Open Council

14th Council Meeting

Open Council

14th Council Meeting

August 26, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:06 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Stevenson was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 9, clause 2.9 of the 12th Report of the Community Protective Services Committee and associated Bill No. 314, having to do with the Standard Form Agreement for Approval of Infrastructure Grant Application, and Conditional Approval to Enter into a “Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement”, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes the 2025 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Recipients:

Anren Guo, A.B. Lucas Secondary School with a 99.50% average

Daniel Brunt, H.B. Beal Secondary School with a 99.50% average

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission Community Recognition Program - Municipality Contribution Agreement.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to Enhancements to the Dog Licensing and Control By-law - Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs. (6.1/12/CPSC)

4.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice/ Litigation/ Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining 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. (6.1/13/PEC)

4.3    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining 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 a claim for compensation following the expropriation of property located at 1690 Richmond Street North at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”); and for the purpose of providing instruction and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/13/ICSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:26 PM to 1:32 PM.

At 1:32 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

4.5   Solicitor-Client Privilege / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining 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 Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 2:09 PM to 2:44 PM.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

4.6   Solicitor-Client Privilege / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining 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 Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 3:42 PM to 4:12 PM.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 12th Meeting and 13th Special Meeting of Municipal Council, held on July 22, 2025 and August 12, 2025, respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.1    Protection of Animals Left Unattended in Motor Vehicles

  1.    E. Schwob  

     

6.2    Enhancements to Dog Licensing and Control By-law - Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs

  1.    D. Morris        

  2.    A. Papmehl    

   

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

  1.    J. Madden, J. Menard, M. Dawthorne, B. Quesnel and A. Husain        

  2.    D. Young, Former President, Lawson Ratepayers Association        

  3.    (ADDED) B. Vogel        

  4.    (ADDED) ARNA        

  5.    (ADDED) A.M. Valastro        

  6.    (ADDED) B. Samuels        

  7.    (ADDED) C. and V. de Oliveira        

6.4    1736, 1796 and 1814 Commissioners Road East (Z-25057)

  1.    K.A. Moreland, Professor, Biology

        

6.5    Agricultural Land Offset Policy

  1.    L. Blumer  

     

6.6    Corrections to the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement between the City of London and Clean Air Partnership

  1.    Memo - J. Skimming, Manager, Energy and Climate Change

       

6.7    Annual Update to By-law B-7, Schedule A

  1.    Memo - A. Shaw, CBO        

6.8    By-law Correction for 555, 559 and 567 Commissioners Road West

  1.    Memo - A. Riley, Senior Planner  

     

6.9    (ADDED) Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

  1.    G. and L. Sheil  

     

6.10    (ADDED) 1196 Sunningdale Road West (OZ-25052)

  1.    A. Baroudi, Baroudi Law Professional Corporation        

  2.    B. Tucker, Thames Valley District School Board

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 1:36 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-08-11 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 6 (2.5), 9 (2.9), 11 (4.1), and 16 (4.6).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on July 10, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on July 24, 2025:

a)    $400 of the ESACAC budget BE EXPENDED to purchase stickers promoting public awareness of the Service London portal and of pest control in buildings;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to forward the submitted artwork for the two stickers to Strategic Communications for review;

c)    the Strategic Communications BE REQUESTED to provide public information relating to prevention of pest infestations in buildings on the City of London website;

d)    the amended proposal, as appended to the ESACAC Report, BE APPROVED by the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) to use a portion of the 2025 ESACAC budget on public awareness stickers; and,

e)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.2 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Municipal Request from Within the Service Area to Access W12A Landfill for Waste Disposal (Relates to Bill No. 319)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report August 11, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to adopt the new Municipal Request to Access W12A Landfill Policy.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Odour Management Technology Update and Single Source EnviroSuite Limited (Relates to Bill No. 312)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to the Odour Management Technology Update and Signal Source Envirosuite Limited:

a)    the above-noted staff report containing details of the odour management technologies being employed or examined at the W12A Landfill BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

i)     approve a Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Envirosuite Canada Limited (the “Service Agreement”), as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule “1”, for the continued operation and maintenance of six (6) ambient air monitors, one (1) weather station and electronic reporting for an additional twelve (12) months, in the amount of $99,220 excluding HST on a single source basis in accordance with 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Service Agreement; and, 

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to approve and execute amending agreements to the Service Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) SS-2025-194: Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to SS-2025-194 Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Zamboni Company Ltd., 38 Morton Ave. E, Brantford, ON, N3R 2N5 for the single source purchase of two (2) Level Ice Systems, for the price of $58,570.90 (excluding HST);

b)    the approval in the above part a), BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory pricing, terms, and conditions with Zamboni Company Ltd.;

c)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the necessary administrative acts in relation to the procurement described above.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.8) SS-2025-193 London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of a Service Vehicle

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to SS-2025-193 London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of a Service Vehicle:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with City Commercial Truck Equipment, 1005 Pattullo Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario, N4V 1C8, for pricing for an outfitted service vehicle for the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval of the above part a), BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, and conditions; and entering into a purchasing agreement with Commercial Truck Equipment to purchase the Service Vehicle;

c)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”;

d)    that the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in the above parts a) and b); and,

e)    that the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.7) Thames Pool Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 11, 2025, related to the Thames Pool Update:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the feasibility of Basil Grover Park as a potential option for a future multi-use community centre, including an indoor pool, based on the recommendations coming out the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a communication, dated August 7, 2025, from Councillor S. Franke, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.2) Seasonal Time Period of Overnight Parking Bans in Comparable Municipalities

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated July 9, 2025, from Councillor J. Pribil, related to Seasonal Time Period of Overnight Parking Bans in Comparable Municipalities:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September 29, 2025 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an information report regarding the seasonal time period of overnight parking bans in comparable municipalities, including the rationale for the seasonal duration of London’s current overnight parking ban, as well as potential amendments to reduce the time period outlined in the existing by-law, including consideration of a revised timeframe from November 15 to March 31; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the option to eliminate the 15 day limit on overnight parking passes as part of the report back with respect to this matter; it being noted that individuals would continue to register a vehicle that is parked overnight during the overnight parking ban.

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (4.3) Business Licensing By-law as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated July 31, 2025, from Councillor J. Pribil, related to the Business Licensing By-law as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review Schedule 21 of the Business Licensing Bylaw as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations (STRAs), and to report back in Q1 2026 on the following:

i)     licensing fees, charges, and penalties imposed by other Ontario municipalities for STRAs;

ii)     the application and rates of the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) in municipalities with active STRA regulations;

iii)     enforcement tools, fines, and administrative penalties used to address non-compliance; and,

iv)     best practices for cost recovery and compliance monitoring, as well as strategies to minimize community impacts such as parking space limitations and density control measures including minimum distance requirements to help preserve neighbourhood character and prevent clusters of STRs in low density residential areas;

it being noted that this review should include recommendations for amendments to Schedule 21 or related by-laws to improve regulatory alignment, equity, and operational efficiency;

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from D. Lanteigne-Mignault, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.4) Protection of Animals Left Unattended in Motor Vehicles

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back by end of Q2 2026 to the Community and Protective Services Committee with recommendations on the protection of animals left unattended in a motor vehicle, including but not limited to amendments to existing or a new municipal by-law;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated July 28, 2025, from Councillors S. Franke and D. Ferreira;

  •    a communication dated July 29, 2025, from Humane Society of London and Middlesex; 

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2025, from Paws United Dog Rescue; and, 

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2025, from E. Schwob.

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (4.5) Enhancements to Dog Licensing and Control By‑law – Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated July 28, 2025 from Councillors S. Franke and D. Ferreira - Enhancements to Dog Licensing and Control By law – Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back by end of Q3 2026 to the Community and Protective Services Committee with recommendations on potential enhancements to the Dog Licensing and Control By  law, specifically as it relates to dogs that have been determined to pose a risk to public safety; and,

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to the Solicitor General, with respect to this matter, to suggest changes to provincial legislation related to dangerous dogs and public safety;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •     a communication dated July 29, 2025, from Humane Society of London and Middlesex; 

  •     a communication dated August 5, 2025, from K. Bendikas.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 2025-2028 Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement and Investment Plan (Relates to Bill No. 313)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to the 2025 – 2028 Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement and Investment Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the provision of funding under the Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative for the 2025 - 2026, 2026 - 2027, and 2027 - 2028 fiscal years, as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule ‘1’ (“Agreement”);

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted agreement;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute any future amending agreements to the above-noted agreement;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute the Investment Plan, including any amendments, required for each fiscal year under the above-noted agreement; and, 

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to sign all reports required under the above-noted agreement.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.9   (2.9) Standard form Agreement for Approval of Infrastructure Grant Application, and Conditional Approval to Enter into a “Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement” (Relates to Bill No. 314)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

a)    approve the standard form Agreement for Approval of Infrastructure Grant Application and Conditional Approval to Enter into a Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement (“Agreement”), substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule “1”, is authorized and approved as the standard form agreement to be used for pre-approval of infrastructure grant applications and child care and early years funding;

b)    designate, severally, to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and their written designate, the power to:

i)    insert the relevant information regarding the Operator into a Funding Agreement with an Operator; and,

ii)    approve and execute Agreements based on the standard form agreement authorized and approved in this by-law;

it being noted that the power of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designate, to act under the above-noted by-law are subject to the following:

i)    such actions are consistent with the requirements contained in the Agreement approved above;

ii)    such actions are in accordance with all applicable legislation;

iii)    such actions do not require additional funding, or are provided for in the City’s current budget; and,

iv)    such actions do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.11   (4.1) Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report, including the background information on the history of the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the summary of proposed changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to send the above-noted staff report to the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee and notify property owners within 2 kilometres of the landfill that the report is available for review and comment; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting with respect to the proposed changes to W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;

it being noted that a presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Stanford, was received with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.16   (4.6) Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated August 1, 2025, related to the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with advice to the Committee and Council about the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law to require an Owner under that By-law to display their name, a contact phone number and the number of occupants permitted to be residing in the unit, noting that the report should include recommendations for compliance with Council Policies including the Public Notice Policy with respect to Licensing By-law, and the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with the potential of including signage which could include information about whether or not the property and the units in the property are in compliance with municipal standards.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part a) of the motion be approved:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated August 1, 2025, related to the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with advice to the Committee and Council about the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law to require an Owner under that By-law to display their name, a contact phone number and the number of occupants permitted to be residing in the unit, noting that the report should include recommendations for compliance with Council Policies including the Public Notice Policy with respect to Licensing By-law, and the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy; and,

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part b) of the motion be approved:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with the potential of including signage which could include information about whether or not the property and the units in the property are in compliance with municipal standards.

Motion Failed (0 to 15)

Item 16, clause 4.6 to read as follows:

That with respect to the communication, dated August 1, 2025, related to the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law, the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with advice to the Committee and Council about the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law to require an Owner under that By-law to display their name, a contact phone number and the number of occupants permitted to be residing in the unit, noting that the report should include recommendations for compliance with Council Policies including the Public Notice Policy with respect to Licensing By-law, and the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy.

8.2   13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-08-12 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 8 (2.7), 12 (3.3), 14 (3.5), 19 (3.10), 20 (3.11), and 22 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interests

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Building Services Report - Quarter 2 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.4   (2.3) Heights Review, Transit Village, Major Shopping Area and Protected Major Transit Station Areas Information Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.5   (2.4) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by J. Ledgley – 964 Dufferin Avenue, Old East Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-055-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.6   (2.5) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by C. Hansford for 170 Wortley Road, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-053-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.7   (2.6) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by T. Eifert for 172 Wortley Road, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-054-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.9   (2.8) Quarterly Heritage Report - Q2 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.10   (3.1) 820 Blythwood Road (Z-25073)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.11   (3.2) 430 First Street (Z-25086) (Relates to Bill No. 330)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.13   (3.4) 180 Simcoe Street and 214-230 Richmond Street (O-25063) (Z-25062) (Relates to Bill No.’s 316 and 332)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.15   (3.6) 35-45 Southdale Road East (Z-25074) (Relates to Bill No. 334)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.16   (3.7) 180-186 Commissioners Road West and 548 Viscount Road (Z-25077) (Relates to Bill No. 335)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.17   (3.8) 116-118 Adelaide Street North (Z-25060) (Relates to Bill No. 336)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.18   (3.9) 1736, 1796 & 1814 Commissioners Road East (Z-25057) (Relates to Bill No. 337)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.21   (3.12) City-Wide: Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Delegation and Approval (O-25064) (Relates to Bill No.’s 310 and 318)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.23   (4.2) Supporting Small Business and Nonprofits through Updates to the Zoning By-law

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

8.2.24   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the Conservation Master Plan 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 made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended by including new parts b) and c) to read as follows:

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with options addressing property encroachments, including related considerations and impacts, for the properties at 1634 to 1786 Attawandaron Rd; and

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED, as part of the Conservation Master Plan review, to include passive recreation consistent with the historical use of Attawandaron Road Park, defined as the area between the pathway at 1726 Attawandaron Road (north) and the pathway at 1634 Attawandaron Road (south), and to outline how the space will be maintained moving forward;

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended by including a new part b) to read as follows:

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with options addressing property encroachments, including related considerations and impacts, for the properties at 1634 to 1786 Attawandaron Rd; and

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended by including a new part c) to read as follows:

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED, as part of the Conservation Master Plan review, to include passive recreation consistent with the historical use of Attawandaron Road Park, defined as the area between the pathway at 1726 Attawandaron Road (north) and the pathway at 1634 Attawandaron Road (south), and to outline how the space will be maintained moving forward;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the proposed changes to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, including consideration of potential design alternatives for the trail, specific resident concerns regarding its location and design, and matters related to Accessibilities for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) compliance;

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Item 8, clause 2.7, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the Conservation Master Plan 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;

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with options addressing property encroachments, including related considerations and impacts, for the properties at 1634 to 1786 Attawandaron Rd; and

c)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED, as part of the CMP review, to include passive recreation consistent with the historical use of Attawandaron Road Park, defined as the area between the pathway at 1726 Attawandaron Road (north) and the pathway at 1634 Attawandaron Road (south), and to outline how the space will be maintained moving forward;

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.

8.2.12   (3.3) 1204 Richmond Street (Z-25065) (Relates to Bill No. 331)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

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) relating to the property located at 1204 Richmond Street, the revised, attached, proposed by-law attached 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 1204 Richmond Street FROM a Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (NF(1)) Zone TO a compound Neighbourhood 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 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 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. (2025-D09) (3.3/13/PEC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 12, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

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) relating to the property located at 1204 Richmond Street, the revised, attached, proposed by-law attached 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 1204 Richmond Street FROM a Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (NF(1)) Zone TO a compound Neighbourhood 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 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 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. (2025-D09) (3.3/13/PEC)

At 4:40 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Failed

8.2.14   (3.5) 514-520 South Street (Z-25068) (Relates to Bill No. 333)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 (12 to 2)

At 4:38 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

At 4:42 PM, Councillor S. Franke enters the meeting.

At 4:44 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

At 4:44 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira enters the meeting.

8.2.19   (3.10) 1196 Sunningdale Road West (OZ-25052) (Relates to Bill No.’s 317 and 338)

Motion made 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 made by S. Lehman

Motion to approve 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 Failed (0 to 14)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the balance of item 19, clause 3.10.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 19, clause 3.10, as amended, reads as follows:

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;

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.

8.2.20   (3.11) City-Wide: Zoning By-law Amendment to Stacked Townhouse Definition (Z-25071) (Relates to Bill No. 339)

At 4:49 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 (13 to 2)

8.2.22   (4.1) Agricultural Land Offset Policy

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion to receive be amended by adding the following:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee examining;

a)    the feasibility of developing an Agricultural Offset Policy, including best practices from other jurisdictions;

b)    potential approaches and tools for offsetting agricultural land losses on both public and private lands; and, 

c)    how best to align the policy with London’s existing environmental and planning frameworks;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 (14 to 1)

8.3   10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-08-14 SPPC Minutes 10

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (4.1) Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Local Boards

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Local Boards and the Council and Staff Relations Policy BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group for further review, with an invitation extended to the Integrity Commissioner to attend and respond to questions; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (4.2) Delegation - Ysni Semsedini, CEO and Tanya Goodine, Board Chair, London Hydro - Affiliated Proposal

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the London Hydro Inc. Affiliate Proposal, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with London Hydro Inc. and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the necessary by-laws and supporting documentation to implement the proposed “Affiliate” corporation;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard and received a presentation from Y. Semsedini, CEO and T. Goodine, Board Chair, London Hydro with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Michelle Southern BE APPOINTED to the Eldon House Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4   13th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-08-13 ICSC Report 13

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 13th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 7 (2.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Delegation of Authority By-law: Municipal Elections Approvals and Agreements (Relates to Bill No. 320)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to Municipal Elections Approvals and Agreements:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held August 26, 2025, to:

i) DELEGATE authority to the City Clerk, or their written designate, to approve and execute agreements described in Schedule “A” to the by-law, in accordance with the limits and conditions identified therein; 

ii) REQUIRE the delegated authority to be exercised in accordance with Municipal Council and corporate policies in effect at the time of the action taken;

iii) REQUIRE that executed agreements be funded from Council-approved budgets, or where additional budget is required, the City Clerk shall have authority in accordance with subsection 7(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, to authorize the costs and the City Clerk shall sign a certificate verifying the amount of any costs exceeding Council-approved budgets in a report to Municipal Council;

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to prepare a report following an election providing the number of instances that the Civic Administration exercised the delegated authority to bind under this by-law; and

c)    the staff report dated August 13, 2025 from the City Clerk BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Covent Garden Market Kitchen Project

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Covent Garden Market Kitchen Project:

a)    the communication from Covent Garden Market Corporation, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Covent Garden Market Corporation’s capital expenditure of $555,000 plus applicable interest for the Market Kitchen Project BE APPROVED, noting this project will be fully financed by Covent Garden Market Corporation through a 10-year bank loan; and

c)    the Covent Garden Market Corporation BE APPROVED to enter into a loan agreement with an external lender for a loan principal amount up to $555,000 plus applicable interest for the Market Kitchen Project, it being noted that the City Treasurer has calculated an updated limit for The Corporation of the City of London using the debt and financial obligation limit determined by the Ministry in accordance with O.Reg 403/02, has calculated the estimated annual amount payable in respect of this project and has determined that such estimated annual amount payable does not exceed the debt and financial obligation limit.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Winter Maintenance Review

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Winter Maintenance Review report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) 2026 Stormwater Management Facility Remediation Program Consultant Award

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the consultant award for the 2026 Stormwater Management Facility Remediation Program:

a)    Delta Science and Engineering Inc. BE ACCEPTED to carry out consulting services for the 2026 Stormwater Management Facility Remediation Program, in accordance with their proposal submission, on file, at an upset amount of $109,973.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, and in accordance with Section 12 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.6) Single Source Repair of Caterpillar Grader SS-2025-192

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the single source repair of the City’s Grader:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the single source provisions of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy under sections 14.4 (d) and (e) for the repair of one Caterpillar Grader;

b)    the single source estimated repair price of $75,762.93 (excluding HST) submitted by Toromont Cat BE ACCEPTED to repair one Caterpillar Grader;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project; and

d)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (5) Timing of Pedestrian Crossover - Viscount Road and Steeplechase Drive

Motion made by C. Rahman

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to advance the timing of pedestrian crossover improvements planned for implementation in 2026 at Viscount Road and Steeplechase Drive to 2025 and the value of the 2025 pedestrian crossover contract BE INCREASED to accommodate this additional work.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.4) Consultant Contract Price Increase: Rapid Transit Implementation - Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch) project:

a)   the contract with AECOM Canada ULC for construction inspection and contract administration services for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch) project BE INCREASED by $120,000 to $1,924,701.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 20.3(e) for the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project; and

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lehman presented the 14th Report of the Council in Closed Session, including the two additional items, by noting progress was made with respect to the items noted on the public agenda.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 314, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No. 314, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 314, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 333, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No. 333, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 333, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 309 to Bill No. 338 BE APPROVED, including Revised Bill No. 331 and excluding Bill No. 314, and 333.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 309 to Bill No. 338 BE APPROVED, including Revised Bill No. 331 and excluding Bill No. 314, and 333.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 309 to Bill No. 338 BE APPROVED, including Revised Bill No. 331 and excluding Bill No. 314, and 333.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 32 minutes)

[6:46] Okay. Thank you. Please be seated. Welcome to the 14th meeting of Municipal Council. This session, it’s August 26th, our last meeting of the summer months. So we’ll see you. We’ve got some exciting things happening today. So we’ll get through those. We’ve got some items to debate and who knows.

[24:24] Maybe we’ll even be done for people to enjoy some of the summer sunshine out there. I’m going to start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge today that we are gathered on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwa, Kanata Wanjuan peoples. We honor respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampumbell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796. You hear on track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabeg and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact councilagenda@lendant.ca or 519-661-249, extension 2425. Next, I will introduce our old Canada performer.

[25:43] Ricky Chi is a Toronto-based saxophonist now based in London, Ontario where he is completing his final year of music education at Western University. With a versatile style that spans jazz, R&B, salsa, and pop, Ricky has built a reputation as a dynamic performer on stage and in the studio. As a member of the Forest City London Music Award-winning band Juice Joint, Ricky has performed at major events including Sunfest, Lightning of the Lights, and the Toronto Beaches International Jazz Festival. Ricky has also performed at the International Trombone Festival as part of the City of Music Concert Series that wraps up this Thursday from 7 to 10 p.m. Please rise and join me in welcoming Ricky who will now perform the National Anthem for us. Next, we’re on to disclosures of pecuniary interests, so I’m going to look to colleagues to make any disclosures they’d like to make.

[28:47] Councillor van Mirberg. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to disclose a pecuniary interest on the 12th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee on today’s agenda, number nine. From the committee report, it’s 2.9 and that is the standard form agreement for approval of infrastructure grant application and conditional approval to enter into child care and early years funding agreement relates to bill number 314. I’m declaring this as my wife operates her own child care facility. Okay, thank you, Councillor. We’ll have the committee chair note that for that report. Any other disclosures? Seeing none, then we are on to recognitions. I am going to move to the podium to do to significant recognitions today. Okay, so this is always an exciting time of the year because we have a couple of annual things that we do. And the first is recognition and awarding of the Queen Elizabeth scholarships. There are two Queen Elizabeth scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each that are granted by the City of London in each year for admission to any college and university and the two students for the two students with the highest scholistic achievement in our city. And we have one of them here today, so let me just read out information about the individual who’s unable to join us because they’re actually at their orientation week at the University of Toronto. So Aaron Go from AB Lucas Secondary School achieved an average of 99.5%. Aaron will be attending the University of Toronto, as I just mentioned, a favorite subject at school where math, chemistry, biology, and physics has a dream for the future of being an engineer and an entrepreneur. Hobbies include exercising and running. And lastly, have been awarded the University of Toronto’s President’s Scholar of Excellence as well. Unfortunately couldn’t be here today, as I said, is at orientation week, but maybe just in case they’re watching the video join me in giving Aaron a round of congratulations. The recipient though is here and Daniel Brunt is an HB Beale Secondary School student who achieved also an average of 99.50%. Daniel will be attending the University of Toronto with membership at Victoria College studying literature. Favorite hobbies include English and creative writing. Also hope to enter higher academia one day to be a professor and/or author. Hobbies include rock climbing writing, learning about urban development.

[31:57] Lastly was named a finalist in the University of Toronto’s Full Ride National Scholarship and received the C. David Naylor University Scholarship. And I get to actually hand out the check for this. So Daniel, if you want to join us up at the front, that would be excellent. Do you want to say a few words? Sure, come on up. Thank you to the city and the mayor and whatever other mysterious figures into this scholarship out. I’m very appreciative and it’ll be put to good use as school supplies or textbooks or Mr. Noodle packages. Great, and I think you have some family members here. So first off, let’s congratulate Daniel. And then we can post for a better photo if you want to come a little closer. That’s fine. Here, let’s stand in front of here. I got you a certificate too, so we’ll give you this. It’s not quite as exciting as a scholarship, but it’s a nice keepsake. All right, so that was our first recognitions and that’s always exciting to do.

[33:45] And this next one is always a great opportunity for us to celebrate organizations in our city as well as contributions from an amazing Ontario corporation. So I’m very pleased today at the city council meeting to acknowledge the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation or OLG, as it’s usually called, for the continued investment in London, Ontario. And it’s important partnership with the city through the municipal contribution agreement. In 1999, the city entered into a municipal contribution agreement with OLG under this agreement. OLG provides an annual share of the gaming revenues generated by Gateway Casino’s London to the city of London. These funds are then earmarked for projects that positively impact residents from all corners of our vibrant community. From April 1, 2024 until March 31, 2025, we received over $5 million from OLG through the revenue generated at Gateway Casino London. This revenue has played a crucial role in supporting several central community initiatives, including funding not-for-profit organizations through the city of London’s community grants program. Specifically, $45,000 was allocated to growing chefs Ontario to fund the growing chefs community program which encourages community members to cultivate a connection with local food systems, participate in activities to increase food literacy, cooking skills, promote long-lasting healthy food choices in partnership with schools, neighborhood centers, and community program providers in locations across the city.

[35:11] Today, we’re honored to be joined by representatives from growing chefs Ontario, an organization that has greatly benefited from the funds provided through this partnership with OLG. They have played a pivotal role in our community’s well-being and we’re grateful to recognize their outstanding contributions today. The remaining funds from that period through the municipal contribution agreement were used for a range of projects, including replacement of an existing boardwalk over a waterway in Lambeth Centennial Park, promoting safer, more sustainable connections and maintaining linkages to an area in the community center park and recreational pathway. This project also provides benefit from a climate change and adaptation perspective, including ecological restoration to protect and enhance the local habitat. Various major upgrades at some city parks, including the replacement of the spray pad at Rontree Park, replacement of the artificial turf at Citywide Sportsfield, repairing of the spring bank pump house, upgrading the fieldhouse at Silver Woods Park, replacing the washroom at North London Athletics Field, building a new fieldhouse at River Bend Park, and upgrading and electrical supports at Victoria Park. Also supported the purchase of 14 hybrid vehicles for the city’s corporate fleet, replaced the lighting in seven arenas and one major sports field with energy-efficient options, installation of a building automation system and heat pumps at Iraq and EV charging stations at AJ Tyler, and continued community support for organizations in our city. The Boys and Girls Club got operating funding to sustain seniors programming, children and youth recreational social and nutrition programs, educational leadership and initiatives, the London and Middlesex Heritage Museum operating funding to support Fanshawe Pioneer Village, delivering programs and events and education activities and exhibitions, and preserve its collection of 33 original and replica buildings and more than 40,000 artifacts. In total, the city has received $102.7 million in non-tax gaming revenue for hosting a gaming facility in London since the exception of the agreement in 1999. These revenues are the cornerstone of support for local programs and essential infrastructure making sustainable and substantial tangible differences in the lives of the people of London Ontario. I’d also like to recognize Gateway casinos as a key employer in the old East Village community.

[37:25] Currently, the casino employs 247 people, but this number will increase by approximately 100 once the $50 million renovations are completed in 2026. Thank you for your continued partnership and investments in London OLG. I’d now like to invite and introduce Kathleen Devine, the Senior Municipal Relations Manager at OLG, who will be providing some remarks and clearly has a giant check. We’ll do that too, but come up and make some remarks. You make my scholarship check look very tiny, but sure, we’ll hide that. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m happy to be back here. Thank you, Mayor, and Council members and city staff for inviting OLG back every year. We’re always thrilled to come back into the city and celebrate this community recognition program. That’s the OLG terminology for this event, where on an annual basis, we celebrate and acknowledge all the great works that are done by the city with this money from the Municipal Contribution Agreement. So, I’m today joined by my colleagues, Karen and Kritika, and of course, the great folks from Gateway casinos, Darcy and Rob Mitchell. Thank you for being here with us today. We literally couldn’t do it without you. So, as you mentioned, for 26 years, the casino has been operating here in this fine city of London, and the city has received just over $102 million with that funding. And it’s really a privilege for me to be able to see every year where this money is allocated to and the benefit to the community and the people of London earlier today.

[39:18] We arrived a little early and met with Tanvi from the city, and we traveled over to the AJ Tyler Operations Center, as you do on Tuesday morning, and had a look at the new charging stations and the 20, you know, the row of the Bank of 20, and met with Drew there and a few other members. And it’s incredible, right? And it’s a great start to this fleet, so it was fun to be there this morning, and then we traveled a long way to the Lambeth Centennial Park, which I probably don’t have to tell you, but I’ve never been there before, and it’s an incredible park with the arena and the library, but we traveled down with Linda to the new sort of boardwalk bridge. And what a space with, you know, the whole regeneration of the plants and the native trees. And so it’s always great for us to be able to, we see the numbers on spreadsheets, but to be able to come here and actually have someone from the city take us out and see the positive impact. So with that said, you know, we’re thrilled to be here.

[40:26] OLG has been doing this now for 50 years. It’s our birthday this year since that first lottery draw in 1975. And we’re just thrilled to be able to do this and see the amazing work that’s done in this city. So with that said, I travel with checks. And on behalf of OLG, we are thrilled to present you with this check representing last fiscal’s MCA dollars in the amount of $5,70,161. Yeah, great. We’ll do some photos in a sec with a giant check. But I just wanted to say thank you and express my gratitude geology for its ongoing commitment to our community. And the municipal contribution agreement is a testament to the positive change that can be achieved when organizations like OLG supports a community well-being in our city. I also wanted to invite Andrew from growing chefs to come up for the photographs since you’re one of the recipients of this. And so we’ll do a photograph altogether. And I don’t know if our friends at Gateway want to come up too, but you’re you’re welcome to as well, whatever, whatever makes the most sense for you. And we’ll do a photo together. And then if you want to stay for the meeting, there’s lots of other interesting municipal things that you didn’t pay for happening too. So there we go. Thank you so much.

[42:27] All right. Thanks so much. We’ll get Annalisa to deposit that. And I don’t know here. Just give you your notes back and then we’ll proceed with the meeting. I threw the premier’s notes off the top of the building yesterday. So I don’t know if you saw that clip, but okay. So that concludes our recognitions. Thank you for the extended time that that takes. It’s an annual thing and important item to get through given the impact it has in our community. We’re on to a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. So we’ve got three items for council and closed session at this point in time. I’ll be looking for a motion to move into closed session. Councilor Ferrer, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. Any discussion on moving into closed session? Okay. We’ll open that in the system. Councilor Stevenson votes yes. Wasn’t the vote.

[43:45] Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay. We’ll be moving to a committee room five colleagues and for the public will return as soon as we’re done those three items in closed session. Okay. Please be seated. We are on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes of municipal council.

[52:44] Don’t make me throw anybody at this early. We have the 12th meeting of municipal council held on July 22nd and the 13th special meeting on August 12th. I’ll look to Councillor Frank and Councillor Van Mirver going to move and second that or move it. Councillor Frank’s moving it. Any discussion on the minutes? Both sets of minutes. Okay. Seeing none we can open those minutes for approval in the system. Councillor Stevenson votes yes. Wasn’t the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. On to communications and petitions. There are 10 related items there if they all have points in the agenda that they can be referred to. I’ve got a consolidated motion that would do all that at once. Is anybody willing to move that? Councillor Cuddy is willing to seconded by Councillor Ferri. If necessary. Any discussion on the referral of those things to their relevant points in the agenda? Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. With that means we’re on to committee reports. The first report we deal with is community protective services committee. So I’ll turn it over to Councillor and Chair Ferriara to present that report. Thank you Mayor. Please report the 12th report of the community protective services committee. We had a very productive meeting. I do have some items that have been requested to be pulled. I have item 6 by Councillor Stevenson. I have item 9 as a conflict of interest from Councillor Van Mirvergan. Item 11 to be pulled from Councillor Palosa and item 16 to be pulled from Councillor Cuddy. So if there’s no other pull requests I would be willing to move. Items 1 through 5. Items 7, 8, 10 and items 12 through 15. Okay. So what we have is 6, 9, 11 and 16 separate. Does anybody else want anything else separate? Okay. Then Councillor Ferriara said he was willing to move the remaining items which as he mentioned would be 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 through 15. So those are now on the floor moved by the Chair for any discussion or comments. So we’re going to open that for voting then since there are no comments. It’ll be ready in just one moment. You’ll see it pop up on your screen. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay Chair. Go ahead. Thank you Mayor. I will put item 6 on the floor. That’s the 2025-28 Canada Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative approval of Ontario transfer payment agreement and investment plan as it relates to bill number 313. Okay and I know Councillor Stevenson had requested that to be pulled. I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson now for your comments. Thank you very much. I actually just had a few questions through you to staff. I’ve sent them ahead of time. I wondered it didn’t appear that there were any funds allocated in the plan in the investment plan to the housing support services under the Coachee funding or for the rent supplements transitional operating funding through the OFI and I just wanted to confirm that that’s that I’m reading that correctly. Mr. Mathers through your worship. Yes that is correct. Those programs are funded through other sources of federal and provincial funding. Councillor Stevenson.

[57:45] Okay thank you very much and another question was it appears there’s another million dollars in the home ownership loans and I just wondered if those details would be coming to council or how they would be getting to the public. Mr. Mathers go ahead. Through your worship. Yes this program includes some additional funding for home ownership and the program has very similar criteria as the newest program that we created and council approved at the last council meeting because we based our program on the provincial criteria. So therefore provincial criteria very much aligns with what we’re bringing forward as far as our other program. So we will be providing some communications and have our communications plan and strategy for being ensuring that the community knows about this program moving forward. So really excited about it and this just builds on that additional funding that council has already allowed us to use for this program moving forward.

[58:42] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much for that. Just a couple more questions regarding the community housing repairs. It looked like it was a very specific number and I just wondered if there was a way for council to get the properties and locations that those were planned for if there is a predetermined plan. Mr. Mathers go ahead. Through your worship. So there’s not a predetermined plan at this point. It’s just a funding source that will be able to use through an application process. So we have 63 different social housing providers that will be able to provide applications through that program. They have their their own lists of the capital repairs that they’d be looking looking to bring forward. So they bring the highest priority items to as far as their applications to the community to us to be able to provide this funding. We don’t have a list of all of their repairs but we do have a list of the housing those 63 housing providers and we happy to provide that to the to the Councillor. Councillor Stevenson.

[59:44] Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I think that might have been circulated under a different question that we had previously. I guess my concern is that if some of these repairs are damaged units that we’ve been seeing say at 122 baseline and we’ve had it with our social housing with the city, if we’ve got agencies placing tenants in these affordable housing units and apartments are being damaged, is that is it possible for council to be aware of that maybe through the governance working group when we talk about that when it comes forward in a few months? Mr. Maylers. Through you, worship. We can look into that. I don’t know whether that this is being used as a source to be able to look at any kind of repairs that are specific to units or whether it’s being used for more specifically for the actual building envelope but happy to look into that and provide any feedback at a future governance working group meeting. Councillor Stevenson.

[1:00:53] Thank you very much. Just one last question. I did notice that the plan specifically says that private sector proponents are ineligible for this funding and I just wondered what the reasons were for that. Mr. Maylers. Through the chair. So the reason for that is that it’s actually specifically precluded through the program guidelines that has been set out by the federal provincial government. There was some information that was missing from an asterisk that was in the report and it just specifically said that there’s other programs that CMHC provides that are geared towards those private sector developers. So they have other programs and the purpose for this funding was to use for those social housing providers. Councillor Stevenson.

[1:01:40] Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate the answers to those questions. All right. Any further discussion on this matter? Okay. The chair has put it on the floor. As it came through committee, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor votes yes. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. All right. Back to you, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. That leaves us to item 9. That’s for the standard form agreement for approval of infrastructure grant application and conditional approval to enter into child care and early years funding agreement as it relates to bill number 314.

[1:02:38] This was from the Declaration of Pecuniary Interest from Councillor Van Meeber. Okay. Yep. When we can deal with this one separate as requested. Is there any discussion on it though? All right. Move by the chair. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0 with one recusal. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Next item is item 11 as it was pulled by Councillor Palosa. That is for the proposed changes to the W12A landfill community enhancement and mitigative measures program. I’ll put that on the floor. That’s on the floor. I go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was considering a motion at this time. I’m going to hold off for now. I need to do some more consultation behind the scenes with staff realizing as the word 12 Councillor, I recognize that this area is mine for now right now. Next election will be someone else’s, but these residents have waited a really long time for this report and it’s worth noting as well that going forward, these reports will come to us regularly to allow these conversations.

[1:04:02] I appreciate the changes that staff have laid out that there’s extra impacts as all of the city’s garbage goes to these residents on their doorsteps when it leaves your residents’ doorsteps. There’s garbage that comes out. Some tracks go faster. Not saying there are always city tracks, but there’s other people using converters and some other facilities out there that have broader, broader community impacts. I want to highlight in your added communication package on 163. As we look at the right of first refusal and property value protection plans, some residents are raising questions. You’ll hear from these residents again come the formal public participation meeting, both as part of the public liaison committee and as individuals, but they are really interested and want to be engaged. They’ve been waiting for this opportunity. There’s also going to be as laid out in your report, communications going out to residents who live within two kilometers of landfill. I thank staff for using the property boundary of the landfill, not from the middle of it or anything to make sure that residents have engaged and residents will be doing extra engagement as part of the PLC outside that area as well, realizing that the owners travel in the wind and can have a fact father-wide that when we have this conversation at committee that they are doing lots of extra work for us to make sure that we have an informed decision to start this conversation that will now be regular going forward. So just really thinking staff and highlighting that. So when you start to get emails or requests to come out and hang out and stuff London with us and come and smell the air, feel free to come down. And I want to thank Councillor Pribble for joining these meetings. They are open to every, to the community and members of council and they welcome anyone who wants to come and sit in at their conversations at any time. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers on this matter. Seeing none that’s moved by the chair, we’ll open this voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[1:06:04] Back to you chair. Thank you, Mayor. That leaves us to the last item. That’s item 16 for the residential rental unit licensing by-law. It was pulled by Councillor Cudi. I will put that on the floor. Okay. So that’s on the floor. Councillor Cudi, something you wanted to add to this? Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you for allowing me to pull this. I’d like this voted on two parts A&B. And I’ll be very, very brief. You know, when you’ve got a really good motion when it’s supported by all members, and we had a unanimous support chair at committee. And I’m really grateful to staff, to Mr. Mathers, for helping me prepare this, to Ms. Pfeiffer for her first time in the job of pulling motion together, and also to Ms. Paul for helping me clear the legal hurdles in this.

[1:06:55] This will empower permanent residents, residents who are looking for greater autonomy in their area and to allow them to take a little better control of their neighborhood areas in Ward 3, where I live, where I’m a court councillor. And also I might mention to Councillor Trozzo in Ward 6, where we have a lot great deal number of students and transients living in these areas. I would say that in B part, and that’s why I’m asking all my colleagues to support A and vote against B. And the reason I’m asking this, your worship is because I feel after, after passing this motion, that there’s probably too much pressure being put on to Bylaw and to Ms. Pfeiffer and her team to regulate through a report card system, because they’d have to be constantly reviewing and reporting. And I think that’s just a lot to ask for staff right now, and I think if we just went with a simple Bylaw that’s proposed in A, that would be sufficient. So thank you.

[1:08:12] Okay, so the request is just to divide this as it came out of the committee. We can certainly do that at the time of the vote. I’ll look for other speakers on this item. Councillor Trozzo. Thank you. Thank you very much. I actually thought that A and B worked well together as I stated at the committee. I understand what you’re saying. And I’d be okay if we made it clear that the B report could be actually a longer deferral. So we do it for restaurants. And I would really like to look into how the health unit deals with that type of sign for a restaurant. People live here.

[1:08:54] In the long run, I think this is going to come back. So I don’t think it’s that big of an issue right now. I do appreciate the work that you’ve done on this. I will be supporting both parts of this. And I’d be very happy to see an amendment to be or just have an understanding with staff that that’s not as much of a priority as A. With that, I think that’s all I have to say. I’m glad this came forward. And thank you again. Any other speakers to this item? Oh, I have Councillor Privel and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. I’m glad it was separated because I even had the I wasn’t happy with the B already at the Standing Committee meeting. And as I use the example of as the restaurants, I don’t believe we do have currently the resources to do it in this sector.

[1:09:47] And I believe it would actually backfire on us that whoever would be seeing this, let’s say green color or whatever we would use, it would be outdated and potentially the operator would be actually not even in compliance anymore. So thank you for separating it. I’ll be supporting very much A. I will not be supporting B. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I too am happy that this is separated. It makes it easier for me. I won’t be supporting B at this time, although I understand Councillor Trust, I was intent. And I think there’s actually a better way to do this than signage on the outside of a building, which I think that many folks largely don’t pay attention to at the end of the day. And I think frankly that’s true of restaurants too. I don’t know too many people who look to see the Middlesex London Health Unit green card in a restaurant. I know Councillor Frank does because she’s a member of that board, but I suspect that not too many members of the general public look at that when they go into a restaurant. I do think that there is an opportunity for future discussions with staff around whether or not we could have details about active bylaw compliance files on our city maps, on our website, what that might look like. But I think that that’s a much longer sort of discussion. I know at one point prior to the current version of the website, so this is going back to my early days as a member of Council, I was able to actually look up online. I could put it in an address and I could see a history of the property. Now, it wasn’t easy to navigate to. It certainly would have been difficult for the public. But at the same time, not only could I see if a bylaw call had been assigned to an address, but I could actually see if a driveway widening permit had been issued or a deck permit had been issued or that kind of thing. Long before any of our current senior leadership team was sort of in the roles that they’re in today, that kind of went away. There was website updates and somehow that got lost in translation. And so I think that there is some value, but I think an online system is far better than signage on the side of a building. It allows even counselors to look things up in real time. And we know whether we’re creating a duplicate file. And I mean this not just for bylaw, but for planning and building division as well. If somebody’s asking about the status of a permit and I could put it in an address and see that the permit’s in process, whether that’s a deck permit or driveway permit, as I mentioned before, whatever, I think that would be a useful tool. And I will share, I’ve had some discussions already with three different members of our senior leadership team. In general, just sort of over coffee kind of, hey, is this something we could look at? And so I’m certainly willing to take time to sit down with Councilor Trusts out after, you know, sometime later this week or next week, find time to sit down and talk to you about that. But that’s why I’m not going to support me right now because I actually think there’s an alternate option for us to look into. That would be more of an online digital tool versus a signage on a particular property. I do think, however, it’s very important to have that contact information on a residential rental unit on a converted dwelling where we have, and I say this as someone who has a student rental next door to my own home. There have been years where I have had absolutely wonderful students. There have been other years that it has been less so. And it would be ideal if I could have a conversation with the owner rather than have to file a by-law complaint.

[1:13:30] So I think that having that contact information on a rental unit supplements what we already have on our zoning maps online where we can see if an RRUL has been issued or is in process already. That’s a layer I use regularly when constituents say, hey, I’ve got a problem next door and it’s a rental. The first thing I check is to see if they have an RRUL because that’s a whole different problem if they don’t. So I think that there’s some further discussion to be had around here. But I think that the signage of contact is a really important first step for us to take today. And then I know both Councillor Cudi and Councillor Tressa are on caps. I would like to have an opportunity to talk to both of you about maybe a future motion that we could bring independent of this. And I know Councillor Tressa you’re not able to respond to that in the meeting because you’ve already spoken. But I’m offering my commitment to meet with both of you about how we could perhaps look at something that might be a little bit more effective tool here. Any other speakers to this? Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor. I’ll be quick. So I agree with the Deputy Mayor and putting that into the property information system. I do think that would be a good addition for that. And just not going too far off to the side. But all of our information in one’s place for people to get their information would probably be best just because they don’t like telling people this is where you go for this, this is where you go for this. If it was all in one spot that would make it definitely easier. I’ll support A, I won’t be supporting B just because of from what I’ve heard here. And I did make some remarks at committee about my concerns with A, however, I do know that staff are going to come back with a report and we’ll come back with something that will fit and work. So I’m not going to make any adjustments as it is now, but I do want to work with Councillor Cuddy, the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Trussell on this one too because I do have a good segment of residential properties or sorry rental properties in my ward as well.

[1:15:33] So I’m looking forward to that, but I’ll keep the comments there. And I will be supporting A and I will support section B. Yes, and I’ll just say no forms of committee will be working on anything. So that was one too many people. You guys pick and choose who’s going to work on what and bring it forward to the committee for a full discussion in public. Just looking out for everybody. So any other speakers on this? Okay, great. Seeing none, we will then be so I’m going to open A for voting first. I was in the vote motion carries 15 to 0. And now we’ll open B for voting.

[1:16:23] Closing the vote motion fails 0-15. Well, you don’t see that often. That was pretty good debate, I suppose. Chair, I think you’re finished, but I’ll move on to you just a second. I am finished. You don’t see that often too much for CAPS nowadays. So it’s 30 minutes probably, so that it concludes the 12th report of the Committee and Protective Services Committee.

[1:17:04] Well, thank you very much. We’ll move on then to the 13th report of Planning Environment Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present that report. Thank you, Mayor. I will be pulling 12. I have a small minor housekeeping amendment from staff. Besides that, when I have request to pull 8, 19, and 20. I don’t know if that’s a complete list. I just want to make sure. So right now you’ve got 8, 12, 19, and 20 separate would be like other items separate. Oh, I think, Councillor Ferriero, you sent in to the clerk that you wanted, teen separate, or no? Was that a? Mayor, for Peck, that was item 14, yeah, and Bill 333. Yeah, okay. So we’ll do that separate for you. So now we’ve got 8, 12, 14, 19, and 20. Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. And if we could pull item 22 for a separate vote. Sure. Whether you’re 22, separate as well. So 8, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, anything else separate? Back to you, Chair. Okay. I’ll put items 1 through 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16 through 18, 21, 23, and 24. Skip 15. I don’t think anybody asked for 15 separate.

[1:19:05] We include that. I not say 15. My apologies. Okay. We’re going to put 15 into that grouping as well. So to recap, it’ll be 1 through 7, 9 through 11, 13, 15 to 18, 21, 23, and 24. I’ll move those. Okay. Moved by the Chair. Looks like everybody’s in concurrence. Any discussion on those items that are before us now? All right. Seeing none, we’re going to open those items for voting. Okay. We’re going to open that for voting then. Councillor Ferra, thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Go back to you, Chair. Okay. Thank you. I’ll put a number right on the floor. Okay. Number 8’s on the floor. I know I had a message from Councillor Ramen on this, as well as Councillor Hopkins and other Councillor Ramen first.

[1:20:55] Thank you. And through you, I have circulated language for an amendment on this item. Do you want me to read it out? Yes, please. Thank you. It is now in eScribe. Okay. So it’s clause 2.7 Medway Valley ESA that the motion be amended to include new parts B and C to read as follows.

[1:21:46] B, the civic administration be directed to report back with options addressing property encroachments, including related considerations and impacts for the properties at 1634 to 1786 at O’Connor Road and C, that civic administration be directed as part of C&P review to include passive recreation consistent with the historical use of at O’Connor Road Park defined as the area between the pathway at 1726 at O’Connor Road North and the pathway at 1630 at O’Connor Road South. And to outline how the space will be maintained moving forward. Okay. Is there a seconder for that?

[1:22:22] The seconder by Deputy Mary Lewis. Okay. So the amendment is on the floor then. So this is Councillor Ramen’s amendment. Would you like to speak to that now? Okay. So you can speak to it. You put it on the floor, but you’re going to speak to it. Not now. I’ll look for other speakers then. Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. I had some questions that I circulated to this list and it turns out that they are likely in camera items related to this amendment. So I was hoping to put requests to go in camera to discuss some legal questions on this item. Okay. And thank you for doing that because it allows us to have prepared a reason for you.

[1:23:11] So I’m going to read out the reason to go into camera, which you will be making a motion to then look for a seconder. The reason would be a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communication necessary for the purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the corporation. Subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area South Conservation Master Plan. I’ll look for a seconder for that reason to go into camera, just a seconded by Councillor Ferra. Any discussion on going to camera point of order? Okay. Point of order. My point of order procedurally for you, your worship, is simply that we have an amendment on the floor. So I want clarification from you that we’re going in camera on the amendment because we haven’t dispensed with the amendment. So are we going in camera on the amendment or the main motion? Because if we haven’t dispensed with an amendment, it’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Okay. So Councillor Frank, you said that your questions were on the amendment. Are they on the amendment or is there any on the main motion to? Fortunately, unfortunately, I have questions that are both on this amendment as well as other litigation questions in regards to AODA, which is not in this one, but this one is in regards to encouragement. So I have ones for both.

[1:25:29] Okay. So to answer the point of order, which is really a question of the order, we will go in on the amendment. Councillor Frank will be able to ask questions about the amendment. We will come back to public session. We will dispense with the amendment in some way. There will be either the original motion or an as amended motion, at which point if there are questions related to something that the solicitor says we have to go into camera, we will then have another motion to go back in camera on either the as amended or the main motion. So we may go into camera twice on this, but we will keep our in-camera questions scoped the amendment, which is on the floor. And so Councillor Frank could ask those questions. So that’s how we will proceed. And I will keep the discussion tight in camera around the questions related to the amendment. Okay.

[1:26:21] All right. So the point of order is dispensed with any other discussion. Okay, then we’re going to open the vote on going in camera for the reason mentioned on the amendment. Yes, noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay. We’ll go to committee room 5. Okay.

[2:04:29] Thank you. Please proceed. So Councillor Frank, you had the floor on this item when you asked to go in camera. So on the amendment, do you have anything further you want to add for the public discussion? Just want to reserve your right to finish your speaking. I’ll move on to the next speaker, which I will look for. Whoever would like to speak next at this time. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:05:28] Thank you, Your Worship. So through you, I want to express a fully supportive of both of these amendment clauses. You know, with respect to clause C, I’ve certainly heard clearly that there’s the desire for some continued passive park space use on the area that was traditionally defined as Adawanda and Park. What that looks like, of course, is a discussion for the future. But I’m certainly willing to support that and with respect to part B. I think, again, there’s an entire area here where we need to consider if we’re removing the trail as part A, would empower what the future direction would be. It obviously changes what the plan that was brought forward in the CMP was. I will point out that we are talking in part A, and I’m going to relate this back to part B of about 639 meters total, according to mapping it out on the city’s owning map. So when I drew out where the proposed trail was, it’s we’re talking about less than three quarters of a kilometer. It is impacting a number of properties. And through you, I want to ask our city solicitor, just in general, would I be correct in saying that options could include a variety of things, and we’ve actually used a variety of different approaches to things in the city over decades, over in different locations, could be licensing agreements, could be easements, could be property sales, could be enforcing the existing encroachment violations, that there’s options, a number of options that staff could consider through a report and bring back to us for a unified approach in this area, if we approve part B. Yes, and so I’ll say you can list the options that could come back. Obviously, the staff analysis given the direction of what will come back is not determined at this point, but would be part of the referral. Okay, go ahead.

[2:07:44] Thank you, and through your worship. That’s correct. There are a number of different options. I think the deputy mayor set them out in terms of enforcement. There could be sale of land, easement agreements, encroachment, licensing agreements, that sort of thing. Thank you. So, given the representations we heard at Peck, having walked the trail myself and seen where some of the significant challenges are, I think that we do need to look at options moving forward. I’m fully supportive of the original motion at committee, and I think that this is a reasonable next step. If this main motion as amended is passed, so I’m going to be fully supportive of this. Other speakers, go ahead.

[2:08:39] Guys, Councilor Plosa, and then Councilor Ferreira. Thank you. We were jostling over here for position. I’m going to ask two things. One might e-scribe for some reasons. I did shut it down, and I did reload. It’s still not there. David’s looks fine. So, I’m going to ask for the wording to be up here, and we’re having some sort of, the wording is not in e-scribe, in the dimensionless of the current item. So, I appreciate that. On the amendment, I’ll ask two things publicly. See, I’d already asked staff that the addresses laid out is the space that’s currently identified in the City Park addresses as the green, open green space that would be actually associated with the Adewandron Park and the park entrances. Ms. McNeely had sent me a lovely picture if it helps. Yeah, we’ll get you an answer. We’ll just, Mr. May, they’re just going to take this one. Through the chair, yes, they do align. Thanks. Thank you. I just wanted to start the conversation from that premise that the addresses were correct in the green space as identified as we move through this discussion. I did take the opportunity for residents. Thank you to those on both sides of the issue who wrote both as residents, as people who were concerned about accessibility for those who were concerned about environmental impacts and concerns. I did take the opportunity to listen to the podcast that a resident wanted me to listen to as I watched the area. I also apologize to any residents as some of it does get, I would say shoulder width in length and there was dogs and backyards in the home. So, I apologize for anyone that was startled by my presence. I also took the opportunity to pop in and talk with staff at the museum. I was there to have a little bit of a better understanding of what they’re using for any overflow programming space with that property as well, recognizing there’s street parking, but there’s no park parking, per se. It’s their parking lot and I know that they get into some issues with maintenance and people coming with their property, but people are parking there for city property. They did say that they do use this open green space for some overflow things, for the powwows that we attended in the past when those were happening pre-COVID. So, I appreciate that information. I will also highlight that as some pathways in the city have been overgrown a little bit and in need of maintenance as we’re talking about just trying to access the area. For me, I do support more of the naturalization of the area to people’s backyards and preserving the green space. I know there’s some at the schools, but knowing that that institution as well used this space to see that as a compromise going forward.

[2:11:39] I’ll say my concerns tend just to be people’s use of that area. I did follow up with staff for this over the conversation at PEC regarding backyard gates. Can you have them? Can you not have them? And thanking staff for that follow up that yes, you are permitted to have them. They’re not illegal. Just it would be with the backyard gates allowing more access to an environmentally sensitive area if there isn’t controlled access or depending what they’re doing back there while you’re trying to protect that area. So, that’s where that concern came from and ended up in an answer. So, generally supportive of where we’re at and why and just want to let residents know that I did take the time to go out, walk the area, talk to some people who use this space and that’s where my thoughts are coming from. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the discussion to this point. It’s been quite informative. I do have some questions to staff on the amendment only. So, I just wanted to ask my first one and it would be with respect to section B on the options addressing property encroachment. So, I just wanted to know what mechanisms does compliance have right now to address issues with encroachment? Like, what mechanisms would we utilize when we contact an encroaching party? Yeah, I think that that’s very similar to the question I think that was just asked. So, I don’t know if the solicitor or Mr. Mathers wants to answer that, but I don’t want to take that. Through the chair. So, of course, we want to try to work with the residents to try to address the encroachments. If that is not followed up on, after those back and forth, then there’s the opportunity to go to administrative monetary penalties or amps as we call them or to a court order. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for that.

[2:13:33] So, I do see that I guess the ways we address the encroachment would be to take like when it comes to city public property to have it back within the city control and domain would be kind of the answer for the encroachment there. So, I guess my next question would be for the direction of this motion. I’m not asking you to crystal ball anything, but I just wanted to know options addressing property encroachment would be beyond what we currently have. So, would that option include potentially to allow the encroachment with perhaps some conditions in a certain situation? Like, would that be a potential option that we might see back with this report? So, there’s kind of a two question there. Earlier, the solicitor was asked, what are the general options available to the city?

[2:14:26] I guess your question is, what are the options that might be considered with this report? Mr. Mayors can attempt to answer that, but I mean, I don’t know how much Vance noticed he’s had on this particular motion, but I anticipate the staff would probably need to do some work at some point to be more comprehensive in that list. I mean, Mr. Mayors, I’m not what I’m trying to do is protect you from being put on the spot to say this is what the report is going to say back because I know you need time to do the report, but maybe anything you can add to what the solicitor said is. Here’s the range of options, how you would approach the report might assist the council with this question. Through the chair. So, I want to reiterate what had been mentioned by the city solicitor and just reinforce that they would need to be something that was quite formal.

[2:15:14] It can’t just be some very impractical or guidelines for us to follow. We need something very formal to follow, being to ensure that anything that we want to do as far as enforcement in the future, that we could. So, that would be our guideline to be working with legal to see what we can provide and provide that formality to council. Go ahead. Thank you for that. So, I understand that we need to, I guess, bring a formality to the conversation, but I do feel pretty comfortable with our mechanisms that we have now when it comes to encroachment on public property. So, when I see the motion, as it is, saying options addressing property encroachments, that speaks to me that we potentially could be seeing options that are beyond what we have right now. And I believe when it comes to the encroachments, the mechanisms that we use are appropriate. So, I wouldn’t be willing to see other options, especially considering that the option, the word itself in this motion was quite open and would allow options that may result from what I would see would be potentially allowing that encroachment or potentially for going the city public property. So, I wouldn’t be in support of that as it is now. And I guess that would be my comments for that. So, I guess if we can split this up, I don’t, I guess I can speak more to the motion as amended if we get there, but I wouldn’t be supportive of that. I wouldn’t be supportive of C. So, if you can just, I guess, split it up.

[2:16:50] And I may make some more comments with the motion as amended. Yeah, we can vote on BNC separately. That’s no problem. I have Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’m going to wear my ordinary Councillor hat here as I speak to the amendment. I am not supportive of the amendment. For me, it’s very, very simple. I think we’re going down a slippery slope when we start addressing certain areas and not addressing others. So, being on council for quite a few years, I’ve been to encounter many, many encroachments throughout the years. And I always rely on our policies. I think we as a council should stay away from our conversations around encroachments and rely on our bylaws. And I rely on staff. I have confidence in staff to make the decisions.

[2:17:54] I need, as a Councillor, if I’m going to say yes over here, and I’ve said no over here, I need to have a reason why. And I depend on the consistency of our bylaws. So, I do appreciate the Councillor’s work in supporting the community here. But I am not going to be supporting the amendment. Councillor Trostav, you’re next. Thank you very much to the Chair. I am not going to be supporting either parts of this amendment. I think we’re really running some very serious risks here. When we start saying we have a bylaw regime, which is what we’re using, which is what we used for the loss in the States. It’s what we use for other alleged encroachments throughout the city. It’s what we’ve used historically. And if we want to review the policy of how we are going to deal with encroachments, alleged encroachments, I should say, we should do that prospectively. And we should have a full study, including what’s wrong with the current system. But to say we’re going to put on the table, get a report back with options for how we’re going to change our already existing policy with respect to just a small group of properties. I think we’re running the risk of all sorts of discriminatory enforcement allegations that could come from a variety of different places, not just the loss in the State people, not just the folks from other wards who have other types of encroachments, but even people on the street who have already, I don’t know, settled is the right word, but have removed their alleged encroachments that are no longer facing enforcement activities. Are they going to come back and say, oh, gee, I didn’t know we were going to get this. So no, I want to undo what I agree with you before. So I think we’re opening up, I think the term cana worms is probably overused, but boy, this is a big cana worms. And I think we should be very careful about this.

[2:19:58] I can’t support C either, because I think what the position taking consistently is that I have a I have a commitment to the decided matter of of of council, which of course we can change, decided matter of council. Unanimously, I watched the public participation meeting in 2021. I read the Dylan report in detail. I read the comments from all the community groups, which did not did not have issues with the encroachments, even from this community. So I think C is again stepping out from what good perspective policymaking would look like.

[2:20:41] And let’s let’s let’s keep in mind that nothing is settled in terms of the actual design that’s going to happen. Maybe I could ask Steph, if if we defeat this motion today and stick with what’s already on the table, there’s still our design implementation consultations that are going to go on with the neighborhood. Is that correct? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. There would be fairly limited opportunity to provide a lot of design options given the narrowness of the corridor and the proximity to the natural heritage features. Generally for something like this, because it was extensively engaged as part of a master plan, we would only go forward if we had options. We were soliciting feedback on I don’t believe there were many options in terms of what we can build in this space. In terms of the location of of the level three trail, though, that is not that has not been determined. And there are engineering considerations that may push part of that out to to the street or or push it to a different areas. Isn’t that right?

[2:21:52] Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. The corridor is quite constrained without having to go into putting into retaining walls or impacting the naturalized space. There’s not a lot of room for variation. I don’t believe there was a street alternative, but I would defer to my colleagues in planning as to what there may be alternatives outside of this space. I’m trying to get clear on exactly what the parameters of the recommendations in the Dillon report that was adopted by council. And I’m sorry that the planner who worked on this file is not here. It’s one of the reasons why I like this deferred. I’m not going to speak to the referral right now. But I just don’t see that C adds anything of value to what we already have. And I will be voting no on both parts. If somebody wants to vote yes or one or not on the other, we should definitely separate the two. But at least for purposes of this amendment, I would say I would say no to both. Most of my comments I’ll be reserving for motions that have not come up yet. Okay. I look for other speakers. Council approval.

[2:23:04] Thank you. And the motion that’s in front of us, I do think that it certainly resolves or gives a good option for option for where we are right now. But what I heard during the last, I don’t know, 45 minutes, probably an hour. I do agree that we really need to look at this and not to do this kind of a decision. Maybe on the fly might be a really not the best description. But I really think we need to revisit this because this is not one thing. And I’m not even going to look in the past, but even in the future. And I really think that we really need to have a strategy how we are going to address these because today it’s this one and next month it could be another one. So I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you. Other speakers? Councillor ramen, go ahead.

[2:23:51] Thank you. And through you, Mayor. So I want to start speaking to the amendment on Part B and with respecting the role that we serve as members of Council when it comes to matters related to bylaw and encroachments. The encroachment discussion that we’re engaging in for these properties is tied explicitly to Part C, which has to do with the passive uses around this current as the neighbors know it. Park, labeled as park, shown as a park, feels like park.

[2:24:30] I’ll state that if you look at, you know, back in 2015, our London Fire mascot was out reporting on how great of an open space this is in a community and what a great feature this is in our city because it is. And we hear from the museum who uses this space regularly, school groups who uses this space, community members who talk about the passive use that they get out of this space. And for me, that’s what’s important to retain in this conversation is how is the area used. Right now, the area is quite firm and stable in terms of the grounds around the back of these properties. I’ve walked it many times. I walked it again in a segment last night. I went out and saw neighbors that were walking up from Fanshawe Park Road into Adwondron onto the sidewalks to connect to the remaining sidewalks that are right now in the entrance to the Museum of Archaeology. And they would be what we considered a level three.

[2:25:49] There is connectivity here. There is connectivity on a passive road on a road that, in my opinion, doesn’t see a lot of traffic. So when we’re talking about adding a trail, a level three trail, and by the way, I’ve read the CMP extensively. I’ve read the feedback in the CMP. Initially, the recommendation was either a level three or a level two trail in this area. It then became, and that was a recommendation coming out of two committees. And it did say that upper Thames be continued to be consulted as a feasibility study goes forward to determine their support and approach as this moves forward if this was to go to a level three trail. So I do think that there was, again, more to be found out from a feasibility study. But you see this trail system as it is right now being used in its firm and stable condition. The challenge is, of course, there are constraints which have been mentioned. You do walk in quite close quarters, as I know a lot of my colleagues have taken that walk. I’ve done it with neighbors in the area. And yes, I agree.

[2:27:04] It would be great to see that as a wider expanse. The challenge that I see is that there’s a lot of erosion in the area. There is difficulty in the terrain just from the way that things have naturally settled. Isn’t that somewhat what we want? We want that natural settlement. We want those natural features. It’s what we heard from the residents as well. They wanted that opportunity for passive activation, and they wanted the opportunity to be able to enjoy what’s there. This issue of encroachments, again, it comes back to what do we currently see in envision in that space? Well, the encroachments, to me, are very much tied to the fact that we wanted to expand the area. So this asks for options to come back, what those are. I am not sure at this point, but I want to hear back from staff. And it’s respective of the rest of the motion, which asks for consideration for the trail not to go forward at level three.

[2:28:11] Other speakers on that? Oh, sorry. I got Councillor Lehman next, and then I’ll look for other speakers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank the Councillor for this motion. It’s an amendment that I think enhances the recommendation coming from PAC. I have as well. Sounds like a number of us have been down to this particular area, a small little park behind a residential street out there with about 15 residents and hearing their concerns. The outside wasn’t complex, but it was muddy, and how do we find our way forward was a concern of PAC, and I think this amendment provides additional clarity in how we should look at this. So there’s two things. One is the encroachment issue, and the other one is the park use. I differ from some of the opinions here on the encroachment issue. In the past, the city has dealt with this with either easements or land purchase discussions, and I think this falls along that path. I look forward to the report back at what suggestions from staff they have on finding a resolution there. With the second part of this amendment is not just saying, what are we doing now with this piece of property?

[2:29:40] If we’re not going forward with what was currently envisioned, what’s the future issue here, and I think this addresses that. So thank you. It enhances the recommendation from PAC, as I said, and I won’t support it. There’s speakers. Okay, as was requested, we’re going to deal with this in two different votes. We’re going to do B first, and then we’re going to do C second. So I’m going to open B for voting first, and move it back.

[2:30:15] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay, and next is C. So we’ll open C for voting no. It’s across. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries nine to six.

[2:31:17] Okay, so that is Councillor Hopkins. Sorry. Do have a referral. Okay, let me get a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion first, which is what I was just about to do. So that means I need a mover for the as amended motion. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. The as amended motions on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, now you can speak if you’d like. Thank you, and I appreciate your due diligence, making sure we follow our process.

[2:31:54] So thank you for recognizing me. I do have a referral that I would like to put on the floor, and I am looking for a seconder, and I have one in Councillor Frank. Okay, and if you could. I can read it. Yeah, that’d be great because then the public will know exactly the role is so. That the proposed changes to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area Self Conservation Master Plan be referred to Civic Administration to report back at a future meeting at the Planning and Environment Committee, including consideration of potential design alternatives for the trail, specific resident concerns regarding its location and design, and matters related to accessibility for Ontarians and Disabilities at AODA compliance. Okay, so would you like to speak to that now, Councillor?

[2:32:49] Yeah, if I can. Hold on, yes, sorry, Councillor Frank, a point of order, perhaps, point of order. Thank you, point of order. The correct motion, I believe, as the last sentence dropped. Yeah, that was just, we’ll get that fixed. That’s not what the Councillor said, so correct it to be exactly as the Councillor said. That should be changed in the system now, so I’ll let you continue on with your remarks, Councillor Halton.

[2:33:39] Yeah, thank you. I am hoping colleagues that you will support the referral back. I think we’ve had a lot of conversation here. We’ve got residents’ feedback. We’ve got community feedback on the trail at Edwandrin Park. There has been extensive work done on this conservation plan. I know all my time on Council, it has been a work in progress, and it was unanimously supported in 2021. I know it’s a prerogative. We can always make changes to plans along the way, but the referral back will take into account all the options, all the considerations that we’ve heard, and have staff come back to a planning environment committee with these alternatives. My concern here is that if we sort of poke away at a conservation plan with really not understanding the consequences to the decisions, we need some time, get some information back, alternatives, and then we can proceed forward. I personally don’t think there’s a big rush that we need to do this, but we have to go carefully just to understand what we are doing. So colleagues, please support the referral. I think we’ve heard a lot of feedback from residents that we can incorporate with the alternatives going forward. So again, looking for your support. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers on the referral. Go ahead, Deputy Ray Lewis. Thank you, colleagues. So I’m rising to encourage you to defeat the referral.

[2:35:38] We had an extensive discussion about this at PEC. We’ve had an extensive discussion about it here already. Yes, I was on Council when it was approved. You know what? I’m going to say right now, it was my mistake to support it the first time. I trusted feedback from the word counselors in the Northwest. At the time being a rookie counselor, I didn’t go out and walk the trail when I did. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t have supported it back in 2021. I said this earlier, we are talking about 639 meters approximately of trail space. We’ve already heard from Ms. Share today that the physical layout of the site, the slope stability, the space that’s available, does not allow for a whole lot of flexibility and design. We, when we hear about, you know, understanding the consequences, we’re not changing the rest of the conservation master plan. We’re removing one connection where there’s already a paved trail on the very southern edge of Fanshawe Park Road coming in off the road that goes out to Adwanderan Road itself, connects with a sidewalk down to the museum. And from there, there’s access to another paved trail. There is a connection already. I don’t need a referral to know that staff are not going to have a whole lot of design options for us. We’ve heard that today on the floor. I also know from, again, from having been out there that if we continue on this path, there’s a whole lot of other pieces before, besides just a staff report back, including an engineering feasibility study, which we’ve already heard. The old term was city engineer. We haven’t used that in a while, but the deputy city manager who sort of has that role, you know, is already indicated. There’s some challenges there. We’ve heard from Councillor ramen about the slope stability issues. We also have an ESA here. For those who have been out, we know that we’re talking about tree removals as well. There are not, not every area of every ESA needs to be accessible by trail. In fact, and I said this at PEC and I’m going to say it again today, I think that ESA’s should be not encouraged to have a whole lot more human interaction going into them. I mean, they’re environmentally significant areas for a reason because of the natural environment that’s there. So I’m not interested in a referral. I express my views for part A at PEC. I think we should put this one on the shelf or not go ahead with the trail. The additions that have been made to the main motion as amended, I’m comfortable with, and so with respect to a referral, you know, I think, and I know this is not the Councillor’s intent, but for me, in my opinion, we’re just kicking the can down the road, and I would rather make the decision today.

[2:38:46] I don’t need to ask staff to do more work on this. I’m confident with what I’ve seen with my own eyes that we’re not going to go ahead with this trail for a variety of reasons that are there, and other Councillors may want to go ahead with it, but I think that the general consensus at the end of the day is probably going to be that this isn’t the right fit, and so I don’t want to just refer this down the road, create all kinds of anxiety for residents, create an anxiety for people on both sides of the issue. I’d rather give them a decision today. Any other speakers should I referral? Go ahead, Councillor Trussa.

[2:39:23] Well, I’m speaking in favor of the referral. We are making a substantial change. Whether some of the members of this Council think it’s a good change or not is beside the point. Whether you voted right the first time a few years ago is beside the point. We can all change our mind, but the fact of the matter is we are making a very substantial change to a process that went on for years and years and years, and was reflected in the Dillon report, which I think is a very, very thorough report that talks about many of these considerations in some great detail.

[2:40:06] So to depart from that report, and by the way, I also watched the PEC, public participation meeting, any of the issues at the PEC, PPM at that point were about the other side of the creek. There was really not much discussion about what was going on on this side. I read through all of the neighbourhood comments, all of the other stakeholder comments. There was no mention of many of the things that we’re going to talk about changing right now. So I think that one of the reasons why the referral is important is what input have we had on this? We’ve had a delegation, some delegations come to a committee meeting that wasn’t even noticed as a public participation meeting. Fundamental fairness would dictate that all the stakeholders who have been participating in this all long and who want to participate in it now have the opportunity. And we’re not doing that if we close the matter today. And by the way, we’re not closing the matter today because we just voted on some amendments that are asking for further staff reports, which really suggests to me that the idea of having a referral may not be such a bad idea, but we should be consistent.

[2:41:34] We need a referral on this because otherwise what’s going to happen is we are going to undermine the public perception of the integrity of our process because we can’t go through something like the Dylan report and the various points of contact with the public has pointed out in the letter. There have been so many of them and to undo that, based on one meeting that isn’t even a public participation meeting where here we are at the end of August, people don’t even, many people don’t even know that we’re making this change. Yes, it was on the public agenda. I wonder how many members of the public make it a point to read the PEC agenda every week that it comes out. I just don’t think it’s fair. And one of the good things about referring this is when people come back in September, they’re going to have opinions about this, especially if they’re people that are already weighed in. And for all we’ve heard from people on one street about why they don’t want this, there is a whole slew of people who do, including the very important accessibility community.

[2:42:46] And their concerns have to be taken into account. We can’t characterize this as a special interest. Staff, maybe you can help me with this. What percentage of people in London have some special needs or some or some disability broadly construed? Well, I hope you gave them heads up on that question because that’s a statistics data, Canada question, I’m not sure they’re on the line up the top of their head, but I can see if the staff member knows that. No, that might not be something that they have in their fingertips right now, Councillor. Mr. May, there’s… Through the chair, sorry, I don’t have that information currently. Go ahead, Councillor. Yet it’s significant enough that we talked about accessibility and dealing with the special needs of people that have disabilities in this strategic plan. We talked about it in several policy discussions that we’ve had at this council. And I think before we take a position that’s contrary to that, we really need to open this up a little bit for a little bit more public feedback. Now, we may do that and come to the same conclusion that you’re about to come to today. And I think I may be getting ahead of myself and speaking on the main motion, which I’ll reserve my comments on. But right now, the referral is going to be very healthy for a full democratic discussion on this. And if we cut off the referral, if we cut off the referral and go ahead and decide this today, I do believe that we will be undermining the public confidence in the processes that we go through. And by the way, this process went on for years. And there were many, many, many contacts. 30 seconds. So in closing, and I’ll get back to some of the equity considerations when I make my point on the main motion, I think a referral here is absolutely essential. And we will be cutting short the public’s ability to understand and participate in what we’re doing if we don’t do that. So please vote yes on the referral. Thank you very much.

[2:44:59] Councillor Ferrell. Thank you, Mayor. So with the referral, like, is this kicking the can down the road? It is. However, I see two options before me. I see an option where we’re going to take no action and everything’s going to stop. Or I see kicking the can down the road and to be consistent with that analogy, at least it gives us that road. Because as far as I see it, I would like to ensure that this space is accessible to everybody in London. And that’s been the main point that has been sticking with me. So, you know, that would be the reason why I would support a referral.

[2:45:42] That would be the reason it’s not ideal for me. I would like to see the PEC recommendation not be supported. And I would like to see the work that’s already been going on for years, follow through and to see what we would like to see in the park, make it accessible. I will be supporting the referral because of that. Now, Councillor Trusso brought up a point that is sticking with me as well. And it is specifically, we did make some amendments that were approved. And that does tell me that we are going to get a report back. So that should be in alignment with this referral. So, it does make sense with that aspect as well. And I would just, from that amendment that we supported, that amendment from what I understand is only specifically for those properties from 1634 to 1786 out of wandering. So, a referral in addition to the amendments that are specifically with those properties does make sense in that situation. So, just to pose a question to staff on this one, if we didn’t support a referral, but we did get a report back for the amendments that this council supported, would that, would we have a delay there because we’re waiting for that report? Like, those amendments coming back would kind of de facto act as a referral.

[2:47:12] So, am I seeing this correctly? Go ahead, Mr. Manish. Through your worship, I would just ask for clarification from the clerk, whether this is a referral of the entire motion that’s on the floor, or if this would just be for the Part A that was originally there? So, I can clarify that and I can ask the clerk. So, there’s an as amended motion, which is being referred. So, it’s the as amended motion council by a majority changed the motion. Now, this is being referred for the reasons that are noted in the referral. The council obviously has not made a final decision on the main motion. It’s amended it. So, but you’ll have, you’ll be, the thing to be that we refer to you includes the amendment. So, through your worship, this is a, of course, is a broader referral of all of the items. If you’re referring to those sub parts as well, it would be, it would be less clear for us as having very specific language of what you want us to come back with.

[2:48:40] That’s what our always, our suggestion is, is just be very specific and I think that what was initially included in that section B and C was very specific. If this referral moves forward, then we very much would just be focusing on the attributes that are within this referral, which is looking at those design alternatives. Thank you for that. So, this could turn out to be a referral for those amendments that we just brought forward. So, that, you know, I didn’t vote for those amendments, but it does seem like that is leading the road to a referral. Maybe some other options in the language for this referral to broaden it a little bit might be worthy. However, with all that said, support of the referral does support the amendment that we saw here at Council.

[2:49:37] So, I guess I’m going to have to think about that just a little bit more, but I’ll leave my remarks there. Not the speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Preble. Thank you. So, as I few minutes ago, as I said, I didn’t support the B and C and the reason why I didn’t do it, and I’m very glad that there’s no timeline for the staff to come back, because I really think that before we make before the staff comes back to specifically address this area, we really have to look at a big picture in whole London. Again, we are here to protect the corporation and we got to make sure that everything is aligned. So, I’m glad there are no dates, and we have to look at the back city.

[2:50:17] Having said that, I was at this area as well, and when I went through it, there are two areas in the north part about 100 yards each. It’s so narrow and so steep that I really don’t, I believe that we have many more or additional areas in London. There will be much more suitable for such initiatives, and we do have certain initiatives there on the east side. This will be proposed on the west side. So, bottom line is, I will not be supporting this referral. I will not because I really don’t think this is suitable, and I can’t imagine that those 200 yards path that’s there, what could be coming back. I think it’s actually dangerous. It’s very steep, and therefore, I will not be supporting this referral, but please, going back to the first one, I hope when staff comes back with it, they’ll be honest, they’ll look at a big picture citywide, not just making the encroachment, just for this area. Thank you. Other speakers to the referral, and I’ll just ask people that try to keep it tight to the referral. There’s a couple of strays a little bit along the way, but okay. So, the referral is moved and seconded, so I’m holding that for voting.

[2:51:37] Your worship, can I sum up? No, there’s no sum up. You could speak once a council, whether you make a motion or not, and you spoke at the start. So, okay, okay. So, we’re open this for voting. Posing the vote, motion fails, 4 to 11. Okay, so now we’re back to the as amended motion. So, we’ll open the speakers list on that. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrer.

[2:52:22] Thanks, Mayor. I’ll start it off. I’ll be short. So, I’m not going to be supporting the motion as amended, because for me, I think this is one of the most clearest examples of the zero sum game that we find ourselves in a lot. Are we going to make this park accessible to everybody in London, or are we going to make this park accessible to some in London? I think we had a really good letter from the past chairs of the advisory committees, the community advisory committees. Several chairs have written that letter. It was very informing, for sure, and from what I understand that this work has been going on for a while. There’s been a lot of community input and feedback received throughout the years, and the main point that that letter that it had that really stuck out to me was, are we going to be debating people’s human rights? Are we going to be debating charter rights? And for me, that is a big no-go for me. I’d like to open as much as the city up as I can to everybody in the city, and for that, I’m not going to be supporting the motion as it is.

[2:53:29] We’ve spoke to all the amendments and everything else, and I guess raised my concerns with that, but as it stands right now, I’m not going to be in support. And I would hope that we could get at least the simple majority to not support this as well. Point of order? Go ahead, Councillor Troso. - My inquiry, my point of order is we had a motion before to go into closed session with respect to some of the substantive matters in the final motion, and I don’t believe we’ve done that, and there are some questions pending. And if the solicitor is happy to entertain Councillor Frank’s other issues here on the floor, we don’t need to go into closed session, but there was the question about AODA compliance. - So, Councillor, that’s not a point of order. If a Councillor wants to go into closed session, they can put themselves on the speaker’s list, and then they can ask to go into closed session, or they don’t need another member of council to just report. - We did that before. - And we decided to split the closed session?

[2:54:28] Yes, and I said the Councillor could make a motion to go back in closed session if they had questions at that time, but that would be a new motion to go in. We don’t split it. We went in for a very specific purpose. We can go in, again, if people would like to ask more questions of the solicitor, but that would be another motion to go into camera. The motion was specific to that. So the Councillor Frank would like to do that. If she doesn’t want to, she doesn’t have to. Any other member of the council would like to do that, they can, but it’s not really a point of order. I’m just saying to answer the question, people can get on the speaker’s list, and they can do that. - I’ll wait until I’m on the speaker’s list, then, unless somebody else wants to make that motion. - You know what? You can do that. You don’t have to suggest someone else do. People on the speaker’s list, they can make their own decisions, okay? This has been a long debate. People can keep it tight. So we go back into camera if people want, no problem. We’re allowed to do that, but we don’t need to jump up and try to help other people out. Every Councillor knows how to do this work, and they can ask to go in camera if they feel they need to. I have Councillor Hopkins next. - Yes, your worship. I won’t be supporting the motion, and I’m just reflecting on the many, many years of the conservation plan engagement process, and I do respect the process. I know we can make changes in a long way. I don’t think this is the way to do it. I don’t think any of this really understand the consequences here to making these changes and the implications that will result from that. I worry about that. I was hoping so much here to hear reasons why a referral wouldn’t even be supported. To me, as much as I would like my colleagues to agree with me, it’s about trying to understand the other side and the reasons why we are doing this, and I have not been convinced that this is the right way to do it, so I won’t be supporting it. - Oh, those speakers, that’s what shows up. - Well, I’m not going to be supporting this motion. I don’t think that’s coming as a surprise to anybody. I think this is a very bad way to be making policy based on a delegation.

[2:57:05] I’m very disappointed that the referral was not allowed. I do want to ask questions about AODA compliance. So before I use up any more of my time, may I ask the solicitor, is there a risk here that if the city passes the motion that’s on the floor, which includes taking out the level three chair trail, are there potential AODA liabilities and issues that the city might be facing? - I’ll go to the solicitor to see if you can answer any of that in public session. - Thank you, and through you, the AODA does require certain standards under its regulation. If we want to discuss specific legal risks, then we would have to go in a closed session. - Councilor Trossa. - Since I’m standing and have the floor, then I think my next sentence needs to be, I therefore move that we go into closed session for the purposes of discussing AODA compliance issues, including potential liability that the city might be facing if we pass the current motion. - Yeah, so with your indulgence council, we’re going to use similar wording to what we used last time, just to be consistent with the way that we should be wording things to go into camera. So you can move that up just for colleagues. The wording will be pretty much identical to the wording last time it was on a specific amendment. The wording is good for now the main moment, and I’ll look for a seconder to go. Councilor Frank. Okay, any discussion about going into camera? Okay, we’ll open the vote then. - Closing the vote motion carries 12 to 3.

[2:59:39] Okay, we’ll be moving to Committee Room 5 again, colleagues, and for the public, we’ll be back after we conclude our in-camera discussion. We’re back in session, everybody can be seated. Okay, we left off before we went into council, our closed session with Councilor Trossa, having the floor using up one minute and four seconds, speaking on the as amended motion in your comments, Councilor.

[3:34:20] My grave concern about the as amended motion does include the potential for serious liability, in my opinion, and I can only give my opinion here. But I’ve heard nothing today to dissuade me from that, and I think the courts, disability rights lawyers, have gotten very creative in recent years, and while I don’t purport to be an expert in disability law, I have read enough case law, especially recent law. - Point of order from Councilor ramen, go ahead. Can you turn off your mic, Councilor Trossa? - Thank you and through you. I have some concerns that we’re weighing into some issues that are opinion, legal opinion of a counselor, not of our legal representatives from the city. I just want to be clear that we are here to debate legality right now. My point is that the counselor should stay on the item that we are here to discuss. - Yes, so I will say counselors are allowed to share their opinions, and as long as they’re following the proper decorum of the rules of procedure. There are many counselors who will suggest that they have opinions on matters, whether they be legal or policy related, but I will make clear from the chair that no counselor does speak for the legal position of the city. No counselor speaks for the solicitor’s opinion, and the only caution I would make any counselor, and I’ll do that broadly, is not to be suggestive or imply any position that the solicitor has given in any sort of way.

[3:36:34] And obviously, we wouldn’t talk about any sort of in-camera positions or discussions that we’ve had as per the by-law, so I’ll let the counselor proceed with that general caution for all, but the counselor can express his own opinions, but he should not be projecting those as any sort of opinions of the corporation or its solicitor or anything else. - Thank you, and I most certainly to assure the mayor that I would never do that. I’m speaking for myself, I’m speaking for my, I think, very well-informed opinion, and that’s all I’m speaking for here. Now, let me turn from the legal questions to the procedural questions. I think it’s already been well-stated that we’ve been through consultations on this for years over a decade through successive councils involving many, many different stakeholders, involving many different groups, including the neighbors here. That’s not a subject to dispute, and the representations that were made by the representative of the out-of-wondering neighbors is in the 2021 Dylan Report. It’s been there for years. No one has tried to say, “This is wrong, we should fix it.” And if you think there’s something that’s been represented in the Dylan Report that’s wrong, it should have been stated a long time ago, particularly at the public participation meeting that the PEC held, which several of you were at, that adopted the Phase 2 Report. Let me now turn to some ethical issues, and that’s about ableism. And we’ve heard quite a bit about this. And again, this is my opinion. I had the opportunity of listening to the Matt Brown podcast and some of the other representations that were made by Mr. Menard. Conversations I’ve had over the years with other experts in the disability community, this is a serious issue. This is a serious issue. We cannot write out the needs somebody sent me a note saying it’s one seventh of the population.

[3:39:00] I don’t know if that’s right or not, but it’s significant. We have to take the needs of the disability community seriously. And to the idea of pitting neighborhood interests or park interests or environmentalists against accessibility interests is something we should avoid. These are all valuable goods that could be harmonized, that should be harmonized. And I do point to the strategic plan from time to time, because I think the strategic plan was a good example, way back in time at the beginning of this council term, of a document that had very, very strong aspirations. Now, how much time do I have last, Mayor? 35 seconds. In closing. In closing, then. I think we would be making a grave mistake procedurally from a policy perspective. In my opinion, legally, in my opinion, ethically, if we proceed with this motion as amended. I think we missed an opportunity to not get the more the more fulsome information that I think we would benefit from at this point by voting down by voting down your time is up. Okay. So please vote no on this.

[3:40:30] And thank you very much for your time. Other speakers to the as amended motion. Okay, Councillor ramen and Deputy Mayor Ruse. Thank you and through you. So I’ll just provide some concluding remarks. So first, I want to thank all those that have reached out to communicate their thoughts on the motion, and specifically the removal of the trail section of Atwandren Road Park. I hear the concerns of those that have formerly served as accessibility chairs in our community.

[3:41:15] I understand the perspective that they’re sharing, and I appreciate the concerns that they’ve raised. I want to mention a few things. So again, you know, this trail, the system is in the area close to where I live, not this section, but the north part of the Medway trail. And I’ve read the CMP extensively. I’ve read the feedback that’s provided in the CMP. I read the feedback that was minited from committees. And specifically the language around either a level two or a level three trail as being part of the discussion in the Atawandren area. And there was representation.

[3:42:02] You’re absolutely right from one person from the Atawandren neighborhood. And I don’t know if everybody remembers where they were in 2021. But I was not doing a lot of community engagement. I was not involved with other than school board engagement, but I was not involved with a lot of these types of large engagement sessions because of the way that they were happening at the time. In this case, most of these meetings were online. And so when I look at the engagement that happened during that period, and this one actually the last one, July 27, 2021 that’s recorded from that discussion on the south side, I see the commentary. And you can see that there was maybe not a fulsome understanding of potential impacts at the time related to how that trail system would go in in that section. But I want to be very clear that this is actually not the entirety of that span of the access point from Fanshawe Park Road. This is actually almost the midway point to where the pinch point is in the backyards of these neighborhoods, where the slope starts to fall off and the erosion is quite, in my opinion, evident. Which means that there is still opportunity for us and it’s why it says undertake a review to go back to the plan and to look at the portion of the segment of this that still spills out from Fanshawe Park Road, goes into Adawandran and comes back onto the street through paved pathway that’s already in place. So there is that section that has that possibility. This is just for the portion in between 1630 or 1730 and 1634. What is the park?

[3:44:13] And why that’s important to note is the contemplation, the CMP, was actually the extent from Fanshawe all the way to the Museum of Archaeology. So this is actually not the entirety of that portion. My hope is that our staff come back with their review that this portion of the park is left as open space so that the neighborhood, the community can enjoy it. It continues to be activated for things like outdoor movies, which we’ve done in the past, the way the Museum activates that I’ve been to many activations where the Museum has used it, and that the community has a chance to enjoy this open space and that this motion actually helps to settle out this issue for that community. And that’s my hope today. I understand the perspectives of the Ward Councilor.

[3:45:03] I again have had extensive conversation with the neighborhood and have been in the area considerable amount of times and feel that this is the best way forward. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Councillor Rumman put that very eloquently chair and I’m going to try and not repeat everything that she said there. I am absolutely going to support this motion. I supported the main motion or the original main motion at planning and I supported the amendments today. I’m going to continue to do that. I’m going to come back to a couple of points I’ve made and I want to be clear because there’s been some some inter-use of the language parks and ESA and right now what we have is land that’s part of an ESA trail system. It’s not actually a park at the moment. The city of London, you know, prior iteration chose to close the park. So for me there’s a difference and we’ve heard the neighbors say they actually want their park back and Part C allows for that to be a consideration and Part C also allows for there potentially be, as Councillor Rumman mentioned, accessible pathways in that stable, firm, small area of a park that the community may enjoy.

[3:46:25] When I was out there, I talked to the community about is there anything that they’d be interested in seeing to activate that space? They said they’re like a passive but some benches, stuff like that would be, you know, okay, a place for people to sit and read, that kind of thing. But we haven’t actually rezoned it as park. So we can’t talk about it as park. What we have to look at right now is the component of a trail system in part of the Medway Valley, a small part, and if we go north of Fanshawe Park Road, I want to confirm through you chair, two staff, not entirely, but north of Fanshawe Park Road, the trail system through that section is in fact accessible meets accessibility standards with the exception. I know there’s one section that’s that’s not accessible, but there are accessible trails north of Fanshawe Park Road, am I correct?

[3:47:22] Go ahead. Through the chair, yes, the majority of that section is accessible. So just like everything else, Chair, no one gets to have everything in their neighborhood that’s communicated to them. I’m lucky enough to be across the road from a community centre. That’s great. It’s convenient for me, but there are a number of people who drive, in fact, I’ve had Councillor Rumman’s residence drive to my community centre to play pickleball. That’s a significant drive for them, but they come because they want to enjoy that space there, and it may be necessary for folks with accessibility challenges to go to the north section and utilize the trails there, but there are not zero options, and we are not actually required to put in trails anywhere. That’s a decision for us. We heard earlier from our deputy city manager that there’s not a whole lot of options given the pinch points there from an engineering perspective. Anyone who’s actually physically walked it can see with their own eyes that the challenges would be significant when we talk about slope and erosion mitigation. We’re talking about altering and having an impact on ESAs to put that sort of slope erosion in. I doubt very much that that would meet a low impact on the ESA. That hasn’t been looked at yet, but we heard a pack that there’d have to be feasibility studies done, and we know we’ve seen the reports that come through our various committees that consultants come with a cost. So I’m not prepared to spend more money on feasibility studies when I’ve gone out in the ground myself and seen that, listen, there’s no problem an engineer can’t solve given enough time and enough money, but we have neither unlimited time nor unlimited budgets of the city. We do have limits to these things, and so for me, from my perspective, even if we did the feasibility study, we’re still not going to approve the budget for what will be a very expensive piece of work to do all the slope mitigation, assuming we could even get the permissions from Albertamps and get through the ecological second review that would need to happen once we start talking about retaining walls and those sorts of things. And so for me, this is the time to say no, we’re not doing this trail section. Section C does allow for the consideration of a potential park redesignation in abortion, and at that point, we may want to consider trails there, but that’s where we are today. So I encourage people to support this recommendation. This is not as presented by some individuals as an assault on accessibility.

[3:50:03] I am sorry to the accessibility advisory committee past chairs, in fact, that it has taken that long to get to this point, because to my view, you were kind of led down a path that we were never going to get to, and I’m sorry for those who, and I know Ms. Madden is in the gallery, who put in so much time without that information, but I think today we have to make your decision, so I’m going to finish there. Thank you. Other speakers? Okay. What we have is the as amended motion before us, and we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote? Motion carries. 10 to 5. Chair, I’m going to have you do one more item, and then I’m going to interrupt after that. So go ahead. Okay. This will be a quick one, hopefully.

[3:51:31] This is regarding 1204 Richmond Street. Staff just have a minor bookkeeping adjustment to the recommendation from back. Okay. So you’re going to put the main on the floor, and you’re going to put the staff administrative suggestions. Well, I’ll put that amendment on the floor. I need a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Hillier, we can have that up on the screen, and then I’ll look for any discussion colleagues might have. Okay. Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Councillor Van Mereberg, and vote yes.

[3:52:30] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. 15 to 0. So, Madam, did you want to break for? Nope. I want you to do as amended motion now. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. I’ll put the as amended motion. And I’ll look for a seconder for as amended. Councillor Hillier, any discussion on the as amended motion? All right. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. 15 to 0. Okay. Now I’m just going to say colleagues, I’m kind of in your hands. It’s still going to be a while, given the length of time that we still have left, which is a number of pulled items, I’m planning all the bylaws. I did order food for $5.30. It would be maybe a little bit tight to take a break down and then break again then. So if we’re okay to keep going, we can keep going until then. If you want to take a break now, I can entertain a motion, but I’m kind of in your hands, but I want to ensure that people have something to eat today because I think we could be going a while. And before we break $5.30, we’ll do a motion to go past six. So are we good to continue on? Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate you getting us some food at $5.30.

[3:53:55] I do want to see if I can move or I will move a 10-minute process. Okay. So we’ll deal with that by an actual vote. And I want to just we’ll do it by hand, but keep your hands up because I’m not sure everybody will be here. Is there a seconder for a 10-minute break now? Councillor Frank. Okay. 10-minute break. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion fails. Okay. We’re going to power through then. Okay. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. I’ll put item number 14 regarding 514 to 520 South Street on the floor. Okay. This is on the floor. This is the South Street item. I look for any speakers on this. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. I made my remarks on this one, but yes. In eScribe, item 14 from the Planning Committee is shown as being dealt with in consent. Yes. That’s just posting error. It was actually pulled. It’s hard to undo that when the little dot is there. So we’re okay. Just wanted to check. I’m okay with that.

[3:55:15] It’s just in eScribe, it was showing as dispensed with. So yeah, I wanted to make sure that we had that. We wrecked. Yeah. We we noted that at the I didn’t note it out loud, but we fixed it at the time of that. And for now, we’re just it’s just hard to pull the dot off on the screen. So go ahead. I did we had some colleagues saying that over here as well. Just keep it short. I’m not supporting this. I did say my comments. I did reach out to the proponent. I did get some answers back of why they didn’t communicate with staff. Regardless of what the reasons were, you know, we have our process and I’ll just keep it at that. But I won’t be supporting this. And I hope that we pull bill 333 or I believe. Yeah, 333 as well. It won’t be supporting that. Okay, that’s no problem. We’ll make sure that happens. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead. Council chose that very briefly for the reasons that I talked about at the meeting where I was not a voting member. So I want to repeat a little bit. I will not be supporting this. And I think I’ll just let my comments stand.

[3:56:22] Okay. Anybody else on this one? Okay. Then we’re going to open this one for voting. And Councilor Frank is absent. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to 2. Hi, Chair. Thank you. I’d like to move on to number 19. This is regarding 1196, Sunnydale, Northwest. Okay. This one is on the floor. I look for speakers. Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you. And through you and to my colleagues, this is going to be a bit unusual. But I’m going to ask that we defeat the committee recommendation and the reasons I want to share related to that. So at committee, we had a great discussion about making these school lands available to the school board for a three-year period of time to be able to access those before any other additional development goes on on the site because as I heard from my residents, 175 plus letters, they preferred the option of 1196, Sunnydale, Road West being used for a CF to zone, which could be for things like a secondary school.

[3:58:03] In our package today, we have two letters. One is from Bill Tucker and the other is a tersely worded letter from Vrudy Law Professional Corporation. And it outlines that they are very close to an agreement between the two parties around potential use for this property and that, of course, is all tied up with whether or not the province grants a secondary school in the area. So with the director’s confidence in the process, I think it best that we not put in the motion that we had supported at PEC to allow the three years so that they can continue their negotiation so that they continue to move forward on what we said through way of this motion is the priority, which is to support 1196, Sunnydale, Road West as a school site. So I’m asking you to defeat the motion so that we can put the original recommendation or I can move the original recommendation forward.

[3:59:17] Thank you. Just give me one sec. Just so colleagues are aware of what I’m doing. We had original bylaws at committee, so if we defeat this and we bring back the original committee motion, I’m just making sure that we have those available to be able to ask tonight, if we don’t, then we might. I can ask our staff, does the removal of the, I need to ask our staff if the piece that needs to be removed, which is the three-year piece, was it embedded in the bylaw or not? In other words, did the bylaw change between committee and here? So I’m determining whether or not I can deal with this today or whether or not I have to refer it back to committee.

[4:01:01] Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so removing that language from the resolution won’t make any won’t require any alterations to the bylaw, so you can feel free to move forward. The bylaw is just direction to the approval authority that was part of that motion. So to Councillor Ramen’s point, I’m just trying to do this for efficiency. Do we just need to defeat E then rather than defeat the whole motion because if the bylaws are the same, all the other components are the same. E is the request of the subdivision approval authority to consider the reserve for three years clause. I just need to confirm that if that part comes out that it’s kind of back to the essentially the original committee motion. Through the chair, yes, if you remove that E portion, you’ll have the result that was being requested. So rather than, I know Councillor Ramen just spoke to defeating the motion, but I just, so you know, I can call it E separate, and if E gets defeated, then there would be no three-year piece to this, and that’s probably people support what Councillor Ramen said. That would be the easiest path forward from a chair’s perspective that wouldn’t change our bylaws. So I think what Councillor Ramen meant to say with all that is defeat E, and I’ll call it E separate in if you want to support what she said.

[4:02:31] Do you want Councillor Ramen just because of the, I had to do this, I’m going to let you, I’m not letting you speak twice. I’m going to let you just confirm that that’s what you want to do because, and I appreciate colleagues, I’m just trying to do this for meeting efficiency. So go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you. Yes, so that was my intention was to remove that part 4, part E, that three-year, although I know my community really wants to see this as a school and wanted to give it as much time as possible. I feel as though Thames Valley and our letter from the lawyers are saying that they’re heading in that direction, and I’ll take Director Tucker as word on that.

[4:03:11] Thank you. So again, Mr. Mathers, we’re going to call it E first. If E gets defeated, the rest of the clause is then approved. There’s nothing else you need to the rest of the clause is to proceed or no changes to the by-laws. Is that correct? Just if you can just use the mic for me. Through you, Your Worship, yes, that is correct. And I’m willing, as Chair, to let E be called separately, and I’ll have E called first when we deal with this, but I want speakers just to the issue generally. Does anybody else want to speak? Go ahead, Deputy Mary Lewis. I’m going to be very fast. I had an excellent conversation with Director Tucker on Friday. He expressed some of the concerns that are outlined in his letter while I know the Councillor’s intent was good in speaking for her neighborhood when we’re at risk of putting the funding from the Ministry in jeopardy by putting a specific time frame on things. I think it’s wise that we don’t do that in addition to the legal concerns raised by the applicant’s lawyer. So excellent conversation with Mr. Tucker. I too take him at his word. I have no reasons to doubt that he’s providing any information that’s not accurate to me, and I would encourage colleagues to defeat E. Any other speakers to this motion?

[4:04:28] Okay. Seeing none, we’re going to call E first. So we’ll put clause E on the floor. I’m going to use the chair is going to be putting that on the floor. And okay, so we’re good with E. There’s no more speakers. We’re going to we’re going to open the vote on E. It’s okay. I’m going to vote verbally, and my vote is no. King Councillor Troso is absent closing the vote. Motion fails 0-14.

[4:05:22] Okay, so E’s defeated. Chair, you’re with the rest of the clauses on the floor. Yeah, so I’ll move the rest of the clauses. Okay, the rest of the clauses are on the floor as they were at committee. Any discussion on that? Oh, no, we already had discussion. I’m just dividing it, so we’re just going to open the vote. Councillor Ramen votes yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Councillor Layman. Thank you. We’ll put item 20 on the floor. This is regarding citywide zoning bylaw amendment to stack townhouse definition. Okay, that’s on the floor. Do we have any speakers to this item?

[4:06:16] Yes, I think Councillor Troso actually wanted it pulled. He’s not here, so maybe we’ll just we’ll proceed with the vote then. We’ll open the vote on this. Voting on the stack townhouse definition that you wanted pulled. You can vote. We can record your vote.

[4:06:57] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13-2. Chair Layman. Thank you. Final item 22 regarding agricultural land offset policy. Okay, that’s on the floor. We’ll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I appreciate the motion to receive a PEC to go see the opportunity to have a quick discussion on this, although I don’t know how far it will get. I am speaking in favor of the further policy. So just a point of order, would we need to defeat they just receive in order to be able to pull the actions that were included in the original letter for myself?

[4:07:37] Worship, if I may assist. No, I’m good. So I’m going to allow her to amend the motion to add her pieces back in because there was no take no action noted. I just wanted to confirm the actual and look at the language myself. So just receiving is fine. Councillor Frank, you could amend to add, I think it was three clauses in that you had and I would look for a second. I would like you to read those out because they’re not actually before us on the agenda for the committee or for the public.

[4:08:56] Gladly. So then the motion would be to direct civic administration to prepare a report examining the feasibility of developing an agricultural offset policy, including best practices from other jurisdictions, potential approaches and tools for offsetting agricultural land losses on both public and private lands, and alignment of such policy within London’s existing environmental and planning frameworks. Is there a seconder for that? Okay, Councillor Hopkins will second. Okay, so we can have a discussion on this amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you. And I’ll just speak to the amendment itself. So as we know, London is a growing municipality and we face this undeniable challenge of the loss of prime agricultural land. It’s happening across South Western Ontario, it’s happening in local communities across Canada. And as I’ve said many times, only 5% of Canada’s total land base is considered prime farmland. And less than 1% is class one, which is the very best soil we have for growing food, which London is essentially surrounded by. And much of that land is here. And once it’s gone, we can’t get it back. Once it’s paved over, we can’t remediate it and then use that soil that soils is toast. And we’re losing 319 acres a day of farmland Ontario, which is essentially nine family farms. Agriculture is a 51 billion dollars a year industry in Ontario, and agriculture is the largest employer in Ontario with one in nine jobs being agricultural based.

[4:10:22] And I know there are many farmer folk on council who probably have heard this speech at home many times. And it’s clear that agricultural land is a big economic driver in our community. And the reason why I’m bringing this now is recent decisions that we’ve seen as we’re moving 50 acres of farmland for emergency services and bringing more land to the Oregon growth boundary, which is going to be a loss in farmland, highlight the urgency for us to develop a path forward that balances growth, but also with farmland stewardship. And I’m hopeful that we can develop some sort of policy that recognizes this, not only to address our local food security issues in the long term, and I know many folks probably think this is a provincial issue, and parts of it are, but I think in the long run, we eventually need to be thinking about our own food security within London.

[4:11:07] But it also is here to sustain our local economy. We know agribusiness is huge in London, and it’s one of, you need land to be able to have agribusiness. So this policy would help us look into that. Other approaches, Montreal, for example, in the Ontario Farmland Trust, they have tools like conservation easements and agricultural zoning that can preserve the farmland for future generations of farmers. And I feel like we need an opportunity to be able to look at that given the high growth we have. It’s not about stopping growth, it’s about managing it responsibly and recognizing the need to feed future generations. And so I’m hopeful to have some support on this policy, because I think we need to be really focused at, you know, in the coming decades, where are we going to be able to grow our own food? And that’s why I brought forward.

[4:11:48] Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, happy to support or second this motion. Councillor Frank, thank you for the numbers. You’re so good at providing and educating us here. I represent Ward 9. It is half rural, half urban. We do have prime agricultural land and the importance of land in our community, agricultural land in our community is very strong. So really happy to support this. Councillor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you. To the mayor my first time talking today.

[4:12:28] Saving, saving the good stuff. No, I just want to thank Councillor Frank for bringing this forward. I will be supporting this. And one of the things I also just want to highlight, we sit on the Middlesex London Food Policy Council. This is something that definitely comes up a lot, not just with Londoners, but with our county colleagues as well. There’s a lot of concern in Middlesex in terms of losing prime agricultural land. I think we have to look at every tool, we have in our toolbox in terms of preserving what we have within the city boundaries as well. I think there’s a lot of alignment in terms of not only what Middlesex, but looking at Oxford, Elgin, we have a lot of areas that feed the city. But we also have to look in as well and the areas that we can preserve for future generations to ensure as Councillor Frank indicated that we have food security in front of mind as well. Thank you. Deputy Chair Lewis, thank you. We deliberately made sure at PEC that we didn’t receive and take no action so that Councillor Frank could amend it today so that we could have a discussion with everyone rather than having that discussion at PEC. I will say I will not be supporting this. I know that won’t come as a surprise to Councillor Frank. We’ve chatted about the fact for me, our land within the city, first of all, is the best place for development. When the county is expressing its concern about loss of farmland, it’s largely because of ex-urban growth because we haven’t allowed the growth to happen with inside the city limits. But beyond that, well, I don’t dispute any of the numbers. I will also say that from a food security perspective to quote Minister Flack, who’s now our Minister of Municipal Affairs, but was previously Minister of Agriculture, we export $43 million of agricultural product outside of the country every year from Ontario. So from a food security perspective, we are over producing for ourselves. And that’s a good thing. That’s a positive for business. It allows for that to continue to attract the agar food business. But when we start getting into agricultural zoning, which we already have, but if we start talking about permanent agricultural zoning, no zoning is permanent. I’m not interested in a study that’s going to come back and say whether or not that’s feasible. Zoning always has to be open to change in the future. That’s why we have a planning committee because we have zoning bylaw amendments come forward on various pieces all the time. When we start getting into land trust discussions, I know Councillor Frank’s not asking for a budget commitment or anything like that in this motion. But ultimately, that’s where land trusts go because you have to have money to buy land to then put into the trust. So at a time when, you know, we’re trying to manage our budgets at a time when we’re trying to manage our growth within the city, look at our urban growth boundary, look at our residential and industrial needs, all of that stuff, which we need to actually really have staff focused on a lot right now so that we can get those matters decided before the end of the year. When we look at some of the other things that are on the planning committee’s deferred matters list that we’re asking staff to undertake, I don’t see this as something that’s going to be even feasible for them to probably and through you, Chair, I’ll ask staff, but I’m not sure that they would even start it during this term of council. I think we’ve got a lot of work on their plate right now.

[4:15:55] And so certainly I’d welcome staff’s comment as to, you know, where they where they are in some of their timeline developments. So I’ll stop there so you can check with staff. Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, we do have, of course, a busy work plan, but we would take the direction of council as far as how you’d want to prioritize this item. Go ahead. Well, that’s a very diplomatic answer from a very busy department. And again, when we start shifting priorities and moving things up, then other things that we’ve already said are priority get moved down. So I don’t want to add to that workload right now. This may be a discussion that gets revisited sometime down the road. I just don’t think now is the time to have it. I’m certainly not prepared to put budgetary considerations into a budget right now to acquire land to preserve for agricultural land at this point. Like I said, I appreciate the discussion. I’m just not going to support it because I don’t think this is where our time and energy should be right now. Other speakers to this. This is on the amendment then. Councilor Frank’s amendment, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, just voting on the amendment now, which would add the three pieces. So we’ll open that for voting.

[4:17:14] Opposed in the vote. Motion fails seven to eight. So now we still need to vote on the motion to receive, which was what came out of committee. So Councilor Lehman has it on the floor, will open. Oh, sorry. Is there other speakers to that? Okay. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. That concludes the 13th report of the planning and environment committee. Okay. We’ll move on to the 10th report of the strategic policies, excuse me, strategic priorities and policy committee.

[4:18:23] Deputy Mayor Lewis, if you could present that report, please. Thank you, worship. It’s always easier to say SPPC. The 10th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee, I’m happy to put all four items on the floor unless any members want anything dealt with separately. I know indication that that was the case. It was a short agenda. The hydro presentation, a referral to GWG and the appointment of an Elden House member. Okay. Would anybody like anything dealt with separately? Or can we deal with the entire? Okay. We’ll put it all together.

[4:18:58] You’re moving that entire slate. Okay. That’s all in the flooring discussion. Seeing none, we’ll open that report for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. And that concludes the fastest report of this council agenda. You know, you say that now, but SPPC sometimes is pretty much the longest one. So it’s the average of the counts.

[4:19:40] All right. We’re on to the next report, which is the 13th report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Raman to present that report. Thank you. I’ll look to put items 1 through 8, excluding 7 on the floor. Okay. Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? 7 will be called separately, but is there any other item colleagues want pulled out? No. Okay. Then you’re going to put everything but 7 on the floor. Perfect. Any discussion on everything but 7? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you really quickly. Thank you to staff and Ms. Sharers Department in particular for the work that they put into getting us some information on the winter maintenance update. I know that people wanted to see the numbers so that they could share those with constituents. I think the numbers speak for themselves in terms of why we use the standards we use. So thanks to you and your team for the work. Any other speakers on the slate of items that are on the floor, everything but 7? Nope. Seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting.

[4:20:38] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Thank you. I’ll look to put item 7 on the floor. Item 7 is on the floor. Any discussion on item 7? Seeing none, we’re going to open item 7 for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Thank you. That concludes my report. And you would have been fast in Deputy Mayor Lewis, but he talked during your report. So I slowed you down there just so we could win. Okay, that’s great. We’ve concluded the reports, added reports.

[4:21:36] Councillor Layman, I’ll have you just read the Council on closed session report, including and just add including the item that we went into camera with that we wasn’t on the agenda. Okay, I’d like to report out on the porting report of Council closed session that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 is noted on the public agenda, 6.1-1/12/CPSC6/13/pack and 6.1/13/ICSC. And the item that we went through on item 2, I don’t know the, I don’t want to park and I don’t apologize about the item number. Okay, that’s on the floor by Councillor Layman who gets to continue to stand because he’s presenting that report. Any discussion on any of those? Just really just progress. So I don’t want to anticipate any will open that for voting. Okay, progress is just a note. We don’t even have to vote on that one. So thanks, Councillor Layman. You’re right to sit down.

[4:23:08] Well, thank you for getting me to stand more. Yeah, you’re welcome. You, hey, you’re the chair planning. Something you should get used to. Okay, that’s perfect. Any deferred matters? None, inquiries? I don’t see any. I’m urging motions that were none. We’re on to bylaws. Give me a second. I’ll tell you how the bylaws are organized. Okay, I’m just going to, we haven’t got all these loaded in, but this is the plan. I just need to know if everybody’s good with it because I don’t want to make a bunch of changes later. We’ll deal with the bylaws in this way. We’ll deal with 3-14 separately.

[4:24:20] That’s the child care related one for Councillor Van Mierberg and that’ll be first. 3-33, which is the South Street one, Councillor Ferrera. You think you wanted that one separately in your comments. 3-39 was just a stacked houndhouses. One that Councillor Troso wanted separate. And then right now we have all the other ones together. So if someone wants something else separate, now would be the time. No, we’re good. I see everybody good with everything else together. Okay, all right. Just give me a second. We’ll load those up and then we can go through and we’ll go through all of those. And is there someone good with everything on the agenda? Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Ploza. So we’ll use Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Ploza for everything that we’ve got for us and we’ll proceed through the votes as soon as they’re loaded. I’ll let you know when the first one’s up. Okay, thanks for your patience. All of those votes have been loaded in all three readings. So we’re going to start with Bill 3-14, the child care one, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ploza. And we’ll open first reading for voting.

[4:27:51] And carries 14 to 0. And now same move or same seconder. Second reading, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. And carries 14 to 0 with one recusal. And third reading of the same one, same move or seconder. It’s open for voting no. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to 0 with one recusal. Great. And now we’ll move on to Bill 3-33, which is 514 to 527th Street. Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ploza. We’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 13 to 2. And second reading, same move or seconder, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2. And third and final reading of this bill, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2.

[4:30:05] Next, we will deal with Bill 3-39, which is the definition for stacked townhouses. We will use the same move or seconder for the first reading and we’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 13 to 2. Same move or seconder for second reading, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. And carries 13 to 2. And third reading, same mover and seconder, and we’ll open third reading for voting. And carries 13 to 2. And now all the remaining items grouped together, same mover and seconder, we’ll open first reading of all the remaining bills for voting. It carries 15 to 0. Second reading of those same set of bills, look for any speakers on second reading. Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. It carries 15 to 0. And third and final reading of this set of bills, same mover and seconder, we’ll open third reading for voting.

[4:32:06] Closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0. And that gets us to the end of the meeting. So I just need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Vamereberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll do that by hand. Okay, we’re doing it by hand. All those in favor of a German. My motion carries. Okay, thank you. We’re adjourned.