Open Council

The 12th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 12th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

July 15, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items 2.1 and 2.2 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025

2025-07-15 (2.1) Staff Report - Bill 17 Information Report

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following report with respect to Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1.a   (ADDED) Revised Staff Report

(ADDED) (2.1) - FINAL REVISED Bill 17 Information Report

2.2   Quick Communities Update

(ADDED) 2025-07-15 (2.2) Staff Report - Quick Communities Update

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the Quick Communities Update:

a)    the staff report dated July 15, 2025, which incorporates comments from relevant stakeholders related to the Quick Communities motion, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward the above-mentioned staff report to the ReThink Zoning team to consider options for future zones that support temporary and permanent uses with this form of construction.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   15 Capulet Walk (O-25061)

2025-07-15 (3.1) Staff Report - 15 Capulet Walk

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Paul Kitson relating to the property located at 15 Capulet Walk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

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

-    a communication dated June 18, 2025, from R. Coates;

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC Planning; 

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   555 - 559 & 567 Commissioners Road West (Z-25058)

2025-07-15 (3.2) Staff Report - 555-569 and 567 Commissioners Rd W

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Tricar Properties Ltd. (c/o Siv-ik Planning and Design) relating to the properties located at 555-559 & 567 Commissioners Rd W:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(_)*H21 Zone);

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

i)    ensure the proposed building has a distinct base by providing a minimum ground floor height of 4.0m to allow large windows and a high proportion of transparent glazing to promote an active frontage and passive surveillance;

ii)    avoid retaining walls along the public street frontage to ensure the street-level façade is active and comfortable for pedestrians; and,

iii)    as per the proposed site concept, submitted as part of this application, carry forward the following:

  •    provide the walkway network within site design connecting proposed building entrances, parking areas and the public sidewalk;

  •    locate the parking behind the building, at the rear of the property;

  •    locate the retaining wall to the rear of the site to adjust grade changes and creating a comfortable pedestrian environment along the street frontage; and, 

  •    provide entrances with front style lockable doors provided at the front façade of the building’s ground storey the public street;

iv)    consider relocating all above-ground mechanical equipment (e.g. gas meter, electric transformer, etc.) away from the building frontages, entrances and the street facing facade at the rear of the proposed building, or screen it with all-season landscaping;

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

-    a communication dated July 11, 2025, from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), 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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   1658-1678 Evangeline Street (Z-25049)

2025-07-15 (3.3) Staff Report -1658-1678 Evangeline Street

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Younger Homes Holding Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the properties located at 1658-1678 Evangeline Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2026), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R2 (R2-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-8*R4-6( )) Zone;

it being noted to the applicant that that the following comments have been received:

a)    Planning and Development supports the inclusion of principal entrances with canopies fronting Evangeline Street, as well as the walkway connections from individual townhouse units to the street and recommends that these features be carried forward;

b)    CPKC Rail recommends the following conditions:

i)    all construction, continued maintenance, access, ingress and egress must be done without entering railroad right of way; this includes but is not limited to maintenance of any equipment, lawn care, snow plowing and emergency exits via windows or doors; and, 

ii)    a condition be inserted in all property and tenancy agreements and offers of purchase and sale for all dwelling units in the proposed building(s):

“CPKC and/or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a railway right-of-way and/or yard located adjacent to the subject land hereof with operations conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including the shunting of trains and the idling of locomotives; there may be alterations to, or expansions of, the railway facilities and/or operations in the future, which alterations or expansions may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity; notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and/or vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwellings, CPKC will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or its operations on, over, or under the aforesaid right-of-way and/or yard.”

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

-    T. Legrew, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 

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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   523 First Street (Z-25053)

2025-07-15 (3.4) Staff Report - 523 First Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Chryssoulis Holdings Inc. (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 523 First Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM Light Industrial (LI1) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone;

it being noted to the applicant that that the following comments have been received:

a)    CN Rail encourages the following conditions:

i)    undertake an analysis of noise; and, 

ii)    a warning clause be inserted on land title, in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease within 300m of the railway right-of-way; 

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

-    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning; and, 

-    A. Chryssoulis, AMTEL;

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 Building policies, Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of an otherwise underutilized building with an appropriate range of uses at an intensity that can be accommodated within the existing building; 

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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.5   376-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-25054)

2025-07-15 (3.5) Staff Report - 376-390 Hewitt Street 748 King Street

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Stantec Consulting Ltd. relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property by extending the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone for a temporary period of two (2) years, BE ACCEPTED with the considerations for additional extension as outlined in the Council Resolution dated May 14, 2024.

it being noted that an updated by-law will be brought forward to the Municipal Council meeting on July 22, 2025 for approval;

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

-    B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting Ltd.;

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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.6   2034 Wilton Grove Road (Z-25051)

2025-07-15 (3.6) Staff Report - 2034 Wilton Grove Road

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Mt. Elgin Dairy Farms Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 2034 Wilton Grove Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of a portion of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2(*)) Zone and Agricultural Special Provision (AG2(**)) Zone;

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

-    D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo;

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 Farmland Place Type & Environmental Review policies; and,

  •    the proposed use is considered appropriate within the adjacent land uses and considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses; 

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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   1225 Wonderland Road North (OZ-25050)

2025-07-15 (3.7) Staff Report - 1225 Wonderland Road North

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Canadian Commercial Development (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1225 Wonderland Road North:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone to a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7()*H30) Zone and a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA4()) Zone;

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

i)    provide transparent glazing for the active uses at-grade (e.g., lobby area, amenity spaces etc.) to create an active interface and alleviate potential Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concerns; and,

ii)    ensure there is a safe and continuous pedestrian connection throughout the site connecting the proposed building to Sherwood Forest Mall, parking areas, amenity spaces, and the public sidewalks along Gainsborough Road and Wonderland Road North;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the purpose of the recommended special provisions to the Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone is to recognize existing site conditions;

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

-    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments would permit residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Vote:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   6309 Pack Road (39T-25502/OZ-25023)

2025-07-15 (3.8) Staff Report -6309 Pack Road

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Ltd. relating to the property located at 6309 Pack Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

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

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification for Pioneer Parkway;

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands identified as the north portions of Blocks 244-247 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a maximum height of up to twelve (12) storeys and a maximum height of sixteen (16) storeys with a maximum of 300 units per hectare on the northeast portion of Block 247; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

iv)    REVISE Schedules 4, 8 and 9 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to redesignate the subject lands FROM Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential TO Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Open Space and Environmental Review to align with the lot and block layout, and road configuration within the applicant’s proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification for Pioneer Parkway;

v)    REVISE the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a sitespecific policy to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height of twelve (12) storeys and up to maximum density of 300 units per hectare for the north portion of Blocks 244 to 247 of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and,

vi)    REVISE the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a sitespecific policy to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height nine (9) stories with a maximum density of 200 units per hectare may be permitted for Block 243 and a maximum height of sixteen (16) storeys with a maximum density of 300 units per hectare may be permitted on the northeast portion of Block 247;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2()) Zone, Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (h-1*R2-2()) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6()) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility and Residential R6/R9 Special Provision (h-8*NF1/R6-5()/R9-7()H20D200) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility NF1 and Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*NF1/R9-7()H30D200) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8R9-7(_)H30D300) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8R9- 7()H30D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-1h-8R9-7()H30D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-1h-8R9-7()H38D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7()H38D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-

7()H38D300) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7()H50D300) Zone, Holding Open Space (h-1*OS5) Zone and two Open Space (OS5) Zones;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Subdivision Approval Authority the 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 in the development of each block through the site plan process;

ii)    street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections; and,

iii)    screen any surface parking from the street by buildings or an all-season landscape buffer; and,

iv)    an updated shadow study for each block as it develops to assess and further minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties;

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

-    a communication dated June 30, 2025, from A. Essak; 

-    a communication dated July 3, 2025, from J. Liu; 

-    a communication dated July 6, 2025, from A. and R. Hey; 

-    a communication dated July 8, 2025, from L. Huang and D. Allen;

-    a communication dated July 6, 2025, from North Talbot Homeowers Association (NTHA); and, 

-    a communication dated July 11, 2025, from N. Ooms, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

-    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo; 

-    L. Grabowski, AGM; 

-    J. Kononiuk;

-    R. Wimperis; 

-    J. Madagan;

-    S. Wimperis;

-    P. Antonio;

-    J. Whitlock;

-    P. Ball;

-    C. Richardson;

-    S. Gray;

-    A. Gidwards;

-    J. Rossco;

-    A. Essak;

-    J. Mitsopolous;

-    M. Pepe;

-    E. Mayo;

-    N. Ooms;

-    M. Steen; and,

-    Resident;

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;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary 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. The proposed height increase is strategically located on Pack Road, a Civic Boulevard, in proximity to the intersecting streets of Pack Road, Bostwick Road and the future Bradley Avenue West extension, which is classified as an Urban Thoroughfare; applying increased height and intensity closest to the node supports higher-density, transit-supportive development within the broader street corridor with a deliberate transition in building height along Pack Road and within the plan of subdivision to ensure compatibility with the existing and planned neighbourhoods;

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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part d) iv) that reads as follows:

 

iv) an updated shadow study for each block as it develops to assess and further minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

A matter being considered pertains to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing pursuant to subsection 239(2)(h) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

A matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals of Council’s decision to designate pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act the properties at 183 & 197 Ann Street (the “Subject Property”) at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

A matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals of Council’s decision to refuse an application for zoning by-law amendment regarding 1494 Commissioners Road West (the “Subject Property”) at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

That committee convene In Closed Session, from 4:32 PM to 4:55 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:58 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 52 minutes)

[14:36] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon, it’s 1 p.m. and I’ll be calling the 12th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwok, and Adawanuram. 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.

[15:15] The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. This time I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, move on to consent items. We have two, I’ll look to committee right now. Councillor Palazzo.

[15:49] I’ll put both the consent items on the floor. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi seconds. We have motion, move and second. I’ll look for any discussion, questions, comments. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Thank you for the report, 2.2 quick communities update. And I certainly was hoping that there will be certain locations that could be identified. But I still think it’s very important and I’m glad it’s moving forward for the rezoning process.

[16:21] So I think that’s gonna be valuable for us. And just question, I know it says, based on the criteria established through the HUPS implementation plan and community encampment strategy. And the question to the staff through the chair is, is there any potential initiative to look at these requirements from these two initiatives and potentially making certain changes? Or are we taking it as a status quo and that’s the one we are kind of playing by for long-term future? Thank you.

[16:54] I’ll go staff. Mr. Chair, Mr. Dickens is actually online on Zoom and can probably speak to both of those questions. Mr. Dickens, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you, what this report reflects are council endorsed proximity measures and council endorsed considerations for a similar type or an affiliated type service delivery model. So civic administration felt it was best to reflect already council endorsed measures as part of this report back as well.

[17:34] Councilor, based on current situation that we have in the city, does the staff feel that it will be potential that this should be revisited? Council, I don’t know if that I would try to caution against asking the staff for that type of opinion. If you wanna give that opinion, that’s your prerogative, but maybe just stick to some factual questions that staff can respond.

[18:06] Actually, I’m okay with it. I will talk to them. I will have the discussion with the staff after. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. I’ll look for other questions or comments. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, just a brief question with regard to the impacts on bill 17 and staff, if you’re not able to respond, that’s okay. I didn’t give you a heads up on this earlier, but with the change in the as-of-right requirements for schools, I’m just wondering how that impacts our subdivision planning process moving forward, where school blocks used to be set aside.

[18:49] Do we continue to set aside school blocks now when subdivision developments come forward, or is it now up to the school board to simply acquire land? And because they have an as-of-right, they don’t need to hold a specific block. So I’m just wondering how that works in terms of our plans of subdivision. I’ll go to staff. Through you, Chair, it doesn’t really change that part of the subdivision process, because we can still and do still, probably still will seek the blocks associated in a subdivision. It just means from a zoning perspective, they don’t necessarily need to have a neighborhood facility zone or something to that effect.

[19:25] So it also means that down the road, for instance, if a school block were added and they wouldn’t need to go through the rezoning process, for instance, to add a specific zone to allow for a school. So that’s the only real change to that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. That’s great, I appreciate hearing that. Does that mean through our rezoning process then, and again, this might be a little bit of a car before the horse, but do we anticipate, ‘cause right now I believe we have an NF1 and an NF2 for neighborhood facility zoning, and the NF1 I know is very restrictive, and it’s basically churches and elementary schools.

[20:05] So do we imagine, with this happening, that schools will come out of the NF zoning, or will it still be referenced in the NF zoning moving forward? I’m just thinking from the rezoning perspective and some of the restrictions we have on some zones with this change, even though we’re still setting aside school blocks, would we likely be collapsing those NFs into a single zone? And again, if that’s speculation, if it’s too far ahead of the process to tell, I completely understand that. I’ll go and stop.

[20:39] Through the chair, it’s a little bit ahead of where we’re at right now, but one of the major things is that the use itself is permitted, however the regulations associated with it, that’s something that we have to also consider, because obviously every zone has different types of regulations not necessarily suited towards the school, so it’s all something we’ll have to reconsider as we’re working through rethink. So we haven’t really landed on an actual solution right now, but it’s something we’re looking at, thanks. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I really appreciate the staff’s response on that.

[21:14] I know school blocks come up as we see planning applications come through, and of course we have no control over when schools are built, that’s all Ministry of Education, Provincial Government funding, but I know we sometimes have some concerns when the school board’s rights on the land have sort of lapsed and then we get the applications for housing, but to me this actually seems like it’s probably a good change in that it might mean the school can acquire a different piece of property than it was originally envisioned without having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go through a rezoning process that way, so I think that that’s a positive change to see coming forward, even though we still have some work ahead to figure out what exactly the details look like in terms of our Z zoning bylaws, thanks.

[22:02] Thank you, I’ll look for other Councillors who are visiting, committee members and other visiting Councillors. There’s any other comments or questions? We have motion moved in a second, I’ll apologize. Councillor Trossa, I apologize. I was alarmed that you were online there and escaped my little brain, so please go ahead. Yes, I have a question on Bill 17 with respect to the Building Codes Act. No authority to pass additional regulations and will limit enforceability of certain municipal development standards.

[22:40] My question is, does that preclude, this is for staff, through the chair, does that preclude municipalities from suggesting or enacting non-binding best practices, suggestions or non-binding, not enforceable standards, but best practice standards, yeah. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair to the Councillor, the exemptions would prohibit the requirement for a bylaw to exceed or supersede the Ontario Building Code, where there’s voluntary inclusion that would be above and beyond the requirements.

[23:28] Sorry, that would be still allowed, Councillor. Yes, and thank you very much for clarifying that because I think there were some questions that arose in that regard before, and I think that if I understand it, the borderline there is whether it’s going to be enforceable or whether it’s not gonna be enforceable, just so I’m clear. I’ll go to staff, through the chair to the Councillor. The purpose of the new wording under the Building Code Act is to clarify that there is to be no additional requirements.

[24:07] It doesn’t speak to the voluntary aspect in regards to additional requirements or asks of the city. Councillor. Okay, well, thank you very much. That’s my question, and that’s very helpful, thank you. Thanks, Councillor. I apologize again for overlooking you there. Okay, now I’ll look around the room and see if there’s any other comments or questions. We have a motion moved in second now, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[25:03] Thank you, we’ll move on to scheduled items. The first item is 3.1 and this is regarding 15 capulot. Walk, I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hayley are seconded by Councillor Karym, we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee.

[25:39] I see you online, sir, if you could please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC Planning. We’re acting on behalf of the applicant. And with me today, representing the applicants, our I’m a medawi, Paul Kittson and Hashem Imatez, who should be in the gallery at this point. At this time, we’d like to briefly express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report. In particular, Mr. Chair, we agree with the city staff’s assessment that the proposed amendment is in keeping with official plan policy direction for the transit village place type by intensifying an underutilized site to achieve a high density compact growth pattern.

[26:19] Additionally, in effect, the proposed height of the planned high-rise apartment aligns with the recommendations of the city’s heights review for transit villages as endorsed by council in September and currently subject to ministerial review. With approval of the proposed official plan amendment and the associated minor variance and site plan approval applications, which are both in process, the applicant intends to advance this development expeditiously with the aim of receiving a foundation permit by September. Finally, we’d like to thank city staff for their attention to this application and we’re gladly answering any questions committee members may have.

[26:54] Thank you, sir. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address committee. Seeing none, in the gallery, I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[27:31] Okay, I’ll put this matter from the committee. I’ll look to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder on that. Councilor Cuddy, I’ll look for comments or questions. Committee members, no? Councilor Hopkins, you look like you’re ready to go. Please go ahead. Yeah, I was just waiting for committee members to make comments and thank you for acknowledging me. I did have a question on this application. I recall this from, I think it was a previous council that approved the three buildings with affordable housing.

[28:12] Does that still exist? I know the province took that tool away from municipalities, but just wanna know a little bit more as this application goes forward. I see there’s about 79 increased units. Just wanna know a little bit more about the affordable housing that was approved back then. Okay, I’ll go to staff on the affordable housing question. Through you, Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. There is an existing bonus zone on site. However, it’s our understanding that the applicant intends to proceed with development under the future TSA zoning, which wouldn’t necessarily require them to fulfill the obligations in terms of the bonus agreement and bonus zone, rather.

[28:53] Councillor. I appreciate knowing this. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions. I’ll ask Deputy Mayor to take the chair, please, so I can comment. I’ll take the chair and recognize Councillor Lehman. So, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to speak to this because I will not be supporting this. I didn’t support this when it first came to council. Well, this is in a transit village and met the height requirements.

[29:31] This is at the far end of the transit village well over plumber away from the intersection in Oxford and Wonderland. I’ve supported these types of bills at that particular corner. However, this is right in the edge, right up against single family homes. And primarily, there is a senior’s home with high needs that is directly behind this structure. Folks that cannot leave the residents they’re there 12 months a year directly in the shadow of this building.

[30:10] So, I’m going to keep consistent and not support this particular item. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speaker’s list. Thank you. I’ll look around one more time online. We have a motion moved in second and I’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries five to one.

[30:49] Okay, moving on to 3.2 and this is regarding 555-559-567 Commissioners Road West. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor K aideen. We’ll call that. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant today. So, you’re standing there.

[31:21] Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design here today on behalf of my client, Tricar. Also with me today, I have the team of Tricar, Adam Carapelle, John Fleming and Derek Rice. We want to start off by saying that we’re in agreement with the recommendations in the staff report. Obviously, thank them as always for their work on this project and getting this here so quickly. It’s much appreciated. Secondly, you’ll notice that I have added a communication on the agenda. It’s a deck that provides more information about the project itself and the process that was undertaken by Tricar and our team.

[31:56] Public consultation was a big part of that process. Early on in the concept development, we established a project website. That was kind of the home base for sharing information with surrounding residents. We also hosted a community information meeting in May prior to submission of the application. I think just a few points we want to highlight from a design perspective that make this project really a good fit with the area. Firstly, we’ve maintained the six story kind of height limit that is spelled out in the London plan. The building itself has been oriented parallel to Commissioners Road West.

[32:30] What that’s allowed us to do is create a really healthy area and setback. And then also, rather than maxing out the entire site for surface parking, Tricar has preserved a substantial landscape buffer at the rear of the property to provide screening between the site and the adjacent single family home. So that concludes my remarks. We’re available to answer any questions. Other committees. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this matter. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

[33:06] There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone at the mics. I’ll look for motion to close with PPM. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Palosa. And we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

[33:37] For committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder on that. Councillor Palosa, motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for comments, questions on Councillor Palosa. Thank you. I appreciate going through the reports that as the speaker said, they’re respecting their rear yard setbacks with the other neighbors and allowing more of a buffer than what’s above what the minimum is.

[34:12] I said sometimes we see them trying to quote trip to the lot line or doing different things there. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the lot of parking within this development to realize it’ll be ample opportunity for every unit they wish to have a vehicle plus extra visitor parking or medical, whoever’s coming and going that that’s been a campsite in the area. My only question through you if I could to the applicant, I realize that it’s always just as part B be requested and then part of the report outlines what the planners are asking that be requested.

[34:49] Just looking for your feedback, I know nothing’s legally binding, but just overall reaction or feedback to what’s being requested for consideration as we move through site plan. Mr. Davis, working. There we go, three minutes to chair. I think we’re generally in agreement with those recommendations. The one sticking point through the site planner review process. There is a request there that the ground floor of the building be 4.0 meters in height as a minimum. I think the intent by try car is that there would be a lower floor to ceiling on the ground floor than that.

[35:26] However, there’s a number of other design measures that they’re looking at incorporating, which I think sort of the same purpose to help to give some prominence to that ground floor. So we’re pretty confident that we can work with staff through the site plan process to resolve that issue. Councillor. Thank you. I appreciate that and hearing no immediate concerns about especially the retaining walls realizing walkability and public access and making sure that residents can come and go from the property and that everyone’s just not facing a giant ball while looking at their home.

[35:58] I appreciate that. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions from committee and visiting Councillors. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded I’ll call the vote. I’m losing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

[36:31] Moving on to 3.3 regarding 1658 to 1678. Evangeline Street on the promotion to open the PPM. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Cudi and we’ll call that. I’m losing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant to speak to the committee. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes.

[37:05] Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m Adam Lagrou, a planner at Montyth Brown Planning Consultants. I’m joined here with Jay McGuffin, principal planner with Montyth Brown. We are here on behalf of our client who is the owner of the proposed developer of the Angeline Street property. We’re excited here today on behalf of our client and their proposal to bring a new modular townhome development to the city. Our client has been constructing this product in the UK for many years and is excited to bring it to the city.

[37:39] We’ve had the opportunity to review staff’s report and in our general support of the recommendations for approval of the Zoning By-law amendment. We just wanted to note in response to the public comments received, our client purchased the property in 2023 and has no relation to the history of the property being unkempt over the past 10 years. The intention of this proposal is to create attainable housing units in the housing market. Propose development fits into the surrounding context and fills a gap in the mix of housing available within the neighborhood at a reasonable intensity.

[38:16] We thank you for your time in reviewing this application and are available for any questions the committee or public may have. All right, thank you. And before I go to the public, I’m going to go to staff on this one. Just for brief, some brief comments and presentation. It’s kind of an interesting project that we’re dipping our toe into the water on this. So for the information to the public and to committee members and visiting counselors, I think it’d be interesting to kind of expand on that. Please go ahead. Absolutely, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[38:50] So this is the Zoning By-law amendment to facilitate a unique new form of housing and that the applicant is proposing a modular street townhouse development that are prefabricated structures. So given the uniqueness of this proposal, there were some special considerations that staff made through the review of the application. For starters, the prefabricated units do not contain basements. And so that means that the ground floor space needs to be maximized for livable space. So no garages are incorporated into the design in order to maximize the amount of that ground floor area that can be used for living space.

[39:30] So without garages, that leads to the need for front yard parking, given the narrow lot configuration as well. Further, because there are no basements, there’s no need for a sump pump or a storm PDC. So less frontage is actually needed to accommodate the servicing to each unit. Additionally, the timing of the project align with the infrastructure reconstruction project on Evangeline, which will install a new trunk sanitary sewer across the front edge of the site. And construction for that project is anticipated to start in 2026.

[40:04] And then lastly, Evangeline is a lower order street with very limited traffic. So staff are comfortable with driveways being positioned closer together. So less frontage is needed to accommodate additional separation between driveways. So between the front yard parking and the narrow lot configuration, we took all of these matters into consideration when considering the appropriateness of those requests. And through our review, we’ve determined that given the uniqueness of this proposal and those special considerations that they are appropriate in this context.

[40:38] Thank you. Thank you. And I’ll ask members to hold their questions until we are finished with the public participatory patient meeting. But I just wanted to get that out before we went to the public. Okay, speaking of that, I’ll look to any members of the public that would like to address committee on this item. And I’ll ask Kirk if there’s anyone online. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Cutty seconds. We’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[41:23] Thank you. So this on the floor for committee. Members, go to Councilor Hillier. Yes, thank you. Through the chair, I’m just curious, given the modular nature of this construction, how fast is the construction timeline compared to traditional? We’ll go to staff. Through the chair, I’m gonna defer that question to the applicant. Okay, where, oh, there you are. Did you hear the question? Questions about, how long does it take to construct given this new method compared to usual? Through you, Mr. Chair, I believe the construction process mainly takes place off site.

[42:01] So as soon as we can get building permits, the client can bring in the product and assembly takes a couple of weeks, maybe. Councilor? Okay, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, I’ll move the recommendation and then I’ll speak to it. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll go back to you, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, just thank you to the applicant and staff for working on this one. It is a unique application. I know there can be definite cost savings to be able to build products off site and move it. So looking forward to seeing how this one goes and it can help with affordability and other areas that this might be applicable to throughout London, thank you.

[42:39] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, this one’s in Ward two. I am very excited to have it before us with a staff recommendation to move forward. I’ve met with staff on a couple of occasions about this. I’ve met with Mr. McGuffin and the applicant on a couple of occasions. I have taken a look obviously virtually because I haven’t popped across the pond to the other London, but I have taken a look at how the product has been used in the UK.

[43:12] It is fantastic. This on slab construction that allows a house to be, a town house to be constructed in a matter of weeks rather than months or a year, really offers a unique opportunity. This is also a lot in a residential area, a budding, a light industrial area that has been vacant for a number of years. So this is good infill use on a vacant piece of property. It is also a little bit of a challenging property in that one of the abutting neighbors is CP rail to the north. So there’s extra consideration around the appropriate buffers from the railway, the berm, the landscaping on the berm, all of those sorts of things.

[43:55] So I just want to share with committee, this has been months in the making. There have been some special considerations needed to accommodate this. This is a new form of housing for our city, but I’m very excited about it. I know the applicant has a couple of other properties in ward two that they’re looking to redevelop and I’m hoping that this proves the concept and that they might be interested in developing a few more of those, both in my ward and in other locations across the city. I think infill, especially where there’s an opportunity to be quick in and out in terms of the construction, really makes it easier for the neighborhood to adjust as well.

[44:36] And I just want to say I concur with everything, as Matton said, in regard to the parking and the scope of the frontage required for the driveways. I mean, I live not far from where this lot is, far enough that I’m out of the notification zone, but I’m familiar with the area. And I have to tell you that, you know, regardless of whether or not a lane might lead to a garage or to the side of a house, front yard parking where the vehicle is left in front of the building itself is quite frankly, it’s an everyday occurrence because people park where their sidewalk is and they get out of their door and they walk to their front door and in.

[45:23] So to me, this is going to be no different than the parking situation at existing residential properties other than it might not lead through a lane way all the way to the back of the property or it might not lead to a garage. But in terms of vehicles being parked in front of the front face of the building, that’s an everyday occurrence. So this is not going to stick out in the neighborhood. It’s really at the end of the day, going to look like every other home on the street when it’s all said and done in terms of where people are parking their vehicles. So I appreciate the consideration that went into that. And like I’m very excited and I hope that once the units are constructed, that members of the committee and other members of council will come out and take a look because I think there’s a real promise to this sort of modular construction.

[46:12] Thank you all a look further, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, I appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments and kind of view that you’ve got this development happening in your award. I really do think it’s great to hear that it’s going to be coming in 2026. And I also think the attainable housing part of it is really, really important here. Is maybe through you, Mr. Chair to staff, is this our first modular development here in the city? We’ll go to staff.

[46:54] Thank you through the chair. There is a modular construction when 22 baseline road that was part of the CMHC, the fast tracking of housing. And we had a dedicated team to help advance that, but that took a year to deal with the approvals as well as then the construction. Councilor. Yeah, thank you. I really like to see more of this kind of development. So thank you to staff for the work that goes into this. Thank you, other comments or questions?

[47:27] Councilor Hillier. Yes, thank you and through you to the staff. Because these are modular townhouse units, this means they will be pretty much one off and they can give you the blueprints straight off. And this one’s the same as that one going forward. Does that speed up the inspection process on our end? We’ll go to staff. Through the chair to the Councilor, modular units are generally constructed under Ken standards C8 277 or ULC 240s, depending on whether they’re panelized or actual units themselves.

[47:59] So what it does is it speeds up the process of approvals because the units coming as a package already pre-approved and constructed in a factory. Councilor. So we would have all these plans on file from the builder in advance then. I’ll go to staff. So the packages would come as a package that we would basically look at the certification and be able to prove it through the building code by use of the certification number. Councilor. Other comments or questions?

[48:36] Dr. Marlos. Thank you, Chair. And thanks for indulging me a second time. I’m gonna be brief, but I wanna thank Councilor Hopkins for reminding me through her comments ‘cause she mentioned the word attainable. And one of the things about this modular construction and on slab, so no basements, no garage, smaller lot sizes. When you think about the cost of housing today, that is really a significant savings. You’re not digging into a foundation. You’re doing an on slab foundation. You don’t have that square footage that’s being eaten up to house a vehicle instead of a person.

[49:13] You can have those smaller frontages. So it really does make these more attainable from an affordability perspective. I think there’s real potential for this sort of project to sort of represent a new form of starter home. Similar to the smaller homes that we saw decades ago that people would move into at first and then perhaps graduate out of or move into in their retirement years. So Councilor Hopkins, you’re bang on with your comment that this sort of construction also impacts affordability and attainability of housing.

[49:47] And I thought it was important to circle back and underscore that ‘cause I do think it is a different offering that might open up the housing market for some first time home buyers or provide an opportunity without a basement with an on slab build where people who maybe don’t wanna do stairs anymore to go down to the laundry room without a basement might find that a more interesting option for them to consider as a form of housing too. So I think there’s lots of potential to this. Thank you, other comments or questions?

[50:22] The committee will indulge me. I’d just like to make a few comments and have a question from the chair. Yeah, I, you know, this when I first saw this affordability immediately jumped to mine. I can’t think of a less expensive way to build a home than off-site in a factory where there’s repeatable processes for sure as Councilors have mentioned, a lack of basement and proges, et cetera, would keep the affordability at a maximum level.

[51:01] I’ve seen these type of structures south of the border in warmer climates and I just have a question to staff. They’re concerned at all with, you know, our climate of freeze and thaw. We’re having a concrete slab. What challenges might be in the future with that type of construction? Generally speaking for a structure that size, it would be an engineered slab reinforced and would act as a platform. So any kind of new movement to the actual foundation would be taken across the entire structure and should actually not be a factor in our climate.

[51:42] Thank you. So yeah, I’m excited to see this go forward and learn from this. And I look forward to the deputy mayor treating me to a firsthand tour when they’re up and running. Thanks. Any other final comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay, I’ll call the vote. Well, I was in the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[52:20] Thank you, moving on to 3.4 as regarding 523 first street all of her motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hill here seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and we’ll open the call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. May I see you online if you could give us your name and you have five minutes.

[52:59] Hello everyone. My name is Jennifer Gaudette. I’m an associate planner with NHPC. I’m here with Alexander Chrisillis who’s representing the applicant. We support the findings and recommendations of the staff report, including the proposed special provision. The proposed additional uses are limited to the existing building, which together with the warning clauses, addressed CN Rail’s concerns. Additionally, the subject lands are beyond 300 meters from general and heavy industrial zones. Ensuring that the introduction of the proposed uses will not negatively impact employment uses.

[53:33] We thank city staff for their work on the application and are available to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone approaching the mic. So I’ll look for motion to close with PPM. Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Hillier and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[54:12] Thank you. I’ll put this item on the floor for committee, Councillor Cutty. Thank you Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation. Look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for any comments or questions. Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you and through the Chair, possibly to the applicant. I’ve had a few businesses in the area reach out wondering about parking, particularly if this is for religious events and if those events take place on a workday, would parking be affected in the area? I’ll go to the applicant who’s online, Ms. Kanan.

[54:51] Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. And I may need to pull in Alex on this one. There are no changes proposed to the existing parking with the exception of bicycle and an accessory parking. He would be added. Alex, do you have anything to add? Hello. No, I don’t have anything to add. This is a small congregation. I believe the parking is sufficient to accommodate all the attendees. And in the instance, there is any religious holidays, typically they align with public holidays here in Canada.

[55:40] And they’re in the evenings outside work hours. So I don’t believe it will affect our neighbors. Councillor, any other questions or comments? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

[56:11] Moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 376 to 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public. Councillor Cudi, second by DiMara Lewis, and we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. I’ll look for the applicant to like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes.

[56:49] Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Brian Blackwell and I work for Stantec Consulting and I’m the agent for East Village Holdings Limited or Medallion Properties. Mr. Chairman, the subject site has received site plan approval in 2025 with the sign development agreement. This approval was required to bring the parking lot to city standards, including grading, stormwater management and landscaping, fronting Hewitt and King Street.

[57:29] This work is currently under construction. We understand staff’s reasons for not supporting our application, but this parking lot is critical to the existing residential complex. And we believe we are improving existing conditions with our site improvements. Mr. Chairman, this parking lot is a stop gap until phase three apartment building at Dundas and Hewitt Street is completed.

[58:10] This new building will have extra underground and podium parking to remove this surface parking lot in the future. Mr. Chairman, the upgrades to the parking lot has now reduced the surface parking spaces from 76 spaces to 59 spaces, a reduction of 17 parking spaces. This parking lot also does not affect the surrounding land uses.

[58:45] There is an attached plan in your agenda that shows the existing conditions and the proposed landscape approved plan, which we believe is a great improvement to the site. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we request your approval for the two year extension to the temporary zone based on the stop gap for parking for the existing complex and to allow medallion to improve the existing site conditions.

[59:20] Thank you and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public like to address the committee. That’s clear if there’s anyone online. Seeing none online and no one coming to the mic, I’ll look for motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hilliard, and we’ll call. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[59:56] Thank you. I’ll go to committee, now I’ll go to Mayor. Yes, thank you, Chair. I’m gonna make an alternate motion to the staff recommendation that I’ve circulated to the clerk on this matter. Essentially, I’ll read it out and then I’ll see if there’s a second and then I’m happy to provide my rationale for it. Then notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by stand tech consulting related to the properties at 376, 378, 382, 386, 390 QS Street and 748 King Street.

[1:00:29] The request to amend the zoning by-law Z1 to change the zoning to the subject property by extending the temporary use zone for temporary period of two years be accepted with the considerations for additional extensions as outlined in the Council resolution dated May 14th, 2024. And then it being noted that staff can bring forward the relevant by-law and municipal council they don’t need it today. So I’m happy to put that on the floor. I’ll provide rationale if there’s a seconder. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cudi seconds and we have motion on the floor. So I’ll go to, do you wanna speak to it Mayor?

[1:01:01] Oh, hold on a second. I’ll go to you Mayor. Yeah, happy to provide some rationale for this. So I know we talk about the surface parking lots in the core area a lot and generally we’d like to see development on them. In this case, Council passed a resolution saying we’re happy to give you an extension. We wanna see some conditions met. As you heard from the consultant, they’re actually on their way to meeting those conditions by changing the parking lot structure.

[1:01:37] And they’re not going to need this parking lot once they complete phase three of the medallion construction where they’ll build a new residential tower with underground parking that is sufficient to remove the need for this parking lot. This is also a company that has multiple builds in the city that is building in a difficult part of the city to build in that is investing tens of millions of dollars that has a project linked to the Vision SoHo projects and is known to actually follow through on their commitments. So given the timing that they needed from our staff on the permissions for the site plan, given that they haven’t quite completed Council’s requested changes to that surface parking in time.

[1:02:15] And I fully understand staff’s recommendation given the Council direction and our policies. I think that it’s okay for us to provide this extension given the work is currently underway. We can see exactly what it’s gonna look like. And we know that this parking lot will not be around forever because they are gonna proceed with phase three. They are gonna build the necessary parking for the site underground. And so this is something that just gets them to where they need to be to proceed with that. And again, they have other capital deployed in the city. I recognize that people can’t build everything all at once at any given time. So they’ll complete that project.

[1:02:47] They’ll move to phase three, they’ll be able to do this. So I think that we can still continue to tie this to Council’s desire to see that surface parking lot have improvements to the way that it looks. It’ll reduce the number of spots from 76 to 59, but they still require that for the existing residential buildings until they build their next building. So I’m happy to give them that permission for another couple of years, knowing that they’re gonna proceed with that build. Thank you, I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councillor Ploza. Thank you.

[1:03:20] A question through staff, realizing we’ve already actually extended this property once. I know they wanted three years back in 2024. I see the Council that time extended it for one. Now the applicant is back for the additional two years. I know we have things already on the go. I would also say that being a second term Councillor, I had voted for parking lot extensions in the past and things didn’t come fruition.

[1:03:54] And then the parking lots stay and remain looking forward through you to staff. Staff had outlined the report so that there’s a concern over parking lot improvements that have not been met, looking for information on what the condition of that parking lot is, what was their concern as was the first building point to enter the recommendations? I’ll go staff. Thank you and through the chair. As part of the 2024 extension, there were two conditions. Being noted that the parking lot works has been received for the city to the applicant enter into a signed agreement and demonstrate progress on the parking lot improvements before the expiration of this extension and Council should consider an additional extension for less than, for no less than two years.

[1:04:44] So staff acknowledge that the site plan application has been received. However, staff also have the opinion that progress has not been demonstrated prior to the expiration of the temporary zone, which was made this year. Currently the parking lot is under construction, but as mentioned, this took place after the expiration of the current temporary zone. Councillor. Thanks. I don’t think I actually addressed my question, but what was the improvements that staff had wanted besides just a one year extension?

[1:05:17] I’ll go staff. The existing story and through the chair, sorry, if we’re not answering your question. Figure six of the report shows the conceptual plan of the existing and proposed conditions, which as outlined by the applicant includes a reduction of parking spaces, landscapes, open space around the perimeter of the site, as well as some improvements to the access of the parking lot, Councillor. Thank you. So looking at figure four and five, there just seems to be some parking bowlers tossed about for lack of better words, but was staff’s only concerns then really just landscaping or was there actual safety concerns with the quality of the payment or the layout of that parking lot?

[1:06:06] Just, I’m always hesitant to grant an extension. We’ve already done an extension. But if the concern is really just landscaping for something that’s going to be turned in shortly into something else anyways, I would have left as a concern. It is contingent upon me supporting the mayor’s motion versus not. Good stuff. Through the chair. So the improvements that were required were to bring the site into compliance with the site plan control by-law. That includes matters such as landscape offering, but also site functionality.

[1:06:39] So there were a number of spaces on the former site, now under construction that didn’t meet our standards and didn’t meet functionality requirements to be considered a functional parking space. So the intent through the review of the site plan was to ensure all those parking spaces were fully functional and met our standards, while also implementing the minimum standards of the site plan control by-law with respect to landscaping and buffering and parking islands, things like that. Councilor, go to the mayor. I just, I appreciate the councilor’s questions.

[1:07:19] I just want to provide some additional context. So if no progress that we’ve made, I wouldn’t be bringing this forward. As you know, council’s resolution and expired at a point in, I believe it was May if a staff can just confirm. Yeah, I see some nods. So it’s July now. So between May when these photos were taken in July, if you were to go to look at it now, it’s under construction. They’re actually proceeding with the work that we’ve asked them to do. They’re actually bringing in the buffering around the edges. They’re changing the parking spaces. They’re adding the accessible spaces. They’re actually proceeding with the actual work that we’ve asked them to do. If they had proceeded with that work a couple of months ago, staff probably would have looked at it and said, “Hey, they’re making progress towards meeting this,” and then could have brought forward the recommendation for the tier extension as per the terms of the previous agreement.

[1:08:00] What I’m doing today is recognizing that staff are totally right in their point-in-time analysis of when this agreement ended. Progress was not made to a certain degree. Now it is, and I’m comfortable with having seen what they’ve done and what they’re doing and having spoken to the applicant, having spoken to our staff. I’m comfortable giving the council permission to go beyond what our staff is able to do because of our previous direction and say, you know what, they actually are making progress here. They have a plan for the future. The parking lot is currently under construction to look like this. Maybe there are a couple of months behind.

[1:08:33] Yeah, we could hold them to account for that really hard, but I ultimately wanna see here is this parking lot get to the point where we wanted it to get to. Then actually get to the point of proceeding with phase three, bringing these spaces underground and continue to invest and build in our city. So I totally understand why council would have questions about this given our previous direction. I think what’s occurred between May and now mid-July is they’ve actually started the progress, they’ve started the construction, it’s currently under construction, we’re gonna see the result that we wanted to see. Councilor Oppens. Yeah, thank you.

[1:09:04] And I appreciate the mayor’s comments and the opportunities to support development and move it forward. This is a two year extension. I read that there is a concern about cut through traffic and in this parking lot wondering through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, if fencing or anything like that can be. Good staff. Or was looked at. Through the chair, the site plan only has one entrance and exit to the site.

[1:09:36] So there shouldn’t be any cut through traffic. Councilor, that’s a proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A follow-up question through you to staff. Realizing committee reports can be made once in advance as it takes staff time to go out, look at the site, make the report, and then for us to eventually come to the wonderful PEC meetings. Is staff able to verify if they can now or between now and council? The mayor’s comments about the progress that’s been made.

[1:10:09] Good staff. Through the chair, I was at the site yesterday and it can confirm that it is currently under construction. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I will be supporting this and exactly for the reasons the mayor is outlined. I went by the site yesterday myself on my way home from here. So I’ve confirmed with my own eyes that there’s construction under way. I will also say I had the opportunity to speak to the applicant directly as well.

[1:10:46] I understand that contracts were, contractors were delayed in May. And I think we saw that ourselves, not to be critical of any of our own staff, but even with our own parks maintenance, May was a challenging month. We had a lot of heavy rainfall. Outside work was not able to be done at the pace that people would have liked. And that’s just the nature of the beast when you’re doing work that’s in an outside area. And particularly where landscaping’s involved, the conditions have to be right for planting to be successful.

[1:11:24] So I’ve seen the progress that’s being made. I’m comfortable with supporting the mayor’s motion on this. Other comments or questions? The committee will permit me. I’ll just have a couple quick ones. This is an important development for this area. And I think we should do whatever we can to encourage it, keep it on track. So I will be supporting the mayor’s motion here. Also, I don’t want to see a parking taken away from all these villages within a block of old East Village.

[1:12:01] So for the merchants, restaurants, employees that are currently using it until we have a replacement in place, I would like to see this continue to provide that service for that area. So I will be supporting it. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Oh, great. Okay, the clerk requested that I just inform the committee of a slight change to the motion to make aware. It being noted that an updated by-law will be brought forward to municipal council meeting on July 22nd, 2025 for approval.

[1:12:39] Seeing no other comments or questions, we’ll call the vote. Motion carries six to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 2034, Wilton Grove Road. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting, Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Cutty, and we’ll call that vote.

[1:13:22] Closing about the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant. If the applicant would like to address the committee, please, ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members, attendees, city staff. My name is Deniali Ticalero. I’m a planner with Zalinka Priamu, and we are here this afternoon, representing the property owner. So I would like, firstly, to thank staff for their work on this file, especially for Chloe.

[1:13:58] We have worked closely, and we have reviewed staff report, and we just thank for the recommendation. We also are happy with the special provisions recommended by staff. I would just like to highlight a few details about this application. As you see in the report, the agricultural operation will continue as is. There is no change to that. The workshop is being proposed where the existing barn is, and the barn is going to be removed, and the new workshop will be placed in that location, which will be screened from view, and we also provide appropriate setbacks to the drainage that runs along the western lot line.

[1:14:42] And all the other requirements are being met. The only requirement specifically will be to add the specific use to the building cluster area. And I appreciate for this time, and I’m here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee on this matter. Is there anyone on the line clerk? There’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone at the microphone, so I will look for a motion to close at PPM.

[1:15:16] Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call that. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. I’ll look for motion. Councilor Plaza. I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Hillier. Discussion, comments, questions? Councilor Hillier.

[1:15:48] Yes, thank you. Just going over this quickly, I’m hoping my colleagues will see fit to say yes to this, ‘cause this will allow the dairy farm to include a livestock auction on site, and we’ll save them a lot of trouble. Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you. Other comments or questions? I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.7.

[1:16:23] This is regarding 1225 Wonderland Road North. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy, and we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant, the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes.

[1:16:56] Good afternoon, committee. My name is Matt Campbell. My partner was the link of preammo here on behalf of Canadian Commercial for this application or Sherwood Forest Mall. We have Lee, Scott, and Charlie with us from Canadian Commercial here in attendance. This is a pretty wonderful application that we have before committee today. An official plan amendment, zoning, wildlife amendment application to permit a nine story, 200 unit apartment building on the west side of the Sherwood Forest Mall property. Now, we had a public open house at the mall back in at the end of November in 2024.

[1:17:30] Councilor ramen was in attendance. It was a well attended open house. And I just wanted to point out for the committee’s information, we would have brought this application before committee significantly sooner because this committee and council has approved a change to the heights of policy in the London plan. As you’re well aware of, that’s sitting with the province right now for final approval. We were waiting for that policy to come into force in effect and unfortunately it didn’t yet. So that’s why we came forward with this official plan amendment to proactively get this building going.

[1:18:08] So I’m happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. I do wanna extend a sincere thanks to Catherine and Isaac from the planning department. They’ve been excellent to work with on this file. We’re very excited to bring this application in front of committee. We recognize that there’s been quite a lot of public commentary about this. We did engage with members of the public. Again, happy to answer any questions that the public or committee may have. We think this is going to be an excellent development for the property is going to fulfill the plan function of this property as set out in the London plan.

[1:18:44] So thank you very much. And we’re certainly in agreement with the staff recommendation and happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. I look for members of the public. I would like to address the committee. So a clerk, if there’s anyone online, there is no one online. I don’t see anyone coming to the mic. I look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Cuddy seconded by Councilor Palosa and we’ll call that vote.

[1:19:33] Vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you all. I look for a motion from committee here. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I am prepared to move the staff recommendation. Thank you. I look for a seconder. Councilor Cuddy seconds. Look for comments, questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, Councilor Robin actually emailed me and asked me if I would share some words on her behalf as she’s in transit today. And so she knew she might not be able to have a reliable mobile connection to join us by Zoom.

[1:20:09] But she did say, I want to thank the applicants for their engagement throughout this process. I’ve had the chance to discuss this application with members of community and the applicant over the last two years. I understand the concerns of the neighbors and the residents of the area, especially around appropriate setbacks and buffering. But I trust through the site plan, the concerns will be taken into account and addressed, especially in relation to the parking for the library. The applicants continue to regenerate and invest in improving their buildings for their customers and those that live shop and work in the area. I appreciate that the community, I appreciate that community affordability and the quality of life are at the heart of their business model.

[1:20:47] And thank them for their engagement. And that’s Councilor Raman’s written comments that she asked me to share. So as the Ward Council for this development, I wanted to share those on her behalf. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions. I’ll go to the Mayor. Yeah, well, not the current Ward Council, but I was the previous Ward Council for this. So I can go back prior to two years on this project. And it’s a desire that the owners of this mall have had to not only improve the facility and grow the businesses there, support not-for-profit organizations, Goodwill, Northwest London Resource Center, London Public Library, all of which operate within this building, but also try to expand into the residential footprint of the area utilizing existing surface parking space for residential development, which I think was great.

[1:21:39] Now, initially, I know last term, one of the challenges that the applicant faced in discussions with us was the desire that we had to build initially a fronting along Wonderland and not at the back as the initial foray into residential development here. Challenge with that is there existing long-term site line agreements with some of the existing commercial vendors there like the grocery store, which require visibility from the roadway for long periods of time. It wouldn’t see development come to fruition for later. So I really appreciate the work that our staff and the applicant have done over the last number of years to come to an application and agreement that does provide for that residential density on a block at a facility that is being improved in in a way that our staff can get behind a recommendation for.

[1:22:26] So I think that this is one of those good work defining a path forward on something that maybe there could have been just to stick up your hands resistance to and say, we recognize that we can do things a little bit differently in the order of operations here given the actual needs of the site for both residential and commercial and not-for-profit activity in the space. So again, I think this is gonna be a great addition to the neighborhood. It’s great support for the businesses that are currently operating at the mall in the immediate area to have some density there and some residential opportunities in an area of the city that as you know has a lot of growth and is pretty tightly compacted.

[1:23:05] Thank you. Comments or questions from the committee or visiting councilors? Councilor Pribble. Thank you. Through you, question to the staff, the applicant mentioned height restriction. There’s the province. I just want to verify is that the OPA 125 that’s currently at the province. I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through to Jared, that is correct. Thank you, no more questions. Thank you. Other questions or comments? The committee will permit me just for a couple of quick comments here.

[1:23:38] Retail is changing. It’s changing the business of malls. We have a number of malls in this city that have looked or have done what’s being considered here for short forest. Masonville for sure. Westmont, White Oaks. We will see, I believe, development there at some point. Thank you to the applicant and the developers there for working with the community and with City Hall in coming to a solution that will provide much needed housing and will also provide a good traffic flow for their merchants that are in their mall in the surrounding area.

[1:24:26] So I will definitely support this. Any other comments or questions? I’ll call the vote. The voting about the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. When we’re moving on to 3.8, this is regarding 6309 PAC Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier.

[1:25:05] I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, before we go to the applicant, I’m gonna go to staff for a brief presentation on this. And I just would like the committee okay with allowing staff to use some PowerPoint visual aids in this because there’s been some miss with the true and frow of rendering, et cetera.

[1:25:43] I wanna get things straight on the record here. So if it’s okay, I’m seeing those. I don’t see any shaking ahead. So we’ll be going okay with that staff to use some PowerPoint on your presentation. So please go ahead. Good afternoon through the chair, committee staff and members of the public.

[1:26:38] My name is Nicole Musico and I’m the manager of subdivision development. During this presentation, I will clarify what is being proposed and recommended while focusing on concerns that were raised during the circulation and consultation period. The subject property municipally addressed as 6309 Pack Road is located between Boswick Road to the east and Colonel Talbot to the west. While the overarching objective is the establishment of a subdivision development, the purpose of today’s meeting is to examine the associated official plan and zoning bylaw amendment submitted by Southside Construction Limited.

[1:27:16] The proposal includes a residential development containing 206 single detached homes, 36 street town homes and five high density apartment blocks, approximately seven high density buildings, two open space blocks and six new streets consisting of approximately 4,000 residential dwelling units. The subject lands are currently designated within the neighborhood’s place type within the London plan along a civic boulevard, Pack Road, permitting a maximum of six stories. However, the subject lands are designated as low and medium density within the southwest area plan, specifically within two neighborhoods, the North Lambeth residential neighborhood to the west and the Boswick residential area plan to the east, which always anticipated higher densities and height, permitting a maximum of nine stories and a higher density development further along Pack Road within the Boswick residential area plan.

[1:28:16] The block shown in red facing Pack Road represent a maximum height of 12 stories. The northeastern portion of block 247, which is the block in pink and at the far corner of the development represent a maximum height of 16 stories. The orange blocks, more internal to the site, represent a maximum height of nine stories and a maximum height of six stories has been recommended for the southern portion shown in yellow. A series of low density zones have also been requested and recommended for the southern portion of the block.

[1:28:53] Additionally, there are also two open space blocks to permit buffering of a natural heritage feature to the west and to allow for a pathway to the east. I would also like to clarify that the illustration shown at the very bottom and throughout the presentation is a concept. And Southside will work through a site plan process on the final design of each of these blocks. The subject site is within a growing residential community ranging in built form and height in the surrounding area consisting of heights anywhere between nine and 16 stories as depicted on the screen and about 21 and 24 stories closer to Southdale and in the Bostwick area.

[1:29:39] There are also a series of public parks and open spaces within the Talbot Village community on the north side of Park Road as well as proposed park space and open spaces including the tributary 12 complete corridor within the subdivisions to the south and southwest of the subject lands that will help provide services to future residents. Residents have expressed concern that the high density development is out of scale with the surrounding low rise community and will negatively impact the neighborhood with the following such as trafficking congestion, privacy, height and density, sidewalks and bus lanes, transit services, landscaping and greenery, litter and air pollution, ecological impacts and traffic and streetlights.

[1:30:29] How will this development affect traffic in the area? As part of the complete application a traffic impact assessment was submitted and reviewed by city staff. Additional traffic studies may also be required at future design and review and site plan approval stages. Upgrades to Colonel Talbot Road are currently underway and Bostwick Road and Park Road are currently in the detailed design stage. Additionally, the Bostwick Road infrastructure project includes the construction of a roundabout at Park Road and Bostwick Road. The subject lands will also connect to the south and the east through the plan development to the south eliminating pressure off of Park Road.

[1:31:11] A site servicing a concern. The main concern on servicing for this development proposal relates to the sanitary sewer servicing and the constraint along Colonel Talbot Road. As part of the subdivision engineering review the developer will need to confirm how exactly this constraint can be addressed or they will need to phase their development prior to the sewer being upgraded. Staff have also recommended an H8 holding provision to ensure the orderly development and provision of municipal services within the high density blocks.

[1:31:47] Are there any environmental issues with the proposal? Beyond the western boundary of the site lies a significant natural area that includes wetlands and a designated nesting habitat for the Great Blue Heron. Staff are satisfied with the 30 meter development buffer and have additionally applied an H1 holding provision to ensure that the development does not have a negative impact on these natural heritage systems through an approved future environmental impact study. The plan also includes a complete corridor for tributary 12 integrating storm water management, ecological restoration, pathways, enhancing both environmental function and community livability.

[1:32:30] In summary, the proposed height increase is strategically located on Pac Road, a civic boulevard in proximity to the intersecting streets of Pac Road, Bostwick, and the future Bradley Avenue West Extension. The London Plan and the Southwest Area Plan both support the intensification along these major corridors. The site is near the key intersections of Pac, Bostwick, and Bradley and are planned to become high capacity transportation areas. This diversity of housing supports inclusivity, efficient land use, and sustainable growth.

[1:33:08] From a planning perspective, the proposal promotes intensification and contributes to the planning of complete communities. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Before I go to the applicant, and what’s following will be open to the public, I imagine there’s many here that would like to address the committee. I’ll just remind folks we have a full house today. We want to give everyone a respectful time for their comments. So there’ll be no booing or clapping. We’ll just, it’s a challenge to talk at the mic.

[1:33:47] And we want people to feel comfortable there without worrying about, you know, negative or positive reaction to what they’re saying. So I asked to keep things respectful. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant, please ma’am. You have five minutes, if you give us your name, go ahead. Absolutely, good afternoon. Chair Lehman, members of Planning and Environment Committee, Mayor Morgan, and members of the public in attendance.

[1:34:21] My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with Selenka Priemmo. We are here on behalf of our client, Southside Construction Management for the subject lands at 6309 Pack Road today. I am also joined by Lucas Grabowski of AGM, the civil engineering consultant on this project. Firstly, I would like to thank staff for their work on the file. And I would also like to acknowledge that we are in support of staff’s positive recommendation before you today.

[1:34:56] So essentially, Southside is proposing a complete community at 6309 Pack Road, consisting of 206 single-touch dwellings, 36 townhouse units, five high density blocks, one potential school block, and associated open space blocks and new streets as well. The high density blocks, Fronting Pack Road, would range in height from 16 stories to nine stories. Prior to these applications coming before you today, we did host a community open house on June 24th to inform residents of the proposed development and hear their concerns.

[1:35:40] As was stated by staff, residents did have many concerns, and I will address a few of those now. With respect to shadowing and privacy, there are opportunities through the site plan process for the built form to be adjusted slightly, or amended, and buildings can be shifted to reduce possible impacts of shadowing on adjacent lands. As was mentioned by staff, there were environmental concerns raised by the community. The development has incorporated mitigation and compensation efforts, including the creation of the complete corridor for stormwater management and ecological buffering, as well as the retention of wetland and woodland features on and adjacent to the development.

[1:36:33] Traffic is a significant concern for the residents in this area. As was stated by staff, a traffic impact analysis was completed for the applications, which confirmed that after full build out, in addition to road improvements in the area, traffic will operate at suitable levels. Further analysis will be required during detailed design, particularly with respect to the high density blocks. And they may include additional connections to adjacent developments.

[1:37:08] There are obvious concerns about the height and density from the public for these applications. In our opinion, when Pack Road and Bradley Avenue connect, a major transportation corridor will be opened across the south side of the city and will provide significant opportunities for traffic movement and access to major commercial areas. The vision for this corridor should include high density residential development to maximize green field lands and provide for a range and mix of dwelling types in this emerging neighborhood.

[1:37:45] The high density blocks are subject to subject to subsequent planning approvals, where the proponent will have the opportunity to review and refine the built form and site layout to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development is intended to be constructed over the long term, phasing development over approximately 20 years, in line with city-led infrastructure projects to create a complete and vibrant community. We are asking members of the committee to endorse the staff recommendation and consider the long-term benefits of the proposed 4,000 unit development on Pack Road.

[1:38:25] Thank you very much for your time. I’m here to answer any questions that the committee or members of the public may have. Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I’ll go to members of the public. When you approach the mic, I’ll look to you and I’ll ask you for your name until you have five minutes and around four and a half minutes. I’ll remind you they have about 30 seconds left to look for you to wrap it up. So, please sir, as you’re up there, give us your name and you’ll have five minutes. Okay, before I start, can we have, as we discussed the four other people from the association to speak, because we wanna maintain a consistent message that we wanna present to council, and then not that we’re special, but then the remainder of the people that are in the gallery can come up and have their five minutes, is that okay with that?

[1:39:17] I have no problem, you will each have five minutes. Okay. I’ll go through the same procedure with everyone as they go along, but that’s fine. Thank you. So please go ahead. Thanks to all Councillors for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed development at Pack Road. My name is John Kananiac, and I am one of the co-chairs of the North Talbot Homeowners Association. Our association was formed after the June 26th meeting that was held at the Star Tech community, hosted by our ward councilor Anna Hopkins. At that meeting, it was quite evident that the residents that were present, there was a very common concern about a number of issues with this development.

[1:39:54] So we felt that it was best to form an association so that we could deal with it on a larger scale instead of trying to do it individually. Our mission is that the North Talbot Homeowners Association is supportive of the proposed development, planning application to meet four key criterias laid out in the London Plan of South to a secondary plan, known as SWAP, number one is zoning, that each block must meet the current zoning and permitted uses without needed four amendments. Number two is density, that it’d be maximum 100 units per hectare.

[1:40:27] Number three, building heights must not exceed nine stories, as referenced in SWAP general land use policies. And number four, the traffic planning application, transportation impact assessment, must adequately address noise pollution, adjoining housing, North Talbot Village, traffic flow tying of any new roads and infrastructure. We asked the city council to realize, we’re not anti-development. We support the London Plan and SWAP vision in North Talbot and Jason neighborhoods. However, should we feel that further applications are, do not follow this criteria, we will object to them.

[1:41:02] After the June 26th meeting, we mobilized very quickly. In short, from July the 3rd to July 6th, we had attained 488 signatures opposing this proposal. We do feel, due to time we have to stop, we do feel we can get more if necessary. That, those signatures on the petition have been delivered to the city and registered on record with the city. The most recent, recent secondary plan for the Southwest was updated on October 24th by the consultants and in accordance probably with city planning staff.

[1:41:37] The one thing we’ve noticed that the new proposal by, for PAC wrote, is 180 degree change in direction with an extreme focus on high density development. Our question, one of the questions that was raised a lot by residents is, why is the city so focused on making the Southwest area plans the most popular, the most densely populated area in London? Can this goal of high density not be spread throughout the multitude of proposed developments that are scheduled in the city of London? We have reviewed on the city’s website many proposed developments and many of these developments do not even have high density as part of the proposal.

[1:42:18] Yet these developments are located on urban thoroughfare next to and close proximity rapid transit, commerce, business, finance, and other service providers. PAC wrote, meanwhile, is a designated civic boulevard. This is a very perplexing observation. In the report to the planning and environment committee submitted by Scott Mather, the section 2.4 outlined about public engagement. Due to the extreme variation from the secondary plan, this traditional engagement process falls short, quite frankly, and also is insignificant.

[1:42:52] Not insufficient, I apologize. Public engagement should have been by way of public hall meetings with the North Tower of the Village community face to face so that we could interact together. And we have stated publicly that we are willing to meet with the city planning department and the developer to find an amicable solution for this development. We are a community of some 12,000 homes, and we contribute $8.4 million of municipal taxes annually to the city. My final point is a question. As all counselors are citizens of London and live within our communities, we ask you for 30 to 60 seconds.

[1:43:30] Please take off your political hat and think to yourself, how would you feel if this was your community being impacted in this manner? Keep in mind, we are all lenders. Thank you, counselors. Thank you. Look for the next speaker, please, sir. I just got to adjust to the microphone here. It’s a little awkward for me. Just take your time. Take your time. Give us your name and why don’t you get going in five minutes. OK, so my name is Ron Winpress. I live on settlement trail. I’ve lived there since 2007.

[1:44:03] I’d like to say that I, first of all, support the NTHA and its mission. We know the city is challenged by the provincial government to build more housing, and the city is on target to meet their goals. I will also suggest that increasing the heights of buildings by the way of rezoning is not needed for the city to maintain its growth targets here. I would also suggest this 0.3 square kilometer section of land is being aggressively targeted versus other proposals throughout the city. The sheer number of buildings clearly shows this. I want to start by calling this development what it really is.

[1:44:37] It’s an over-the-top, in-your-face, overbearing development, edging on a village, Talbot Village, an area with numerous ecological systems, natural areas, and migratory birds. Most of the building heights here are crazy. Just last October, slop was reviewed and maintained the maximum height for medium density at nine stories. As a reference point, it’s already 50% higher than other neighborhood types across most of the city, which is at a maximum of six stories. These higher buildings alone should be enough for the city to continue to meet its provincial targets, but it appears not.

[1:45:15] Rezoning wants to take some buildings to 12 and 16 stories. 50% and 77% higher than SWAP and double that of other neighborhood types. This is simply unreasonable. SWAP was designed to provide essential growth in a well-planned out manner. Even the city’s own evaluation by urban design does not support these heights. Comment number two from the staff report that was recently released says, urban design is not supportive of this proposed development and recommended submitting a revised proposal that demonstrates fit and compatibility with the surrounding context and aligns with the planned vision of the secondary plan.

[1:45:54] But who’s really driving these heights? It’s what I think I looked at. I have a letter with me that’s from Zalinka Priema that goes to the city planners dated on May 23rd, a quote from it. It was determined that revisions of the official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment are required to implement comments put forth by staff and address the desire for additional height and density. To me, it appears as the city planners here that are the ones that are pushing this rezoning. On June 2nd, just 10 days after that letter was written, an amendment was made to remove an open space block and add another 16-story building.

[1:46:31] That’s right, they removed park land and put in another 16-story building. Is this approach in line with the image of the forest city? I don’t think it is. To the city planners, we don’t need to become another city like Brampton, which built aimlessly and continues to struggle with unintended consequences of this type of growth. Today, the community is asking for more say in this massive development where everyone can live with a well thought out and agreed plan. If you want to follow swap in as policies, the extra involvement may be minimal.

[1:47:03] But either way, there’s still an issue with transitioning of the existing housing that needs to be addressed. I would strongly suggest that building item number 298 of the London plan is not being used here as it was designed. As well, from section 2.5, the policy context that requires clear documented direction. From the swap reference on page 14.1, conformity with policies of section 11.1 shall be demonstrated through the preparation of a concept plan on the site that exceeds the prevailing densities for that area.

[1:47:39] I just saw one briefly just a minute ago. We have not seen it before. That would, and I would ask that these concept plans become a little bit more clear here. They have to include the draft of the subdivision, including all apartment style types and their heights. It’s a staff responsibility to be sure that this is complete and effectively communicated to the public. I know you will hear from other speakers about these heronries presented on a joint properties. Based on what you hear, I would suggest restrictions will need to be in place on the most Western block identified as block 244.

[1:48:17] This block falls within 300 meters of the nesting area, and natural resources recommends the 300 meters. Further recommendations may dictate that this entire block needs to be rezoned to a lower density. 30 seconds. Every counselor has properties in their words right now that could be exploited. Just like this proposal is attempting to do, please just stand up and stop it. Follow the very expensive plans that were laid out by its professionals. That’s what the constituents expect the city to follow. It’s easy.

[1:48:48] Follow swap. No matter your decision today, the July 22nd meeting is where the rubber hits the road for all our wards. It’s every counselor’s chance to reject this proposal and set a precedent before it’s too late. The pendulum is starting to swing too far, and your citizens are starting to get upset. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Sorry about that, took a minute. No, that’s all right.

[1:49:21] Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Greetings, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Jennifer Madigan. I would like to address the 6309 Pack Road Development and my disagreement with the current proposed plan. I have lived on Pioneer Parkway for the past three years coming from Whitby. The main reason for our move was to get out of the GTA. My family is originally from London and we were coming home. We knew when we bought our home that it would be developed across Pack Road. Townhouses and single-family homes was what we were told. Imagine our surprise when five low-medium density apartment buildings facing Pack Road, but now to get this revision of 17 rental buildings, again, all facing Pack Road.

[1:50:01] To quote the application we received, the developer would like you to permit apartment buildings with a maximum to height of 16 stories, a maximum density of 300 units per hectare, and low-rise apartments, high-rise apartments, and multi-attached dwellings. My view of both the London Plan and the Southwest Secondary Plan is that this development proposal does not fit with the approved plans. My neighborhood of North Talbot Village is made up of three high-rise buildings between 12 and 16 stories beside a plaza, which includes a grocery store, drug store, banks, and other retail restaurants.

[1:50:34] A newly constructed seniors complex of six stories and currently two rental apartments of five stories each on Southdale Road. The interior of the neighborhood consists of single-family homes along with townhomes, parks, and conservation area. The London Plan, in your words, stipulates all planning and development proposals within existing and new neighborhoods will be required to articulate the neighborhood’s character and demonstrate how the proposal has been designed to fit within the context. The plan also says development that is designed to be a good fit and compatible with its contents, a high-quality, distinctive, and memorable city image, healthy, diverse, and vibrant neighborhoods that promote a sense of place and character.

[1:51:16] The proposal in front of you calls for 17. That’s right, 17 rental apartment buildings all facing Pac Road on a land roughly 31 hectares in size. The developer is asking for five 16-story high-rises and the remainder will be 9 to 12, with a density of 300 units per hectare, three times the current standard. I ask you, how does this fit into the current landscape of the North Talbot Village? Nowhere does our neighborhood have 17 apartment buildings in one row, nor do we want such a development?

[1:51:51] Is there a site similar to this in London? This proposal is better suited for an area that has not been developed yet, where there is easy access to amenities like grocery stores, banks, and drug stores, where there is not an existing neighborhood that has to be considered in your development. This site is not even close to downtown, Western, or Fanshawe Transit Lines. How do you incorporate this type of high-density concrete village into our existing neighborhood? There is a proposal to build three high-rise units at the southwest corner of Boswick and Pac. There are seven units going in on the southeast side of Boswick and Southdale, next to the community center, and there are still units to be built on the west side of Boswick and Southdale.

[1:52:32] This becomes over saturation of high-rise buildings in our community. To quote the proposal in front of you, this urban design is not supportive of the proposed development and recommends a revised proposal that demonstrates fit and compatibility with the surrounding context and aligns with the planned vision of the secondary plan. This is breaking the perimeters set out in both the London plan and the southwest secondary plan. Not only does a development of 17 high-rise buildings in a row not encapsulate our neighborhood, it looks and functions.

[1:53:05] But it is also unesthetically pleasing to the current residents who face Pac Road, whose houses are front-facing, built this way for a view, which will now be 17 high-rise apartments. Our neighborhood was not built with a stone privacy fence to eliminate traffic noise and housing from subdivision. Again, it’s open to Pac Road. How does this concrete village emphasize a healthy city? I’m asking you to vote the way your London plan and southwest plan calls for, what you as counselors implemented and send this proposal back to the developer. Reduce the number of apartment buildings in our neighborhood and move them to the back of the proposed subdivision to make it flow with the current subdivision on the front and back of Pac Road.

[1:53:47] Bring this plan in line with the 100 units per hectare. Help North Talbot retain her beauty and premier feel as a desired neighborhood in London. I thank you. Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Sharon Wimpers and I fully support the NTHA. There are growing concerns about the traffic infrastructure and planning associated with the current and proposed developments in the Pac Road corridor, particularly from Colonel Talbot Road to Bostrick Road.

[1:54:26] Several independent traffic impact assessments, TIA’s, paint a different picture from what is presented by the developer’s consultants raising serious concerns about road safety, congestion and long-term planning. In addition to the proposed development at 6.09 Pac Road, there are six other planning applications that are in the same immediate area. These must all be taken into consideration when discussing the traffic infrastructure. Combined, these developments will add 10,300 new units to the area. Conservatively, that will increase the population in a compact area by over 30,000 people.

[1:55:03] A key concern we have is contradictory traffic impact assessments. The 2024 TIA flags future queuing at Pac and Colonel Talbot and Pioneer Parkway impact that exceed the acceptable storage standards. The 2030 Arcatus Report for 3563 Bostrick at Pac Road indicates poor levels of service and significant congestion. The 2038 paradigm assessment suggests all conditions are acceptable, which contradict each other. The subdivision trip generation of TIA fails to consider the high density housing now proposed.

[1:55:39] There’s inadequate road capacity. Pac Road is described as a four-lane arterial route. However, transportation planning and design has confirmed that Pac Road will be upgraded as a two-lane road, not widened. This has magnified inaccurate information and increased issues on Pac Road. Also, the intersection of Pac and Bostrick is a nightmare. Turning northbound onto Bostrick from Pac Road is incredibly dangerous. There is fragmented planning and the lack of comprehensive studies. The present road is inadequate, especially during the winter season.

[1:56:14] Adequate repairs prior to any construction is a necessity. The current TIA’s are piecemealed and failed to present a full picture of cumulative traffic impact or taking into account future population growth. Noise pollution affecting nearby residential homes at face Pac Road, namely settlement court, Crown Grant and Brushland remain unaddressed. Many safety and operational issues also exist. Currently, construction-related traffic is causing safety hazards in front of 6092 Pac Road, the site of a heritage home that is being flanked by a townhouse development.

[1:56:49] Construction workers park haphazardly on both sides of Pac Road, where there is also a hill that blocks the view of oncoming traffic. This will create an even bigger hazard come September when the White Pine School opens on Regiment Road with over 840 children and additional 80 from the onsite daycare. No consideration has been given to the proposed construction traffic, along with the additional school traffic, including buses. Future infrastructure upgrades are insufficient to accommodate the expected traffic growth without a broader integrated plan.

[1:57:23] While upgrades to Colonel Talbot are still being completed, it remains a two-lane road inadequate even now. Now that we have highlighted the inadequacies, we’d like to offer some recommendations prior to any future development. Conduct a comprehensive traffic study for the entire Pac Road corridor, including projected future growth, proposed developments and surrounding arterial roads, mandate developer accountability for the impacts that are not currently reflected in the submitted TIAs, address pedestrian and student safety in the context of White Pine School and nearby construction zones.

[1:58:01] Ensure proper coordination between planning, transportation and engineering departments to create a unified infrastructure strategy. In conclusion, the existing traffic infrastructure is already understrained and projected developments will only increase this burden. Without any inclusive data-driven reassessment, the corridor faces worsening congestion, reduced safety and long-term planning failures. We urge council to direct staff to undertake a full corridor analysis and defer further approvals until a complete, transparent traffic solution is developed.

[1:58:38] Thank you. Thank you. If you look for the next speaker, please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Pamela Antonio and I represent the North Talbot Homeowner Association and I’m gonna speak to you today about some of these zoning issues and our concerns surrounding the high-density proposal, the rezoning proposal. So under the swap, we’ve mentioned that there’s site-specific zoning amendment that requires a concept plan until today’s presentation by staff.

[1:59:18] We were unaware that that image that was on the PowerPoint presentation was actually the concept plan. We would have liked to have had an opportunity to review that in more detail. This proposal recommends an increase in density of three times the suggested density and swap and brings a host of land use planning issues ranging from traffic over capacity, public work servicing, environmental issues, all of which have been raised by city staff through their internal comments.

[1:59:54] So we’ve spoken about the sanitary sewer issues that right now staff are claiming that the Talbot Road sanitary sewer line system is over capacity and with the proposed increase in population, there’ll be further stress on the system. So one of the unknown questions is who will be required to upgrade this system? Higher building heights are being proposed to accommodate the density and will definitely affect building shadowing. Particularly during the winter months, many homes will be under building shadow the entire day.

[2:00:33] So we understand that the province position on shadowing is to not be factored into any decision-making process for development applications. But I ask you, you know, what right does the province have to dismiss the effect of shadowing which will impact people’s right to really enjoy their homes? Morley, is that right? The traffic impact assessment prepared by the developer notes, substandard conditions, extended queuing and sequencing that were not mentioned in the staff report and the traffic impact assessment also recommends or suggests downloading some of the traffic within Talbot Village or North Talbot.

[2:01:19] Doing this would result in large volumes of traffic during peak hours being redirected to other areas in the subdivision that were not designed for that level of traffic. And it will present safety concerns. Another report states that PAC Road is to be widened to four lanes, but consider an urban thoroughfare where transportation planning is saying that it’s going to stay as a two lane. So that needs to be addressed before approval of any changes.

[2:01:56] The development of this size proposed along a civic boulevard goes against city planning and transportation policies. And approval of this amendment would be contrary to historical practices by the city. So these issues should be addressed before approving any of these zoning applications. The subdivision planning committee comments indicate that the proposed amendment is not in keeping with the London Plan or with SWAP and would is not considered compatible with the surrounding area.

[2:02:33] And would the permitting this development would exceed servicing capacities. There have been design committee comments we’re also not supportive of the proposal and recommends that a new design be resubmitted when one is in keeping with the vision of the secondary plan. And modeling parameters used for the post development calculations are not representative of the proposed land uses and needs to be updated. So all of these really do need to be addressed before any approvals are made on this application.

[2:03:09] Then we have environmental considerations such as the blue heron habitat, which we’ve spoken about, staff have yet to receive final comments from two government agencies to confirm the development requirements around this habitat. 30 seconds. Okay, so what we’re asking is that we take that this committee who look at these outstanding issues and address them, provide clarification and resolve them before any official plan or zoning amendments are approved.

[2:03:46] Thank you. Thank you. I look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members and city staff. My name is John Whitlock and my family and I reside on Pioneer Parkway within Talbot Village. I fully understand and support the need for responsible development and growth. What I’m opposed to is the request to change the zoning from medium density to maximum nine stories for a hundred units per hectare to high density up to 16 stories and 300 units per hectare.

[2:04:25] Similar to all of our neighbors, my wife and I invest in our home based on the established zoning of low and medium density within the Southwest area plan. I understand that impacts to housing values are not considered or taken into account. However, there are numerous examples where this has occurred with the introduction of mass densification. This proposal does not conform to the surrounding neighborhood known as Talbot Village. The staff report notes in section 4.2 that the proposed heights are consistent with the surrounding area.

[2:04:58] To put this in perspective, there’s three high rises currently in the subdivision, not 17 high rise rentals lined up over one kilometer. Directly south of this proposal is another subdivision application for 3680 and 3700 curl Talbot Road, which also contains low and medium density zoning. The developers plan conforms to the current medium density zoning requirements according to the North Lambeth neighborhood and the residential development adjacent to a civic boulevard within SWAP. My question is why are the existing zoning requirements acceptable for that application, but not development on 6309 Pack Road.

[2:05:38] Within section 4.6 are several other concerns raised by myself and other neighbors that have not been addressed. The increased traffic and congestion, the submitted traffic impact assessment notes that there will be delays in traffic movement and that additional studies will be required during future site plan reviews, but not addressed today. Members here both spoke on the ecological impacts, several outstanding issues in regards to the protection of the significant wildlife habitat for the great blue herons that reside in the adjacent block in addition to the Talbot Village wetlands and whose flight path to Digman wetlands passes right through this proposal.

[2:06:19] With the number of units and buildings being proposed, noise from additional traffic is going to be an issue. Noise impact mitigation has not been addressed aside from noting that noise studies may be required for future site plan review. Per the submitted building shadow study, our home, along with our neighbors on Pioneer Parkway, Settlement Court, Crown Grant, Frontier, Brushland and Regiment are in complete building shadow all day during the winter solstice. This is a direct impact to our family with the lack of sunshine and natural light in the home.

[2:06:53] This is completely unacceptable. The underground infrastructure, the main concern with the sanitary sewer service for this development proposal and the constraint along Colonel Talbot Road. The city just spent over $17 million of taxpayers’ money to update Colonel Talbot Road and yet the now the sewer may need to be upgraded to support this mass intensification of this development if the constraint cannot be addressed. Based on the above concerns and uncertainties, it is irresponsible to approve this proposal.

[2:07:28] It needs to be sent back and amended to conform to the existing low and medium density zoning requirements per swap. I close with this. For those sitting in the horseshoe, you were voted by the people, for the people. Please listen to the people. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name. You have five minutes.

[2:08:01] Good afternoon, Chairman Lehman. Councillors, Mayor Morgan, city staff and to the public. My name is Phil Vol. I live at 3402 Crane Avenue, one block away from the proposed development. I am fully supporting the North Talbot Homeowners Association. I lived in the beautiful Talbot Village for the past 11 years. It is directly across the 6309 PAC Road and is filled with the most incredible wildlife. Thanks to several resident photographers, not only share their magazine or the photos, but also provide a description of the species and often comment on the rarity of them being seen in our area.

[2:08:43] At least several times a month, there is a photo of something I’ve never seen before. Have you ever seen a duck with a blue bill? It is a male, ruddy duck. How about a beautiful, cast and turn? Sandhill Crane, bald eagle, hooded, maggener, or members of the heron species. We certainly know that spring has arrived when we see the return of the great egret, great blue heron, white heron, green heron, a spectacular sight for sure.

[2:09:18] While reading the report to Planning Environment Committee on 6309 PAC Road, I also read comments by the various city departments, as well as letters from concerned citizens. Today, I would like to address the contents of the letter written by the property owner of 6499 PAC Road, which is adjacent to the subject land property. To quote the owner, there were no less than eight heron nests during 2024. These heron nests are long standing colony that have been there for years.

[2:09:52] The comments from the subdivision planning indicate there is a mayor, major unresolved issue within a herony. Comment seven on page 44 of the document states the following. As further outlined in the comments provided by the ecology staff, the EIS environmental impact statement, and the EMP environmental management plan is required to update to confirm the presence of herony on the property at 6499 PAC Road. The management guidelines of the protection of heronies and Ontario, prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources, commands a minimum buffer of 300 meters and a thousand meter buffer for heavy development.

[2:10:38] Further guidance is provided to permitted activities during sensitive breeding seasons. Staff have contacted the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the MNR to confirm the requirements for development adjacent to heronies. We are waiting for response from the staff and provide an update when available. From the publication entitled management guidelines for the protection of heronies in Ontario, section 3.4 states. Written specifications for the establishment of buffer zone shielding heronies from habitat destruction or disturbance should be required in all permits for activities or developments that pose a potential threat to those heronies.

[2:11:21] Buffer zone should be established around each active herony that is vulnerable to human disturbances during the sensitive breeding season. In Southern Ontario, March 15th, August 1st, is that time period. As a general rule, it should be remembered that the majority of herons are extremely sensitive to disturbance and that the widest buffer zone should possible should be established around the colonies. It is interesting note that in the environmental impact study prepared by the MTE consultants for south side construction, does not even mention the existence of heronies.

[2:12:04] Clearly, this is an issue that must be resolved before development can proceed with a concise plan of action to mitigate this issue. Any plans must be reviewed by the MHHA as, well, the MNR. I look forward to hearing the response. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Sorry, I’m a little shorter than the others.

[2:12:36] And I have nothing prepared. My name is Christine Richardson. I’ve been a resident of Talbot Village for the last 15 minutes. I’ve also been an emergency room physician and a professor at Western University for the last 20 years since completing my medical school and residency training here. I’m not going to necessarily address what has already been touched upon. We need us to say I moved to Talbot Village from more medium density housing near the university to get away from that. With the anticipation that eventually, yes, south of Pack Road, it would be developed, but again, in keeping with our current neighborhood.

[2:13:17] My fear as an emergency room physician is this desire for rapid, unprecedented growth in our city. In this very small area, you’re looking at approximately 30,000 more people. In our current city, population approximately 400,000 people, 25% or 100,000 people currently do not have a family physician. It is anticipated that 61 of the family physicians currently in London will be retiring within the next five years.

[2:13:52] That will leave an additional 85,000 people without a family physician. You want to add another 30,000 people to our small area, not to mention all of the other rapid growth that London seems to want. That is another 30 to who knows what, thousand people without a family physician. So where does this fall? Well, this burden falls to our emergency departments and our urgent care center at St. Joseph’s. We are already overwhelmed. I just took a moment to look at the current wait times, which traditionally in the summer are much shorter.

[2:14:30] Current wait times for non-life threatening, i.e. people who are actively dying and require resuscitation, is approximately five hours at both sites. Urgent care, similarly, we see 150 patients every single day, 165 on Mondays with the addition of an additional physician, where I worked yesterday, we cannot keep up with the current volumes. So please, counselors, Mr. Mayor, slow down, we’re doing too much growth, too fast for the existing healthcare resources that we have in this city.

[2:15:11] I thank you for your time. And again, please reconsider the proposal for South of Pat Road, in addition to the other proposals that have not yet been discussed. Thank you very much. Thank you. I look for the next speaker. I see a gentleman at the top here. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Stephen Gray, and I live on settlement court. I will be affected by this development quite substantially. And I would like to address the individuals today about the report that I reviewed.

[2:15:50] The most concerning part to me about the report is the conclusion itself that the planners have arrived at. It begins with that this is a thoughtful, balanced development that meets the needs of the current residents. I am sure that the residents here that are present today and those that signed the petition would take issue with this statement. 17 buildings, eight to 16 stories is not well balanced and does not fit into the community environment. Further, the conclusion of the report states that the proposed development demonstrates strong alignment with planning frameworks, including the London Plan and Zoning By-law.

[2:16:34] How is this statement even accurate? Even an accurate reflection of the truth. Seeing that the by-law is currently for this land is on low to medium. How does five 16-story high rise fit into that plan? How does moving from 100 units per hectare to 300 demonstrate alignment to that plan? It goes on to say that development are deemed appropriate with the character of the surrounding community. If you’ve had a chance, I refer you to the building concept that we saw, the picture of a concept of where the buildings would be.

[2:17:15] And you could see the contrast and how this development is not deemed appropriate or consistent with the surrounding community. It also then further states that this development diversity of housing, it supports diversity, inclusion, effective infrastructure utilization and sustainable growth.

[2:17:47] I would say that all of these are important considerations, but they can be achieved without 17 high-rise building, five of which are 16 stories high. But the most striking part about the report’s conclusion is what’s missing. It makes no mention of anything negative. Any of the challenges, any of the pushback from the community, anything about the school that we just built in the area that is already close to capacity.

[2:18:23] It says nothing about sewer upgrades or the need for better roads, public transportation. It says nothing about the noise issues, the shadow, the loss of privacy concerns and all the possible property value declines for the residents of the community. So for all of these reasons, I completely oppose any type of development as it stands now. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

[2:19:00] Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi, my name’s Alec Edwards. I’m a lived on settlement trail for almost 10 years now. With only five minutes to speak, I just want to concentrate on the traffic congestion concern. This Pack Road corridor cannot handle the increased traffic volume, as demonstrated over the past year and a half, while Colonel Talbot has been shut down. This is just a microcosm of what would be in store for if our community is inundated with high density.

[2:19:37] It’s mainly due to the additional traffic from Byron trying to avert Southdale Road. I want to use this as an example. I was born and raised in London and I’ve seen many administrations with the inability to be proactive when it comes to road construction. In 1985, my wife and I built a home in Masonville. A year after we moved in, they decided to widen Richmond Street or Fanshawe Park Road from Richmond to Adelaide and for two years, it was virtually shut down.

[2:20:20] Then once they finished that, Adelaide Street was widened to four lanes from Windermere to Fanshawe Park Road. And to add insult to injury, it took 30 years before they finally widen Fanshawe Park Road over to Highberry Ave. It’s been build, build, build on the north side with no good exit to the south side in the 401. There, and there’s no plans to do so in the near future. Therefore, the bottom line is, I have no confidence that the city can manage this traffic problem proactively.

[2:21:00] I don’t wish to offend anybody, but London doesn’t need another low rent area of Marconi Boulevard or Kips Lane. You can call me Nimby, but not in my neighbourhood. London doesn’t need to become another Toronto, but maybe you can learn something from the traffic problems and mistakes they’re having. However, if you still want a piece of the government’s carrot that’s dangling in front of you, please consider this proposal.

[2:21:35] Pull ahead the extension of Bradley through to Wonderland and Bostwick and build your precious high density on either side of it. You’ll have a egress to Wonderland and walkable access to the stores and restaurants on Wonderland. Keep the high density between Wonderland and Bostwick as already started on Southdale. Please do what’s right for London and avoid the hodgepodge that’s proposed on Pack Road. Once you ring that building disaster, you can’t unring it.

[2:22:09] Plan for a better, more common sense future. Thank you very much. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Hello, my name is your name, you have five minutes. My name’s Julie Roscoe. I also do have nothing planned, but I felt compelled to come today and speak. I grew up in London. I live on settlement trail. I’ve been there for five years. I’ve lived in Burlington in the Halton region for probably the last 30 and I’ve seen a lot of development through that corridor. And one of my neighbors spoke about healthcare, which is one of the things I wanted to talk about.

[2:22:44] What I noticed from the Halton region is they built the things that were required for infrastructure for that growth. And in matter of fact, I just took advantage of that because when I went to have a hip replacement in London, I was told it was gonna be a 13 month wait when I went to the Rapid Access Clinic and I was taken to Oakville, Trafalgar and it was done in three months. And that’s as we are now. I can’t even imagine what we’re talking about with further residents. I have a friend who works in St. Thomas at the emergency room there. And she said that probably as a guest, over 30% of the people that they see currently are from the South end of London.

[2:23:20] So as those numbers increase and as St. Thomas is going through phenomenal growth with the new electric battery plant, they’re only gonna see more. So I don’t really understand why it is we don’t have the infrastructure prior to making these growth applications. We’ve talked about the fact that this was posted. There’s a sign across the pack road where I live and it showed six story, maybe even nine story development. I didn’t count on the plan. We go away on holiday for three weeks and we come back and there’s an amendment sticker on it.

[2:23:54] I talked to someone in my neighborhood who says they signed a petition. All of this change has gone on within a month. So it’s really hard for the neighbors to even understand what that 105 page document is referring to, let alone digest it and offer community feedback. So I encourage you prior to accepting this application for this abomination that’s about to occur in the name of development to have more community input. It’s possibly a town hall meeting. There’s obviously a lot to say. There’s a lot of points that have been made. They need to be addressed.

[2:24:27] Pushing something through gives a very poor message to the constituents of that area that the dollars from the developer and one of them lives right by us flying a helicopter which I still don’t know how he gets to land within 200 feet of neighbors, but they are the priority. And you really wanna have us as your priority ‘cause we make those decisions. You need to listen to people and obviously people have taken their time out of their day to day and many can’t be here. I canceled work today to be here. You have to be able to listen to people before you push something through and this is happening too fast to have all the feedback that’s required.

[2:25:04] Thank you for listening. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Abdullah Asak, I live in the area. I was gonna come here and read some stuff and I decided to change my mind.

[2:25:38] Honestly, I see a bunch of people here sitting with hopes that something will change. But when I look down at people here, I’m seeing people like Deputy Mayor on his phone not even listening to people. That’s the first problem I have. Okay, point of order, Chair. Yeah, I’m gonna have to ask you to stick with your comments regarding this particular application, not personal comments about either staff or counselors or people in the gallery, please. Chair, respectfully, I’m gonna address that through you.

[2:26:16] I’m actually getting information to answer one of the questions that a member of the public asked from a member of our staff. I do have to multitask and I can listen to you and ask a question of our staff to get data at the same time, thank you. So my question is not in regards to helping everybody here because I know that that help won’t come from this council. I understand that you guys have all your jobs to do and everything, right? But at least take the time to listen to this lady here who is up here talking, pretty hard out there.

[2:26:53] And people are multitasking, that’s okay. I was spoken about traffic densities and so on and these studies that were done, these studies that were done by who, the representative from the developer, these studies are not bona fide. These studies should be done by the city, people who have no vested interest in this type of development.

[2:27:29] They should not be left to the developer and their representatives. When it comes to these high rises, I can attest to you looking at other high rises in the community where London Police Service have a lot of work in these places. I’m looking at the planners right now and I’m wondering if they’ve had the opportunity to get London Police Service impact studies from them on how this massive development could influence the communities that they’re planning to build.

[2:28:18] No such thing was done. There’s one more point I’d like to make and it might be a touchy subject for a lot of people here. I understand these developers have, they need to make money, they need to survive, they need to grow, they need to get big, they need to compete with everybody.

[2:28:56] And there are type of people that would put forward a presentation and make it all look good on paper. What are we really seeing here? They not only give you this presentation, they give you hope that they’re gonna be building a community when they don’t really care about that community. You all have the power to say no to this. And I’m asking you to consider this.

[2:29:30] I know for a fact that a lot of the developers and builders tend to give donations to the city. I’m gonna stop you right there, sir. You’re getting into dangerous ground. I’m sorry, what danger is ground is that? I’m not gonna get into judging decisions made by campaign donations. Donations are made by many folks. Absolutely. And they’re totally allowed by the Misfatt and so I’m just not, just stick to the issues with this particular project.

[2:30:11] Don’t go to motivation, either by staff or counselors or other folks, including developers. Listen, we’re listening with open ears to what you have to say. Please do not get into what you are thinking are motivations for anybody here. I just asked you to keep to the facts of this discussion at hand. These are the facts.

[2:30:44] Sir, if you keep down that, I’m gonna have to ask you to stop. If you want to move on to some other comments, fine. But if you don’t, then I’m gonna have to ask you. Okay, I’ll ask a question then. And you have 30 seconds, by the way. The YMCA building is owned by the city of London. There are signs in there by the beer bomb family and the Longo family. How did those signs get up there? I’ll ask that question after you’re done. After we’re done here. Okay, I’ll look for the next speaker.

[2:31:27] Please ma’am, it was your name, you have five minutes. Hi, good afternoon. I had no intention of saying anything, but good afternoon Chairman Lehman and members of council. My name is Joanna Metzopoulos. I’m born and raised in London, Ontario, went to University of Western, Ontario, Western now, where I got my engineering degree, lived in Toronto for eight or nine years, moved to the US for a bunch of years. I’ve actually come back to London on purpose very deliberately. As part of my career choice and family choice, I’ve brought American husband. We won’t tell that. To London also, who’s now a proud Londoner.

[2:32:01] And specifically to this issue, my comment and the question that I want to leave you with is I can only assume that we, as a city, paid money for both the London plan and the Southwest swap plan. And my genuine question is, how do we get from data-driven studies to this proposed amendment? And if there is data supporting this amendment and how we should revisit both the London plan and the swap, maybe those two things should happen prior to approval of such a drastic change.

[2:32:48] So it’s part of my day job. I have to make challenging decisions based on the best information I have. I know you guys are in the same position. And I would just say from my standpoint, speaking for me and my family, I would love to know the data behind such a drastic change. And then the precedence that would set to disregard of the London plan and the swap. So thank you for your time. I have to go get a toddler now who goes to daycare right in that same neighborhood. And so I appreciate you listening and then I wish I could hear your comments afterwards during the council comments, but thank you.

[2:33:30] This is all being recorded on YouTube so you can dial in and check that out. Thank you for your comments. I look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name if I am. Mike Pepe and I live on Crown Grant Road. I’m directly affected by what’s going to take place there. About a year, I think last year I got a notice from the city that Brandy Holmes was going to do a development on Southvale Road and there’s no apparent sewer connection on Southvale Road.

[2:34:06] So they had to go through the brand new subdivision. They plan on tearing up Crown Grant Road, Crown Grant link to intensify the sewer system to carry the load from Southvale Road. When they just tore it all up like last few years and I’m just kind of curious as to why we’re allowing such a huge development now to take place in an already congested area. Like I mean, I’m just boggled by that. Maybe somebody can answer that question for me. I don’t know what’s happened.

[2:34:39] I haven’t gotten any other notices in the mail regarding this planning proposal, but I was shocked that Southvale Road, they’re going to upgrade our sewer system to handle the load from Southvale Road. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, look for the next speaker. Please sort of give us your name, you know, five minutes. My name is Ed Mabel. I just have a question for the young lady who spoke first from, why do the big apartment buildings have to be on Pack Road? Why can’t they be behind?

[2:35:14] Why do they have to face Pack Road? Can you answer that question for me? No, she can’t, but I’ll ask that question for you. As I’m taking notes here, there’s a couple of questions that have been raised and I’ll get to them when we’re finished. Sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Lehman. I’ll look for the next speaker.

[2:35:45] Steve. Oh, Councilor Palosa. Recognizing we have a lot of residents here who might be their first time, just so they know, I don’t know if that gentleman had anything else to say that you can only speak once and you can’t share your time. So if you had other comments to make for the committee chair, okay, just wanted to make sure that they didn’t. Thank you for that information, Councilor. I’ll look for the next speaker. I understand we have someone online. I understand we have Nicole from Sitan Properties, you’re online, you would like to address the committee.

[2:36:25] Yes, thank you. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Okay, thank you. My name is Nicole Lumes. I’m the project manager for Sitan Properties Planning Development Team. We’re here in front of Pack today, just to acknowledge our formal response to this application and though this is not a formal objective to the development of this property for residential uses, it is, however, an acknowledgement that there are steps that we believe need to be managed and fulfilled prior to this application being formally approved, namely cooperation and coordination between us as developers who share an adjacent property line with regard to both road connections as well as servicing outlets.

[2:37:13] Speaking directly to the letter submitted, Sitan Properties has initiated conversations with Southside on how to appropriately master plan our subdivisions between our sites. Though at this time, there’s still no concrete conclusions that have been made and Sitan’s concept for phase two remains in flux pending further conversations. To this, it has been understood through previous conversations with the City of London that two road connections are required for the easterly portion of our lands through this application.

[2:37:50] And only one connection has been shown on this plan for a pack road. And from Sitan’s perspective, it hasn’t been fully fleshed out in an unapproved, if you wanna call it, position right now. Based on recent conversations with the City since formally submitting our letter of opposition, it is understood that this issue is proposed by staff to be dealt with through a condition of draft approval, which is acceptable to us though, I may suggest that the condition apply to both the creation of a north connection on our plan as well as an east connection.

[2:38:32] And that would be south and west respectively on this proposed application. Furthermore, that these locations both satisfy Southside along with Sitan Properties. As the committee is aware, this application does require a sanitary outlet as well as the construction of a stormwater management pond on Sitan lands to accept stormwater and sanitary flows from this application, thus imposing additional encumbrances on our already restrictive site.

[2:39:05] Understandingness, it is our ask that we are not the only party involved to accommodate requests, and that we are appropriately and adequately compensated by Southside’s flexibility on possible connection opportunities. That concludes our concerns on this file, and that we ask that the committee take this into consideration upon deliberation, thank you. Thank you. I see Melissa Steen online. Please go ahead, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Thank you, can you hear me okay?

[2:39:41] We can, thanks. Thank you. I just wanna floor and everyone involved with this decision-making process to please take more time to fully understand the impacts that this proposal will have on the land, wildlife, and residents, not just the 220 that were notified by mail. Quick note to say that the NTHA spoke to residents, and many of them were not even aware of the plans. We have snowbirds and many busy families in this community who didn’t understand what was happening, many do not read or receive the Londoner.

[2:40:20] I’m a resident highly impacted by the proposed building. Having resided here over six years, the side of my house is directly on Pack Road. For the land, I saw when we moved into this home, 2017 EAS that was completed for the farmland surrounding the current home on Pack Road, and noted there was a rare nesting bird in the forest around that home. I’m not sure if this was the heron or a different bird, I believe it was to be a different bird.

[2:40:57] So I just wanted to know if that bird was still nesting in the area, if it was still applicable. Also noted was a crayfish, a rare crayfish in the pond. I saw, mentioned somewhere that it was noted to be relocated. Just like to inquire as to whether or not this has such a thing has successfully taken place in the past, or if it’s even necessary, can the pond just remain in its natural state and protect those crayfish? In addition to that, as mentioned and noted in the ecological impact, the Great Blue Heron, it’s noted as the impact not being fully researched and their area must be protected along with a buffer, which I think is being removed with the plan to remove that green space.

[2:41:56] So I just wanted to make note of that as well. Living right across from the forest, I see the herd of deer, there’s a family that lives in the forest there, approximately 25 that we know and love, and it also serves as a backup for neighboring herds in this rounding forest, coming all the way from Bostwick. I see them when they get spooked. They run into our forest here. One time I have a video of about a hundred of them running across the fields into the protection of our pack road forest.

[2:42:32] Also the watershed, I believe this site was identified as significant watershed area. When it rains, I see a small river cut through the farmer’s field that runs into the slope on the west side of the forest. Just wanna make sure that that’s being considered and protected. Finally on a personal level, please consider the personal impact to families and children. There’s just too much stress on our plates already and the cost of living is already too high to add moving costs.

[2:43:07] It cannot be allowed for people in our city to plant roots with expectations on our neighborhood. Only having that is so drastically changed to an unlivable level. My family has established roots here. We put money into making this our permanent home. My shy son is so excited to have established deep friendships within walking distance of our home. Their proposed buildings come as a complete shock to us. They would remove all sunlight coming into my home and most of my yard, most of the time per the shade study provided by the city.

[2:43:44] This is very negatively affecting our mental states. Sunshine is light, right? We would lose all privacy in our yard. We can’t live like this. We’d be forced to move, to move. I just wanna say that we are a unique, well-connected community here. I would say we are a model of what the city of London wants to represent. Our lives will be very negatively changed by the high density being so close. Already soft enough.

[2:44:17] We walked together around the neighborhood encouraging healthy habits. My neighbors hugged me as I cried for the recent loss of my father. We know each other’s dogs, their friends too. Please be a council mindful of this community and stewards of protecting the status quo. Consider putting the buildings in a more appropriate area. Expand this neighborhood as it is now. We invite you to walk our streets, our greens both spaces. I’ll ask you to wrap it up please for five minutes. You would negatively be impacting our decision. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

[2:44:50] Yes, my name is yours. Please forgive me for five minutes. I’m also a resident of the area. We’ve been in London for 15 years and we came as South American immigrants. So I fully understand the importance of affordable housing. But coming here with nothing and building a future for our family, I also understand the importance of certainty in order to attract peace of mind for investment. And when we moved to this location and made it our home family, we did so with making the most important investment in our lives with the expectation that it was gonna be neighboring a low to medium density urbanization, right?

[2:45:33] So the fact that it changes so dramatically, I think it’s a huge impact and I think it’s being moved abruptly. Clearly after listening to the member from Sefton communities, there’s a lot of details that don’t have been flushed out or well thought through. The comments on the recommendation from the city planners really understated the feedback from the community in the townhouse. The school where my kids went to elementary school has over 15 portables right now. And the new school that’s in Talbot Village is already at capacity.

[2:46:08] How are we going to add 10,000 people and expect that the same infrastructure is gonna suffice? The pack road is already a hazard. My kids render bikes in the neighborhoods. I mean, it’s already dangerous and we’re going to add, again, 10,000 people without thinking this through. It does seem that it’s being rushed. I think the fact that you got almost 500 signatures in a 10 day timeframe is a strong, strong message of the reaction of the community that’s been made aware very, very, very recently.

[2:46:41] I think everybody in the community is more than willing to work with the developers ‘cause we understand that there’s needs, right? But to work with the developments to reach a proposal that makes sense for the city, that also makes sense for the neighbors. And we’re not prioritizing one group over the others because there’s neighbors. We’ve also been contributing to the city through our taxes and based on the trust that we’ve had on the city and the city planners for over a decade. So again, just looking for you guys to take these into account. We’re willing to work with the planners. Certainly this is being rushed.

[2:47:14] We don’t need to do it so fast. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone else online. There’s no one online, one more look around. Okay. Thanks folks. I appreciate your comments and I understand it’s emotional thing here that we’re deliberating. But listen, we were listening to you.

[2:47:51] It’s a tough job down here as well as we’re dealing with the housing situation in London. On that note, I’ll look for a motion to close with PPM. Councilor Cuddy, the second by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call the vote. I’m just thinking about the motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

[2:48:24] There are a couple of questions that were raised in the comments that I would like to go to staff with for their comments. Let’s start with sewer capacity. Can you just talk to me a bit about the sewer capacity, not only for this project for the number of projects that were mentioned that have them built and we know that are coming in the area? Thank you. Through the chair, yes, as noted in the report, the phasing of this development is a consideration in terms of the sanitary sewer capacity on Colonel Talbot down near a prompt station.

[2:49:02] This is because on paper, the sewer design sheets take into the potential development of the entire sewer shed. So on paper, it could be constrained at this point in time until there’s a short section that would need to be increased in size. However, we don’t reach that point for quite some time. So it really depends on the development phasing and timing of the various developments. So that’s why we would be keeping an eye on it through the development process and monitoring it for that when that piece would need to be upgraded, but it could be quite some time from now.

[2:49:35] And I believe Mr. Kavic is gonna speak to the other developments that have come in. Okay, thanks, Ashley, through the chair. One of the residents referenced 735 self-dale or the application where there was the potential for reconstruction of sanitary sewers through Crown Grant Road. We’ve actually worked with the developer, recently through the focus design studies for the subdivision process to show that no reconstruction is actually needed on Crown Grant. There is another sewer along Mercier that offers an outlet that has capacity for that development as well as south side through their Talbot 9, 305 Bosswick Road application that came forward.

[2:50:17] Last PEC cycle also looked at adjustments to the sanitary servicing within that area to make sure that there weren’t any impacts to existing residents. Thank you, and how are holding provisions used by planning to address such things? Thank you, through the chair. So for this application, we did request holding provisions on the high density blocks. That’s just specifically to ensure that development there would not be permitted until, as Ashley had referenced, an appropriate sanitary outlet is provided if we are over capacity at the time, we have the holding provisions as a tool to use to hold off until such time as is permitted.

[2:51:10] Thank you. A number of questions were raised about traffic. Can you comment on traffic studies the city has done? Also touch on, you know, is there space enough for PEC Road to be widened at a future time? Thank you, chair, and through you, I’m going to push that question to our division manager, Sarah Grady, who’s currently online. Please go ahead. Hi there, happy to answer this question.

[2:51:46] So PEC Road is planned for a two lane upgrade. The current right away, I’m just double checking what the width is, but it does have the classification that would allow for a standard right away that could allow it to be widened to four lanes in the future. Through the mobility master plan, we did do traffic forecasting from now to 2050 based on population and planning growth in the area. And at that master planning level, it did recommend that PEC would operate at a good local service at two lanes. Having said that, Bradley to the east of Boswick is going to be four lanes.

[2:52:24] And where that four lanes would transition down to two lanes would need to be determined. Actually in the Boswick EA, it does show that PEC Road would be four lanes going west of Boswick. So there would be a portion of PEC directly east of Boswick that would be four lanes. And where that lane drop down to two lanes would happen will be determined through the design phase and NTAs like the one that developers submitted will help inform those types of decisions. Thank you. There was some questions regarding the blue heron protection. It was referred to in the agenda.

[2:52:59] Just one more staff comment on that. Yes, thank you through the chair. Emily Williamson, manager of environmental planning. With respect to the heronaries, staff have no policy justification to recommend refusal of this application. Similar to the public, we did reach out to the province, the existing guidelines with respect to heron setbacks, speak to construction mitigation solely and not long-term impacts associated with development. With that in mind and given that the province responded to us saying that provided that the consultant was able to demonstrate no negative impact to the significant wildlife habitat, which staff believe that they have through the report, that nothing further would be required permitting-wise.

[2:53:49] With that in mind, we reverted to London Plan Policy and the associated framework. The significant wildlife habitat is the complete component. So the forest surrounding the heronary and over 60 meters has been provided between the proposed application and that parcel. We will also note that many of the homes that are north of Pack Road fall well within that 300-meter developable limit and the herons have persisted based on the presence of those homes. So we are confident that provided sufficient mitigation measures are in place that this can go forward.

[2:54:26] And again, there’s no sufficient policy justification for why we would recommend refusal. Thank you. The question was raised. Why are the apartments being placed along Pack Road, facing Pack Road and not farther in the interior of the development? Thank you for the question and through the chair. Generally, a higher density development is typically located closer to higher order roads. And in this case, which is Pack Road, and then the Bradley Avenue West, once fully connected, could then provide for a higher order road when compared to, let’s say, Southdale.

[2:55:08] Thank you. There are other questions that other counselors might want to touch on. I might touch on them myself in my own remarks, but I’ll leave it at that. So now I’ll open the discussion for committee members looking for the first speaker. Go to the mayor. Yeah, I’ll just put the staff recommendation on the floor and then let others speak. But I think you want a motion on the floor before we proceed. It’s a good way to get things started.

[2:55:40] I’ll do that. - Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor seconds. Okay, so we got a motion on the floor and I’ll open the discussion. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So through you, we heard a couple of times, oh, the swap was just reviewed. But can staff confirm that, in fact, the swap and specifically the heights piece of the swap and in fact, all of our secondary plan with regard to heights are currently under review following up on the changes that we made through the official plan, London plan update.

[2:56:16] So just through you to Ms. McNealier or whomever on staff wants to respond, swap, in fact, is not finished being reviewed. Okay, I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, currently swap was adopted in 2014. Those official plan amendments that were referenced or consolidations that were referenced by some of the residents are just when development applications come forward and then the specific policy area within a certain area requests more height or density. Those are the consolidation. So actually Southwest area secondary plan hasn’t been reviewed in detail.

[2:56:51] The heights review from the London plan looked at those higher order areas, the transit villages, the corridors, the shopping areas and didn’t quite touch yet on those neighborhoods, those secondary plans, specifically swap, which did suggest higher story or higher development, nine stories compared to what the London plan right now that six story suggests. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, appreciate that. So I wanna just myself share some comments on this. We heard some concerns about family doctors and health care times in schools.

[2:57:28] And while I understand where folks are coming from with that, I’ve portable is going up now on St. Pius School in my ward as well. But that’s not something that impacts our planning decision making. And in fact, it’s not the jurisdiction of the city. Where and when new schools are built, it’s decided by the province, we mentioned earlier how they’ve actually removed the zoning restrictions on schools and the same with health care. So I do understand where the concerns are coming from. My own family doctor will be retiring in a few years and finding a new one will be a challenge, but that is something that we have to address each of us as residents with our MPPs and it’s not something that council can address on its own.

[2:58:15] I do appreciate hearing from Ms. Grady that the road widening space is there for four lanes. Obviously the traffic planning folks will be looking at that as things roll out. I know that just at the last cycle, we approved the GMIS changes that see the Bradley Ave extension from Wonderland come through in 2033. And I heard a fellow reference that why isn’t the city proactive on some of these things?

[2:58:46] And I just wanna share, the reason the city’s not proactive is it’s the development charges we collect from the development that pay for those kind of things. The pay for the sidewalks and the street lights and those kind of things. I have neighborhoods in my ward that don’t have street lights because back in the day when those neighborhoods were constructed, council chose to not collect fees to put in street lights. And so now it’s up to the homeowners if they want to get street lights to go and do a petition process. There’s a whole thing that’s involved because back in the day, they chose not to collect the development charges to include the street lights.

[2:59:25] It’s the development itself that provides those sidewalks, street lights, those other things, including potentially the road widening. So I think that’s something that I wanted to share ‘cause I understand where people are coming from and I’m gonna go a step further on that. It was said, where else do we see this kind of density? Well, the E-Sam development on Oxford is a similar density. The redevelopment of the London Psychiatric Hospital lands in my ward and Councilor Cuddy’s ward is actually 16, 615 units per hectare there.

[3:00:03] Significantly higher density than what we see in this development. Now, those are also higher buildings. We’re talking 32 stories, not 16 stories, but there is higher density developments happening around the city. But I wanna come back to what we heard Ms. Musico say during her presentation. And the reason I’m supporting this, there are quite a number of holding provisions in the staff recommendation.

[3:00:36] As you go through these, there’s different ones. They’re all H codes when you look at the report itself. But this is a 15 to 20 year build out. These buildings aren’t going to be there tomorrow. They’re not gonna be there next year. These holding provision conditions around things like the storm water management, the capacities on the sewers, the traffic impacts, those all roll out over time. And I realize that it’s frustrating to hear that we don’t deal with those today. We deal with those later in the process.

[3:01:11] But that is the process that we have to follow under the Planning Act of Ontario. And that’s not an option for us. We legally have to follow these processes this way. So yes, some of the questions that we’re asked today are not answered. Absolutely, I recognize that. And they will have to be addressed though through the process as the site plan develops out. Before those H provisions can come off, these applications and building permits can be issued and shovels can go in the ground.

[3:01:45] Those requirements will have had to have been addressed by the applicant. So I wanted to share that with folks ‘cause I hear your frustration, but I think it’s important to share that there are some processes involved here in terms of how things move forward. We heard Ms. Grady talk about there’s the option to move back to four lanes in the future. I think that makes sense, especially when the Bradley connection is done. Because there will be a traffic flow through Bradley that will relieve some of that. But it is, and the final piece of comment that I wanna share with folks for now is that I heard why is London chasing all this growth or wanting all this growth.

[3:02:29] The fact is some of the growth is already here. We need by 2031, 47,000 new units of housing in this city. Our vacancy levels in the city right now are under 3%. And that’s across all classes, like averaged out. But that means in a healthy market, according to the federal government and the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, you should have between a 3% to 5% vacancy range. We’re well below that, we’re barely over two. There’s already the need for housing here today.

[3:03:03] And some of this housing isn’t going to be occupied for 20 years. Some of us won’t be around in 20 years to see the final houses built or the final town houses built. And so we’ve got to think about these from a long-term perspective. I think that with the holding provisions in here, the connections that are coming with Bradley Ave extension, the improvements to Pack Road in the future, this is why I’m supporting this. It does make sense there. Some of the funding through development charges in the GMIS are already there for Bradley.

[3:03:39] And as these developments go forward and more of the development charges are collected, the money will be there for Pack Road as well. And so that’s the sort of order of operations that we have to follow here. I know people don’t have to like it, but that’s how the Planning Act in Ontario works. And so for me, from a planning basis, the requirements are met. Thank you all for other speakers, Mr. Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:04:13] And thank you for recognizing me here. I do have an amendment to the recommendation. I’m not sure if I should make my comments now and then make the amendment. Just would like to know how to proceed. Have you submitted the amendment to the clerk by any chance? I have and I am not a committee member, so I am… Well, I’m sure how to proceed. Councillor Ploza. Thank you, I’ll move it. Councillor can read it out. I know the clerk has it. I’ll move it as this is doing committee work at committee to make sure the word Councillor has a voice.

[3:04:49] Okay, and I’ll look for a seconder to get this discussion going. Councillor Hillier a second. So, Councillor Hopkins. So just speak to the amendment only right now. And I think Councillor Ploza and Councillor Hillier for bringing forward this amendment and I’ll read it out loud. It is regarding the site plan process and it is regarding the fact that we could be approving here today this development as a concept. Really a lot more work has to be done through the site plan process.

[3:05:31] But I would like to— - Excuse me. Hold on, no. Hold on, hold on, Councillor. I’m gonna just speak to you. Hold on, Councillor, please. I ask that Ploza be withheld, booing withheld. This will be the final warning. If it happens again, I’ll just clear the gallery and we’ll have this discussion here. I don’t want to do that. I want you to hear what we’re having. We’re debating. So please have some decorum. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor. So, since there is a motion on the floor here to approve the recommendation, this is an amendment through the site plan process.

[3:06:11] I think I’ve heard loud and clear and we have here this afternoon the concern around this development, the intensity and the concept, but really not understanding, or understanding there’s a lot more work to be done. And as part of the site plan process, I would like to add IV to the D, which states that the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following. IV and updated shadow study for each blog as it develops to assess and further minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties.

[3:06:50] There’s a lot of work in this development and as it is undertaken at each step of the way, you really don’t understand how these buildings are all going to work together that a shadow study be done through the process of each zone. So that’s my amendment. I’ll leave it with the committee and I would like to and I hope you support it. All right, I’ll look for comments or questions regarding the amendment, Deputy Mayor.

[3:07:28] So through you, Chair, to staff, given what we received earlier in the consent with regard to the provincial changes through Bill 17, I have to ask if this is even, I mean, I know it’s a site plan authority be requested to consider, but then it takes in some updated shadow study for each blog as it develops, which could be, I don’t know, years down the road for several blocks.

[3:08:02] And with Bill 17, is this even something that we can enforce through site plan? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, from my understanding, we can still ask for shadow studies and lighting studies, et cetera, as no regulations have been passed yet from the province. Deputy Mayor? No, that’s good to know.

[3:08:35] I didn’t want us moving forward on something that we were not going to be able to do because of the Bill 17 changes, but sounds like we can still request it. Whether or not we see it, I guess might still depend on what the province implements through its Ontario regulations. Is that, and I’m seeing staff nodding, so, and I guess Ms. McNeely might have something to add too. Yeah, I’ll go to Ms. McNeely. Thank you, and with the changes to the legislation, that’s a requirement for complete application.

[3:09:10] And so at any time, the applicants can still provide any study that they feel that is compelling for staff to make a recommendation going forward. Okay, Deputy Mayor, are you good? Okay, other comments, questions regarding the amendment, Mayor, I’ll just make a comment. I support the amendment. I don’t have an issue with it. I think it’s a reasonable thing to add. Okay, other comments? We’ve got an amendment moved and seconded. Councillor Hopkins, did you want to speak for this?

[3:09:45] Seeing no other, I’ll just open the vote on the amendment. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, so we’re back to the main motion as amended. I’ll look for further comments or questions. I’m gonna need a new mover and a seconder for so the same mover and seconder are fine with that.

[3:10:21] So we’re back to the main deal. Councillor Palosa. Thank you. And so doing cryptic hand signals to staff, there was an email I’d sent just hearing the different conversations as the city bills out with different area plans and mass mobility plans, looking to see if there would be any opportunities or advantages of looking at the different timing of if it’s a requested versus a be directed that another traffic study be done in the area realizing once we approve stuff, it could take years and years to build out that we have the Bradley Ave extension going.

[3:11:03] Part of that pack road would be two lanes, potentially could be four. At what point does it go from two to four is still yet to be determined. Is it in order or of use at this time to request a traffic study for the area to be conducted following the completion and opening the Bradley Ave extension? That’ll go staff. Thank you for the question. I’ll defer it to Ms. Grady. But from what I understand that level of review would be done through a design review once it’s determined and that would be after the Bradley Ave extension is connected with Bostwick Road.

[3:11:46] I can add to that. Yeah, just to clarify so through the mobility master plan when we did our traffic modeling out to 2050, it was based on the population employment growth in the area and that study did not indicate that there was a need to widen back to two to four lane in the 2050 horizon. Having said that, you know, we do regularly revisit the mobility master plan as per the London plan and that will be looked at down the road. But yes, there certainly could be an interim study done in the future once the site is fully built out to reconsider what needs might be appropriate at that time.

[3:12:25] Councillor. Okay, I prefer efficiencies. But I would still like something in the wording and the motion. And I don’t know ‘cause it’s not directing the applicant to do it, it’s for a staff review of how to do it. It being noted this area to have an updated traffic study once the completion of the Bradley Ave extension is up and going, realizing I know we just approved the master mobility plan that looks out to 2050, but all these applications are coming in and we don’t know they’re timing when they open of just making sure that the residents in the area and whoever the word counselor is at that time like has already primers in place to come back with this.

[3:13:08] So looking for direction on how to efficiently do that with wording, Mr. Chair. So are you needing some help in crafting an amendment? Yeah. Okay, I’m gonna go to staff. I see movement over here by the deputy mayor who’s pretty good at stuff. I’ll go to deputy mayor. Yeah, well staff are chatting about it. I actually, I would support Councillor Palosa on a traffic study once the Bradley Ave extension is done. But I think it has to be done as a separate motion through either this committee or through ICSC in relation to the overall community growth.

[3:13:47] I’m not sure that it’s, we can tie it to one application ‘cause as you reference like, there’s some other applications in the area. So I think that it might need to be a standalone motion. I would be happy to support you on that Councillor ‘cause I think the area needs it anyway, but that would, so I’m throwing that out there as if you wanna work together and bringing forward something to the next cycle. I’m happy to support you on that. I’m just not sure and the staff are done chatting so they may have some advice to you, but I’m happy to support you that way if that’s the way it needs to go. Okay, Ms. McNealy, I see you itching to speak on this.

[3:14:25] So go ahead. Thank you through the chair. I would suggest that we take a similar approach that was done for the E SAM lands and there was the mention of community of impact and that review and it was a separate amendment or direction to staff from a broader perspective that’s not part of this application. And that would be my suggestion. We could bring something provided language for you for Council even and I’ll work with the transportation team and Ms. Sheer as well, thank you.

[3:15:02] Okay, I’m just gonna go to the clerk as we’ll cover all the bases and get her opinion on this as well. Through the chair, I have confirmation from the deputy city clerk that it should be a standalone motion to be brought forward later. Thank you. I’ll go back to you, Councilor Plaza. Thank you. I’m fine to bring us this day alone motion respecting where we’re at in this one, also non-member of ISD. And I don’t think Deputy Mayor Lewis is either. So we will find a way to get something somewhere at some point to make sure these studies can come back and cover our bases.

[3:15:39] Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. If you will allow me, I just wanna make some comments as I represent this ward. I’d like to, first of all, thank the community for coming out in your very articulate and respectful. And I thank you for that. I know you’ve taken time out of your workdays and other commitments for being here this afternoon with us. I wanna thank the applicant for holding an information session and giving more information to the community, given the concerns.

[3:16:16] I have heard loud and clear that this is far beyond the expectations of swap and as well as the London plan. And 47,000 units is nothing to sneeze about as we develop in this area. Yeah, there’s a number of holding provisions that will deal with the natural heritage issues as well as stormwater management. But there’s a lot more work to be done.

[3:16:53] And if you read this recommendation, it sets it out. There’s still a lot of information. I’m not gonna repeat everything the president said. You said it very well. I would like to highlight the three areas that still remain to me a big concern. And that is the transportation. I appreciate Councillor Palosa coming forward. We need to have a better understanding. We need to, before we approve this intensification, which is two times the requirement.

[3:17:31] And I appreciate the applicant coming down from 350 units per hectare to 300, but it still needs to come down a little bit more. We don’t really even know how this whole area is gonna function when it comes to transportation. Even the access in and out of this development is uncertain and still needs to be worked at. As we’ve already approved applications to the west, we heard Siften here this afternoon with their concerns on the stormwater management and how that is all going to work and how other developers, I’m usually here at planning ‘cause there’s a number of applications in the ward.

[3:18:17] We know what we’ve already approved, but yet we don’t really understand how this is all going to work and how we’re gonna move around. And it is stated in the recommendation that the fit is not compatible for this area, for this development. So the natural heritage features are great in this area. The community spoke to what makes this community healthy and livable.

[3:18:53] And we don’t even have a completed EIS, but yet we’re going to be approving the density of this development without really understanding what’s going on. And the last part is the sanitary sores. The developer is going to be responsible, but other developers have to be part of that conversation. So I have grave, grave concerns that we are going to say yes, and then we’ll fix it up along the way.

[3:19:30] We heard if this is gonna take a long time to get it fixed, but why are we approving it? We can meet our density requirements to meet the 47,000 units by 2031. I think we can do it in a balanced way. We can get there. But to this extent, I have concerns. The community shouldn’t be surprised that development is gonna happen here. They know there’s gonna be some form. We understand there’s gonna be some form, but we don’t understand the extent of this development as it’s approved.

[3:20:10] I can’t even keep up with the applications that have been approved. And the implications of these developments in this area. And not understanding all those implications, I hesitate when we ask for the increased density and height of this development that we know exactly how it’s all going to work. So I support increased density.

[3:20:45] We need to do this to meet our housing agreement that this development will drastically change the look and how we move in this community. If you’re gonna support that, you really have to understand that. It’s not a numbers game. So we can still develop in a thoughtful and well-balanced mix of housing to meet the needs. Not only of residents that are living there, but for future residents.

[3:21:21] We know there’s gonna be all kinds of development. So I would encourage the committee to refer this back, prefer the refinement or even to pause this application until we have a good understanding as to how we’re gonna proceed here. Thank you. Yeah, I’ll look for other comments from committee members, or I’ll go to the mayor. Yeah, thanks, Chair. And thanks to the others who have spoken. So I wanted to come to committee today ‘cause this is a significant application for the community there.

[3:21:56] And I don’t believe in just waiting a council and sitting in the chair in the middle and then casting a vote, but coming and sharing some opinions on developments that are large and significant to the city and can create impacts to existing neighborhoods. It’s the type of thing that is a very difficult decision for us to make because we can sit here and carefully listen to and read. And of course, the people who called in and emailed, listen to the concerns that the community members to the north of this development have and understand them. And I think the deputy mayor outlined some of the concerns that we actively work with the province on that aren’t just restricted to this area, but across the city as a whole, right?

[3:22:34] The schools are not built to the right size or capacity. And then you need more and more of them. The hospital systems are stretched and both hospitals are undergoing significant master planning processes to provide expansions to try to meet the healthcare needs. You know, Dr. Philpot is doing a review of the need for family doctors across the province. There are a number of postal codes in the London area that have been identified as priority postal codes for the province to target. We actively work with our provincial partners on the challenges associated with growth, what we require their support in many cases. The other challenge we have is like growth, we don’t chase growth.

[3:23:07] Growth comes to the city. Growth has come to Southwestern Ontario. There was an exodus from the GTA that put significant pressure on the community’s wealth, kitchen, Waterloo, into London. And now even as far as Sarnia and Windsor as people escaped higher cost jurisdictions and moved down the 401-402 corridors until they could find places that they could afford. And that drove up significant affordability challenges within our city. To the point where, you know, the most common thing that I get into my office right now is I want the same housing opportunities for my kids that I had.

[3:23:40] I have a kid living in the basement who’s 45, right? And just can’t afford a place to live or an apartment. And what are you doing to try to meet the housing needs of the city? I mean, the province, the development community, the not-for-profit community, the faith-based community, everybody who’s trying to help build housing and build housing opportunities are all trying to come together to find the right way to do this. We also have the significant challenge of intensification in our city, right? I know the area to the north of this. I know I knocked on doors there.

[3:24:13] I know based on how I vote today, it might not go as well the next time. But I understand the neighbourhood. And I understand like we can’t grow in the same way that we’ve grown in the past, right? Large swaths of single-family homes, what we have just a couple of weeks ago said how do we gonna limit swaths of sprawl? How are we going to actually grow responsibly? How are we gonna meet our 45% intensification target? You’re gonna see developments across the city actually have significant density mixed in with medium density and low density across the city.

[3:24:47] It’s how we’re gonna have to do it to try to make sure that we grow in an affordable way and provide not just large swaths of single-family homes across the entire city, but a level of density in proximity to neighbourhood facilities like Boswick or shopping centers like in the southwest area. The other thing we have is outdated plans that we have to and are forced to modify. I mean, even John Fleming who stood in the audience was one of the architects who supported through my first term of council, the development of the London Plan, has said this is grossly out of date.

[3:25:18] We far exceeded where we thought we would be in population projections in this plan. And we’re now into the process of modifying it. Swap is developed in 2014. It’s well over 10 years old, right? And everything that’s happened since then with this housing pressure that we’ve had, these plans are not reflective of the pressure that we face today. And so we sit here with very difficult decisions ‘cause we have to decide are we gonna take the opportunity to create density and make sure we meet our 45% intensification target and actually create greenfield growth that has density built into it, knowing that there are significant impacts in existing neighborhoods.

[3:25:54] Are we going to grow like the city always has with large swaths of single family homes and the inability to service that effectively financially in the long term? Those are significant challenges that we have. So these are very difficult decisions, but when the opportunity comes along to have a multi-decade plan that will provide density in a way that we’ve talked about for 10 years, the type of way that we should be growing as a city, it’s hard not to support that, even given the legitimate and honest and straightforward concerns of the community. So, you know, I’ll support the staff recommendation today. I support the significant number of holding provisions within this recommendation that will allow for a number of the questions raised today to be answered with studies and decision points and even holding back development for what could be a number of years until some of those concerns are met.

[3:26:44] The holding provisions are not insignificant things. It means those developments cannot proceed irrespective of council’s permission until they are removed. And until those conditions of those holding provisions are met. And it’s a way that we approve density, move forward to allow multi-decade planning, but put guardrails in place to ensure that we’re protecting some of the components related to servicing capacity or other studies that may be necessary. And then council can do things like council flows and deputy mayor talked about, we’ll add a layer of additional studies and information on top of that that we can make sure happen at different points through a multi-decade process.

[3:27:19] So again, I’ll support the recommendation today. I’m always open to talking with people between now and council. I appreciate the comments of them made. But for me, this is a very difficult one to say no to given all of the challenges we face. It given how we want to grow as a city and given the opportunity to approve a significant density in a place that we know we’re going to have connected to major areas in a different way. And I know it would be great if those things all happened first. But as was mentioned, the way the development charges framework works and the way that we collect money and the way that we implement infrastructure, all that could be done better.

[3:27:55] That’s why we engage with the province of feds about a new way of doing things, a new way of financing municipalities. Right now we’re dependent upon those development charge dollars coming in to pay for the roads and the growth infrastructure that happens and is necessary. So again, those are my comments. I look forward to others. And I’ll think about other, I’ll listen to others and what they have to say as well. Council earlier. Thank you. One of the advantages of being on planning as long as I have is I have a memory of what’s happened in the past. And I decided to pull up a few of these old reports. This area represents lands west of Bostwick Road and south of Packwood Road.

[3:28:32] And it will continue to contribute to the Colonel Talbot Pumping Station. Now, when these were done, this was two years ago, they were assuming this area would be single and single family and medium density residential lots. Have we done new studies to take in this large increase in capacity? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thanks for the question. As mentioned previously by Ashley Remelu as well, there is existing capacity within the sanitary sewer system and some of that capacity is allocated outside of the watershed or sorry, still in the watershed, but not for these lands.

[3:29:13] So in saying that there is capacity, this development would just need to be phased. And then further to that, there is the holding provision that we have, the HA for servicing, just to make sure that, prior to this development advancing, all those medium density blocks, high density blocks, we need to make sure that there is servicing capacity available for this development to proceed, for those blocks to proceed. Councilor. Will this increase in capacity affect the blocks, sorry, the residential development around it or any other future developments? Staff.

[3:29:50] Thank you through the chair. The benefit of this application is, its sewers are being routed through adjacent applications that are not built yet. So as we started the low end of the sewer system, it will all be taken into account, albeit the Colonel Tom Pumping Station, the first couple runs there at the beginning of this sewer system. As they connect through the subdivisions, one recently approved the last PEC cycle, they will all be taken into account for the populations and the densities being proposed in this and adjacent applications.

[3:30:27] Councilor. Through you. Will this cause restrictions in the future for those areas? Good staff. No. Councilor. Other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors? Online, are we good? Okay. Councilor Trasso, your album, mute councilor. I won, thank you.

[3:31:06] I want everybody to understand. I’m not a member of this committee. I don’t get to vote today. I can’t make motions. I will be voting at city council and I sat through this. I am having a difficult time. Maybe staff can explain through the chair, maybe staff can explain this to me. How did we get from our existing plans to this? And it’s not an incremental change. It’s a massive change.

[3:31:40] And I just think, I guess I’d like that question answered first. How did we go from the area plan to something of this magnitude? Yeah, so I’ll go to stop on that. How did we go from a swap that was in 2014 to today? Through the chair, with the Southwest area secondary plan first adopted in 2014. And the London plan adopted in 2016, as the mayor recognized in his remarks there, the London plan has been out of date some time.

[3:32:12] And there was a heights review that focused on transit villages, rapid transit corridors, major shopping areas. But that same heights review hasn’t been done yet for secondary plan and neighborhood areas. When we looked at this area and considering additional height, we really looked at back Boswick and the Bradley Avenue extension and how it connects to the city as well as the Veterans Memorial Parkway. It is intended to be one of those higher order streets. And that is where you want higher intensity development near those higher order streets.

[3:32:46] And then as we referenced in our staff report as well, we show some previous examples of recent approvals through zoning, which shows comparable height and comparable densities as well. So we use that as justification for our recommendation today. Hopefully that answers your question, Councillor. Councillor Trussell. Thank you, it really doesn’t. And the reason why it doesn’t, with all due respect, is we all know what the development pressures are in this segment of the city throughout the whole city.

[3:33:21] Why haven’t these plans, if they’re so outdated? Why haven’t they been updated? To better reflect the current reality. For those staff. Through the chair, we’ve just completed the heights review in 2024. It’s still with the province. And as Mr. Kavic had identified the downtown, transit villages corridor, rapid transit corridor, shopping areas. We want to see what the province does with those heights review before we go back to the secondary plants. And then it also is based on staff resources.

[3:33:53] We’re focusing on rethink zoning. We need to align the zoning with the London plan, which has been out of date. We’ve been doing a phased approach with that in terms of bringing zoning online. But we really need to get that as a priority overall. And then we’ll look at the secondary plans. Councillor. The next question to the chair is, if we anticipate all of these other developments in the area, and understand that there are going to be cumulative traffic impacts, beyond what any single development study is able to capture, why have we not done at least a targeted cumulative area-wide traffic study, rather than what I hear now is we’re going to do this later.

[3:34:42] Why hasn’t that been done? I’ll go with staff. Thank you through the chair. Similar to the development of the SAM lands, as development occurs in these neighborhoods. And that was a direction at that time to look at the community of impacts. And that’s something that we suggested here as a separate motion coming forward through council. And that would be my suggestion for that, to look at these, whether it’s servicing infrastructure or transportation infrastructure.

[3:35:19] Councillor. Through the chair, thank you. This sounds remarkably similar to some of the issues that came up during that sort of wave of development applications along Oxford last year and the year before. I think I was raising similar types of questions. I think that when we have something like the Southwest Area Plan, it creates an expectation. And I think it creates a reasonable expectation on the part of the residents, not just the residents in the Southwest Area, but for those of us who follow this city-wide, a reasonable expectation for all of us, that there is a range of acceptable development within the scope of those existing lands.

[3:36:05] And if they are outdated and they need to be updated, then they need to be updated as soon as possible. I think that from my point of view, I could not be further away from this in the city. This really disturbs me because it points to the frailty and the fragility of the past planning that we’ve done. And we can say, well, you know, that’s outdated, so it doesn’t apply anymore. And don’t worry, we’ll look at this during site review or there’ll be a holding provision.

[3:36:40] I wanna say that you can put as many holding provisions as you want on a project. And you can put as many requests into your site review process as you like. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that City Council is being asked to approve this plan subject to these changes later on now. Now, this is going to have a detrimental effect on the lives of the people who have come to us today. And quite frankly, I did not hear a lot of complaints in terms of what would generally be characterized as nimby.

[3:37:20] It was a little, but for the most part, for the most part, people were raising very, very expectation-based concerns of what they thought was going to happen until recently and how this is such a radical departure. You approve this and I believe you will be undermining people’s confidence in the integrity of our previous planning processes. And I say that with all due respect to staff who have put in a lot of work over the years on these previous planning process exercises.

[3:37:58] But we can’t keep asking people to come to get involved London consultations or planning process consultations. If the perception in the community is they’re just gonna get slammed like this and it’s just way beyond any reasonable expectation. So I will be voting no at council on this and I will urge other people to do so. I don’t think this is a situation where we can refer it back to work out a few rough edges. I think the magnitude of this process is fundamentally flawed.

[3:38:35] It needs to be scaled back and I hope that others will join me in voting no on this project. And thank you very much for your time. I always tread lightly when I come here as a guest and I always appreciate the chance to address this committee. And I don’t come out for a lot of applications that are outside of my ward, but there was something really disturbing about this one. So here I am and thank you all for your time. Thank you, councilor for other comments or questions from committee, councilor Pribble.

[3:39:15] Thank you. So to check this staff, there were a lot of concerns and to repeat it from the residents. And we had also comments from my colleagues, but I want to ask you, there were certain comments also made from the other developer, neighboring developer, Siften. And there was the talks about the coordination, coordination among the developers, cooperation and the sanitary sewer or Siften. If my notes are correct, that actually the sanitary sewer, there were some or parts on Siften lands. How do you, what is your expectation in terms of if we were to go ahead with this and the neighboring developer having these concerns?

[3:39:56] How would this be resolved? I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. So 100% as I referenced with related to the sanitary sewer, this is a coordinated effort when it comes to servicing across lands owned by multiple developers, not just Siften and Southside. There are other applicants involved as well. And it’s sort of a domino effect on which comes first and then the other one can come next and the other can come next. So they’re all well aware of the servicing arrangements in this area and it’s cooperation is must do for all of the parties here, including the city.

[3:40:37] That’s related to roads, sanitary servicing, stormwater management, water, water mains and natural heritage and everything else. Siften also referenced access to their lands. This application is providing one access. However, we do have conditions included for Southside to include a second access if warranted based off the needs of Siften’s development at that time. So we can accommodate a second access as well. Councillor?

[3:41:12] No, thank you. No more questions? Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. I really appreciate you recognizing me again. I know I’ve spoken already, but I’m going to try one last time to address this committee and not support this recommendation. I want you to understand, we’re not talking about residential development, talking about nine stories that are already allowed in this area, not 17 stories.

[3:41:50] It was referenced that there are other areas in this city that have high density, 300 units per hectare may not seem a lot, but it is a huge change to the expectations in this neighbourhood. There’s no rapid transit. We do not even have opportunities to move around this area. I just want this committee to reflect when we support density, high density, there’s usually opportunities for how we move around.

[3:42:31] There will not be any in this area. Think about that. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions. The committee will permit me, I’ll throw my two cents in. From this chair, I see many things that are similar to what you folks have spoken about today. I also see other things. A month or so ago, we were reviewing our urban growth boundary changes, and this is many impassioned voices addressed council, or addresses committee, or SPPC, I guess, if I’ll add, about the need to restrict growth into agricultural lands, and to build up, not out.

[3:43:27] So we’re faced with a dramatic population increase, not because we’re building it, and people are coming here. It’s coming as the mayor said, down to 401, to find more affordable living for the next generation, quite frankly. And we have to answer that with the supply. I think from 2014, you know, when London was almost 100,000 people less, we were continuing to go on how London was. London was a lot of single-family homes, not a lot of density, times have changed dramatically.

[3:44:04] We’re trying to encourage very high density in the core, for sure, but that alone isn’t gonna do it. And we’ve seen it all over, and I see it in the west side, where I’m a counselor, the northwest, the north, the east side, as Deputy Mayor has mentioned, at the south. And it is a higher density built, and I know it’s not an enthusiasm. I don’t wanna make it that simple, but I hear from people constantly, we need more housing, but they have challenges with it being built near them.

[3:44:44] I know right behind me, there are single-family homes that have a potential to be knocked down in an apartment building built there, and I’m gonna have to accept that, because it’s on a higher corridor road. So that’s the challenge I have personally, and also a chair of this committee. I’m very concerned about the traffic flow. I see it again, from my perspective, as a west counselor. When we were talking about the mobility plan, Council approved a look at widening Wonderland Road, which is desperately needed, because of the increased density.

[3:45:28] And we also approved having, going to the province and start looking at a connection, which was mentioned earlier tonight, or today, about connecting the north, on the west side, down to 402 and 401. These are a result of intensification, high growth areas. The question is, when do you do it? Do you do it now? You do it 15, 20 years from now, and when this project will be underway. I think we have to start, I agree with some of the comments made earlier, that we have to start really looking at doing some of that now, and maybe a longer-term plan.

[3:46:06] So I fully support our Deputy Mayor Lewis, and Councillor Palose’s direction to let’s get a traffic plan for the general area in place. So we’re prepared for it. So there’s not a Councillor, 20 years from now, asking to widen back road, and the pushback that they’ll get at that time. I’m going to support this now, but in the meantime, I want to talk further with staff. I’m concerned about Sifton’s comments. I want to find out more about site plan, that rendering that we saw with that wall of apartments concerns me.

[3:46:45] I want to get more information on that before council, but the neighbourhoods now, subdivisions now, are going to be planned with mixed density. So in this case, instead of a nine-storey, we’re going up higher to 16, what does that impact on Pac Road, from a traffic perspective, from livability? I don’t deny there’s an impact. And I’ve got time between now and council to consider those things, and where we go from there. But for the time being now, I will support this. So, Councillor, you’ve got two of us.

[3:47:22] Okay. (laughs) I’ll look for anybody else I want to comment before we call the vote. Okay, we got motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one. Thank you. That concludes our scheduled items. We have no items for— Mr. Chair.

[3:47:57] Mr. Chair, if I could just ask you to explain the process of this recommendation going forward, just so the community— Sure, yeah. So this is a recommendation that will go to council, which is next week, I believe, to date a council. July 22nd, at which time there will be a vote amongst all the Councillors at that time. This is just a recommendation going to council. It’s not final by any means. Okay, so that concludes that.

[3:48:33] There are no items for a direction. No deferred matters, additional business. That leaves our confidential items. Okay, so I’ll ask the clerk to prepare those chambers for in-camera. Can I use that to vote? Oh, I’m sorry, we have to vote to go in-camera. I’ll look for a mover. Councillor Hillier makes the motion. Councillor blows the second, so I’ll call the vote. Yes.

[3:49:22] Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Mr. Chair, you might tell our guests that I need to clear chambers, so we can lock it down for confidential. Sorry, Councillor. They don’t know to leave our guests in the gallery. You might just need to tell them that we need to lock down the chambers for confidential. I think they’re on their way. All right, we’re in public session.

[3:52:09] I’m going to look for Deputy Mayor to read out a reason for the results from in-camera. Thank you, Chair, and I am happy to report that progress was made on all three items for which we went into confidential session. Thank you. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Hillier, second by Councillor Close. All in favor? Motion carries.