Open Council

The 16th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 16th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

October 21, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

None.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Quarterly Heritage Report (Q3)

2025-10-21 (2.1) Staff Report - Heritage Report Q3

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to the Quarterly Heritage Report, Q3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Updating the Financial Incentive Program Guidelines for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area

2025-10-21 (2.3) Staff Report - Updating the Financial Incentive Program Guidelines for the SoHo CIP

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to updating the financial incentive program guidelines for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to AMEND by-law C.P.-1521-13; as amended, being a by-law to establish financial incentives for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area, by deleting Schedule “1” and replacing it with the appended Schedule “1” a revised SoHo Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines.

Motion Passed

2.4   (ADDED) 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

(ADDED) 2025-10-16 CACP Report - FULL

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 16th, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework)

2025-10-21 (2.2) Staff Report - SR Update on Bill 17 and Green Dev Guidelines

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment on the following:

i)          a terms of reference for consultation on an incentive based approach to encourage green initiatives; 

ii)         a review on the possibility of providing a “green priority stream” which would prioritize and accelerate applications with green measures through the approval and permit phases;

iii)        confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the voluntary development guideline framework is in alignment with Bill 17; and

iv)        incorporate changes to the reporting of development applications that would highlight voluntary and market driven initiatives; 

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, as appended to the added agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   34 Adelaide Street South - Z-25100

2025-10-21 (3.1) Staff Report - 34 Adelaide Street South

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Scott Wilson (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 34 Adelaide Street South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2(_)) Zone;

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

-    Y. Elmahdy, MHBC Planning Urban Design; 

-    C. Mendoza;

-    B. Wilson;

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 an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet current and future housing needs;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would allow for an existing residential use at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area.

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. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   4680 Wellington Road South - TZ-25097

2025-10-21 (3.2) Staff Report - 4680 Wellington Road South

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 761030 Ontario Ltd. (c/o Navdeep Jim Grewal) relating to the property located at 4680 Wellington Road South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-74) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor C. Rahman - Proposal to Limit Bedroom Count in Additional Residential Units

2025-10-21 (4.1) Motion - Proposal to Limit Bedroom Count in Additional Residential Units - S. Lewis C. Rahman

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED bring forward a city initiated Zoning By-law amendment to the current Zoning By-law No. Z-1 to:

a)    establish a maximum of two (2) bedrooms for any Additional Residential Unit (ARU);

b)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any combination of Additional Residential Units located within or attached to the main dwelling;

c)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any detached ARUs located on a property, whether contained within a single detached ARU or distributed between two detached ARUs;

d)    include a provision that the gross floor area (GFA) of any ARU shall not exceed eighty percent (80 %) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas; and,

it being noted these provisions are intended to operate within the existing zoning framework that permits no more than four (4) total dwelling units on a residential property, including one (1) primary dwelling and up to three (3) Additional Residential Units, with a maximum of two (2) detached ARUs permitted, and to limit the combined total number of bedrooms within all Additional Residential Units on a property to six (6); 

it being noted that the verbal delegations from M. Wallace, J. Gray and E. Granillo, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the delegation requests from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, J. Gray and E. Granillo as appended to the added agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-10-21 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the October Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:01 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 (2 hours, 19 minutes)

[18:33] It’s 1 p.m. I’d like to welcome everyone to the 16th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. Before we get started I have one important message. Let’s go Blue Jays. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Walk and Adirondorong.

[19:11] We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse Indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats like communication supports from meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PEC at London.ca or 516-661-2489 extension 2425. At this time I’ll ask for any disclosures of peunery interest. Seeing none I’ll move on to consent items. I’ll be pulling 2.2 and we’ll move that to a deferred matters at the end of our agenda. I’ll just ask if there’s any other items that committee members would like pulled. Seeing none I’ll look for a motion to accept Councillor CUNY moves it seconded by Councillor Hillier. I don’t look for any comments or questions on the consent items.

[20:21] Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir. The chair to the staff. I have a question regarding the 2.3 and when I look at the Seoul Hall map I just want to ask you the northern boundary of the Seoul Hall map. The downtown CIP is it right above it or is there a space kind of in between couple of streets? Thank you. Now go staff. Thank you and through the chair. The boundary the north boundary for the Seoul Hall CIP abuts directly with the south boundary of the downtown CIP area. We use the train tracks as the delineation factor. Councillor. So if I have correct understanding then it will be all kind of together in terms of the CIP coverage that there’s not going to be a lap in between is that correct? Go staff. Thank you and through the chair that’s correct in terms of the CIP project areas between Seoul and the downtown they again they have bought together so there’s no missing properties. Councillor. Thank you and the last one I do understand in the report it states clearly that those parking lots or the one wouldn’t be ineligible under the downtown one. Having said that is it are there any plans to make any changes because of this or is the downtown in terms of the facade that other is going to be continuing and there are no plans to discontinue these incentives correct with staff. Thank you and through the chair at this time we have no plans to discontinue any of the incentives. We are awaiting any recommendations within the downtown plan and that will be put in front of council for any recommendations or improvements made to the downtown community improvement plan. Councillor. Thank you very much. No more questions? I look for other comments or questions. Councillor Frank. Thank you and through the chair on the same item I’m just wondering what the source of funding is for the Seoul CIP? I go staff. Thank you and through the chair the source of funding is the community improvement program reserve fund. We did an analysis to determine whether or not this proposed change could be acceptable under the community improvement reserve fund and we have determined that there is adequate balance in order to proceed with this recommendation in front of you today. Councillor. Thank you and perhaps in the report I missed it.

[22:38] I was skimming some of the other ones more thoroughly. I’m wondering how much will then be allocated to the SOHO one and then how much will still be in the reserve fund for the other CIPs? Go to staff. Thank you and through the chair. So the structure of the CIP reserve fund is it funds all of our CIPs and each neighborhood CIP we forecast specific allocated amounts for each program within that neighborhood CIP and that together builds how we overall forecast the total reserve funding itself. Within the reserve fund when we propose a change like this we determine whether or not there’s adequate balance or whether the reserve fund is in a healthy state in order to then determine whether or not this is a recommendation we want to make in front of a council. The recommendation in front of council reflects that we have done that in that financial analysis and we have determined that proceeding with the recommendation in front of you today will not negatively impact the reserve fund balance and will still maintain that balance in a healthy state. Councillor. Thank you and I do appreciate the due diligence.

[23:43] Do you have what the forecasted amount would be for SOHO and what the current amount is in the CIP reserve fund? Sorry, in the CIP reserve fund. Thank you and through the chair we can have that information for council. I don’t have it quite in front of me right now but we can have that information ready for council. Councillor. Thank you. Yes, I’d appreciate that. I’m supportive of this CIP moving forward as well. I can’t vote at this committee but at council but I am interested in just understanding how much is in the CIP reserve funds because it’d always be nice to have some money for a green incentive CIP. Look for other colleagues. Councillor Pribble.

[24:21] Thank you, sir. The chair to the staff as I’m not on this committee official member. I’m not on it. Can I please receive that information as well? Thank you. Other comments or questions? The committee will permit me on just stuff from the chair. I just wanted to ask about 2.3 in the SOH community improvement area. It includes the several parking for London Hydro. Will you be consulting with London Hydro on any impacts that it might have with their staff parking? Thank you and through the chair. Absolutely. There’s a separate process that is being undertaken with an RFP in a previous council direction that has provided staff with direction to submit to an RFP process to redevelop these lands. As part of that consultation process there is plans in place to determine the current parking availability in the downtown area and that parking lot specifically.

[25:27] And if there are existing agreements, how those agreements will be translated into any future redevelopment of that site. Okay. Thank you. As the only shareholder of London Hydro requests from the chair that you keep London Hydro involved as much as possible when as it affects their consider amount of employee parking. Thank you. Look, well, Council Frank. Thank you. Sorry for that. One more question on that item regarding the two parking lots that are seen on that had the REOI and it says that three folks have submitted both all with extensive construction experience noting that those two locations are ineligible for the downtown community improvement plans.

[26:09] So I’m just wondering is the plan then for staff to extend the downtown community improvement plan to those two parking lots? And is there anything else that developers could stack funding wise for those two parking lots? Thank you. And through the chair, the recommendation in front of you today is to include those two specific parking lots within the Soho community improvement plan. This is because we did not want to extend the downtown community improvement plan down there because we’ve already designated the Soho area as a community improvement project area. So the recommendation in front of you is simply to include those two specific parking lots to align with the mayoral direction to redevelop those lots. And because they were not originally included within the scope of those financial incentives within the Soho package, that is the recommendation in front of you to then just again add those two specific lots so they would be eligible for the Soho incentives as prescribed by Council. Councilor. Thank you. And would whoever develops those be eligible for any other incentives? Good stuff. Thank you. And through the chair, the ultimate proponent that’s successful would be eligible for any of the incentive programs within the Soho community improvement plan, along with any incentives as part of our city-wide CIPs. They would not be eligible for any of our downtown or old East Village incentive programs because they’re not in those boundaries. Councilor. Yeah. We have a motion moving second. Oh, Councilor. I’m sorry. I apologize. Please, please go ahead. Thanks, Chair. I came in a little bit late on this one. I just see that my questions were just answered. The ones that I had and more. So thank you, Councilor Frank. So I’ll just make some comments here. I’m going to be in support of updating the financial incentive program for the Soho community improvement area. I do see that there’s good work being put here. I do like to see the focus on those two lots.

[28:04] I hope that we get a better use out of them. So I’ll just keep my comments tight here at this committee. I’ll probably have some more at Council, but I appreciate the questions that we’re just asked and I appreciate the answers. Thank you. One last look around for a call to vote. Okay. I’ll call the vote. I think the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay. Moving on to scheduled items 3.1. This is regarding 34 Adelaide Street South. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Cuddy seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and we’ll call the vote.

[28:56] Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay. I’ll look for the applicant. I’d like to address the committee. Now is your chance. I see you online. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Yara Almati with MHBC Planning. We are acting on behalf of the registered owner and applicant Brenda and Scott Wilson, who are also available virtually. At this time, we would like to briefly express our support of the findings and recommendations set out in the planning staff report. We agree that the city’s assessment that the proposed zoning bylaw amendment supports key city of London policy direction for the neighbourhood’s place type by recognizing the existing dwelling containing six residential units within the built area boundary and primary transit area.

[29:57] Additionally, as identified in the staff report, in effect, the proposal aligns with objectives of the corporate strategic plan. In particular, the housing and homelessness area of focus of the plan is supported by increasing the supply of housing to help achieve intensification targets and by increasing access to quality attainable housing options that meet the need of London’s residents. We also wanted to advise the committee that no further external development is proposed at this time for the site. Finally, we would like to thank the city staff for their direction relating to the advancement of this application. Thank you for your consideration and we will be gladly available to answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you. I look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee. Please, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello. Hello. There we go. Hi. Nice to meet everyone here today. It’s my first time in City Hall since moving to London two years ago. Can I ask you to just raise the mic up a bit so we can. There we go. Terrific. Thank you. My name is Christian Mendoza. I’m a caseworker at the Western Community Legal Services Clinic. Currently, one of our clients is one of the tenants currently living on the property. They’ve reported to us that the landlord with their application has not necessarily taken the due diligence of ensuring that the people that live there are all going to be accounted for in terms of rent. So when we’re considering the corporate strategic agenda regarding housing and homelessness, it’s not the case that they’ve actually tried to propose a amicable relationship with the tenants. Instead, they’ve reported in offer to either buy out their stay at the residence or they’ve offered to, in the alternative, they’ve chosen to increase the rents in rates that are beyond the people that can live there or able to provide. As we know, downtown London and in general has not been a very hospitable place for many people that are either older or struggling to support themselves financially. And many of these people that are currently living there are either under ODSP or elderly. And fortunately for them, they have been served two and 13 notices in the last six months. And both under the presumption that they will be kicked out of their house, which is scheduled for October 31st or sorry, October 31st. The hearing is scheduled for November 19th. And so my proposal is that the amendment be delayed until there’s been due process seen for the tenants considering the fact that they are at risk of losing their homes and that the landlord has not communicated with the tenants for the last six months regarding the currently living state of many of the tenants, which while acknowledged that they are struggling with living in adequate living conditions, it is also the case that many of the tenants there have been there for many years and that the landlord has not provided an adequate solutions to many of the problems that they’re experiencing other than just demolishing the current living situations in the building and as opposed to working together to provide some form of amicable living conditions that doesn’t require them completely moving out and potentially losing a place to stay. Thank you. A look for other members of the public, like to address the committee. I’ll ask Claire if there’s anyone online. Claire, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone approaching the mic. So, oh, my good voice. Yes. Hello. Yes, hello.

[34:11] So it’s Brenda Wilson. I’m the client that Yara spoke about. So I want to acknowledge everything that Mr. Christian Mendoza has mentioned. However, at this time, we are working to get this zoning bylaw amendments in place. Acknowledge that the landlord and tenant board meeting is postponed until November. So, you know, the due diligence process is ongoing with respect to that. However, you know, our obligation, I’m not clear on our obligation to provide adequate housing for the tenants that are there now. We don’t at this time have another option or another rental unit or anywhere that we can, you know, offer them something, a solution. The plan going forward is to optimize the use of that building and acknowledging that they have been there for many years. However, we don’t are not clear on the condition of the renovations that were done that did not go through the London permit process, the building process. So whether they meet building code requirements or not, you know, we’re not clear on that. So, you know, we’re certainly open to working with Mr. Mendoza if we work with you. But I’m not clear on what our obligation is to find housing for the tenants that are there now. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for any other members of the public like to address committee. I’ll ask Clerk again if there’s anyone online, there’s nobody online. Okay, I don’t see anyone coming to the mic. So, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hillier, and we’ll call that vote.

[36:26] We’ll think about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll move this staff recommendation and then once it’s seconded, I’ll speak to it. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hillier seconds it. Do you want to speak to it? Deputy Mayor? I do chair just briefly because both of the public presentations we had both spoke to landlord tenant relations issues at the moment. I think it’s really incumbent to remind folks that this is a zoning application. We’re not the landlord tenant board. We don’t oversee the RTA. That has to be dealt with separately from Planning Act application for a zoning change. And so, while I appreciate hearing from Mr. Mendoza that they have a hearing date, that is separate and apart from decisions we have to make on zoning applications which are based on technical evaluations of the site. And in this case, the application meets and has received staff recommendation. And so, I’m moving it. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Traditionally at this committee, when there was a PPM, you took notes and then took the resident’s concerns back to staff for an opportunity to respond to them.

[38:04] Looking to see, I certainly heard what Deputy Mayor has said, but just looking to see what process has been followed or how that would be resolved, even hearing the proponent online with us saying that they don’t know the process and seem to be what they should be doing. So, just looking for clarification on the space of next steps or how to address that. Yeah. So, I’ll go to staff. We got it. So, I’ll go to staff and with process and maybe referral to the landlord tenant act. How do we work in conjunction with that? Or if it’s totally a separate issue, as the Deputy Mayor alluded to? Through the chair. Absolutely. This is an issue that’s still very valid, but not necessarily what we’re here today to speak to. However, hearing these matters, then we’re happy to be able to correspond with both with the applicant and get any further information from the folks that might be experiencing the situation to be able to just understand it and make sure that anything that’s happening is in line with a run eviction by-law. Councillor. Thank you. I appreciate that knowing that staff can reach back out. I realize what we’re sitting here to do today, but we also have the other matters of permits licensing by-laws as well that will be inherently tied up in this, so make sure that we can move forward together. So, happy to support it. I’m just looking forward to making sure that everyone’s on the same page as we move forward. Okay. Councillor Fray. Thank you. I just want to follow up. I know that we reference a reference a renovation staff. Could staff confirm as well they’d be able to check if they are building permits that should have been or will be required for any of these changes as well, because I kind of heard some conversation regarding that.

[39:53] Good stuff. Through the chair, absolutely, based on what we’ve heard today, we’ll start doing that internal investigating, just to ensure that anything that is being done is in line with the building code and also in line with a run evictions by-law. Councillor, that’s good. Okay. I’ll look for, oh, I see Councillor Trosso. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you very much. If it is this situation, and I don’t know enough about this file to make the claim or make the statement that there have been violations of any internal processes, but just assuming hypothetically that there were, assuming that the run evictions by-law has not been complied with, assuming that building permit issues are outstanding, is it still the case that such non-compliance issues can have no bearing on this hearing? Because it seems to me as if we’re not going to harmonize all of our by-laws and not look at a by-law and isolation without regard to other issues that are going on in the city. So I guess my most direct question is, in terms of the relationship between our other by-laws and the zoning by-law, is it really the case that even if there are outstanding violations, we just sort of close our eyes to that and proceed with the zoning matter? And that’s a question, I think, for legal or first, Jeff? Well, I’ll go to staff first, and Mr. Mathers, you can decide if you would like to answer that or not. Through the chair, so from the perspective of what you have before you today, it really is trying to look at bringing a property in line with our current zoning by-law and ensuring that it’s in a positive position moving forward.

[41:55] Council, of course, can use any kind of considerations in making the decision on what we presented to you, where we are very much going to be bringing forward, just like with any planning application, just ensuring it’s within the Planning Act and what we’re suggesting from that perspective, we wouldn’t necessarily look at any kind of history of a property when we’re trying to bring forward a zoning application related and any kind of previous infractions or anything like that. That’s not something that would be appropriate from a planning perspective, but Council can make their decision based on where other information is being provided by the public, and happy if legal has any other comments as well. Well, I can go to legal. If legal, I’d like to weigh in here.

[42:39] Through the chair, I think that’s an accurate representation. There’s a specific analysis related to zoning by-laws passing, and that’s what Council will typically consider, but it’s Council’s discretion to make a decision. Council, trust me. So one last point that you just said, it’s Council’s discretion to make a decision. Does the Council have a discretion? Does the Council have the lawful discretion to say, we are going to deny this permit, or we are going to put it into abeyance until these other compliance issues under our by-laws are dealt with? Do we have the discretion to do that? I’ll go to legal. Through the chair, in terms of the risk associated with exercising discretion in specific cases, perhaps that’s a discussion best suited for confidential session. Council has this discretion to make decisions and concordant with their powers of the Municipal Act. Councilor? Yes, and our powers of the Municipal Act include reference to the other by-laws. I think between now and the Council meeting, I would like to get a better understanding, and perhaps the gentleman from the legal clinic might want to send in an added for the Council meeting. I would like to have a better understanding of the nature and extent of the violations. Because I think if they’re substantial, we really should consider exercising our discretion in the interest of harmonizing our different by-laws. As things stand, I’m not a member of this committee, so I don’t have to vote today. But I would certainly be uncomfortable supporting this at Council if there are substantial and serious violations. So how would I best at this point go about getting more information on that? I’m not going to ask to go into a closed session now. I may do that at Council if these questions are still unanswered. But what’s the best way for me to get this further information? Councilor from the chair, I suggest you meet with legal between now and Council. I appreciate not going into in-camera today, but have that set up maybe for Council, depending on what your discussions find out. I’ll remind the Councilor that what we decide as a Council can always be appealed to OLT, and OLT will take it on terms of provincial legislation as well as other aspects of unemployment, et cetera, etc.

[45:31] And why I cannot speak for the OLT, I just ask you to bear that in mind. Please go ahead. Yes, would that apply? Somebody can take this to the OLT. Would that apply to the attendance if we grant this application? My understanding, I can go to staff on this. My understanding is either party can, not too sure if a third party can appeal it. I don’t think a third party can. I think the developer could appeal if we did not give him the permit for the rezoning. But I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, that’s correct. So it’s the applicant that would be able to appeal and just so that everyone’s aware, there’s a 90-day time frame we have to be able to bring this back to Council. So if we, if it wasn’t brought forward by the Council date, then they would be in the position to be able to appeal. Thank you. So I’ll go back to your Council. It would seem a little unfair to not allow the tenants to have the same procedural avenues as the landlord, but I guess that’s a matter of provincial law. I do think that that’s something that we need to take into account. If in fact the tenants are going to be precluded from filing an appeal, I think if there’s going to be any justice, it’s got to be done here at the Council table.

[46:56] So I will be pursuing this. I’m not going to take up any more time. I suspect my time’s up anyway. I’m going to just do some further investigation on this because I think it raises an interesting policy question. And if it need be, we might need to consider amending some of our bylaws in order to create more procedural fairness for tenants like this in this type of situation. And I hope to have a chance to talk to the tenants representative as well before the meeting. So thank you very much for listening to me. And that’s it.

[47:31] Okay. Thank you, Councilor. I’ll look for, well, Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I know I’m not part of this committee, but I do have a comment. And I guess I’ll start off agreeing with the Deputy Mayor. This is his owning application. But since we do have the applicant here, I really would like to make a comment and express my or maybe encourage the applicant to do their due diligence and work with the tenants. I understand that they’re elderly, they’ve been there here a long time, but maybe there’s some possible way moving forward that the applicant can work with the tenant. So thank you for allowing you to make those comments. Okay, Councilor, I’ll go to Councilor Ferre. Thank you, Chair. I’ll be brief on this one. Just kind of hearing what Councilor Troso’s comments were. I do remember a property on South Street that did not have tenants. And I was inquiring to see if there’s orders issued to the property for any type of property compliance issue. Is there a way to, I guess, suspend or inhibit or whatever the word is to for any zoning application that could come through because there was a zoning bylaw amendment. I had the same situation, but I didn’t have the residents on that. So I was looking in on that. So I do see that there are matters that could be related specifically to the city side when it comes to zoning or property compliance and then zoning bylaw amendments coming through. And I did see that there was potential hurdles, but I am interested to see to pursue this maybe with a harmonization as Councilor Troso brought up. But with that, just seeing on this item, there is tenant relations here. Or there is a landlord-tenant relationship here that does, I guess, fall within the provincial jurisdiction. But I do, I am interested to see what we can do on that. So I would also request, I guess, that memo from legal if we can just to clarify things when it comes to that aspect.

[49:32] Well, Councilor Troso was going to meet with legal. He hadn’t requested a memo. I asked that you do the same. I appreciate if you could just meet with legal between now and Council. And if you need to go in camera at that time to pursue it further, I think that would be the proper way to go. I appreciate the direction, Chair. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Other comments or questions for our call to vote? Okay, we have motion moves in second and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.2 regarding 46 AD, Wellington Road South. I’ll look for motions to open the public participation meeting.

[50:31] Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Pullo, so we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look to the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee to see the applicant online or in the gallery. So I’ll ask for any other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this particular item.

[51:11] So clerk, if there’s anyone online, there is nobody online. Okay, so I’ll look for motion to close with PBM. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call the vote. I’ll think about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Do you want to move the staff recommendation? The first seconder, Councilor Cuddy, for comments or questions. Do you not know a call to vote?

[52:06] The motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’re moving on to 4.1. This is regarding proposal to limit bedroom count of additional residential units. We’ve added we’ve had two requests for delegation. My apologies. There was another added. So there’s actually three requests for delegation. So I’ll look for motion to allow all three to be heard. Councilor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and we’ll call that vote. Chair, just prior to you calling that vote, I had asked and I did copy you on the memo to Mr. Mathers. I know staff provided us a briefing note yesterday, but I did ask in this case if staff could give a brief presentation because it wasn’t on the public agenda. And so before we hear from our delegates, if staff could provide that brief presentation to us, it may be helpful for the delegates to hear as well. Okay, apparently it’s up to me. So the power is overwhelming. So yeah, we’ll go to staff for that brief presentation. Thank you. Through the chair, so today’s meeting committee is considering a motion from Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor ramen. This would introduce a citywide limit on the number of bedrooms permitted within additional residential units, which we also call ARUs. To provide some context, so under the current zoning framework, most residential lots can contain up to four total dwelling units, main dwelling unit and up to three ARUs, either within the house or in a detached accessory building. Citywide, there’s no bedroom cap for these ARUs except in the near campus neighborhoods, where Council previously established a bedroom limit of eight, which includes five bedrooms in the main dwelling and three across the ARUs. The motion before you today would not affect those near campus provisions for bedroom units. Instead, it would apply to all other neighborhoods across the city, and it would cap the total number of bedrooms within all ARUs on a property at five, regardless of the number of ARUs or the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling, you would have that cap. So practically speaking, a property outside the near campus neighborhood could still have a main dwelling of any size and a number of bedrooms, and then up to three ARUs providing that the combined total of the ARU bedrooms does not exceed that number of five. So I just would also like to everyone to be aware that this is not something that we can apply retroactively.

[55:59] That’s not something we could do with zoning. If there is already a current permit that’s been issued, we don’t have any ability to change that, but if a new permit is submitted, then there is some ability to be able to apply the new zoning rules. So with that, happy to answer any questions related to the application once you’ve heard from the delegates. Thank you. Kirk would like a confirmation of who moved and seconded the delegation request. Councillor Hilly, did you move it?

[56:41] You moved it. Okay. Who seconded? All right. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So, Councillor Hilly, you’re moving. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded. Okay. We’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll look for first delegate, Mr. Walsh. Please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Councillors for allowing me and the other delegates to speak to this item. Relatively briefly, we appreciate the staff. It was a great idea having staff do their presentation in advance. Some of the, I’ve had a number of questions since I’ve circulated the letter to my members and that helped clarify at least one of them. Through you, Mr. Chair, I know if you could do me a favor and ask staff when it’s time that this would require the ZBA, of course, when would the timing of that ZBA be in terms of staff doing the work and bringing it back to committee? And would that require a PPM for his ZBA? Looking for that. The other thing we were looking for, just for clarification, because even in, if you look at today’s newspaper article on this particular item, it relates to the half of funding. We were, from a, we have a difference view, I guess, I wouldn’t call it a view, but if you look on your own website, what an ARU is and how it’s attached to a house, whether it’s in the basement, whether it’s just a separate unit, which is a garage converted or a separate brand new unit. See, to that, to us, from the development side is an ARU, what is being proposed that this particular lot that was referenced in the letter is severing a piece of property input and, as of right, four units on there, which we don’t consider ARUs. They’re not an additional residential unit. They’re new units on that piece of property. So we just need some clarification. And my recommendation is that even if it’s during the ZBA process, if there’s time, that the letter then be referred to the customer process committee that staff is set up to have discussions on a number of issues that have been very successful. And we have one coming up next week, but we could certainly put it on the November agenda, have the discussion there, make sure we all understand what the potential is, and then we would know if the ZBA is coming back in the next cycle or whatever, and then whether that’s a public meeting, and we’d be able to provide comments at that time.

[59:29] Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Once I get through all the delegations, I know I’ll go ahead with that question of staff. I’ll look for Z great. I’ve got to pull this guy down a little bit. Yeah, it’s hard to step up. There you go. You have five minutes, please go ahead. So yes, thank you for allowing me to speak today. I’m one of the residents on Elle Dale Avenue, so we’re understanding now that there’s nothing retroactively that can be done about the number of bedrooms. And we have met with our counselor at an earlier meeting at St. Jude’s Church to discuss the concerns of the neighborhood.

[1:00:19] But I’m not sure at that time whether it was known that these as of right units, are they just allowed under any circumstance? Because we know at this point now that these lands are sitting on some very sensitive environmental lands that have been identified by the City of London plan. And it’s also sitting on an aquifer. And for those of you who don’t know what that is, I certainly didn’t before I started researching this. But it’s basically a rock or sediment under the ground that allows sort of a natural reservoir to occur. So if these as of right buildings were as we understood initially four units, the bedrooms were not specified when we originally requested the information. But I was present at the meeting where the 15-foot variance was asked for to be reduced to 14.5. And at that time the City did confirm with me that it would be one dwelling and again no specification of number of bedrooms. Typically when land is divided or you know severed, the City does look at whether waste management studies need to be done, environmental studies need to be done. And I think there’s sort of a list. I did have power points today but understood this morning I wasn’t able to present them. But I did have maps of the area. And we are sitting on a designated vulnerable area with significant groundwater recharge area according to the 10 sit in him and region source protection plan. And under the London Plan table 2.1, the areas that require an environmental study would be environmental sensitive areas within 120 meters. This land does sit at 110 meters, we’re within that. And a highly vulnerable aquifer with groundwater recharge within 30 meters. This land all is on an aquifer. So I would have thought that would have triggered these two studies. So perhaps I guess we’re looking for a faint clause here where the building permits under these circumstances could perhaps be held until those two studies are done. Is there, I don’t, I guess my question is, is there any possibility in this? I’ll ask all the questions that are being raised by yourself. And previously when Mr. Wallace, I’ll ask after we’ve heard the delegates. So I’ll ask that question to staff.

[1:03:07] Okay. I just wanted to mention that the underground infiltration gallery proposed by the developer. I didn’t know what that was either. And thank you chat GPT did explain it to me. So he’s not planning to go into the sewer system, which sorry, not the sewer system, but the storm sewers. There are no storm sewers on Elmdale Avenue at the end that we’re talking about. And there’s just low capacity. So if he were to plug into those, it’s expected that there would be runoff and flooding, which these properties already are sensitive to and have happened.

[1:03:46] And the underground infiltration gallery apparently is not a design that’s suitable for a high water table, which this is in this area. So I guess the engineer must have approved this, but it would be nice to have more information on whether we’re to expect our lands to be flooded as well. Thank you. Thank you. I will go to our final delegate, E Granilo. Please, sir. Go ahead you have five minutes. Yeah. So the motion today, while it’s appreciated, frankly, it’s a hollow gesture. It’s not going to cap bedrooms in similar future developments. It’s a good start, but it’s not good enough. So recently, council members deflected responsibility for an aggressive development, saying that somebody was pushing the limit. But here are the facts. The developer Lucas Janik was approved to tear down a four bedroom home and put up 32 bedrooms in a quiet residential pocket of the city with no zoning amendment required. So that’s a 700% increase in densification that was allowed because the city removed residential zoning in 2023. For argument sake, let’s pretend that this motion actually gets passed today, which it has. And let’s play this out on the same lot that counselors are allegedly deeply concerned about. So at 545, the current development is for two city approved multi unit buildings, or what’s being dressed as one house plus three ARUs. As a side note, I spoke with community or I had communication with city counselors and people in the building department that couldn’t actually agree on what kind of development this was. Anyways, so let’s say I’m the same developer who hears the bad news about this amendment. Is that going to stop me from putting up 32 bedrooms on the same lot?

[1:05:45] No, because in August of 2023, council allowed four residential units per lot as of right in any single family home neighborhood. Residential units, not ARUs. I have a printout of the amendment in black and white and nowhere does it say anything about additional residences. It says residential units. Further, the city doesn’t have a definition for what a residential unit is. If I put one building on the lot, what would we consider that, a house? If I put two residential units on a lot, that’s two houses, four, four, naturally. So I can skirt the motion today, build four houses as of right because of this bylaw or this amendment, and still put up 32 bedrooms. So my question is, as a developer, as a savvy developer, why would I hamstring myself by building a house in three ARUs when I can just bypass that process completely and put up four residential units with an unlimited bedroom cap? That is the problem, and that’s why this motion is political window dressing app best. The real solution is rescinding the August 2023 policy, so rescind the four residential units as of right on existing lots, or at the very least in our one single family zones. The solution to addressing the alleged bedroom concern, as well as preserving a neighborhood archetype that, well, some counselors may not like, is something that lenders, the people that you’re supposed to represent, do like. To finish in for the sake of getting it on public record, here’s why this is happening. We’re here because certain city officials have a chip on their shoulder for single family residential neighborhoods. You sold out lenders’ residential neighborhoods for federal funding, which you were never obligated to take. You keep parroting affordable housing despite vacancy rates being at a decade high. If you wanted affordable housing, go after landlords and compel them to lower rent instead of putting London neighborhoods in the crosshairs. Certain counselors have told me in black and white that they are against where a large portion of Londoners, people that, again, they’re supposed to represent, currently live. If you want to truly address this issue, risk in the August amendment, and if that means returning federal funding at your expense, not ours, then pull out the checkbook and do that as well. To all Londoners that are tuning into this meeting, current council is okay with selling neighborhoods in your city, so please remember that for the upcoming election. Thank you. Please, I’ll listen, folks. When you’re here, there’s no applause, and there’s no booing. Well, I’ll tell you why not. It’s because it’s intimidating for speakers, and I don’t want to reflect decisions being made down here, and it’s a matter of course that it’s a warning, and if it happens, again, I’ll clear the gallery.

[1:08:44] So please respect the process. We’re here for hearing many different opinions and debating the issue. So let us do the job, and let’s speak without any undue pressure. Thank you. Okay, so those are delegates, so a couple of questions that came out that I’ll go to staff on. Let’s start with the web from Ms. Gray. When we have an as-of-rate build, how are environmental concerns dealt with, you know, water tables, connections to sewers, with density, et cetera? Through the chair, so this is a building a lot. It had an existing home on it, so many of those aspects would have been dealt with previous when the original zoning was met. So from a building code perspective and issuing a building permit perspective, the applicant had met all of those requirements. So from the perspective of staff, we can’t say no, we can’t ask for more than those things. We need to ask for what the building code allows us to. It met the zoning and all of the requirements of the building codes, so we need to provide them that permit. So if environmental concerns are not met, building permits would be withheld until they were addressed, is that correct?

[1:10:11] Through the chair, so that the original zoning would have never been in place. There would have been a holding provision on it requiring that information. There would have been other processes previously, but once that zoning has been established and it allows an azabrite use for that property, we cannot ask for that information, and it’s not something that we would weigh in our decision and whether we would issue a building permit. So when there’s an azabrite, there’s no holding provision, right? Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes. What’s the difference between ARUs and residential units? The gentleman that spoke just previously, he was kind of saying that this particular thing doesn’t have enough weight because it ignores residential units. Absolutely. So this is incredible. Like this is very complex planning terminology that we’re using throughout all of these aspects. I can absolutely understand that if you’re trying to do this research and trying to like pick these pieces out, you may easily get, not be able to find the absolutely accurate aspects of this. So from the perspective of the city, these, and again, we’re not here necessarily to discuss a single property. That’s a we’re here is a discussion of motion, but if you want to talk about how this would apply to that, that specific property on Elmdale, they would only be allowed to have a single family home. And that main unit could be as many based on the current zoning bylaw that there can be as many bedrooms as the person would choose as long as it can fit on the lot and all the other constraints as far as height on the property. And then they could be allowed three additional residential units and in different types of combinations, but that maximum number would be five of those additional residential units. So it’s being proposed or what has been applied for and there’s a building permit issued that would not move forward in the future if this motion was passed.

[1:12:13] Okay, Mr. Wallace had a question about ZBA’s timing and need for public participation meetings. Can you comment on that? Through the chair, absolutely. So this would require a zoning bylaw amendment, which would have a public participation process. And we have like a 90 day time frame for bringing something like that forward. So we would project it currently. That would be January that we bring back as ZBA for Council discussion and they have public participation meeting. Okay, thank you. This is passed by Council. All right, thanks. Okay, that’s the questions I had from the delegates.

[1:12:50] So I will go to committee and imagine Deputy Mayor Lewis over to you as this is your item. Yeah, so I’ll put this on the floor. I will know Councilor Robbins joined us on Zoom now as my co-signer on this and actually credit to her for doing a lot of the legwork on it. And I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder and then we can discuss. Okay, I’ll look for, oh, we’ve got a couple over there. Councilor Paloz seconds it. So I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So I will say to this motion, it is about getting back to the intent of an ARU and in fact, I think the point made about what is the definition of an ARU is that this is to address that, that it is secondary to the primary residence. Even if the primary residence is new, it is a secondary unit. I know there are actually developers in the city. I know Drulo is one of them who are building ARUs right into brand new housing guilds, purpose-built ARUs in the basement.

[1:13:58] But even in those situations, there are common areas like furnace rooms typically located in the basement. So they’re not using the entire GFA, the gross floor area of the main floor in the basement level, because there’s an area that’s common access and common use. So they’re smaller. And that’s the intent of an ARU, but it is secondary to the primary unit, whether it’s in the primary building, whether it’s accessory to the primary building, whether it’s a new addition attachment at ground level to the primary building. It is supposed to be a secondary use. We are seeing a couple of applications where applicants have pushed right to the limit of what they can get, and are mixing and matching ARUs with four plexes or duplexes with ARUs attached to each one, those kind of things. And we are seeing those ARUs being proposed with no differentiation from the primary unit, the same size, the same floor area, the same number of bedrooms, and that’s not the purpose of these. The entire intent of an additional residential unit was to provide smaller, more affordable units for a variety of uses, whether that’s a rental income, as a secondary unit on the property for a property owner, whether that’s an opportunity for a multi-generational family accommodation on site, for an aging parent who’s ready to downsize from their home, or an adult child who’s now needing some independence, but not able to get into the housing market yet.

[1:15:38] That was the purpose of these things all along, and we’re not seeing that spirit and intent being carried through in some of the plans that come forward, some of the plans. Many of the plans have been perfectly in alignment with that. I mentioned Drulo, but I’ve seen an ARU that was a bit of a prefab model that was put on a property on Manitoba Street in my ward. It’s a great example of what an ARU should be. Small recreation, living room area, kitchenette, one bedroom takes up, to a third of the backyard. It’s exactly what they were intended for. So that is why this motion is being brought forward by Councillor ramen and myself, because we want to clearly define the intent that ARUs are secondary. They should be smaller and clearly different from the primary unit in both size and scope. That includes a bedroom count. As was mentioned across the city, we don’t have a bedroom maximum anymore. And again, there’s some reasons for that, including the more frequent occurrence of multi-generational family living as our demographics change.

[1:16:49] But in defining this, we put the additional back in ARU, and that’s the intent of this. So I’ll leave it at that for now. I may swing background if there’s more commentary on this as we go, but I’ll leave it to the rest of the committee and visiting council members to comment. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers to this. Councillor prayer. Thank you. Yes. And I was hoping to seek a bit more clarification, because I’m still confused. So all of the stuff that’s in the motion is specific to ARUs, but we had some discussion about demolishing and building fresh. So if a developer wanted to build four units into, let’s say, a walk up, are those all ARUs? Which one’s the main one if they’re all the same size?

[1:17:40] So I guess I don’t understand what the, like, in the case, I know that we’re talking about this across the city, but we’re also kind of talking about 545 Elmdale. So in that case, if all four units are the exact same size, are those ARUs or is that a fourplex through the chair? I’ll go stop. Through the chair. So just this is just a reference to the motion. They would not be able to be the same size because there’s this provision for this 80% piece that they would have to be less than the size of the main unit. So with this motion, they couldn’t be the same size. Thank you. So then if somebody wants to build a fourplex, that all units are the exact same size, we’re saying we’re no longer allowed to do that in the city. Oh, go stop. Through the chair. So you would in an area that allows fourplexes. So in the different, the various zones we have residential are one or two. They don’t allow for fourplexes, but in our residential zone 3 and 4, that does have an opportunity to have fourplexes.

[1:18:53] So you would be able to do that in that kind of a context as if that either that area is already zoned. With that R3 or 4, or you come forward for rezoning, you try to rezone a property and council will then have that decision. Councillor. Thank you. And I know that we’re in the midst of doing a rethinking zoning process. What happens when we get rid of R1, 2, 3, 4, and now just have neighborhood zones, which is what I thought we were trying to go towards. Go stop. Through the chair. So there would still be variants of those major zones. So we would have we can take that back as far as taking a look. We do have some information already out for council and for public consultation on that. So this doesn’t necessarily what I just spoke to speaks to the current zoning bylaw, not the new bylaw. So of course, we have quite a bit of time before we bring that forward. So that is definitely something we can discuss as part of that that draft once it comes forward. Councillor. Thank you. And sorry. I feel like I’m spinning in a big circle. But so we as council approved four units as of right on any parcel of land. So I guess I don’t understand how you can’t have four units as of right on R1 zone if we’ve approved that you can have four units as of right on R1 zone. Do you know what I’m trying to say? I feel like I’m I feel like there are two things don’t align. And I guess I’m getting really confused about how this motion will apply to four units as of right on R1 zones, which we’ve approved through the chair. I know that was a horribly worded question. I’m just trying to figure out where the logic lines up. Go to stop. Through the chair. So firstly, you can’t build ARUs in every single zone. You can only build an ARU if it’s related to a physical zone that allows for single detached semi townhouse duplex triplex or converted dwelling. So for the most part those zones that that would align with your residential wand or your residential to zoning perspective. So if you anything that was larger than that, you’re probably getting into the point of like a four plaques or a six four to six story building apartment building style. So these ARUs wouldn’t apply to that. So the motion before you today has the most impact on anything that would be within that residential one in two zone which includes those those types of dwellings. Thank you. Yes, I think I’ll ask one more question and then I’m going to leave it to let my brain try to catch up.

[1:21:30] So we as council prove four units as of right. But when we say that we actually mean we only approve four units as of right on R3 and R4 lots. Is that correct? Go to stop. So council approved four units as of right for our one and R2 for an additional residential unit. And as was mentioned before, those are not main, not the main units. Those are an accessory to that main use. So that’s what was approved. It allows anyone that has any of those zone, those housing types to be able to have up to three additional residential units. And I’m sorry, this is getting very technical terminology from the planning perspective because from a lay person’s perspective, you might say that, okay, well, if there’s four opportunity for four units on a property, that’s a four plaques.

[1:22:29] That’s not necessarily what the planning act would say because they were you’re getting into then a multiple dwelling building versus a primary building of a single family home that has three additional residential units. So for the purposes of what we’re talking about today, we’re really only focusing on those additional residential units and how many bedrooms can be in those units. And for the most part, that only applies to the areas that are within your residential zone one and two and that are outside the near campus neighborhood. Councilor. Thank you. Yes. I mean, I’m not a member of this committee, so I can’t vote. But I will just say I still don’t think I understand it. So between now and council, I think I’ll perhaps chat with you a little bit more because I’m struggling. So but I appreciate and I appreciate everyone who attended to share their thoughts. Hopefully, everyone will figure it out and we’ll get on the right page. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me as well as I’m not a member of this committee and I too am trying to really understand it.

[1:23:36] I appreciate residents trying to follow this as well because I think this can be quite technical. So getting back, following Councillor Frank’s questions around the four plexes, I heard Mr. Mather speak about the four plexes are not residential R1 and that therefore this motion would not apply to a four plex, which is separate. But getting back to R1, I also heard that this motion applies to R2. So through you, Mr. Chair, what is the definition of R2? Mr. Mathers, can you give a definition of both R1 and R2, please?

[1:24:16] Through the chair, so I’ll try to just again bring it up to as least plain language as most plain language as I possibly can because there’s a whole chapter on what is R1 and what is R2. For the most part, R1, that is the most restrictive type form of housing. It’s primarily single detached dwelling. So that’s your typical area that’s built out in a single detached dwellings. There are two zones and you’re getting more into the, it also allows single detached dwellings but also allows semi detached townhouses, duplexes, triplexes as well. So it’s more permissive and then once you get past that and get to R3 and R4, then you start to bring in more of these buildings that have multiple units, like a four-plex. Councillor? Thank you for that. So following up on a few comments that I heard here this afternoon, we would need, as said, BA. So I would like to, through you, Mr. Chair, get a better understanding on the process. I know we have to do a public participation meeting, so maybe looking at a general timeline. And my question is, as it relates to other permits, in the meantime, that may be issued here and my concern that we will see a lot more of the intensification of four units by right happening before we get to the end of the process. So if you could just give me or give us an understanding of the process going forward and what that timeline is, and maybe the second question to that would be, if permits are received, will this process at least detain the permit, future permits? I’m trying to be very careful on how I do have concerns about other permits being issued here. Oh, good stuff. Through the chair, just to answer the first part of that. So as far as the process, this would be a city initiated by-law amendment. So it would be our team that’s undertaking the research work, and then we would then go out with a public notice and have a PPM. So we’re going to prioritize this, if it’s something that’s approved by council, and then bring that back in January, that’s likely the the soonest we possibly can be able to bring it back, but there would be an opportunity for both council to provide more commentary and for the public to be able to speak to that, those changes as well, that have been suggested as part of the by-law. As far as any applications we receive from a building perspective between now and that date, we have mandated time frames as far as being able to bring to approve building permits. Once a zoning, if the zoning is appropriate and someone has met the requirements of zoning, we cannot, we must receive their application and we must process it within our time frame. So there’s no way for us to put a pause on those permits or to stop those permits. So that’s why I think it’s very important that if council would like to move forward with this, that we try to prioritize that ZBA so that it can move forward as soon as possible. Councilor. Thank you for that information. I am a little bit dismayed here. I think sometimes as much as we want to move forward here, I think it’s incumbent upon all of us here that we try to understand the consequences to our decisions and maybe this is the conversation that we’re going to have now and I really do appreciate the community being here and the community’s interest because it is important that we understand what can be allowed to be built in our neighbourhoods. So thank you. Other speakers? Councilor. Thank you. Just just just by way of information, if it’s on a connector street, a standalone four unit property could be put up even if it’s in our even if it’s in our one that that’s not on the table today. My biggest concern about this motion, which I fully support, just to be clear, is secondly pass it. Given what we’ve said about retroactivity, I’m very concerned and I don’t want to give anybody any ideas, but I’m very concerned that we’re going to be flooded with a lot of applications, which will then have to be processed regardless of whether we pass this amendment or not. My question to Steph is, do we still have something in the nature of an interim controlled by-law such that we could use the data passage of this by-law as the cutoff date to avoid retroactivity problems, which is to say in the interim, we’re going to control the situation. I’ll go south. Through the chair, I’m not aware of any ability to be able to pass an interim controlled by-law because we’re very much being driven by the requirements of the Planning Act to be able to have our public engagement pieces under PBM, so that’s not something that we’re currently aware of as an opportunity. Councilor? Yeah, well I’d appreciate it if there could be a little bit more research on this because my recollection is many several years ago that there were interim controlled by-laws that were put in place for this very reason and that is to avoid a situation where applicants would come in before something could be perfected. I think we have a very serious problem on our hands in terms of what I would think are going to be a flood of applications that we’re going to have the process. No matter how well intentioned this motion is. I guess my other question is regarding the interrelationship between the near-campus neighborhood regulations and this regulation, I think that was largely answered in the memo. So I’ll let that go for now. But the final point that I want to make is we have created a web of very confusing, overlapping, and sometimes inconsistent rules for different types of developments on different types of properties. And I think we’ve gotten to the point where the system is breaking and people can’t even understand it. I myself and me, I’m even getting inquiries from property owners who are saying, “What is going on here? What can I do? What can I not do?” I think, you know, it’s great that we’re doing the rethinking zoning, but I think we have to step back and really look at all the different things that we’ve done in the last two years in the interests of increasing housing and wondering if we’ve just created an impossible situation for people to understand. And the last thing I want to say is a lot’s being made of the fact that we’re allowing four units as a matter of right because of the federal government. Well, actually, the province, before the federal government did that, the province said, “Yeah, I fell off three units as a matter of right. Period. We weren’t even getting anything for it.” So basically what we did with the federal government is we didn’t go from one to four. We went from three to four. And I think it’s important for people to keep to keep that in mind. And with that, I’ll have more to say at the council meeting, but I am very, very concerned about what we’re going to do with into our applications to come in. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Argoa, Councillor Ferrell.

[1:32:46] Thanks, Chair. Appreciate the discussion. I got some questions myself. I just wanted to kind of get, like, timeline of events. So from what I understand, the developer applied to subdivide the lot that was originally a single dwelling, single family dwelling. And I just wanted to know, I believe that went to Committee of Adjustments, but was the applicant at that stage or was the paperwork that they submitted at that stage? Did they say what their intention was in the future from that subdivision of that law? I’ll go to staff. I’ll go to staff. Yeah.

[1:33:29] Thank you through the chair. The applicant made a request for two single attached dwelling lots. Councillor. Thank you. So then, obviously, a little bit down the line in time wise, that was changed from two single detached family to lots, and they were looking for the units as proposed right now. At what point were we informed on that change? Through the chair. So we don’t have that information for you right now, because we were here prepared to talk about the motion that’s on the floor, and then understand that there’s a lot of questions specific to this application, and we’d be happy to put that information together. If you want a committee report on it, we can provide that as well. So, yeah, Councillor, I’ll ask you to keep your questions related to the motion at hand. If you want to do that type of research offline, yeah, I can step back from the specific property itself, but I do see like a disconnect and the ability to change the intention of that when we did separate for those single detached lots. So I’m just worried about the silos, the information silos, or potential ability to amend a change when the intention was one way, and then one of our affiliate committees were able to rule on that, and then unknowingly, it led the pathway for something else. So that would be kind of my comment, how do we close that up, and if there’s an ability to do that on this overall citywide motion that I see here, is there a way we could tie that in? Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Mathers, or you don’t have to?

[1:35:17] Through the chair, I just want everyone to be very clear that once these lots are created, we have no ability, even from the provincial changes, to say that you can’t build an ARU. So, it’s really wonderful if someone comes forward as an applicant and is very open with what they’re going to do with the property, and decides to actually provide for and construct what they’re suggesting. So that is ideally what you’re going to get from probably 99% of the builders out there. And there are some cases where someone could sever lots and then sell it to somebody else, and if the zoning bylaw allows for ARUs, it might be different information or different development that actually occurs from when they sever those lots. So I think what our team is working hard with is to try moving forward to make sure that people are aware of all the permutations of what could happen on a property when this severance happens. So even if the person comes and makes a recommended approach of what they’re going to do on a property, I think people have to know that if that property sells, it could look different from that. So that’s what we’re trying to do is do a better job in that education piece. But at the end of the day, once that lot has been established, and if it follows all of the provisions of our bylaw, then we will have to issue a building permit. Councillor. Thanks, I appreciate that response. I’m just tying everything in because we do see that there is ability for any proponents to be able to, I guess, change what the intent is, and then that would probably, if that information was known at the time of a decision that would help with the decision and potentially change the direction the decision is going. I hear the comments, I hear the questions coming from the committee. I think they’re all good ones. I am going to support this because it is reducing the total amount of bedrooms to five for the three ARUs that are permitted. I do think there’s more work that needs to be done. I do think the questions that have arisen here in the committee point to some of those areas where we can potentially look into to do additional work in this aspect. But I will support this at council when it does come through, and I do look forward to any potential future work that we could do to clean this up just a little bit. Councillor Rowan.

[1:37:49] Thank you, and through you, Chair. So I just wanted to start by saying the reason, the purpose behind this letter, I’m interested in addressing the intent of the original four units as of right in R1 zones, and more specifically on an ARU. That is to keep ARU’s modest in scale with the neighbourhood and not to allow them to significantly alter the streetscape. The goal of the motion is to align with your original intent of gentle density, which is about a creating new housing options. Bedroom limits help manage the potential impact on local infrastructure, like parking, traffic, and water and sewage systems, even if some regulations aim to waive requirements like additional parking for ARU’s, I think that’s something we also need to talk about in the future.

[1:38:35] I want to reiterate that this is about balance and that ongoing dialogue and potential adjustments may be necessary to ensure the policies work effectively for both homeowners and community. I think what I’ve heard today in this discussion is one better understanding, which I think is really important for the work that we do as members of council. So I’m particularly pleased that we’re having this discussion and to this extent. And I want to thank the community because this is really, I would say, reflective of the conversations that I know I’ve had since neighbours have experienced what they have on Elmdale. So I look forward to moving this forward. I agree with Councillor Troso that if there is a way for us to put in an interim control bylaw to mitigate any applications in that window, that time period, I know typically in term control bylaws are used for things in the one to two year nature, not necessarily in shorter order.

[1:39:43] But if there is something that we can do, I would appreciate having an answer and I will explore that offline as well. Because I do think that we want to ensure that we have the gentle density that we intended and that this is used appropriately. Thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers. Deputy Merlos. Thank you, Chair. And just based on some of the questions the colleagues have had, just going to hopefully get staff to respond to be provide some clarification that may help folks in their thought process. And so through you, I want to make sure that we can confirm to members that in these evaluations, and whether we’re talking about ARUs in an R1 or whether we’re talking about a 4plex application in an R3 or a ZBA change to an R3 in an R1, which we see lots of examples of around the city when those evaluations are done. Staff are still looking at some really important factors. Those being maximum lot coverage is still a factor. You can’t use the entirety of your lot to fill it with units. That water sanitary servicing capacity is still evaluated to ensure that whether it’s the ARUs or whether it’s a 4plex or whatever that the water and sanitary servicing are still there. And that with respect to severances, there are still considerations around lot size requirements. And when those new lots are created, things like setbacks are still considered in the evaluation of what’s allowed in terms of a single family home or anything else.

[1:41:32] Other built forms being moved forward. So can I just get staff to confirm that in fact maximum lot coverage, water sanitary servicing, those end setbacks are still things that are looked at in the evaluation of any application to add to an ARU or to change the built form type on a property? Oh, go staff. Through the chair, that’s absolutely correct. And all the things we’ve been talking about is both allowing for up to four units. It still has to comply with all those other requirements. So you may not be able to fit what that many units on the site really based on some of those other characteristics of the site. So this isn’t something that’s necessarily going to apply to every residential property lot. If it’s a small lot, it may not be able to fit this many units.

[1:42:23] There’s probably still opportunities for some type of an ARU, but you’re not going to be able to max out this value. So, of course, we need to be looking at all of those aspects, them out of the coverage, the setbacks and everything else to make sure that this does fit well with the community and follows all the other aspects of our by-law. Thank you. And I appreciate that because I think it’s really important as I hear colleagues talking about different ARU zones that they keep in mind that even within those, there are other provisions that are looked at. It’s not just the zone number itself. And so, well, I, and I’m also going to reiterate what Councillor Raman just said. I also think there’s a wider discussion that needs to be had around some parking considerations, for example. I know that’s a concern where ARUs are becoming or relying on street parking as they’re parking, which is certainly an issue, and that’s something that probably does need to be considered. I know it’s on staff’s deferred matters list to look at maximum driveway widths and come back to us at a future date.

[1:43:30] So, when that comes back, that’s something that I’ll be considering in regard to an ARU, and whether we’re going to allow a residential driveway to be widened so that they can fit too deep so that an ARU does have a parking spot. But today, I really want to focus on and the intent of the motion to get back to what is an ARU versus what is a triplex, what is a foreplex, what is a bedroom in a building with an unlimited bedroom count. Those can be very different things, but this motion is very specific to how are we defining an ARU? Aside from it being within attached to or detached from the primary unit that we’re defining it as something that is smaller and with a limited number of bedrooms in its space, no matter whether it’s in an R1, R2, or R3 zone. So, that’s where the heart of this motion really comes to. I do appreciate the discussion, but I really encourage colleagues to support this moving forward. And I will say, I know Councilor ramen had discussions with Mr. Mathers. I know I had discussions with Mr. Mathers.

[1:44:32] Take the time to talk to our staff because they’re very knowledgeable. It is fairly technical in terms of how the Planning Act applies in some of these situations. But they’re, and I should say, not just Mr. Mathers, but Ms. Mealy, Ms. O’Hagan, others have been very helpful and knowledgeable in this area too. So, take the time to chat with them if you’ve got questions ahead of Council. You’ll find that they’re very good at providing some answers that can be explained, perhaps, in some less technical terms. But we have to do our work in terms of bringing forward technical motions. And this is why this motion is forward in front of you today.

[1:45:12] Thank you. I look for other comments or questions. Councilor Primmel. Thank you. I would like to start by thanking them in the neighbourhood to coming out here and spending so much time on it. And actually, this neighbourhood is working actually for future of London and London, other neighbourhoods, because actually, in terms of Amdale, the decision has been made. Based on what I heard today, and I did spend quite a bit of time with our staff with a lot of questions, so I do have it more clarity. But when I hear some of the questions and what was said is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the situation has to be, or our policy revisited, none of us were thinking of this kind of intensification, as it was stated before. It was mild intensification and to come up with more affordable units. We understand that every developer and not just a developer, every person wants to maximize their opportunities. As a businessman, I totally get it, I understand it. But on the other hand, we need to have certain policies and guidelines in place to make sure that the intensification is not as large as this one.

[1:46:30] I will certainly support at the Council what is in front of us. Having said that, I really think that this needs to be revisited even further. And also the understanding for other Councillors, because we actually voted for something, supported something. And I’m hearing some of the comments and questions from the Councillors questioning it, that we voted for something, and actually, some people potentially weren’t even sure how far this decision could take us. No doubt, yes, it was under federal policy. And yes, we did get a benefit as our community. And that money, I have to say, is well spent into the various projects, which one of them actually was talked about earlier today. No doubt, that is good, that is positive. But we have to look at the balance as well. So I really do think, so again, thank you, Almdale, for working actually, not actually on behalf of your neighbourhood of the other ones.

[1:47:29] And I really think we need to revisit this. And I hope that in terms of Almdale, that acceptable solution will be done very, very soon as well. So thank you all. And I think I’m trying to think, I think, yes, thank you. Thank you. Look for any other speakers. Seeing none, the committee will mention just a couple of comments from the chair. As been mentioned, the reasoning behind this move to as of right for ARUs was the intent was totally different from what has been experienced. And I think it comes down to density quite frankly.

[1:48:23] I remember when this came before us. It was, as the deputy mayor said, it was for multi-generational families. Grandparents maybe continue to live on the property. I’ve seen this happen where I’m from Waterloo a lot of many times in the rural community. We see this quite often, so I definitely in favour of that. I did not have this in mind that there would be 32 units squeezed into a small residential area, definitely. We have to be careful, I guess, going forward when we approve as of right. There’s a reason we have planning and zoning. Staff are able to look at how the application fits in with the London plan, within all the other areas, parking, traffic, infrastructure, environment. And then it comes before us with the public participation meeting. When you do as a right, all that stuff is not available to ourselves or city staff. So I think that’s definitely a lesson learned for me personally. Going forward, when I agree to as of right, I will be really cautious before going on. I want to thank the folks that came in today for taking your afternoon to address us. For the delegates that spoke very eloquently and well-prepared, a major point, and it’s been heard. I think what we’re doing with this motion is definitely addressing the deficiencies here. But I also, as well, I think it speaks to complexity. It was mentioned by a number of Councillors. Planning is a complex issue, and you can see why, because there’s always exceptions to this or exceptions to that, unintended consequences for this. So as you deal with those, you add layers of complexity. As much as we try to remove the complexity, there also is a need for it to properly protect the city neighborhoods. And those that are building, it’s a two-way street.

[1:50:41] So I want to thank the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Roman for bringing this forward, which I fully support. I’ll look for any other speakers. The motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Continuing on, we’ll be going to the 2.2 from the consent items, and that’s an update on Bill 17 and Green Development guidelines, and we have a delegation request from Mike Wallace. So I’ll look for the motion to allow that Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here, and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr. Wallace, please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[1:52:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank you and Committee for allowing me to speak to a consent item. I try not to ask for delegation to consent items. I have my own opinion on what should be in consent and what shouldn’t be. It isn’t for that for another day. So I want to speak to this report that you have in front of you asking you for spend some money on a Green Development framework guidelines in terms of reference. I first want to point out that, clearly, we do not believe you have even the authority to do so. Even if you look on your own report, it says to date that a minister has not prescribed provisions of the building code for the purpose of section 97.1, the municipal law. Best municipal is currently have no ability to acquire alternatives or enhancements to Green Building Standards, and you’re going to argue, well, yeah, well, that’s in the building code, but this is a voluntary program that you’re after here. Well, is it really? If you read the report to chair, it talks about checklists, it talks about scoring, it talks about monitoring, it talks about performance measurements. What voluntary program requires all those things on the development application?

[1:53:28] That sounds to me like it’s a requirement, or at least a guideline. And as we know, guidelines in the city often become requirements at the city staff table. And we don’t really argue much because we want to get our applications through, and that’s what we do. And I want to give you an example that’s radiant in this report of policy creep. In January of 2024, there was a motion come forward to Council for staff to look at roughing in 5% of parking if you’re at more than 40 spaces, which is virtually everywhere. Roughing in to allow for by December of the same year, 2024, that report came back, and it required developers to put in the actual charging units, not roughing in any longer, but it creeped in 10 months, 11 months from roughing in, which we would agree with. We actually said we were fine with that because based on market, if EVs take hold, our customers will be demanding it, we’ll make that happen.

[1:54:39] But now, even though you know, and I know that EV market has not taken off, you are requiring, on all these applications that are giving 5%, not just a reference, but actual units. This is a classic case in this report, policy creep. What turns out to be an OK idea for us going forward, something that we work on together, to something that costs us money and time and effort. We are very, very concerned that this framework will then turn into guidelines, and then guidelines, well, they’re not in the building code, but we really, really want you to do them. In fact, we have a performance measurement for it, whether you’re doing it or not.

[1:55:23] Our recommendation, Mr. Chair, is throw this out, save the money. If you want to do something on green development, here’s our suggestion. If you want to hire a consultant to look at what’s happening in the province in terms of what green development opportunities there are and what things that happen. And don’t forget, I think it’s Appendix C, we have a whole list of things we’re all doing voluntarily already. We don’t need you to tell us to do it. Have the consultant look up what’s available. Look at the opportunity, which a counselor kind of mentioned earlier, of a CIP to encourage, as an incentive, development of some of these green opportunities and maybe change your reports a little bit at a section that allows the developer, if they wish, to celebrate, to inform what they’re doing, whether it’s bird-friendly glass, whether it’s green roof, whatever they’re doing, more EV spaces than required. Allow them to put that in the report to celebrate what’s happening in terms of that. But do not waste time, do not waste money on this so-called voluntary program, when the opportunity for us to do what’s right based on the marketplace, what’s right for the environment, our industries are already doing, we don’t need you to tell us to do that. And that is my presentation, and I’m a little motivated today on this particular item.

[1:56:57] Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for our committee members. Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Through you, I’m not moving the staff recommendation. I’m going to move a referral. I’ve provided some language to the clerk. Hopefully that’s been able to get into eScribe, but I will read it out so that colleagues are aware of what I’m proposing. And sorry, what I’m proposing with thanks to the amazing clerks team for some language. The staff report updated October 21st related to Bill 17 and the Green Development Guidelines be referred back to civic administration to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee on the following. One, a terms of reference for consultation on an incentive-based approach to encourage green initiatives. Two, a review of the possibility of providing a green priority stream which would prioritize and accelerate applications with green measures through the approval and permitted phases. Three, confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing voluntary development guidelines are actually in alignment with Bill 17. And four, incorporate some changes into the reporting of development applications that would highlight the voluntary and market-driven initiatives. No date on the referral back. This may take some time. We know that the Ministry isn’t always the most responsive, so getting a meeting and a confirmation with them on the draft may take a little bit of time, but that’s what I want to put forward today.

[1:58:44] And if there’s a seconder for that, I’ll speak a little further to it. Councillor Hillier has indicated he will second that motion. Would you like to speak to it? Yes, please. So, I absolutely don’t want to spend money to bring something forward that the Ministry is going to tell us we can’t do anyway. So, I do think that confirmation for Council in writing is necessary to move forward with this. Otherwise, to me, we’re spending money that we have no guarantee is going to provide any results. So, on that, I do agree with Mr. Wallace that this is not necessarily something to spend money on yet. However, if the Ministry comes back and says, “Yes, you can do this,” then I’m more open to some of these other things that are here.

[1:59:34] And I do believe that there can be some consultation about a more incentive-based approach, some sort of CIP programs, even the green priority stream. I know that for the intensification and meeting some building faster funds, there’s been a prioritization stream for some high-density residential builds. Maybe we can look at something similar that prioritizes some of the green development components as well. I do think it’s very important, and quite honestly, I’m going to follow up with Mr. Wallace Moore on the policy creep on the EV charging stations. But that we incorporate changes in the report that really highlights what’s voluntary and driven by market initiatives. If we are going to be getting reports back to us on planning applications, then I want to know what parts are voluntary. And I want it to be really clear in the reports, because I mean, we had a discussion earlier today about Landlord Tenant Board versus an OLT appeal on a zoning approval. I don’t want us to have that discussion every time a green development initiative comes forward and people debate whether or not we can or can’t compel it. I want the voluntary stuff to be really clearly broken out and highlighted, so it’s really clear that that’s optional. And that in some cases, maybe we’re bonus scoring in certain considerations that we’re giving, but that it’s voluntary. So that’s in a nutshell what I’m looking for. I also would be remiss if I did not thank Councillor Frank for some help with language on this and some discussion back and forth. I recognize that not all of the ideas that she had might be included in this, but I can support some of what she was interested in. And I think that this is the way forward for us before we jump forward to spending some money on a consultant to further this. I think we have to cross off a few of these other items before we go forward with that. That said, if we can cross these off, I am interested in exploring how we can encourage this as a voluntary program, whether that’s a CIP or something else in the long run. I’m interested in that discussion, but I think we’re a little, we’re not quite to the point yet where I’m comfortable authorizing expenses for a consultant to take it any further until we get a couple more of these items checked off. Look for other speakers, Councillor Frank. Thank you and appreciate those comments. Yeah, I am glad that something is on the floor because I didn’t want to see nothing, but I actually would prefer what staff recommended when it comes to council. I’ll be voting towards that. A couple of questions through the chair to staff is what is being recommended in the report of voluntary program? Go staff. Yes, that’s the intent is it’s to develop a framework and measureables, but it’s totally in my view in line with the legislation which doesn’t permit us to require things that exceed the building code or measures that control the demolition or construction of a building. Councillor. Thank you. Yes, so I’m just glad that we are making sure everyone understands it’s a voluntary program and I’m just wondering towards staff, do we have a legal authority to make guidelines? I will go to our legal through the chair. Perhaps you’d clarify the question to make guidelines generally related to this component? I’m sorry. Yes, and if you feel like expanding to bill 17 feel free, but I’m just wanting to clarify that as a city that has a planning team, we’re allowed to make planning related guidelines. Go to legal through the chair.

[2:03:36] Yes, I believe that municipal council has the right to make guidelines generally, just on the point that you discussed in terms of section bill 17 and section 35 of the building code act, as has been discussed, it specifically does say that the powers that a municipality has do not authorize a municipality to pass bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings and I think staff have kind of a pined on whether this would fall within that scope and it’s one that’s open to interpretation. I believe the other municipalities have taken positions on with respect to voluntary guidelines and I believe the courts will likely be in interpreting that as well. So I think it’s something that’s in the flux right now in terms of how those are being examined. Councilor. Thank you. Appreciate that. And then I was hoping to go towards staff perhaps Mr. Edwards to explain why having these guidelines would be helpful for the work that they’re doing. Good staff. Thank you and through the chair. I think part of the challenge is there’s no shared definition or benchmark for what green initiatives are. So we hear a lot of it, but there’s no measures around it. There’s no definitions often around it. There’s no performance measures. What is code? What would be better? Those sorts of things. But also there’s no scoring to be able to consider different measures together and often there’s no tracking. So I think that’s a lot of what we were trying to do with this project is just put some definitions around things. So there’s a shared understanding and really that aligns with several items in the strategic plan and the climate emergency action plan to advance partnerships and establish a shared objectives. And the other intent is you also need those elements if you want to put together an incentive program. So you can actually measure it and assign the public dollars that there needs to be those definitions, those matrices so that we can we can work through those processes. So that’s really what we were trying to set up. Councilor. Thank you. Appreciate that. And then the last question I did actually have, I don’t know, staff can comment on it today, but in regards to the question or I guess comment about roughing in of EV chargers versus now the requirement to have the charging infrastructure. I don’t know if staff can comment on that at all or if that’s something we’d need discussion on just because I’d be curious to hear if that has occurred. I don’t know that this is on the motion at hand, but I’m curious. It was raised by the delegate as an example that kind of ties into this a bit. So yeah, staff would like to comment on that. I’d like to hear it. Through the chair, I’m not aware of the specifics. I would have to look in that detail to see how it actually came forward and why and how it was amended. I think I need to dig further into that before I give a solid answer. Councilor. Thank you. I appreciate that. I always like hearing it from staff. So in regards to this, so I’m not on this committee. I can’t vote, but I’m glad something’s on the floor better than nothing. I think that having green development guidelines, I disagree with most of the things that the delegate said. So I guess it’s depending on who you are getting your information from and who you trust. But I do think that green development guidelines and staff have outlined our voluntary as they’ve explained multiple times and included in the report as well. I think bill 17 is also still open for interpretation and having voluntary guidelines, I think still does not contravene bill 17. Again, it sounds like that’s open to interpretation where we’re making these decisions based on who we trust and what information we get. I do think that given our climate emergency action plan and the lack of forward progress that we’ve made on it requires us to actually do something in regards to green development standards or guidelines. If we are being serious about trying to reduce our emissions and meet some of our other targets, we actually have to do some work. I think spending 125,000 on a consultant using our climate change reserve fund is actually a good use of spending because staff are really busy with all the other things we asked them to do. And having outside expertise to be able to give us some good framework or guidelines for this would be very helpful, especially we’ve already sent back the transit oriented development CIP to include green measures, but we don’t necessarily have a framework for that. So being able to use these guidelines would be helpful and as discussed, it would also be, I think, integral in being able to award funding through a CIP program. So for those reasons, I am supportive of what the staff’s original recommendation was. I actually think it’s already been watered down and now we’re watering it down to not a whole lot of action, but that being said, I appreciate the deputy mayor for bringing those amendments forward because I do think we need to demonstrate we are taking some form of action in this area. So I’ll leave my comments at that, but I’m sure maybe we’ll have a chat about it at Council. Thank you, Councillor Trussum. Thank you very much. To the chair, I would just like to briefly speak to what I think are the importance of voluntary guidelines. They’re used throughout many industries. One of the real strong benefits of voluntary guidelines, codes, good housekeeping seal of approval, whatever you want to call it, is it gives consumers signals about quality and it gives consumers the opportunity to sort of compare different types of offerings. And I think to take a hard line as has been done here today, talking about how it would be a waste of time, I really have a problem with that characterization. We can disagree on whether or not we should be implementing voluntary standards, but we shouldn’t be like deriving them by saying they’re a waste of time. So I really want to take issue with that. Certainly at Council, I’ll be following what Councillor Frank just said, and I think we’re on the right track here, and I will be supporting what staff has said. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferrum. Thanks, chair. Just kind of hearing comments from committee. I think I think the report is pretty clear for the green development guidelines. I think it’s clear that it’s it’s pretty clear that it’s voluntary and this is a voluntary initiative. From the comments that I heard from staff, I feel like if there is areas that we can make it more clear of the voluntary nature of it all, they would be able to take that just from this committee alone of how this translates into any action that we may take. I’m not necessarily in support of any referral to this because I do think this has been going on for quite a while. And I guess when it comes to like a policy creep, like that is quite it’s speculation to say that this could creep into other policy, especially if it’s clear as it is from what I’ve not seen on the report and what I would anticipate this initiative would turn out to be. So I would be really weary of kind of taking that with without knowing what the actual outcome will be on that aspect. But I think just the way it stands, you know, it is voluntary. I do know of developers who have reached out to me before who are interested in this kind of work. And they are looking for ways to do that and the guidelines to do that. So that’s why I think this is pretty appropriate for the time that we’re bringing this forward. Like Councillor Frank said, we’re not really meeting our community targets for the climate emergency action plan. So we’re a little bit behind the ball on this. So I would be in full support of the staff recommendation as it is at Council. I wouldn’t be in support of any referral for this. Thank you for other comments or questions.

[2:11:40] Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you again for recognizing me. And I want to thank staff for their report. I really appreciate the work that went into this. I am amazed that we would not all be behind this. And as much as I appreciate all the work that Councillor Frank has done and her commitment to somehow always trying to find that middle road and compromise, I do have concerns that we are starting to water down the initiatives that I think we as a council can get together around. I understand Mr. Wallace is not in favor of that. I can hear him loud and clear up in the gallery. But I really do have confidence in us to make the decisions that we need to make.

[2:12:38] This is a volunteer program. I do have one question through you, Mr. Chair, just to have a better understanding on the province’s building code standards. Have they been updated or where are we? I know we speak to Bill 17, but are we there yet? Good stuff through the chair. So as far as building code, the building code was updated as of 2024. So most of that work was to align the provincial building code with the national building code. So that has made some changes related to some of the efficiency measures and so on. But as far as the level of changes, similar to what the City of Toronto is in litigation regarding, of adding substantial more requirements over and above the building code, there hasn’t been those type of additions into the most recent version of the building code. Thank you. And maybe further question then through you, Mr. Chair, to staff about the, do we need the minister’s approval here for confirmation?

[2:13:55] Hello, staff. Through the chair, I’m not aware that we would need that as long as we can apply with the legislation, right? So if we don’t, if we don’t make requirements that exceed the Ontario building code, or we don’t use municipal bylaws to require things associated with the construction or demolition of buildings, it wouldn’t be required. Otherwise, it would be not legal. Councillor. Well, that’s really good to know. So I am supportive of staff’s recommendation. I think we can send a message to the minister and to the province that the City of London does support these guidelines and they are guidelines. And it is a volunteer basis. And I do think it does improve our relationship with the development community. We can work together. That’s how I read this report and really would encourage the committee not to amend staff’s recommendation.

[2:15:05] I’ll look for other comments or questions. Seeing none, I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair, please. I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Lehman. Yeah, thank you. Just from my perspective, like it or not, the province has made legislation that kind of dictates where cities go. So that was one of my biggest concerns is how does this fit into that before we go spending money on consultants and developing guidelines, etc. I mean, the worst case is that they don’t allow this type of thing because it’s against the intent of built 17, if not explicit.

[2:16:03] The best case is that it’s okay, but then the developers and builders just ignore it because they know that there’s no teeth behind it. I was concerned about the comments of Mr. Wallace, which I’ll be following up with staff, by the way. When you have guidelines and you get into, he mentioned checklists and scoring and performance measurements, etc. Does that become more than just guidelines? Whether this is the intent of the staff report or not, I’ll find that out. But I want to find out a bit more because I think the deputy mayor’s referral here doesn’t shut the door of this, but it just says let’s get some more information to make sure we’re going down the right path before we start that train. So I’m in favor of the referral. Let’s get some more information. And if we are able to do that, the guidelines are such that they are indeed guidelines and suggestions way for the development community to measure where they want to go because I think their interests as well as supporting Green as it relates to their customers who is renting and who is buying. I think that’s the prudent way to go. So I will support this referral.

[2:17:31] I will return the chair to Councillor Layman. I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers. Okay, we have a motion. I’m moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you. Moving on to our final item, which is deferred matters. I’ll look for a motion to receive that list. Our Councillor Cudi, I almost gave you a promotion.

[2:18:14] Seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any comments or questions of that? Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you. Regarding the deferred matters list, for next planning, we are having a report on food-based businesses. Will you be receiving a report from Health Canada and food preparation here in London? I’ll go and stop. Through the chair, there is a report coming that will include a zoning bylaw amendment. We’ve worked closely with the Middlesex London Health Unit on that report, so they’ll provide the health perspective. Councillor, okay. Any other comments or questions on deferred matters list? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

[2:18:59] Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Hand vote. Motion carries. Meetings adjourned.