-leaf doors, and transom, be installed as part of the entrance along the west elevation of the proposed building as shown in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “E”;

E) at least one interpretive panel be installed on the west elevation of the proposed building, in a location accessible and visible to the public; and,

F) items and materials salvaged from the existing buildings be prioritized for reuse in the proposed building; 

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

-    a communication dated May 13, 2025, from ACO London Region; 

-    a communication dated May 20, 2025, from M. Whalley; 

-    a communication dated May 20, 2025, from J. Reaney; and, 

-    a communication dated May 19, 2025, from J. Fyfe-Millar; 

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

-    V. Hicks, MHBC Planning; and,

-    A. Valastro;

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 S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   299-307 Sarnia Road (Z-25039)

2025-05-21 - (3.7) Staff Report - 299-307 Sarnia 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 Kimko Inc. and 20223388 Holdings Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo) relating to the properties located at 299-307 Sarnia Road:

a)    the revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7(_)*H20 Zone); to include an h-101 holding provision - Public Site Plan Non- Statutory meeting;

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

i)    the lay-by is to be located fully on the subject lands with no encroachments into the City right-of-way and within 15 metres of the main building entrance;

ii)    provide connections from the ground floor units to the public sidewalk along Sarnia Road and provide active uses are at grade along the majority of the building frontage; and,

iii)    utilize the natural grade variation of the site to integrate parking that appears as underground at the rear; 

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

-    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo;

-    S. Levin; 

-    H. Xie; and, 

-    J. M. Metrailler; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of redevelopment at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.8   3334-3354 Wonderland Road South (OZ-25034)

2025-05-21 - (3.8) Staff Report - 3334 3354 Wonderland Road South

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 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland South:

a)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTRED to work with the applicant on a new application; and,

b)    a nominal fee BE TAKEN for the new application to cover notice requirements only; 

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

-    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo; 

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-05-21 - (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Deferred Matters List BE REVEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 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 (4 hours, 33 minutes)

[23:51] Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen like to call the 8th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Council chair members please check the city website for additional meeting and detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Odenoshenay, Lenapaywalk and Adawadron. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations Métis and Inuit today as representatives of the people of the city of London we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PEC at London.ca for 519-661-249 extension 2425 at this point I’ll ask for any disclosures of Pecunary interest. Seeing none I’d like to move on to consent items.

[25:11] We have a couple of requests for delegation status on these items so I’ll look I’ll look to committee for direction here. Mayor I’d like to so I want 2.6 pulled separately at that point happy to consider the delegation request. I’ll look to move a change of order with that before the multitude of PPMs so that that could get done. The other one looks like a report from an advisory committee so happy to have that one pulled instead of the delegations but I think that could just happen as the normal order of business. Okay so I have two items being pulled one that will look for a change of order on that leaves the rest any others that committee would like to see pulled. It’s all look for a motion to move 2.1 to 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.12. Councilor Cuddy moves that second by Councilor Hillier and before I call that vote what I’d like to do is there’s two items on there that I would like comments from staff on so I’d like to first deal with the 2024 Canadian Home Builders Association Benchmarking Study.

[26:49] That’s 2.2 so I’d like to go to staff for some brief comments on that. Through the chair just want to just briefly give you some background on the work that we’ve been doing and the very good results that we’ve seen from the Canadian Home Builders Association Benchmarking Study. So very much you see this as a good news story that is very much summarizing and all of the great work that we’ve been doing as you see they’ve looked at 23 different municipalities and London ranked very highly among all the municipalities but then also was number one in Ontario which is very very important to us because we are very comparable to everyone else Ontario are working with the same legislation so wanted to provide some of this this really great news. This does not mean that we’re we’re done we want to continue to to improve our processes and get to that one number one spot ultimately hopefully as well that’s what we’re working towards so I really wanted to just provide some of this these details for Council so you know what the good work that we’re doing and we’re going to continue to work hard and improve as we move forward. So I just want this particular item are there any comments or questions for staff before we move on to the other consent items there? Yes on this item I just want to say thanks to our staff and all the teams who support them. I know that the start of this term we set out a fairly ambitious direction particularly on housing and part of that was working with the Provincial Federal Government’s accessing funds that they had to try to speed up process a time’s streamline items meet our obligations under provincial targets and and even housing accelerator fund of which after the first year of housing exceeded our target you know that that doesn’t just happen with the direction that Council sets or the work of the Planning Committee but obviously the work of Mr. Mathers and the staff teams and the wider staff team at the City of London kind of pulling together to think about doing things differently consulting with industry in the public and modernizing processes and so I just wanted to Mr. Mathers back to your team say thank you for the work you’ve done. I get to go at the end of the month to chair the big city mayor’s meeting of the 23 largest cities so I might not talk too much to Edmonton and Halifax about our numbers but everybody else who we beat will certainly be talking housing continues to be an important topic and housing affordability for the mayors across the country so it’s nice to be showing a leadership particularly in the province of Ontario on a number of these items so thanks to you and your staff teams for the work you’ve done to get us there. I’ll go to Councillor Pribble. Thank you and sir to chair again it’s a great report and I love this report some really great numbers that we have delivered for our community but I had a question the part that says needs improvement room for improvement in municipal fees that currently we are ranked ninth what is the plan in terms of assessing or improving this are we gonna have a specific timelines or specific deliveries on this point thank you. That’ll go staff. Yeah through the chair so we actually just completed that our review of our planning and building fees and very much looked at this as something that was very important. One of the most significant items when you look at these fees and how we’re compared across Canada is how the actual the way that fees are charged and specifically development charges are used within different provinces so different municipalities and different provinces have different regimes for how they develop their fees and the development charge pieces is the most significant amount of the fee that has an impact on our rating and our ranking so in Ontario where we compare extremely well it’s just when you compare to other provinces that don’t have the same development charges regimes then it’s almost comparing apples to oranges so it’s a little bit more difficult but the good news is that we have done a lot of work at reviewing our fees and we are very comparable and then even moving forward we’re going to be even more mindful about looking at housing affordability and that’s something that we’ve heard from the Home Builders Association and LDI as far as having that as a focus moving forward so you’re going to see that in upcoming reports as well. Councillor. Thank you and again thank you and to the entire team for these figures numbers matrix very positive thank you. Any other comments from committee or questions regarding this particular consent item? Committee will permit me just a quick comment from the chair perfect to see this report I’m glad to see its highlighted here is important that this is brought out I just want to highlight two items amongst the you know the number quite a few actually of terrific stats one is that London had the fastest site plan and development permit approval timelines in Canada the second item is London saw a major improvement in residential development approval timelines in the 2022 study it took an average of 10 months for approval the 24 study that has improved to an average of 4.6 months it just tremendous work for your team thank you very much I was encouraged to hear mr. Mather say that the work is not finished I know you’re working on number of initiatives including a technology to help us become even more efficient and quicker to market so that we can get houses built so great work okay there’s another item that I would like comments from a staff on and that is 2.7 this is regarding the housing accelerator fund saw again I’ll go to you mr. Mathers for your comments on that through the chair so we have here is just that there was of course a very exciting announcement recently related to additional funding for the city of London and our housing acceleration accelerator fund initiatives so there is a series of of additional funding that we’re we’re setting out in this report of what we’re going to be looking at building on some of our successful projects and I’m going to just allow Mike McCauley here to just provide a little bit of background and some of those programs that are laid out in the report thank you through the chair in follow-up to the announcement made recently in March London has successfully received additional funding through the federal government’s housing accelerator fund as one of the first municipalities to receive funding through half London was provided the opportunity to apply for additional initiatives further furthering our housing goals this past fall the city submitted for three new top-up initiatives which include building on and building on enhancing existing affordable housing incentives additional supports for ARU grant programs and expansions of the half-funded community improvement plan incentives on March 17th 2025 we were pleased to receive notification from CMHC that the city has been awarded an additional 7.4 million dollars over the remaining three years to allocate towards an additional goal of 184 new residential units for London civic administration has already begun looking to apply this top-up funding to further enhance the identified priorities and move London closer towards reaching our overall goal of 2,371 new residential units through the half program by 2027 thank you go to committee now for any comments or questions the mayor please go ahead yes so I’m happy to see this report before us I will say when we initially got housing accelerator funds there was a great announcement about the actual the national announcement with the prime minister at the time here in London and when I had a chance to meet him he said congratulations on being first the thing I said to me they I was like that’s great we can get in line you know at the end of the line and we can maybe get more money because we’re gonna do a good job we’re gonna exceed our targets and we’re gonna earn the right to do more through subsequent conversation I had with the minister it was clear that some municipalities weren’t going to choose to access housing accelerator fund dollars and so the allocation in their budget was probably going to be unexpended and a number of mayors made the suggestion to say should probably give that out put that money to use and give it to the ones who performed right those who are meeting their targets or exceeding their targets should have a shot at Alec having more money allocated to them which is exactly what occurred it so I want to commend the previous ministers in this portfolio for considering this all the way up to the current minister for you know signing the agreement but this is a function of collaborative work together with the federal government I want to commend them for actually deciding to get the money of the door and into the hands of people who can actually put it to work like the city of London and others and this is a great allocation by our staff to enhance a number of the programs that we know are working and achieving our goals and housing accelerator fund and opportunities to try some new things as well and so I want to thank our staff as well for the proposal and the work that they did to actually bring the opportunity of those additional monies coming to London to fruition and of course again to the federal government for deciding not to just sit on that money but deployed into the hands of municipalities who could put it to work. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments on this item and any other items on the consent items because that’s the last staff comments I’ll be looking for. Councilor Pribble. Thank you Mr. the chair to the staff I do have in regards 2.3 the building permit fees and during the last year we recognize 8.1 million revenue direct and direct costs 8.4 million a withdrawal of 261,000 and my question is how do we rank or if we know how we rank with other municipalities that’s one point and the other point is in terms of this what’s actually kind of our goal in terms of this because of course we do want to cover our costs but we also want to be competitive in terms of the charging fees so if I could receive a comment from the staff please.

[37:24] I’ll go staff. Through the chair to the Councillor through comparisons through a recent study amongst municipalities over 50,000 we are in line permit wise fees wise with with other municipalities we’re not in the top we’re not in the bottom I don’t know exactly where we rank but we are somewhere in the middle. In regards to revenues we are in our way through a implementation of a fee increase that was brought forth by Watson Association I believe in 2018 you know 2022 2023 so that our fees are actually going up slightly incrementally. Thank you for that and are we going through the old ones now the non-pulled ones? Yes. Okay thank you and I have one more and that’s the report on the quarterly report and my question is we have actually the last two years have very much alike and there is biggest differences in the institutional and we have a growth year over a year a lot in the institutional one and I was wondering what’s the specific what’s the reasoning for that if I can have the answer and sorry I didn’t ask this one in advance. Oh go staff. Through the chair to staff I believe it’s the some major institutional development in the sorry the industrial park sorry so there’s a major development in those areas. Council. Thank you. It was just that last year we were at 7 million now we are 31 there was a big difference but anyways very much alike if I look at the number of permits and everything last two years very much alike and great improvement over 22 then 23 so again thank you to the entire staff. Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee. So we have a consent items everything except 2.6 and 2.13 that’s been moved and seconded and I’ll call that vote. Councilor McAllister you you’ve indicated before please go ahead. Thank you and through the chair I appreciate I’m just a visiting member to this committee but I did just want to speak briefly on 2.12 which I believe is part of this consent package right now. I know this was on the added agenda but this is the surplus school sites expression of interest for the former We Will Adult Education Center which has fallen Ward 1. I would like to say you know Ward 1 does express the interest and I would encourage my colleagues to likewise endorse this. As the motion reads right now this is to identify municipal needs for affordable housing community facilities in Parkland. I would say many moons ago we lost the Brookside facility which was just across the street and then also the Glen Carina recently was demolished so we just have the pool in that area right now so I would say obviously the need is great for affordable housing. Mr. Felberg’s team is doing a good job on the the former Fairmont school site but just keeping in mind with this one there’s a need for community facilities in these areas as we’ve lost a number over the years so just keeping that in mind and I know as some of these projects come forward we do try to have you know multi-use facilities if if we can but I would say to my colleagues please support this because the community is very interested to see what we can do with the site. Thank you. Thank you Councillor I want to Councillor Preble thank you and I did mention I have in my notes one more thing that I want to mention to the building staff and I look at the report and I think it’s very important for community builders developers 100% of the inspections were conducted within the provincial mandated 48 hours so thank you for that tremendously important. Anyone else before I call the vote? Seeing none I’ll call it. I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. Okay we have two items pulled 2.6 and 2.13 2.16 the mayor you pulled this one. Do you have any direction you’d like committee to consider? Well I think given these two delegations were in the consent items and unable to be scheduled and I believe the individuals are here who sought delegation status. Can I ask committee to consider a change of order to have 2.6 and 2.13 dealt with now rather than at the end of the eight PPMs I’d like to move that. Okay yeah as is our order of business any consent items pulled we moved to the end of the agenda given the reasons expressed by the mayor so I understand you’re moving that request mayor and Councillor Hill here is seconding it. Before I call the vote I’ll just look for any comments or questions seeing none then we’ll call that. I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. Okay so we will deal with 2.6 first and then we will deal with 2.13 2.6 there is a request for for delegation so I’ll look for a motion to approve that Councillor Palazzo seconded by Councillor Hill here and we’ll call that vote. So thank you if the delegates are here I invite you to the mic and if you could give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today my name is Ed van der Merle and I’m partner in principal heritage architect with a plus link. We’re sub-consultant to rim kiss building envelope and our client is Canada Life located right across the street. I’m here to speak today about the window replacement project of that building at 255 Dufferin mainly the facade windows and there has been no disagreement in replacement for like for like windows on the facades of Dufferin Wellington and Queen Street and I think we all have come to agreement in terms of those windows. As well as the south facade wraps around to the southeast we are also in agreement with like for like window replacement there and this project has come about because of a dire need for structural changes these windows were actually falling apart and falling out and second of all Canada Life is looking to achieve their net zero carbon neutral goals of 2025 2050 and therefore rim kiss was invited to put together a plan to meet those goals and meet our carbon neutral guidelines. What we’re looking for is some leniency on the east facade which is a half a block away from Clarence Street. The three facades that we’re in agreement with are direct street facades and the Clarence Street facade is about a half a block away and Canada Life also owns the parking lot which in the future could be developed which would be part of a development to hide those windows or be part of a non-issue to the Clarence Street. So today I have brought with me Mr. Don like like QA from Canada Life and he’s vice president of corporate properties. He’s come in from Winnipeg today just to speak on behalf of Canada Life and his thoughts on window replacement. Please go ahead sir. You can hear me. Thanks for giving me a second to or a couple minutes to speak with you. I wanted to provide some some added context to what we’re trying to do here with this with this property. We have we have 3,700 employees working for Canada Life in in London at that facility. A large a higher number of employees than has ever ever actually been employed by Canada Life or the previous London Life and it’s it’s extremely important to us that we have a workplace environment that’s that’s attractive to our employees. We’re like a lot of businesses nowadays trying to get our employees to leave their homes and come to come to the office to work.

[47:28] The the windows are an extremely important function feature on the buildings. They’re they’re not there actually for the people outside the buildings. They’re there for the people inside the building and the the previous lights or windows that were installed on that that building were operable so there was features to them. Millions and things that that were in place to to function the windows but they they’re also restrictive to the amount of light that comes in. So our proposal is single a single glazed unit on those. It brings 12% more light into the into the space. These are very large floor plates and it’s extremely important to bring natural light into the workplace to have the space you know function at its its best in and highest use. We are very appreciative of the work that the heritage team does. We’ve had a very collaborative and cooperative association so far so we thoroughly respect the work that those folks do. We at Canada Life really really feel the responsibility of maintaining and the properties here in London. I think you’ll all agree that it’s it’s some of the highest quality care in landscaping and exterior buildings in probably the city of London and maybe anywhere else in Canada. It’s very important to us so we’re not proposing something that we feel would in any way lower the quality of the building. We’re proposing a solution that that we feel is high quality for the employees inside and also high quality for the people outside the building. So I appreciate your your time.

[49:22] Thank you sir. I’ll go to committee now go to the mayor. Yes I have a question for our staff and then I have a question for you as the chair before I proceed with willing to make a motion on this item but perhaps I can ask a question of our staff first. On that side of the facade there’s there’s a parking lot between essentially the windows that are in discussion and the street and my understanding is there’s a considerable amount of density permitted on that lot is it do you have a sense of like because it’s on the ifs within the Victoria Park secondary plan and I recall that that has it. So do you recall approximately what the density is and and should that be built would at that point would the windows even be visible from the street because it would be beside a potentially a very tall building. So I’ll go to staff. Excuse me through the chair. I don’t know the specific height or density but it is in the day downtown zone which allows for a significant amount of height and intensity on that parking lot and as you mentioned in terms of even though it was part of the Victoria Park secondary plan we are contemplating that level of intensity at that location. Yeah so I’m happy to move a motion related to this item. I guess my question for you Mr. Chair is I’m not sure if the community advisory community I’m planning which I believe discuss this item if their delegations are related to this item are they related to are they related to the report because what I don’t want to do is make a big motion us pass everything and then they stand up and say actually we were going to talk to the item that you just passed and us being an awkward spot. So I’m not sure if we know that information whether the the delegation is related to that part of their discussion or not because if it was I’d be happy to hear from them now before I put that motion on the floor. They’re giving a thumbs up so I’ll ask a clerk do we need to vote on their delegation or them being involved in this conversation can we ask them directly. I’m just going to say not withstanding the procedure by-law I’m willing to make a motion to hear the delegations from the community advisory I’m planning now given they both indicated their delegations are related to the item that we’re about to put on the floor. Okay yeah we can hear their portion on this item and then if they want to speak on their report afterwards that’s fine. Okay so we got a motion to accept the delegate do I do I have a seconder Councillor Cuddy and we’ll call that vote. Those in the vote the motion carries five to zero.

[52:45] Please go ahead give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chair my name is Mike Wallace and I am a member of the community advisory committee on planning and I’m speaking on this item because the chair through his employer it has a had a conflict on the agenda on that and promote and declare a conflict at our committee meeting which we had last week just for your education and understanding this item that you’ll be that you’re dealing with with the Canada Life window issue that was presented to us at committee by staff and that this recommendation from staff was coming.

[53:27] You do need to know that there were two motions proposed at the committee one was in favor of the staff direction both moved and seconded and it did not gain support enough to pass. An additional motion was that was also presented that we would support the Canada Life application to have three of the four sides with the replacement windows that are there now and then with plain glass windows on the clearance side of the fourth side. That motion was also moved and that also did not receive enough votes to pass.

[54:06] So at the end the committee decided to just receive and file the information that was presented to us through the staff report that was on our agenda and so there was no decision made and we wanted to make that clear to council that there was there was some discussion but no no clear decision was made. And we did want to clarify that it was no reflection on the heritage staff’s proposal or our presentation but that there was no conclusion was able to be reached by by the citizens committee and the chair will then speak as the clerk pointed out to the report after you’re done with this item.

[54:57] Thank you very much. Thank you. I’ll go back to you Mayor. Okay so I appreciate that. I’m willing to put a motion on the floor notwithstanding the full advice of our staff particularly on D. I’m willing to put the full staff recommendation on the floor except in D instead of B refused. I’m going to put it as B approved thus allowing them to do the alternate windows on the one side and I’m happy to provide some rationale for that if there’s a seconder for me putting that on the floor. Can I just ask a clarifying question regarding E do you still want to see samples provided given that D would be excluded? I’m not sure I think that’s necessary for all of the replacement windows. Yeah so yeah I want that in there because they’re on the other side so they’re talking about matching and so I think our staff can give some advice on ensuring that they they match properly so I’m fine with E. Okay thanks for the clarification. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cudi seconds.

[56:04] So we have a motion on the floor. I’ll look for discussion or our comments. Mayor if you would like to go ahead. Yeah first I want to commend our staff including our heritage staff for the very thorough assessment they did of this work and also thank Canada Life and their delegates for the work that they put in to this application as well as the thoughtful and thorough work they did on the sides of the buildings where they are doing like for like windows. I know there’s a cost to that and I know there’s a considerable amount of effort that has to go into that. I think this organization is a great steward of that building.

[56:38] I’ve been in the building. It’s a beautiful piece of architecture in our city and when we light up city hall and Canada Life Place I’ll be honest your building looks a lot nicer than ours when it’s lit up at night and we appreciate all you do to steward that building as well as what the company does generally for this community as a major employer in our downtown core and continues to employ people in this part of the city. That being said I don’t agree with our staff’s assessment of the necessity and I do agree with Canada Life on that west side of the building. The main reason being we know that there’s a desire for increasing density in the core. We know that we already have applications around related to the Victoria secondary plan and other parts that include considerable density. There is a high likelihood at some point in the future there would be a very large building on the Canada Life parking lot overlooking Victoria Park that is likely to be residential and these facade windows are unlikely to really be seen in a meaningful way and so in an effort to help them achieve their goals and with a level of cost containment in particular their GHG goals by 2050 I’m happy to put the motion on the floor and support their desire to to use the alternate windows on that side. Hence my change of D2 from B refused to be approved and I support all the other components of the the staff’s recommendation.

[58:00] I’ll look for other comments from committee members who are visiting Councillors. Councillor Permeau. Thank you, sir. I actually have a question and maybe I misunderstood but when there was the first presenter I thought it stated eastern side. I just want to make sure that it is because in the report it says western side so it is the west it is the west one. Okay thank you for that and the second part is and maybe it is in the drawings. When I look at the Google Earth it’s kind of two buildings one lower one and right behind the higher one so are we talking about both buildings to be done in the same way?

[58:37] Please feel free to comment. Thank you. There’s actually four buildings in total but to simplify the west side clearance street facade facade will all be complemented in a consistent single vision window. Is that not your question? It certainly does. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for recognizing me. I’m a visiting member of the committee. I’m not a standing member.

[59:10] I obviously have some interest here. It’s in the ward and I used to work a Canada life myself. For some of you that might know I worked there for several years I think it was a it was a few. So I’m very familiar with kind of the inside of the building and you know just kind of the historical aspects and the assets that it provides for the city. I do see that this building is one of the biggest probably the most prominent landmark historical building that we have in London so what you do sets precedent of what other people do moving forward. I was also I guess I also worked on that side in that actual in the building number three I believe it was if I’m looking at the map correctly so I do understand just the lighting that comes in and I did hear the delegates were speaking to that and I do hear the comments I guess from the mayor with that with the potential development which I don’t believe we’ve seen any formal application yet for any type of development in that parking lot but with the Victoria Park secondary plan you do have quite a bit of ability to provide some density there.

[1:00:07] But I just wanted to know if if I did hear a comment about extra lighting I think it was like 12% extra lighting if we don’t have the windows like for like on that side. With the development there I just wanted to kind of understand the lighting aspect for employees in the building like if we do have a development there will that lighting be hindered or impaired if we’re moving towards the windows as they are right now not being like for like. Please go ahead. Thank you for the question. We imagine the design of the development being something like BC Place in Toronto where we have a great esplanade between the two buildings to allow natural light to both intense and and dense structures because we want to provide additional light to the Canada life structure and that also supports why Canada life would like single vision once we put a skylighted landscape link between the two buildings will need every advantage we can to bring that natural light back into both Canada life and the new development. Does that answer your question?

[1:01:26] Councillor. Close. Close. So I guess for the other windows that we have I guess on the the Queen’s facing part I know that those windows are being recommended or being approved I just wanted to know the differences on that because I do know we’re talking about the framing and the windows themselves specifically and you know I do see the framing you have it on the west side or the east side sorry we’re getting like for like the duffern facing side is like for like and everything else is being approved except for those two buildings there at that part so just kind of comparatively speaking with the other windows that we have at the Queen’s side I forget what building it is I apologize I just wanted to kind of just get the understanding with the new development so is it it’s to just provide a maximum amount of light with the potential for the new development is that kind of what I heard in the answer? So on the south side Queen’s ab is already single pane and it wraps around the southwest side already so that’s a different era of building it’s already single pane so we are quite happy right on all the street edges to replace like for like and this is part of Canada life’s desire to keep those direct street facades like for like the west side is a half a block away and would be more would be part of the future development and not as visible Councilor. Thank you so um so the difference is between the like for like on the the staff recommended side and the like for like and the not going for the like for like on the clearance side that we’re speaking about what was the what was the deciding factor between not going towards the framed windows and allowing it for the I guess the public facing side it was this strictly because of cost or is it strictly because of this is a very public facing side so we’re going to give it like for like and this side is not necessarily public facing I just if I could just get an understanding there yeah it’s surely based on it’s very public it’s like 20 feet away from the sidewalk and those are direct facing as you drive by walk by whereas the fourth face is a half block off of a parking existing parking lot that directly faces west and so it’s felt like Canada life that they’re not as prominent but they would like consistency from all the buildings starting from the south west to the northwest with the single pane glass thank you okay so you know as I said like I used to work there so one of the big aspects that I really enjoyed was the fact that it is a very prominent historical piece that London has so I do see that what Canada life does does have a very big impact on setting precedence moving forward so you know I do want to see as much of that the cultural assets or the heritage assets preserved as much as possible when it comes when it comes to that I do know that when we when the buildings for two and three just some facts that I remember from working I just do in history on the building those when I think it was building three I believe when it was being built there was a painstaking efforts for the for the company to make those sure those windows match the other windows moving forward I do see there’s a little departure there now and but I do kind of hear what the delegate is saying but just just what I would say is you know like as an employee there and I do know that sentiment inside the building is you know people do love kind of you know the fact that what the building is right now and just moving forward just to you know conserve as much of the heritage aspects and attributes as we have so you know I was I was a little taken aback that we didn’t do the like for like on the on the frame parts of those windows and you know I guess I would be voting that way I guess at council I’m not a member of committee now so I can’t can’t vote at the moment but those would be my comments right now just you know you do have a big impact with some of the work that you do the city does watch so just you know ask as respectfully it’s possible to keep that in mind moving forward regardless if it’s frame windows or not or if something bigger than that further comments councilor cutting thank you chair and through you first of all I want to thank our guests for coming today and speaking all the way from Winnipeg I do want to mention chair that the reason I’m supporting the mayor’s motion is because despite the fact that I appreciate all the effort that our heritage department and planning department what’s into this I really think we have one of the greatest corporate citizens in London in in Canada life in in our city that they do so much for our city they’re great employers and one of the things they have is we we sometimes forget it’s it’s a full city block that that building or those four buildings are on at great cost and they maintain it and it maintained it beautifully and I appreciate the fact they’ve gone to great effort chair to to restore the windows as best they can and to to build movements that are as close to you know to what we want for the city and I appreciate and I applaud the reference and and I think this is a great opportunity for us to move forward and for us to help out our corporate friends thank you thank you other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors I’ll ask counselor pleoses to take the chair please I’d like to make a comment thank you I have the chair recognizing counselor Lehman thank you yeah I’ll echo counselor cutting in the comments made earlier this is an iconic building in London we look at things from a heritage aspect for the physical presence of the building this is a heritage company is a in a company of itself an organization with London life being a big part of the history of London we’re fortunate in having a corporation that besides being our biggest employer downtown with 3700 employees we heard there’s also a very good corporate community member we’ve heard that they are carbon neutral footprint which they strive for and I think they’ve cared very dearly about the heritage aspect of their building I know I’ve been inside I’ve spoken to many over the years that work for for Canada life and for London life and that’s a big you know they take pride in the position that they take in London and I think we can just see it from the exterior than the care that is taken you know when we talk about heritage it’s always a balancing feature we want to preserve the things that are important for history historical purposes for aesthetics but we also have to balance out with the reality and I think in this particular case they’re they see the balance for the work life aspect of their employees as important enough to make this change to make a better work environment for their for their staff for the 3700 of that work in that building every day so I’m fully supportive of the mayor’s emotion and I want to thank this is my opportunity to thank Canada life for being that corporate citizen we appreciate it we appreciate the employment you bring to our city and the responsibility that you take in all aspects in your position as leaders in our community from the corporate side so just thank you for that opportunity to say that while you’re here because you’re not here that that often so those are my comments comments present in chair thank you that you step two minutes and 30 seconds looking to see if there’s other speakers I don’t say any I’ll return the chair to you with no speakers being noted you wish to call the question thank you we’ve got a motion moved in seconded one last look around to see if there’s anyone else to like to speak I’ll call the vote the motion carries five to zero okay so we have one added delegation and that’s for 2.13 so I’ll I’ll go there now please give us your name and you have five minutes afternoon members of pack my name is john mark metray i’m chair the community advisory committee on planning first of all it’s great to be here again thanks to council for the recent reappointment i’m excited for a new term i’m here to speak about our second report which was a busy meeting there are a few items of note thank you for changing the order because part of what i’m going to speak to relates to an item further down your agenda first it first item of note in our report is we put before your annual work plan it’s something we purposely kept brief and focused and you will see the most substantive item in there is continuing to work on the listed properties work plan which you all have seen before this is about the provincial delisting of around 2200 listed heritage properties in london in our work to narrow down that list and try to prioritize some properties for council so that’s on there there’s a few other items i’m short on time here and have other things to get to but uh please have a look at our annual report if you have any questions please let me know either uh online or offline um the second more significant item we dealt with was an item um you have before you today which is the kent brewery request for demolition uh at st george and an so i’d like to give some context on our recommendation which was to support the demolition request in the staff report um first i think there was a recognition here as always that there’s and you referred to it mr chair um a moment ago that the balance between heritage and or other priorities um and so the balance there is it wasn’t lost on the committee that there is um quite a desperate need for this kind of housing and um that was that was a consideration for us and second i think while we all recognize the important history here um and regret the loss or potential loss we do see what was proposed uh by the developer and under the terms and conditions proposed by staff um is quite a significant commemoration of the former kent brewery uh at least uh for my part i’m excited at the prospect that beer is going to be being brewed there once again um which my understanding is that hasn’t been done on that site since 1917 and so um ultimately and and we had mr mcneely uh at committee and i think she explained this well um there was an acceptance by the committee i think that it wasn’t reasonably feasible to achieve the the goals of that development while retaining the building um and so we were supportive of the request with the terms and conditions around the commemoration um that does lead me to the second part of recommendation which was we did make our support of um of the demolition request conditional uh and that is conditional on council being satisfied that the terms and conditions are enforceable um and so we worry as always that the developer promises certain things and after the demolition request is granted those things aren’t followed through um and of particular i guess consideration for us was um the fact that developer has an outstanding loyalty appeal and um you know on the one hand they’re saying here all these great things we’re going to do for commemoration and continued heritage of the property but at the same time they’re appealing designation um so that was a bit of a concern for us and we did again get a good answer from miss McNeely about the other planning mechanisms in place um notwithstanding the loyalty appeal that um she believes the city will be able to enforce the terms of terms and conditions of this request uh should it be granted and so um that’s not to say it’s it’s a massive worry but i just wanted to flag that as something we thought council should be mindful of um the last point i’ll make is an aside and i think it’s an important one is there was a question raised that committee well what you know what was what was the point of designating um and how do you reconcile council’s prior decision to designate and recognize the important history history of this property with the fact that you may now support demolition um and again i think miss McNeely gave a good answer which was the whole reason um we’re we’re able to ask for these terms and conditions and the commemoration and the continued operation of a brewery there is because of the designation uh this council i think very wisely made um and so it’s it’s important to note from ice perspective that i think i think council was correct designate um but i also think choosing to designate doesn’t mean you have to preserve everything perfectly for all eternity um in some instances a designation can encourage reasonable compromises gives the city leverage to insist on the the things that are being proposed in the terms and conditions here um that’s the last item i wanted to highlight from report thanks to mike wallace for speaking to the the london life um application which had a conflict on um but yeah that’s it and i’m available for any questions thank you thank you i’ll look to committee um for our motion hopefully to receive other report uh councilor cuddy second by councilor hillier uh any comments or questions seeing none we’ll call the vote sing the vote the motion carries four to zero moving on to scheduled scheduled items just to let the committee know that the mayor had to step out take a call he’ll be rejoining the meeting shortly moving on to 3.1 this is regarding 20 clerk road i’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting councilor cuddy seconded by councilor palosa and we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero thank you any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time councilor palosa sorry just that last vote did it re-record that the mayor was recused versus absent he’ll be returning yeah i’m saying i think the vote on the screen showed that he recused himself versus noting he was absent oh okay thank you that was it just administrative uh thank you i’ll let the clerk police uh those matters uh okay any questions for uh of technical nature for staff if not they’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to uh address committee please ma’am you have five minutes if you can give us your name that’d be great uh yes good afternoon staff council and members of the public here in attendance this afternoon my name is kaitlyn krowley senior planner with selinka pre-emo i am here as the authorized agent on behalf of the ownership group for this property at 20 clerk road i would first like to thank uh city staff raven and michael for their work on this file i have read the staff report and believe it does provide a good summary of the intent and purpose of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment which does propose a total of three residential townhouse blocks um in addition to two street connections or extensions of per cell drive and frederick crescent um and then there is a also a remnant piece of the property which fronts on to clark road which is proposed for future development uh development of that specific block fronting on clark road has not been determined at this stage um so we are proposing that that portion of the uh subject lands uh be a rezone to an urban reserve zone until such a time as development can be proposed on that portion of the property um so as i said i read the staff uh recommendation i agree with staff’s report and their recommendation and their suggested conditions um in discussion with staff the applicant is working towards a compensation plan um in order to support the removal of the trees on site and replace them on another property within the same watershed or sub watershed as noted in the conditions uh it is understood that this will be a condition of the draft plan of subdivision as well as provided as a holding provision within the zoning um so i have also read the provided letters from different abutting property owners um so some of their comments were revolved around the removal of the wooded area on the property um so as previously stated we are working on a compensation plan for that um in order to replace any tree removals um we are also you know hopefully seeking to uh maintain some of the boundary trees on the subject lands in order to maintain that kind of privacy screening um so that’ll be further refined through the site plan approval process specifically for for block three um we have also submitted an environmental impact study and that along with the compensation plan and environmental management plan which will be provided through the draft plan of subdivision um will uh will again hopefully be able to to satisfy some of those concerns items such as uh stormwater management and servicing uh those are also details that will be further refined through the draft plan of subdivision application as well as through um site plan approval uh as applicable uh we have submitted preliminary servicing studies through these applications and as per those studies the the 50 townhouse units total uh proposed on the property uh can be supported by infrastructure in the area um just you know through through different connections in different locations but as i said there is a holding provision um so that that servicing can be uh allocated appropriately uh it is understood through the public comments that there is also concerns regarding the number of connections uh street connections to the existing subdivision um in the lack of vehicular connection onto clark road so the property owner of 20 clark road does not own enough land that fronts onto clark in order to provide a municipal standard connection out to clark road um so that was discussed with staff um so through this application we are providing road extensions of per cell drive and fredger crescent um and providing enough of an extension of per cell drive to in the future um connect out to clark road but unfortunately due to land holdings and ownership we were not able to provide that through through this application um so hopefully through the extension of fredger crescent and per cell drive uh we do improve that traffic flow with the addition of 50 townhouse units the zoning by alignment application as proposed does support infill and intensification on a on a property which is designated in the london plan for low density forms of housing such as the proposed townhouses uh the the height permissions for the for the property are proposed to be 12 meters oh or approximately three stories this is not drastically different from their surrounding neighborhood which uh has heights of between one and two stories uh the the proposal does seek to bring the zoning bylaw into conformity with the london plan and permit use is contemplated in the neighborhood’s place type the extension of fredger crescent and per cell drive at the request of city staff does take up a significant portion of the developable land on the property however the the owner has agreed to provide those municipal road connections in order to support these additional housing so while a road connection to clark road is not possible through this application due to the separate ownership holdings um this application does still provide that ability in the future and does provide that additional road stub um so again we are we are seeking to provide additional forms of housing um you know for those people that are not able to afford the single family laws in the surrounding neighborhood and uh we do believe that um in our opinion that the vision of london is represented in this in this proposed development subject to the conditions of the draft plan of subdivision and uh i’d just like to thank everyone for their time this afternoon and i’m available for any technical questions thank you mr karly i’ll look for members of public that would like to address uh the committee please sir uh give us your name and you have five minutes my name is Nick Oliver um i live on hunger fruit street and uh excuse me uh i’m glad to hear that they’re going to keep some of the trees along the property line to provide privacy i’m sad to see that the the actual woodland is going to be demolished but um my biggest concern is i i appreciate that she says there’s not enough room to provide an entrance onto clark road but in the original build there’s only uh one side of the street you can park on already because the street’s so narrow and with the additional 50 units and if there’s only single driveways they can park on i i could proceed overflow onto our streets clogging the note plus the extra population of 50 units there’ll be parking problems there’ll be traffic problems kids play on our streets and it’ll be way busier than if they could just go on to clark road um the other problem we worry about is like a lot of neighborhoods along hunger for like we have flooding in our backyard and we’re worried that when they build they’ll build up and then we’ll end up with more flooding in the future um and then i’d like to hear if anyone could provide like if they end up with percel and for edrick being those entrances um some sort of traffic mitigation like speed bumps or uh any other things you guys could offer to help protect the kids in the community when they’re crossing the street to get to the park and whatnot and uh that’s about it thank you thank you i’ll look for our next speaker please man give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon my name is diane lit and i live at uh 293 hungerford street um just a preliminary comment sitting through the meeting today um there seem to be lots of discussion today um comparing london to other communities um like it’s a competition to see who can build the most properties um i find that quite disturbing actually and would ask uh counselors to think about uh internally the constituents of london as opposed to worrying about what’s happening in other uh cities um in ontario specific to me with this item um i guess it’s a rhetorical question being why do you think it’s okay to devalue and degrade the living situation of existing constituents by developing property such as what’s proposed on this piece of land i have lived at my house for 13 years when i first moved in part of the property was designated as environmentally sensitive i appreciate that the ontario government may have made changes to those designations that support a development such as the one being proposed but i would offer to you uh i’d be happy to show you videos of the wildlife that come into my property during the day and during the evenings that will be displaced because of this proposal and another concern that i have is around the specific piece of property being a green space uh the ambiance of my property will be changed significantly when i moved in i had been diagnosed with general general anxiety disorder which i’m hearing about this proposal has triggered those symptoms again this proposal will preclude me from sitting outside enjoying the birds and the ambiance in my backyard i don’t think that’s okay there are other properties in london we’re so hell bent on providing housing there’s an isor on the corner of gore and Hamilton road within this area there’s a McCormick property that i’m not sure if that’s being uh looked at in terms of being torn down or refurbished to provide housing also i want council to understand that the properties that are going to be impacted we are not low-income people the properties in this area if you check real estate listings sell on average for seven hundred thousand dollars per whole fact that there is no infrastructure in terms of roadways uh my neighbor here has spoken about the impact on his family and on the children in our area um surely the heavens counselors you can find other pieces and parcels of land in london that will have less impact on existing community to develop i appreciate you listening to me today and i hope you take these comments under advisement thank you thank you misslette i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes my name’s nydia with my husband today we live at 3-2-1 hungerford street um when we first sell a proposal it was a little upsetting um it will severely impact because of where we live and the proposal of extending percelta frederick um we are adjacent to wild goose wild goose is one of the main arteries into our neighborhood if you try to go through there in the morning or in the evening or when the school buses are all coming home it is a nightmare to get out you are now proposing to put 50 more houses in behind us which we are equating to 50 to 100 more cars potentially depending on each family that lives there we’re talking more school buses we’re talking more traffic in an area that we already have trouble getting out not to mention down hamilton road where all those new communities and everything are being built has also added to the increased traffic in the area um in hamilton commissioners i’m sorry it’s a horrible intersection i was in a pretty severe accident there a couple years ago i got hit from behind somebody was going around um onto the shoulder and hit me pretty severely in the front end demolishing my car um and i go that way every day to go to work i come that way every day to go home it is not a good intersection and we are talking about adding more vehicles more traffic everything coming through um i don’t think unless something is done we can’t handle more houses in that area um and again not having an entrance out to clark road is a huge issue because they’re all going to end up coming down our street or they’re going to be taking wild goose they’re not going to go down to Baxter because that’s a further way you have to go if you’re going to go up and around all the way i wouldn’t want to go that way home um so it’s going to severely impact it and we already have about six or seven buses that come through our neighborhood um at the moment uh and we have a huge backlog in the morning so if you’re talking 50 more families and if each family has two to three children or even one child we have to add that many more buses um you know they’ve closed the school on hamilton road like we’re busing our kids to tweed smear it there’s we just don’t we can’t support it especially in our little neighborhood um so i’m just just a little concerned about all that um i hope that’s something that you will look into if we do go forward with this and um thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes so good afternoon committee members thank you for the opportunity to speak today my name is jina capello a concerned resident of clark road i am here regarding the proposed subdivision at 20 clark road why i understand that the need for thoughtful growth within our city i believe the current amendments required require further study to ensure responsible development that protects both our environment and our community my first concern is regarding environmental impact and woodland loss the proposed site is currently a densely treated wildlife habitat that supports a rich rich ecosystem well an environmental impact study was completed and staff recommended a holding provision with compensation for lost woodland functions i am concerned of the effectiveness of this provision we just research shows that high density woodlands like those on the site provide unique ecological benefits such as greater carbon storage biodiversity and habitat continuity that cannot be quickly or easily replicated by new plantings or lower density green spaces even if replacement plantings are feasible it would take decades for them to support the same level of wildlife resulting in both media and long-term ecological loss for the more the site borders upper Tham’s river conservation authority regulated lands yet it appears the authority has not been formally consulted these their input is essential to ensure the development respects the sensitive environmental area i urge the committee to require formal consultation with the conservation authority and we consider the advocacy of the current holding provision before moving forward second stormwater management and grading concerns the london plan states that new development should minimize the mitigate and mitigate impacts on adjacent properties the geotechnical report for the site note significant elevation differences between the proposed development and existing homes including mine and those of many of my neighbors however detailed grading and drainage plans are not yet available make it unclear how stormwater runoff will be managed without this information that there is a real risk of increasing runoff and flooding and neighboring properties especially given the potential for post-construction soil sediment and purge groundwater i respectfully request that a detailed grading and drainage plan be completed and reviewed prior to prior to approval ensuring that post-development runoff does not exceed current levels and that adequate stormwater infrastructure is in place third neighborhood character and privacy the proposed maximum building heights of 12 meters for the townhouse box are out of character with the surrounding area college structures will cast significant shadows reduce sunlight and create direct sightlights into adjacent homes impacting both privacy and established neighborhood aesthetic a shadow impact study should be required to fully understand these effects before any approval is granted finally traffic congestion and safety the proposed addition of 15 new homes and the extension of federal crescent and personal drive are expected to significantly increase local traffic volumes this raises serious safety concerns particularly in an area already challenged by high vehicle speeds and frequent pedestrian use by seniors and children the presence of heavy low truck traffic further compounds the risk and may place additional strain on existing infrastructure a comprehensive traffic impact study is essential to assess these impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures in closing i am not opposed to the development but i am deeply concerned that moving forward without these critical studies and consultations will create avoidable problems problems that will be more difficult and expensive for property owners developers and the city to resolve in the future i urge the committee to require additional information and impact studies before making any recommendations or approvals responsible planning now will prevent needless issues later and ensure a better outcome for everyone thank you for your time and consideration thank you miss pelo i’ll look for other speakers please man give us your name and you have five minutes Susan Rasmussen i’m from uh ten o’clock road and uh the family has owned the property there for 65 years we are the only people on the stretch from pension lane to Hamilton road who do not have storm sewers or sanitary sewers and my biggest concern and will be said to see our wildlife leave is that the water table there is so high and right now while they’re um renovating the environmental depot on clark road just a couple doors up uh they were excavating there and a friend of ours that’s was working there you go down four feet and you hit water when we had to dig around our home to dimple membrane the home you go down three feet and you hit water so they’re going to have fun when they start digging but when the subdivisions built back behind clark road um our flooding was terrible and has been ever since as well it’s gotten worse it’s always been bad so i guess my biggest um my biggest concern is is the water drainage and what they’re going to do with uh with the water that comes from that high water table thank you man i’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name you have five minutes thank you very much i’m a good one i’m seeing from clark road six clark road i have a one question like uh we have a seven houses in the line and backside they are doing new construction and we pay everybody pay the taxes for the CD but we have the issue in the drainage system because we have a no the pipe the drainage line over there no no we put everything in the safety tank and the everything is very old so we know we need to rebuild it again so what we can do if they make the pipeline backside and only we check the map if they put the 15 20 to 40 feet pipe in our line so we seven houses we can connect with that and we can like save the environment and second issue is that like front side Hamilton to clark road they have the big sick temple so many people going are like over there every day every day day to night time so they’re both side they have no space to walking so we need only four hundred uh three to four hundred meters foot path over there so because many times the students are the walking over there they get an accident they fall down is the front of my house i see many times so we need we need only three to four hundred meters foot path so we can save the people life and thank you thank you look for the next speaker please man give us your name and you have five minutes my name is Ann we have a last one i wasn’t going to speak on this but um just because a developer buys a piece of land it doesn’t mean that they have to develop it um if this area is deemed environmentally sensitive it is not now not environmentally sensitive because they bought the land and that area floods when there’s a raindrop so all these concerns these people are raising a legitimate concerns and i shared the observation of the previous speaker that stated that she she finds it disturbing at how much this committee glows at the rapid pace of building housing i believe it was um you you’re approving planning applications in four and a half months but that’s because you’re tossing out people’s concerns and those speakers you don’t take a breath to see if what your your rubber stamping is thoughtful it’s your you’re you’re rapidly approving these applications because someone has brought them to you and you don’t think about it and and i think everyone who’s been in front of this committee knows how much their concerns are not taken seriously i don’t think that’s anything to be proud of and if you have a look at if you have a question right now i don’t want you to comment on how this committee thinks or aspects of it you can comment to the project that we’re discussing right now on factual basis if you continue to do that i’m gonna have to end your time okay but that’s my opinion and i i’d appreciate it if you would listen to what i’m saying it’s shared it’s a shared opinion by a lot of people that come down here and if you have woodlands uh you should be cutting down your woodlands we have hardly any woodlands left in this city this city is hot there’s no shade it’s becoming increasingly a harsh place to live because you’re rushing through applications that are not thoughtful this area is an environmentally sensitive area just because they bought it and they bought an application of funny it doesn’t mean it should be developed thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name you have five minutes my name is jasmine i’m from six clark road and in our backyard there’s a big tree i understand a lot of people they like the nature and having the wildlife around them but under one month of us moving to london there was a storm and the branch it broke our kabano and are a lot of it made a lot of damage like understand you know it can cover up but a lot of the time we have a lot of stuff in the kabano or our garage and it can make a it can make a lot of stuff to pay that is not going to be paid by the government and i think that tree needs to be cut down because it can cause a lot of damage if one day we have a bigger storm or anything and one more thing is that sidewalks because we don’t have any sidewalks and i have seen a lot of times it’s kids and parents walking with their kids in the strollers or students walking back from home at night sometimes we can’t really see the cars coming from the back or the front and we can’t really crossroads that easily and there’s us and there’s also a hockey stadium right in front of my house so it’s hard for the students the kids the parents walking with strollers old people are pregnant lady so i think we need we need sidewalks thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker i’ll ask the clerk because if there’s anyone online who is lisa if uh you can hear us um please go ahead you have five minutes can you hear me i can hear you okay great um my name’s lisa drard and i live on personal drive in the abutting neighborhood to the um subject lands uh i’ve submitted to the planning departments more detailed criticism of the proposal and i hope you’ll look at that uh but i’m going to add a couple of further uh uh points ran development’s proposal for rezoning 20 Clark Road states and its design goals 1.5 that they wish to provide a form of development compatible to the established residential area abutting the subject lands and to make efficient use of the land subject lands that are complementary to our existing neighborhood while ran development’s proposals for nine rows of the townhouses consisting of 50 units are neither compatible nor complementary to our neighborhood of single family homes to the immediate east now ran development’s owns 1348 Hamilton Road which will provide direct access from the subject lands to Hamilton Road likewise they own block six which was referred to by um their representative um uh which is presently already a paved driveway providing direct access from the subject lands to Clark Road so they already have access to this proposal proposed lands without um accessing our subdivision we are opposed to the extension of personal drive and Frederick Crescent into the subject lands which will force integration of our established residential neighborhood into ran development’s complex of medium density townhouses using our neighborhood streets to access these new builds needlessly it already has two thoroughfares which it can access it is not it is not wanted by the homeowners who will be affected and we are opposed on these points the increased daily traffic flow is up to maybe 40% to and from the subject lands through our neighborhood the young families retirees creates a dangerous risk to activities of daily living outdoors oh and by the way along the backyards of Purcell Drive from east to west we have a watershed the city allowed the proposal of they allowed the build of uh in this subdivision a Frederick Street to the north of Purcell Drive and a much higher elevation and has created a watershed from the west of Purcell Drive to the very east making use of our backyards almost impossible in rainy season which is as you know when the snow melts this development will cause devaluation of our properties it will result in the incongruity and housing between single family homes and medium density rows of townhouses it will result in the reconfiguration of our neighborhood into ran development’s concrete complex it will result in turning our neighborhood into a two-year construction site facilitating the movement of construction equipment vehicles workers through our streets needlessly even hampering the clearance of snow from streets during the winter i’ve been through this before in my previous home as workers line our streets with their vehicles we do not wish to be incorporated into ran development’s vision for our neighborhood it is not our vision we purchased our homes in a small quiet family subdivision and opposed ran development’s attempts to change and change the character of our environment for their personal financial gain we may not be north london with the influences of big money talking but we matter as much as any other london community our homeostasis matters just as much thank you thank you uh lasa kirk if there’s another person online that wishes to address committee Vanessa if you can hear me um you have five minutes please go ahead hi there my uh can everybody hear me open we can uh my name’s Vanessa warwick i live on 305 hunger for streets i am a relative newcomer to the neighborhood as i only bought the property in 2022 and unfortunately i did purchase at the end of the cobit boom and so half maybe experienced a little bit of decrease in my property value and now i’m looking at my backyard where i can see clark road and i’m beginning to wonder how it’s possible to fit 50 town homes in such a small space and i’m looking at a further decrease of my property value um and i really think that that that’s going to happen to the entire neighborhood which i feel is very unfair and and and sad and i’d also like to speak to the clark road dump site that the trees that we have there i think provide us a nice barrier from the amount of activity that goes on there and the potential to um older development from that dump site and i think that it would be uh sad to see that the forest section that we have back there go so i just want to put that out there and echo all the other sentiments of all the lovely people in our neighborhood that we are not in favor of this development so thank you thank you last clark if there’s anyone else online nope i’ll look to the gallery to see if there’s anyone else that would like to address the committee seeing none i look for a motion to close the ppm councilor cutty seconded by councilor helier closing the vote the motion carries back to zero okay just before i go to committee there’s a couple of questions raised uh by um people that spoke primarily around flooding um can i get staff to comment on the impact uh of um the water table the high water table and flooding uh both after the construction and during the construction place through the chair city standards required development such as this to be generally self-contained using drainage wells storms who are as catch basins to avoid impacts on neighboring properties um staff don’t anticipate impacts onto those neighboring properties that’s built to storm water flows um the grading and drainage design uh will be required as a conditional draft approval and will be reviewed by city staff prior to final approval of the subdivision okay thank you and um traffic mitigation uh there’s some concerns raised about that or staff and comment uh from a traffic perspective through the chair thank you for the question we actually have some of our transportation colleagues online to be able to assist with that question through the chair can you hear me uh yes i can please go ahead thank you thank you yeah so um based on the traffic concerns raised by the residents in the area so i just wanted to um say only a few things like this the proposed development is a very low profile low trip generating proposal 50 units maybe if we look at the industry standards they will not be generating more than 40 45 trips during any peak hour so there are two existing entrances existing streets intersecting on Hamilton Road um wild goose and Baxter Drive so um the traffic will be distributed on both these intersections and once the subdivision is established and the third entrance personal uh parcel drive will be intersecting at Clark Road then the traffic will be diverted some of the traffic will be diverted to Clark Road and there is already an existing signalized intersection at Clark Road and Hamilton Road which will provide benefit to the traffic making left and right from the subdivision so um regarding the traffic calming which was also discussed as part of the plan of subdivision um we have a staff here for traffic calming so we will we will find we will see if any traffic calming measures um is is required on any of the subdivision streets either extension or on the existing ones to keep the um activities safer to keep the children safer within the subdivision so in my opinion this is very low trip generating subdivision so there will be some impacts of course but it will be minor impacts thank you um there was a concern raised regarding footpaths and sidewalks i would encourage you sir to follow that up with your counselor as this is not you know that’s not part of this discussion for this particular particular project uh okay uh i’ll turn this over to committee um now for discussion uh motions etc counselor mccallister thank you um i do have an amendment but uh maybe just want to speak to this first if i can um so just to reiterate i think there was a number of questions that were the rest and i appreciate the chair doing its best um but i i respectfully disagree with staff’s assessment that um the clerk road um doesn’t require access at this time i think it’s fundamentally important that there be access to clerk road um i think Hamilton has been pointed out by a number of people is getting quite congested we’re seeing a lot of traffic coming off Hamilton commissioners um you have people come from Dorchester um i’ve seen a marked increase in terms of the traffic along that stretch of Hamilton road um so i do have an amendment which specifically speaks to that which i’ll put forward in a moment um but i do just want to address some of the other concerns that were raised uh in terms of uh sewage uh just hold on a second counselor uh point of order counselor please uh thank you mr chair also that you know you leave your mic on all the time um counselor mccallister is actually not a member of this committee uh so we’ll be unable to put a motion forward also um there’s no motion on the floor to even start this discussion with so i will put uh staff’s recommendation on the floor uh if there’s a seconder to get on the floor and then happy to hear uh counselor mccallister’s comments and motion as it was pre-circulated i appreciate that yeah uh thank you um i call out the counselor kind of go a little bit with there but we’re going to do that so uh counselor flows absolutely right we need to get a motion on the floor we discuss that and then you’ll need a member of the committee to to amend that uh motion counselor so i’ve got a motion moved by counselor polozo i’ll look for a seconder counselor cutty so now we have a motion on the floor and counselor respectfully i’m going to go to committee members first uh to speak to uh to this if i don’t see anyone then i’ll come back to you so i’m just going to give committee members first counselor i appreciate that um i would actually request that we hear from the word counselor first as we did hear some of the same questions i believe he’s going to speak to um from members in the gallery and i would like those same answers from staff uh fair enough so we’ll go go to your counselor mccallister okay uh thank you and i do have an amendment that i’ll put on in a moment and obviously a member of the committee would have to put that forward i did pre-circulate to committee so hopefully everyone’s had a chance to look at that um but the two things i wanted to address before i put that out there um i was hoping that staff could comment more in terms of sewage capacity for the area and then also in in terms of consultation with conservation authority um to to get further comment on that so if staff could speak to okay i’ll go to staff there’s two items raised want some comments regarding sewage capacity in the area and then also um conservation authority um requirements or comments uh for this particular application through the chair uh with respect to sewer capacity uh there is existing sanitary sewer capacity in the area so there are no concerns with respect to sanitary sewer capacity uh additionally uh generally speaking there’s no concerns or with respect to stormwater servicing strategy uh the storm flows are attributed to a existing city pond on the south side of hamilton road um which may require some minor upgrades prior to construction but that will be assessed in future design phases for the project okay and then the question regarding conservation authority um aspect uh three chair so the utrca the upper times river conservation authority was circulated for uh their review of this application um we have within the agenda page 358 you can see the response letter from them and they’ve discussed yes the site does have um utrca regulation in the top right portion um and they’ve included recommended draft conditions that they like to see as part of the subdivision application process so um the utrca yeah they have been circulated we’ve also went through their review and we’ve applied these draft conditions in our in our drafts draft draft conditions okay thank you counsel okay and um thank you and through the chair appreciate that that would be put in because i do think that that’s something we’ve heard from residents in terms of that should be considered um i will put forward my amendment uh which was pre-circulated um and obviously so we’ll have to move it on committee um but this would be in addition which is i-v uh a road access to clark road from western um limit of the draft plan and that the road access arrangements be reviewed by the applicant to determine if full access or restricted access is permitted in this location and v the road access be constructed as part of the proposed development at twenty clark road okay i’ll go to committee to see if anyone would like to move that amendment councilor hilier i’ll look for a seconder councilor cuddy so now i’ll entertain discussion on the amendment councilor plosive then i’ll go to new councilor hilier uh thank you mr chair uh looking for clarification from yourself uh or the applicant um i believe i heard earlier um that they were saying that part of the land isn’t there so they couldn’t build on it um in which case we couldn’t mandate them to do a road access if it’s not actually there there’s to do so just looking for clarification if if that some of that subject lands property is there that can be accessed as the councilor’s request okay thank you i do recall that so i will go to the applicant to to address that yes through the chair um so we did look at using block six on the subdivision which which fronts onto clark road we looked at making that a municipal uh standard right away unfortunately it’s not wide enough um so we wouldn’t be able to make a 20 meter wide standard municipal right-of-way uh through there nor do we own any of the other properties fronting onto clark road so that was why again we had looked at that option um as part of our initial consultation with staff uh but due to the land holdings along there it was going and it was going to be too costly to purchase up any lands nor was it an option at the time of the subdivision so that was why the per cell drive road extension it stubs at our property because we don’t own any of the additional properties along clark road council thank you uh just through you if staff would be able to comment on that as well if we can hear yeah i’ll go to staff for their comments through the chair yeah we have uh work with the applicant to revise the road layout to extend the stub to the edge of the of the property the western limit so that it can be in the future extended over to clark uh it’s outside the limit of the draft plan so uh we can we can’t require it and as uh has been mentioned transportation staff haven’t identified that that access was required as part of this application if the so that the revised layout would have the stub end behind 12 clark road and if that property ever developed in the future then we would require them to provide the rest of the connection of to clark road but at this time we don’t have any applications for those uh properties along clark road but if they ever did come forward then we would require the extension councilor thank you um not sure if there be any benefit to like an exit only uh i know i have one on commissioner’s road in war 12 that you enter one way and you have an option of exiting the same way you came in or just an exit the other looking to staff like just if it’s too narrow um looking to see if that would be potentially possible and then certainly interested to see other people’s comments go to staff through the chair uh the other issue with the the portion of land that the property owner owns that is on clark is that it’s immediately adjacent to the landfill site and so transportation staff are concerned about how close that any street there would be to the current access to the landfill in terms of people turning left in and out of those it would be a hazard to have two driveways so close together and so that was another reason in addition to uh i think it’d only being 12 meters wide so not the full full width uh it’s also too close to the adjacent landfill in terms of i can maybe defer to other people but it’s hard to enforce uh one way streets and so i i believe that’s that’s often an issue but i’ll turn it over to other staff um i’m just going to go to mismeknilly first thank you through the chair the clause ivy um that language is intended to at least allow that review to determine if it’s a full access partial access rights in rights out we don’t even know if the site lines work that would be part of the review through transportation so we first needed to establish if there is um a safe movement within that location then if it is then it would be constructed and these would be through the design review through the plan of subdivision oh sir thank you no i appreciate that on that one way roads could be hard just i know that my subdivision exit is at a horrific angle that if you were coming from a certain direction you could not get in there if you had to or really who wanted to uh so i appreciate that um question then would vb inherently assuming that ivy could be done uh because if the site lines are off then inherently we couldn’t do the latter portion okay thank you that concludes my questions a counselor halyer thank you staff answered they said it was 12 meters wide and we need 20 thank you appreciate okay um other comments or questions on the amendment counselor how my counselor thank you and through the chair um i put this forward just because this is one of the main concerns i heard from a lot of residents um honestly if the road isn’t possible i i kind of question why this proposal was brought for in the first place um i think you have to give considerate um or sorry consideration in terms of the flow of traffic and i i think it was kind of dismissed in terms of what i read uh i’m not blaming this on staff i just think in terms of the plan that was brought forward i don’t necessarily agree with it i don’t think it really took in um into account what people were saying um one of the other things i i have to say is i’ve heard a lot today in terms of um you know the community uh feeling like they that they weren’t heard and i would say um the reason why i brought this forward was that the community really hasn’t had a chance to speak uh to the developer there was uh originally a um town hall or community engagement session planned earlier in may which was canceled late and then rescheduled till after this meeting which i personally didn’t appreciate and i think that doesn’t actually do a service to the developer or the community um so i think that’s important to call out too that i think the voices that wanted to be heard today was their first chance to be heard uh i’ve had calls i’ve had emails um but i really don’t think that that helped this application whatsoever so i think that’s a lesson um for other ones especially in my area people want to be heard and that doesn’t help when you put forward an application and they don’t get that opportunity um i’ve put forward this amendment because i think you know i i one vote on this council but and i’m also not on this committee but i wanted to put something in here in terms of at least getting um the community feedback uh added in in terms of having that clerk road access um you know the committee will vote the way it votes um i’m still very much undecided on this um i’ll think of it on it a bit more take the opportunity to to speak with community members again but i really haven’t liked the way this has brought forward i think there are a lot of things that were not fully considered um the access point being a big one for me is a loss of trees the environmental impact um a lot of the issues in terms of sewage um and flood water mitigation um i think this is a case where we’re trying to kind of cram in a subdivision into an existing subdivision and um i don’t think everything was taken into consideration so that’s just food for thought for committee i put forward this amendment i hope you’ll consider it but absolutely if this is something that council as a whole moves forward with and needs to be more access points to the subdivision okay i’ll look for other comments or questions from many or visiting counselors counselor happens um is there an amendment on the floor i was going to speak to the main motion but if we are we are discussing uh the amendment put forward by uh counselor hillier seconded by counselor cutty i’ll just wait till the main motion moves forward okay if the committee will remind me i just want to ask a clarifying question to staff from what i’ve heard am i correct in saying that this is not possible at this time what this um amendment is is suggesting through the chair the idea is to we need to evaluate this access at this location it was in part of the original draft plan a subdivision um and one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is there is another potential third access to hamilton road as part of the overall vision um there are three there are stubs uh priscale and frederick were part of those stub streets um in terms of when the original plan of subdivision came forward and we when we do our future planning we look at opportunities for extending roads um and connections um what hasn’t also been discussed here in terms of that ivy there could be a possibility of having a private access through just that would serve just the the condominium blocks that would be rights and rights out which wouldn’t be a full road with okay thank you um any other comments or questions before i call the vote on the amendment seeing none i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to one now we are on to the main motion as amended so i’ll look to committee and visiting counselors uh counselor hopkins um yeah that’s uh the clerk advised me maybe to get things moving we need mover and a seconder of the main motion as amended counselor cutting moves it seconded by counselor hilier uh so now we have a motion moved in the second and so please go again thank you mr chair for recognizing me i’m not a member of this committee um but i do have a couple comments and a few questions for you to staff on the application uh first of all i want to thank the community for coming out uh it is important that we hear your concerns uh they do matter i have great empathy i understand the changes that are going on in your neighborhood i represent award in the southwest part of the city ward nine it’s all about development and the challenges of our neighborhoods and how we go forward knowing that we have a housing agreement that uh we have to meet those targets by 2031 to build units uh so i’ve been on council a number of years and the conversations are planning are very very difficult and i hear the concerns from the community but i just do want to encourage you to continue um expressing your thoughts and concerns we need to hear that uh the other thing i i just want to make another comment regarding the opportunities to have open houses or town hall meetings before applications come to peck they’re really really important and i i would really encourage consultants and applicants to make sure they they can uh hold them uh for the the neighborhood to give them uh information and a better understanding uh of the process and applications that uh eventually come to planning i do have a question uh here uh regarding the recommendation uh and it’s about the holding provisions i i have noticed that there is a new holding provision in this application as it relates to want to get the name right here um it’s the um new ecological compensation holding provision so through you mr chair will um since if this is approved going forward with the lifting of that holding provision and other holding provisions on this application come back to peck i’ll go to staff through your chair and the removal of holding provisions is an administrative process so it wouldn’t come to peck sorry um i appreciate um understanding uh these changes and i um i i do want to say though uh it is really really important that at least um when we see changes to our natural heritage system that we stay at a net zero loss to our environment and i think through recommendations and addressing them in this recommendation i was pushing it uh for applications uh in previous applications in in my ward to uh to address that as we see the loss of our natural environment and we need to be able to understand and get that compensation back and it doesn’t get lost through that process so i just want to thank staff for seeing this i hope to see more of this not that i want to see a natural heritage system uh be compromised in any way but uh as as we move forward with these developments uh i am at least pleased to see it in the recommendation so thank you for that look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors council fair thank you chair just i guess one question that i was having on this one and it would be for the uh woodland compensation and i do see the staff report didn’t identify an area for that so that would be something that would be in the future i just wanted to ask what uh i guess provisions do we have to ensure that we do um find that woodland compensation moving forward go staff through you chair so um in part the draft conditions of the subdivision application or the subdivision um draft plan would discuss or um maintain the the need to identify a suitable location um but also what we’re doing here with proposing the holding provision um because we haven’t accepted or um we haven’t been identified by the applicant um a suitable location at this time um the holding provisions being brought forward to also address that so development um as part of the holding provision if it were to be applied development um and therefore the removal of the natural heritage feature um wouldn’t be able to occur until this holding provision is met so part of that holding provision is the identification of of the suitable um lands for compensation counselor thank you for that that was very clear i appreciate that answer um and just kind of going to with counselor hopkins said and i guess what i’ve heard from the delegates or other people that spoke at the ppm i hear uh what you’re saying to your comments do matter um and i i do know uh the area i grew up in classic drive which is just on the other side of of clark road there and i used to go and frequent that area a lot and when i was a kid way back when um a lot there was a lot more um open space more woodland to be available so i have seen that kind of space crunched down in size and i do hear um your concerns when it comes to that i hope that uh some of your concerns have been alleviated with the amendment that was brought forward with the traffic but i know it’s probably not all of your concerns have been answered um but i do know that uh you know just kind of hearing the conversation here um just that public engagement piece we do listen to your comments do matter and i know your word counselor is listening to you too um and i would say um with this development you know um i just hope that you know you can um see that some of the areas will be um protected you still have some areas to go into um but with that you know i guess the main point that i’m trying to make is you know we are listening to you i do have developments in my word way more dense than what i see in yours um so but i at the same time i do have a a natural place a natural spot for that space because i did grow up there so i do hear what the residents concerns are um i and i just uh i just would say that we are listening to what you’re saying and i do like the idea of holding um you know war town halls or any type of i guess um meetings to hear your concerns moving forward look for any other comments questions we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero moving on to three point two i’ve been advised by their clerk that there has been a slight revision to the by-law associated with this item um that will be available on the PAC report it just was submitted to us now by us one to make committee in the public aware of that so i’ll work for a motion to um open the public participation um portion uh on this item 3510 to 3524 then we’ll tell that road counselor hilly or seconded by counselor cuddy we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any questions of a technical nature for staff okay i’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address committee please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon uh i just wanted to say hello to um do you mr chair counselors staff and members of the public my name is olea and i am representing the owner of the subject site um i just wanted to mention to say thank you to uh the planner for all the hard work uh in support of this application um as mentioned there is a little bit of uh an error uh that was on the report so it should say 130 units per hectare uh for the draft bylaw um and i’m here with my colleague nick who can answer any questions uh if there are any thank you so much i’ll look for members of public that would like to address committee on this item please sir give us your name you have five minutes um my name is glandeats and i live at 355 million loyalist court which is immediately opposite the property uh on the other side of pack road i have uh eight different categories of uh concerns about this application um and the first one is related to the uh departure from the uh previously approved application uh previously there was a bylaw change to uh make the uh it is possible to uh featuring 37 uh residential units and 435 square meters of ground space commercial space the current proposal um proposes 63 units and no commercial space okay so the the community benefit of the commercial space has disappeared uh the density has increased by 70 percent and uh so you know that’s a concern uh my second concern is the incompatibility with the neighborhood characteristics um the existing properties are one or two-story single family homes this is a proposal for a six-four building even the the newest um application for hudson park um the the limitations there are five floors on that uh so this is not in character with the existing properties um and i’m also concerned that making an approval of a six-four building in this area will have um said an undesirable precedent for future development my third concern is about traffic traffic congestion and safety hazards uh the high density um proposal at the colonel at the corner of uh colonel talbot and pack road uh raises uh serious concern about the increase in traffic the the volume uh especially during peak hours um this is going to result in uh congestion negative having a negative impact and uh on both the traffic flow and on pedestrian safety uh given the uh proposal proposed development is no longer uh involves a commercial uh component there appears to be no compelling reason to provide access from either colonel talbot road or pack road um resident uh the uh standard practices to for residential developments is to gather the traffic and uh through local and and collector streets and to minimize the impact on major through fares um so um there uh i had a concern about the um the conflicting access to uh to the input here with the uh garage sorry the gas station uh convenience store of car wash that’s right across the street um they’re doing road work now and they’ve raised put in a raised median uh so that concern is partially mitigated however they’ve also created a second cut uh for a driveway uh that is only about a hundred to about 30 meters from the corner and that will encourage cross-traffic um entrance to this uh this property and so uh i think that we need to understand what the uh traffic flow is and whether they’re going to consider uh restricting the access off of uh colonel talbot road and pack road uh my fifth concern is about the um unsafe access uh my answer my concern about the unsafe access is probably mitigated because they have installed a raised median okay um my sixth concern is about the lack of parking detail you know 30 seconds okay and uh there’s um limited uh traffic limited public transport and well if you don’t have sufficient parking spaces then uh you’re going to have uh overfill into the community um and my other two concerns are related to loss of um you know the the shadow from the tall building i’m loss of privacy visual noise and uh light pollution uh thank you now look for other members of the public would like to address many last clerk if there’s anyone online there’s no one online i don’t see anyone going to the mic so i’ll look for a motion to close the ppm councilor cutty seconded by councilor hillyerer and i’ll call the buster so seeing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you i’ll put uh the side among the floor for committee looking for a motion councilor cutty moving the staff recommendation yes i’ll move the staff recognition thank you all the first seconder councilor ploza we have motion moved and seconded any comments or questions on the motion councilor ploza thank you uh just through you if staff would be able to make any comments uh to the residents question if any of the enhancers are available uh yeah i’d go to staff um there was uh questions regarding um uh neighborhood compatibility there was questions regarding traffic and congestion um how access points should they remain uh with the removal of the commercial aspect of this uh property um second cut would that uh allowed would that um provide cut through uh opportunity so those are the first uh four that i got um so i’ll go to staff on on those through the chair i can begin so the use and intensity of the six-story height are both um permitted as per the london plan and the height will actually be directed towards the intersection reducing the impacts on the abutting single detached dwelling to the south and in terms of the parking the property is providing um more than 1.0 spaces per unit whereas they’re only uh required as per the bylaw to um provide 0.5 spaces per unit so they’re actually over parked in accordance with their regulations and i will refer to our engineer to speak to the transportation concerns thank you through the chair the proposed access locations comply with our access management guidelines in addition a traffic impact assessment is required to be submitted as part of the future site plan uh and we that will determine the final access design and will address any impacts to the existing road network um as mentioned by the uh the public there there will also be a a write-in write-out restriction along colonel talbot road thank you thank you counselor uh counselor hopkins i saw your hand up yeah thank you again mr chair for recognizing me this is an application that is in ward nine and i appreciate uh the resident being here i know he had a number of questions and i think uh uh staff have addressed most of them uh i do uh have a question around uh i know there was an application that was approved for a four story we’ve gone to a six what is what heights are allowed in this area good stuff um through the chair six stories are permitted um and i just want to note that in the future if the height reviews were to go through um they would be allowed additional heights but right now it’s six stories oh sure yeah maybe it’s just a follow-up to that to we know when that review is going to be coming forward i see no so thank you um i’m just wondering um so i um i know this is uh an intersection right now that is closed for upgrades and so it’s important as we develop that we’re able to move around in this area i am uh supportive of um the application going forward as it relates to the special provisions and in particular the design um part of that to allow uh and maybe staff can through uh mr chair speak to the design um special provision as well as the commercial space that is um still going to be maintained on that main level even though it’s going to be residential but if you could speak to the special provisions a bit more i’ll go stuff so through the chair the um additional permitted uses that include um additional commercial uses that were granted to the previous zoning bellow amendment are being carried through um even though they’re not being proposed at this time um and the ground floor height is being proposed for four meters to allow for those commercial uses to occur in the future if they so choose to convert them councilor and the design uh special provision if you could speak to that as well go staff um through the chair so there is a special provision that the principal residential and entrances will be oriented towards the intersection to allow for the commercial uses and residential uses in the future to be um in different locations um and then there’s also reduced setbacks to ensure that all those uses are closer to the intersection councilor uh so thank you for that i think there’s a a bit more work to be done through the site plan process and uh i’m generally supportive of it thank you well for other questions or comments we have a motion moving seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to three point three regarding 1890 and 1900 bill garmen way i’ll have a motion to open the public space meeting council plaza and we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero tunes of technical nature for staff seeing none of us the applicants is uh here would like to address the committee please ma’am uh give us your name and you have five minutes hello committee uh members of the public and staff my name is jennifer cadet i’m an associate planner with mhbc we are the authorized agents on this application we’d like to thank staff for their time and attention uh to this matter uh we’re support staff’s recommendation i’d also like to advise committee that should the applications be approved application rather that uh our client has advised there are builders who are ready to to develop these two properties then i’m available to answer any questions thank you thank you i’ll look for members of the public who i’d like to address the committee on this item please sir uh give us your name you have five minutes okay my name is mohamit moosa uh one five five four and a half i just want to start my timer this so that i i know how much i can go through because i could i could spend hours well you have five minutes so please do understand that and i will put put the the the salient points um to you in that time and i will start off by just saying that the reason i’m here is to preserve my appeal rights because i’m going to try to temper my frustration with how this file has been handled over the past 21 plus years we were at committee council 2018 this was refused outright under the same legislative framework under the same guidelines from omafra under the same london plan under every legislative and guideline framework um i’m just going to read to you why this should be refused this is not a settlement area by definition the definition of a settlement area in order for omafra’s guideline 36 under publication 853 to apply is well defined under the definitions in the provincial planning statement 2024 and we’re here again trying to fit a square peg into a round hole settlement areas are built up areas where development is concentrated in which have a mix of land uses i’m going to repeat that built up areas where development is concentrated in which have a mix of land uses mix of land uses this is not by definition a mix of land use therefore it is not a settlement area by definition if it’s not a settlement area it’s fatal to this application and it should be and needs to be refused it shall be by legislative um by by legislation that committee council municipalities are required to abide by um one other thing that i’m kind of frustrated by um i did contact staff nowhere is that referenced in the application sorry not the application staff report i emailed it’s not part of the added items it’s not part of the added agenda i have an uncanny feeling i’m being ignored yet again in 2018 this came as a consent item which was referred back to staff wherein two senior planners and i and the planner of the time went and met with rural planner the the rural planner for omafra who advised that this is a premature be not within the guidelines and and and uh legislation 13 to 0 it was refused after omafra was was uh had had given an opinion and two members of of um today’s council were two of the members at the time oh so much to cover so little time um as i said i’m here to preserve my rights of appeal because if this is accepted if this is passed my guarantee is this will go to appeal and dollars to donuts it will be successful based on legislation provincial planning provincial policy statements omafra guidelines so you need to convince yourself and it went through four levels of staff lost over and respectfully to staff i’ve i’ve been very pleased with how you’ve gone through stuff before through the chair with how you’ve gone through stuff before and how meticulous you are but this went through four different people and was glossed over for the very definition in the provincial planning statement the very definition so my question to staff and your question to staff should be does this fit into the definition of a settlement area as defined by provincial planning statement 2024 and i submit to you that it does not and no amount of spin can get that into that that area into that uh that definition okay thank you that’s your time thank you so much thanks look for other comments or questions in the public i’ll ask if there’s anyone online there’s no one online i don’t see anyone else coming to the mic so i look for motion to close the ppm councilor cutty second by councilor hylier we’ll call the vote losing the vote the motion carries five to zero so there was a question raised regarding a settlement area i’ll go to staff i’d like to hear your thoughts on uh on that comment through the chair uh staff have reviewed the pps in its entirety as we reviewed this application the definition for settlement area reads means means urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities such as cities towns villages and hamlets staff are of the opinion that the rural neighborhoods place type is a settlement area as designated in the London plan and therefore meets this definition of settlement areas for that reason in accordance with o-map for his guidelines specifically guideline 36 mbs is not required within settlement areas thank you thank you so i’ll put this uh item on the floor for committee members one want to move either you know i motion i’ll move that motion i thought the motion is already on the floor so i’ll move that motion okay so we’ve got the staff recommendation moved i’ll look for a seconder councilor hylier okay so we have a motion on the floor that i’ll look for a discussion on that motion councilor hopkin the same no committee members are praying and that will go to you thank you for recognizing me again and i want to thank the resident for coming out um i did notice in the report that uh because i know uh i have uh you had reached out to me with your concerns and was surprised it wasn’t your information was not in the report having said that though um i do i recall this when it came to council think back in 2018 i did not support the development of the two lots because of those measurements so i’d like to know through you mr chair what has changed since 2018 i’ll go to staff through the chair um the london plan requires mds for rural settlement uh or part of me the rural neighborhood’s place type it takes a more heavy-handed approach than the provincial planning statement does uh so it’s our policies that haven’t quite caught up to speed with the latest iterations of the provinces policies uh so the changes um occurred uh between um versions of the provincial policy statement now provincial planning statement um which exempt settlement areas from rewiring mds councilor um thank you for for that so our policies have not caught up to the provincial policy statement yeah when it comes to the mds um the other question i have through you is um when are these measurements uh required like what zoning would require the mds now go to staff through the chair so properties that are uh outside of a settlement area would still be subject to mds um both mds 1 and mds 2 also uh through you so is that agriculture farming type of zoning uh through the chair yes that would be so properties within like the farmland place type and currently zoned agricultural uh thank you okay councilor pribble did i see your hand up okay okay for other comments or questions of staff let’s propose a thank you and through you mr. chair to staff uh the port had report had laid out uh livestock in anaerobic digestion i think looking to see if there’s still livestock in the neighboring properties or if those uses have ceased go south uh through the chair it’s my understanding that across the road on woodhall there is an existing livestock barn which was what had initially triggered this holding provision in the first place um the way the um minimum distance separation guidelines are set up is it’s it applies to both existing livestock barns but also barns with the potential to be converted uh so we have to have consideration for both when when dealing with mds uh but in this case as as stated uh mds does not apply as this is within a settlement area councilor thank you um realizing that this had come up for us between last from a council i know some resident comments uh had also in these type of applications came back later and complained if they moved to an area like this because there are smells of animals even though it’s livestock as a allowo um usage around them i think it was like the there’s a slaughter place uh out yonder um so just still questioning why like i get for trying to catch up um to to the resident who joined us today um realizing not every councilor’s with us today and not everyone goes back and watches hours of meetings uh just for any member of the public you’re welcome to send any correspondence to council agenda at london.ca and it will be attached to um any application uh that it pertains to thank you their comments or questions from staff or visiting counselors being known we’ve got motion moving seconder don’t call the vote i think the motion carries four to one okay um before we get to three point four um let’s want to see if committee would like a brief bile break of say ten minutes does that sound sufficient uh councilor poloza thank you i’ll move ten minutes okay kind of seconder on that councilor cutie i’ll call that vote is it a hand vote we do hand vote just a hand vote motion carries okay let’s be back here at um three forty go uh it’s three forty i’d like to call the meeting back to order where we are on three point four which is regarding 168 metal early road south low for motion to open the ppm councilor hillier seconded by councilor cutie i’ll call the vote the motion carries five to zero any questions with technical nature for staff on this uh councilor hillier yes thank you and through the chair um i am very curious about the capacity of the sewer requirements in that area for the subdivision and the um extra subdivision or sorry the extra development going on along medallily road do we have capacity for this and what would the timeline be required moving forward i go staff through the chair there is current currently capacity for approximately three hundred units out of this development going south into the existing summer side uh subdivision uh sanitary network uh the remainder of the development uh would rely on the future completion of the medallily uh ea pump station um which the ea i believe is scheduled to be wrapped up uh by the end of 2025 um and then construction of that ultimate solution would be determined through the next dc background study update which is currently starting up councilor yes would this restriction cause um reduction of development along the rest of that road along medallily but staff through the chair just based on topography in the area generally medallily road is is falling from commissioners down to to the river uh so any develop for any other development along uh that section or road would have to look at possibly alternative servicing solutions to to move forward in the interim so alternate servicing solutions um what would that entail and what kind of cost would that require for them working down there compared to the servicing solutions they would have to provide at the top in advance go to staff through the chair thanks for the question um for those additional applications it’s likely advisable that they wait until the the ea is complete so that they’re servicing at their doorstep um but as my colleague mentioned with respect to this development there is enough servicing capacity for the first phase of the development um and then it could be staged so that when the sewers are readily available as part of this environmental assessment um this applicant is then able to connect to them counselor thank you any other questions of technical nature seem no no i’ll ask if the applicant is here would like to address committee please sir give us your name you have five minutes good afternoon chair counselor city staff and members of the public my name is patrick mincowski i am an intermediate planner with montieth brown planning consultants i’m here with jama guffin president and principal planner uh we are the authorized agents for forever homes we’ve had a chance to review the staff report and our in agreements with the recommendations brought forward and we are here to respond to any questions of the public or council thank you now look for other members of the public i’d like to address the committee i’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online being known in the uh y’all i would like to speak all of our motion to close the uh ppm counselor hilliers moves it second by counselor cutting we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero thank you i just mentioned that the mayor had to step out uh take a phone call and he i expect his return uh so now i’ll put this uh item on the floor for uh for committee members counselor hillier thank you colleagues i would like you to look through this report very carefully because the through the intensity and the permitted uses of heights with this neighborhood place tape on the roads i’ve decided sorry uh oh we did let’s go to councilor paulosa it’s not with you thank you um i know that the chairs keep saying that they’re putting it for committee’s discussion um but i think we’re just really looking for a motion of a mover in a seconder of what we’d like to do with it before we start okay uh i don’t mind though if you have some questions before we get right because of committee um if you have some questions to go before you want to put forth a motion i’ll give you a little bit leeway there i understand what counselor saying but um at some point pretty early on we’ll need some sort of motion to continue go please go ahead thank you okay as you see the permitted use of heights in this area originally was six stories but if you look on page 404 staff did recommend 10 stories now here they are asking for 12 stories this seems to be an example of the London plan again being used as a tool for the development community that all you have to do is check off the boxes and it can come through because if we say no they go to arbitration and we’re going to lose now this one it feels like it’s been asked for way above the required level so they can get something in between now they’re asking for a thousand and seven units with half a parking space per unit i want you to look around this development we’ve got the sports park beside it which is every single time there’s an event now i have the essay behind it i have hybrid on the other side and a commercial development across the road there is no place for extra cars normally when we put a development in somewhere it’s usually buffering on another neighborhood like it was earlier today allowing a place for overflow cars to go in this case we have no place nowhere for it to go and i’m asking my colleagues to say no to this because this is 12 stories two 12 story buildings two eight story buildings buffering one of our large esas that we’re trying to protect okay so counselor we don’t have a motion to say no to yet um are you willing to put a motion forward or just wait till see what motions come up from other members i will let someone else put the motion forward hopefully my colleagues will refuse it okay so i’ll look for um a motion or or questions uh from committee members counselor cuddy i’ll put the motion forward staff recommendation okay i’ll look for a seconder i’ll second it just to get the discussion going um so now we got motion moved and seconded i’ll look for comments questions amendments um uh on this particular item uh counselor cuddy thank you chair and through you i’ll be very brief i’ve met with the applicant very open with the development that he’s proposing very excited about it i think it’s got lots of opportunities meets all of our requirements and i’m excited i’ll uh i’ll uh i’m excited to um to support this project thank you thank you for other comments or questions on the motion let’s uploads up thank you mr chair uh three to staff um i would say the applicant did do a very thorough job of working their way through uh committee and council giving us uh time one-on-one to ask questions and hear the proposal uh and i do appreciate that um especially well in advance of committee just unfortunate is a little bit too advanced of actually having the report uh for an in-depth conversation though i appreciate the their willingness to have public bike parking access to the back of the property for the trails some public uh waste refuge uh slots on their property as well my question through you to staff um realizing as counselor here did lay out that it is multiple phases different buildings a lot going on and his staff have already cited that the capacity currently is only for 300 units um and the rest will potentially come in the future do we have any liability that we approve this knowing full well their plan is multiple phases more intensity and something happens and we don’t do certain timelines for the pipe and expansion and it slows up their development that they thought they could do and then they come back to us of we didn’t get it done fast enough soon enough worth the capacity that they wanted i’ll go to staff uh through the chair thanks for the question so as part of the draft approval for the subdivision we will have draft playing conditions that speak to capacity um and they’ll also speak to capacity not being allocated or reserved until there’s a signed subdivision agreement so until the applicant works through that process um and they’ll work through the subdivision agreement on a phase by phase basis um then there is no there shouldn’t be a risk to the city counselor thank you another question realizing um sometimes we approve things and they don’t get billed quickly or there there’s a delay to them um if we were to approve this knowing that there’s only capacity for 300 uh for servicing in the area if another resident on meadow lily road came forward and wanted to do something with their property would they be excluded from being allowed to do it again approval because we already said yes to this one or is it first come first serve shovel in the ground gets dibs just wondering how that works as we already know we’re up against the wall for capacity i’ll go to staff through the chair great question typically the servicing capacity is reserved at the time there’s a signed agreement so we’ll work through the process with the draft plan application and the design drawings um and as we work through design drawings if there’s multiple applications going on the same area we’ll be very forthcoming with them um that it’s essentially who gets to that signed agreement first um so in this instance it could be a race to the finish line but as my colleague mentioned there is uh environmental assessment on way to um allow additional capacity in the future counselor counselor thank you uh just i might have more questions but looking to see what other colleagues have to say well the two other colleagues to see what uh we have for comments or questions both from uh committee members and visiting counselors so healthier than uh counselor Hopkins thank you colleagues i’d like you to just look at the bottom of page 407 and regarding increased building height the requested variation in building heights from from 12 meters to 42 meters exceeds the current permissions outlined in the London plan the tool that we’re using to move this forward however staffer of the opinion that froze increase in height is appropriate and can be supported this location i can tell you right now you put thousand units in that location it will not support it it’s not possible the parking requirements alone will not support it so i’m hoping you’ll understand even staying within the confines of the London plan the London plan says we shouldn’t do this please think that through him counselor Hopkins uh yes thank you i do um just looking at the report i do have a question through you to staff about the the ESA and how it is going to be maintained i guess once through development and when once development occurs just if you could speak to the effects of of this development on the ESA go staff through the chair um the applicant has come contemplated a 30 meter ecological buffer from the melody woods ESA boundary uh as identified within the scoped EIS and SLSR also it was agreed in the scoping meeting for EIS and SLSR with UTRCA seated staff and ECAC also a reduced pathway is also proposed within this buffer in accordance with the city guidelines counselor so there is going to be a maintenance and consideration going forward through the site plan on the on the ESA i just need clarification with this development and any concerns can we get that confirmation from staff through the chair so as as mentioned there is the 30 meter buffer for the ESA and then as part of the recommendations in the EIS environmental impact study sorry for the use of acronyms there is an environmental management plan that the applicant will need to carry forward as part of the draft playing conditions so then through construction they’ll need to make sure that there is no impact to the ESA and and make sure there is those silt silt fences along along the boundary so it does not impact the ESA through construction counselor and endangered species and how will that be maintained through this development good staff through the chair great question i was just briefed on this as well from our ecologist so within this site there are actually three butternut trees so these butternut trees are protected under the Endangered Species Act which essentially requires a permit from the Ministry of Environment Conservation of Park for any removal or when they’re in close proximity to them the trees so there’s two trees on the city’s property and one right adjacent on the east side of the hedge row the two trees on the city side are not slated for removal but they’re encroaching within that critical root zone with this the applicant has carried forward some some unique recommendations to compensate for this potential harm and has and is planning to enter into an agreement with forest gene conservation association to preserve or archive the genetic material of these trees through young shoot collection graphing and propagation essentially these butternut trees are quite unique and they there’s this butternut can occur that results in the trees dying and in these trees are unique and they’re resistant to that so the applicants agree to to propagate them to create more of these trees in the future as part of this application counselor thank you thank you any other comments or questions from many members of visiting counselors we have a motion moved and seconded I’ll call the vote using the vote the motion carries three to two thank you moving on to 3.5 this is regarding Bravo six Oxford street east and 17 to 19 Wisto street excuse me I’ll look for motion to open the PPM counselor hilier seconded by counselor cottie I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero any questions of a technical nature for staff on this item so you know I don’t ask the applicant if you’d like to address the committee please sir you have five minutes and can give her so how your name please good afternoon members of council my name is matt lewin chuck land use planner what’s the link of preammo we’re the planning consultants working on behalf of lee side oh the the proponent for this rezoning application to prevent nine three-story apartments on the subject lands sorry not apartments townhouses first I’d really like to take this moment to thank staff for all their hard work on this project to date not only did they make this process seamless but they’ve also been great to work with and they’ve also helped us adjust our initial zoning proposal to make it more beneficial for our client as well as a community as a whole by implementing permissions for future intensification on this site course the primary purpose of this zoning bylaw amendment is to change the zoning of the north portion of the lands to allow nine three-story townhouses to be developed this represents an appropriate transition between the existing commercial uses to the south and residential uses to the north we’ve had an opportunity to review staff’s recommendation and report and welcome their recommendation for approval we do note that there have been some comments from the public which have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed currently we’ve had discussions with councilor stevenson regarding concerns expressed by neighbors and we understand that an alternative motion may be considered by peck that includes revisions to clause c an additional and an additional clause d the staff recommendation we’re in support of the staff recommendation as proposed to be amended i’m happy to answer any questions regarding this application and encourage council to endorse the staff recommendation thank you thank you now look for others that would like to address the committee on the same please ma’am please give us your name and you have five-minute i’m eva spanam rongan and i live right next door to the property they’re talking about they’re talking about running the townhouses east and west my fence line and property goes east and west i’m going to have nine backyards in my backyard or in my side beside my garage um it says that the minimum is six meters he’s only got three and a half meters uh another at the backyard it says that he’s supposed to have three meters he’s only got two point five my fence line is right next to my fence like my garage and to have a neighbor neighbors in a building that’s taller than my house blocking sunlight um privacy everything like it’s it just seems like it’s really encroaching on my home um i don’t know what to say except like we we are not for this at all when we bought the house it’s only a small bungalow we never dreamed that we’d have a three-story building beside us the street is a small street so already we’ve got traffic from the construction on highberry barreling down our street like flying down our street so for one we need traffic calming adding these more parking spaces cars to our area isn’t necessarily needed like you know the boundaries alone should be enough he does not have the land required to do this he did offer to buy our house we’re retired people we bought bungalow for a reason knees age whatever so i hope that you can consider where we’re coming from when you guys put the planning forward or not okay thank you i’ll look for other comments this velastro uh you’ve got five minutes please go ahead um i don’t understand why staff and this committee don’t enforce the setbacks so just like this woman she’s going to have people or their garbage right up against her property so why can’t staff enforce the six meter setback for a yard and why can’t they enforce the three meter setback for a yard why can’t you do that mr hillier is concerned about what’s happening in his ward but why isn’t that concerned carried over into areas that are not in your ward these concerns are reasonable she’s looking for some space between herself and a very large building so why can’t they enforce the setbacks it’s not asking a lot and it’s unreasonable to ask for less than what’s required at the very least you can do that please thank you i’ll look for other members of public like to address committee i’ll ask uh clerk if there’s anyone online no there’s no one online i don’t see anyone else uh coming to the mics i’ll look for motion to close the ppm counselor cutie second i’ll call the question closing the vote the motion carries four to zero okay i’ll put the motion or not the motion but uh the item on the floor counselor plows up thank you uh procedural a move staff recommendation could have started realizing someone may or may not have an amendment to okay uh counselor hillier is seconding it yes and i have amendment as well okay so the the staff recommendation has been moved and i understand counselor hillier has a an amendment that he’d like to uh move as well so please go ahead yes it’s just a minor amendment supplied to me by counselor stevenson um i believe the clerk has it already it’s regarding offenses and is on uh sub one part six explore opportunities for fencing including the retention or repair of existing fencing along mutual popularized designated storage areas and two the applicant be requested to ensure existing fence along the west property border boundary of 17 to 19 wisten street is repaired as necessary okay i’ll look for a seconder for that amendment counselor cutie seconds if you look at your e-scribe it’s uh the motion uh should be there and i’ll look for um discussion on the amendment i’ll just make a comment from the chair i know that counselor stevenson had uh uh been working with uh this uh particular applicant on this one and uh as uh requested this uh amendment was working with counselor hillier uh on the amendment so um you know i’m happy to to support this for any conversation counselor please thank you as i was not part of the pre-conversation of this uh item um questioning d uh that the existing fencing along the west property boundary um is repaired as necessary just i guess the question is what’s wrong with it and would they prefer the repair versus a replacement not counselor hillier go ahead i can answer that if you’d like but okay so it’s a con my understanding is concrete fencing that’s kind of been disrepair right now the residents were concerned asking that that it be repaired and i think the applicant um is uh on board with that can we just get an indication to the applicant just i know see what’s standing at the mic okay yep if you can confirm that sir thank you mr chair harry fruzios was the link of pre-m auto assisting matthew with this application yes and i’ve had to rest direct discussions with counselor stevenson over the last couple of days we went out to the site to make sure we knew what the issue was as was stated it’s an existing concrete fence that has adjusted slightly because over the years with snow storage and whatnot so our client went out to to see it as as well and he’s agreed to make sure that he takes whatever measures are necessary to make it correct to just whatever whatever reinforcements are necessary to make sure it’s it’s it’s a functional fence counselor thank you i’m satisfied thank you any other comments or questions on the amendment okay i’ll call the vote on the amendment closing the vote the motion carries part to zero okay i’ll look for a motion uh to move the staff recommendation with the amendment counselor hillier seconded by counselor cutty so now we have the staff recommendation as amended on the floor i’ll look for any conversation on that seeing none we have a motion moved in second i’ll call the vote losing the vote the motion carries part to zero okay moving on to 3.6 this is regarding demolition request some 197 183 175 An Street 86 84 St George i’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting council hillier seconded by counselor cutty we’ll call that vote losing the vote the motion carries part to zero thank you any questions of the technical nature for staff at this time seeing none i’ll go to um the applicant the applicant is here i would like to address committee yeah okay Vanessa are you online yes sir i am okay uh yep um please go ahead you have five minutes thank you good afternoon members of council and planning and environment committee my name is Vanessa Hicks and i’m a professional cultural here planner of MHC planning i’m joined today by scott alan partner at MHC and we are here in support of the staff recommendation to consent to the demolition application before you we would very much like to thank city staff at london for their assistance on this project and we look forward to implementing the conditions that are before you today as outlined in the staff report and we will continue to work with staff on this and scott or myself are happy to answer any questions you have thank you so much thank you i’ll look for uh members in public that would like to address the committee and so last row you have five minutes please go ahead what is so important about the camp brewery is not just that it represents a victorian era brewery but rather it represents a time when the brewery industry was a significant successful business in victorian london it is also one of only two remaining examples of victorian breweries where the proprietor lives next to their business the other is alizander keese and halifax now a heritage site this was typical victorian times parling brewery was down the street on top of it where the carling family built their home john kinder lebat and and his family also lived on the grounds of their pioneer brewery at the forks of the temps now the camp brewery um is the only one that remains the clock family who were uh affluent family farmers and whose house was recently designated as a heritage house um grew primarily hops for supplying the local brewery business in london the brewery industry was um linked to many other businesses in the city as it is today the camp brewery and the family homes on a history deserve to be fully protected because they are as significant in london’s history as a clark family homestead the mary mary and bad home of joshwah blackburn’s london few press or the home of lc paren it is noteworthy that i have not seen any support for the proposal from city heritage planning staff it needs to be clarified whether the proposal is supported by heritage planning staff if senior management is tossing aside the expertise of staff that raises questions about the future role of heritage and heritage planners at the city the heritage act is mandated to preserve significant old buildings these buildings do not interfere with the best development only with those that lack creativity and imagination the heritage act includes a wide list of criteria for designation not because buildings are expected to meet this listed criteria but rather to capture the diversity of historical qualities any attempt to disqualify a historical building for not meeting the bulk of the criteria in my opinion is a deliberate attempt to undermine the act personal opinions on heritage designation have no place in the decision-making arena these decisions should be guided by heritage planners that have the research skills understand and respect the heritage act and dedicated higher education i don’t see them here endorsing this proposal right now a fitting dedication to the campberry would be to bring the brewery back to life at its original building as a brewery and preserve what are now affordable housing in the homes of the hamilton family now this is currently in front of the ontario land tribunal in which i’m a party that process is an apolitical process and i feel like what’s happening here is a political process and i would really appreciate why the heritage staff are not here and whether they endorsed this proposal or whether the two seniors staff went over them and just simply adopted um what your development put on the table and it’d be nice if we could get an answer to that right now thank you thank you i’ll look for other members of the community i would like to speak to this bitty there’s no one here i’ll ask i’ll ask uh the clerk if there’s anyone online no there’s no one online seeing no one else uh coming to the mic i’ll look for a motion to close the ppm council hillier seconded by councilor cutty and call the vote i think the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you i’ll put this item on the floor for committee looking for a motion for cutty new staff recommendation i’ll look for a seconder answer hillier we have a motion move and seconded i’ll open the floor for uh comments or questions from committee members and visiting counselors that’s our op-ins thank you mr chair for recognizing me again uh maybe as a follow-up to the chair of cac um planning and his comments around the commemorative interpretation that’s in the recommendation and the sort of um just following up on those comments i’d like to ask through you to staff on how um enforceable uh with these recommendations be if this motion is supported and a little bit more on what you would have to go through to make sure that um uh it does happen uh we’ve heard from the community that um this brewery is important uh and um would hate to sort of see that lost um i know we can put up a plaque and many times in our recommendations we say put up a plaque but i’m glad to see there’s a lot more than a plaque going forward but how enforceable with the recommendation be thank you i’ll go staff thank you through the chair there is a holding provision on this property that was um applied as part of a previous council decision through the official plan amendment and zoning amendment and through that uh we would need to be satisfied that the before that holding provision is removed that these commemoration are implemented and the mechanism to do that is through the development agreement through the site plan councilor and maybe as a follow-up again that’s an administrative holding provision as well so it wouldn’t wouldn’t come back to us go staff through the chair yes that’s correct councilor thank you councilor for uh thank you chair i got uh some questions for this one um so i guess i’ll just kind of get right into it um so i like i see there’s two parallel paths here uh that the proponent is taking we got one for the Ontario land tribunal uh for the peel and then we have another uh i guess you know removal of the here it or sorry to secure the demolition um and i i just wanted to kind of ask um for the two kind of um directions that we see i just wanted to ask staff if you can explain or if you have any idea or maybe the proponent might be able to or the uh representative might be able to explain this but the rationale and the legal mechanics behind uh York’s current OLT appeal and the demolition request and specifically um how do these processes interact with each other and what risks or obligations does council assume uh if we were to approve the demolition while um while the designation appeal uh remains in play oh go staff thank you and uh through you mr chair so there were two appeals the first appeal was of the zoning by-law amendment approval that appeal was dismissed by the tribunal without holding a full hearing so the tribunal made a determination that there were no uh valid land use planning grounds worthy of adjudication going forward so the zoning is enforced and it’s also a bonus uh zone so the zoning by-law actually attaches renderings showing the massing scale um height setbacks all of the building components uh so that is all in force and then at the same time the designation uh was approved by council and appealed by the applicant that’s the appeal that it’s still open so uh the applicant is going down this path of seeking demolition approval um and the actual resolution of whether or not the property is worthy of designation is somewhat on hold pending the outcome of uh this so one interpretation might be that by offering to commemorate and recognize all of the attributes the applicant is in essence confirming that there is something worthy of designation but we’d have to see um what they choose to do pending the outcome of this process councilor yeah thank you um so i see the the recommendation hinges on the formal withdrawal uh of the olt if we were councilor can i just ask you to just raise your voice a bit we’re having a little trouble inside of the room sure thank you very much hard of hearing so sometimes it’s hard to appreciate my voice um so um i guess what exact my question is is really is like what exact procedural process is required to confirm uh the appeal has been fully withdrawn on the aspect that you’ve spoken to before any demolition permit is issued like how would we um how would we be able to i guess uh enforce that and make sure go to staff thank you through mr chair i don’t believe a formal withdrawal of the objection is contained within the recommendation um so there would be nothing requiring that at this point councilor i guess to know um to ensure that we have the commemorative pieces um from what i kind of gathered from the report if we were to approve the demolition here we would um get those other aspects of it i just wanted to know um is there like a holding provision or anything like that that would kind of lock that in just to ensure that we do get those pieces go to staff thank you through the chair yes that’s correct the holding provision uh provisions would need to be satisfied these are the commemoration of the salvage as well as the commemoration features that end interpretation and these elements as mentioned before would be also captured through the development agreement process through the site plan review and the removal of holding provision cannot be removed until uh we are satisfied that the applicant has entered into those requirements thank you sorry councilor thank you okay um thanks for the answer on that um so if we were being asked to accept the demolition on the grounds that the conservation was impossible which i did see that part in the report i just wanted to know if there’s any discussion around um alternative conservation options were we were we able to maybe preserve a facade move a facade put it in a new place was there any conversations between staff and the applicant to see if anything more than the commemorative pieces uh would be feasible go staff through the chair it’s my understanding i wasn’t part of any of these conversations but there may have been without prejudice conversations between the applicant and the city that may be more of a question for the applicant go to councilor thanks chair can i go to the applicant for that question yep they’re online thank you for your question and through the chair as i understand it there were condition reports that were undertaken to determine whether or not a range of options were available this included um retaining parts of walls retaining parts of the buildings and um a number of combination of those options and as i understand it there were conditions with masonry that essentially made those options not feasible and were essentially there were concerns from the professionals regarding the conditions of masonry in particular so those options were definitely considered and going forward we believe that the mitigation and um salvage and commemoration before use an appropriate form of mitigation for the proposal thank you councilor thanks for that so just to confirm um there were technical issues with the feasibility and it’s not based on cost for example it would be a technical nature of the reason why we weren’t able or it wasn’t able to kind of relocate for example the facade or preserve the facade on the existing building through the chair yes there were technical issues regarding retaining the building in part and in all in addition to um concerns regarding feasibility so both of those aspects were considered also thanks for that uh okay so for the i guess on the commemoration piece like as the report recommends consent to demolish with conditions uh or along those lines many of which are tied to the future development approvals um and you know looking into kind of uh that with and vis-a-vis with the salvage aspect and i saw that there were some areas to be salvaged as well and i did see that um some of the elements uh outline potential salvaging but it doesn’t necessarily um have anything that happens after the salvaging and i just wanted to know what happens like for example to the stained glass uh and other salvage elements after they are removed um could they be discarded like we are supposed to see that these have been removed intact but i don’t see anything that says what to do with it after the fact so i just wanted to know um what how do we ensure that these are not discarded or stowed away somewhere that’s not in the public domain go to staff through the chair is outlined in the recommendation it’s only specified elements that are to be retained and preserved in a safe place until uh they are uh reintegrated in terms of uh the the development um any other elements that you’ve identified i believe um they are the property of the owner so they could be sold they could go to a museum they could be other um commemoration elsewhere um but only the items that were identified in the hia that was reviewed as part of uh the official plan amendments only amendment and also through this demolition request um have been identified the court council thank you um so i i do worry about what’s going to happen to those items that we do or we are requiring to be salvaged i do like the idea of maybe going to the museum i would make i guess an open request for the proponent to submit that to somewhere that it can be within the public domain if we were to approve a demolition um i guess okay so i i’ll switch gears here i do see that there’s a provincial policy statement that directs municipalities to conserve significant bill heritage resources and it’s um not simply to to commemorate them and given that um the staff recommendations for the full demolition i would like to know um how do we how do we ensure that this approach can be reconciled with that provincial policy statement the conservation mandate how do we uh navigate that they’ll go staff to the chair is asking specific to this application are you talking about other applications councilor you would be this specific application go staff thank you through the chair um as the the heritage consultant had identified they looked at conservation through other means in part and in full and uh from that assessment um they weren’t able to do that however through the um hia that was provided through this process identified certain elements and features to be um in terms of commemoration salvage commemoration and interpretation tell us what thank you um so yeah like that’s i i i don’t know um if i is this goal only to the staff or maybe to the proponent i do want to see if the proponent maybe has or the consultant maybe has um an answer to that because it does say in that provincial policy statement that the significant bill heritage resources shall be conserved so um with the shall and i do understand there might be some technical issues on the feasibility of conserving a facade but i do know when it comes to engineering anything can be done if if i guess the will and the cost is there so um would it be fair to go to the um proponent or the representative of the proponent to ask that question sure yep i’ll look to the applicant through the chair and thank you for your question and i understand that the nature of your question which is how do we achieve um the conservation of cultural heritage and meet those objectives of planning legislation and i think that there is also recognition including in the london plan for these situations where buildings um are demolished and the london plan provides direction that buildings which are demolished or proposed for demolition can be mitigated through conservation of certain elements and through salvage and through commemoration so we feel that the policies of the london plan have been satisfied and we have um approval in principle for a commemoration concept with heritage staff we’re working through some of the finer details of these commemoration plans with staff and we’re happy to um see those through implementation um but i do understand your question and there are situations where there are many things to consider um including heritage value but also um condition and integrity of resources and in those situations where some buildings cannot be conserved in full or in part we make sure that we go through the processes so that those those situations and those ways of mitigation these situations in the london plan are implemented so i am satisfied that those are being completed to the satisfaction and it’s an appropriate form of mitigation and happy to work with staff on the implementation go ahead counsel thank you all right um like i see you know i i guess it was just spoke to or as i spoke to it for the other item for canada life um you know this decision has implic implications on beyond a single site as well um you know i do see other areas that might be at risk with the president that may be set here specifically would be doctor or nadaga’s house at 172 central um i just want to ensure and in my general question i guess and it’s kind of focus here on this item but just thinking about that in mind as well would be what safeguards would be in place to ensure that an approach like this doesn’t become the default for future demolition requests on any heritage designated properties especially considering that one because i know there’s something in the works for that go staff through the chair uh it’s a good question and at each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis they would have to satisfy the provincial policy statement the the unamplanned policies in terms of conservation that’s always the first point of what we want to achieve that’s the long-term goal and uh from there as mentioned in this situation then we would look at um other opportunities if it’s retention and full partial if it’s moved and of course there’s cost implications with some of those elements and having said that then and then the commemoration it’s salvage commemoration interpretation is um a last resort a good counselor thank you for that uh i know uh kind of we was kind of already answered before but um you know like and i did see it in the report or touched on in the report and just from other conversations in the past but like there’s no way to maybe just cut the building and keep the facade and build around the facade like i know it’s a very strong facade i think it’s like three layers of brick thick or something like that and you can see uh how it’s even though the building is old and it has gone through some years it is still physically standing so um i would i would have liked to see that part at least be incorporated i did hear it was mentioned about the affordable housing and that is a question that i do want to ask i do see that the site went through bonus a bonus zoning agreement i think it was in 2022 or 2020 i’m not sure exactly when and from what i understand there’s about 13 units that are part of the bonusing provision 13 affordable units i just want to confirm a staff that’s that’s the number correct uh i’ll allow it but i want to stay focused we’re not talking about it’s already been zoned to this particular project we’re talking about demolition of this particular property but i’ll allow it because we’re in committee but okay i won’t ask that question i’ll pull that one back okay i do want to refine the question just a little bit can we hear from the proponent that those zone those affordable housing units will be maintained we will not lose those in this development is that a fair question task again that this is this is not pertinent to this particular item that would be pertinent on the zoning aspect when this was rezoned so i’m not going to allow that that question that’s fair i would hope that they stay i don’t want to see an amendment for that um okay specifically for the demolition part then i have had some residents reach out you can stop me chair if this is not directly related but it is related to the demolition residents who live in some of the properties that are going to be demolished and they have been uh they have been telling me with they’ve had issues with communication and kind of finding out what’s going on and they have told me that they haven’t received any formal notice to vacate and the proponent has told them that they’ll get 120 days notice when it does come and they haven’t been able to be guaranteed housing and this is like i’m speaking specifically about a family of five a husband wife two kids and a grandmother who’s living there and they’re pretty worried about losing their affordable housing that they have right now um with that i would i would hope that the proponent would be communicating with this family especially if this gets approved at council and to help and assist find another accommodation at a similar rent that they’re having right now that would just be a comment that i would be making generally but i do hope that we can see that because they are quite stressed so it’s not just demolition it impacts families this demolition will impact people right now who have housing right now it’s not just a heritage piece even though i do have concerns with the heritage piece with that um you know it was tough for me to get my head around this entire file because it was it was huge i know i didn’t read all the documents i tried to get as much information as i could but you know the files a bit of a hot mess it’s been going on for a while i do see that we have these two avenues that are going on i do want to see a downtown that develops i do want to see a downtown that evolves to where we’re going and that is definitely needed but we also need to ensure that we have a downtown that respects where we came from you know i understand i’ve read comments that you know the significance or the scale of the operation wasn’t as big as alex Alexander keese for example but that doesn’t matter to me because we had a prominent londoner who brought you know the industrial mechanisms of london was one of those people who actually brought london to where it is today they were part of that and this physical building that we have here is the only real tangible piece that we have to that you know that person those the hamletons are not here today but what they’ve left behind is here today and that does help us learn and help us help us educate ourselves of where we came from and you know on the flip side it’s not just kind of a conversation with the past this is also conversation with the future because you know in the future there’s going to be people who are having probably similar discussions about prominent londoners today who are alive today could be any one of you at council any one of us here and we could be having a discussion about our legacy or another prominent londoner’s legacy and what they’ve left for us and you know i would really like the future generations to recognize that and keep those physical assets to show the future population of london where we came from um so i would just you know ask you to think about that um as you discuss and deliberate and make your vote and i would hope that you know we um especially for this one like i don’t want to see this demolition occur i’m not going to be be voting for it um i do want to see development i just feel like there was ways around this like i know that we could have kept that facade i know that our staff um i guess on both staff and planning and development and in heritage you know they were willing to make serious compromises for that to keep that facade even though it might have been cut or something like that but that just wasn’t a feasible option technically or cost effective whatever it is but i would like to see uh an effort that will to be here to be brought to this council chambers to to preserve to conserve have a real conservation because you know we’re talking about commemoration and commemoration is really something that we bring when something is already lost this is not lost yet we are talking about a demolition right now and commemoration but we have not lost it we are choosing to lose it and commemorate um so i just feel like you know there’s these are the issues that i’m kind of struggling with with this and i think you know i would just urge my my colleagues here to either vote no or encourage the proponent to see if we can find a better avenue i want to see this proponent build developments in the city i want to see that but i also want to see those developments be done in a way that respects our history and where we came from and be done in a way so future Londoners can actually see these physical buildings and see where we came from and see how London came to where is today you know that industrial base that industrial piece that the owners and the operators of the Kent Brewery brought is still here and it’s not just a building on its own this is much different too i should add this is the whole family of buildings that are all part of this of this operation a part of this business that are still here today so this is definitely something that is very significant and i would just ask my colleagues here to consider that in their vote and i thank you chair for being lenient with me on some of the question thank you council close up thank you mr chair i have a series of questions uh not all of them are rationally organized um through you to staff along this process realizing as my former speaker has said that it has been a process as we’ve evolved through multiple terms of of councils um was it ever considered i know it would be expensive because we went through this with 100 Stanley Street but we did move the fugitive slave chapel we’re moving costs uh or relocation of the building discussed throughout this process go to staff through the chair uh the applicant may be better to answer the question but it’s my understanding there was conversations as part of without prejudice in terms of the oil tea appeals that there was consideration for all options uh but as i said the applicant may be able to speak to that more clearly i’ll go to the applicant thank you for your question and through the chair i think the question is whether or not relocation of all or part of the existing building or buildings was considered as an option for the proposal and as i understand it yes and all heritage impact assessments are required to consider a range of options and we also consider relocation on-site and relocation off-site and my understanding is again due to um factors including condition as well as feasibility and the heritage integrity of the building those options were not. Thank you thank you having not seen that aspect of the report uh hard to speak to it um regards to uh the condition of the building to move it uh realizing it’s a different built structure than the fugitive slave chapel but anything could be taken apart numbered and put back together um through you to staff realizing that the Kent Brewery has a building time frame around 1859 and Eldon House is around 1834 are there any discussions already happening or looking to concur and curt to see if there could be some salvage opportunities that maybe Eldon House could benefit from some of the materials. Go to staff. Through the chair that would be a question for the applicant um as mentioned there are the commemorative items that uh have been identified that are in the recommendation clauses for recommendation um anything over and above that uh that would be um the purview of the property owner as i mentioned before they could sell they could um share they could um commemorate in other ways across the city. Can i go to the applicant please? Thank you for your question um through the chair i believe the question is whether or not there are any additional building materials which are in addition or beside those ones which are specifically being carefully selected and set aside for commemoration on site and whether or not those could be utilized in another fashion as opposed to being just deposited as landfill and i’m absolutely happy to bring that back to our client and to explore other potential options for any items um that may be of potential reuse and um happy to have that further discussion so thank you for your question. Bell’s proposal. Okay uh thank you um obviously uh museum background myself just looking at how things have been salvaged repurposed uh and modernized i’ll highlight um Willmont Township has their administration building backed on to a national historic site they preserved the home built around it and did a connection into it to bring it into the site to still utilize it um in order to maintain what is now a national historic site as this has been a longer conversation over the years and even this evening say this afternoon i guess we’re close to this evening um just clarification once again i know staff answered it and i believe they said that the Ontario appeal is on pause waiting to see what we do today um i think that was a counselor for a question um just looking to have it restated please okay i’ll go i’ll go to staff to bear on the question thank you through you so it’s an active loyalty file um every couple of months the tribunal asks for an update on the proceeding and where the parties are at and the applicant then chose to apply for the demolition permit so our next update will be later in june to the trail councilor thank you uh so just if council should deny this application uh demo request that’s before us um there’s still the olt in play on pause in the background both staff that’s correct uh through you mr chair that’s correct and also potentially an appeal of the refusal to grant demolition approval councilor for other uh i think councilor trussle you had your hand up your own mute counselor i’m trying to choose my words very carefully today but i’m going to say some of them here and i’m going to say some of them for the next for the next item i think that the points that councilor for i remain were really good and i’m not going to repeat all them but we’re not we can’t really commemorate something if it’s still there and we’re part of its destruction and i think we need to do more to think about how we can reach a better a better middle ground here where there are at least some elements of the building intact not just carried off and maybe taking care of properly or maybe put it in a museum or maybe not so i just i just want to flag that as things stand right now i am very troubled about this application once again we’re losing a significant heritage site we only have so much heritage there’s an opportunity cost every time we demolish a heritage site because we lose it forever we can’t bring it back yes you can put up a plaque but we can’t bring it back and i would need to hear a lot more movement on this file before i’d be able to support this i thought that the um i thought that anamaria lasko the last case i made a good good good good point during her uh talk and i’d like to just underline that and re-ask the question where is our heritage staff on this hello staff thank you through the chair um the heritage staff actually work under our portfolio of scott me there’s in myself uh is the director of planning and development and it is our recommendation that uh is before you today also i’m i’m i’m thinking about their special expertise and heritage preservation matters and i’m troubled that they’re not here to talk to us about that and yes i know that there is a hierarchy in the city and i know that they work under you but the fact that they’re not here really troubles me it troubles me a lot so right now if we were at city council i’d be voting against this i’m hoping that there could be some more movement on some of these issues i think issuing a death penalty i’m sorry i think issuing a demolition permit is irrevocable i just can’t be brought back so i’ll leave it there for now i will be talking about this at council a lot more but i’m very unhappy about the direction this is going in so thank you very much thank you hello brother uh go to the mayor yes thanks uh and i want to appreciate the questions from my colleagues um so far because uh there was a number that i had but i think you’ve covered off a good portion of them um i want to say you know to our staff like i appreciate uh the list that you put before us um of items that would be preserved and and used within their redevelopment as well as the the reusing of some of the materials and the the exterior facade as well um i think to the uh i have a question to the applicant um actually i think the applicant answered it but i just want to verify um that the applicant doesn’t perceive any aversion to there’s items that are required to to be preserved here under the the direction but if an organization like elden house or museum london saw value in something beyond that otherwise was going to be discarded is i can’t imagine that there would be any sort of objection from the applicant to uh working with those organizations to allow them to keep and preserve them if they saw the value to it so i guess to the applicant i know you said you’d take it back but you know to me it seems like if you weren’t going to use something anyways and someone else sees value when it seems like a good way to perhaps uh address some of the questions that some of the counselors are asking and um and provide an opportunity for others to take a look at items beyond that for preservation so i don’t know if the applicant can answer that or if it’s something that you’ll have to go back and maybe provide uh us with some information before council on well let’s see i’ll really opt into for your comments through the chair thank you for your question and your for your comment it’s it is fairly typical that in situations like this if there are any valuable items which are not being set aside specifically for on-site commemoration i’ve worked on several projects where items could be set aside for other purposes provided that there is a need or use for them so i am happy to take this back to our client and we have worked on other um situations and projects where that has taken place so i would be happy to assist in facility that process thank you mayor yeah and i i would strongly encourage you to do so it sounds like a number of colleagues having interest in having that in investigative if that’s something that can be discussed with the applicant before council too it might be a good piece of information to know that that’s a possibility and obviously the organizations who would you know items that would be donated to would have to have an interest in having and storing those things and see a value in them but i think that’s that’s ideal and i’m not suggesting that that be the items that are meant to be preserved i think the incorporation of those items into the future new development is is a good use of them and and keeping a number of those items on the site where they currently stand i think is is although not perhaps the way that everybody would like to preserve heritage given the conditions of the building and the the items in the report i think an avenue that can be pursued to ensure that a number of pieces that history stays on site as part of a new development here so you know i i’m comfortable with the the staff report that they put before us i i do think that again to the applicant a couple pieces of information before council might be helpful in council make its final decision i think you’ve heard a number of people who aren’t on this committee who do have some questions and it would be i think to the the advantage of the applicant to have some of those addressed at council rather than have those questions you know asked again without some some answers so i’m happy to support this as a committee but again i think that a number of good points are raised by colleagues and and i’m satisfied with with the recommendation before us thank you all look for other comments or questions from committee and visiting counselors counselor for thanks chair sorry how much time do i have i’m not going to take too much not a lot okay i’ll just be real quick i appreciate the man asking the applicant for those questions i would also just pose the question to the applicant if they could bring it back to the proponent the owner and request them to reach out to some of the families i only spoke to one but for the people who are living in their residence to see if they can provide accommodations just because they they do have fears and i would just kind of put that request out there too thank you any other comments or questions i’ll ask uh counselor pose is to take the chair thank you i have the chair recognizing counselor thank you i appreciate the discussion we’re having today and as was mentioned by also tressa i think others that yeah i think this is important to have this conversation because demolition is a final step um and careful consideration needs to be met and discussed and i i see that has been done uh the advisory committee has uh informed us of their discussions staff has informed us of their discussions we’ve had uh debate here and we’ll i get a council and also back uh i remember the previous term when this was originally uh uh came across uh council there was an act of discussion at that time as well as i mentioned earlier to today um there’s a balancing uh um a component of heritage especially in downtown because we you know um our downtown um is being transformed quite frankly uh we’re turning into a big city with uh high density bills which um you know from all aspects of this council i believe is is on board with uh how do we mesh that up with uh heritage concerns i think we’ve i think we’ve been successful in that i think we look at um kind of life um the arena there that uh it was a healthy discussion at that time with uh the the Talbot streets streetscape um and i think where we’re going on where we’re going on this is good um before this discussion came to council i i had no idea what the kenstree brewery was or um they’d existed despite the fact that i took my car in for auto repairs at the shop behind uh off of the street there i think uh freeing the uh the staff report and hearing uh from the applicant uh even back uh you know in the previous council there’s a genuine um uh concerned uh by the applicant to preserve uh the heritage aspect if not the actual building and not just preserve but to celebrate it it’s an very important part of this um project that people will know about the kenstree brewery there’ll be items reclaimed uh from the building uh incorporate into that build in fact beer will be brewed there for the first time i think since 2017 over a hundred years so what better way to celebrate the heritage aspect of this particular location unfortunately the buildings are not in the greatest shape um and uh to just have them sit there and deteriorate for if um further is i don’t think is an option um so i look forward to uh seeing uh what’s been discussed by the applicants and and how they’re going to celebrate this particular aspect of heritage uh i think it will be uh an addition uh to our downtown uh add to tourism for sure uh and that’s not forget the considerable uh amount of housing that’s going to be um able to go forward uh on this particular uh site uh in our downtown car so i i fully support uh the staff report and the the motion at hand thank you presiding chair thank you uh you’ve used three minutes and 18 seconds i’ll return the chair to you thank you um we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll look for any further conversation seeing that now call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to one thank you now we’re now moving on to uh three point seven this is regarding two ninety nine three oh seven sir near road i’ll look for motion to move into public participation meeting council proposal seconded by council failure we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any technical questions for staff from uh committee at this time seeing now now look to the applicant uh please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes uh yes good afternoon through the chair my name is kaitlyn krowley senior planner with salinka pre-emo here is the authorized agent on behalf of the ownership group for two two ninety nine and three oh seven sir on your road i would first like to thank city staff for the work on this file um as well as sandy levin from the neighborhood association and councilor sam traso uh for their continued communication with us as we move through this application process um i i have read the staff report and generally support most of staff’s recommendations put forward um however we are opposed to city staff suggestion in section b item one of their staff report uh for design considerations to the site plan process uh whereby they state that the levi is to be located fully on the sublet subject lands with no encroachments into the city right of way and within 15 meters of the main building entrance so for for safety reasons we believe that the levi for this property should or could be located within the sarnia road right of way uh so that pickup drop off and delivery vehicles do not have to impede vehicular traffic on this busy road by stopping for a busy pedestrian sidewalk on the way into the property and then stopping again on the way out of the property um again that pedestrian sidewalk is very busy and that is a very high traffic road um so we’re just looking for the option to potentially work with city staff through the site plan process in order to propose a a lay buy that is uh within the city within uh the sarnia road right of way rather than on the north side of the sidewalk um we would like to keep the option open um and and work with staff so we would request that this consideration be removed from the recommendation otherwise we are looking for committee to support the application um thank you for your time and consideration and i will be here to answer any technical questions thank you look for members of the public that would like to address the committee mr. 11 these are uh go ahead you have five minutes thank you mr. chair um here on behalf of the archer park sherwood forest neighborhood association executive as uh was mentioned we appreciate let me start with what i’m going to ask the committee for uh that you include the h-101 holding provision for a public site plan meeting and i’ll explain why there are two reasons for that one is we are very aware that this application is consistent with the london plan and we appreciate preemos the link of reaching out to us to talk to us along with our counselor at two meetings also that they held a public uh non-statutory meeting in the neighborhood so they’ve been very good to work with on this application so we asked at that public meeting the non-statutory meeting if preemos the link and their client would support a public site plan meeting and they said yes and as is recently as today mr. Frigious and i were talking and again he said he’s keeping his word and his client is also in agreement with the idea of a public site plan the the big reason is uh from a neighborhood perspective this is the first of a new development that’s going to take place on sarnia road there will be other similar developments frankly i think you want people to get comfortable with the notion and a public site plan meeting is one of the ways to do that so in by nature it’s changes scary change can be under-communicated having a public site plan meeting i think would be a positive so you’ve got a neighborhood association executive you’ve got a proponent who are supportive of it appreciative peck and council would join that in including the holding provision my understanding again as well from talking with mr. Frigious that it would not delay the development of the site at all so there’s no downside to the idea of having a public site plan meeting because as you notice in your recommendations there is already another holding provision they ask to be cleared anyway so i’d appreciate if committee would agree with including that in what’s coming forward to council thank you thank you i look for other members of public like to address please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes thank you um my name is uh hui sie i’m in the neighborhood i live in the neighborhood so this project for me i think it’s the footprint is too large and so that it’s effect of public safety and so from public safety perspective i want to stay two points one is a fair safety and so this building holds like 150 units and hundreds maybe like 300 to 400 people in this large building there’s a no fair truck route going into the building if there’s a fire um like fair truck wouldn’t be get in there because the the yard actually is a landscape it’s like soft yard so if they do the hard route allow the fair truck get in and then the road coverage will be uh largely exist the current standard the current standard is 30 uh coverage um they put in four hundred uh 40 percent because they say we we have all the land landscaped but if they put in fair route later and that’s coverage that the low coverage exists 60 percent and it’s kind of like more than double of the allowed minimum coverage so that’s one point another one is the traffic this uh sonya road is already very heavy traffic leading to university there’s lots of speeding cars and so this property without route um guiding into the sonya they just kind of like in the building like in the middle of the road uh there’s a probably like 160 car parking and they could get into a route in the middle of the traffic I feel this is a accent accent meeting for hyphen if this building be able to like this scale and so I just uh urge counselor like the community consider this a safety restrictions and then I think that’s uh should be reduced 30 seconds yeah um another thing I’m thinking of is uh like in overall um how does it is this housing market it’s like up and down right now university already have a limited uh restrict uh student number like foreign student number um building this building by the end it probably wouldn’t have the effect of this uh in time the purpose i’m gonna have to ask it to to wind it up yeah uh so also this building is not affordable building um I don’t think this one it’s kind of aligned with the overall requirements for the affordable building okay thank thank you very much thank you I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online no one online um please uh go ahead you have five minutes hello again members of peck uh my name is charmark metray speaking only as a resident of this neighborhood um I will say I’m generally supportive of the um the staff recommendation um one thought I always have and I think it’s um shared by at least some in the neighborhood is that there is a shortage of appropriate student housing um and the more students in buildings like this high quality apartments I know it’s not going to be all students but probably a good chunk of it will be students um generally means hopefully less low quality conversions of single family homes in our neighborhood um and I think we know this this stretch of sarnia is um is a uh an appropriate spot for at least some level of intensification from what it is now um I did want to just speak um and echo uh sandy leaven’s views on the h 101 I think there’s a bit of a practical um consideration you could have here where here we’ve got a neighborhood association that I think has been pretty realistic pretty practical has um been in pretty constant communication with the developer hasn’t come with an unreasonable ask uh and so I’d encourage this committee um when we’re when you’re thinking about incentives for how neighborhoods participate um when a neighborhood comes to you with a what I think is a pretty reasonable ask um versus an unreasonable one I think it should be considered um I know staff didn’t didn’t love the idea of the public um site plan process noting that it involves technical reports things like that um but I do think the public has an interest especially the neighbors immediately nearby into things like um preservation of trees location of landscaping the grading of the site there’s a big hill there um maybe even the question of where the levi goes I think those are all things that um are not just technical I think real people have um thoughts on those or at least should be informed about them um so I don’t I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request to ask for the h101 and I support um mr. 11’s comments on that thank you thank you I was wondering if what a heritage aspect I was missing on uh this particular thread cloud it is miss something um okay I don’t see anyone else uh going to the mic uh understand there’s no one online so I look for a motion to close with pbm counselor earlier second by counselor saying about the motion carries 4 to 0 okay I’ll put this item on the floor looking for a motion counselor earlier I’ll move the staff recommendation okay counselor cut are you seconding it okay we have motion moved in second I’ll look for our conversation also earlier I’d like to add an amendment the h101 holding provision has introduced by sandy levi in the audience thank you uh just second I’m just seeing if we have to make an amendment here if you can just make it part of your original motion make it part of the original if we could I’ll second all right so we’re going to include the original motion we’ll need a new bylaw when it comes to council but but that’ll be that so that is part of the original motion you’re the mover a secondary you go with that okay great so we have the motion which includes the holding provision on the floor uh I’ll look for conversation questions etc seeing none I’ll just quickly comment there’s someone on the sorry counselor trous so I do I missed you on the screen there you you’re a very small little portion of my my screen please go ahead yes thank you very much um I’m just going to be very brief um I really appreciate the flexibility that the applicant has shown here and I think that this was a very good model of an applicant working productively doing things that they did not legally have to do working with the neighborhood association so as a counselor who usually finds myself in a more difficult position with this amendment um I’m going to be very very happy and I think that this is going to be a very reasonable development I know I know that anything we put there is going to be a change but we’re going to be seeing a lot of change coming down sarnia road and I think that having this process especially with the public site plan session which which will allow some flexibility I think sets a very good precedent so I just want to leave it with that and thank you for letting me speak thank you other comments or questions the committee will allow just a quick comment from the chair I totally agree with you counselor trousau um this you know infills challenging as we’ve seen numerous times at this committee and the applicant thank you for working with the neighbors and the neighbors working with the applicant to find a way forward I’m interested in seeing how this public site plan proceeds because I don’t run the face it I think it’s not a bad thing so I’m fully supportive of this motion going forward okay um there’s no other comments or questions on this item we got motion moved in second I’ll call the vote hold on okay the clerk is just getting confirmation on our wording which will be updated to each crime that’s uploaded to each crime okay so I’m going to open the vote the wording has been adjusted so I think the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 thank you moving on to 3.8 and I’m going to need some direction here my understanding from staff is that the applicant is withdrawn this and I just want staff to confirm that through the chair that is correct the application has been formally excuse me withdrawn however because there was insufficient time to give notice of cancellation uh the public participation meeting is still required to be held okay so I’ll look for motion to open ppm counselor hillier second by counselor cutty we’ll vote on that posting the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 look for anyone that would like to address a committee on this item ask clerk there’s anyone online there’s no one online I don’t see anyone looking to speak to us so I’ll offer motion to close ppm counselor hillier counselor cutty seconds we’ll call hosting the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 okay my next question is and maybe to the clerk do you need some sort of direction from committee on this okay so we have an alternate motion available to us on e-scribe I’ll look for committee to look at that over and hopefully someone will move that also hillier moving this counselor cutty is seconding in counselor poloza thank you a question do we need to include there that a public participation meeting was had just administratively to tie tie it back into what we just did despite the fact no one joined us yeah any further conversation we’re good okay I’ll open the vote on that closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 we have no items for direction um deferred matters list I’ll look for uh to move uh receded that counselor cutty second by counselor hillier a discussion seeing none I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries part to 0 thank you uh leads to a germinal promotion new adjourned counselor hillier second my counselor cutty hand vote motion carries thank you folks thank you committee and visiting counselor we got through a heavy one thank you