Open Council

The 15th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 15th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

October 1, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.2 to 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Ontario Building Faster Fund Update

2025-10-01 (2.2) Staff Report - Ontario Building Faster Fund

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated October 1, 2025, with respect to the Ontario Building Faster Fund Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Traffic Calming Policy Standards for New Subdivisions

2025-10-01 (2.3) Staff Report - Policy Standards for New Subdivisions

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the staff report dated October 1, 2025, with respect to traffic calming policy standards for new subdivisions BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   Heritage Designation of the Property at 1511 Clarke Road

2025-10-01 (2.1) SZtaff Report - 1511 Clarke Road - Heritage

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the staff report dated October 1, 2025, related to Heritage Designation of the Property at 1511 Clarke Road, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the property at 1511 Clarke Road, the following actions be taken:

a)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “D”; and,

b)    should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1511 Clarke Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the heritage designating by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Motion Failed (1 to 4)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2025-09-18 - CACP Report

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report (CACP), from the meeting held on September 18th, 2025:

a)    if the Civic Administration deems it to be helpful, the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE REQUESTED to be part of consultations with property owners;

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 a) b) c), 5.1 to 5.3, and 6.1, BE RECEIVED; 

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prioritize the Priority Listed Properties identified in the Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP);

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J.M. Mettrailler, Chair, CACP, with respect to this matter, was received.

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report (CACP), from the meeting held on September 18th, 2025:

a)    if the Civic Administration deems it to be helpful, the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE REQUESTED to be part of consultations with property owners;

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 a) b) c), 5.1 to 5.3, and 6.1, BE RECEIVED.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prioritize the Priority Listed Properties identified in the Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP).

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Demolition Request for 533 Clarence Street, West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District

2025-10-01 (3.1) Staff Report - 533 Clarence Street

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to demolish the existing building on the heritage designated property at 533 Clarence Street, within the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, the following actions be taken:

a)    prior to the demolition, the three cornerstones currently located on the building as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “C”, BE SALVAGED by the owner to be retained and incorporated into future interpretive or commemorative measures on the property;

b)    all demolition activities BE LIMITED to above-ground works, allowing for the demolition of the building to grade (Phase 1), as proposed within the Demolition Plan Report, appended to the above-noted staff report, as Appendix “D”;

c)    ground disturbance BE PROHIBITED;

d)    vehicular parking on the retained at-grade concrete slab BE PROHIBITED;

e)    following the demolition, fencing compatible with the heritage character of the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District BE INSTALLED around the perimeter of the at-grade concrete slab to prevent vehicular access; and,

f)    following the demolition of the building to grade and prior to any ground disturbing activities on the property, archaeological assessment(s) BE COMPLETED to responsibly manage the risk of potential discovery of human remains;

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

-    H. Garrett, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   590 Gainsborough Road - Z-25093

2025-10-01 (3.2) Staff Report - 590 Gainsborough Road OZ-25093

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Heikal Group Inc. – Mostafa Heikal (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 590 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to add a Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, to permit an eight (8) storey mixed-use building and to add the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

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 October 14, 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-noted part a)), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM Holding Residential R9/Neighbourhood Facility (h-101h-139R9-3*H20/NF1) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H32)/NF1) Zone; and, 

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

i)    provide direct pedestrian connections from individual units along Gainsborough Road to the public sidewalk;

ii)    provide all-season landscape planting along the west and south property boundaries to ensure adequate screening; and, 

iii)    orientate the principle building entrance towards Gainsborough Road or the corner of Gainsborough Road and Limberlost Road; 

iv)    consider locating any above-ground or building-mounted mechanical equipment away from the public street frontages;

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

vi)    provide a centrally located and adequately sized common outdoor amenity space;

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

-    J. McGuffin, Moneith Brown Planning Consultant; 

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), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   3317 White Oak Road - OZ-25088

2025-10-01 (3.3) Staff Report - 3317 White Oak Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 3317 White Oak Rd Inc. c/o KLM Planning Partners Inc. relating to the property located at 3317 White Oak Road:

a)    the request to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM the Light Industrial Place Type TO the Neighbourhoods Place Type, and by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

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

ii)    the requested amendment does not conform to Policy 86_ of The London Plan that directs the most intense forms of development to the Downtown, Transit Villages and along the Rapid Transit Corridors in which the proposed development better aligns;

iii)    the request is not in keeping with the recommendations of the Council endorsed Land Needs Assessment whereby the property was not recommended for conversion; and, 

iv)    the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of development that is sensitive to existing uses and does not represent a good fit to the surrounding area;

b)    the request to AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM Industrial designation TO High Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment does not facilitate compatibility between land uses, and is not integrated and compatible with adjacent development as required in the North Talbot and North Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood; and, 

ii)    the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan;

c)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Holding Light Industrial (h-9h-162h-186h-187LI6/LI7/LI10) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs sensitive land uses to be planned and developed to avoid, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse impacts from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize the risk to public healthy and safety;

ii)    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which prioritizes Strategic Growth Areas to be the focus of growth and development;

iii)    the requested amendment is not inconformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, Industrial Place Type policies, and the Evaluation Criteria for All Planning and Development Applications; and, 

iv)    the requested amendment is not appropriate within the existing and planned context;

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

-    R. Mino-Leahan, KLM Planning Partners Inc.; 

-    D. Freeman, SLR Consulting Limited;

-    D. Nobel, Cloverdale Paint; 

-    M. Everard, Augusta National Inc.; and,  

-    M. Moussa; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1511 Clarke Road - 39T-24505

2025-10-01 (3.4) Staff Report - 1511 Clarke Road - OZ-25075 - Revised

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 1511 Clarke Road (Caverhill West):

a)    The proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to:

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

ii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 10, 11 and 12 and the remnant lands owned by the Applicant on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit an apartment building to a maximum height of 30 metres or 8 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and, 

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 5 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit triplexes, fourplexes, stacked townhomes, apartments, emergency care establishments, rooming houses, senior citizen apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings and small-scale community facilities. Apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings shall be permitted to a maximum height of 40 meters or 10 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas.

b)    The proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO Holding Residential Special Provision R1, R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial Special Provision BDC (h-8R1-16/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7(_)/BDC) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial BDC Special Provision (h-8R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 (h-8*R7()/R8-7()/R9-7()), Residential Special Provision R5, R6, R7, R8 and Neighbourhood Facility (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7(_)/NF), Residential Special Provision R5, R6 and R8 (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()R8-4()), Residential Special Provision R1, R3 and R4 (R1-1/R3-1/R4-6()), and Open Space (OS1) Zone

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Moneith Brown Planning Consultant; and,

-    P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Ltd.;

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

(to be provided for the Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025) 

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1887 Kilally Road - Official Plan Amendment (City Initiated)

2025-10-01 (3.5) Staff Report - 1887 Kilally Rd - O-25083

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to 1887 Kilally Road Official Plan Amendments to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas and Map 3 – Street Classifications:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by AMENDING Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas to add a Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type to a portion of 1887 Kilally Road to prohibit any new development from occurring until further ecological studies are completed and an ecological compensation area is created;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with surrounding landowners regarding alternative options for Neighbourhood Connectors south of Kilally Road and east of Sandford Street, as shown on Map 3 – Street Classification of The London Plan;

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

-    D. Blackwell-Brown;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with The London Plan’s intent in accommodating for future residential development while protecting the integrity of natural heritage features; and, 

  •    aligns with The London Plan’s values of collaboration by working with interested parties to achieve our planning goals;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Final Industrial Land Needs Assessment, Urban Growth Boundary Review Update, and Process Updates

2025-10-01 (3.6) Staff Report - UGB Cover Report

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

a)    the Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE ADOPTED for use as part of Section 26 Review of The London Plan;

b)    the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) and revised Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

d)    the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D”, BE RECEIVED;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the development industry regarding a revised Natural Heritage System buffer methodology, consistent with Council-adopted Environmental Management Guidelines (2025);

g)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and, 

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the final Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Urban Growth Boundary Review report a summary table of the net developable land area for landowner submissions received in relation to item 3.7 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda of October 1, 2025;

it being noted that following additional consultations, the Urban Growth Boundary Review and the Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines will be presented to a future meeting of Council and forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will continue to work with interested Indigenous communities to explore opportunities for Additions to Reserve for potential new urban reserve lands, which may accommodate Indigenous economic development opportunities or community growth;

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

  •    a communication dated September 22, 2025, from S. Levin;

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

-    J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

-    P. Hinde, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

-    J. Meocha; 

-    P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Ltd.; 

-    P. Makowski, Strik Balinelli Moniz Ltd.; 

-    M. Moussa;

-    H. Zaswa; 

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; 

-    J. Peter; and, 

-    L. Blumer; 

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

a)    the Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE ADOPTED for use as part of Section 26 Review of The London Plan;

b)    the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) and revised Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

d)    the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D”, BE RECEIVED;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the development industry regarding a revised Natural Heritage System buffer methodology, consistent with Council-adopted Environmental Management Guidelines (2025); and,

g)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that following additional consultations, the Urban Growth Boundary Review and the Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines will be presented to a future meeting of Council and forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will continue to work with interested Indigenous communities to explore opportunities for Additions to Reserve for potential new urban reserve lands, which may accommodate Indigenous economic development opportunities or community growth;

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

  •    a communication dated September 22, 2025, from S. Levin;

 

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.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the final Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Urban Growth Boundary Review report a summary table of the net developable land area for landowner submissions received in relation to item 3.7 of the PEC agenda of October 1, 2025.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

6.1   Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

    

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 3:56 PM to 4:01 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:05 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 13 minutes)

[14:33] Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 102, I’ll call the 15th meeting and planning and environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. City of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lina Peiwak, and Adirondara. We honor and respect the history, languages, and the culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

[15:14] The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact packpec@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, let’s move on to the consent items. I’ve had a request to pull 2.1. So we will deal with that at the end of our meeting and deferred matters.

[15:55] So I would like to put 2.2 and 2.3 to committee and looking for a motion. Councillor Cudi moves them, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis as a seconder, so questions or comments. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[16:39] So moving on to 3.1, this is a report from the Community Advisory Committee. I’ll look for a motion to receive that. Councillor Cudi, that our Councillor Hillyer has second comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillor. Okay, sorry, I apologize Mr. Mattalia. I didn’t realize that there was a delegation request.

[17:12] So I’m informed by a clerk, we do not have to have a vote on that, so if you would like to address committee, please go ahead, you know, five minutes, thank you. Good afternoon members of PEC, thank you for hearing from me again. So I wanted to draw your attention to the most substantive piece of our report from our last meeting, which is the report of the priority listed properties working group. That report is appended to the main report and was approved by CACB at the last meeting.

[17:49] So the context there you’ll recall about a year ago, I think I came to you with a CACB work plan intending to address this issue of the provincial legislative changes, which are going to result in about 2000, more than 2000 listed properties on London’s heritage register being removed if they’re not designated. And so we came to you about a year ago with the work plan, not intended to do a line-by-line review of every one of those over 2000 properties, but rather to go out to the community, do some outreach to religious, ethnic, heritage advocacy groups, and try to narrow down a little bit the priority properties that were real practical importance to those communities.

[18:46] And so we did that outreach to about 70, over 70, neighbor associations and other groups. As a result of that outreach, we got a much narrower list of about 100 properties. And from that, we struck a working group in the summer, comprised of CACB members and other community members to look at that list of 100 and narrow it further. And so you’ll see in the report, the narrowed properties are contained therein.

[19:23] What we tried to do was respect the community groups that took the time to give us some feedback and say these are our priority properties for preservation. We also tried to identify underrepresented heritage in London, and so as you all know, we’ve got a lot of designated Victorian residential kinda houses in our heritage districts, but we felt underrepresented with things like industrial history, some of the ethnic religious history, some of the more recent architectural styles, like you’ll see some mid-century modern in there.

[20:06] And so those are the properties in that report are the ones we kind of identified as the highest priority through the work plan. I do wanna be clear, we’re not asking you to designate those properties today, obviously, but we’ve completed, the work group has completed its job and there would be some action required from you on the next steps. And again, we’re just an advisory committee, we can’t direct staff to do anything, but the next step, the recommendation in our view is to loop in city staff formally, to start doing some consultations with the property owners.

[20:50] You’ll see in the report that we thought property owner consultation was kind of paramount. And also to get city staff’s views on whether the criteria needed for designation are in fact satisfied. We did do preliminary research and in our view, it’s reasonably likely, at least every one of these would satisfy the criteria, but could use a professional second set of eyes on it. And then with that information, should you choose to proceed in that way, you could come back, see it all, and decide whether you actually want to go ahead and designate those properties.

[21:30] And so that’s our advice. I know there are 13 kind of main properties identified in there. There’s an additional two, what we call honorable mentions. And there are three properties that are not currently listed. And so those could be actually listed without a full designation and protected without a full designation for at least two years. And so there’s actually 18 properties identified in the report. I know our target was 10, so I’ll leave it to you, whether you want to stick with the however many, the 13 or the full 18, but that is our advice, that’s our report.

[22:14] And we want to thank PAC and Council for the opportunity to work on this. Thank you. Okay, thank you, great work. When we were first charged you with that task on the provincial government and dealing with 2,000 properties in that space of time. Like quite frankly, didn’t know how you’re going to do it, but well done. I just want to, before I go to committee, I just want to go to staff. Is that your understanding that the advisory committee would narrow it down to these properties and then we would go to you for further direction or for obviously to the committee and Council for a direction?

[22:58] Or were we looking to go to the advisory committee to go further than that? So I just want some feeling from staff on what your understanding of this task was. Thank you and through the chair. It’s our understanding that we would be looking for direction from Council to identify those properties that you feel should be evaluated further. So our understanding of the work plan was that the CACP was going to be looking through and identifying resources that were valued by the community.

[23:32] And then hopefully staff would be receiving some direction like Jean-Marc had mentioned in order to further the evaluation to determine whether those resources meet at least two of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906 to merit designation. So from a staff perspective, we’d really appreciate some clear directions on which properties you’d like us to pursue. And I was really thankful to see the very clear recommendations from the CACP about engaging with property owners because we do really feel that’s instrumental to successful heritage designations.

[24:07] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ganyu. And one further question. The chair of the advisory committee mentioned more work being given to the advisory committee or is this the work now that’s taken on by city staff? I thank you and through the chair. I think the CACP’s done a great job with a lot of the preliminary research. So there’s a reasonable degree of confidence that these are important cultural heritage resources. But I do feel that a staff evaluation would give decision makers that confidence from a professional perspective if the criteria have been met.

[24:43] And that’s something that heritage staff would be able to take on if direction was provided. Okay, thank you. So I’m gonna go to committee for hopefully a motion so we can get this next step going here. I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Thank you, chair, and through you, I’m happy to put the clauses that are in our report on the floor. However, hearing Mr. Ganyu’s answers, I do wanna ask if there’s an additional clause needed that would be that civic administration be directed to prioritize the properties identified by the community advisory committee for heritage review.

[25:23] So is a direction to actually prioritize these properties, something that’s helpful to staff. I’ll go to staff for that. Thank you, and through the chair, if the committee and council would like to provide that level of specification, I’d be happy to receive it as staff. That was my understanding of the CACP’s list that those would be the properties to focus on. Okay, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, chair. So I’m gonna echo your thanks to the committee ‘cause they shared their information with me in advance of the report.

[25:59] I think that they’ve identified some very worthy properties to do a little bit deeper digging on for heritage consideration. So I’m prepared to move what’s in the report, and then I will add a clause C that says, and that civic administration be directed to prioritize the properties identified in the community advisory committee report. Okay, I’m gonna get the clerk to get that up on these scribe to make sure we’ve got the motion clear for ourselves and public and staff. So if the clerk could let me know when that’s available.

[26:37] And just while the clerk is doing that, I’m just gonna continue with a couple of comments. Please go. I really appreciate the work that the advisory committee has done engaging with the specific property owners and the communities that may have some connection to some of these properties. I know that there’s a couple of properties that are related to faith community histories and engaging with the members of those faith communities. I think was an important step in this process, moving it forward. So this is to me exactly the kind of approach that I wanna see from our community advisory committees come to us with a suggestion for a work plan, get the approval, go do the work, come back to us and say these are the results.

[27:16] Now can you ask us, can you direct staff to implement our recommendations and we’re gonna implement those I think today if this motion passes. So this is how the process should work and kudos to every member of the advisory committee, especially those on the working group who did the engagement piece. I know it’s a lot of work. Community engagement is always a lot of work. Sometimes it’s hard to get people to engage but then once you get them engaging, you find out a lot more information that you wouldn’t have otherwise. So just wanna offer my thanks. And especially because I recognize our staff have a heavy workload.

[27:52] There’s only so much that they can do as well. So when you’re able to supplement that work with this level of detail, it’s appreciated. Thank you. So the clerk has the language up. My question to staff is the language in the motion refers to properties identified in the report. Is that sufficient or do you want all the properties explicitly included in the motion? To the chair, the wording is acceptable.

[28:25] Thank you. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to the mover to see if that’s got the thumbs up and seconder, Councilor Cuddy. So we’re gonna treat this as amendment ‘cause we had a motion already moved and seconded. So we’re just on the amendment to the main motion now, which is identifying the properties that the advisory group looked at from 2000 plus properties on the list. And whittled down to 13 that needs asking for a special consideration to be heritage designated.

[29:08] So I’ll go to committee on that amendment. So from the chair, I’m comfortable supporting that motion or that amendment rather, and then I’ll speak to the main motion again when we get around to it. So I’ll look one more time for any comments or questions on that. Seeing none, I’ll open the vote on the amendment. Hey chair, I just wanted to— I’m sorry, Councilor. No worries, no worries.

[29:39] I’ll be quick. Councilor Ferra, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Through you, I would support this amendment at Council. One of these properties is actually one of the fake based ones is where my parents were married and I have good familiarity with some other ones from renting there myself. So I do see the value here and I’d be supportive of the prioritization of those properties at Council. Thank you. I think that might be one of the heritage criteria if your parents were married there. So you might get an extra point.

[30:13] Thanks for, sorry, I didn’t see you on the screen. Thanks for speaking up. Okay, any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay, call the— Will the thing about the motion carries five to zero? So I assume the motion as amended is good with the original movers. I see nods, okay, so comments or questions on the original motion as amended. Seeing none, we’ll just, I’ll just echo from the Chair, fantastic work.

[30:54] Once again, I think we’ve got a very wholesome list here that allows staff to drill down with the anticipation of success. I guess, you know, I don’t want staff, you know, staff has a lot on their plate. So I’m very happy to thank the committee for the advisory committee for doing a lot of the legwork to get staff a full school report on good potentials for that designation. That’s, yeah, one of the big chores of our advisory committees.

[31:30] You get the A+ on this one. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it from the Chair. And hold on, I’m getting part. Councillor ramen, nice for you to join us. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. I know you can even call for the law you want. Sorry. Thank you and through you, Chair. I just had a question about 1875 Richmond Street. My question, so at an earlier meeting, we looked at 1927 Richmond Street. It was delisted from the registry and part of the concern at the time was expressed by the school board because the property was slated for a school build.

[32:13] This property next door has been severed so that this property at 1875 Richmond is severed from the other lands that were also included in that parcel now for the high school. But my concern is, does this do anything to the timeline or impact the secondary school build that is right next door and interconnected? Thank you. I’ll go to staff on that question. Thank you and through the Chair, the property at 1875 Richmond Street is listed presently on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources.

[32:54] So as an adjacent heritage listed property, a heritage impact assessment will be required as part of a complete application for that future potential secondary school site. However, if the property is designated, a heritage impact assessment is still required as an adjacent property. Benefit from heritage designation in this case would be there would be greater clarity on the heritage attributes if that resource is designated to understand where there might be mitigation measures through that planning process for the heritage designated property. Councillor.

[33:29] Thank you. And so from a timeline perspective, I guess I just want to understand as you know, the community is quite motivated to see this project come to fruition and have a high school open in a very overcrowded area by 2029. Will this be moved up? Will it, is there a plan for how these will be worked through? I’m just trying to get a sense of how that, what that might look like in terms of timeline. Mr. Guanyu. Thank you and through the Chair. I don’t know if I can give you a sense of prioritization of a prioritized list, but we are very motivated to move forward on direction if staff receive it.

[34:08] However, I would like to reiterate that it is an adjacent property. So I don’t anticipate there to be substantial timeline implications as a heritage impact assessment would be required, whether it is listed or designated as an adjacent property to that potential secondary school site. Councillor. Thank you. So if I’m hearing you clearly, there’s no issue with beginning construction next to a heritage potentially designated property and any mitigation factors that need to be taken into consideration the report needed to be waited for in order for that to happen.

[34:44] Mr. Guanyu. Thank you and through the Chair. I think that’s a fair statement. We see a construction right next to many heritage listed and designated properties all day in London. So I feel that we can handle that. Councillor. Wonderful. Thanks for the information. Thank you. And just a reminder, we’re not at this time designate any properties or just we’ll be getting a report back. Any other comments or questions on the main motion as amended? We’ll call that phone. So saying the motion carries five to zero.

[35:34] Okay, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding a demolition request for 533 Clarence Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. As we’ve done in the past, we’ve decided to say mover and seconder for all opening and closing. So I’ll look for members of the committee would like to do that. Councillor Cudi moves Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds and that will be consistent through all opening and closing of the PPMs today. So I’ll call that motion right now to open up the public participation.

[36:20] Wasn’t the vote the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll look for the applicant of the applicant would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name’s Heather Garrett. I’m with the link preamel limited and I am the agent for diocese of London. I just want to first to thank Heritage staff. This was not a simple demolition request. There were a lot of puzzle pieces to this that we’re still trying to figure out.

[36:56] However, they were very understanding and they’re very helpful to get us here today. We’ve reviewed their staff report and we agree with their recommendation. So we are here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Look for other members of the public would like to address committee. This item, I don’t see anyone coming to the mic. I’ll ask a clerk, there’s anyone online. No one online, I don’t see anyone to speak. We have a motion to close the PPM and second it. So I’ll call that vote.

[37:41] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you all, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Councillor Ploza. Thank you, I’ll move staff’s recommendation. Thank you, I’ve got a mover. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi. So I have a motion moved and seconded. Comments or questions? Councillor Ferrell. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for recognizing me as an on voting member of the committee. I’ve been working with the diocese and the proponent on this one for a little bit.

[38:17] I am in support of the recommendation from staff. I did wanna just kind of clarify some things though. So I do know that the demolition is gonna go down to the slab itself and there’s gonna be an archeology assessment that is supposed to be conducted. I wanted to know, my concern I guess would be with potential parking on the slab. So I just wanted to know if we can either ask staff or the proponent about securing that site after the demolition to slab to ensure that there’s no parking. I’m gonna go staff for comment on that question.

[38:53] Thank you very much. And through the chair, one of the terms and conditions of the staff recommendation, well, one of them is to prohibit parking and then the second is to ensure that there’s fencing that’s installed around the slab and the property until that archeological assessment in the second phase of the demolition has taken place. So the intent with that is that the fencing will be able to prevent vehicular access to the slab and then therefore prevent any parking on that site elsewhere. Thank you chair, appreciate that answer. A follow up for the archeological assessment itself.

[39:30] Are staff able to give any timing on that with respect to the demolition? Like how long would we be waiting? How long will it take? And if there are different, I guess phases of the assessment as well, ‘cause I have been speaking to some community members and the likeliness of burials there may be high. So I just wanted to know the process and the timing. Okay, I’m gonna go to the applicant if they can help us out with that question, please.

[40:08] Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Chair. We have been in talks with Tim and Smartel. They are an archeologist that are also very knowledgeable about burials in London. So they based on their advice, they are going to get involved once the building comes down to grade. So we are just right now working out timing. So as soon as we can get that building down, they’re gonna start their stage one. At this point, we don’t know what’s gonna come back from that assessment. So once we find out what comes out of that assessment, then we can go to next steps.

[40:43] So unfortunately, there’s some uncertainty there, but again, we have probably the best consultant involved for burials in London. Councillor. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the proponent for that answer. I appreciate that. Okay, I will obviously be keeping an eye on this one. My, I just wanna make sure that we do have an archeological assessment that captures everything and we do it at a process and at a pace just to make sure that we keep the dignity of individuals who are buried there.

[41:18] I do appreciate the work and I appreciate the correspondence I’ve had with you, the proponent leading up to this. So I’m gonna be in support of this at council. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. The next item is 3.3 and this is regarding 590 Gainesboro Road and we have a motion to open up the PPM moved and seconded so I will open that vote.

[42:19] Councillor Palosa. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll look for the applicant, if the applicant would like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Jim McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants here on behalf of the proponent, Heiko Group. We’ve had an opportunity to review the staff report. I’d like to thank staff for working with us through that report. This is a development proposal for redevelopment of an underutilized church property.

[42:55] It’s currently being used for daycare services. The proposal is for an eight-story residential high-rise mixed use with ground floor daycare facilities and underground parking. Excited to see this proceed and happy to support the recommendations as revised to include a 32-meter height which gives sufficient design flexibility on the ground floor to accommodate the requested commercial floor height. Thank you. Look for other speakers to the committee on this item.

[43:32] So clerk, if there’s anyone online, no one is online. I don’t see anyone going to the microphone. So I’ll look to open the vote on closing the public participation meeting. Do you just want to vote?

[44:16] Okay. Sorry, it doesn’t seem to be coming up for everyone. So if I could get a vote from Lehman Lewis-Cuddy. Lewis-Cuddy votes yes. Cuddy votes yes. Lehman votes yes. Oh, there it is. I refresh my screen and it came up, so good to know. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 33s. Once again, move too fast.

[45:07] Yeah, that’s how we vote on the motion. (laughs) I’m a lot. Council Palosa. Help you along, Mr. Chair, and put the staff recommendation on the floor. Thank you. Thank you. I got a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay. We have motion moved in second, so I’ll open it for conversation amongst committee members and visiting Councillors. Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you, Chair.

[45:39] I just wanted to take a moment to speak about 5.90 gains to grow and lend my voice in support of this development. I had a chance to meet with the applicant, tour their daycare facilities that they offer in surrounding communities, but not here in London. And I can tell you that it would be wonderful if you were able to see another daycare open in this area. Currently, Orchard Park Nursery School operates in this space, but it’s a very limited operation with a very small number of children.

[46:17] The daycare operator who is also the owner of the building is very motivated to begin working with our community to have daycare facilities on site. So not only is this a potential for a residential build here, but it’s also the potential for childcare. It would be great if that was affordable childcare ‘cause that’s what we definitely need in our community, but that’s a whole other issue at the provincial and the federal level. But private daycare is still daycare and something that is needed. So my hope is that we can see this application through.

[46:52] I know, as I mentioned, they’re very motivated to start with shovels in the ground potentially in 2026. And in the interim, they’ve been meeting with local groups in the community that provide youth programming to offer their space to be able to provide programming until the time at which they open or begin construction. So lots of positives here for the neighborhood and the community. I appreciate the concerns shared by residents, shared by the church as well about overflow parking that they’ve been using at this space.

[47:24] I hope that the developer will continue to work with the church and the local community to address some of those concerns as this project moves forward. Thank you, Councillor. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion. Moving to the second, I’ll call the vote. Moving the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, sometimes because we have this new format where we have automatic movers and seconders for each PPM and closing, I might get ahead of myself.

[48:07] So I apologize for that. But I will open the vote to open the next participation meeting on 3.4 with regarding 33-17 White Oak Road. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll go to the applicant, please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Ryan Meinolihan. I’m a land use planner and partner with KLM Planning Partners.

[48:42] I’m here today on behalf of the owners of 33-17 White Oak Road. With me, I have the owners. My client is with me today. I’m also joined by Diane Freeman, our air quality expert from SLR Consulting to present some technical findings and help answer any questions as well. Online, we have Ian Franklin from my office, KLM Planning, and we have Kenny Melanin from SLR to deal with any noise related questions as well. So today, we’re here to talk about an application to amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law for the subject property.

[49:17] The purpose of the application is to redevelop a vacant parcel of West London to permit two apartment buildings, being 14 and 16 stories in height, approximately 192 stacked townhouses for a total of 899 residential units on the property with ground floor retail space, approximately 877 square meters on the ground floor. So we have had an opportunity now to review the staff report. And our request today is that we respectfully ask Planning Committee today and council to reject the staff recommendation of refusal.

[49:52] The reason we’re asking for this is we think it’s an appropriate application in the context of the London Plan and the surrounding land use planning context. I’m going to provide very high level comments on that for you today. The application, the subject lands at least, are situated along Civic Boulevard and a regional thoroughfare. And they are located within the City of London Plan primary transit area. These are the areas that are supposed to accommodate intensification within the City of London. Our application supports intensification on the subject property by providing much needed alternative forms of housing in the community where predominantly it’s supported by single semi and townhouse units.

[50:34] With respect to the surrounding context, we have existing residential in the community to the north and west. We’ve got open spaces immediately adjacent to the property. And we have light industrial uses to the south and east. This location is a strategic gateway at the site of the extension of Bradley Avenue. And it supports the redevelopment of a site to support residential intensification in this broader community and in light of the proximity to highway 401 and 402. The project is supported to a well-position to support active transportation by reintroducing new bike paths, sidewalks, and it connects directly to the BRT corridor along Wellington Avenue.

[51:17] In my professional opinion, the applications should be approved as they support a broad range of housing within the City of London and additional supply to address the housing supply issues that we’re facing throughout London and the broader area. It supports the efficient use of existing services, including wastewater, sanitary, storm, and water supply as well as roads. It supports the notion of a transit-oriented growth within a primary transit area exactly what the City of London plan is looking to do. And most importantly, it has been demonstrated through the supporting studies that is compatible with surrounding land uses.

[51:56] In reviewing the staff report, you will note a predominant issue that exists throughout the staff report in terms of staff’s review of the application. The issue that emerges is in relation to land use compatibility. This is as the result of the introduction of residential uses adjacent to existing light industrial uses. Through the analysis completed by SLR, which you’ll hear from in a moment, the reports have concluded that this is not to be a concern. So at this point, I’d like to turn over the latter half of the presentation to Diane Freeman to speak to the land use compatibility and air quality components of this proposal.

[52:32] OK. You’re under— you can use up four minutes of your five-minute time. However, as it’s a different speaker, I will give you some leeway, but please keep it tight. We’re trying to thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chair and members of committee. As Ryan mentioned, my name is Diane Freeman, and I’m the technical director for ambient air monitoring and a principal in air quality at SLR consulting. In addition to my 30 years of work as an air quality engineer, I’ve also served like yourselves for almost 20 years as a member of council with the city of Waterloo.

[53:10] I undertook an air quality assessment of both existing and potential future employment uses on the lands located within one kilometer of 33, 17 White Oak Road. I have reviewed the staff report and letter from surrounding industries and was surprised by the comments provided as they related to the air quality assessment I completed. In particular, as they relate to one industry known locally as Calcotings, I’ve been working in the area of land use compatibility since the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks first developed the land use compatibility guidelines known as the D series guidelines in 1995.

[53:50] Guideline D6 specifically addresses issues of land use compatibility between industry and sensitive land uses. Section 4.10 of the guideline allows for development within the recommended minimum separation distance in cases of redevelopment in filling and transition to mixed use provided that an appropriate study is conducted and the relevant air quality and noise guidelines are met. The study I completed was an appropriate study and it demonstrated that the relevant air quality standards as it relates to surrounding industries including Calcotings are met.

[54:33] It is my professional opinion that Calcotings does not meet the D6 definition of a heavy industry. A better example of heavy industries in London would be 3M General Dynamics Land Systems and Safina Foods. Nevertheless, my assessment of Calcotings does consider the facility as both a medium and a heavy industry. To refine my assessment of Calcotings, I made many attempts to contact the industry and the company hand delivered letters to the industry to say that we’d like to communicate with them to improve our findings.

[55:14] None of our calls or requests for information were responded to. The predominant winds in London as you know are from the West and Calcotings is located predominantly downwind of the proposed development and there are existing residential uses located in the downwind position of Calcotings a very similar distance away from the proposed development. To support the future expansion of Calcotings and to alleviate staff concerns related to compatibility, the landowner is committed to implementing control measures to notify future homeowners of the surrounding industries and to design the building air handling systems to direct intakes away from Calcotings include central air conditioning and filter the building air emissions to remove any potential odors.

[56:03] We also undertook a freedom of information request with the Ministry of Environment and contacted the local district office and there’s been no history of odor complaints or any air quality issues from the facility. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers from the public that would like to address the committee. Seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk, ‘cause there’s someone online. Mr. Narm Noble, please go ahead, you have five minutes.

[56:40] Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I joined today by Mike Everard as well and I’ll just make brief comments because I’d like Mike Everard to have a chance to speak as well. I’m Darren Noble, I’m the president of Cloverdale Paint. I grew up in London in White Hills and I grew up in Dorchester and we operate Calcotings on White Oaks Road, an industrial paint manufacturing and distillation company that’s been there since 1967. We’re a family owned business. We have 1,100 employees across Canada.

[57:13] We’ve got 30 in that plant on White Oaks Road in London and we have paint stores on Wonderland Road and Sovereign Road and paint stores across Canada. Calcotings is a strategic business for us and we have plans to double its operations over the next 10 years, which will likely include doubling employment shifts. In regards to the proposal, it really concerns us greatly that almost 900 residential units would be built directly across the street from our manufacturing plant, just 30 meters away from a manufacturing plant, a plant where provincial guidelines say residential construction should not be built any closer than 300 meters away.

[57:57] We’re a good neighbor. We care about the environment. We work within guidelines, but we are an industrial paint and distillation company and along with the body shop and the bus line nearby, we’re going to make a little bit of noise and we emit odors as proven by SLR’s own experience and reported in their report of the two times and the two visits they noticed odors on one of those. That’s 50% of the time. Air handling and buildings and central air conditioning does not stop residents from opening up balcony doors and opening up windows.

[58:31] There’s no doubt that the proposed development will increase odor complaints and that I’m concerned will be a constraint on our growth and expansion. For that very reason, back in 2007, Kel Coding’s was awarded restrictive covenants on lands across the street, but further north. This proposed developments exactly across the street. I would ask respectfully that the proposed development lands remain zoned as industrial and that council accept our recommendations of the recommendations of the planning committee.

[59:06] I’m a really big proponent of residential construction. We’re a paint company. We absolutely depend on it. The concern is that this is a case where manufacturing facilities and jobs will be vulnerable to residential expansion. I just don’t think it’s the right place. Mike, can I say over to you? Yeah, please give us your name and like with the previous speakers. I’ll allow you to use up five minutes. Please go ahead.

[59:55] Mike, we can’t hear you very clearly. I see your microphone is off though. Mike, can you increase your volume for us? Yes. Please proceed. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike Everard. Okay, I’m gonna need you to increase your volume. We can barely hear you here in chambers.

[1:00:37] Mike, perhaps just being closer to the microphone will do the job. Okay, my name is Mike Everard, the principal of the urban planning consulting firm Augusta National Inc. I’m retained by Kel Coding’s the division of Cloverdale paint, initially known as 3,300 and 3,280 white oak road located only 30 meters across the street from the subject proposal. Kel Coding facility is a 40,000 square feet building situated on five acres of land employing currently 30 staff in the reclamation of solvents, production of polyester epoxy, alkaline building products and primary applications.

[1:01:25] Kel Coding’s as stated earlier started in 1967 and anticipates expansion on the adjoining lands in the future. Today’s deputation is to express Kel Coding’s objection to the proposed development application, OZ25088 white oak road ink. I trust members of city council have perused our submission dated August 25, which is attached to the agenda. We support and are in complete agreement with the director planning and development recommendation that the development applications by 3317 white oak road ink be refused.

[1:02:10] Our submission outlines the same reasons as the city staff report recommending refusal. So I will not repeat how white oaks road ink does not conform and is not consistent with the city official plan and the PPS. Rather, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly about one issue and that is namely the proponents SLR consulting Canada limited land use mitigation study dated December 4, 24, also attached to the agenda.

[1:02:44] I trust that you’ve read this report but let’s look at the SLR study executive summary page three. III, please note their following conclusions and qualifications regarding the impact on Kel Coding’s. They carefully use the word unlikely, which is definitely not definitive. A range of caveats associated with unlikely includes the corollary or natural consequence of unlikely, which can be replaced Mr. Chairman by the words, may or possibly.

[1:03:21] Accordingly, this SLR summary can also read the following impacts on Kel Coding’s. Kel Coding’s may or possibly result in increased risk of complaint and nuisance claims. Kel Coding’s may or possibly result in operational constraints. Kel Coding’s may or possibly result in restriction to expansion. This caveat provides Kel Coding’s with absolutely no certainty and assurance that their facility can continue and/or expand.

[1:04:00] A rhetorical question that I asked members of PEC, does this SLR study foster protection of Kel Coding’s? Does it enable expansion, encourage investment, preserve and create new jobs, all required by the PPS and the London Official Plan? If you or Kel Coding’s would you reinvest and expand to the adjacent lands, would you even continue operations in light of this SLR summary? In closing, Mr. Chairman, as our economy shutters, statistics Canada reported in August, that economic output dropped in the second quarter of the year with figures recently published, showing unemployment rising 7.1% with 66,000 jobs lost in August.

[1:04:54] Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney and Doug Ford, are calling for certainty, certainty to preserve in an attract industry and investment. What is London doing to help industry survive these trade wars with USA and China? And whether the turmoil of a radically changing global economy is London providing promoting certainty? Not through this SLR report, they aren’t. This is uncertainty. The SLR study speaks of uncertainty.

[1:05:28] How can certainty be realized and protect Kel Coding’s 30 jobs and future expansion? Where’s the certainty? Simple, refuse to develop an application as recommended by staff. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers wishing to address committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Mohammad Musa. I must confess, I did not read this in its entirety. But being here and hearing submissions of a proponent and others, I’ve just got to say, this committee and council has been pushing for more housing.

[1:06:17] Opponent is asking for more housing in an area that already has existing housing. We’ll also say this committee has pushed so hard for housing that they’ve ignored certain council. Sorry, that they’ve ignored certain minimum distances and such. And I would just say that I’d be in support of this. Why? Because through the chair and to the chair, it is so important to the chair of consistency.

[1:06:54] And consistency is, nor staff’s recommendations and push through the density asked for here in residential. Thank you. Thank you. Look for any other speakers, I’d like to address committee. Let’s click if there’s anyone online. There is indicate there’s no one else online. I don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone. So I’ll open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:07:38] OK, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’ll move the staff report and then I’ll speak to it once there’s— OK, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cudi, I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ploza has her hand up. I’m going to yield to Councillor Ploza as it is her ward. So I’ll let her go first. Absolutely. Councillor Ploza, please go ahead. Thank you. Appreciated, procedurally not always in order. And I appreciate that. I do support the staff recommendation. I think this is why we always wait for the staff reports.

[1:08:13] Absolutely, the applicants are correct. There is lovely housing nearby. It’s a residential area. It’s going to be a through-fair, archilo roads. It is, I would say, an up-and-coming area. As South London is rapidly developing. But we have the industrial, as you already heard, Class III in the area. I want to thank Mr. Noble as well. Everyone gave other time to me going into this and just laying out the Ontario Land Planning Act. And they’ve been there since 1967 at that facility.

[1:08:51] So certainly before any of those residential areas that are there now, we’re even thought of. Also aware that some concerns over potential future noise and odor looking at extending their plants. And you’ve heard that they make solvents. The paint they make at that facility is also the special paint that you’d see on metal roofs. So really heavy-duty paint. So for me, that’s partly why I’m supporting it. I want to thank Ms. Malton for meeting with me as well and going through this as we have communications coming in to making sure that we understand it.

[1:09:27] And a appreciative of page 313 on the report as staff were given the concerns surrounding the use, intensity, form, and lack of sanitary capacity playing in development staff or of the opinion that the requested amendment to add a specific policy area is not a public interest and does not represent good planning. We know that this council and staff have really been pushing housing and a mandate. So for me, especially when staff say not this spot, really paying close attention and following that. So we’ll not be supporting it. But want to thank everyone at this table today in the gallery and online for making sure that the conversation was so thoroughly had.

[1:10:05] Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. Well, the word councilor said a lot of that so eloquently that I’m not going to repeat it all. I am going to build on it a little bit though and say yes, absolutely. This council has varied from time to time. We’ve gone from a 30 meter setback on something to a 20 meter setback. We’ve gone from six stories to eight stories on things that is part and part of the development of housing on land that’s zoned for residential. This is an industrial to residential application conversion and it’s not appropriate.

[1:10:43] And there’s a big difference. When I hear somebody say this council has ignored, we haven’t ignored, we have amended sometimes setbacks. But there’s a big difference from a 30 meter buffer to a wood lot and a 20 meter buffer to a wood lot than there is from a 300 meters from an industrial development to a 30 meter setback from an industrial development. And I am, to me, this is a non-starter staff have done their homework. I agree that this is industrial use. This is not an appropriate place to convert to residential and I’m fully supportive of the staff findings on this.

[1:11:23] Thank you. Other comments or questions from councillors on the committee or visiting councillors? I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair please. I will ask the chair to wait one moment while I start my timer and go ahead. Thank you. I’ll be brief ‘cause I agree with what’s been said. Yeah, for sure, housing is a priority of this council, this committee and this council. There’s no question.

[1:11:56] And there have been times when this committee has not agreed with recommendations from staff, but our job I guess is to make the final call. And I know my fellow committee members and myself have read both sides of the argument at hand. And for me, there is no question here. This is an industrial area.

[1:12:28] And I think the comments made above buffers, et cetera, stability for jobs and industry in London. In this particular case, we’ll take priority. I don’t know what future applications will come before us. And I take everything that comes before us with a totally open mic and this one. But I didn’t, once hearing and reading, both reports from both sides, I’m fairly certain that this industrial area needs to continue to be an industrial area.

[1:13:08] And I’m looking forward to, you know, the paint company not only succeeding, but continuing to grow and adding employment here in London. Thanks, Chair, President Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will return the chair to you. I have no other speakers on the list. Thank you. One last call for anyone that wishes to weigh in. Do we have a motion, moved and second? I’ll call the vote. Refresh your screen if you’re having trouble getting it up.

[1:14:08] Any votes, yes? Let’s sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you, moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 15 11 Clark Road. So at this time, I’ll open the vote and opening the public participation meeting. Councillor Palazzo, Councillor Cudi, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:14:59] Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant which is to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chair McGuffin again, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants here on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited. And I’m joined this afternoon by Phil Mashland, Vice President of Land Development for Sifton Properties. My submission will be as quick today on this application as it was earlier. And I would also request if Mr. Mashland could have a moment of time to speak following the conclusion of my comments, if possible.

[1:15:35] Just for context, the proposed application of 15 11 Clark Road, you know, represents a thoughtfully planned mixed density community. It includes single detached homes, town homes, stacked town homes, apartments, and ground floor commercial uses, together with a potential school block, connected internal road network, and a park block that integrates with the Ted Early Sports Complex. It’s also strategically located at the intersection of Clark Road and Calaley Road, adjacent Veterans Memorial Parkway, in an ideal location to accommodate higher density development.

[1:16:08] It’s also important to understand that there is no established low density development in and around this particular property. The residential breakdown is approximately 757 units that could be accommodated with about 383 of those units being in apartment dwellings. Unfortunately, staff is elected to refuse. The applications are submitted, and I have find it difficult to reconcile, given recent approvals from similar intensifications across London, including most recently, Pac Road, as well as other similar historic approvals, such as Richmond Street North, Hyde Park, and on Southdale.

[1:16:48] Unlike some of those sites, the subject property is not adjacent again to any of the low density residential neighborhoods that those other developments that I referenced were. The proposed heights of 10 stories along Clark and eight stories along Calaley are appropriate, and will serve to frame the corridor while transitioning height and intensity into the community. Mr. Mashman’s gonna talk about Siften’s contributions that has been made, but I just would like to make a comment on housing need and urgency.

[1:17:22] London’s facing, as Council is very aware, over 7,000 people are on the support of housing wait list and nearly 2,000 experiencing homelessness, and the city’s target of 47,000 new homes by 2031. This proposal directly supports those goals by delivering a range of housing types and affordability options. We respectfully request that committee support the application to approve the applications as submitted, including the proposed building heights. And if committee is not willing to support as submitted, I are asking that they consider a dual bylaw approach, or it would separate the permission of the height aside from the rest of the development so that the development can proceed without encumbrance while the matters and issues relating to height are addressed.

[1:18:12] I’m gonna turn it over to Phil now for his comments on closing. Okay, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Phil Philip Mashman from Siften properties limited. I just wanted to give some context very, very quickly about how we got here. ‘Cause myself, I’ve had 12 years going back to 2013, 2014, advancing development in this area.

[1:18:48] So clearly in Clark area, and this is sort of advancing development east of Highbury, Siften acquired land in the area since that time. We’ve got multiple applications advanced during that time. One of the key areas in 2014, GMIS was only about four years old at that time, started in 2010. It identified in 2014 that this area would open up in 2024. It was within the 10 year window.

[1:19:22] Myself in particular, Siften advanced, as I said, acquiring lands in the area, advancing servicing solutions. At that time, there was not a dedicated servicing solution. Moving to 2019, there was an environmental assessment for stormwater that was advanced that confirmed the stormwater solution through an EA. The EA was done to support development in the area. So as those, our investment in the area advanced staff, advanced servicing plans, not just stormwater, but sanitary.

[1:20:03] And the biggest issue in this area was sanitary outlet. So we have a storm outlet being the river. Where will the sanitary outlet be? That was the critical decision to open up lands in this area. So Siften advanced an idea to extend gravity sanitary at the Drurylow subdivision towards the west that would extend to Clark and clearly. We worked with staff on that advancement. Going to the last, I’d say three years ago, there was the $74 million CMHC housing accelerator fund and staff and Siften worked together to have this area in Kalei specifically advanced as part of that $74 million fund.

[1:20:49] 20 million of that was geared to advancing residential development. And this is that site, this is that area. So our concern is that to get to this point today, it was initially targeted for 2024. We would like to advance this project subject to draft approval and rezoning in this issue being addressed. We would like to go to grading construction in 2026. Servicing construction late 2026. House construction in 2027.

[1:21:22] In alignment with all of those prior works, the housing seller fund and the investments to open up competition in this area, the council and staff have supported. And we’re somewhat at lost to understand how we have this recommendation today because it does not align with GMIS, does not align with, as I understand, a sanitary sewer award of a contract for external works in later October or November. And staff can confirm the schedule, but they intend on building the infrastructure in 2026. Yet there’s no subdivision to connect to it.

[1:22:01] Again, it doesn’t make sense to us and we support Mr. McGuffin’s submission. Thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers to the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphones, so I’ll call the vote on closing the PPM. I’ll close it.

[1:22:43] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor. I’m going to a councilor cutting. Thank you chair. I’d like to move the alternate motion. I believe clerk has that motion. Okay, I’ll ask the clerk if you could put that in the e-scribe if it’s not already. Okay, it’s in the e-scribe, so I’ll give committee members a chance to read it.

[1:23:56] Okay, a councilor, I’ll look for a second or first, and I’ll go back to you. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, so I’ll go back to you, and if you could kind of maybe just touch on the changes from your original refusal, I guess, and touch it in the points where staff have pushed back against the original one, and you’re reasoning and support of your motion, thank you. So a quick point of order, or first of all, point. Was this pre-circulated, or just I’m trying to be quickly off the e-scribe?

[1:24:33] Councilor, was your motion pre-circulated to members of committee? No, it wasn’t, chair. Okay, can we just thank you, and certainly don’t have to. Just really articulate that, and I’m trying to compare the two as you read, so speak slowly, please. I’m sorry, councilor. Just ask him to speak slowly, that it’s a lot of words. It is a lot of words, yeah. So just really highlighting what was changed and what stayed the same would be really appreciated. Correct, and I’ve asked the council. I appreciate that. Just so they can, a lot of it’s carried, but there are a few major, I think, believe belongs to height, but I’ll let the councilor speak for himself, go ahead.

[1:25:18] Thank you, chair, and to councilor Palose, my apologies for the boardage, I didn’t write this, so I apologize. Chair, thank you, and I’ll be very brief, and first of all, I want to thank staff for the work you’ve done, and Ms. McNeely, you know how much I respect and enjoy working with you, you know, this is in my ward, of course, it’s one that I, it’s an area that I think has tremendous growth and tremendous opportunity, and it’s, as Mr. Rachael had mentioned, and it’s at the corner of Clark and Kalele, great intensification where, you know, we have the ability to build.

[1:26:02] I, and we have a builder in Siften that I don’t need to tell anybody, one of our premier builders in the city for a hundred years, and I think when, I think years ago, when Siften was going to build West Five, a lot of people said, what are they doing? They’re crazy, they could never build out there, you could never build what you want, and they’ve built a masterpiece in West Five, it really is incredible, and I think there’s an opportunity, chair, to duplicate something like West Five, out on the corner of Kalele, and Clark wrote, and I was out there yesterday, it’s really a clean slate, it’s a perfect opportunity to build a community, where there isn’t a community now, there’s really nothing, and it’s an opportunity to build and develop, and I’m looking forward to seeing this go forward.

[1:27:02] Chair, my reason for the increase from six to eight or 10 stories is because I think we need the intensification, it’s available to us there, and, you know, I don’t need to mention again, we are targeting our 47,000 new units, that the mayor has targeted, and I think this is an opportunity for us to continue to build and grow out there. I think we all know that the East End wards, Deputy Mayor’s Ward Two and my Ward Three, and are growing quickly, there’s a lot of opportunity to build out there, and this is just one of those opportunities I think we should take advantage of, thank you.

[1:27:47] Thank you, so just to be clear, maybe just of your motion, that we’re staff that have wanted six stories on both parcels, you’re looking for eight stories on the portion of Lance fronting Kalele, and 10 stories fronting Clark, is that correct? That’s right. Okay, other speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, so through you, first a question to staff.

[1:28:20] Happy to second this to have the discussion. I do think that there is an opportunity for more intense development here, and the height is, I don’t think, inappropriate given Clark functions as an arterial road, is likely to only get busier as other developments occur out in the East End of the city as well, and become more critical a north-south thoroughfare for us. So we want those sorts of intense developments at the nodes of major roads. I think that that’s appropriate, but I do want to confirm with staff, because this is a notwithstanding, their recommendation that we have appropriate holding provisions to ensure that, you know, any questions around sanitary or stormwater drainage are reflected in the holding provisions, and that if there’s any limitations on the holding provisions, it wouldn’t prohibit a phasing of the development.

[1:29:15] So if there’s enough to do the townhouses, they could move forward with the townhouses, and then if the holding provision says they can’t go ahead with, you know, the eight or the 10 at the corner, that until the holding provisions are met, that sort of phasing would be an opportunity if, ‘cause I see there are a number of holding provisions here, so I just want to make sure we’re covering our bases with those appropriately, and not if there is any limitations, and I’m seeing some nods, so I think that some of their, they may have some capacity limitations in the short term, I just want to make sure that we wouldn’t be holding up the phasing of the townhouses if there’s sufficient capacity there.

[1:29:54] So I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the H8 holding provision is applied to the development blocks that front on to Clayley and Clark, and are subject to the increased height. So the H8 is applied to those blocks, it is not applied to those other blocks that would be considered for a single detached or townhouse, so those could proceed, but those higher density, higher height blocks do have a holding provision on them. The top team member. Great, that’s good to know, ‘cause I wouldn’t want to hold up the lower and medium density stuff while we’re waiting for the high density stuff to come online.

[1:30:31] I do appreciate the fact that if we’re doing this now, it doesn’t become a surprise later on with additional height right now. We really are not impacting any sort of existing neighborhoods, so having been out there myself, and I know Councilor Cuddy visited on the weekend as well to look at it, there’s, to me, I think that this is an appropriate place where we can move forward with a bit higher density than what was contemplated in the official plan, so I’m willing to support this. Further speakers?

[1:31:05] Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not a member of this committee, but I have been listening very intently, and I would like to maybe ask a question if you would allow me of the applicant about the development it was suggested by the mover, that it would be similar to W5, that is, W5, which is in my area, it is a sustainable community, and my question is, is the development going to be a sustainable community like W5?

[1:31:40] Yeah, I’ll go to the applicant for any comparisons to W5, that the Councilor is inquiring about. Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair, there is no comparison on a net zero, this is not a net zero development proposal. I think what the Councilor was alluding to was the mix of density and uses within the layout of the subdivision, and how it was designed. Councilor?

[1:32:11] Thank you. Look for other comments or questions, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I do have two questions. The first one was, one of the reasons for refusal was due to the consistent with the southwest area, secondary plan. I just want to verify if it is really part of the southwest area, secondary plan, this area. I’ll go to staff.

[1:32:49] Hi there, through the Chair, that was an error in the report. It should have read the clearly self-planning area. You apologize for the mix up. Councilor Pribble. So thank you, and again, it’s just the name, but in terms of the secondary plan, that would be valid. Is that correct or go staff? I’m sorry, so I can explain myself. The reasoning for the refusal is according to the correct name area, correct, go staff. Through the Chair, yes, that is correct.

[1:33:22] We did reference the clearly self-planning area while writing the report. We just referenced the southwest area plan at the top of the report. Councilor, okay, thank you for the clarification. And not too long ago, some months ago, we approved, and I believe it’s a system developer as well, on the other side, on the east side of the Clark Road. And can you please remind me, what was the development there on the other side of the Clark Road, go staff? Through the Chair, it’s a similar residential mixed housing form subdivision.

[1:33:56] The maximum permitted height is six stories along Clark Road. I’m sorry. Okay, thank you, but wasn’t the proposal there for the low density single family housed dwellings? Was there a medium high density allowed as well, or planned, sorry, go staff? Through the Chair, yes. Similar to what’s been proposed for this site, there would be medium sort of density housing form along Clark Road, low to mid apartment buildings, as well as a mix of other housing forms, street towns, and single detached dwellings.

[1:34:40] Councilor, thank you for that information. No more questions? Other comments or questions? Councilor Palazzo. Thank you. Sorry, I don’t know what’s with this stuffiness today, but it’s super annoying for everyone here and myself. Looking through you to staff, as we look at the reports, I know the report lays out that staff was in support of six, what’s before us is eight and 10. Looking to see, I was reading on page 341 of the Growth Management Implementation Strategy for the sanitary capacity in that area, looking to see when the target for completion is, have certainly pulled up the Google map and looked at this area.

[1:35:27] I appreciate that it would be the first in this area, ‘cause sometimes we hear from residents of, I was here first. So if they get their first interest in that conversation as well, but just looking at the infrastructure of the roads, traffic mitigation efforts that we’re looking at coming sanitary sewers just as that area is completely undeveloped. If they get their first making sure that if we approve this that things would be, and when it would be shovel ready. I’ll go to staff through the chair. Thank you for the question.

[1:36:00] The sanitary sewer is planned to be complete by the end of ‘27, hopefully a lot earlier than that, depending on how the construction project proceeds. So that aligns with the proposed timelines that Siften had mentioned, with the applicant had mentioned, allowing them to get in the ground and maybe start some of their earthworks in ‘26 and servicing in ‘27 as well. So they would have an outlet by the end of ‘27. At the latest, as far as capacity goes, there is a finite amount of capacity, but in relation to other items on the agenda today, some lands that are within that drainage area are being removed from developability.

[1:36:47] So that kind of opens up a little bit of capacity for other lands to utilize that. So it’s something we’ll closely monitor as both projects come forward and more development applications come forward. But there is capacity for what’s being proposed. Councillor. - Thank you, I appreciate that. I know we had other plans come before us to believe they were more medullally focused and it was just first one to pull their permits first and starts building, gets the capacity for sure and it dwindles from there as we build an infrastructure.

[1:37:22] So I appreciate that. Still reading through it and listening to comments. So thank you. Other comments or questions from many members and Councillors? I’ll ask Deputy Mayor to take the chair again. Recognizing Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, we just talked about the last item where we go ahead with staff’s recommendation and where we don’t.

[1:37:54] I think this is the indication of the latter. We’ve seen over the last number of years coming here a number of high density infills and zoning approvals next to heavily populated areas. And the north and northwest has been seen a lot of density move in and now we’re moving into the south. We haven’t seen much in the east and I think this is an undeveloped area along Clark which is a major arterial road.

[1:38:33] I think this is appropriate to go up a few more stories to get the density going along in there. It’s a mixed density build by Siften who was mentioned by comments from Councillor Hopkins while it’s not West Five. I think West Five is a great indication of how this particular developer does good work in building community. I’m from the West and myself, Ward 8, which is Oak Ridge, a primary example of the Siften planning and the Siften build great homes out there.

[1:39:17] And it’s great neighborhoods and they’ve done again in West Five and other places across the city. And I think they’re going to do a wonderful job here in the east end. So I’m glad to see, I’m glad to see some density and housing move into this part of the city. So I will support the motion here. I will return the chair to Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you and actually questions through the chair to the clerk.

[1:39:49] I know I’m not going to be voting on this until the council anyways, but the last states, it’s being recommended for the following reasons. And the reasons are not listed. Are we going to have the listing there of the reasons or is this supposed to be just that? I’m, Councillor, not too sure what reasons you’re looking for. I’m looking at the alternate motions that in front of us. Yes, since it was an alternate motion from Councillor Kari, he is to provide the reasons. It just hasn’t been done yet, but before council we’ll get those reasons.

[1:40:25] Councillor, thank you for the clarification. Okay, so Councillor Cutty is aware of that. There’ll be some further work to do before we get to Council. Yes, I’ll have the wording ready. Thank you, I’ll work with Deputy Mayor. Okay, if this passes, so Councillor Plaza. Thank you, sorry, procedurally, what is the procedure for Councillor Cutty to add that on for the reasons noted at Council? Is he going to have to, I assume, amend this to add those words on.

[1:41:01] Just looking for notice on how we’re going to know for it, Councilor Council. I’m going to go to the clerk first, and then I’ll go to Councillor Cutty. We can do a pre-emendment that can be circulated prior to Council. Okay, Councillor, you’d have to submit a pre-emendment to this motion coming from PAC. Yes, thank you, I’ll work with Deputy Mayor Lewis on that. Okay, thank you. All right, Councilor, is that good? Thumbs up, all right, great.

[1:41:37] Okay, any other comments or questions before I call the vote? I’ll see, anyone online, make sure that something goes on. Okay, we got motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. I was thinking about the motion carries four to one. Okay, moving on.

[1:42:42] Okay, so moving on to 1887, clearly, road, public participation meeting once we call the vote, so I’ll call the vote on that. I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll look for any comments from the public on this report. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[1:43:23] Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, Jared Zeifen with the London Home Builders Association. Just speaking today, mostly to reaffirm where the progress is at with the urban growth boundary expansion to this point in time. I did want to highlight just one item as far as this discussion goes for Council for the committee’s consideration that I don’t think I had mentioned or anyone had mentioned previously. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation released a report in June 2025. So this year called Canada’s Housing Supply Shortages. Yeah, moving out to it.

[1:43:59] Sorry to interrupt Mr. Zeifen, Chair. I think you stated 3.7 instead of 3.6 and Mr. Zeifen might be one item further into the agenda than one. My apologies, thank you. Did I, I’m sorry, did I say 3.6? I think you might have said 3.7. Did I say 3.7? Might have been my fault. Yep, my apologies, it’s 1887, clearly, road, my dip. I thought I said 3.6. Two strikes, one more and I’m out. (laughing) Sorry, just a point of order.

[1:44:31] We’re gonna give you a mulligan ‘cause then I would have to chair if you were out. Thank you. We are on 3.6, which is 1887, clearly, where I would saw if there’s any people that would like to address me on that. Please approach the mic. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. In Berkeley, I was a little late coming to this meeting, but from what I gathered, I’m not sure, obviously this is for construction, like building more housing and whatnot.

[1:45:17] So I’m not expecting this to be a budget meeting, but I’m not too fond of numbers. I’d rather deal with somebody that’s more privy to that. But I didn’t hear anything about what are you guys, what is the city doing to attract residents to London, to the city of London? I mean, I’m all for building housing and building communities and whatnot, developing the city, but if there’s nothing to it, there’s no incentives, quote unquote, to drive traction to the city, then, I mean, you could look downtown, you know what I mean, which is supposed to be prime, you don’t prime real estate for like, just the basic functions of a growing city, of a thriving city, entertainment, whatnot, it’s the city to me is like, hopefully it changes, but to me, it looks like a retirement, it’s like a city for retirements, you know what I mean?

[1:46:40] So what I’m saying is I have some ideas that I like to share, obviously I only have five minutes here, I’m going to interrupt you, you raise terrific points, terrific points, this is not the particular form for that, I’d be happy to talk to you afterwards to find the right form for that, right now we’re talking about specific rezoning applications that have come before the city, what you’re talking about is more general terms, and I think they’re great comments, but not at this particular time, so as I said, if you want to wait around, I’d be happy to talk to you and find it, thank you.

[1:47:27] Any other comments on this particular item, is there anyone online? Danielle, understand your online, can you please give us your full name and you have five minutes? Afternoon council chair and members of the committee, my name is Danielle Blackwell-Brown, and I’m a resident of a pony present. My backyard overlooks the agricultural farm on 1887, Hilally Road. My biggest concern with putting in the road from Chippewa to Colale is that there’s many animals that use the farmland and the wetland and the forest area, and they move between those areas daily.

[1:48:08] Usually in the morning or in the afternoon or in the evening, there’s like large families of deer that cross from the woodland area over to the wetlands and back and forth, also lots of coyotes, wild turkeys, and all of those can also be seen moving about. If you decide to move ahead with development of the road, I was thinking maybe you might want to consider at least making it like a bridge or something so that the large section between the woodland area and the wetlands, the animals can still move between there because it is a big home to a lot of them.

[1:48:45] And also to consider doing a serious environmental study because the two wetlands on 1887, Colale, and also 2065, Colale, they might be connected or probably connected. So I’ve sat in my backyard, and it overlooks that, and it’s clear to me that this is home to many, many animals. I’ve seen not only the coyotes, the deer, I’ve seen raccoons, wild turkeys, the geese come in flocks once the land has been cloud, and the whatever vegetable has been taken off, the crops have been taken off.

[1:49:29] So my concern is developing that area. If we’re gonna have a problem also like in Toronto with the coyotes coming into our neighborhoods, right now I’ve never seen them actually on the roads in our subdivision. I do see them a lot in my backyard and passing through the farmland and the woodland area. And I have lots of photos of these that’ll help you guys in making a decision. I can give them to you or anybody wanting to study the area. I think just before you guys go ahead and put in infrastructure then a good environmental study should be done on it because it seems to be like a little bit of a connection between this area and maybe down to the Thames River.

[1:50:12] My last concern also is that if you do put the road in and as I see proposed to do it straight through, it might also cause traffic to be worse around the Chippewa Elementary School as a lot of people will probably speed through that area. And I think it might be best to have curbs in it so that it will slow people down and help protect the kids from getting hurt. So that’s basically what I was thinking. I just wanted to put that out there for you guys to consider. Maybe instead of developing that area, maybe turn it more into a park or a safe space for those animals that use that area and it’s quite a lot of them.

[1:50:54] Thank you so much for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Look for anyone else that’d like to address a committee. That’s quick if there’s anyone else online. There’s no one else online. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphones. So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Might want to refresh your screens again.

[1:51:34] That’s your plausible vote, yes. Is there a cuddy? A cuddy votes yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’m gonna go to staff for a brief presentation on this item. Through the chair, my name’s Michael Clark, a planner handling this file.

[1:52:08] There’s currently no development proposed in the moment. This is an official plan amendment related to the Edge Valley Phase II subdivision that was approved earlier this year. As a condition of approval of that subdivision, it was agreed that the city would bring forward a specific policy within the neighborhood’s place type on these lands at 1887 Clayley Road to require the creation of the agreed wetland compensation area prior to the approval of development on those lands at 1887 Clayley. This is being brought forward now as Drulo is working, who’s developing the Edge Valley subdivision is working on working towards final approval of that subdivision.

[1:52:50] And this is a somewhat unique situation in that the compensation is offsite outside of the draft plan of subdivision. So rather than controlling this through conditions of draft plan approval, it’s a lot simpler to secure that compensation through the specific policy area in the London plan that prevents development on 1887 until they have created the agreed compensation area. The report also, so during the review of the special policy area, and as well as other development applications in the area, the alignment of the neighborhood connectors that are planned north of the existing development in south of Clayley Road here was flagged, should be updated considering the recent approvals that have happened with the Clayley Woods environmentally sensitive area and other developments in the area.

[1:53:46] So the report recommends that continued consultation be undertaken with the landers in the area and surrounding residents to explore different alternatives to update the neighborhood connectors, which were planned previously back in the early 2000s before some of these wetlands and natural areas have become more naturalized. Thanks. Thank you. I’ll go to the committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I’ll move the staff recommendation, then I’m gonna speak to it after a second.

[1:54:19] Okay, thank you Ola for a seconder, Councillor Cudi, and I’ll go back to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I think I just wanted to take a minute chair through you to share in particular with our member of the public who spoke through Zoom to us just to share. I know there’s a lot of bureaucratic language in here that’s the nature of these planning reports, but I really wanna highlight that what we’re saying today is that while development is gonna happen in the area, no new development is going to actually occur until these ecological studies are complete and a decided or an agreed upon ecological compensation is created.

[1:55:08] So there’s some land a little bit to the east that can accommodate some of the ecological features that we can provide some relocation to, but nothing is gonna happen here until those studies are done. And then, ‘cause I did hear your concern about the streets, but there is also a recommendation in here that our staff will continue to consult with you and other neighbors in the area about the neighborhood connectors and what we end up having those look like in the long run. So what we’re deciding today is really kind of what you’re asking for, some further investigation into the ecology and a little bit more discussion around the neighborhood connectors before.

[1:55:48] And that will all come back to us for an approval in the future, but I thought it was important to really hear your, not only in hearing your concerns, but sort of provide a little translation to you from the bureaucratic nature of these reports to just say, that’s the direction we’re taking with this, is to do some more ecological studies of what’s going on in the area before any new development happens. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. And I really do appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments. It can be quite confusing reading these reports.

[1:56:24] And it’s important that we phrase it so the public can understand this is a public participation meeting. So I thank you for that, not only the studies that still need to be done. I look at this as a conditional draft plan going forward, but it’s really further public participation, conversations with the neighborhood community will continue as well. So I just wanted to underline that for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Cudi.

[1:56:57] Thank you, Chair, and through you. I just wanna make a comment to the speaker who called in. We made some changes around Chippewa Public School. We put in some traffic calming through some speed cushions. And we’re also doing a study on what on Oakville, which is an adjacent street to also do some traffic calming. So that’s just to alleviate any concerns. I will mention that that’s a beautiful area that the speaker was talking about. I walked through there when I was first elected in November, I think it was late October, early November.

[1:57:32] I’m gonna walk through it, but as Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned, we’ll do an ecological study. And so nothing’s done for sure. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded and I will call the vote. Yes.

[1:58:13] All those votes, yes. Yeah, just so you know, it looks like I’m having to refresh my screen every time for some reason. So I apologize for that. I’m losing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to three points up. And this is regarding the official plan review of the London Plan and final industrial land needs assessment urban growth boundary review update and process. We have a motion moved and second to open the PPM.

[1:58:50] So I’ll call that vote now. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, now you may come and give us your name and you have five minutes, thank you. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I was a little eager there before. Jerry’s dating with the London Home Builders Association.

[1:59:25] Coming with just a few more general comments around this process so far. And firstly, just thanking staff for all their work on this and a collaborative process with a lot of opportunity for engagement with many stakeholders. As I was mentioning earlier, I did want to highlight a new report that came out as of June this year from CMHC titled Canada’s Housing Supply Shortages, Moving to a New Framework. This was something tasked to CMHC looking at updating their supply gaps to estimate how much new housing is going to be required over the next decade from now until 2035 to restore broadly housing affordability.

[2:00:04] That’s something we’re certainly concerned about. I know council is and something that’s very much a collective effort. And the numbers may not be surprising, but from the Canada Origin Housing Corporation, the numbers for London on an annual basis, we will need to be increasing our housing starts by 227% over the next decade to be able to restore housing affordability in London. And similarly, those numbers will be reflected across the province of Ontario with a range of numbers in quite a high basis across the country to be able to do that.

[2:00:39] So on an annual basis, we’re anywhere between three and 4,000 housing starts in the city of London, that would now need to be on the basis of over 7,000 housing starts over the next decade, something that’s certainly going to be a not an easy task for the building industry, but something we’re certainly up for and trying to tackle that. In this new report, certainly highlighting that we’ve seen fluctuations in population forecasts. I think we’re also waiting on the federal government to see how they even change, how they do immigration and whether they’re looking at skilled trades.

[2:01:12] Some of those numbers have come down almost in a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in the last year. So I think as time goes on over the next couple years, five years, decade, we’re likely going to see that number fluctuate, but overall, for the city of London, continue to see population growth, continue on in a very strong fashion. I just had the opportunity to be at our provincial association conference, hearing from builders in the GTA, especially where the level of inventories in the GTA are substantial. People are not buying there currently and there’s going to need to be opportunity and time to clear out that inventory before new projects are even started in the GTA.

[2:01:49] And when we expect a lot of immigration to start in that area, when housing is not simply going to be available in that area with new home builds for a number of years to come now, London is a much more nimble market. We don’t have nearly as much inventory with our builders, much we’re able to respond in a quicker fashion. It’s also still much more affordable for people to live here than it is in the GTA. So we’re certainly expecting quite a bit more of a net migration out of the GTA coming towards our communities and others across Ontario, that I think certainly the number and what’s been landed at by staff and by council currently on the urban growth boundary, the close to 1,400 hectares, certainly should be sufficient, but gives us flexibility over the next 30 years to be able to appropriately plan and be able to be in a good position to be able to build all the homes we’re going to need, to be able to return to a point of affordability across the board.

[2:02:41] So just reaffirming, that’s going to be incredibly critical over the next decade and obviously over the next 30 years as well. Again, could be changes, but we certainly are seeing that those numbers are going to keep growing for years and years to come with London being a desirable place to live. And so ensuring that we have enough land and enough land supply as a way to combat housing affordability is going to be one of the key pieces here. I think this is on a good trajectory now and we certainly encourage council to stay down this path and appreciate all the work that’s gone into this. Thank you. Look for other speakers that wish to address committee.

[2:03:16] Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Paul Heind, I’m a planner with Strict Bolton, Ali Manaz. I’m here today with our client, Mr. Jug Manansha and we’re wanting to speak with respect to both the urban growth boundary and the industrial land needs assessment at 3405 Dingman Drive, which is property 103 in the staff report. Chairman Lehman and members of the members of planning committee.

[2:03:49] SBM had provided some information to the long range planning department for consideration of our client’s lands to be brought into both the industrial land needs area and the urban growth boundary. We met with staff on August 19th through a Zoom meeting and we thanked staff for spending the time with us so that we could discuss our concerns in detail. We understand based upon previous growth studies and other studies that 88 hectares of land is required to be added for industrial growth and that there’s a further need to adjust the urban growth boundary within the city of London.

[2:04:23] Our request was merely to have the entire parcel of 3405 lands owned by our client to be brought into the urban growth and the additional land speed designated the similar land place type, which was industrial. Or some other land use place type, which could be considered to allow for alternative forms of development. Currently, and we had submitted this correspondence to each member of planning committee.

[2:04:55] We tried to get it on to the agenda. We missed the deadline, my book, 10 minutes, so it’s not on added agenda. But on the attached mapping that we had provided to planning committee, only half the property is designated for growth. It would only be able to develop that portion. The urban growth line bisects the property right through the center. Access would only be granted from Westminster Drive and there would not be any possible, or would not be granted from Westminster Drive and the only possible access would be from Dingman Drive.

[2:05:29] Our client is respectfully requesting to develop the lands being asked for for some other use other than industrial. And we had attached the concept plan where there would be an opportunity for parks and recreation, sports fields, things like that, or possibly even commercial uses. We understand that staff evaluated each parcel on an evaluation criteria, but the lands are already designated industrial at the north and we were just merely asking for them to be recognized at the south and that there was a very minimal amount of lands that would be required to be brought in.

[2:06:11] The lands are located at the 401-402 corridor and it is ideally situated for allowing some development to occur recognizing the importance of the 401-402 corridor. I do have the client that would like to just speak on behalf of the history that he’s had with the property if I could ask for that. And finally, if it is the desire of planning committee to recommend that the staff report be recommended for approval accounts, so we would be asking that there would be amendment just to allow for the minor urban growth boundary expansion to just include all of 304 as an amendment to the recommendation if it was deemed appropriate that maybe it’s going to make a recommendation to council.

[2:06:58] Okay, thank you. Please sir, give us your name in five minutes. Jug Minocha, good afternoon, planning committee members, counselors, city staff, certainly getting nervous anytime I talk to this kind of a crowd with a microphone, but a lot of the story here because 25 years ago approaches a piece of land that basically said, London is open for business, and we really want to promote development on the 401.

[2:07:45] And our land is only one of two pieces that are on the corner of the 401 and 402. And it’s the only one that was zoned for commercial industrial developments. So that was 62 acres, and then we said, look, let’s expand this, we bought two adjacent parcels. So we have 243 acres of prime land. We’re approached by a number of people who want to locate on our land. Right now there’s a client, he’s got a 500,000 square foot warehouse spacing need, and he wants to locate here.

[2:08:20] We have two church groups that want to spend anywhere from 5 million to 20 million to put up big buildings with a highway exposure. We have a film industry. So we’re looking at a different type of development, and this is one thing that, you know, sometimes for me personally, I’m a big believer in the community, and some of the things we’re doing should complement the city. You know, what we see ourselves as providing complementary land for industrial use. We don’t want to compete with the city.

[2:08:53] We just want to say, look, we’re different. Also in our proposal, we’re putting in soccer fields and cricket fields and baseball fields. You know, we’re looking at a 15 acre wood lot. Like, these are all of the things that most of the developers would not do. So we want to do something a little bit differently, and we think it’s in the interest of community. We certainly want to work with the city staff, and we think there’s an intersection on our boundary that perhaps was an oversight, because the old drawings from the West Minister of Township didn’t show that distinction.

[2:09:32] So we’re hoping that, you know, we can at least talk to the staff, and we don’t necessarily have to fit into the industrial growth or the residential growth, but we do need that urban growth boundary. That kind of, you know, we have three parcels. One parcel is totally in the urban growth boundary. The other one is 60% in, and the other one is 55% in. So we’re sort of saying, look, you know, why are you trying this line right across the middle here? And that’s one that we certainly think can be fixed up in discussions with the staff. And certainly, from my perspective, we work with the staff, so we’ll have complementary uses to what’s around us in terms of the residential or the other farming communities.

[2:10:16] So in essence, you know, I think our proposal, I’m supposed to read this, okay? Our proposal supports integrated community development, including commercial, industrial, faith-based, parkland, and recreational spaces delivered privately without cost to the taxpayers. We request the arbitrary bisecting of the parcels to be corrected. And to be quite honest, about this 25 years ago, I don’t have 25 more years to wait for the new plan, okay? So I’m asking for the help to proceed now, and I think we can bring business, and we can bring some good facilities to London.

[2:10:58] So certainly, I believe in London, we’ve been supporting the Velodro for the last 20 years. I think there’s merit, and I think it’s good when you have private sector doing community responsible things. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. Yeah, I think we made that point that we need the complete prices in the upper growth boundary. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. Mr. Mashlon, please go ahead, you have five minutes.

[2:11:37] Okay, thank you, chair and committee. I’m still at Mashlon, senior vice president for development neighborhoods for Siften. First off, I wanted to commend staff. I myself was on the supply committee for at least two years, and we had at least a dozen, if not 15, 12, 15 meetings every month for quite some time. Very productive, we had a lot of good conversations to get to this point, so we’re encouraged today. We’re appreciative of working with staff and the opportunity to june with that recommendation and hear today.

[2:12:18] But I wanted to also say that while the 1476 Tech Dares and that future resolution planned later this year going to council is great, there is obviously public comment and opportunity to refine the boundary. And so it’s our view that it’s currently, the urban boundary is not in a position to be the fixed boundary. It should occur, it will occur, but we anticipate that happening over the next number of months. I want to bring your attention to one property, which Sifton now owns, which we did not own in June.

[2:12:55] We’ve made an acquisition, it’s 2497 Dingman Drive. So it is south of Dingman, east of Wellington and west of Highbury. So if you know the Broccoli neighborhood, it’s directly east of Broccoli. Broccoli is actually the single largest rural neighborhoods designation area by far in London. It’s south of highway 401, 402. The only reason that it hasn’t been developed earlier in terms of new development is because of infrastructure.

[2:13:31] It’s servicing, having an outlet. That’s the only reason. Strategically, it’s in a great location. Like I said, there is an existing development in Broccoli from the 1850s. Development started in the 1850s in that area. There’s 410 people living there today on an estimate that I have. And many houses were built in the ’60s and since then. So it’s grown since then. But it hasn’t grown with infrastructure. So we’ve made an investment in the area. We’re working to come forward later this year with more details.

[2:14:05] I don’t have those details here today. But I just wanted to confirm again that it’s our view that there’s opportunity to refine that line based on not just, we think Lanor’s asking to be brought into an urban boundary, but where Lanor’s can actually facilitate infrastructure and other urban development ideas to accelerate opportunity for growth. Again, I mentioned that Broccoli, that area itself at 401, that’s 40142 access, it’s got major commercial at Costco and additional commercial leasing right now.

[2:14:42] Got a golf course in the area, existing residential. And we think it’s an untapped opportunity. So our vision at this point, it’s an early stage. So again, we’re not here to present. We have work to do and subject to things, but to look at an attainable lower cost product. So ground oriented houses at a lower cost, again, wood frame construction, that could be in the 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet. So again, a smaller product, price points driven.

[2:15:16] And our vision would be to focus on housing product that would be competing with St. Thomas. St. Thomas has 25%, it’s a narrative, but they truly do have much lower development charges and they have much lower house prices compared to London. And there’s a choice that people have along the 401. If there’s employment uses, will people drive north or will they drive south? Right now, London does not offer new urban development south of highway 401, that London has not offered it for decades.

[2:15:48] Again, rural designations because they’re today, largest designation in London by far, and we have a solution potentially with infrastructure that could advance that area. So it hasn’t been in the consideration prior to, it’s not in the staff recommendation to bring this area south of the 401. We are supportive of urban expansion, northeast, northwest and west, but we’re just saying that we don’t think that line is, it could be fixed or should be fixed today. We think there should be opportunity to talk with staff more, to engage in the future with a committee and council to make sure that all these opportunities, including the lower cost attainable for purpose buying of homes are considered as well.

[2:16:34] South of the 401. Okay, thank you Ms. Mitchell and my other speakers. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good evening, committee and staff. My name is Patrick Minkowski. I’m an intermediate planner with Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’m here on behalf of our client White Oaks Development Inc. We are the agent for them, representing them as part of the London Plan Review. I trust that committee has had a chance to review our submissions as part of the process.

[2:17:12] There were a few that were prepared and unfortunately we weren’t able to provide on the agenda, but they were submitted on Monday. Just here to ask that committee, carefully considered the request that was made, recognizing that our clients lands, who are developers ready to develop, represent a logical extension of the urban growth boundary, located close to the highway series, has opportunity for servicing and is an extension of existing development to the north. So I just wanted to remind committee that letters have been submitted to support the inclusion of the lands and that as part of their decision tonight, that they have considered our letters as the subject lands present an excellent opportunity to expand growth in the city, whether for industrial development or for community growth.

[2:18:10] Thank you. Thank you. A look for other speakers. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Mohamed Musa, I’d just like to follow up on some of the things that were previously stated by a previous speaker. I would like to make a request that this council ask that planning staff be tasked with coming up with fleet and discrete ETE discrete list of settlement areas in London, such as Broccoli, Glenworth, Scottsville.

[2:19:02] That way, any future development, anybody who is buying property or is wanting to develop property knows where these settlement areas are. And I mean, settlement areas are very strictly defined and I’m sure you’re aware that, you know, it’s stuff that if we’re putting this plan forward for the next 30 years, we need to have that small task. It’s not a huge task to be put together so that people know what the neighborhood’s gonna look like in the next 30 years or if it’s gonna change.

[2:19:39] I mean, the certainty of people buying property, not necessarily for development, but for any other use, whether it’s residential, agricultural, commercial. We’ve had a lot over the last few years where people are surprised and dismayed by how things move around them. But I think this one little thing, and as I said, I mean, this is the discussion of the IL&A today and receiving the draft urban growth boundary maps and review.

[2:20:16] But I think that the whole process should incorporate that in terms of just forward looking. So really not much more to say on the IL&A other than, you know, once again, I will thank staff for the amount of work that they’ve put into this and somewhere to the urban growth boundary, residential and mixed use. That’s all for today.

[2:20:49] Thank you. Thank you. Let’s see another gentleman coming to the microphone. Please sir, give us your name in your five minutes. Honors Chair and committee members. My name is Harji Jazwa. I just want to add two things regarding the 4563 vital code. 4563 vital code is the property. It faces just 2402. It is wrapped around on three sides with the road services.

[2:21:24] All the services are already put by the city around there. On Dingman Road, there are sure, and on the vital road, there is water supply. So basically, city has spent all the money already in that area. So we are kind of trouble ready if city approves it. So there will be no spending from the city on in that area, it will not be additional burden. So I think that is the perfect spot to be added on.

[2:22:02] It is adjacent to the existing development and it has the services over there. It has no financial constraints on the city. And it was evaluated during 2014 too. And most of the things at that time, it was evaluated as favorable for the environmental, for the indigenous thing. And for the agriculture purposes, it was evaluated favorable on most of the points. And so is now.

[2:22:39] So I will request on that honorable committee members. You go through our representation and give a new consideration to that. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay, okay. Looks like we have three people online.

[2:23:12] So I’m gonna first go to Mike Wallace. Mr. Wallace, if you can hear me. You have our five minutes, sorry. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I’m sorry, I’m not in chambers as I normally am, but you make a commitment to your grandkids months ago, you have to show up for it in Dallas. So I do appreciate the opportunity to talk to you directly through the Zoom process. I did send in an email to you and all of Council on our position on the report that’s in front of you today.

[2:23:51] I wanna focus in on a couple of things. One, from the LDI’s perspective, we really have no issue with the recommendations regarding the draft UGB Lansing’s assessment as it relates to employment plans, and that’s really the function of most of this report that in front of you today. We are also supportive of the initiation of the draft, privately held urban growth boundary expansion application process, policies and guidelines that are attached in Appendix D, and that you’re directing staff to go and consult on that privately initiated urban growth boundary expansion process.

[2:24:34] And we’re in favor of that, and happy to be very much part of that discussion. In general, you know, betting in here is a talk about the urban growth boundaries and relates to community growth. Let’s be frank about this, the current urban growth boundaries 30 years old. This one’s about, so it’s expiring. We appreciate staff’s efforts with the consultation with the industry and the public on the next 30 years and providing you an option of what the urban growth boundary needs to be renewed at to be able to meet the future growth.

[2:25:18] There is a part in the report talking about the different years of the MOF, the Ministry of Finance growth projections. The 1476 hectares, which was mentioned earlier by other speakers, and Council approved in December and earlier this summer. In general, we’re in favor of the math that we need to figuring that number out based on the 2024 projections from the Ministry of Finance. We think that should be the baseline.

[2:25:53] Let’s move forward. You see the maps that have been generated and put to the public in the get involved pages that you have regarding this expansion. And we need to remind people that this is land that is to service growth for the next 30 years. That doesn’t mean it happens overnight. The city is in full control of how, where and when, growth actually will happen within that growth boundary, particularly using the GMIS program, which has been previously referenced on determining when sewer is available, the style of housing that’s available, and the pace of growth based on the reality of what, not just projections, but what population growth ends up being.

[2:26:40] Okay, the population growth change is basically on paper based on what the federal government has proposed to change in terms of immigration levels. That could change tomorrow. It could be majority government next year. And that could completely change. So we are in full favor of the 1476 and moving forward with that piece. The one area that we wanna say is, you know, you heard a little bit, well, what’s the risk of having 30 years of supply?

[2:27:15] Well, the risk is not having 30 years of supply. And then growth outpaces what we thought was going to. Look at the London plan. It’s out by 15 to 17%. Look at the Watson report, which was approved about three years ago. It’s out from depends on which numbers use 7 to 3%. So we cannot afford to be behind. We cannot add lands quickly to be able to accommodate this. Let’s do this right the first time. And then we, as we did with the urban government 30 years ago, it’s now we’ve grown to sort of the edge of that and we need to move it onto the next 30 years.

[2:27:54] As the minister was, Mr. and Ms. Balfairs was in town last week talking about the need for Ms. Pause to step up to like to make sure that we have housing for the next 30 years. The urban growth boundary expansion or renewal, I would call it a renewal ‘cause it’s not what’s there now is what the province is expecting Ms. Pause to do. The only item that’s in this recommendation that kind of gives us a pause is item F and it’s directing staff to consult with the development industry regarding the revised system for buffer methodology on natural heritage systems.

[2:28:37] 30 seconds. Yeah, I just wanna be very clear. I know the EMGs got passed. Doesn’t mean we agreed with everything in them. We have been consistent to saying that the environmental impact study that is required on all these properties when they have but natural heritage areas, that should be what determines the size of the buffer. Not an arbitrary number, whether it’s 30 meters or 20 meters, but an actual scientific study to determine what’s appropriate and that is our position. So it could be higher or lower, but it’s an EIS that should drive that.

[2:29:13] Not some number that somebody’s made up based on. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Thank you, thank you. And I’ll look for the other speaker online. John, Peter, are you there? Yes, can you hear me? Can you hear me okay? Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Again, my name is John, Peter. I live at 2249 West Elborn and I’m here with my neighbors of 2235 and 2261 of West Elborn. I’m speaking today with my neighbors because we are deeply concerned about the environmental impacts of extending the growth boundary in this area.

[2:29:51] Not on the planning part, but on the environmental piece. When development took place in the work of scenario, runoff from construction severely eroded a tributary that runs through our properties. That tributary is not a drainage ditch. It is part of a living ecosystem. It supports trees, shrubs, wildlife, and it flows directly into protected upper Thames River Conservation Authority lands and ultimately into the Dingman Creek. The damage we saw in the past required costly remediation. And at that time, it was done by Z group as it had not been assumed by the city at that time, which unfortunately failed after the first major rainfall because the stormwater system in place was only temporary.

[2:30:30] If further development proceeds without stronger protections, we risk repeating the same mistakes, costly mistakes, and more runoff, more erosion and permanent loss of natural habitat. We are asking council to require a full environmental and water flow impact study before any development moves forward. We also urge you to consider permanent measures to protect this tributary to safeguard the Thames watershed and to ensure that the wildlife and natural habitats are not sacrificed for this growth. Protecting water, soil, and biodiversity must be at the core of planning decisions. Once these ecosystems are damaged, they cannot easily be restored.

[2:31:06] I thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you, Mr. Peter. Lella Bloomer, if you’re on, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you. Lella Bloom, I’m a resident of the city of London. And like the previous speaker, I’d like to speak about the impacts of expanding the urban growth boundary. And so my first point is that I’m very glad to see the continued, the recommendation for continued consultation with community over the next little while.

[2:31:44] I’ve been pushing for this for a while. And so I’m again going to request that this consultation with the community be done in a variety of ways. This public participation meeting process is not ideal for engaging with residents and with community. It’s very difficult to have a conversation when you’ve got five minutes and you need to present your point and then you can’t say anything. And then somebody else presents their point. So, and one of the pieces that comes out of that is that as I’m listening to all the other speakers, I of course, you know, try to hear what they’re saying and try to incorporate that into what I want to say.

[2:32:20] So now my speech is going to be a little bit more garbled and jumbled up and I planned it to be. I was interested to hear how many times the representative from Siften say how many times, how many meetings they were at. You know, we need more community consultation in a variety of ways online is not ideal. This is not ideal in terms of discussing a topic that’s so big and has such impact. I’m going to reference, because I heard the previous speakers say this and it’s come up a couple of times, the ability of council to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

[2:32:57] So as site proposals come forward and how that is expected to alleviate some of the concerns about environmental impacts. And I’m going to say that that’s a problem. The environment is bigger than individual parcels of land and individual proposals and individual environmental features. So we need more of an overall understanding and vision of where the city is located. What our impact is on the land and the air and the soil and the forest, the water and the wildlife and all the different interconnected pieces of the environment that we depend on for life.

[2:33:33] So I’ve heard a couple of previous references today where we talk about, you know, compensation, alternate compensation for wetlands, somewhere else outside of the area. You know, that’s not adequate compensation for impacting a wetland or any kind of environmental feature. And I also heard a number of times a reference to, you know, building communities and development where there’s nothing there, there’s never nothing there. There’s always something there.

[2:34:07] And we need to know how we’re impacting the something that’s there because we definitely need all of the pieces of the environment that we’re impacting today. I’m going to request again, reconsideration of two particular pieces in the report. One is the projected population projections. And I know that that’s been referenced today as well. I totally understand that you don’t want to keep moving the goal line, but I don’t think that that’s what this is about. We’re in extremely unpredictable times in a whole lot of ways.

[2:34:40] And so it’s really difficult to know where we’re going to be 25 to 30 years from now. So let’s deal with the most up-to-date and evidence-based information. I don’t, you know, I would ask that Council reconsider their preference for sticking with the number that they used for the previous report and consider the updated number and the need for less land. The second piece is, I just feel like there’s a real circular argument to saying that London is situated on class one agricultural land.

[2:35:14] And since that is the case, they can’t avoid building on class one agricultural land as is requested or as is required by the provincial planning document. I think that’s a circular argument. If we’re supposed to avoid building on class one agricultural land, then let’s look at other ways to build. I don’t, you know, I really don’t see that. It’s an argument to say we can’t avoid it. It’s all around us. The fact that we’re situated in this supremely favorable place invokes responsibility. We have to act as stewards of this place.

[2:35:49] We can’t just consider ourselves as needing land. We need space. We need to build on top of things that, you know, that aren’t there because we need space to grow. 30 seconds. Thank you. I think we are, I believe we are growing as a community and as a civilization and really starting to come to terms with what we’re facing in terms of the impacts of global warming and climate change. And I think that using more open and more creative methods of coming up with ideas of how we move forward from here is essential and is crucial for us to grow as a community.

[2:36:27] Thank you very much. Thank you. As a clerk, if there’s anyone else online, there’s no one else online. I’ll look in the gallery to see if there’s anyone that would like to address the committee. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone. So I will call the vote to close the PPM. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for the committee.

[2:37:23] Dear Mayor Lewis. So through you chair, I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor, I do want to add a new clause, but I’m gonna put this on the floor first, see if we can get a seconder for that. And then I’m gonna need to ask a question of staff through you before I propose an amendment. Okay, so you’re looking to make a main motion with the staff recommendation.

[2:37:56] We’ll go through that and you might put forward an amendment to your motion, am I correct? Okay, I see Councilor Cuddy has seconded that motion. So would you like to speak to it, Deputy Mayor? I will speak to it, but first I’m going to take the opportunity to, through you, ask a question of Mr. Mathers, ‘cause I’ve had a brief conversation with him, I’ve sent some alternate language to the clerk. I know that Mr. Mathers had also suggested some potential language to me, and what I’m trying to do is get to capture the particular parcels that we heard today to get those put into an additional review piece to staff.

[2:38:43] Just the specific properties, you know, obviously I’m not asking you to revisit the entirety of the report, but we did hear some very specific addresses today, you know, I mean, I hear with the land owner saying about having a parcel that’s cut in half. To me, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I would prefer we were including whole parcels. There may be some staff rationale for that, but I do think it makes sense to include entire parcels. So I head forwarded to our committee clerk an additional clause that would say that civic administration be directed to include in the final official plan review of the London Plan, Urban Growth Boundary Review report a summary table of the net-developable land area for the owner’s submissions received in relation to item 3.7 of the Pecagenda data today.

[2:39:34] That was sort of my, how I thought it might be captured. I know Mr. Mathers, as I had asked you, if you could suggest some language to this, you suggested civic administration be directed to include in the final official plan review a net-developable land area for all land holder submissions seeking evaluation as the community growth area. I’m just gonna, through you chair, ask Mr. Mathers, which language is more appropriate to capture the specific properties we’re heard today. I don’t wanna over-complicate staff’s job.

[2:40:08] So I’m gonna take staff’s advice on what language captures the intent, but the intent is really specific to the properties that we heard today, noting that there were some that spoke, did send in written submissions, but had missed the deadline, so they’re not on the added agenda, but they referenced that in their presentations today. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so the intent is to cover off all of the discussions today, ‘cause there was discussions on the industrial and in the community growth, and I would just leave it at the submissions that were made today, and I’m sure everyone is on committees aware of this, but just so that everyone else is aware is that the discussion today are only about going out with that draft of the mapping.

[2:40:50] We’re not making any decisions today, so this information would be able to help community to make decisions in the future, and it would be a set that up for being able to have those discussions. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so the language that I had sent to the committee clerk, if we could maybe just get that up and make sure that that captured, like, so staff can see it as well, so they can make sure that that captures the intent. Leave it up, no, Deputy Mayor, is that— Yeah, that is the language I sent, so I see Mr. Mathers nodding that that captures the intent, so I’m gonna put that amendment on the floor and see if there’s a seconder for that.

[2:41:57] Councillor Cutty has seconded the amendment. Just a quick question to you, Mr. Mathers, it’s for submissions received in relation to it. Does that include those that we heard a few might have missed the deadline to get on the agenda? Through the chair, so we would base this on what’s actually submitted to Council, so if there is future submissions and it’s related to this item, then we would be selecting what finally gets to Council, so that does open up a little bit more opportunity to be able to make submissions before the Council agenda deadline.

[2:42:35] Okay, thank you, I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor, sorry. Yes, and that was my intention, that way the written submissions that did miss the deadline can still be included in the Council agenda, but they are attached to this item, so they’re valid for the Council agenda, so, which I know everybody sounds like a lot of procedural policy-long stuff, but that was my understanding of how we could make that work through the clerks, so. So I’m putting that forward. Okay, so we’re on the amendment, which essentially covers off those, we heard specific delegation requests that staff will take, so it’s in a consideration in their total review of our Council proposal.

[2:43:17] Thank you, and I appreciate the clarification question about this meeting in particular, so just for our guests in the gallery, who missed the deadline by 10 minutes, please forward that, you could revise it if you want. That corresponds, we have an unwritten public record in advance of our Council agenda, that’s in a couple of weeks, so please get that in, just for it’s on the docket and can be included in this. As Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned, intent, looking for clarification of intent, I’m not sure if this direction, that we’re directing staff to just make a summary table as an appendix at the end of the report of like FYI, these are all the properties who asked to be in, and it was a yay or nay, or we’re asking staff for intent to say, here’s all the properties that wanted to be in, and stick them in.

[2:44:08] It’s just looking for clarification, ‘cause it’s said to come back within the report of just where it would be highlighted and what annotation would be given. Deputy Mayor’s format that you’re looking for in this. So just from, and again, because this is a draft that’s still going out for an additional round of input, it’s including them as being requested to be brought in so that that can be considered in that additional round, both by our staff, but as well as the public as well, and any changes before the final version comes before us, can then be reflected whether that’s a staff recommended, whether that’s council decides at some point, we want to recommend something different.

[2:44:53] It’s about having them reflected as requests in that, that draft that’s going to go out. So my understanding is that really what we’re approving today is not any final recommendation, that is still there’s one another round of, so this is just putting them in a summary in the draft as a table that says these are the requests that we’ve had to come in, and that leaves the door open to make a decision later as the consultations continue. We may hear from members of the public that some should, we may hear from some Councillors that some should, but it’s not making a decision on those at this point.

[2:45:28] So to me that was sort of the, and again, through you to the Councillor and to our staff, like if there’s a better way they want to recommend this, certainly open to hearing that, but my understanding was the best approach to do it. Councillor. Thank you, a follow-up through you to Mr. Mathers then. I appreciate something that would have the table of like, here’s the list of some of them come through emails to us. I’ve been at one meeting, another meeting, still somewhere yet to come. So in principle, I’m fine with this in the summary table. Just realizing there could be a lot in there in the end and to help public transparency of what comments have might have already been made, or staff work done on an item.

[2:46:14] Would there be, when available, a second column next to it, if you already knew it was a staff recommended, yay or nay, like green, yellow, red, like something really easy that is, we’re going through it as council members and the public’s trying to review it to be like, this is one that’s recommended versus not even in a draft, that they would already have flagged it as a concern for one reason or another. So those are my comments, just looking for not more work for staff, but the work is already done and they know any information to give in this draft table would be appreciated.

[2:46:48] So just to Mr. Mathers or his team, if he has any ideas what this might look like? Mr. Mathers can kind of give us an idea kind of how we would see this kind of come back to committee. Through the chair, so in the actually today’s report, there is a table that summarizes all of the submissions and all the requests that have been made. So the thought is that if there’s specific submissions that some of these submissions are submissions that you’ll see within the draft and some of them aren’t supported currently by staff and that’s part of the process that we’re in right now and receiving those comments in those commentary.

[2:47:29] If there’s certain addresses that were not put forward by staff that Council or committee would like to be able to have some more information so that they can make more specific decisions when the final report comes forward, this would help you to be able to do that, to be able to see what that developable area is, whether it’s something that is actually being supported by staff or not being supported by staff. Councilor, good, okay. Okay, so on the amendment, Councilor Hopkins.

[2:48:03] Yeah, thank you for recognizing me again. I do have a question just as a follow-up to the conversation I’ve been listening to. This will eventually go to Council. This would also include submissions that can be added on the Council agenda as well. I just wanna make sure I know there was some people in the gallery, they’re also left, giving them an opportunity to also submit their submission, just understanding how that’s gonna work going forward. Go to staff.

[2:48:40] Through the chair, yes, anyone that does submit between now and the added deadline for the Council meeting would be able to provide for those submissions and it would be covered with this resolution to have to speak to clerks to figure out what exact date that might be, but I think that probably could be provided to the Councillors following this meeting. Maybe I’ll ask the clerk, what is that date for the added? Through the chair, so the added deadline for the Council agenda is 9 a.m. October 10th.

[2:49:19] Okay, thank you. Councilor Hopkins, thank you. On the amendment, any other comments or questions? Okay, so on the amendment moved in second, and I’ll call that one. Willing the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I need the mover to move this as amended.

[2:50:00] Same, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cai. So the amended motion, main motion is now on the committee floor, so I’ll look for comments or questions on that, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so again, this is a tremendous undertaking. I know it is a ton of work. So to everyone on the staff side who’s been involved, thanks, and also to everyone on the development side who’s so important to actually getting things built in our city, whether that’s homes, whether that’s places of employment.

[2:50:36] I know you’ve been involved very much from the beginning as well, and put in a lot of hours on this, so thank you too. To me, this is good to go forward. Let’s get another round of consultation. I know there’s been some chat about in a couple media outlets and a couple of communications we’ve received about changing the number. I have zero interest in doing that. I would also point out that at this time, that’s a decided matter of council. And so that number was approved less than 12 months ago. So reopening that now would require a reconsideration of two thirds.

[2:51:18] But to the points that were made by some of our presenters, the London Plan, our city’s official plan, that was finalized in 2016. That didn’t really come into force and effect until 2020, 2021, by the time all the appeals were done, was out by 14% on the low side. We already have the population in the city today that we weren’t supposed to have until 2030. So ministry population targets go up and down year to year. We’re making a 30 year plan here.

[2:51:58] Plan that’s less than 10 years old is already out by 14%. They undershot by 14%. So to suggest that now almost a year into this work that we should go to a lower number is not a conversation. I’m even interested in spending five minutes on because we changed the number. We changed the goalpost. We’re back to another year’s worth of work to get back and then what we’re gonna change to the next set of ministry numbers. At some point, we have to say this was the starting line. These are the numbers we’re working from and we need to make some decisions.

[2:52:33] I’ve also heard some commentary about it’s too much land. It just drives up speculation prices. You know, we hear from individuals on planning applications all the time, oh, what’s this gonna do to my property values? It’s actually not a planning act consideration for us to be considering what property values are going to do. We have to decide based on land use and we do have the opportunity if we’ve got land, extra land in the urban growth boundary for a few years to come that that growth can be paced by the GMIS.

[2:53:08] That’s why it’s there. So there’s no threat to putting the city in some position where we can’t develop because we don’t have the infrastructure. That’s all controlled through a whole other process. So to me, it’s time to move forward. We’ve gotta do another round of consultations. Of course, there may still be some lands on one off basis is that people feel should be brought in for a particular reason or should be excluded for a particular reason, but it’s time to get down to that level of the discussion.

[2:53:41] It’s time to stop, in my opinion, talking about the broad-based strokes. We’ve been doing the broad-based strokes for a year and this is where we are today. So I’m prepared to support this, recognizing all the work that’s gone into it so far. It’s never going to be perfect. Somebody’s always going to be unhappy that a piece was left out or a piece was brought in. People are gonna think it’s too much or too little. Nobody has a crystal ball on this. The last urban growth boundary change was 30 years ago and we are running out of land and we still have land.

[2:54:17] The Dingman Creek area and the floodplain, for example, that we don’t have information back from Upper Thames River in terms of how much of that land is gonna be developable. Some of that land may be sterilized by the fact that section 28 permits and upper Thames recommendations are gonna say no. So while it may show on a developable map right now, that doesn’t mean something’s going to be built there. Personally, I think that we’ve probably underestimated in terms of the land that we need for school growth and capacity and we see the size of schools that are being built by the ministry today and I see what we’ve allocated and I’m not sure that we’ve allocated enough.

[2:54:55] So if we’ve got surplus land in there, that makes it easier to adjust those school allocations as well. So to me, I would rather err on the side of bringing in extra land, going with the higher number and then controlling it through the GMIS rather than finding out in 10 or 15 years that we’ve already run out of land that’s developable for housing, that we don’t have the right amount of industrial land for jobs and then we’ve got to go through in a process to amend it well before it should be amended. So let’s aim high and get this done before the end of the year. Thank you.

[2:55:26] Well, look for other members of committee or visiting counselors that want to weigh in. Councilor Purple. Thank you and thank you as well to the staff because this is as the deputant mayor stated, this is the future of our city and it’s very crucial. And let’s hope we get it as right as possible. I do have two questions and I know Mr. Maders I already kind of answered this but I do have one question just to assure because in the clause C says be directed to continue consultation, but then it also states and to receive approval of the final industrial land needs.

[2:56:03] So I just really want to make sure that we are not or I’m not even on this committee but this committee and then following the council, there’s no expectation that it’s going to be the final, there’s still going to be the consultation and the staff is going to come back. So I just want to receive the confirmation please. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, so the land needs is the actual the study portion that’s in the appendix which leads to the 88 hectares as a starting as that point that we’re suggesting and then the mapping discussion is what would be continuing beyond this meeting and the approval of council.

[2:56:41] Councilor. Thank you for that. And the second question I have and I know we had these discussions before and I mentioned it before. We are going the industrial land or now we cause employment areas, 88 hectares, 220 acres. And we are talking about our 10 year vision. I know 2021 was a record here, but it was 321 acres or 130 hectares. And is this number aggressive enough? Are we saying to the world we are open for the business, for industrial lands, if we have a request for larger, for organizations that request higher, larger parcels, are we ready?

[2:57:29] Are we sending the right signal, come to London? You can start tomorrow. If I can receive comments on this and if you really feel comfortable that was the 88 hectares is sufficient for us during these times. I’ll go staff. I’ll go staff through the chair. So at the very highest level, when we’re determining the land needs for the industrial or for the community growth, we lean on the language that’s in the provincial policy, the virtual policy statement, planning statement now, sorry, provincial planning statements.

[2:58:08] And that will provide us with the methodology and what we can use to be able to justify our lands. And that’s we’ve gone through that process. We’ve done it at that provincially driven process. And at the end of the day, the province will decide whether we can even allow this additional amount of land. There is a substantial amount of land that’s currently within the urban growth boundary that’s industrial focused. So we’re really leaning on that approach and we can’t recommend something that would be different than that approach that’s been laid out by the province. So our team has spent a lot of time with this and that’s come up with that 88 hectare recommendation.

[2:58:45] And we do need to have that policy basis to be able to support this and that’s what’s before you today. Councilor. Thank you. So based on that answer, that should be if it’s provincially, that means that there will be the same regulation for all the municipalities. So therefore, and correct me if I’m wrong, we should be aligned and therefore, we should not be disadvantaged to other municipalities and we are maximizing our opportunities up to 100% according to the current provincial policy.

[2:59:24] Go staff. Through the chair, absolutely, that’s correct. So we’re on the same playing field as all the other municipalities. Councilor. And therefore, based on this number, we are maximizing our opportunity, stretching it up to 100%. I see a nod from Mr. Mathers. Go staff. Go staff. Through the chair, absolutely, that’s correct. Councilor. Thank you. No more questions? Look for other comments or questions from many members or anyone online.

[3:00:04] I don’t see any other people wishing to speak. I’ll ask Deputy Mayor Lewis for getting a lot of work today. I’m gonna just make a few comments from the chair. I will take the chair and recognize Councilor Lehman. Thank you. I’m just gonna, yeah, I agree with what has been said, both in the comments from the public, from Mr. Wallace. You know, we’re gonna hear a different population forecast. Every couple of years, I’m sure we’re gonna hear up or down, depending on policy, depending on economies, depending on migration.

[3:00:55] But what, I guess when I look at this, I go, “Where’s the biggest risk?” And to me, the biggest risk and has been identified by previous speakers is not having enough land. And it comes in a couple of ways. One, at the base of all this is affordability. The cost of land is the number one factor in the price of a house. And if you restrict supply, that cost will, by definition, go up. If we want to keep a lid on costs or not have it grow up as fast as possible, we’ll make sure there’s sufficient supply.

[3:01:37] And the other side of this as well is, is the risk of not being ahead of the curve, in the sense that for us to properly have staff plan on a macro level, infrastructure needs. We kind of have to know the direction we’re going, as opposed to ad hoc, well, we didn’t get enough this time. So we’ll add over here or add over here. Now’s the time for, to make those long-term general plans. And remember, it’s been said many times. It doesn’t mean we’re gonna go out and people are gonna build tomorrow.

[3:02:09] And it means that developers will still have to come to this committee to have their lands rezoned. And the property aids, et cetera, will be done on those individual applications. The last concern I have, and I’ve mentioned this a number of times, if people are moving into this area. And for those that don’t want urban sprawl or don’t want other concerns that has been expressed with expanding urban growth area, this is direction you should want to go, because this council and future councils of London will have control on how that land is being developed, what densities are involved, what transportation is involved, and other things that make a city run properly.

[3:03:01] Where we don’t have control is when that development occurs outside of the city limits. And that’s what will happen. It’s already happening. I don’t think this will stop that from happening because it’s cheaper as you get farther open the city, but it will mitigate that to a certain extent in which we will have more housing available at a lower price if we are on the side of having enough land identified in the urban growth boundary.

[3:03:34] So this is a direction I’m committed to. And I think, I want to thank staff again. It’s an incredible, difficult process that you’re going through, but it’s very important for the future and proper planning of London as we go forward. Thank you, signing off. Thank you, Chair. I will return the chair to you. Okay, thank you. I don’t have anyone else on the speakers list at this time. Thanks, I’ll look one more time around. Maybe to see if there’s anyone else like to speak.

[3:04:09] We have motion moved and seconded, so I’ll call the vote. Wasn’t the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So the consent item 2.1 that was pulled will now fall on their items for directions, so we will go to that.

[3:05:00] And that is regarding the heritage designation of the property of 1511 Clark Road. So I’ll deputy marry one that pulled. I did, Chair. I’m not prepared to move it. I’m vote against it. If colleagues want to put it on, I don’t have a motion prepared to deny, so since I didn’t have an altercation prepared, we’ll see what happens.

[3:05:32] Councillor Palosa. Thank you. I’ll put it on the floor. I’ll move it realizing alternate wording always be brought at council. We just need to get it there for sure. Right, okay. So I’ve got a mover. I’ll look for a seconder, the Hilliard. A few seconds, okay. Councillor Hilliard has seconded it. So the motion is on the floor. So I’ll look for speakers to that motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:06:06] So now I’ll speak to it ‘cause rather than an alternate motion to refuse, I’m gonna encourage colleagues to just vote against this recommendation. And then we actually don’t need to refuse ‘cause it’ll just be denied. I am very blunt and very consistent with my previous votes. This property matched two of the nine criteria. And while that may be the minimum threshold, that is not even 50% of the criteria. So to put a part four designation on this property because two of nine criteria were met, that is not sufficient for me.

[3:06:48] Well, that is the minimum threshold. It is still up to council. It is not required that we designate with two of nine. And while I think about some of the discussions we’ve had recently around things like the Hyde Park BIA and the low response levels there and other things, two of nine, not good enough. So I’m gonna be voting no and encourage colleagues to do the same. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers. Councilor Cady. Thank you, Chair.

[3:07:20] I won’t be supporting this motion either. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Other speakers. I don’t see anyone online wishing to speak to this. Okay, we have a motion moving and seconded. I don’t call the vote. I’m thinking about the motion fails one to four.

[3:08:06] Okay, thank you. Now, the park is informing me we need to vote to receive. So I’ll look for a motion for that, Deputy Mayor moves it. Councilor Cady seconds, any discussion? I’ll call the vote. I’m closing the vote.

[3:08:43] The motion carries five to zero. There are no deferred matters. So I’ll look for a motion to go into in-camera. Councilor Cady seconded by Councilor Palosa. We’ll call the vote. I’m saying the vote the motion carries five to zero.

[3:09:26] Okay, I’ll look for the last clerk. When it’s the green light, go ahead. Recording in progress. Okay, we’re back in session.

[3:11:54] I’ll ask Councilor Palosa to— Okay, Mr. Chair, the doors are still closed. The doors are unlocked. Do you want to, should they be open? I would assume so, ‘cause we’ll get them open. I’m not talking about being closed. Sure, yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:13:10] Happy to report out that progress was made for the items listed on the public agenda for which we went in-camera. Thank you, Councilor. That brings us to the end of the agenda. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Palosa seconded by Councilor Hillier. All in favor? Motion carries. Means adjourned. Thank you.