Open Council

The 13th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 13th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

August 12, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

None.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 2.7 in Stage 2, Consent, to be remain in Consent.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1-2.6 and 2.8, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2025-07-17 CACP Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on July 17, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Building Services Report - Quarter 2 2025

2025-08-12 (2.2) Staff Report - Building Services Report Q2 2025

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the staff report dated August 12, 2025, related to the “Building Services Report– Quarter 2025”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Heights Review, Transit Village, Major Shopping Area and Protected Major Transit Station Areas Information Report

2025-08-12 (2.3) Staff Report - Heights Review Information Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated August 12, 2025, related to The London Plan Heights Review, Transit Village, Major Shopping Area and Protected Major Transit Station Areas BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   Heritage Alteration Permit Application by J. Ledgley – 964 Dufferin Avenue, Old East Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-055-L)

2025-08-12 (2.4) Staff Report - 964 Dufferin Ave

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the porch alterations on the heritage designated property at 964 Dufferin Avenue, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED;

it being noted that the alterations were completed without Heritage Alteration Permit approval, however, those alterations comply with the policies and guidelines of the Old East Heritage Conservation District Plan and Conservation & Design Guidelines.

Motion Passed

2.5   Heritage Alteration Permit Application by C. Hansford for 170 Wortley Road, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-053-L)

2025-08-12 (2.5) Staff Report - 170 Wortley Road - Heritage Alternation Permit

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking to construct a new building on the heritage designated property at 170 Wortley Road, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as described in the staff report dated August 12, 2025, and as appended to this report as Appendix “C”, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to the issuance of the Building Permit;

b)    prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall confirm product information and specifications with the Heritage Planner for the exterior stone veneer and exterior red brick veneer to ensure compatibility with adjacent heritage properties;

c)    signage for the commercial storefront be reviewed under a separate Heritage Alteration Permit application;

d)    through the Site Plan Approval process, pedestrian connections through the site and connecting to the proposed building entrances be reviewed to ensure they address potential Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and safety concerns in a manner that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District to establish shared spaces for access that contribute to the pedestrian character of the Wortley Commercial Area; and,

e)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.

Motion Passed

2.6   Heritage Alteration Permit Application by T. Eifert for 172 Wortley Road, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-054-L)

2025-08-12 (2.6) Staff Report - 172 Wortley Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking to construct a new building on the heritage designated property at 172 Wortley Road, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as described in the staff report dated August 12, 2025, and as appended to this report as Appendix “C”, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to the issuance of the Building Permit;

b)    signage for the commercial storefront be reviewed under a separate Heritage Alteration Permit application;

c)    through the Site Plan Approval process, pedestrian connections through the site and connecting to the proposed building entrances be reviewed to ensure they address potential Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and safety concerns in a manner that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District to establish shared spaces for access that contribute to the pedestrian character of the Wortley Commercial Area;

d)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.

Motion Passed

2.8   Quarterly Heritage Report - Q2 2025

2025-08-12 (2.8) Staff Report - Heritage Report Q2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated August 12, 2025, related to the Quarterly Heritage Report – Q2 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.7   Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan

2025-08-12 (2.7) Staff Memo - Medway Valley ESA

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the CMP and update it to remove the trail section of Attawandaron Road Park and take no further action on the implementation and construction of this trail;

it being noted that the memo dated August 12, 2025, from the Director, Planning and Development and Manager, Environmental Planning related to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan, was received; 

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

  •    a communication dated June 21, 2025, from Attawandaron Road Neighbourhood Association (ARNA); 

  •    a communication dated July 6, 2025, from L. Robert and L. Elley; 

  •    a communication dated July 7, 2025, from P. McLean.;

it being further noted that the verbal delegations from B. Vogel, P. McLean and P. Schmidt, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation requests from P. McLean, B. Vogel and P. Schmidt, as appended to the added agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the CMP and update it to remove the trail section of Attawandaron Road Park and take no further action on the implementation and construction of this trail.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   820 Blythwood Road (Z-25073)

2025-08-12 (3.1) Staff Report - 820 Blythwood Road

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion related to the application of Starline Developments relating to the property located at 820 Blythwood Road BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) until such time that the ReThink Zoning process is brought back to the PEC for consideration;

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

-    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture; and,

-    J. Hevey;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   430 First Street (Z-25086)

2025-08-12 (3.2) Staff Report - 430 First Street

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 2741943 Ontario Inc. c/o Europa Foods relating to the property located at 430 First Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 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 a portion of the subject property BY AMENDING the Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(29)) Zone;

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 Urban Corridor Place Type policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a range of complementary uses within the existing building that are appropriate for the site and within the surrounding context.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   1204 Richmond Street (Z-25065)

2025-08-12 (3.3) Staff Report - 1204 Richmond Street

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design of) relating to the property located at 1204 Richmond Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 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 property FROM the existing Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (NF(1)) Zone TO a compound Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision/Office Special Provision (NF(1)/OF3(_)) Zone;

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

-    D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

-    S. Bentley;

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 Urban Corridors Place Type policies; and, 

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   180 Simcoe Street and 214-230 Richmond Street (O-25063) (Z-25062)

2025-08-12 (3.4) Staff Report - 180 Simcoe St 214 -230 Richmond St

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications of The Corporation of the City of London (O-25063) and GCTel and Fowad Zarify (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) (Z-25062) relating to the properties located at 180 Simcoe Street and 214-230 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy in the Specific Policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type for 180 Simcoe Street and 214-230 Richmond Street, and by ADDING the lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) as amended in the above part a), to change the zoning of 180 Simcoe Street FROM a Restricted Office (RO1) Zone TO a Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1(_)) Zone;

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

-    C. McAllister, Zelinka Priamo;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a range of complementary commercial uses that are appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   514-520 South Street (Z-25068)

2025-08-12 (3.5) Staff Report - 514 520 South Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Amnoor Homes Inc. (c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.) relating to the property located at 514-520 South Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R7 (R7D75H10) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)    explore opportunities to re-orient the building to face South Street, or alternatively provide a development with end-facing orientation that incorporates elements such as a main entrance and windows, and elements that provide street presence and functional access; and, 

ii)    provide screening between the parking area and street;

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

-    B. Hyland, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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

  •    a communication dated August 11, 2025, from T. Ford;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   35-45 Southdale Road East (Z-25074)

2025-08-12 (3.6) Staff Report - 35-45 Southdale Road East

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Finch Real Property ll Ltd. relating to the property located at 35-45 Southdale Road East, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(23)/RSC2(13)/R SC3/RSC4 (20)/RSC5 (20)) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(23)/RSC2(13)/RSC3(_)/RSC4(20)/RSC5 (20)) Zone; 

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

-    D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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 Shopping Area Place Type policies;

-    the recommended amendment would permit a range of complementary uses within the existing building that are appropriate for the site and within the surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   180-186 Commissioners Road West and 548 Viscount Road (Z-25077)

2025-08-12 (3.7) Staff Report - 180-186 Commissioners Rd W 548 Viscount Rd

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Alora Homes c/o Creative Structures relating to the property located at 180-186 Commissioners Road West and 548 Viscount Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(1)) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8h-13R9-4(1)*H14) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(1)*H12) Zone;

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

i)    provide a built form that is located along both the Commissioners Road West and Viscount Road frontages with units oriented to the street; 

ii)    provide for a building design that includes a high level of architectural detail including, but not limited to, individual front door entrances to ground floor units; mitigation measures to address privacy issues/conflicts between grade-related patios and the public realm on Commissioners Road West; and an appropriately sized common outdoor amenity area for all units; 

iii)    the installation of board-on-board fencing along the east and south property boundaries, where possible when co-ordinated with any tree retention on or adjacent to the property lines; and, 

vi)    provide adequate landscape screening that takes into account possible compensation for trees removed from the site along the interior side and rear property boundaries;

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

-    S. Collins;

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

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2025, from M. Petersons;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   116-118 Adelaide Street North (Z-25060)

2025-08-12 (3.8) Staff Report - 116-118 Adelaide St N

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Tristone Partners Inc. relating to the property located at 116-118 Adelaide Street North:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provisions, as part of the requested amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to permit a rear yard setback of 3.0 metres whereas 6.0 metres is required when the wall of a unit contains windows to habitable rooms, to permit interior side yard setbacks of 3.0 metres to a 3-storey apartment building whereas 6.0 metres is required when the wall of a unit contains windows to habitable rooms, and to permit a landscape open space of 25% whereas 30% is required, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested Special Provisions do not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including the City Design policies, Neighbourhood Place Type policies, nor the regulations of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1; 

ii)    functionality concerns and concerns with the setbacks proposed for the 3-storey apartment building could result in negative impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood; 

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

-    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

  •    a communication dated August 6, 2025, from N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.; and, 

  •    a communication dated July 24, 2025, from A. Duarte;

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 settlement 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 compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   1736, 1796 & 1814 Commissioners Road East (Z-25057)

2025-08-12 (3.9) Staff Report - 1736-1814 Commissioners Rd E

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 Auburn Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 1736, 1796 & 1814 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 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, Holding Open Space (h-1OS4) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-86-5()) Zone, Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-8R8-4(*)) Zone, and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)    the number of access points from Commissioners Road East should be limited by ensuring there is connectivity and shared access between both proposed development blocks; 

ii)    provide available access and services to adjacent lands to the east within the High-Density Overlay;

iii)    provide adequate public access to the Thames Valley Parkway along the edge of the natural heritage features, including a suitable connection to the adjacent property to the east; and, 

iv)    stormwater management approach to be supported and coordinated by complete background studies (revisions and/or addendum/updates to existing studies), including but not limited to hydrogeological, water balance, geotechnical, geomorphic studies, and environmental impact studies:

A)    geotechnical report to confirm if proposed infiltration measures and stormwater management outlet will provide stable conditions; 

B)    hydrogeological report to establish required maintenance of existing site conditions to support sensitive natural heritage features and a subsequent stormwater management strategy; and, 

C)    stormwater management strategy with considerations of the geotechnical and hydrogeological constraints; 

v)    if hazards or required access to any slopes is located outside of lands zoned OS5, then these should be zoned OS4 through a future Zoning Bylaw Amendment based on an accepted Geotechnical Study; and, 

vi)    preference will be for one comprehensive site plan; however, if not possible then coordinate access and services between all lands subject to this amendment;

c)    should Planning Act applications be initiated for any lots created through a severance of 1736, 1796, and 1814 Commissioners Road East, the Consent Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through conditions of consent:

i)    required background studies have consideration for the balance of all lots and blocks existing prior to severance; 

ii)    the Owner shall convey to the City lands that are required for parkland dedication pursuant to the Parkland Conveyance and Levy By-law CP-9, including the Environmentally Sensitive Area and its associated ecological buffer, as a condition of the approval of a Consent given under section 53 of the Planning Act, to the satisfaction of the City; 

iii)    the Owner shall convey to the City adequate construction and / or public access to the Environmentally Sensitive Area and its associated buffer as a condition of the approval of a Consent given under section 53 of the Planning Act, to the satisfaction of the City; and, 

iv)    the Owner shall convey to the City any required water balance and low impact development measures required to service the proposed development and maintain the water balance to the surrounding natural heritage features, to the satisfaction of the City;

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

-    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments Inc.; and,

-    J. L. McCune;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with surrounding existing and future land uses and integrates ecological buffers to protect the integrity of the adjacent Natural Heritage System; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   1196 Sunningdale Road West (OZ-25052)

2025-08-12 (3.10) Staff Report - 1196 Sunningdale Road West -REVISED

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Landea Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 1196 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the designation of the subject lands on Map 1 – Place Types of The London Plan FROM Green Space Place Type TO Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-8h-125R1-13) Zone and Open Space OS1 Zone TO a Community Facility CF2/ Residential R4 Special Provision (CF2/R4-4()) Zone, Community Facility CF2/ Residential R9 Special Provision (CF2/R9 5()/H20/D130) Zone and Open Space OS1 Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process if the school block doesn’t advance:

i)    orient the built forms to the public streets with principal entrance facing the public street and provide direct walkway connections to the public sidewalks to promote accessibility, wayfinding and offer passive surveillance; 

ii)    provide a minimum ground floor height of 4 metres along Sunningdale Road West; and, 

iii)    incorporate a step-down of the built form from 6 storeys to 4 storeys from Sunningdale Road West towards the south portion of the site with the intent to reduce potential negative impacts (e.g., visual, privacy) on the adjacent low-rise residential uses. TLP 253, 298; 

d)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Subdivision Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for the subdivision located at 1196 Sunningdale Road West; 

e)    the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider amending the draft plan of subdivision to require the subject lands to be reserved for 3 years for permitted uses within the Community Facility (CF2) zone until the draft plan of subdivision lapses. Should the school board and the developer, Landea Developments Inc., be unable to reach a resolution by the lapse of the draft plan of subdivision, the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider permitting the lands to then proceed to develop for residential use;

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 Ltd.; and,

-    I. Fyfe;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part e) to read as follows:

e) the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider amending the draft plan of subdivision to require the subject lands to be reserved for 3 years for permitted uses within the Community Facility (CF2) zone until the draft plan of subdivision lapses. Should the school board and the developer, Landea Developments Inc., be unable to reach a resolution by the lapse of the draft plan of subdivision, the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider permitting the lands to then proceed to develop for residential use.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.11   City-Wide: Zoning By-law Amendment to Stacked Townhouse Definition (Z-25071)

2025-08-12 (3.11) Staff Report - Zoning By-law Amendment to Stacked Townhouse Definition

That the Committee recess at this time, for 13 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 4:35 PM and reconvenes at 4:48 PM.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the Corporation of the City of London relating to the definition of stacked townhouse:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, Section 2 Definition for “DWELLING” r) “STACKED TOWNHOUSE” to facilitate stacked townhouse dwellings with more than two units high;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

-    S. Bentley;

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

  •    a communication dated August 8, 2025, from C. Butler;

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 and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to improve the delivery of services through streamlined decision-making process; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.12   City-Wide: Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Delegation and Approval (O-25064)

2025-08-12 (3.12) Staff Report - Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Delegation

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to the Delegation and Approval of Minor Zoning By-law Amendments:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2026, by AMENDING Policy 1633A and ADDING Policy 1633D_ and E_ relating to delegated authority and alternative engagement techniques for minor zoning by-law amendments;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to amend By-law No. A.-8279- 200, by AMENDING Sections 2.1 and 3.3 relating to delegated authority for approvals of zoning by-law amendments that are of a minor nature under Section 34 of the Planning Act;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with Section 39.2 of the Planning Act which provides discretionary authority that allows municipal councils to delegate decision-making authority under Section 34 that are of a minor nature and permits alternative measures for public notice and consultation; 

  •    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 and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to improve the delivery of services through streamlined decision-making process; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Councillor S. Franke - Agricultural Land Offset Policy

2025-08-12 (4.2) Submission - Agricultural Land Offset Policy - S.Franke

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from Councillor S. Franke related to the Agricultural Land Offset Policy BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    a communication dated August 9, 2025, from B. Newell; 

  •    a communication dated August 10, 2025, from P. Verkley, Middlesex Federation of Agriculture 

  •    a communication dated August 10, 2025, from Rev. C. G. Foster-Haig; and, 

  •    a communication dated August 9, 2025, from T. Daniele.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Councillors S. Franke and E. Peloza - Supporting Small Business and Nonprofits through Updates to the Zoning By-law

2025-08-12 (4.2) Submission - Updates to the Zoning Bylaw - S. Franke and E. Peloza

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from Councillors S. Franke and E. Peloza related to Supporting Small Business and Nonprofits through updates to the Zoning By-law, BE RECEIVED and be forwarded to the Civic Administration for their consideration through the ReThink Zoning process.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-08-12 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the August Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED, with the exception of Item 1.

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Deferred Matters list BE AMENDED to remove item 1 from the list.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion as amended be approved

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Committee rise and go into Committee, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

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 related to The London Plan for the property located at 560-562 Wellington Street at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

That Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 5:36 PM to 5:43 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:46 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 (5 hours, 2 minutes)

[16:57] Okay, folks, it’s 1 p.m. I’d like to call the 13th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishamik, Odinoshone, Lenapeiwak, and Adawanderan. 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.

[17:37] 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 packpec@london.ca 519-661-2489, extension 2425. At this point, I’ll ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to consent items, and we will be pulling 2.7. And as our practice, when we pull an item from consent is to put that item at the end of the entire agenda.

[18:17] And as I’m aware of many folks here that are here because of this item, I’d like to look to committee to consider a change of order consent. So if I can get a mover and a seconder, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Palosa, and any conversation, we’ll call that vote. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[19:02] I’ll ask committee members, or if there are any other consent items they’d like pulled. Okay, so what I’d like to do is I’d like to get a mover for two items, 2.1 to 2.6 and 2.8. If I could, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier. I’ll call that, I’ll call that vote. Oh, sorry, Councilor Oppens. Yeah, thank you. Oh, you want to talk about first? It’s there. - And ask questions. I’ll leave it up to you. Absolutely, of course. Yeah, I thought we’d call the vote. Then we’d talk about it.

[19:34] No, you’re right. Yeah, so I know there’s a few Councillors here that would like to make comments and ask questions of staff. So first I’ll look to committee members, if there’s anyone that would like to do that. I know Councilor Hopkins is here visiting and Councilor Pribble has indicated. So Councilor Hopkins, I’ll go to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I do appreciate it. And I do have a question regarding 2.3, which is the heights review. We just had a special Council meeting to approving the three bylaws to bring the new changes in place.

[20:14] And maybe through you to staff. I’d like to find out how we are gonna consolidate these bylaws and then how is that gonna be communicated to the public? Yeah, go to staff. Thank you through the chair. As we do for all these major projects, we would certainly be updating the city website. And in terms of communication, pointing people to the website, of course, and we would encourage members of Council to do the same. As well, we’re looking to prepare packages for the word Councillors so that then you have your speaking notes as constituents are interested.

[20:55] You have those, you prepare for your questions or to take to your award meetings. Councillor. Thank you for that. And really appreciate the work that staff has done on this. And that information as a Councillor of a very developing community, it’s really important that we share that information with Londoners as we try to deal with a growing city and hopefully a sustainable city as well that they understand the changes that we’ve made. And thanks very much again to staff for the work. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Permeau.

[21:30] Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. I’m just looking at the 0.2.2, the report. And first of all, I would like to again, congratulations. And thank you for being in all three areas, inspections, 100% being conducted within the provincial mandate, which is fantastic, thank you. But I do have a question. The total inspection requests, when I look at that, and when I compare it to the actual ones that we actually end up doing, that percentage is increasing quite dramatically, especially in compliance and building. And I just want to ask if we analyze this, because again, we have a certain number of requests than we do, and I would imagine we have to keep coming back.

[22:09] Is it in the potentially to look into the processes, or is it the applicants that are not fulfilling the requirements at the first time? If you can please give me a feedback on this one. Thank you. I’ll go south. Through the chair to the Councillor, the result of more inspections being conducted and actually called for is based on the principle that when we go out, we will often do multiple inspections or sign off on multiple items at the same time. In regards to the increase, and especially in compliance, there is an effort by the building staff to start clearing open permits, which basically is a proactive inspection.

[22:48] So we would actually be going by a location that’s had a permit in existence for a number of years, and just confirm the building was either built or not built. And that would be proactive and not called for Councillor. Thank you for that answer. And year to day increase in commercial and institutional, which is a very positive increase, can you just provide us a few examples for each one? What was the big difference growth? Good staff. Through the chair to the Councillor, in regards to institutional, we have a number of institutional projects under go right now.

[23:25] The biggest project that we have in the institutional areas of a $95 million addition to Western University, being a engineering facility. In regards to the commercial activities, we’re just seeing a general increase in commercial activities. There’s a number of permits and new buildings being built. One would be Princess Otto at about $3 million. But there’s no significant, there’s just the number of commercial permits being issued or increased. Councillor. Thank you for the answer. We’re happy to see the commercial increasing and going up.

[23:59] My last question, the ARUs. And if you could be, I think in the last report, it’s said that it’s under the commercial area. And I would just like you to confirm it, if that’s where we find the ARUs number. And if there is also a specific area where we can find, because I think there’s one thing that we have approved as a council, and we are hoping that residents will take advantage of it. So if you could please provide me on this number, thank you. So the ARUs are under the residential additions, renovations and additions, I believe.

[24:36] That category speaks more to the actual fact that it’s not a new permit, it’s not a new construction, new building. It’s a renovation or addition to an existing building. So that’s the reason that it actually appears in those categories, because ARUs by nature are accessory to another use, or another building. In regards to the ARUs numbers this year, we’re actually up about 50 ARUs compared to this time last year. Last year we issued at this point in time, 246 ARU permits. And this year we’re at about 294.

[25:13] Councillor. Thank you very much for all the answers, no more questions? Thank you. Other questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? Okay, we have a motion and seconded, so I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to consent item 2.7.

[26:16] This is regarding Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area, basically in the Adirondron area. We have a number of delegation requests, three, and they’re loaded into E-Scribe. By the way, Clerk has notified me that E-Scribe online, and so we’re having some challenges. The YouTube feed is fine, no. Just wanted to pass it along. So if you look out, if you refresh your E-Scribe, you’ll see the motion to allow the delegations. And we’re packaging them all three together.

[26:55] So I’m looking for a motion to allow that. Councillor Close’s seconded by Councillor Hillier, and we will call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I will look to be McLean first to address the committee, I understand you’re online, can you confirm that?

[27:53] Can you hear me okay? We can hear you, so please go ahead, do you have five minutes? All right, thank you. Hi, all my name is Deborah McLean. I own the townhouse on Adirondron Road, that backs on to the ravine. I previously submitted information to the committee, so I wanna take this time to review a few additional items and ask some questions. I’ll list the questions at the end, and I’m hoping that the committee member is going to answer after or later invite in. I purchased my property in 2006. I know others will point the finger at the homeowners for not knowing our property’s alive, but the fence was at least 10 years old at that time, and was consistent to my neighbors, so I never thought to question it, and believe the property needs to be in mind until about a year ago when strangers were in my yard breaking into the ground.

[28:38] Although a day we remember seeing Medway Valley’s CNC information in the past, they did not mention our park or backyards, so it did not register that there was a thing passing a felony, another way of any other information provided by the city prior to August, 2024. In today’s Medway Valley CNC memo provided by the city, it mentions that Ontario Land Surveyors do not need to provide notice when surveying. This is a perfect example of the city’s ongoing and consistent lack of communication on neighbors. The surveyor may not be required to provide notice, but the city of London should, and might expand to the city over the past year, that not been accountable, collaborative, or inclusive as for the community and the London trend.

[29:18] The same memo was applied to the city’s response and served right by our users. What’s the hold of September, 2011? Sorry, Mr. Chair, a point of order to our speaker. Yeah. Just the audio is not coming through adequately if they could have their time restarted and maybe try a different headset or a speaking method. Ms. McLean, we’re having trouble hearing you clearly, and I don’t know if you’re on speaker on your end or if there’s a better way. I’m willing to just, I’m sorry to let this go for 30 seconds. We were all kind of struggling.

[29:51] We’ll reset the clock, but if you could, is there a way to— I’m using a headset, is it better if I just try to call in? Let me ask the clerk. Ms. McLean, do you have a number that you can call in?

[30:31] I’ll check the email ‘cause I know the Zoom, I know the email mentions directions for call in. Let me ask the clerk if she can help. Sorry, if you have maybe a headset or something that you could speak into or you could try to phone in as well, I’m just not sure if that would work. Yeah, I apologize, this is my headset, so maybe what I’ll do is I’ll disconnect from the Zoom call and then I will call back using the phone number that was in the email with the Zoom instructions.

[31:10] Okay, if that works, thank you. Mr. Chair, should we go to the other speakers first and then loop back? What I’m gonna do is I’m gonna go to the next speaker and we’ll go back to Ms. McLean. So be vocal, are you in the gallery? There you are, sir. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, good afternoon, my name is Dr. Brennan Vogel.

[31:48] Grateful for the opportunity to address this committee. So I’ve been involved in the Medway Valley Conservation Master Planning process for going on eight years, repeating the same concerns, which have brought us here today. None of those concerns were ever listened to at any previous point in the consultation, despite the foresight that may have avoided this situation. I’ll just begin with the four main points. The first is lack of transparent communication and consultation and input from the neighborhood with respect to the changes that are being implemented and proposed to be implemented in out of Wanna Run Park.

[32:27] So there was no communication ever through written notice about those changes that were happening. So I would like to request on behalf of the End Neighborhood Association that we’ve provided by staff with a complete record with the notices with respect to the changes of zoning and the changes that are proposed for the park. Second point, we’re losing our multi-use open space park. It’s the only one in the neighborhood that is bordered on two sides by four lane highways, Fanshawe Park Road and Wonderland. The London Plan is very clear, about 800 meters of access for children’s rightful, safe access to green space.

[33:06] Artists will be paved over and re-naturalized. We’ll no longer have that. Level three paving of this trail and this location is inappropriate from a geophysical, environmental protection standpoint, but also a social justice standpoint. It requires the re-appropriation of low income, row house tenants, losing their backyard to the point where the trail and the boundary will be within feet of the backyard. So I put you in the position of imagining one day waking up with a trail paved four feet from your backyard door.

[33:41] That’s being proposed. And the backyard encroachment issue, which has been kicked off here by staff as the first step in getting this project going, when there is no feasibility study. So I’ve been saying all these things since 2017 to staff, thoroughly was not listened to. When I bought my home in 2012, I was provided a letter I’d like to read it. It’s from the former director of parks and planning for the city of London. It’s dated December 9th, 1987. It’s addressed to a counselor, John Ervin.

[34:15] Further to the attached in our conversation a couple days ago, I recall speaking with someone on Adawanda and shortly after the park land was developed and assumed for maintenance, grass cutting by the London Parks Department. Residents, these were the people that owned the home before us, requested permission to plan a few trees and shrubs on the slopes of the rear of the property, which joins the park. And the director planning, sorry, parks at that time, saw no reason to dampen enthusiasm and helping to beautify the general area by planting a few trees and shrubs. And then he points it, this long strip of park land runs from the formerly known Indian Museum.

[34:49] It’s now a provincially significant Ontario Museum of Archeology. I might raise the issue of archeology studies and indigenous consultation under truth reconciliation 2015. Under a free prior informed consent of indigenous people for governments of all levels, actually. The municipal government included to be engaging our indigenous neighbors on that. I’m pointing out that this runs all the way to 22. It’s protected on the east of the boundary, known as Dead Horse Canyon, cut by the Parks Department somewhat sparringly. When they cut their own backyards, they also cut along this eastern strip.

[35:24] And so in his opinion, in 1987, I share this opinion, trees and shrubs are not offensive. In fact, they add to the aesthetics of the area. And if residents didn’t show this interest, the Parks Department would need to be maintaining that park area. So I would ask you with the encroachment enforcement who now maintains boundary areas, especially in sloped areas like my property and my adjacent neighbor properties. And those are all points of consideration. I raise for your consideration. And I yield the rest of my time to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you.

[35:57] Now I’ll go back to Ms. McLean. Ms. McLean, are you online? Or have you dialed in? Hi there. Can you hear me any better now? That’s a lot better. Yeah, that’s great. So if you can go ahead, you have five minutes. All right, I appreciate it. Thanks very much. So as you know, my name’s Pepper. I own a townhouse on Adelondron Road, the facts onto the ravine. I previously submitted information to the committee. So I wanna take this time to review a few items and ask some questions.

[36:34] I’ll list the questions at the end and the committee can either answer now or by writing later. I purchased my property in 2006. I know others will point their finger at the homeowners for not knowing our property lines. But the fence was at least 10 years old at that time. I was consistent to my neighbors, so I never sought to question it and believed the property to be mine until about a year ago, when strangers were in the yard spray painting the ground. Although I vaguely remember seeing Medway Valley CMP information in the past, it did not mention our park or backyard. So it did not register that there was an impact on our neighborhood.

[37:06] I’m not aware of any other information provided by the city prior to August, 2024. In today’s Medway Valley CMP memo provided by the city, it mentions that Ontario land surveyors do not need to provide notice when surveying. This is a perfect example of the city’s ongoing and consistent lack of communication in our neighborhood. The survey may not be required to provide notice, but the city of London should. In my experience with the city over the past year, they have not been accountable, collaborative, or inclusive as per their commitment in the London plan. The same memo implies that the city’s response to concerns raised by our neighborhood was the whole of September, 2024 meeting.

[37:42] But this meeting was only organized by the city after they declined to attend our August 24th meeting. Without notice or communication, the city attempted to plant trees in our Out of London park in spring 2025. Only after concerns were raised that the city send out communication. Every day, people walk behind our properties along the ravine and join the beauty of our neighborhood and over the warmer months, this creates an informal level one type walkway. The city chose to plant the trees in a manner to block that walkway. They have previously advised that they do not know where the planned walkway will physically be.

[38:14] So planting trees now is as fiscally irresponsible and they may have to be cut down at a later date. As per the city of London chapter 11 parks and open space, design specifications and requirements manual. Neighborhood parks are intended to function as focal points within a neighborhood and are designed to serve the needs of local neighborhood residents by supporting both organized and unprogrammed activities. It also states that neighborhood parks should be centrally located within the service area, radius of 0.8 kilometers and serve a population of up to 5,000 people. Neighborhood parks should be located within a convenient and safe walking distance.

[38:46] The majority of residents and users should not have to cross and will summarize here and just say a busy thoroughfare to access their neighborhood park. For those who are not aware, our neighborhood is triangular in shape and closed by the ravine Wonderland Road and Fanshawe Park Road. My questions are one and the almost 20 years I’ve lived here, the ravine has eroded behind my house and it’s now about eight to 10 feet away from the current fence rather than the 15 to 20 it was originally. For the north, it is far more slanted and is narrow at six feet between the actual property lines and ravine edge. Why would the city not first determine the feasibility of a walkway prior to enforcing the encroachment?

[39:24] This would give homeowners more time to observe the expense of moving structures, fences, et cetera. And when or if the walkway is deemed fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, homeowners could be offered an opportunity to purchase the encroached areas. Two, I have noticed that properties at 1670 and 1674 at a Wonderland Road have apparently been offered an opportunity in the past to purchase the encroached area based on spray painted property lines. Why is this not set of precedent allowing other homeowners the same opportunity? Three, as I anticipate a drop on my property value, when or if our park is re-naturalized and a walkway is added, does the city have a process in place to compensate homeowners or is the only recourse to sue the city?

[40:05] Or how does the city plan to address the concern that changing the zoning of Atawandered Park is in direct contravention of City of London Chapter 11, parks and open spaces, design specifications and requirements manual? My last question is specific to homeowners such as myself who own an inside townhouse unit. As for figure two in today’s Medway Valley CMP memo provided by the city, we have been told we cannot have a gate at the rear of our yards. Although this may be reasonable in an affluent neighborhood with detached homes as there is an opportunity to exit the yard beside the house at the front of the yard, this leaves me and similar owners with no way to leave our yard apart from our house.

[40:43] How do I move my lawnmower? How do I have works on my yard? How does the gas utility access my meter and perform repairs? Even how do elderly or disabled individuals exit their rear yard in the event of a house fire? Thank you. I hope I beat the five minutes. No, you’re 15 minutes of spare. Well done, or 15 seconds of spare. Well done. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. OK, I will go to the final speaker. Our Schmidt.

[41:18] Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Paul Schmidt, and I’d like to thank you for having us today. So I just have a few questions for you. My first question is, in your opinion, do you feel that the city has been transparent regarding this plan? Is that rhetorical? All your questions— They’re all rhetorical? OK. Well, the second here, I’m just going to reset here. Yeah, the questions that were asked prior to you, I’ll ask staff on your behalf.

[41:56] OK, I appreciate that. You can give the questions to the committee. But there are some things that will be rhetorical. That’s fine. The one you just had, and it’ll be kind of the judgment of me too. Thank you, Councillor Lina. Which way we go for facts, right? So we have been told that the process has been extremely transparent. Our own Councillor has mentioned numerous times that we just need to look at the 2017 master plan. Because we received notification back in 2017 regarding Medway Heritage Forest.

[42:31] Now, I would argue Medway Heritage Forest and Atawandran Park are two separate entities. So I recall getting the notification from the city back in 2017. And I understand this may precede some of your working at City Hall. When I opened this notification, though, it mentioned Medway Heritage Forest, Medway Creek, and bridges being built possibly over the creek. Nowhere did it mention re-naturalizing Atawandran Park and devalue all of our homes.

[43:06] Because we would have attended that meeting. As some of you may have recalled, only one person representing our community went to that meeting and he went because he’s environmental scientist. So I would argue that that was not transparent communication. That was opaque communication. I also ask whether it was transparent communication when bylaw officers came to our residences and stuck orange stakes in our backyards. Now we are not an extremely affluent neighborhood, but we do have doorbells.

[43:43] And I was surprised that nobody notified us regarding this plan. I’m also wondering whether the city is notifying new buyers who are purchasing these homes because of the pristine, beautiful park that abuts their properties. So instead, what they’re purchasing is a future of extremely long weeds, coyote riddled areas with perhaps Lyme disease. Now this is also 2025.

[44:17] This is not 2017. So in 2017, we didn’t speak about forest fires. We didn’t speak about Lyme disease. And quite frankly, I didn’t see any coyotes in 2017, but I just saw it too yesterday, right? They are there. So with this particular plan, we are going to have grass that’s about this high right near our neighborhoods. So we fear for our small pets and our small children. I also wonder if the city has been transparent when they reclassified Atawandran Park.

[44:55] So again, it’s been a park for decades. It has been a place where we cherish. It is a beloved park. This is a place where our children play. So that would be my next question is where will the children play in the future? Again, that is rhetorical. I give that question to you for a future answer. And I’d like to know, is this plan actually feasible? Now I am not an engineer, but as Pepper stated earlier, there is an area between the property residents and a significant slope, a huge ravine that’s roughly over six feet.

[45:42] So how can the city possibly create a level three bike path in that area without spending millions of taxpayer dollars, right? It simply is not feasible. There’s not enough space. So you’re going to do a feasibility plan in the future because I’ve asked numerous times, may I see a feasibility plan? And the city has not produced one in a year. So I will end there, but if you could answer some of those questions in the future, I would be very grateful.

[46:21] Thank you. Thank you. That’s the end of our delegates. So I will just ask staff a couple of questions that came out of that. What is the thought process? I was mentioned kind of by both, by a couple of speakers of not having a feasibility study before we start making changes and by law enforcement. Through the chair, the Medway Valley CMP establishes the ecological feasibility, given that we value environmentally significant areas, such as the Medway Valley, as the most protected and pristine natural areas in our city.

[47:06] Before we initiate any detailed design components and the technical feasibility for these various trails and structures, we establish the ecological feasibility. And that’s what the, from 2013 through to 2024, what we have established through the now adopted CMP. Thank you. There was a mention of a couple of properties being given the opportunity to purchase the areas that they had encroached on, primarily 16, 17, 16, 74. Why wasn’t the same offered to other property owners in that strip?

[47:46] Through the chair, I’m unaware of any offers to purchase the land and any inconsistency in the way in which a certain folks have been treated relative to others. I do have an understanding that by law, who can speak to this on their own, did offer the opportunity to establish easement agreements for several much larger retaining wall structures that would potentially be unfeasible at this time to remove in short order. Okay, thank you. So those are the two questions that I thought suitable to ask staff.

[48:22] The other comments, I will lead to committee and visiting counselors to bring up in their, in the discussion that we’re going to have. So right now I’m going to open this to just a minute please. The clerk has requested, and I’m not too sure if I agree with this, but that, and usually we do need a motion to get things started.

[49:18] So maybe the motion can be that we receive the staff information, ‘cause it’s just to be received and the delegates and communications. So maybe we can start there, Councillor Palazzo. Yeah, happy to remove received of the memo and the communications that residents are sending. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder in that Councillor Cudi. Okay, so that’s where we’re starting. So now I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members and visiting counselors. Councillor Palazzo.

[49:53] Thank you, I’ll start off on my notes committee and we can jump back in as we will along the way. I myself bark back onto non-developed area. I do have coyotes in the area where I live. It’s true, you got watchers. Your small pets come nighttime as I thought could be concerned. I appreciate residents coming out and reaching out. If they would like to see something that’s gone through this type of development, I would highlight Mitch’s Park on Upper Queen Street.

[50:28] They did a walking trail in the area. There’s also other trails in the area that do back onto residential areas. I would say it was well done for the most part. Residents do enjoy it and they get out and the parts become more popular. My question through you as one of the speakers had a question looking to understand through you two staff when they talked about the gate access. If you’re in one of those middle units, you don’t have an N unit, that potentially the rear access of your fence line would be that your access for either emergency purposes or to get out and enjoy that naturalized area.

[51:05] Is that a planning zoning thing that prohibits the gate? If someone puts up a gate, are we actually gonna make them take it down? Just looking to see where that comes from. I’ll go and stop on that. Through the chair, as we progress through the detailed design process, these various components will be established. Typically through the DSRM, one of the requirements is that when you back on to a natural feature, it’s a fence with no gate that is established.

[51:37] The minimum requirement is a chain link, but there are opportunities for elevated fencing opportunities and through the detailed design processes is anticipated that we will establish additional naturalization plantings to provide some privacy for the neighbors with respect to the associated trail that is conceptually approved. Councillor. Sir, I’m not sure that actually addressed the question. Is it illegal for them to have a gate? Will they be fined if they put up a gate or can they put up a gate as their property to enjoy the surrounding area and/or have a safety exit feature when you’re the middle unit or any unit in that row?

[52:12] I’ll go and stop. Through the chair, typically, as William Sinton identified, it’s part of the standards and then that’s translated into the subdivision agreement. So that’s where we would have to open up the subdivision agreement, take a look at the language in that and then make refinements. Of course, in past history, these sites would have been just with monuments so they would have been open without fencing, but I’d have to look at the subdivision agreement specifically to see what was required at that time. Councillor.

[52:44] Through you to Miss Neely, would I need a motion now or that could just be information that came back at council? As I am happy to have that be part of the discussion as this project potentially moves forward. Miss McNeely. Thank you through the chair. I’m happy to bring that back to council or prior to council. Councillor. Thank you. I’ll just, I appreciate that. I’m happy to listen to a colleague’s other questions or comments. I’ll highlight for some residents that I have residents that back on to a naturalized area. Some of them do prefer it because it’s a natural buffer and people will stay out of the higher and longer weeds, even though it might bring other insects desirable or not closer to you.

[53:23] And some residents just prefer that it’s cut back. So you could always see who’s behind your property. It seems to be a mix of preferences in different areas in my ward. So happy to listen to other comments as they come forward. Deputy Mayor. Thank you chair. So first of all, thank you to the delegates who came and spoke to us today and who wrote in to share some views with us. I guess I’m gonna start where Councillor Ploza left off with the rear gates. I’m particularly hearing it’s a DSRM.

[53:58] DSRMs are not council approved things typically. They’re an administrative function. I’m actually hearing more and more concerns about DSRM changes that are being made without council’s approval to various things, not just around, you know, backyard fence gates or ecological features, but even changes that are being made through DSRMs around other developments. So I’m really concerned that we’re using DSRMs to say we can’t have rear yard gates. And I will say unequivocally, I have no problem with people having a gate in their back fence.

[54:36] I, before I lived in my house, I lived in a townhouse complex. We had rear yard gates so that we could get out too. And just as the one speaker noted, it’s necessary to be able to get your lawnmower out the back to get around to the front ‘cause I was in the middle of a row too. So there was no way I couldn’t carry my lawnmower through the house. So I will say that the notion that we can’t allow rear yard gates just does not sit well with me. And if that needs to be something that’s directed by council, I’ll wait until we hear Ms. McNeely bring back an update, but I am happy to direct that these be permitted because I think it’s unreasonable to say that they can’t be.

[55:17] I will echo Councilor Palose’s comments. I have coyotes in my neighborhood. I see them regularly. I’ve got a couple of foxes too. One that seems to really like the rain garden in the southwest corner of East Lions Park. They belong here too. It’s they’re part of the ecosystem. And so while I understand it might be a little shocking at the first time you happen across a coyote or a fox, they’ve been there already.

[55:51] They may have been deeper in the valley, but they were there already. And so for me, that’s less of a consideration. But where I do have a consideration and Mr. Schmidt raised it and spoke very clearly to it, it’s the feasibility study. And I appreciate that the ecological feasibility is the first step. But I understand if we advance this. And I want to say right now I’m talking about the pathway and the level three trail. With the slope that’s there, with the requirements for an archeological evaluation, with slope stabilization measures, I’m not convinced actually that this is a good use of taxpayer money to spend on feasibility studies to find out we cannot do this anyway.

[56:40] Which is what I, sorry. I’m glad to share, I’ll let you. Yeah, I’m gonna have to admonish you. Sorry, the school teacher in me. Please, no booing or clapping. Just sit on your hands and we’ll let the discussion for all. Please go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I’m glad you said that now ‘cause residents might not be happy about the second part that I have to say. Then I’m sorry for that. But we do have to separate the encroachment issue from the pathway issue.

[57:14] And as counselors, we have to let by law follow their processes. There’s a provincial memorandum of understanding actually prevents us from being involved in individual enforcement matters. So with respect to the encroachments, that’s not really something that we can consider here today. That’s something that has to work through its by-law process. But for me, it’s about whether or not, regardless of the fact that this was adopted in a 2017 plan, we’re in 2025 and does this make sense to move forward with today?

[57:48] The pathway, the level three pathway. And I know staff are looking at opportunities to provide connectivity in different ways across the city. I appreciate that. But for me, this one doesn’t make a lot of sense. The sort of informal trail that was there that was being used by folks in the neighborhood, that’s one thing. But when we talk about coming in and paving and altering slopes and stabilizing slopes and all of those kind of things, I actually think we do a disservice to environmentally significant areas when we open them up more and more to more and more human traffic.

[58:24] Because to me, environmentally significant areas should be, for the most part, free of human interference. Yes, people should be able to stroll through and enjoy them as they’re able, but I don’t think we should be encouraging more folks into naturalized and environmentally significant areas. So I wanted to share those thoughts. Through you, Chair, with the rest of the committee and with the public, I don’t think at this point, I’ll be supporting the path moving ahead. I’ll look to see what others have to say, but I’m not interested at this point in spending a lot of time and energy at the displeasure of local residents for getting information back that I feel based on what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard so far, is it’s gonna come back as unfeasible anyway, or extremely expensive to do.

[59:24] And I don’t think either of those are options right now that are our priority. So I’m not gonna be supporting moving ahead with this. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers, Councilor. Thank you and through you. So I am the Ward Councilor for the Ward Next Door, Ward Seven, and I’m spending a bit of time in this area, enjoy a lot of events at the Museum of Archaeology, and I’ve had a chance to walk the area with the residents that are here, some of them, and hear their story and to hear what they had to say about the communication that they’ve received in this particular plan.

[1:00:16] And I wanna start by saying that what I’m hearing from them is not dissimilar to what I’m hearing from my own residents with respect to the Medway Heritage Conservation Plan. And that is around how this plan is being communicated overall and the impacts that it will have for area residents with respect to lands that are either behind or around their properties, access points in and around their properties.

[1:00:50] So very similar concerns around the communication and around some of the expectations of compliance as well that they’re hearing. So as mentioned, I can’t go into all the issues around compliance, but I do understand how vexing the situation is for residents. You have a sympathetic ear for me on that for sure. I do understand as well that the communication has not been what you had anticipated, expected, and deserve. And I’m sorry for that.

[1:01:26] I do think it’s important that when we’re going through a process like this, we over-communicate instead of under-communicate. And I know Professor Schmidt probably agrees with me on that. What I will say is I understand the desire for connectivity between and around the Fanshawe Park Road area into Adwondron and into this area. I do think in having walked this area a number of times having participated in clean-ups in this area with Friends of Medway Valley, I do think that if we improve the access onto Adwondron Road versus at the back of these properties, it could meet the requirements of the community without having significant disruption.

[1:02:14] So I think we have a way forward. I’m not sure, and I’m wondering if through you, Chair, how can we amend the conservation plan or have simply a do-nothing in the conservation plan around the section of the trail? Yeah, so I’ll go to staff. If that’s the intent of committee and council, is there a do-nothing motion that’s required for this specific portion?

[1:03:04] Through the Chair, we have done a bit of a dive into the policy around this to see and determine if a single component, acknowledging that the implementation of this plan is a part of the plan itself, which is a guideline document of the London Plan and therefore policy in and of itself, a form of policy implementation. So in order to remove this one section or issue a stop on this portion, we would need an amendment to this plan, which would require us to re-initiate phase two of this process and rewrite the CMP to revise that document, subsequently come forward with a recommendation pending the results of our review to this committee, and then that would need to be adopted by council.

[1:03:50] All right, councilor. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Mr. Mathers, please go ahead. Through the Chair, so just from a very practical perspective, this is also a construction project. So there may be other opportunities to pause that work moving forward. This of course is a very important document and if you want to be consistent, you need to make changes to the document as well, but there is also the practical piece that there is a be a construction project related to this that you could look at deferring or not proceeding with at this time. Councilor.

[1:04:24] Thank you and you answered my next question, so thank you for anticipating that. So with respect to it being tied to a budget item, how would we go about getting information on that budget consideration or that budget approved by budget item and how we would move forward with potentially directing a change in plan by way of eliminating perhaps a portion of the budget or making changes within the budget in order to structurally change how we move forward? Mr. Mathers.

[1:04:55] Through the Chair, so my suggestion would be providing some language of taking no further action on this project. The specific project has various different pathway projects that so I would necessarily suggest is an annualized program so it doesn’t have a specific line item for this, but I would just suggest taking no further action on this project. Councilor. Thank you and so as not a member of this committee, so obviously I can’t make a motion at this time, but I will take any further information and have those conversations before council so needed.

[1:05:33] However, I just wanna be clear, if we were to take no further action on this segment of this project or this trail, would that also include the archeological study or further feasibility studies or would these studies still go forward and it would just be any subsequent construction? Mr. Mathers. Through the Chair, so we wouldn’t be looking at proceeding with any of the other study work that’s associated with this project ‘cause all that funding is actually part of the construction as well.

[1:06:09] Like we’ve done a lot of the great planning work to be able to support something in this area. However, the next steps would be anything that’s related to the construction, so putting that pause on the funding for the construction with then we wouldn’t be proceeding with those other aspects. Councillor. Thank you and with respect to this area, if anybody’s been in this area, you will note this is designated as a park by way of signage, but it’s designated differently from a zoning perspective. Is there any way for the city to revisit the zoning? Go to staff.

[1:06:45] Through the Chair, if that’s something that committees wishing to look at, you may want to include that as part of the resolution that you want us to take a look at the zoning related to this park and provide any kind of direction you think it’s appropriate. Councillor. Thank you. And again, just through you, Chair, one of the things that I’ve noted from this area is it really feels like and is used like a park. It’s changed, I think, a little bit since it’s become more naturalized, but you can see there’s been movie nights in the area, there’s been, you know, neighbors are seeing out there quite often.

[1:07:24] Even the museum sometimes activates the park or the open space/park. I’m not sure if that zoning change is needed, but is there a reason why staff wouldn’t recommend the change? I’ll go staff. Through the Chair, we have to remember while it may be labeled a park, it is an ESA. And an ESA being environmental significant area. So we want to make sure there’s the appropriate buffers in place, the feature itself along Medway Valley is protected, and then there may be opportunities for having, we’ll say, the open mode area that people enjoy today.

[1:08:06] That’s that balance, I believe that we’re hearing in terms of striking that balance, and that would be part of that direction that we would need some clarification of how we want to proceed with this, but we have to also remember that this is an environmentally significant area that we’re trying to protect. Councillor. Thank you, and I appreciate that reminder. So this is why I like the process of going into a committee meeting and having public engagement through that process because you’re able to hear and evaluate and think through these things differently. And I hope my colleagues are hearing that and feeling that as well.

[1:08:41] I will, of course, yield to the Ward Councillor to provide his thoughts on this as well. But I think that we have a way to strike a balance here that meets the needs of the community. The most disheartening thing I saw when I walked this area was seeing where the significant encroachment changes to somebody’s backyard was happening, and it really does happen in the parts where people have the smallest of backyards. And so to me, that also speaks to the mix in this area, the different levels of socioeconomic conditions in the area and the impacts it’s going to have.

[1:09:22] You see in this area, a lot of folks turn over in parts of the street and then parts of the street tend to be longer staying residents. Everybody there that I encountered talked about all the children in the area, and it is significant. And so having space where you don’t have to cross Wonderland Road or Fanshawe Park Road to get to an open space to kick a soccer ball or to have a nice walk with your family, I think that we’re doing ourselves a disservice if we don’t consider this as a park amenity as well as an ESA.

[1:09:59] And I’m probably sure I’m close to my time, but I’ll yield there. And thanks for the opportunity to speak to your committee. I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Thank you, chair. So I’m maybe just not connecting the two pieces, but I kind of heard two answers from staff on how to deal with this. And so I just need some clarification. So that if I’m gonna put a motion forward, I know what staff need. Because I heard part of it was that if we don’t wanna go ahead right now that staff should be directed to review the CMP and bring back an update that removes this section.

[1:10:34] But then I also heard from Mr. May, there’s the staff should be directed to take no further action on this. I’m trying to figure out like, what language do you need to, ‘cause there’s other parts of the CMP. And I wanna leave those alone, but I recognize that there might be parts that are connected to this pathway that will need to be altered as well. So would you need direction to review the CMP and update it with respect to removing the trail section along Adawander and Road?

[1:11:07] I’m seeing Mr. May, there’s not his head, but I’m asking this ‘cause I don’t wanna play the, well, let’s leave it. And then we’ll just deny when the tender comes forward for construction and kind of leave it on the books for now. If we’re gonna make the decision that we’re not gonna spend money, I don’t wanna spend money on the feasibility studies. And then when budget time comes for the award tender, we say, no, we’re not gonna approve it. I’d rather just say no now. So Mr. May, there’s, through the chair, can I just ask really clearly, do you want direction to review the CMP and update it to take no further action on the Adawander and Road trail section?

[1:11:40] Or is it, what do you need from us for direction? Mr. May, there’s. Through the chair, yes, that would be helpful. And then also, in addition to that, no further action on the construction of that, the construction project related to that section of trail. Okay, so I’m gonna take a stab at putting a motion on the floor. I’m gonna, I’ve been scribbling words. I have not emailed them to the clerk, so I’m gonna read them slowly. So hopefully she’s able to capture as I go that civic administration be directed to undertake a review of the CMP and update it to remove the trail section specific to Adawander and Road and take no further action on the implementation and construction of this trail.

[1:12:52] Chair, I think I saw a couple of hands that we’re willing to second, but I think before we do that, can you just, through you, can we just confirm with Mr. May, there’s that that language will capture the goals. Yeah, once it goes to the language up, then we’ll have staff take a move. Through the chair, so the next piece of it and I just wanted to clarify as well that there were some discussions around like the use of that moving forward, the property in general, whether that would be a more active use around the museum to allow for that passive park that’s been used historically in the area.

[1:13:44] So if you do want to have that as something that’s considered us doing a by-law review for more active uses in and around that area, so that would change it from moving and shifting to a naturalized area versus the type of use and a grassed area that is right now. So if you want to provide any direction around what the type of use you’d be looking for within that, within the entire corridor, that would be helpful as well. So Mr. May, there’s, would that involve reclassification of the park?

[1:14:19] It would be a review of the zoning within that area. I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Do you want to consider that in your amendment? I’m willing to consider that. I just, I thought that perhaps the reviewing of the CMP would capture that, but do we? I’m seeing nodding heads, I’ll go to staff, some shaking, some nodding. Mr. May, there’s— I think it would be, I would double up on it that it’s the zoning as well as the review of the park.

[1:14:54] Okay, so what if we said explicit language might be required? So what if we said where it says civic administration be directed to review if we said first, the applicable zoning, comma, and the CMP and updated to reflect or updated to remove the trail section and leave the rest of the, but just put the end zoning in front of review the CMP. So we say review the zoning and the CMP. Through the chair, my suggestion would just to leave the zoning because there is a park’s classification of the passive and we already know through the CMP that there is an area to be mowed.

[1:15:38] But at this point, my suggestion would be just to focus on the trail as well as the construction. Okay, then I’m gonna take Ms. McNeely’s great wisdom and leave that zoning piece out for now ‘cause I think it’s something we can revisit in the future if necessary. Not that Mr. May others doesn’t have great wisdom too, but I’m gonna, I wanna try and keep this straight forward as well and I think if we start mixing in the zoning use before we review the CMP, we might be getting the cart a little ahead of the course.

[1:16:15] I’m also just wondering if staff, and I know you’ll wanna look for a second or first, but after we’ve got a second or confirmed, I would also like to ask staff if the review of the CMP is something that’s done internally, or would you be bringing back forward a consultant cost for us to update it? I’ll go staff. Through the chair, it’s unclear at this time whether or not we would retain a consultant, given the high level of detail that’s being requested to determine various trail components, we would need to establish a scope before we could determine whether or not we could keep that in-house or we would choose to retain a consultant to complete that work.

[1:16:57] Deputy Mayor. Okay, so I’m satisfied with that. I think that yes, the whole CMP is complicated, but we’re really looking at a review for one specific section of trail. So I’m gonna press that staff will take a look and do their very best to do this in-house if they need to. So I’m ready to put that on the floor and you can confirm if there’s a seconder. Okay, so the clerk has the language up in the describe. So if you wanna read it out, Clerk, that’d be great. So the motion, or the amendment would read us followed that the motion be amended to read us followed, that the civic administration be directed to undertake a review of the CMP and update it to remove the trail section of Atawanda Road Park and take no further action on the implementation and construction of this trail.

[1:17:59] Councillor, is that correct? Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hill here has seconded. So now we are discussing the amendment. Now I’ll go to Councillor Ploza. I don’t, the red light give you away. Thank you. A question through you to staff strictly on the amendment as it says, no further action on the implementation and construction of the trail. Looking to see if without wording, it would still allow staff to address any easement concerns and get back to us with that gate access issue.

[1:18:41] Yeah, so those are two separate things. With the gate issue, I think, well, let’s start with the gate issue. Ms. McNeely, can you kind of address the direction for committee on that point? Thank you through the chair for the gate. We’ll try to get something free before council. Let’s keep that separate for now. Okay, and on the easement inquiry, I’ll look to staff for their comments. Through the chair. Of course, it is still an ongoing enforcement matter, but what we wanted to do is be informed by whatever the council decision is on this component to be able to look at any of our next steps on it.

[1:19:23] Councillor. Thank you. I’ll just plainly say it that I’m fine if the trail gets constructed or not. I’m fine with it, not moving forward. I would love to move forward the discussion of how to make sure this site and other sites can have that gate access from their backyard and not be in fear of being in contravention of something and actually maintaining against them. I don’t want this to, I know we don’t have direct interference with by-law, we’re not allowed to. I don’t want this to be seen as the easements are okay.

[1:19:58] They can expand. They can continue, as we know, if it’s not addressed for future homeowners in that area, wouldn’t know going into it. And neighbors, each of them in a row could keep potentially going out and encroaching. I do see this as an ESA with naturalization. So I do have that concern. I appreciate the open space and kids and busy roads and absolutely in small yards and people looking to have that space and easy access to it, which I’m fine with and so glad they got an outdoor movie night, but really having that balance with the naturalized area as that area is so wonderful and beautiful for the significance of it area and making sure that we don’t accidentally diminish it.

[1:20:42] Okay, I’ll look for other committee members. They’ll go to Councilor Troso. Thank you very much. Just to clarify, I’m not a member of this committee. I’m here as a visiting member and I will be able to ask questions but not vote. I’m trying to understand, I’ll direct this to staff and the chair, does the motion on the floor, would the motion on the floor require an amendment at the level of the official plan and what are the implications for removing a piece of a broader regional project like this in terms of our obligation to a broader community and also to the conservation authority?

[1:21:36] I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, so that was three parts. The official plan piece, the upper Thames and the connectivity piece with respect to the official plan because Midway Valley Conservation Master Plan is listed as a guideline document in policy 1719 of the London Plan. In order for an amendment to the CMP to be made, we do not require a full amendment that has already been adopted by by-law. So at this stage, all that would be required is to host a public meeting to bring forward a report to PEC and subsequently have council vote on approving the new version.

[1:22:12] With respect to connectivity, there is an existing bike trail directly to the north of this section about a wander in and directly to the south attached in by the museum. So this provides an excellent opportunity for mobility and connectivity. This section of the ESA was identified as natural environment through the ecological planning process, which is the least sensitive component of the ESA, recognizing that ESA is our mosaics of extremely sensitive features. That’s why we go through the trail guidelines in order to establish the range of sensitivity.

[1:22:49] So this is being currently categorized as the least sensitive and therefore the most appropriate location for that increased recreation and the connectivity. And then with respect to Upper Thames Conservation Authority, they have been involved in the process since day one, pending the council direction to staff in 2018 when the report was referred back. They were involved in those initial meetings. So from a high level, conceptually and pending the results of the final detailed design studies of geotech, they have suggested that it is feasible that this trail would go along that alignment and that they would be able to provide a section 28 permit.

[1:23:30] Councilor, thank you. Okay, I will go to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for recognizing me as a visiting counselor and really appreciated listening to the committee’s comments and listening to the debate here. I do have two questions on the amendment. I heard from the beginning the concerns around costs and maybe through you to staff, wanting to have a better understanding for the costs of the feasibility study to get this pathway put forward comparing it to the cost of reviewing the plan.

[1:24:13] How much money are we saving here by doing this or they’re about or— I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as this would be a cost sharing project with our parks department and their construction team, we’re not clear on the specifics with respect to the scoping those various pieces.

[1:24:49] We understand that there is sufficient budget to accomplish those and initial outreach and scopes have been obtained from archeology. Unfortunately, because they are not clear, we’re not clear on the specific values of those various scopes. But in terms of retaining a consultant to potentially redo environmental studies for the existing land, that would be an additional cost that could potentially be taken from our existing management which would potentially undermine some of the existing service level that we are providing in the ESA. So the upkeep and the maintenance, we have a limited study budget that we move forward with.

[1:25:24] This project has taken up a lot of that over the years. And so at this point, we would be looking to go to those detailed design studies. Oh, sir. So just listening, I’m not completely convinced that going this way is going to be cost sharing in the long run, and I hear the community does not want to pathway. And this is where this motion is going to be going. And the second question I have is around a no further action being taken.

[1:26:04] And my question through you, Mr. Chair, to staff is, we know this is an ESA. So how are we going to protect the buffering around this ESA? Is that going to be part of that review process? Or where are the protections for the ESA within this motion? Go ahead, staff. Through the Chair, the caution that we do offer is that given the environmental studies have landed on this plan, and the only updates to the plan would be the increased community engagement piece, specifically for this neighborhood.

[1:26:50] It’s unclear whether or not the subsequent CMP that would be recommended would be any different from what it is now. That said, we acknowledge that community piece, and we would do our best to incorporate as much as we could and provide additional details. But until we have done some those archeology geotechnical and established what the Section 20 permit limits are, specifically, it’s just hard to say. Again, this is the least sensitive component of the natural heritage system, which is why the level three trail was applied here. Councillor.

[1:27:21] Thank you for that clarification. Look for other comments or questions from community members or visiting Councillors. I’ll ask Councillor Palose to take the chair. Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Councillor Layman. Thank you. So yeah, it’s a great discussion. I have walked this section about around with residents and I understand what they’re saying. My concern is for, well, first I’ll deal with it.

[1:27:59] The encroachment stuff, that’s nothing. I’m not willing to entertain anything here at this committee, that’s by-law, and it’s property, city owned and privately owned. That’s a separate issue that this committee cannot go into in my opinion. The gate issue, I don’t understand why we have a gate restriction on a fence. We don’t have to have a fence. So why would there be any restriction on having a gate? So I’m glad to see that that will come back to Council at some point.

[1:28:34] I think that’s probably one that got put in somewhere along the line and should be addressed. I do want to talk about the connectivity with the bike path, which I support. I think it’s terrific to have bike paths going through off the street where we can do it. This particular section, in my opinion, the elevation change is extreme at the north end going on the fence. And I don’t see how without spending a considerable sum of reducing the slope, that could be achieved to be a safe ride for a cyclist.

[1:29:14] And as far as protecting environmental assessment area, how paving a section could enhance that, I don’t understand that either. So I will support the amendment. Thank everyone here for the work that you’ve done, because I agree. I think we have to do a better job at communication. We have big plans, which have been well thought out and debated. But a lot of it’s internal to Council and staff and with those that have participated in debate, but the general population isn’t as rare as they should be, especially when it comes to a specific area.

[1:30:02] So as much as we can, we have to do a better job with communication right from the get go. Now, here’s what’s coming. Here’s what Council’s decided. And here’s the future, even if it’s 10 years from now, to give homeowners heads up on what’s happening. And then along that process, to have the neighborhood better engaged. So that’s my two cents for what it’s worth, Acting Chair. Thank you. Thank you. You’ve used two minutes and 45 seconds to return the chair to you.

[1:30:35] Thank you. I’m much better at keeping track than I am, Councillor. So I’ll look for any other comments or questions before I call the question on the amendment. Seeing none, then we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. So now we’re back to the main motion as amended. So I’ll look for another mover and seconder on that one.

[1:31:15] The Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cuddy. The movers and seconders there. I’ll look for any discussion on that. Seeing none, then we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. And that concludes our consent items. So we will now move on to schedule items. Before we do, I’d like to ask committee for their agreement and direction I want to go.

[1:31:57] As we’ve seen with bylaws, we’ve kind of streamlined that process by having the same mover and seconder for every bylaw reading. As you can see, we have 12 scheduled items with 12 PPMs that we open and close for every one. It seems to me it would make sense if we could just have the same mover and seconder and use them for all the opening and closing of PPMs for all the scheduled items.

[1:32:35] So that’s the direction I want to go. I’ll look just for if everyone’s OK. We don’t need to vote on this. But if there’s no objection, then that’s the direction I will go. OK. So we’re going to start with 3.1. And this is regarding 820 Blythewood Road. So I will look for a mover and the seconder who will be willing for the opening and closing of all items today. So Councillor Cuddy moves and Councillor Hillier seconds. So Councillors, you will be essentially moving open the PPMs and closing the PPMs.

[1:33:16] And I will just call the vote. OK. So we have a motion. So we still have to vote on it. But we’ve got that part cleared up. So we’ll open the vote on hearing the public participation meeting for 3.1. Closing the vote.

[1:33:59] The motion carries. Fact is zero. OK. I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, Chair and members of committee. My name is Jennifer Gadad. And I’m an associate planner with MHPC. We’re the agents for the owner and applicant of 820 Blythewood Road. Here with me virtually today is Cyrus Wu. And he’s representing the owner and applicant. Subject lands consist of the former Rhona store and associated parking.

[1:34:35] The requested zoning bylaw amendment would add permitted uses to the existing commercial zoning applicable to the site, facilitating the use of approximately 2,800 square meters of the former Rhona store for commercial recreation. The remainder of the building would be used as a grocery store, which is permitted under the existing zoning. The new commercial recreation uses would be entirely within the existing building. And may include a playground, food court, and amusement games. No changes to the site access or off-street parking arrangement are anticipated. And interior renovations are already underway.

[1:35:10] We’ve reviewed staff’s report and agree that the amendment is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the London plan, and is appropriate for the site. And we’re available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this. I’ll see anyone coming to the mic in Chambers Oz to clerk who there’s someone online. Mr. Harvey, are you online? I am. Can you hear me?

[1:35:42] We can. Please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes. The property that I represent is owned by Taboid Holings Inc, which is owned by a trust called PMP Trust. I’m the principal. The property, if your staff could show you, is a square piece of property running from the front door of the former Rhona store, which now is owned by the applicant, and runs on three sides in the parking lot.

[1:36:14] The fourth side going east is the Wonderland Road. So it’s a square piece of property, very unusual, but fits right in front and occupies all of the budding parking to their door. I spoke with Mr. John Lynn, who is the owner. I haven’t spoken to Cyrus Liu, the representative, but Mr. John Lynn, and he assures me that the play area that they’re proposing is for his customers in the store.

[1:36:48] I approached and spoke with your planner there, is your name, and by email on Thursday of July 17th, after whether the zoning amendment is required for a play area for customers of the food store. Her response to me by email on July 21st is the associated shopping area ASA zone does not regulate the maximum gross floor area for the proposed use at 825 Wood Road.

[1:37:29] In essence, there is no need for this zoning amendment for him to allow the use that he’s proposing. The conflict with that is simple. We have a registered easement agreement between my property and now the new owner, Mr. Lynn, of the food store, which prohibits some of the uses of which her staff has categorized the new zoning ordinance for, which by her own admission isn’t required for the play area.

[1:38:06] The problem with that in this conflict between the registered easement agreement that’s registered on both properties of which I provided to staff is surrounded by three sides of their parking and by the fourth side, which is Wonderland Road. Why staff wouldn’t have contacted the owner of the property before they rezoned the store and considered that they’re putting a zone around this property, which is different than existing.

[1:38:40] I don’t know. So I think they should have contacted us. In any event, I object to the zoning amendment because it is not required by your staff’s own admission. And given that it was approved or would be approved, it could potentially cause legal ramifications for myself, the property, and the owners and put us into legal conflict, perhaps even the city. So for those reasons, it appears to me that the plan here representing the client, Mr. Cyrus Lou, the owner, Mr. John Lynn, has circumvented coming and dealing with reciprocal easement agreement by saying they need a zoning for a play area, which clearly the staff of the city of London indicates is not required.

[1:39:36] But by that, they get other uses, which would put us in conflict with the reciprocal easement agreement. The property, if your staff could put it up on a plan to show you how it fits as most unusual, and it’s quite the story to explain how it happened, but irrespective of that, it looks like they’re using the play area concept, and the staff has gone along with it to do a rezoning for other things, which would put us in conflict, and therefore, I object. Thank you.

[1:40:12] I’ll look for other comments or speakers from the public. I would like to address committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone else online. There’s no one else online. I don’t see any other speakers, so we’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll open the floor to our committee, Deputy Mayor.

[1:40:54] So to frame the discussion, Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation to start, but I do have some questions for staff. Okay, so we have a mover. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi, and I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So through you, Chair, we heard the concern about the additional zoning not being required in the applicant’s view, and I tend to concur in, and I’m just saying this from a perspective of other situations, ‘cause I don’t, and so this is why I need to ask this question.

[1:41:41] We don’t require McDonald’s, for example, to get specific zoning for their play place areas. And from what I can see, there is no square footage sort of restriction on what that might be within this, presumed within this floor played, and I did read in the report, it’s about 2,800 square feet, or meters, I’m gonna get the measurement wrong, ‘cause I don’t have it open in front of me. And that the overall space is like 10,900 or something like that, so it’s about a quarter or so of the overall floor plate.

[1:42:21] So why is the, why are staff recommending here a special new subcategory of an associated shopping area with a bracket blank right now to fill in the number, versus another operation where that’s not required? And I’m not sure if staff can comment on why this is handled differently from what we would see in other commercial establishments, but that’s my first question. I’ll go to staff. Thank you, and through the chair.

[1:42:53] So the requested amendment through this application is to permit this as a standalone use, a main use that would then complement the grocery store. It’s not a use that we would typically see accessory to a grocery store, and based on the information we have, does not appear to be incidental and subordinate to the grocery store. The indoor playground has a substantial floor area, as you mentioned, of about 2,800 square meters, and also has its own accessory uses within, including a food court and arcade games. So these considerations are indicative that it’s not an accessory use, but rather its own principal use.

[1:43:31] Generally, the playground in a McDonald’s play place is restricted to patrons of the McDonald’s. It’s not a use that would attract persons who are not going to the restaurant itself. In this case, it’s unclear to us if the individuals attending the play place would be restricted to patrons of the grocery store, or if it would be open to the general public as well. Similarly, it’s unclear if there are gonna be separate entrances from the exterior of the building. To the playground, or if it’s going to be accessed exclusively from the grocery store and the interior of the grocery store.

[1:44:09] And lastly, it’s also unclear if it would operate outside the regular business hours of the grocery store as well. So these are all points to us that are indicative that this is not in fact an accessory use, that it’s its own principal main use. Thanks. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. And that answers a lot of my questions around that. I guess my quick follow up to that. I did not see in the package. And I will confess that if it was in the added, I made all my notes in the regular agenda on the weekend.

[1:44:41] So if I missed it in the added, I’m sorry, but I didn’t see a site plan rendering on this application. So that’s where the separate entrances and things I wasn’t able to see whether there were such things. Did we receive a site plan on this or not? Through the chair, we did not. Simply because this is just adding a use within the existing building with no to our understanding, substantial changes proposed to the building. Okay, thank you for that. So final question, I know later in the agenda at 3.12, we’re gonna be dealing with a little bit of delegated authority to allow our director of planning a little more flexibility in minor zoning amendments, streamline the process a little bit, but also provide us some flexibility during rethink.

[1:45:36] The purpose of rethink is to reduce really the number of overall zones and consolidate some of the uses in other, in one category instead of spreading them out into three, four, five, six. But here we’re recommending at least temporarily a new ASA8 bracket, something, whatever that number happens to be. So that was my other struggle. I think you’ve probably answered that already in terms of not having some of this other information around the use, but would it be fair to categorize this as something that would be, we’re doing this as an interim step because it would be something that we’d be looking at in reviewing our rethink zoning categories to begin with.

[1:46:23] So like a year from now, maybe when rethink is done, this might not be necessary, but it’s kind of an interim measure so they can move ahead now. Through the chair, that’s correct. One of the goals of rethink zoning is to unbundle uses so that there are fewer uses defined in the bylaw. So certainly that’s something we can consider through that process. Great, thank you for that. So through you chair, hearing those answers, I’m comfortable supporting the staff recommendation for now. I think this is just one where we have to do something until we’ve got our processes sorted out.

[1:46:58] Otherwise the applicant could be waiting a year before they could move ahead with their plan. I suspect that they probably don’t want to do that. They’d probably like to move sooner than later. So I’m gonna support this. Of course, you know, I heard the applicant’s concerns and certainly, I mean, I suppose that they could appeal this to the OLT if they chose to do so. But I think that this is an interim step allows them a path forward. So I’ll support it. I will say, I think we’re gonna, I know at 3.12 we’ll be talking about citywide minor zoning amendments again.

[1:47:33] And I think that probably relates to an item for direction on today’s agenda as well. So I would just finish by saying to staff, I know it’s a lot of work. The sooner we can get some of these where you think change is made and in front of us for approval. So we don’t have to do this work would be great for our agenda length, but for your workload as well. So please, you know, don’t let rethinking get held up by any of the other items we put on your deferred matters list ‘cause that one’s a pretty important one. Thank you.

[1:48:08] I’ll ask Councillor Palazzo to take the chair again, please. Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Councillor Layman. Thank you. Thank you to my ward. And I think this is a great example why we need rethink zoning. I heard from the applicant there’s no change in access here. My understanding, it’s a playground for shoppers, not too sure. I don’t, they’re not even too sure of how much space is gonna be needed as they’re figuring out the concept. I do think there’s some, there is a danger here of legal ramifications holding this project up and I don’t wanna see that building, that road of building said vacant for a long period of time.

[1:48:53] So what I would like to do is I would like to refer this to the time when we get the rethink zoning figured out. So I will like to make a motion to refer it and the acting chair, you can look for a seconder. Thank you. I know you have a seconder, but I will go to staff first to see if a referral will put us in jeopardy of not meeting some provincial timelines and issues before we get to that point. The staff, as you check dates and numbers and get back, should it be okay, Councillor Hilliard, would be your seconder.

[1:49:34] Through the chair, we are bound by statutory timelines under the Planning Act, which is 90 days for zoning by law amendment. We’re currently in the 70th day to council within that timeframe. So certainly if we were to defer it to rethink zoning, we would well exceed that statutory timeframe. Thank you. Having that information, Councillor Layman, what is your intention? Yeah, so this is not. DC’s aren’t involved in this.

[1:50:09] What is the implication if we do pass that 90-day time period? We do pass it from occasion to occasion. I’ll pause your time there to staff. Through the chair, the risk would be that the applicant could file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for non-decision. Okay, so I’d like to continue with her for all, please. Okay. I can share. You have a seconder in Councillor Hilliard. Would you like to speak to it first? Yeah, I kind of spoke a bit, maybe out of turn, and I just wanted to give the committee a reasoning behind my referral.

[1:50:48] I believe the parties here want to get to some understanding. I think this might have been a, from what I’ve understood and speaking to one of the parties, probably not the best course of action, maybe unintended that the plan here all along was a grocery store with a play area attached, not to build, you know, next indoor play area, separate visits from the grocery store.

[1:51:23] We could be going down a path here that just by momentum alone will lead to protracted litigation, which will lead to that building staying vacant. I think the best course of action here is to get a referral and understanding from staff that they’re hoping for spring to have the rethink zoning back before this committee, sometime hopefully before we get into that portion of time when we’re dead duck or whatever they call it, lame duck, dead duck.

[1:51:59] So I think this is the pragmatic course, and again, I’m speaking more of the local Councillor on this one than that’s my motivation here. So that’s, those are my comments back in chair. Thank you. What a foul reference. Look through you to staff, I’m hot coming off vacation, look at me go, the Councillor referenced rethink zoning potentially coming back in spring. Is that still adequate? And when it does come back, is it going to be this long public engagement process?

[1:52:35] Like just looking for timelines of will, when would it actually be an effect to be able to affect this application? Thank you through the chair. Yes, we’re looking to bring back a draft at the end of this year, January of 2026 with the intent to bring the final version it made before a lame duck council. So that this council can make a decision on the rethink zoning project, the by-law, and following that there is an appeal period.

[1:53:07] So that could put extended timelines on that. And we don’t know what that timeline would be because it depends on the number and nature of appeals. Okay, thank you. Looking for further speakers on the referral. I will recognize Deputy Mayor Lewis. Could I ask this earlier, but I think on the referral it’s relevant. With current zoning on the site, is there anything that would prevent the applicant from moving ahead with the grocery store portion of the business and leaving vacant space on the floor plate to come back and do the playground food court area at a later date?

[1:53:53] To staff, through the chair, the grocery store use is a permitted use. So there’s no zoning hurdles for that use. Deputy Mayor. So what I’m hearing is if, and correct me if I’m wrong, but if we referred this really the only piece that would sort of be a non-decision right now would be the playground zoning because the existing ASA would allow the grocery store as of right now.

[1:54:24] And so they would have to file an appeal based on the playground piece, not on the grocery store use. To staff, that’s correct. This application was requesting the additional use of commercial recreation to allow for the play place. So the appeal would be based on this requested amendment. Deputy Mayor. Okay, hearing that and hearing the word counselors, comments, I would be supportive of referring the ASA additional use to the rethink process because there’s still the option to open the grocery store now if they want it.

[1:55:07] I mean, obviously they’d have to get the site ready, but nothing’s preventing them from moving ahead with that at this time. So yeah, I can be supportive of that. Thank you, looking for further speakers on this item on the referral. Seeing none, on the referral, all on the question. Mr. Palosa, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:55:59] Thank you, that concludes that item as it was referral has passed. I am returning the chair to Councillor Layton. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. And if I could come up with another bird joke, I’d make it, but I’m not that witty. Okay, moving at 3.2, this is regarding 431st Street. I’ll open the vote for opening the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:56:39] Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. It’s a clerk if the applicant is online. The applicant is not online, okay. I’ll look for other speakers that would like to address the committee on this item. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote on closing the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

[1:57:30] Deputy Mayor Lewis-Abson. Thank you, so I’ll put this on the floor. I’ll look to committee to speak Councillor Palosa. I’ll move it. Thank you, I’ll look for seconder, Councillor Hillier. I’ll look for discussion. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

[1:58:05] Moving on to item 3.3, scheduled item. This is regarding 1-2-0-4 Richmond Street. I’ll open the vote to open the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. I’ll look for the applicant. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of committee.

[1:58:40] My name is Dan Murphy. I’m an urban planner with civic planning and design. Here representing our client, Dominion Inc. This application proposes a modest adaptive reuse of an existing place of worship at 1204 Richmond Street. The rezoning will allow for a small range of complimentary uses, medical and dental offices, clinics, pharmacies and general office within the existing building with no expansion to the building proposed. The amendment conforms to the London Plan’s urban corridor policies and supports the city’s goals for maintaining the economic vitality of the existing building stock through adaptive reuse and makes efficient use of existing infrastructure.

[1:59:18] I wanna thank Chloe Cernanak and the rest of planning and development staff for the work on this proposal. We’re in full agreement with the staff recommendation and I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Susan Bentley. I live at 34 Mayfair Drive, which is just around the corner from the site in question. Mr. Chair and members of the committee. The staff report shows no comments were received from the public, but I personally did send in a comment to Ms. Cernanak by email.

[1:59:56] And I also circulated the planning application to many area residents. I did receive personally three replies. So there were four comments, including two from former parishioners of St. Luke’s church and unusually for roughdale, all were positive. As a former parishioner myself, our three children were baptized and confirmed there. I personally cannot think of a better use for this church as medical offices, dental offices. The exterior of the building will not be changed and it is, I’m glad to say, to remain on the register of heritage buildings, which is a delight.

[2:00:34] To my mind, the use of St. Luke’s for a medical building is perfect. It fits so well with the fact that St. Luke was known to be a physician. He’s also the patron saint of doctors. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Benchley. I’ll look for other comments. Not yet, Councillor. We’re still in the public participation meeting. Any online clerk. There’s no one online, I’ll see anyone else at the mic.

[2:01:09] So we will open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll put this on the floor for committee. I can move it to the start. I’ll move staff on the dation. Thank you. Councillor Hill here seconds. Thank you. I’ll look for comments or questions.

[2:01:43] Councillor Trussell. Sorry, Mr. Chair, as a committee member, you put me back on the list. I’m happy to yield to Councillor Trussell, but I want on your list too. My apologies, Councillor. I didn’t. I’ll go after Sam. It’s good. Okay. Thank you very much. I’m always happy to be here as a visiting guest to this committee. I am a neighbor of Ms. Benchley’s, as many of you know. And my street, Braftail, has a number of citizens who are monitoring these things a lot.

[2:02:20] And I’m very pleased to welcome you to our neighborhood and just know you’ve got a tough bunch here. If I can speak through the chair to the applicant, just say welcome to the neighborhood and we’re really hoping this works out. I will also miss St. Luke’s. I wasn’t a parishioner, but I did attend their functions from time to time. And I’m absolutely thrilled that we’re not going to be demolishing it or trying to change the heritage nature of it. So this is good news and I wish you well and I’ll be supporting this at council.

[2:02:59] Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Through you a few questions to staff, realizing parking could be a concern. And it’s noted with them a report. Just thank you for further comment on that. Go to staff. Thank you for the question through the chair. The formalized parking area generally maintains the existing site condition. Further, there is two hour parking provided along Bernard Avenue, including a barrier free parking space to accommodate potential overflow parking.

[2:03:38] And therefore staff are satisfied that the proposed parking spaces will continue to sufficiently accommodate the needs of the site. Thanks. Councilor. Thank you. And is it two hours parking complimentary or paid? Staff. Through the chair, that may be a question for the applicant, but we don’t have that information for you right now. I’ll go to the applicant on the councilor’s question.

[2:04:17] Through the chair, I believe it is unpaid. It’s just a two hour limit. There’s no meters or anything. Councilor. Thank you. You saved me from pulling up my honk app. I appreciate that. My other question to staff, I would say very supportive of expansion of space and maintain the building and find new uses. I believe it was the last term thing, the years blend together. I think it was a deputy, well, Councilor Lewis and me team up of medical offices building having zoning easily changed when the provinces had the model of having multiple doctors in a site to do it.

[2:04:58] We had did a thing to alleviate some of the zoning concerns, not being aware of what kind of medical offerings will go into the site looking to see if it is doctor offices or trying to share space if it will accidentally trigger other provincial legislation that could be applicable. We’ll go to staff. Through the chair again, that may be a question for the applicant. We’re just dealing with the use. Now we don’t know how they owner to intents on operating the facility.

[2:05:36] Councilor, I’ll go to the applicant. Through the chair, this is kind of establishing the permissions for the actual use. The second phase would be determining the actual floor areas for each of the uses within the answer to your question. Councilor. I appreciate that we’re beginning the conversation and there’s been some prior work done to make things as easy as possible as we can make it, but happy to hear back, not that they have to update us, but just even the progress as it goes and happy to support it.

[2:06:11] That concludes my question. And thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, I’ll just make a quick comment from the chair. I’m essentially, thank you for your comments, important to hear from its personal, your feelings and others. I appreciate that, thank you. Seeing no other hands up, we’ve got motion moved and second, we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:06:47] Okay, moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 180 Simcoe Street and 214 to 230 Richmond Street. We will look open the vote for opening the public participation meeting. We do, Mayor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant.

[2:07:20] I’d like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Keaton McAllister, Planner with Selenka Primo. Here on behalf of OOD Sarefi and GCTell, hard zoning bylaw application is in conjunction with the city initiated official plan amendment to allow for some commercial uses on lands in this area that are designated neighborhoods place type. And our zoning bylaw amendment seeks to add commercial uses along with the existing office uses to the restricted office zoning already on the lands.

[2:08:00] And we’d like to thank staff for their report on this one and we are in agreement with their recommendation for approval. I’m here to answer any questions. Thank you, I’ll look for other members of the public like to address committee. I’ll ask Clerk if anyone online, nobody online. I don’t see anyone else going to the mic, so I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:08:48] Okay, I’ll put this on floor for committee. Looking for a motion, Councillor Hillier. I’ll move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi. Comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and second, I’ll call the vote. Oh, Chair, sorry to interrupt you there. I did wanna make some comments, Councillor Ferrer. Councillor Ferrer, welcome to our meeting. I’m sorry we overlooked you online there.

[2:09:21] Thank you for speaking up, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and no worries on that. I feel pretty grateful to be in the 500 page count of your almost 800 page report. So I just wanted to speak in support of this one. I spoke to the owner of the property a little while back and they’re just looking for, to increase their ability for what they want to offer there. Looking to as the report shows, you know, permit office space as a standalone retail uses, additional commercial uses. So just speaking in support of that, I think it will bring some good to that area of the neighborhood.

[2:09:58] It’s an underused space. So looking for support on this and I’ll be supporting this at council. Thank you, Councillor. Other comments or questions? Clerk, is that everyone else online that I’m ignoring? No, we’re good. Okay, thank you. So I think we’re good to call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:10:33] Thank you, moving on 3.5. This is regarding 514 to 520 South Street. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Applicant, if the applicant would like to address the committee, please sort of give us your name and you have five minutes.

[2:11:08] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of committee. My name is Paul Hind, I’m a planner with strict functionality, Menes. Representing today, Amnor Holmes, Inc. The owners of 514, 520 South Street. The proposal for the rezoning is to rezone the property to an R5 special zone, which would allow for a three-story stacked townhouse development consisting of 28 units. The special provisions are to allow for a height of 14 meters whereas 12 is required and a density of 105 units per hectare whereas 60 is provided.

[2:11:46] We are providing the requisite parking space and open space and meet all other zoning requirements of that. There’s a third component of the special provision, which is to amend the definition of the stacked townhouse as currently contained within the comprehensive zoning by-law Z1. There’s a associated city initiated zoning by-law amendment to also change the zoning definition. And so that this is consistent with what’s going to be coming forward to council in the future.

[2:12:20] So those are the three special provisions to allow for the rezoning. We have had consultation with the site plan people and the zoning by-law was structured having regard for the site plan that’s had a review at a pre-consultation stage. There are some site plan approval, consideration issues that are included in the staff report which we fully support and we thank staff for carrying out the review and the report in a comprehensive and efficient manner.

[2:12:53] I’m here to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this issue. So clerk, if there’s anyone online, no one online. I’ll call the vote to close the— Closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you and I’ll put this on the floor for committee. For a motion, Councilor Cartier moving.

[2:13:33] I’ll look for a seconder, Councilor Hillyer. So we have a motion moved in second. Any comments or questions? Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As noted in the added agenda, there is a communication from the public in regards to this property. Their concern as they were not here to speak to it today referenced a heritage home that apparently was originally on the site that felt disrepair that had to be demolished and then cleared and now we request for a building. Not sure of the timeline, the ownership of that home as it went through the process.

[2:14:09] Looking to see if the heritage home was on the property when owned by this applicant, if staff. Thank you for the question. The current owner started with the property in 2023 to my best understanding, Councilor. Thank you. Is staff able to cite who demolished the home? Realizing by then it might have been a dilapidated state but the only remediation was to remove it.

[2:14:44] Just looking to see the dates of who removed the home. Oh God, staff. The house was demolished under the current owner, I believe approved was given in June, 2024 and the house was ultimately demolished in January 2025. Councilor, other comments or questions? Anyone online? Okay, Councilor Ferra, he is. Councilor, please go ahead.

[2:15:19] We didn’t miss you this time. I appreciate that. I don’t know how lucky I am to have two items back to back on this. You are so fortunate. So anyways, I guess leading up to the questions from Councilor Palosa, we need housing and this is now just a vacant lot. So obviously we need housing there. My comments aren’t necessarily for that. They are for the state of the property previous to just vacant lands right now and the heritage aspect of that. So I do understand that that house did have issues before the ownership, the current ownership of it, but I also understand that, and I don’t have all of the information, but I do know that we were sending out communications with the applicant about the demolition and eventually the city, we are the ones who did the demolition on that and weeks later we received an application for the rezoning and that is just kind of my concern with that because there is a cost associated with the demolition aspect of it and we flipped the bill and I’m worried about potentially improving the property value and then having that increase in property value end up paying for with some extra income on the side for the new owner paying for the demolition that we had.

[2:16:46] So I just feel like the communication, maybe the issue on this one and not receiving a communication back from the ownership or from the proponent. So like I still have some big concerns on that and I’m not really pleased to see the business method, the method of operation here on the applicant’s side with this property because in the end if we reach out because the property needs to be made safe and then we don’t hear any communication back for making the property safe.

[2:17:21] And then once we make it safe ourselves as a city initiative, we receive that application only a few weeks later to rezone the property. So because of that, I won’t be supporting it at council. Like I said, I do wanna see more housing and it is a vacant lot. So I’m not against that part. I’m just very concerned about the process that we saw coming forward and that’s not on our side. That would be on the side of the ownership of the land. Thank you, councilor, councilor Palosa.

[2:17:57] Thank you, through you. Just looking to see if staff could comment as a follow up to councilor Freire’s question or comments and also if the city does demolish a property and makes a site safe that that does come back to us and taxpayers through the, it would just go against their property taxes and be collected later. I think that’s our normal process just making sure that it’s been followed. We’ll go on staff. Thank you and through the chair, the subject property was subject to reports in 2023 called the property standards related demolitions reports at the community and protective services committee.

[2:18:37] In there, it was addressed that the property was in disrepair and ultimately based on the recommendation from the city billing official subject to demolition. There’s also a note that all costs related to this are directed to the property owner, anything related to the maintenance or demolition. So that would all go back to the property owner. Councilor? So for clarification, it went back to the property owner which is now this company has the city of London been made hold from the charges of demolition that we had to incur.

[2:19:13] I’ll go on staff. Through the chair, I’m not able to confirm that that is ultimately a building or an enforcement question and not part of this or any battle amendment. All right, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, we can provide that information prior to. Councilor? Thank you. I’ll wait the information for council. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Trassel? Thank you very much through the chair to staff. Do I understand the situation correctly that this property, if it was properly maintained, would have not been subject to demolition because of its heritage status.

[2:19:55] But since it was in such a unsafe situation, the city ordered it demolished. Is that correct? Through the chair, it’s partly corrected, a little bit more complicated as the reason that the property was not designated as a heritage property. It’s based on the number of reasons. One of them being that the property wasn’t disrepair, but it was also heritage-related reasons that the property didn’t meet certain criteria for designation. There was also a fire in 2023, which is unrelated to the heritage matter, but certainly worsened the condition of the property.

[2:20:32] And it was never actually heritage listed. It was listed on the list of heritage resources within the city, but it was never actually designated as a heritage property. Councilor? Okay, well, whether it was listed or actually designated, did put some demolition controls on it separate and apart from what normal properties would have, correct? I’ll go south. Sorry, can you repeat that question through the chair? Please repeat it, Councilor. Yes, regardless of whether it was designated or listed.

[2:21:08] The fact that it was in that heritage system created a constraint on being able to get a typical demolition that could happen without the demolition control by law and a fact. I’ll go south. Through the chair, yes, that is correct. And ultimately, the applicants admitted to heritage. Impact assessment that was reviewed by heritage staff, and based on that, the property was demolished. Councilor? If I made the statement, this is a classic case of demolition by neglect.

[2:21:43] Would I be wrong? I don’t believe that staff can answer that one, Councilor. Then I’ll make this, then I’ll make the statement that in my opinion, this is a classic case of demolition by neglect. And there has to be a downside to engaging in this type of conduct. And I think this is where Councilor Ferreira was raising some concerns. And I’ll pursue this at the City Council. I too would like to know what the current status of the account is, and I would want to be satisfied that this was paid off, and that it is paid off before we proceed with this.

[2:22:26] So if you’re not able to get that now, I do think that that’s a very relevant question at Council. But I think my broader question is, what is the remedy? I mean, it seems to me, as the Councilor has suggested, that there’s going to be a windfall here at the end of the day, and that there was a failure, there was a clear failure on the part of the owner to comply with habitability regulations. And I’m just wondering, how does that play into an application like this to the staff?

[2:23:06] Okay, I’ll go to staff for comments. And we’re getting a little straying a bit off topic. Well, allow it, it did tie it back to this application. So I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, could the Council repeat the question again? Yeah, Councilor, yeah, tie it as much as you can to this application, please. The application is for the improvement of a property after a demolition, in a circumstance where if the property had been kept according to standards, the demolition would not have been permitted.

[2:23:54] So my question is from a policy point of view, is there something, is there some way, what tools does the city have to avoid this type of behavior on the part of property owners who are not maintaining their property when there are heritage issues involved? ‘Cause it just seems as if we’re rewarding bad behavior by giving an application in a situation where it would not have happened before. I’ll go to staff.

[2:24:29] Through the chair. So I’ll just start and that need to be complemented here. That would be great. So firstly, if the best thing that we can do is ensure that we, if you have, that there’s heritage value is going through that full heritage process to ensure that it is not just a listed property that actually has that designation on it. And then once that’s established, ensuring that we have appropriate compliance and enforcement so that if there’s anything that’s happening from a perspective of property standards that that property’s maintained. So those are the two pieces, but if there’s this history of these types of issues and property gets into this situation, where a demolition is required.

[2:25:12] And that’s something that’s verified by the chief building official, then we will take any action that we need to be able to ensure that we have safe housing and ensure that if we need to actually demolish these properties as well. Councilor. Finally, and it’s difficult to proceed with my questions without knowing how with the level of the account is. So I’ll pick this up at council, but I do have a question for legal. Is there any doctrine in zoning law that would apply here in the nature of this application could be barred on account of unclean hands?

[2:25:53] I’ll go stop. I think, you know, the statutory test in this case is whether or not the zoning bylaw amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and the official plan. Councilor. And to the extent that we can allow a property to deteriorate such that there’s an ordered demolition, is that in keeping with the provincial policy statement?

[2:26:33] I’ll go stop. Through the chair. So there isn’t a clear connection between those kind of property standards bylaw issues and going through a zoning process and a zoning approval process. So I think that’s where the disconnect occurs.

[2:27:06] Is that zoning process and approval process has a regard for the PPS in our official plan versus if there’s an issue related to compliance from a property standards perspective, there isn’t like an interconnect between those two pieces of legislation that we have. So I think that’s maybe where the biggest challenge is for trying to come up with a way to minimize or have some kind of a ramification on the zoning side when you are having property standards issues. Councilor. It may be more direct than through the chair.

[2:27:39] Is there ground to justify not granting this permit or adding some other type of penalty or condition to this based on the past conduct? Because if there’s not, I would just like to know that and we could look in the future to see how we can avoid this kind of situation from happening again. I’ll go stop. Through the chair, there’s no mechanism that we’re aware of. This is a zoning matter. We’re looking at a land use. That decision has been made, demolition has been issued. So that’s a separate process in terms of when we’ll find out for you for certain, before council related to any of the costs being paid back.

[2:28:20] But however, this is a land use exercise and needs to be in conformity with the planning act provincial policy, presidential planning statement and the land in plan. Councilor. Yeah, well, thank you. I’m sure I’m about to run out of time. So I’ll just wrap this up by saying I’m very disturbed about this whole situation. Not because anything that staff has done, but just the circumstances suggest to the public that this has just been a case of a demolition by neglect and now there’s gonna be a huge win for all.

[2:28:52] And if there’s not a law against it, there should be. So I think maybe I’ll be taking this at some point to caps in terms of enforcement issues, but for now I cannot in good conscious support this application and we’ll see what the penalty account is. Thank you. Thank you. So I’ve got a list here, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councilor Preble, Councilor Ferra, and Councilor Raman. So I will go to you, Deputy Mayor.

[2:29:29] Thank you, Chair, and through you I appreciate the concerns that some Councilors have expressed about accounts that may have funds owing to the city. Certainly I understand the perception of demolition by neglect, I will say, and I will preface this by saying I appreciate Councilor Trossa saying in his opinion, and I will say in my opinion I disagree that we could assume that the property would not have been granted a demolition permit anyway, had the applicant come in to request one.

[2:30:05] It was not a part four designated property and not just this council, but councils for decades to varying degrees have granted demolition permits on heritage properties that are on the heritage resource registry. And so I don’t think we can say that it would not have been demolished because it may have had some heritage attributes. Those hadn’t been evaluated, but it didn’t have a designation, and even properties that have had designations, we have had the demolition permits approved. I’ll point to St. George and St. Ann Street, not too long ago, where demolition permits were approved.

[2:30:45] There were some conditions to retain certain pieces of heritage value to be incorporated in the new build, but the demolition of those buildings was still approved. So I understand why Councillors don’t like the feel of this, but I have to come back to what we heard Ms. McNeely say, this is a planning land use matter. And from a zoning bylaw perspective, this fits as an appropriate use of the land. So we can not like the players, we cannot like how we got here, but from a planning act perspective, from a provincial policy statement perspective, and from the decisions of this committee, we’re here to discuss land use issues.

[2:31:29] And the zoning to allow some townhouses on this property. So I acknowledge all the concerns. I know why they bother Councillors. I will admit some of them bother me too, but my responsibility here, in my opinion, is to make a decision on the land use, and this does fit the land use, so I will be supporting this. But I do want Councillors to hear, I do understand why they’re not thrilled with this, but I think that we have to delineate the land use from the other pieces of the history of this property.

[2:32:04] And frankly, to the previous owners too, as we heard this owner took possession in 2023, and we know that the property that was there prior to demolition was already in a poor state, then there was a fire that worsened the state, and so whether it would be there today or not, I think is a matter that we could debate, but without certainty as to what would have happened there. So from a land use perspective, I’ll support this. Councillor Pervell. Thank you, and I’m gonna be in a very similar way, where just my colleague just was saying, and I’ve been driving by this house almost every day, because I’ve been, I attend or shop at Stranos Baker, my favorite Baker, right almost across this building.

[2:32:50] I’m very surprised that I don’t know how it could be associated, and maybe originally was the heritage, or potentially historical heritage association with, but I just wanna let you know, I was very happy, I was there actually, when I was coming down, and we were watching it with Mr. Catholic, and we were very happy it was coming down, so was the neighbourhood. I do agree that, yes, the residents owners of such properties shouldn’t be taken advantage of the city to move forward, having said that this is where we are, the building is not there, the neighbourhood is very happy, the building is not there, we do the housing units, the housing units, the zoning is proposing that, and for me, the most important actually piece of this will be coming back to the council with the information, and as long as I’m guaranteed that city will recover those costs, I’m a happy camper, I’ll be more than happy to give it a green light, and move forward, thank you.

[2:33:49] Councilor Ferra. Thanks Chair, I won’t take too long, a lot of good comments have been said already, I’ll just kind of echo the neighbourhood had to put up with the condition of the house of the property for a while, and they definitely were not satisfied with how long it went. The demolition I’m pretty sure actually occurred last year in November, 2024 after a fire, so that obviously, that just shows you what properties in such a state of condition can bring to a neighbourhood, and that’s why maybe this would be appropriate to come to CAPS and maybe look into how we can avoid situations like this in the future.

[2:34:32] We still need to get more information, still I’ve been waiting a little bit, I have a little bit of communication with staff already, so I’m just trying to get a lot of the clarifications, hopefully we’re ready by the time Council comes around, and I’d be interested to hear what we can do about it, just to avoid situations like this in the future. Thank you, that exhausts my speaker’s list, I’ll look for any other comments or questions. Mr. Mathers, did you have a comment to make?

[2:35:07] Just to provide a little bit more information, so we just have been able to pull out information related to the invoices, and all the invoices have been paid as of February 3rd of this year. Okay, thank you, that’s important. Thank you for sharing it, I appreciate that. Council purple. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify all the outstanding, I’m not even talking about just the outstanding taxes, et cetera, even the full charges for the demolition, I just want to clarify that good stuff. Through the Chair, these are all municipal compliance related costs, so that would be for any fines, or include anything related to the demolition.

[2:35:47] Councillor. Thank you, no more questions? Councillor Robin. Thank you, Chair, I’m just wondering, this seems quite unusual to me for us to be discussing municipal compliance and checking accounts before we’re making a decision on a planning application. I’m just wondering, and I just want to ensure that we’re being, that we’re allowed to get that information in this kind of meeting, because it seems unusual to me that we’re receiving this kind of advice at this point. I agree with my colleagues, like in front of us, we have an application that we’re supposed to be viewing from the planning perspective.

[2:36:23] And so to take into account whether or not there’s outstanding invoices is something that we, in her practice, we don’t do, we don’t check to see that their taxes are paid, for instance. And so I just want to make sure that I’m clear on whether or not that’s something we can do going forward, or we can check the status of municipal compliance issues going forward at committee meetings. Yeah, fair comment. I think there is an aspect of this that provides some unease, including myself, quite frankly, just on the sequence of events that happened.

[2:37:03] So I’ve allowed some leeway with some questions. However, I think Councilor Perbal summed it up, is, you know, the sequence events have led us to hear if that sequence of events needs to be adjusted as Councilor Troso and Councilor Ferra kind of alluded to, that’s for another forum that needs to be discussed. But thank you for raising that point, Councilor. Any other comments or questions?

[2:37:36] That way we have a motion moved in second, and I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 35, 45 Southdale Road East. I’ll open a vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:38:20] Thank you. I’ll ask the applicant to address the committee. Please go ahead, please give us your name again, and you have five minutes. Hello again, Dan Murphy with Civic Planning and Design. Today, representing our client’s Finch Auto Group. Thanks to Planning and Development staff for the work on this application. We’re in full recommendation, full agreement with the recommendation, and I’m available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public like to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online, no one online. I don’t see anyone approaching the mic, so I’ll open the vote to close.

[2:39:13] Closing the vote, the motion. Thank you, and I’ll put this on the floor for committee members looking for a motion. I’ll start cutting and removing the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hillyer has indicated he will second for comments or questions. Seeing none, Deputy Mayor, I didn’t know if your hand was sneaking up there. Nope, okay. We’ll call the vote. Mr. Palosa.

[2:40:03] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.7. This is regarding 180 to 186 Commissioners Road West and 548 My Count Road. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll look for the applicant. Would like to address the committee. See applicant online, Clerk.

[2:40:55] Now, here’s we don’t have the applicant, so I’ll look to the public whoever would like to address the committee. We might have someone online, Clerk, ‘cause Sean Collins, if you can hear me, Mr. Collins. Yes, hello, thank you very much. You can hear me now? I can, please go ahead, you have five minutes.

[2:41:29] Thank you very much. So with the requested amendment, I’d like to say that approving the zoning amendment will allow for the townhomes on 548. My count to be built very close to the street, much closer than the current home is. There’s already been an amendment approved for the 180 Commissioners property, right? Originally, it was approved for 39 units and now they have come back and they sort of sistered the 548 property and the Commissioners property together.

[2:42:14] It’s the same owner and they’re looking to augment the 180 Commissioners road to 49 units and they’re looking to knock down the single family room, which is a fine single family home at 548 by count road and put in place a single building with 10 townhomes. And in order to do that, they don’t have a lot of space there. So they’re going to be building these townhomes three meters off of the public sidewalk. All the other properties on the bike, can’t road have setbacks from the sidewalk of six to eight meters and many of them more than that, where this one will be nearly abutted up against the sidewalk people opening their front doors and nearly nearly there in the sidewalk.

[2:42:59] So my objection is not, it’s not a case of an NIMI is, anything like that. I know that it didn’t fill in a reality and the apartment buildings on 180 to 186 are already green lit, but I am asking though that the development be reasonable and fit in the existing neighborhood standards. And a three meter setback from the sidewalk, it just doesn’t do that. It also creates much less privacy for the residents across the street. There’ll be no opportunity for any sort of landscape straining in front of the townhomes or anything like that.

[2:43:36] And so basically you’ll have 10 single family homes spilling a raid out onto the sidewalk. So that’s one of my objections. And the other is to ask question of how the sewage for the new development would be handled. 548 Viscount was sold to the developers, specifically because the previous owner had sewage problems. And they were unable to resolve those problems after spending thousands with private contractors to try and get the sewage working with the Viscount line. And they weren’t able to. They decided to sell to the developer who had the adjacent property.

[2:44:09] And now they’re looking, the developer’s looking to put 10 townhomes into the 548 Viscount area into that little property, which it’s a 900% increase in single families in that same law, which already had sewage problems. So I’d like to request that the 10 unit stacked townhouse development that had been included in the servicing studies, which your engineering department is requiring already for the 49. So those are the main objections that I’d like to make Council aware of.

[2:44:43] Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Collins. We’ll look for other speakers. It’s clear if there’s anyone else that would like to speak online. Further in the case, no, I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphone. So we will call the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0.

[2:45:19] Before we go to committee, there is a question raised about sewage capacity. Comments from Randy about the previous landowner and issues there. So I’d like to go to staff for their comments on that. Thank you through the chair. Staff have included holding provisions for the apartment building portion to ensure that there is adequate municipal capacity prior to site plan approval. For the townhouses themselves, the whole development will be reviewed comprehensively through the site plan process to ensure that there is adequate capacity.

[2:45:58] Thank you. And I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councillor Cuddy, are you moving it? They’re moving the staff recommendation and Councillor Hillier is seconding it. I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors. Councillor Closer. Thank you. A question through you to staff, it could be in here. Looking to see about the parking for the units, seeing within the package that committee adjustment already allowed a reduction in the one space per unit being required to half a space per unit, committee adjustment already approved that.

[2:46:42] So just looking to see how the townhouse parking will tie into that. And if that could reopen any conversations already done through committee of adjustment as they’re now making another change. I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. The original application that was processed back in 2021 was under the previous parking regulations. So they saw a reduction in 2021 through that original application.

[2:47:16] At the time of the minor variance in 2023, that variance was to recognize parking to the current rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. The townhouses are also required to provide 0.5 spaces per unit. As proposed, they are meeting, if not exceeding the minimum parking requirements on site. Yes, and then to clarify further on that, the one parking space per unit as part of the previous file law has been removed as part of this proposal as well. Thank you. Councillor. Good. Other comments or questions?

[2:47:52] We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding 116 to 118 Adelaide Street North. We’ll call the vote on opening the public participation. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:48:33] Yeah, look for the applicant. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. Nick Dijak, planner with SPM, the authorized agent on the application. I’m here today with representatives of tri-stone properties, the owners of the property, as well as the architect, the building designers, online, I believe, his name’s Noam Hazan from Hazan Science Studios. The proposed application is looking to demolish a portion of the building. Currently it’s two single family detached, which is joined with a smaller single story commercial component that attaches the two buildings.

[2:49:09] The intended development would remove that commercial building and allow access to the rear of the site where a new building would be developed with a total of six units or 10 units on the site in total. So I have submitted a memo prior to the meeting with our objection to the staff recommended draft by-law, which had removed two requested site-specific provisions. A, for reduced landscape open space, and B, for reduced internal and rear yard setbacks. We believe these to be minor deficiencies to the R6-5 zone and ask that committee support us to include those two provisions back into the draft by-law.

[2:49:49] As discussed in my memo, the requested 5% reduction for landscape open space would maintain an existing paved area on site. It’s located within the front and northern side yard. It currently provides access to those units, especially some units to the rear of the building, including the neighbor’s lot. So in order to meet that 30% requirement that asphalt would have to be removed, and a new hard service walkway would have to be put back in its place to serve the same purpose. The second provision is for a three-meter rear and internal side yard setback, which allows for the intended three-story building with six units.

[2:50:25] Essentially, it’s configured as two tri-plapses put together. So it’s considered an apartment building for six units total. To us, in our opinion, it doesn’t represent an over-attensification of the site for that reason. It can accommodate a higher intensity development along your trail road, which does permit a lot of planning up to six stories, sorry, set up to six stories a night. So it could accommodate a much larger development, much more units intensity, which could be done if those two buildings were demolished.

[2:51:01] The intent of the development would be to keep those two single-family homes maintaining the character of the arterial roadway and to intensify the rear of the site. And under 2.3 of the staff port, there were two key issues that were identified. First, the functionality of the parking spaces and the maneuverability of the vehicles and pedestrian activity. What is shown on the site plan is a typical parking configuration. It’s a standard drive aisle for perpendicular parking to 6.7 meters. What is shown on the conceptual site plan is 8.3. Much wider, which allows for vehicles to fully reverse out of a parking space completely before maneuvering away from those parking spaces.

[2:51:44] This is common underground parking garages and many infill sites in the city. It also doesn’t require that the need for a hammerhead because the vehicle can fully pull out of that site. The wider drive-all also allows for safe pedestrian access from the street through what is no need for a separate sidewalk or curb. There is plenty of space. The 8-ner drive-all is the same width as a public roadway. Second key issue is the buffering from low density residential for the three-story building.

[2:52:18] Staff are suggesting that the six-meter setback is required for a three-story building. And as mentioned in my memo, the zoning by-law allows for similar types of infill developments through, particularly through the ARUs, which allow only or only require three-meter setback or the building regardless of half of space and separation. And further, the R8 zone allows for a four-story building with a four and a half meter setback as of right. So for a three-story building of this nature with six units in total, one, two per floor, it does seem appropriate that three-meter setback would be applied to this site.

[2:52:55] Intentionally, the proposed building would not unduly impact privacy of the budding neighbors. To the north of the site is a rear parking rate for that multi-unit building. To the rear of the site, there are additional detached dwellings already that are garages. So the overlook from the property wouldn’t pose and do or restrict the privacy of those budding neighbors to a degree that this should be refused. In summary, the proposed development represents a small infill on a material road that could achieve a much higher density or redevelopment and chooses to maintain the character of the development with a minor infill, a gentle intensification project.

[2:53:38] It’s my opinion that is appropriate. It’s a great opportunity for intensification. It’s suitable for the level of the site, intensity for the site. It considers the neighboring contacts as a simple design and can function appropriately. We asked the committee to add those two provisions back into the draft by-law for consideration and approval. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers in public, like to address committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online, no one online, and I don’t see any other speakers, so I’ll open the vote to close with PPM.

[2:54:29] Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, I’ll remove staff’s recommendation as it was with our package and receipt of the two correspondence that we received on the added. I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Cuddy seconds. All right, so I’ll look for conversation. Questions, Councilor McAllister.

[2:55:09] Thank you, and through the chair, as I’m visiting Councilor, I just wanna speak to this as this is on my side of Adelaide. I know Councilor Ferra and I sometimes get confused as to decide as who’s. But this one is one of mine. Know this site well, I feel like that TV repair sign has been on Adelaide for my entire life anyways. And so this is definitely a site that’s underutilized. Recognizing it is just a commercial space right now, but I’m actually in agreement with staff in terms of what they’re requesting to be refused. I’m asking the committee not head in what has been requested.

[2:55:44] I believe staff has appropriately pointed out some of the issues with this site. Yes, we won intensification, but I don’t want all concrete. I think that this site could have intensification, but I also have to think of the quality of life of the people living adjacent and those who would be living in the building itself. I think you still have to provide for what has been pointed out in terms of the requirements. And so I would respectfully request that committee stick with the staff recommendation.

[2:56:19] Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors? I have a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Sorry, it looks like East Carbon just having an issue maybe refresh your screens ‘cause I do have the vote open.

[2:57:33] So cutting and council hairlier. Yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.9, this is regarding 1736, 1796, and 1814. Commissioners road East. I will open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion.

[2:58:17] Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant. I’d like to address the committee. Thank you very much. Steve Stapleton, vice president of Auburn Development. And we’re working jointly with John Arts of Orange Rock Development, our partner in this project. And we both appreciate the opportunity to bring forward the rezoning application with supportive city staff, which will enable the advancement of approximately 500 residential units in this quadrant of the city. We look forward to your endorsement and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[2:58:50] I look for any members of the public. I’d like to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. J.L. McCoon, if you’re online. Yes, can you hear me okay? We can please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Jenny McCune. I’m an associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Lethbridge here in Southern Alberta.

[2:59:28] I received my PhD in botany from the University of British Columbia in 2013. And I’ve been studying a plant called the Woodpawpey since 2015. My graduate students and I study plant ecology and the conservation of rare and endangered plants. My goal today is just to highlight the importance of the Woodpawpey population located on the property on Commissioner’s Road that you’re discussing today. The Woodpawpey is a perennial plant that grows in rich deciduous woodlands often along streams and ravines. It has large, showy yellow flowers that open from May to early June.

[3:00:03] And the seeds are released in June and July. And the seeds are adapted for dispersal by ants. So this means that woodpawpey plants can spread to new areas very, very slowly because of course an ant only moves a seed about maximum a meter or two a year. The Woodpawpey is the only member of its genus in North America and it ranges from Ontario south as far as Georgia and Alabama. It’s listed as endangered under both our federal species at risk act and also the Ontario Endangered Species Act.

[3:00:37] There are currently only five known wild populations of Woodpawpey in Canada all in Southern Ontario. And one of those populations is on the brink of dying out. I expect it will soon be extinct. And so at that time the population of Woodpawpeys on the Commissioner’s Road property will be one of only four wild populations in Canada. The last time my students and I were allowed to visit and survey the Woodpawpeys at Commissioner’s Road was in 2022. And at that time we estimated there were 468 adult plants. This is the second largest population of Woodpawpeys in Ontario and represents 25% of all known wild Woodpawpey individuals.

[3:01:19] At the time of our last visit we also counted over 400 seedlings. And while seedlings arrival is typically very, very low this large number of seedlings gives us hope that this population will be able to persist in the future if these new individuals can establish to replace older individuals that die out. The Ontario Woodpawpey populations are at least 200 kilometers from the nearest population of Woodpawpeys across the border in the United States. Recently we did some genetic research which showed that the Ontario Woodpawpey populations are genetically distinct from the United States populations.

[3:01:58] And Ontario Woodpawpeys also have differences in their morphology and their growth rates compared to US plants. We also found that the Ontario populations have genetic differences from each other. So therefore a loss of a population at Commissioners Road would represent not only a loss of 25% of all the Wild Woodpawpeys in Canada but also a loss of unique genetic diversity. In my opinion every remaining piece of intact forest habitat in Southern Ontario is important for supporting and maintaining the wild species that we care about.

[3:02:34] Because so much of our forests have already been cleared to make way for the housing, farming and industry that we humans rely on. The forest on this property at Commissioners Road is incredibly important for that reason and especially important due to the thriving Woodpawpey population that grows there. So I urge the city and the landowners to do everything they can to avoid any loss of trees or major changes in hydrology that could impact the forest and potentially harm the Woodpawpey population. It’s also very important to avoid having lots of people walking in the area where the Woodpawpeys grow.

[3:03:11] The plants are growing on a very steep ravine slope. These slopes are easily eroded and the plants can be trampled and damaged. The Woodpawpey is one of many wild species that are really at the mercy of our decisions and stewardship. So I hope the city will consider the importance of conserving forest biodiversity including the endangered Woodpawpey in making this planning decision. I also hope that the landowners will once again allow scientists to access this Woodpawpey population so that we can continue to monitor it and to learn from it well into the future.

[3:03:48] Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you. Look for any other members of the public that would like to address the committee. So click there’s anyone else online. There’s no one else online. I don’t see anyone else on the microphone. So we’ll call the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll put the item on the floor for committee. Deputy Mayor to move the staff recommendation.

[3:04:26] And Councilor Cuddy is seconded. For comments or questions, Councilor Hillier. Yes, thank you. Comment and a question for staff. This application is pretty much dependent on when Commissioners Road is expanded. We bring all the services out towards it. Can I get an update from staff just from my residence on when Commissioners Road is expected to be expanded to four roads in that area? I know they’re ready, but I’d like to say it again. I’ll go to staff. Thank you for the comment through the chair.

[3:05:00] There’s any expansion of Commissioners Road in this area would be subject to the future DC background study and upcoming 2028 growth management implementation strategy. There are some minor improvements being planned that are either under construction right now or should, sorry, my apologies. Spring 2026, there is a left-turn lane planned, some drainage improvements, and some asphalt improvements, pavement rehabilitation from metal early road to Jackson Road.

[3:05:36] The remainder of it, including the potential sewer construction is all subject to future timing and planning. Councilor, any other committee members? I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Thank you and appreciate acknowledgement as I’m not a committee member. I thought that was an excellent explanation of wood poppies. I just want to say thank you to the person if they’re still online and did raise a couple of questions. I know that staff outlined in the report, the presence of wood poppies and butternut trees.

[3:06:10] And I’m just wondering, I’m not sure where on the property they are if they’re in that buffer edge in the north end or scattered all over, but I’m wondering what kind of protections will be provided throughout the process as well as long-term. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as we are at the zoning stage of the process, we’ve established ample buffers and are recommending the rezoning of these into OS5. That has been in line with the 2021 EMGs at 30 meters. Although ecology has spoken on paper to their position with respect to the fact that not everywhere along the alignment meets the 30 meter requirement and acknowledging the sensitivity of these species.

[3:06:53] We also do have regard for the fact that just recently the new 2025 version of the EMGs has been approved. So subsequent applications would have that timestamp on them. So with respect to the fact that this application came in before, the applicant has not quite met the requirements, but with respect to subsequent applications, we do believe that the zoning is more than ample. And moving forward through the process, there will be additional measures such as fencing. We are looking to reroute pathways around and we’re taking a long hard look at how the hydrology of this area and subsequent LIDs will ensure consistent water management and ensuring that the poppies will not be impacted through that.

[3:07:40] Councilor. Thank you. And just to follow up again, reading through the report, it appears that their suggestion to have trails through the buffers is that still gonna happen, even though it violates our EMGs. Good staff. Through the chair, pathways are permitted within buffers per the EMGs currently and with the 2025 version. We are open to pathways continuing to go around this population, acknowledging that pathways going, will route people away from the sensitive species.

[3:08:13] There are, as Dr. McKeown mentioned, there’s very steep riverine slopes here. The most important piece is divert people to show them where to go that is not this area. So if we are able to establish an appropriate pathway system in the buffer, it should do that. Councilor. Thank you. And then if you could refresh my memory, then in the previous version of the EMGs, do we not allow pathways through the buffers? They had to be like, you have to have the 30 meter buffer and then you had to have the pathway? Is that, I just forget when we changed that or maybe I’ve just always had it wrong. Councilor.

[3:08:46] Through the chair, that was added to the environmental management guidelines when it was originally approved in 2021, that combined buffer pathway alignment. So we allow within that 30 meters for the pathway component, low impact LIDs, as well as the naturalized portion. There was talk during this most recent update of changing that, but that was not reflected. Councilor. Thank you, my apologies. And then again, given that I don’t see where the wood poppies are on the map, are there any that are interior to the development application that might get removed that aren’t in the buffer or past the open space zoning, if that makes sense?

[3:09:32] I just wanna make sure if there are any on the property, is there a way that we can protect them with fencing and that they don’t get built over with the buildings and parking? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, due to data sensitivity requirements, we have not included them on the mapping for that purpose, but in terms of their location, they are internal to the forest community. And we believe that with our various mitigation measures, including the application of the buffer, that that will be sufficient to ensure their persistence. Councilor.

[3:10:05] Thank you. No more questions about that. And I was wondering to the applicant, perhaps not a question, but a comment that it sounded as if the scientists would love some more access to the wood poppy space. So just gonna echo that. I think that would be really great for science. And given that sounds like there’s almost no wood poppies left. Thanks. Thank you. Other comments or questions from the committee? Councilor Palosa. Thank you. We’ll see where this one takes us. So I know we had another application and it was the applicant did the house spa thing and he backed onto the ESA and then we were like put up a fence to keep people out of what’s important and then his application was able to proceed.

[3:10:51] I recognize some things are in fact, some things are not and about to based on the tummy of this application. What I’m concerned that back in my mind, not knowing what these are on the site, but if it’s a steep slope, you don’t want people venturing there anyways for liability purposes. Looking for potential wording that would be requested that the applicant consider fencing along whatever that wood poppy area is to help protect them. And then also realizing it’s on a really steep slope. It would also keep passerbyers off that who could be coming up in the trail as well as they wander.

[3:11:30] Public staff through the chair. This is currently just a zoning for the for the lands. The lands are all privately owned. There’s no public access to the wooded area where the wood poppies are. And any further gentleman come through, they’ve decided to go through a site plan process. So fencing and all those access requirements would be addressed through a site plan process in the future. Councilor. Thank you ‘cause I was just going off a part being here that the site plan approval authority be requested to follow and consider these things.

[3:12:05] So it was just looking to see when requesting fencing for this area, would it be appropriate as some things just don’t come back to us and/or it’s too late? Don’t go to staff. Through the chair, this would be a night at the time when if you would like to request the site plan approval authority to consider the fencing. This would be the time. Thank you. I’m always mindful of committee’s time and that these means can go along, but still trying to do the work here versus bringing something at council, still looking to make an amendment under part B, whatever IVII you might be on, that the applicant be requesting to consider fencing along this copy.

[3:12:46] Can I speak? Go ahead. - Go ahead. Mr. Staple. Yeah, I should add and I’m sure the drawings don’t actually show this, but the topography of the location where the wood poppies are is quite severe and steep and it is densely forested. So I would not suggest that fencing be put in there and I don’t know if it would stay there anyway. Just because of the topography that’s there and I would just highlight that as a problem. I understand what the intent is to avoid this area and let it flourish.

[3:13:25] So I think staying away from it is probably the best thing to do. Thank you, councilor. Thank you. I appreciate the information. Certainly don’t want to disturb the area trying to protect it. And also said like not being aware of exactly where they are on the property and realizing that sometimes people will get in there who aren’t aware of what’s on the property and you just try to expand some gravel targeting surfaces and you accidentally have spell over and ruin what you’re trying to protect. So I’m fine with this is where this is at for now.

[3:14:01] And echoing Councillor Frank’s comments that even for the beauty of the site and the educational opportunities it holds, hoping that the applicants and the owners will allow further access to educational research. Thank you, Councilor Frank. Thank you. I did have one follow up that I just remembered. My understanding is that the area that we’re talking about will eventually be conveyed to the city for the ESA as Parkland or I don’t know if that was what was included in the report but that’s how I read it.

[3:14:36] I’m just wondering given our concerns about preserving that area long-term, is there a way to get that conveyed earlier rather than later in the process and to have it under management by the city earlier rather than later? I’ll go to staff through the chair. That’ll be dependent on when they submit for their planning applications. We had recommend them to go either through a condo or a subdivision but they’ve decided to withdraw their subdivision application so we don’t, we would normally take it through that subdivision.

[3:15:10] They’re going to go through the site plan and possibly condo route and at that time we would be able to take the land through Parkland dedication. Parks as you noted in the report have said their priority is to acquire these lands with some sort of ecology. Councillor. Thank you and perhaps one follow up ‘cause I know the timing of all these things is sometimes nebulous and long and drawn out and I know I feel like in past there’s examples I can’t think of a specific one where the development of the site occurs before land has been conveyed in Parkland and then like some of it kind of gets mucked about with people walking through it.

[3:15:52] Will the lands be conveyed before development occurs on the site through this Parkland process when they apply or do they get conveyed at the very end after everything’s all built out and all done? I’ll go on staff. Through the chair it’s at the end of the process for the site plan as part of all the due diligence and part of building permit issuance. Councillor. Thank you and is there any possible with any form of legislation we have that we can get at the beginning and not at the end? Not at all staff.

[3:16:27] Through the chair the legislation is at the process and these are the checks and balances. So then it’s at the end of the stage of the prior to building permit issuance. Councillor. Thank you. I wish we got it earlier but rules I guess. I’ll look for other speakers. Through the chair just to— Please go ahead. It’s up to the applicant if they want to dedicate the lands in advance but there’s nothing compelling them to do so. Thank you.

[3:16:58] Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to three point 10. This is regarding 1196 Sunnydale Road West. So we’ll call the vote and opening the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:17:42] Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant, if you’d like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon members of committee and visiting Councillors, staff and members of the public. My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with Selenka Priammo here on behalf of the landowner, land lead developments representing them for the proposal at 1196 Sunnydale Road. I’d like to start off by thanking staff for their time and effort on this file.

[3:18:16] We have had the opportunity to review their report and our in agreement with the recommendation to approve the amendments before you today. The proposed amendments seek to implement policies and regulations to permit two development scenarios. The first is a school block with associated open space. This development proposal would provide shovel ready lands to the school board for development. The school board is actively working to secure funding for the development of a school on these lands. However, in the event that funding is not secured, a second development scenario is proposed.

[3:18:55] The second proposal being a mid-rise partner building, generally fronting, Sunnydale Road with street townhouses situated interior to the neighborhood. Essentially, the intent and purpose of these applications is to provide flexibility to develop the lands to meet community needs related to either education or housing, recognizing that both are necessary in the city and particularly in North London. The dual request is proposed to ensure that the subject lands can be developed promptly and without requiring additional regulatory changes.

[3:19:31] I am available to answer any questions that staff or members of the committee may have. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Jameson. Look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee. Please, sir, you’ve been waiting patiently all afternoon. Now’s your time to shine. My legs are gone to sleep. (laughing) Good afternoon, give us your name and you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, my name is Ian Fife. I’m the resident of the 1125 Sunnydale Road West, which is on the north side of Sunnydale Road, just about on the northeast corner of the property in question.

[3:20:15] I’m here today really about stormwater management. I’m concerned about what happens on this property because a very large area to the north and the northeast of my house and my neighbors drains down and flows underneath our properties. And the only access across Sunnydale Road is onto this property in question. There used to be another access, so excuse me, there used to be another access at the northeast corner of my neighbor’s property.

[3:21:03] It was called the herd drain and it was closed to facilitate the Fox Hollow development. And at the time, the city assumed explicitly assumed the management of stormwater on our properties. Now, we’ve been flooded out about three times in the last five years. The stormwater management is completely inadequate and all of this water blows onto this property.

[3:21:45] And I’m referring to page 34 of the staff report and it talks about that this water is going to be held on this property. I don’t know if people understand how much water is involved, both the field to the north of this property and to the northeast, extending up to the city boundary. Oil accumulates in that corner and flows on the only under Sunnydale Road onto this property.

[3:22:25] And as I said, we’ve been flooded about three times. My neighbors had to redo his basement about three times in the last five or six years. And I know he’s had considerable interaction with the city about this. So I would ask through you, Mr. Chair, I would ask the city staff to review the stormwater management very, very carefully. Otherwise, not only my property and my neighbors will continue to get flooded, but anything that’s built on this property will get flooded.

[3:23:12] And there’s talkings in the staff report about underground car parks and whatever. God help them if they build underground car parks on that property. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I’d like to further comments from the public. So clerk, if there’s anyone online, I don’t see anyone online. Mike, so we’ll open the vote to close the APM. Let’s think about the motion carries back to zero.

[3:24:01] Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for our committee members, Councillor Hillier. I’ll move the staff recommendation with a small amendment. Okay, well, you can make a motion. However you want, you don’t have to make amend your own motion. So if you want to, if you make a motion and add whatever you need to add, go ahead. Well, with regards to the presentation by the applicant, I would like to refer this, it’s not refers, sorry, allow the Councillor to address this ‘cause she has provided this with regards to the school that’s being proposed.

[3:24:45] Okay, so I would like her to have a chance to understand where she’s saying this. Let me just compare with the clerk, please. So the clerk is advising me is to seek a motion for the staff recommendation. And then at some point, kind of where you were going before I jumped on you to, or someone else can put an amendment through based on, you know, Councillor’s comments.

[3:25:29] So you’re moving the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder on that, Councillor Cutty. Okay, so now I’ll open the floor to discussion. I’ll look for committee members first and visiting Councillors. Councillor Robin, floor is yours. Thank you and through you. And thank you to Councillor Hillier for trying to move us along. And I will share some language on an amendment that I’m hoping the committee will consider. So this proposed development includes an institutional block and a park block.

[3:26:01] And the institutional block is planned to be, or is suggested in the report to be a secondary school with a dual zoning approach to permit medium density residential uses, including apartment buildings and street townhouses should the institutional use not proceed. You’ve heard in this package from residents in my ward, 156 submissions, much more in my inbox. I’ve had extensive conversations with my ward about this. We somewhat have agreement we need a secondary school space in this area. You’ll also see and you’ll hear the concerns raised by residents, including local infrastructure, roads, sewage, public services, water on property, it’s seen as an inadequate to support high density.

[3:26:46] That’s what residents have said. I support what’s in front of us here with staff. Significant concerns have been raised about increased traffic congestion, especially during school hours with potential safety risks for children and pedestrians, lack of public transit, leading to greater reliance on vehicles in the area, increased congestion, et cetera. But you’ll also see within those letters contained a strong preference across the community for a secondary school, sandwiched between three elementary schools already there. Two public, one Catholic, some just in the stages of opening one just open last year.

[3:27:22] And an additional green space over high density residential construction as reflected in the comments. With this in mind, I’ve shared with Councillor Hillier and I’m hoping I have a seconder through Councillor Lehman to some additional language that I’d like to see, including in this here, this emotion. And so I’d like to just read it out. The subdivision approval authority be requested to consider amending the draft plan of subdivision to require the subject lands to be reserved for three years for permitted uses within the community facility CF2 zones until the draft plan of subdivision lapses.

[3:27:57] Should the school board and the developer land developments Inc be unable to reach a resolution by the lapse of the draft plan of subdivision, the subdivision approval authority be requested to consider permitting the lands to then proceed to develop for residential uses. So this is very similar to the language that we would use for a school block in a subdivision agreement. And the reason for this is we need to give the school board or any other potential uses of an institutional nature the ability to exercise those options. And to do so, we have to give them adequate time to first go to the province and see if this is something that the province will support, which I hope they will because we need a secondary school in the northwest part of the city desperately.

[3:28:43] So we have to give them the time to go through that process. And in order to do that, we have to find ways to give them the time. And so this just ensures that time. And if you look at within contained in the report, there’s lots of information about the movement on this application, including in previous years where this application has lapsed in subsequent years where development hasn’t went forward. So it’s not as if there’s a huge rush for the secondary option of a residential option.

[3:29:18] You hear from the developer that they are working with the school board and I have to commend the developer for the work they’ve done. This is really great proactive work. And so I just want to make sure that it has the time needed to be able to see it through as requested by my residents. So with that, I’d like to see if it’s possible to have someone move that amendment. Okay, I’ll go back to Councilor Hillier. If you want to put that amendment on the floor. Yes, I would like to put the amendment on the floor requiring a new part E, I believe the clerk has all the wording.

[3:29:52] Yep, so the clerk does have the wording in the scribe. And as Councilor said, I will second that Councilor Hillier’s motion or amendment on that one. So we have an amendment moved and seconded. I’ll open the floor for discussion on the amendment. Councilor Close, sorry. Thank you. As our friends in the gallery, my legs are also cramping up. Can you remind me which school board it is that we’re dealing with?

[3:30:25] If we need to cite which one, I don’t know if they fight it out. Who gets it where recognizing one of our school boards has a much easier— I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, based on the planning and design report that we got from the applicant, it did mention the Thames Valley District School Board. Okay, Councilor. Thank you. I appreciate where the council is coming from. I know she tried to reach out to me earlier knowing that they’re in their own predicaments at the moment is three years adequate for them to get funding and come back to the table.

[3:30:59] I know that there’s always a way that the city, meaning simply we can expropriate land and do a trade swap. And I loathe doing that. I believe that three years was the intended by the mover and by Councilor Roman. But for sure, they can come up in discussion later on. Do you have other comments before I move on to next speaker? I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers, but I do appreciate Councilor Roman bringing this forward.

[3:31:36] I’m fine going with the three years at this time realizing if they’re close to a deal, they could always come back at the end and ask for an extension in alleviation. And it puts pressure on as I know families in schools and developments want to get built. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So through you, Chair, I’m not trying to muddy the waters either, but perhaps the word Councilor might indicate as well. ‘Cause my understanding is that this was a request or an agreement with the Catholic School Board, but I think it is the Thames Valley.

[3:32:18] So I was myself a little, when I read the report initially, I thought it was the Catholic and then I heard outside of this morning that it was Thames Valley and then we’d heard from staff. So can the Councilor just confirm which school board she’s worked, she’s talked to? So before I do that, I just have a question for staff. When we set aside property for potential schools being built, do we have to indicate which school board is being held for?

[3:32:54] Through the chair, no, we do not. Through the consultation process early on with planning applications, the school boards will work together to determine who has the need. In conversations with the applicant, they have mentioned they’re working with one of the school boards based on, like I mentioned, their planning and design report that is on the city’s website. It does say the Thames Valley District School Board. So based on the understanding that we have based on that public document, that’s who we assume they are working with, but I do not know that for certain unless the applicant wished to share additional information, but I’m not sure if anything is confidential at this moment.

[3:33:34] Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Roman for your comments, yeah. Thank you and through you. And so this is why it might be a little bit confusing. So in my ward, we do have a already approved application for Catholic High School, and that’s at Richmond and Plain Tree. And this is a conversation that is happening between the developer and Thames Valley District School Board. Thank you for that. Go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. And I really appreciate the word Councilor clarifying that ‘cause I had the two confused in my brain. So I knew there was asked for both.

[3:34:07] I wanted to make sure we were talking with the right one. So that said, on the three years, I agree that with Councilor Plouza’s comments that we’ve got a board that’s got its own particular challenges right now. And, but I also understand that this site and the work that was happening between the board and the developer was for a decision on funding to be made in this coming fiscal year and that their agreement was the board would have a decision by next summer.

[3:34:45] So my struggle is that we’re suggesting holding it longer than the agreement between the applicant and the board. And that’s why I’m hesitant to support this, particularly because, again, given the board involved and the financial issues there, I’m not sure when there will even be a public trustee board again.

[3:35:19] So there’s no trustees to speak to about this. I don’t know what the province will be doing with the administration moving forward. Like it’s a giant question mark. So my hesitancy is that we’re going to potentially sterilize these lands from any development of any kind for a longer period of time than there may even be interest from the board and like the province may say to the board, yeah, we’re not, to get your house sorted out we’re not funding any new schools. I don’t know, like it’s the province, who knows. But that’s where my hesitancy is.

[3:35:53] I appreciate why the word counselors would like to hold on to a piece of land. But I also think that, you know, my struggle with this is that I think the provincial funding formula on schools is broken. I think that we should be getting these approved in a different format than what we do today. And that by, honestly, for me personally, holding land for an extended period of time is kind of letting the province off the hook on making decisions on funding.

[3:36:29] And so I’ll listen to what other colleagues have to say. And I appreciate where the word counselors coming from I genuinely do. But I’m hesitant to support a three year term at this point in time. Having spoken to folks on both sides, school and the applicant who said, well, we expect we’ll know one way or the other by next summer. So that’s my hesitancy. And again, I don’t know how accurate that is from the board side, ‘cause I don’t have public trustees to ask right now.

[3:37:06] But that’s kind of my understanding of where the situation is. So that’s why I’m hesitant to support the additional amendment. Councillor Rhone. Thank you. And I hear what you’re saying wholeheartedly. However, the fact remains, we need secondary school spaces here in the city of London desperately. And in the Northwest, absolutely, just to feed into the current elementary schools that we have in the area alone. Here’s what I’ll say is that regardless of what kind of management the school board is under, the directive is that they have to find spaces for students.

[3:37:50] And this gives more opportunity for that land to be held. But it’s not just for schools, it’s for all institutional uses. We’ve got institutional uses as well that could potentially occupy this area. So we have to consider the fact that there are other potential opportunities here for this land. And again, I appreciate that the developer has went out of their way to work with the school board. They have signaled through this report that this is their intention. And holding that land for three years, even if the school board got approval next year, or this coming year, it doesn’t mean that they’d be ready to move forward in a comprehensive way.

[3:38:33] As you can see in this plan, there is no draft, there’s no drawing here for the school. So all of those things and trusty cut, or trusty, counselor cutty, forward trusty cutty, would also know this process. Even when you get approval, it takes time. So three years seems like a good negotiation, time for negotiation, a good time period to allow these kinds of discussions to happen. And as I mentioned, you can see in the report, this is not the developer moving quickly on a parcel of land. This has been renewed, it has been put forward in different ways and configurations for a number of times.

[3:39:13] So I’m asking my colleagues who understand this process to please support the amendment that’s here. I’m gonna look for other comments or questions. Councilor Trassel. Well, let me start by saying through the chair that I firmly believe that before we allow any further massive residential developments in a portion of the city where we have a dire need for more schools, we should be erring on the side, erring on the side of making sure that that land is preserved.

[3:39:52] I have very extreme concerns about whether three years will be enough. And I think Councilor Lewis is quite right when he points out the kinds of delays that can happen. But for me, this is even more reason to say, “Well, I like Council Romans amendment. “I’ll support that at Council. “I don’t think it’s enough.” And what I would prefer to see, which I won’t even imagine is gonna go any place, but I think I have to say this, is I’d like to see the two portions of this application severed.

[3:40:34] And I’d like to see a quick resolution of the first one. Go ahead. Subject to the concerns that have been raised. But I think we’re gambling. We’re gambling with the future of the ability to have land for schools. I would like to put off. I don’t see why we have to approve the second portion of this right now with respect to the school lands. And I don’t think the developer will be suffering a whole lot of prejudice. If we suffer, take apart the two parts of this application.

[3:41:11] Now, I may try to work that into a more coherent amendment at Council. For now, I would indicate that I support the direction that Council Raman is going. I don’t think it’s enough. And what I do not wanna see happen, I don’t wanna come back in five years and see a situation where, “Well, you need me to three-year deadline.” And now we’ve got another large development going in an area of the city where we have not properly planned the infrastructure. Now, I have some other minor issues with this, not minor, really, but the kinds of issues I would raise.

[3:41:52] And I’m gonna start talking about this when I see developments on the north side of the city. How are the people that are moving into these massive developments on the north side of the city? I’m gonna be getting into town. Well, I suspect for this, when they’re gonna be coming down wonderland, I suspect they’ll be cutting through probably Lawson. By the order? Well, I’m, I know because this is part of— Well, the second Councilor, we have a point of order. Go ahead. As much as I thank you, Chair, and through you, as much as I appreciate Councilor Trosso’s comments.

[3:42:28] I think we’re off topic on this one, thank you. I’ll rule against that point of order. I think traffic concerns do come into play when we’re talking about rezoning. So please go ahead, Councilor. I’d say the same thing when the highberry one, because they’re just gonna come down the other way and cut through Victoria Street. But I’m very concerned about when we, when we approve all of this on the north side, massive development without the infrastructure, without the traffic infrastructure, it’s very similar to the concerns I raised about Oxford.

[3:43:03] And by the way, if this was on the south side, coming up through Old South, I’d be saying the same thing. So I just wanted to flag that as something I’m concerned about. Perhaps that’s something that needs to be dealt with in another committee, in terms of more traffic mitigation in the residential neighborhoods. But for now, the main point I wanna make is number one, I would support Council Raman’s amendment. But number two, I worry that it’s not enough. And I’m wondering if somebody can explain to me why we don’t just sever this into two applications and deal with them separately.

[3:43:38] Thank you. I look for other speakers. Councilors. Thank you, Chair. Just wanna go through you to staff. Hold on a second, Deputy Mayor, just a second. Sorry, Councilor, what was that? Well, this is where I’m going actually on the Councilor’s point. Okay. So if you’ll allow through you to staff, it is not within our purview as a Council to direct an applicant to sever their property. Is it, if it’s their block, they can make the decision as to what they’re bringing forward or not.

[3:44:12] Severance, consents, have to go to the director of planning, but it’s up to the property owner. I believe, and that’s what I’m asking staff to provide clarification on. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. The application wouldn’t be made by the land owner or the developer in this case. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. That was the first piece to me. I understand folks may think that a piece can move forward ahead of another piece, but that’s really up to the applicant. That’s not a decision we can make for them.

[3:44:47] I will say I’m more concerned now, and I’m happy to have some additional discussion with Councilor Raman between now and Council, but I’m even more concerned about extending it to three years with a CF zone within here, but maybe it might not be a school, maybe it might be something else. And I don’t disagree that there are other needs, but CF1 zones can be a number of different things, and if we’re holding it for a school purpose, but then we’re saying, but it might be other community uses as well, I don’t think that’s to the intent of the offer, the applicant is making.

[3:45:29] And so I’m hearing that. Certainly happy to follow up on a conversation offline, but I’m not comfortable supporting a three year hold on a CF zone if it’s potentially not a school, but other things that could be brought up at a later date without any prejudice to what those might be, but if the intent is to hold it for a school, and then when I hear that it might be also acceptable for other uses, that definitely makes me not comfortable with a three year hold.

[3:46:03] Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair please. So good conversation. I think we all recognize the frustration regarding schools when funding is allowed and how it mixes with our city plans, quite frankly, and when it comes to PAC, this frustration has been felt for quite a while. That being said, the reason I seconded this one, for me, what’s reasonable?

[3:46:41] I don’t see in a definite period where we do not permit development here. This land, this parcel of land, a portion of it can go ahead with the development, we’re asking that as a part that’s being set aside, which is gonna be set aside anyway, but let’s put three years on to give the school board time to seek funding, understanding the school boards going through some challenges right now with our own governance.

[3:47:18] So that’s why I thought three years, it’s a reasonable number. It’s a reasonable number to see if the school board can get the funding and get that access to that land. And if they can’t, well, after three years, then yeah, let’s move ahead and give folks living there. So that’s my reasoning for supporting that three years. It’s gonna be not developed for a while anyway. So let’s just put a specific time.

[3:47:51] So all parties are aware of the clock that’s on that particular piece, including the province. So I think that will help address some of our challenges we have with the province with funding decisions, et cetera. That’s my, those are my comments, Acting Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will return the chair to you. Thank you. I’ll look for any further speakers on this item. On this amendment, we’re just voting on the amendments. I don’t see anyone else, so I will open the vote on the amendment.

[3:48:43] Closing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Thank you, so now we have motion that’s amended. So I’ll look for a mover of the amended motion. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by, I’ll second it. So we have a motion moved and seconded and I’ll look for conversation on that. Deputy Mayor. I’m gonna be really brief. I hope I’m setting a tone for the future. For all of us in this, the amendment passed.

[3:49:19] We have an motion, main motion as amended. So I’m gonna support the main motion as amended because I still wanna see the opportunity here. Even though I didn’t agree with the three year amendment, I’m not gonna hold up moving this forward or giving a split vote. I’ll be supporting what the will of the committee has expressed. Well said, Deputy Mayor. I’ll look for other comments or questions before I call the vote. Seeing none, let’s— Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:49:59] So we’re voting, it’s vote 4.35. I’m looking for a committee to grant five minutes for a bio break. Chair, I will move seven because that’s how long it takes to make a coffee. Okay, let’s make it 10. Let’s make it 10 minutes, bio break. All in favor, guys, show us your second answer. Okay, it is 4.35, let’s meet back here at 4.45. Pass our break time and we’ll get this meeting back in the order.

[4:04:25] So right now, we are at 4.1 and that is a communication from Councillor Frank, so, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I can be here for no reason. Security, security, my apologies, much as I wanted to, 311. This is regarding a zoning by-law regarding stack townhouse definition. We will have a brief staff presentation, but we will do it after the PPM.

[4:05:14] So, I would like to vote to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, I had to get them logged back in, yes. We’ll sing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[4:05:49] Despite my best efforts with security, I see Mr. Wallace is still in the building. Please, sir, go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you members of PEC and visiting Councillors for hanging in all afternoon on this beautiful day outside. I’m gonna speak to the item that’s in front of you today on the redefinition and the new definition of stack townhouses. And on behalf of the industry, we are applaud staff and for all the work they’ve done on this and moving forward relatively quickly on introducing a new definition of what stack townhouses are and what two things, two points I wanna make that by supporting this, you are actually tackling that missing middle.

[4:06:38] We talk about a lot, but nobody can really put their finger on it. I can just tell you from my own personal experience, I have children who live in the United States, they’ve lived in Tucson, just outside of Denver and Littleton, they lived in Henderson, which is outside of Vegas twice, they lived in Dallas. Now they’re on the home, but in the meantime, they lived in stack townhouses all over it in all of those communities. I’m from Burlington, we have had stack townhouses there for a number of years and they meet the market in two ways. One, whether they’re purposely built rental or if they’re in condominium form in terms of ownership, they’re affordable.

[4:07:25] And I’m not talking about, they’re affordable in the spectrum of what affordability is. And so they’re really much off an entry level homes and opportunity for people. And what the definition that is you’re now at two, you won’t get them built at two. So this is an opportunity for the industry to build an affordable product that will be entry level or an opportunity for people. So we appreciate staff’s work on this, our consultation on it and letting some know that it was coming forward.

[4:08:02] And at the inefficient and effective manner, so that’s basically a big thank you for this and we’d appreciate council’s support at this new definition. Thank you. - Thank you. I don’t see anyone else in the gallery. Oh, excuse me, ma’am. I’m back again. Good to see you. - Hello. Please give us your name again and you have five minutes. Okay, Susan Bentley live on May 4th drive in Bruffdale and I am speaking to you as president of the Bruffdale Community Association. And I’d like to note that in Bruffdale, we have at least one neighborhood connector which is where these new stack townhouses are going to be built as a right.

[4:08:43] So it’s an issue that does concern us. On reading this talk report on this issue, I noted that there is, after widespread publicity and outreach, only one public comment by Ms. Jenny Granger at the end of the report. And we would like to register agreement with what Ms. Granger said in her comment. The new definition before you includes the words and where each dwelling unit has an independent entrance from the outside or a common vestibule. I agree with her that the phrase or a common vestibule should be deleted.

[4:09:22] A common vestibule affects not only the look of the building and good design should still matter, but its function as a home, a safe space for the occupant. This definition is one small way to improve overall design quality if you remove that common vestibule. Another issue is safety. The separate entrance type of townhouse not only looks better, but it gives each householder a sense of security and privacy. With a common entrance, anyone can slip in behind an unwary resident as happens often in apartment buildings as we all well know.

[4:10:00] So another of my concerns is safety. Thank you very much for your time and attention. And I do appreciate your stamina as a committee and thank you for all your time and effort. Oh, thank you and thank you for your patience and waiting until this point in the afternoon. I’ll ask if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone else like. So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Well, think about the motion carries five to zero.

[4:10:37] Okay, now I will go to a staff or a brief presentation for committee and council, but also for the public to determine what’s or just to understand better what we’re discussing today. For the chair, I will briefly explain the background of the amendment to the Stacktown House definition. The current definition restricts Stacktown House buildings to two units high. Any deviation from this definition requires planning approval, which can be time consuming, resource intensive and create uncertainty that may discourage housing construction.

[4:11:12] In recent years, there has been a growing interest in alternative configurations with more than two units stacked high. Some applicants have sought to amend the Stacktown House definition through a minor variance, which is not the correct tool. Others have included as a special provision through a site specific zoning bylaw amendment, which have consistently been supported by staff and council. Given the number of recent requests, staff identified a need to review the definition. Staff examined the zoning bylaws of other municipalities and consulted with interested parties to ensure the proposed amendment reflects best practices.

[4:11:48] Staff recommend amending the Stacktown House definition by removing the two unit high restriction for clarification internal corridors, such as common hallways and stairways, would still be prohibited. It’s important to clarify that this amendment is limited to the definition only. There are no changes proposed to the regulations of any underlying zone, such as building height, density or setbacks. Any change to those regulations would still require planning approval, such as a minor variance or zoning bylaw amendment, which are both public processes. This amendment is intended to streamline approvals, reduce uncertainty and support the development of diverse housing forms that align with London’s evolving needs.

[4:12:27] Thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. So I’ll go to committee now for any questions or comments or motions. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you. For a seconder, Councilor Cuddy. Any discussion, comments? Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I just think it’s important to thank staff for the work that was done on this. I know there’s been a lot of consultation. I would say I agree with Mr. Wallace’s comments as well.

[4:13:02] I have seen three story stacks in a city south of the border about a year ago before I stopped going south of the border. And I, you know, frankly, it was a great looking product. The kind of place I’d be happy to call home to. And while I understand the concern about shared festival, I think as we just heard that shared corridors, stairwells are still prohibited, that these would still be individualized. So there’s a difference between a vestibule where you come in and then you access your own private entrance and a common area where you come in the front door of a building and then you get on an elevator or a communal stairwell or whatever to access a whole floor’s worth of units.

[4:13:47] So I think that that distinction’s important to underscore. Thank the staff for the presentation that underscored that as well. And I do agree that this is on the spectrum of affordability, more affordable. And an option that fills in versus the single family home or, you know, the one or two bedroom apartment option in a high density residential, this is a piece in between. So very supportive of the work that’s been done here and encourage everyone to support this. Thank you.

[4:14:19] I look for other committee members. Councillor Trosto, did you have, then I’ll go to Councillor Kremel. Thank you very much. I’m under a lot of pressure to make this good ‘cause I spent a lot of time sitting here after me. So I can say this. Let me start by saying what I’m not opposing to today. I’m not opposing to this whole missing middle concept of the stacked townhouse. I’m not opposing the idea that it’s gonna be four stories. That’s been something that this council has decided.

[4:14:55] I disagreed with that. I still disagree with it. But what I’m asking for is some recognition that there needs to be a balance. And the way we can introduce some balance is to at least do what we can to insist on the highest level of quality within the parameters of what we’re dealing with, with these four unit stacked houses. Right now we have no demolition control. You can go down Dune Drive, any of the, I’m not gonna go through each ward and remind people what the connector streets are.

[4:15:35] Yet, yes, I have Waterloo and Colborne and Cheapside and Huron and parts of St. James. There’s no demolition control unless there’s a heritage aspect, which means you could wake up one morning quite literally and find out that there’s a demolition going on next door. Hopefully you would have found out about it through a courteous neighbor. The other thing that we don’t have is any kind of design review. If we are, if we are going to substitute an existing stock of residential single unit dwelling, single family homes, at the very least, at the very least, we should try to ameliorate the effect that this can have on the streetscape and the feel of the neighborhood if it’s done in an indiscriminate way.

[4:16:33] And I believe the requirement of having a separate entrance at least provides some level of quality and consistency. And I think Ms. Bentley talked about this. I don’t want to see things that start to look like apartment buildings. And I think there’s a danger of that. Once you remove the requirement of the separate entrance, with the requirement of a separate entrance, you’re at least looking at something that looks from the street to be more like a row house.

[4:17:16] And if we’re going to be doing this in existing, you know, what are now our one single family home residences, we should at least try to introduce some level of quality control. And I don’t think this is asking very much because you’re still going to get your four stack houses. I’m not even asking you to change the configuration changes. So you could do one at three if you like. I’m not objecting to that as such. And at least in terms of what I’m asking for today and what I will be asking for at the council meeting, I’m not asking for a pushback on the four unit stack house.

[4:18:00] As of right, roll, roll. We did that, we did that in September. So where I am today is I want to at least have some level of assurance in an environment where there are no demolition controls and no design review requirements that there at least be some modicum of quality control. Therefore, I am asking and I will be moving at council and I’d certainly like to see it today.

[4:18:36] But I would like to see my amendment would be very simple and it simply would be removing the words or a common vestibule. I am not, I am not proposing that we disturb all the other work that staff has done on this in terms of the configuration. I would like or a common vestibule removed. And I also think it goes to the quality of life inside these stack town houses. Because whether you want to call it a hallway or a vestibule or whatever, when you have your common entrance, when you have a, when you have your private entrance, you have a private entrance.

[4:19:24] And that entire area, even though going downstairs, for example, is areas that you totally control. You could put your valuable whatever in there, a bicycle, artwork, whatever you want to put, whatever you want to put in there. And that’s a very different kind of living experience from when you’re sharing, whether it’s a common hallway or a common lobby or a common vestibule, you’re still sharing. And you have no control, no control over who you’re going to be sharing with and with.

[4:19:57] And I think that it’s going to have a material effect on the quality of life in these units. And I acknowledge that this may add some cost to the units, this may add some difficulty to the units. This may mean that in some situations, project is not a go. But I think unless we can come up with some other regime to control demolitions, which is not on the table today, so don’t worry about making a point of order. I’m not going to go there today.

[4:20:30] Or having some kind of quality design review, which again, I’m not putting that on the table today, this is a very, very small amendment that will in some way, in some significant way, help make this easier for people in these residential neighborhoods to absorb. Thank you very much. I will be looking for this amendment at council. I’ll put this in writing before the council meeting. And I’d appreciate any support that people could give to removing those words.

[4:21:03] Thank you. Thank you, councilor, councilor Purple. Thank you. I have a quick question through the chair to the staff. Thanks for the presentation. I missed, I know when you were talking about things that would still be prohibited. One of them was common corridors. I think they were all to get a street or potentially four things, which would still be prohibited. Can you please repeat them for me? I’ll go to staff. Yes, through the chair, I gave common hallways and internal stairways as examples that would still be prohibited. Councilor, thank you.

[4:21:37] No more questions? Thank you. Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. The vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And moving on to 3.12, this is regarding later zoning bylaw amendments delegation approval.

[4:22:14] Again, we will have a brief staff presentation after our public participation meeting. And so I’ll open the vote to open that public participation. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s side by clause, executive director of LDI. I forgot to mention it at the last time before I got kicked out.

[4:22:46] But thank you again. And I want to thank staff for working on this particular project also on trying to, part of the direction that you have given them is to try to improve processes and make things work faster and better and more effective. And this is one method that they have chosen to work on that makes things different. And there’s a couple of points I want to make here. And I think in the conclusion is really where it’s important. It says that what they’re changing here is to delegate it to staff for applications under site plan control and amendments to expand the range of permitted uses, which are minor, which you’ve had of your 12 items today.

[4:23:34] There was a number of public meetings there that I think I would consider minor and that might not ever have to see them later day here. And they performed it didn’t show up. Nobody spoke to it. It takes time, gets to get on your agenda and you got to read it, staff could have done it. And so we are appreciative of the effort here. We’ll see how it goes going forward. And since it was brought up in relation to this, we are also there as an industry interested in the rethinking zoning process going forward.

[4:24:11] My personal goal is that working with staff, we are able to come to a conclusion that all of us can agree to. And hopefully that will be in the spring. But not just from the industry’s perspective, but it could be anybody based on what I understand from the point, like a comprehensive zoning ballot, is it peelable to the loyalty? Just a reminder, the London plan was passed by Council in 2016, wasn’t finalized until 2022.

[4:24:50] I don’t expect appeals to take that long if there are any in the zoning by-law, but it is no guarantee. I’m going to work with our industry partners with staff as hard as possible to make sure that the rethinking zoning process develops a comprehensive zoning by-law that understands the flexibility and for us to be able to move forward as a group and get that done as quickly as possible. But I just, you know, you got my back of my, there’s the back of my neck up a little bit, that this is appealable and appeals, whether it’s from us or from others, can take years.

[4:25:32] And so I’m hoping that we can get it right the first time. Thank you. Thank you. Look for other members of the public, anyone online, there’s no one online, I don’t see anyone coming to the mic. So I’ll open the vote to close the PBM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll go to staff for a brief presentation on why this is in front of us.

[4:26:09] Through the chair, in 2021, the province introduced bill 13, supporting people in Business’ Act, which made changes to the Planning Act, allowing municipal council to delegate approval authority for minor zoning bylaw amendments. The applicable section 39.2 of the Planning Act requires that the official plan specifies the types of minor zoning bylaw amendments, which may be subject to delegation. Following bill 13, council approved adding new policies to the London plan to delegate approval authority for three types of minor zoning bylaw amendments, including removal of holding provisions.

[4:26:46] Council also passed a new bylaw, minor zoning bylaw amendments delegation and approval bylaw to authorize council to delegate approval authority for minor zoning bylaw amendments to the director of planning and development. The recommended amendments before you today are to add two new types of minor zoning bylaw amendments to be delegated to the approval authority. And these include one amendments associated with an application under the site plan control bylaw and amendments to expand the range of permitted uses where the intent and purpose of the base zone contemplates the use.

[4:27:21] Based on recent planning application trends, staff believe that delegating approval of the two types of minor zoning bylaw amendments will reduce approval timelines and costs for both applicants and the corporation. Better align current approval processes reduce applicable application volumes for the committee of adjustment and effectively streamline decision-making processes while still meeting public engagement requirements under the planning act. Staff estimate approximately 25 to 30 minor variance applications and five to 10 new use applications per year would benefit from this delegated approval process.

[4:28:01] The delegated minor zoning bylaw amendment process would be available where staff and the applicant both agree with the amendment. If staff are not supportive, the applicant can still proceed with the other processes, either zoning bylaw amendment application at the planning environment committee or a minor variance application through the committee of adjustment. The recommended amendments also include alternative notification requirements which include publishing notice of application on the city of London website and by mail or email to every landowner within 60 meter radius of the property.

[4:28:39] As this is the standard under the planning app for notification circulation for minor variance applications. If written concerns are provided during the circulation of an application, the delegated authority for the application would be revoked and the applicant can either proceed with the public meeting or withdraw the application. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to committee deputy mayor. So first I’ll move the staff recommendation and then I’ve got a couple of questions. I’ll look per seconder and I’ll go back to deputy mayor. Thank you chair.

[4:29:15] So first of all, I think we had proof on today’s agenda of items that by giving it this delegated authority, they could have been dealt with more expediently and more efficiently both for the applicant and for our staff and for us. I mean, all three ways, this would be a win. I do want to ask through you and I’m going to talk about, I think I’m going to talk about the Europa Foods one, which was on the agenda earlier today on First Street as an example and I’m also going to reference coming up, we have item 4.2, Councilor Frank and Councilor Palosa supporting small business through updates to the zoning bylaw communication.

[4:30:06] If we were to advance this today, would these be examples of things where as the director of planning, delegated authority would allow for these to be decided on in a more expeditious manner. The 4.2, we have a rethink zoning going on and we talked about that earlier about collapsing some of these zoning categories. So just looking if staff can comment on would these two items on the agenda today be examples of things that we could not have to have on the agenda if we approve this?

[4:30:44] I’ll go to staff. Thank you for the question and yes, that’s correct. Both those applications would fall under this new process if approved, just also noting that there is a public process involved here, there is notification. So we’re not circumventing that process and there is an application fee. We’re looking to use the removal of holding provision fee as the guide. Basically we need to cover the cost for a public notice. Deputy Mayor, great, appreciate that.

[4:31:17] Obviously I think the public notice still needs to apply. Anyway, if a business is changing use, if there’s some sort of minor zoning change, there’s still, it’s important that we have that notification and I also agree with the cost recovery process because otherwise we’re subsidizing it on property taxes. So if we can recover the costs for the time that it takes, happy to do that. So this is good news, makes us more efficient, modernizes the process a little bit. And I think this is a win for everyone. Can I look for other comments or questions?

[4:31:55] The committee will allow, make a comment from the chair. I concur, I don’t, anytime we’re requested to approve delegated authority, I take that very seriously and it’s our responsibility as council, I don’t wanna take away that responsibility. However, we talk a lot or we don’t, we don’t talk a lot, but you hear out there, red tape. Whenever we talk about in the community, in the news media, our leaders of higher offices, we hear the term red tape.

[4:32:30] What is red tape? Red tape is maybe things like we’re talking about today, things that could be dealt with quicker with the same amount of oversight. I look at how many staff hours are spent in preparing our agendas and preparing it for committee and then it goes to council how much time we spend on those items that at the end of the day are approved on the staff recommendation ‘cause they’re very minor in a scope of things.

[4:33:11] So again, if we can put staff time to other things but without losing the responsibility of making the right decision and that’s when I spoke about not giving up easily delegated authority, that’s what I’m talking about. So with giving delegated authority, delegated authority can be taken back by council. So I wanna remind the public of that that if this and other delegated authorities don’t pan out the way we foresee, then we have a discussion at council and change things.

[4:33:54] But from what I see here, this like the rethink zoning, I think that’s the direction that I’ve prepared to go to again allow us to deal with the flood of building requests, permits, zoning requests, et cetera that come to your department and then to us that we can handle, we can focus in on the big decisions that need to be made in a public forum. But as pointed out by Ms. McKinley, the public is still involved in these discussions.

[4:34:27] So I’m happy to hear about that. So I will support this. So I’ll look for any other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors. Okay, so I’ll call the vote. Will seeing the vote in motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Now moving on to 4.1. So this is a memorandum submitted by Councillor Frank regarding a direction she wants to take in order for me to get this on committee.

[4:35:09] We will need a motion to supporting this I suppose. So I’ll look for a motion right now to put this on the floor. Councillor Palazzar, are you moving in? Yes, even though I may not be in support of it or have concerns about it, I’d rather have start the conversation here than doing it all at council. Okay, I’ll need a seconder. I’ll look for a seconder. Okay, I’m going to look for a point of order.

[4:35:43] A point of order. Go ahead through you chair. Because I’m going to be honest, I don’t want to have this conversation twice. So if we put it on the floor today and it’s defeated, can the Councillor still reintroduce it at council? Or if it’s defeated here, is it the recommendation of committee to not proceed? And so it’s not reintroduced at council because I have some serious concerns about this proposal. I’m willing to have the discussion here. I’m not willing to have it twice. So whether or not a second depends on the clerk’s ruling as to whether it can be reintroduced at council.

[4:36:18] Okay, we’ll look to the clerk for that advice. We are getting advice as we sit here. It’s Avelina through the chair. If committee wishes to defeat the staff recommendation, I would suggest a motion be moved to receive the communication at council. That motion could be defeated or approved or amended. Thank you.

[4:36:51] I don’t believe there’s a staff recommendation. It’s a letter from a Councillor. Hold on a second. Point of order. Yeah, sorry, I meant that the motion on the floor. Yeah, sorry, we’re still on my point of order. Not to, that’s take away your point of order, Councillor Palosa, but. Folks, chair, one at a time, one at a time. So I’m going to go back to you. Yeah, so it’s not a staff recommendation. It’s a request from a Councillor. So what I’m hearing, and I’m looking for the clerk’s guidance on this, so what we would have to do is, so what I’m hearing is debating it today and defeating it doesn’t prohibit it being brought back.

[4:37:36] The alternative is to receive it and have the debate at council. I’ll go to the clerk, is that correct? Through the chair, that’s correct. Okay, deputy mayor. Okay, with that clarification, then I’m not prepared to second. Okay, I’ll look for any other members of committee for a second, I’d, Councillor. Sorry, if there’s no seconder, I will make a motion to receive the correspondence. Through Councillor’s correspondence and all the correspondence A through D that was attached with it.

[4:38:12] Okay, so we do not have a seconder, so are you looking to put a new motion on the floor? The motion was to receive the correspondence from the Councillor and the public communications A through D. Okay, do I have a seconder for that? Deputy mayor has indicated he will second. Any conversation? Councillor Frank. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here and also at council. So completely understand that there might be some reservations from other committee members.

[4:38:45] I was hoping as outlined in the letter to direct staff to get a report back on the feasibility of an agricultural offset policy. Again, outline mostly in the letter and I’ll just hit the high notes, so I’m not gonna take up too much of your time. We’ve made a lot of decisions recently to remove productive farmland out of use and we’ll continue to do that for the next coming decades. And given that the area surrounding London is class one land and less than 0.5% of Canada’s prime farmland, I think it’s a really important step to start considering it as an important natural asset in the same way that we protect significant wetlands, significant wood lots.

[4:39:25] I think that agricultural land needs to start being looked at as a natural asset and protected as such. At the city we have policy frameworks that protect other natural assets and I was just hopeful that staff would be able to do a preliminary scan and see what’s possible. Again, understand that other members of council might not be interested in this approach right now, but I was hopeful of that. So I’ll probably, again, bring it up at council for discussion and perhaps we have a more fulsome debate there as well. Eventually I am planning to bring forward a motion supporting the food belt bill that MPP, Mike Shiner and Bobby and Brady have suggested, which would request the province have provincial regulations and regional planning approaches that try to protect farmland, because as much as I think it is nice to have housing, which is an incredible need, I also think we need to feed people.

[4:40:18] Thanks. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I’ll just be really brief. I’m willing to have the discussion at council, which is why I didn’t look to receive and take no action, which then would have to be overturned at council first, but I will say that when we have that discussion, I’m not going to tell the province what to do, regardless of what the leader of the fourth party and the legislature wants to do.

[4:40:52] And I’m not, and this would require land acquisition. It would require sources of funding. So to ask staff to do a feasibility study when, quite frankly, I’m already satisfied that there’s not a budget for this. It is why I’m gonna have those reservations at council, but we will have that debate. And I just wanted to share that there was a reason why I said receive rather than receive, and supported receive rather than take no action. We’ll have the discussion, but that is where, but as I said, I didn’t want to have it twice.

[4:41:29] So let’s put it off to council and take it there. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Frank. Thank you. I love a good debate. I actually, again, didn’t highlight the need to spend resources at this stage. This would simply be a report. My interest is more in seeing not necessarily staff having to buy land to set it off set is more that if we were taking out an acre of productive farmland that we then, the city owns many acres of productive farmland, then we would just set that aside in perpetutious farmland.

[4:42:02] So not having to spend money in buying it. So I just wanted that clarified because I don’t want people going into council thinking that this necessarily has a budgetary impact because, again, it’s a report, and then staff could come back with items that perhaps don’t have any budgetary impact at all. But just wanted to clear the air that I was not suggesting that we set aside a big fund of money to buy farmland. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Okay, we have a motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. Councilor Hillier and Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[4:42:54] Yeah, my E-Scribe has just got the spinning circle. So I will vote yes. And I vote yes. Do you have any? I’ll vote yes as well ‘cause mine’s kind of— Okay, there we go. There we go. Yeah, it’s not opening for me. Oh, there it goes. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, just Councillor Hillier, that was a yes from you. Okay, sorry about that motion.

[4:43:32] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on to 4.2. This is coming in from a communication from Councillor Palazzin, Councillor Frank, morning’s moment is non-profits, updates to the zoning law. So I will go to Councillor Palazzin. Thank you. I’m moving an alternate motion than what was circulated, have discussed with the clerk in advance that we received the correspondence and it be forwarded to civic administration for their consideration through the rethinking zoning.

[4:44:15] We think both ways gets it to where we wanna be. And obviously we don’t know the timing of the reports and hearing from different businesses about issues and ways to streamline and get up and going faster. We figured we had Councillor Frank will agree and can speak for herself, but this was agreed and we believe it would be the best way forward. Yeah, Deputy Mayor, you’re seconding that. Okay, great. Anyone want to speak to that? Sorry, clerk. So I just wanted to clarify on the wording. So I have be received and forward to civic administration.

[4:44:53] Please go ahead, Councillor. And be forward to civic administration for their consideration through the rethinking zoning process. Okay, any conversation on that?

[4:45:28] Well, it gets up on E-Scribe, Councillor Frank. Sure, and I’ll just provide some rationales by bringing this forward and then the motion to direct it towards staff for rethinking zoning. But essentially I was chatting with a local entrepreneur who’s hoping to locate a card detailing facility in my ward. She runs it as a non-profit and employs under-employed folks to do the work. So it’s more of a social enterprise model. But she was unable to pick her preferred location because it would allow for card detailing and the selling of gas.

[4:46:01] And it wasn’t able to be decoupled and she doesn’t wanna sell gas. And so it was a really unique, interesting situation where if the AC2 zone was just slightly amended to allow for individual purposes within that by-law, she would be left to use it. That being said, with the delegated authority, it appears that she could pursue that method and pay a small fee to rezone that for the compatible use. Or this process as staff is undergoing some more of the rethinking zoning process is an appropriate way to try and address it. So my understanding is staff will take this information and give a look at that zone and make sure that there’s the ability for folks who are in those types of zones to be able to use them for more purposes, which is what we want.

[4:46:43] We don’t want to try and make it super nuanced and hard for people to conduct their business. So appreciate staff’s help on this and happy to have it go towards them to take a look. Thank you. I’ll answer questions. Just from the chair, thank you. I think this is exactly what we’re talking about with rethinking zoning. You look at some of the zoning designations from decades ago when the world was different and they’re so finely diced that at some point, they to prevent exactly what Council Frank was discussing for a business to get going.

[4:47:24] I think that’s the point. So thanks. Okay, if there’s no other comments or questions, then we will call the vote. I was thinking about the motion carries back to zero. Moving on to deferred matters. I’ll look for a motion to receive the for matters list. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Palosa, enthusiastically.

[4:48:04] Any discussion? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Indeed, there is. And I wasn’t prepared to move or second it because I’m wondering through you to staff. If item one on the deferred matters list should actually be deleted, item one is draft citywide urban design guidelines, civic admin report back at a future PPM of PEC. This was a request from October 29th of 2019, expected Q4 2025. However, since then we’ve made a number of changes to urban design guidelines.

[4:48:39] We eliminated the third level of urban design reviews through the urban design review panel. And then as recently as the last PEC meeting, we received an update from staff on bill 17 in which the province has actually restricted our ability to impose urban design guidelines on housing developments. And so I’m really wondering if we are, if we have something that’s just living on the list that given all of the changes that have happened since it was put on the list six years ago, if this should be removed from the list as now it’s a redundant item because the changes that have been made both locally and provincially.

[4:49:24] So I’ll go to staff for their comments. Thank you, very good question. Absolutely, this is the direction ticket off today. What we were intending on doing, but we missed the boat. We were gonna provide an update as part of the last rethink zoning update in June. So we missed that window. So we were gonna report back in November whenever we come back with the draft rethink zoning. So we were gonna provide a recommendation at that point. We need to have that direction so that the clerk can take it off the list. So I’m happy to recommend that today.

[4:49:58] Okay, definitely mayor. Yeah, so I’m going to amend the motion that we approve the deferred matters list with the exception of item one, which shall be deleted. Okay, do I have seconder? Councillor Cardi seconds. Discussion on that motion? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Getting ahead of the— Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[4:51:09] Okay, thank you, that leaves a confidential item. I just need to vote on the— One must stay for you as a motion, as amended. Do I have a mover for that, please? Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Cardi seconds, and we will call that vote. Councillor Cardi seconder. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor moved it.

[4:52:00] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, now we will move on to our confidential item, so I’ll have to clerk to prepare the— Okay, we’re back in public session, Councillor.

[5:01:40] Ooh, see. I’ll look for the Vice Chair to report out, please. Chair is Vice Chair, I’m happy to report out progress on the item for which we went into confidential session. Thank you, now I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Councillor Palazzo seconded with 10 fingers, well, nine and a half, Councillor Hilliard. One with Ribsaw still on it. All in favor? Motion carries.

[5:02:14] Thanks, folks.