Open Council

The 17th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 17th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

November 12, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 2.2 in Stage 2, Consent, to remain in Stage 2.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Building Services Report – Quarter 3 2025

2025-11-12 (2.1) Staff Report - Building Services Report - Q3 2025

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to Building Services Report – Quarter 3 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Housing Accelerator Fund - 2025 Annual Update

2025-11-12 (2.3) Staff Report - Housing Accelerator Fund- 2025 Annual Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to the Housing Accelerator Fund – 2025 Annual Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program

2025-11-12 (2.4) Staff Report - Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development CIP

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the program guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan

Program:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1596-87, as amended, being a by-law to establish financial incentives for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING with the appended to the above-noted staff report as Schedule “1” being a revised Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines;

i)    subject to the approval of a) above, approve the revised Transit Oriented Development Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Agreement template;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute the above referenced agreement substantially in the form authorized and approved under clause (a) i) provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements.

Motion Passed

2.2   Heritage Designation of the Property at 1269 Hyde Park Road

2025-11-12 (2.2) Staff Report - 1269 Hyde Park Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation from the Director, Planning and Development the heritage designation request related to the property at 1269 Hyde Park Road BE REFUSED.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   144 Baseline Road West - Z-25107 

2025-11-12 (3.1) Staff Report - 144 Base Line Road West

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 9515-5222 Quebec Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 144 Base Line Road West, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan),  to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R5 Special Provision (R1-9/R5-7(_)) Zone; 

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

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

-    G. Geroux; 

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1453-1459 Oxford Street East & 648-658 Ayerswood Avenue  - Z-25113 

2025-11-12 (3.2) 1453-1459 Oxford St E 648-656 Ayreswood Ave

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Red Maple Properties Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 1453-1459 Oxford Street East & 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_ of The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), for the subject lands representing 648-656 Ayreswood Avnuee, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone, a Residential R1/Holding Transit Station Area (R1-6/h-213TSA1) Zone, and a Residential R1/Office Conversion/Holding Transit Station Area (R1-6/OC4/h-213TSA1) Zone TO Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1( )) Zone; and,

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

i)    provide a variety of common outdoor amenity space (at-grade and on roof tops); and, 

ii)    provide a Transportation Impact Study;

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

-    L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development that is geared towards the intent, and growth, of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1447-1449 Dundas Street & 684-690 Hale Street - OZ-25110 

2025-11-12 (3.3) Staff Report - 1447-1449 Dundas Street 684-690 Hale Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1412651 Ontario Limited o/a Prospera Properties relating to the property located at 1447-1449 Dundas Street and 684-690 Hale Street:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the designation of 684 Hale Street FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO an Urban Corridors Place Type;

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Urban Corridors Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

c)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4/ASA5) Zone TO a holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-9*BDC(_)D400H60) Zone;

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

i)    Orient primary residential lobby entrances and retail unit entrances of the buildings to the adjacent public street; and

ii)    Screen all parking areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping, as well as from neighbouring properties to mitigate any noise or light pollution; 

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

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

-    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; and,

  •    the requested amendment facilitates the redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) with an amended scale and intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and will contribute to achieving an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing options within the area; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   1269 Hyde Park Road - OZ-25105 

2025-11-12 (3.4) Staff Report - 1269 Hyde Park Road

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1269 Hyde Park Rd Inc. relating to the property located at 1269 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-108RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-108BDC1(_)D450H50) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Authority be requested to ensure the proposed documentation and commemoration of the existing building as proposed by the applicant be included in the Site Plan Approval process, and that the applicant be encouraged to consult with the City’s Heritage Planners on materials that may be salvaged and incorporated into the commemorative feature; 

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

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

-    P. Weigle, North Development Corp.; and,

-    M. Moussa;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

-    the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

-    the requested amendments are appropriate within the existing and planned context; and, 

-    the requested amendment does satisfy the criteria for adoption of the Specific Area Policies; 

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   4402 Colonel Talbot Road - OZ-25101 

2025-11-12 (3.5) Staff Report - 4402 Colonel Talbot Rd

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Lambeth Health Organization Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Low Density Residential policies in the Lambeth Neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning on a portion of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(30)) Zone and Holding Urban Reserve (h-9UR1) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(_)) Zone and to change the zoning on a portion of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-9UR1) Zone to a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(30)) Zone; and,

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

i)    installation of a board-on-board fence that exceeds the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

ii)    enhanced landscaping along all parcel boundaries that exceeds the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law; and, 

iii)    establishment of a servicing easement with the lands to the south;

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

-    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

-    J. Toogood;

-    M. Cole; 

-    D. Mathews; 

-    L. Mathews; 

-    N. Howett; 

-    L. Buck; and, 

-    N. Rawls (Djukic);

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlement areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   Amendments to Home Occupation - Z-25103 

2025-11-12 (3.6) Staff Report - Amendments to Home Occupation

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to the application by the City of London relating to Amendments to Home Occupation, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to home occupation uses:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 12, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No.Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to permit home occupations to produce low-risk, home-prepared foods, and allow for the employment of up to three individuals who do not reside in the dwelling unit for all home-based businesses; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 to permit low-risk, home-based food businesses;

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

  •    alignment with Ontario’s Food Premises Regulation, which supports individuals and businesses selling low-risk, home-prepared foods;

  •    the recommended amendments would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, which supports a modern economy by providing opportunities for a diversified economic base;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan including, but not limited to home occupation policies 928_ and 929_; and,

  •    the recommended amendments support Council’s commitment to encourage equitable economic growth and diversification.

Motion Failed (0 to 5)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   Amendments to City Building Policies (Street Classification Design Features - Table 6) - O-25092 

2025-11-12 (3.7) Staff Report - Amendments to City Building Policies (Street Classification Design Features - Table 6)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by Amending Policies 221, 371. 372, 372A, 372B, 378, 380, 1717, 1738, 1739A, 1740, 1747, & 1748 by removing the Street Classification Design Features;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the general intent of The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendments will reduce redundancies and clarify contradictions between policies; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   3563 Bostwick Road - OZ-25078/ 39T-24502 

2025-11-12 (3.8) Staff Report - 3563 Bostwick Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of MHBC Planning Ltd. relating to the property located at 3563 Bostwick Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to:

i)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types of The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM Neighbourhoods Place Type and Environmental Review Place Type TO Neighbourhoods Place Type and Green Space Place Type;

ii)    REVISE Map 4 – Active Mobility Network of The London Plan to ADD a Cycling and Walking Route;

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands, in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-24502), to permit a maximum building height of sixteen (16) storeys on the northern portions of Blocks 1 and 2, and eastern portion of Block 4; a maximum height of nine (9) storeys on southern portions of Blocks 1 and 2, and western portion of Block 4; a maximum height of six (6) storeys on Block 3 fronting on a Neighbourhood Street; and commercial uses within mixed use buildings on Block 1, 2 and 4 and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

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

v)    AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site specific policy to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood to permit the maximum heights and maximum densities and proposed uses;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in Part a) above, to change the zoning of the subjects property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone, and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-7()-H56-D250); a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-3()-H32-D120); a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-1(_)-H21-D75); an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for the property located at 3563 Bostwick Road;

d)    the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through the draft plan of subdivision approval process:

i)    require a clause in the subdivision agreement that details how sustainable design elements for the high density blocks adjacent to Pack Road and Bostwick Road will respect the context and interface of the existing and planned neighbourhood surrounding the development, as well as create a distinct pedestrian oriented community with a focus on amenity space and walkability. This subdivision agreement clause shall be included in development agreements for each block as it develops, underscoring the importance of appropriate and context sensitive site design;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the existing Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP) policies for the area and consider a new comprehensive neighbourhood plan for the lands located along the Bostwick Road, Bradley Avenue, and Wonderland Road, as part of the SWAP policy or subsequent policy review;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the provision of enhanced transit service in this area as part of the next future update of the Master Mobility Plan; and,

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

  •    wrap any structured/podium parking in active uses (e.g., residential units/lobbies/indoor amenity spaces etc.) along the public streets to create an active frontage and allow passive surveillance. (TLP 285, 286, 228);

  •    avoid rear-lotting of cluster townhouses onto any public streets and side lotting along Bostwick Road and Pack Road. (TLP 229);

  •    retaining walls will only be permitted along street frontages where it can be demonstrated that they will not have a negative impact on the public realm. (TLP 230);

  •    orient front façades and entrance of buildings to the adjacent public street with direct pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. (TLP 291); 

  •    incorporate a minimum step-back of 3-5m from the edge of the podium above the 3rd-5th storey of a proposed high-rise building along the public street/s to reduce the apparent height of the built forms, create a human-scale environment and minimise potential shadow impacts. (TLP 292);

  •    incorporate a minimum separation distance of 25m between the towers (i.e.,portions of any high-rise building above 8 storeys in height); 

  •    provide a minimum setback of 12.5m for the tower portions of the buildings from the property line of an adjacent property. (TLP 298); and, 

  •    design the tower portion (above 8th storey) as a slender tower with a maximum floor plate size of up to 1000 square meters to reduce impact of the massing on neighbouring properties which will mitigate shadow impacts, and obstruction of sky views to be less imposing on the neighbouring properties and public spaces. (TLP 293); 

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC Planning; and,

-    L. Jaimeson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 which directs municipalities to provide for a range and mix of housing options and densities, and promotes healthy, active and inclusive communities, fosters social interaction, and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity; 

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Environmental, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan; 

  •    the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands; and, 

  •    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, as amended; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-11-12 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the November Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:34 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 41 minutes)

[9:31] Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to welcome you to the 17th meeting of a planning environment committee. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Walk, and Adirondaraan. 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.

[10:11] The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact packpec@london.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, let’s move on to consent items. Committee, what I’d like to do is a request for 2.2 to be pulled.

[10:47] Usually, we would put that after the scheduled items, but due to the impact of one of the scheduled items, I would like to get the committee’s approval for a change of order to pull 2.2, but deal with it at the end of the consent items. So, Councilor Cuddy’s moves it second. My Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll look for any conversation. Okay, we’ll call that vote. Seeing the motion carries five to zero.

[11:30] Thank you. Before we get into discussions with the consent items, I’d like to go to staff. We have a building services report for Q3, and also a housing accelerator fund update for 2025. They’re kind of both tie-in together, so I’d like to go to staff for comments on both those items. Absolutely, through the chair, the great opportunity to try to provide a little bit more information for yourselves, and I want to provide a quick update on London’s construction and housing activity in general.

[12:06] As of last week, the city has issued over $2.2 billion in building permits. That surpasses last year’s record, and that makes this the highest annual total in our history. More than 3,200 permits have been issued, creating over 4,000 new residential units. The Q3 building service report on today’s agenda. It shows that strong growth in performance that’s been moving forward, and that shift towards the higher density housing and that multi-unit developments up by more than 30%. Through the housing accelerator fund, London has exceeded its federal housing target for the second consecutive year, completing 10 of the 11 initiatives.

[12:45] This also includes new affordable and supportive housing projects, adding over 330 affordable housing units for those Londoners most in need. Also wanted to highlight that the Globe and Mail recently recognized London as the Canada’s fifth, most renter-friendly city, and number one in Ontario. They also recognized London as the number one in the country for the rental housing availability as well. And this ranking very much just reflects London’s growing supply of rental options and looked at 235 cities across the country.

[13:19] These achievements, they very much reflect the commitment of London’s home builders and the development industry to building in London. Also reflects the hard work of our housing and community growth team, and that’s that very strong support of planning and environment committee and council and bringing these important projects forward. So very much together we’re building those homes and that the community very much needs right now, and reinforcing Lonnie’s reputation as a national leader in housing delivery. So thank you very much for that couple of minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

[13:51] I’ll go to committee now for comments or questions on the 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 consent items. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. And through you, just very briefly, I wanna thank Mr. Mathers and his staff for the fine work you’ve done. You obviously read the globe better than I do ‘cause I didn’t see it. So if you can send that to me, I’d love to show it to my constituents. I know we’ve said this before, this committee’s talked to you about it, but you are stellar, your whole team.

[14:26] Thank you for the fine work you do. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions on Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Kudos as well, to the entire team and to the entire building division. When I look again, quarter three, if you look at all the building permits and all of them, all four categories were within the 100% within the provincial mandate. So thank you for that. I do have a question regarding 2.4 and I forgot the deadline now, but the way it’s gonna be done now, we have the amount and the application, are we gonna be waiting for all of them to come in before the deadline or gonna evaluate them before the reasonable masking?

[15:12] If there are some potential projects, we can cut the leading time or if you are gonna wait for the hard deadline, I think it was beginning of next year. Thank you. I’ll go staff. Thank you and through the chair. For the Transit Oriented Development Incentive Program, we are including an application window that will run from January 5th, 2026 until March 27th, 2026. That is a hard deadline. We will not be administering any funding prior to that deadline. I just to ensure transparency and fairness in the process and that all applications have been received and evaluated fairly. Thank you, Councillor.

[15:46] Okay, thank you and I did see the schedule. You have there in terms of the evaluations and there will not be, we will be treating you based on that, not based on just the units. We are not looking at high density or low density. We are going really by the table, we will schedule there and we will not prioritize, by the size, correct? No staff. Thank you and through the chair, that’s correct. Councillor. Thank you very much. No more questions? Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair and through you.

[16:18] First, I’m gonna apologize to staff that I was not able to give them an update on this ahead of time. This is only a rising after conversation I had this morning with a business at our Argyle BIA AGM. But in the half update, one of the projects that’s noted and supportive of it is the second street sanitary sewer up sizing between Oxford and Pottersburg Creek. The question comes down to, and I actually don’t expect you to have the answer at the tip of your fingers ‘cause I suspect you may need to connect with Ms. Sherry’s division.

[16:54] But second street and Oxford in particular have been disrupted twice already this year with full road closures for periods of time. We’re continuing to do work with the East London Link Rapid Transit Project there. I know we’re gonna have a development application that’s gonna be coming in that area later in the agenda. What are we doing to coordinate these half infrastructure upgrades with other existing infrastructure programs, particularly the Rapid Transit, because it is getting to be very frustrating for residents to have closures for rapid transit and then have closures again just months later for infrastructure upgrades related to half projects.

[17:34] So if we can just get some comments on that. We’ll go staff. Thank you and through the chair. In terms of the projects identified in section 2.4 investments in housing related infrastructure, there will be a subsequent staff report for each of those projects as it comes forward, identifying the source of funding as they commit to those contracts. So that would be an opportunity to have those conversations with the environment and infrastructure team. If there’s a further inquiry that the council would like to make, I’m sure our staff would be happy to respond to that offline. Definitely better.

[18:05] Yeah, I appreciate that. So I will follow up offline on this one in particular, because it is getting to be a transportation problem that we’re doing multiple projects in this corner and they’re not coordinated. So follow up independent of that. And I know that that’s not all about the people in this room. There’s a whole other division that looks after some of this stuff. So I wanted to ask that question ‘cause it arose this morning and I will follow up with both divisions involved offline to get more specifics on that particular area. What I would need from committee is a motion to accept the 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4.

[18:43] Can I get a motion? Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, I’ll go for further questions or comments now that we have that done. The committee will permit a few comments from the chair. Housing is one of the most important challenges that not only London faces, but the province and the country. I think that’s evident by the fact that movements by the federal government and with the Housing Accelerator Fund, 70 plus million dollars of London, the province giving us targets of 47,000 years by 2031 with development charges and financial impacts.

[19:31] We don’t hit those targets. And of course, our own housing needs in the city is evident with what we see every day with people having trouble finding homes. We’ve done our work at this committee and council in zoning issues and now it comes to the next step. We’ve spoken about this as a challenge. We have to turn to zoning issues actually into work and shovels in the ground. And that’s why I’m very happy to see this report showing the progress we’ve made with 2.2 billion dollars in investment happening now, resulting in 4,000 residential units actually being built, not just on paper.

[20:14] And in this time of housing shortages, as Mr. Mather’s referenced the report in the globe, which makes London number one in the country for renter availability. And that’s the purpose we’re here as committee and as council and for planning. That’s the end result is to get houses for people that live in London, London’s grown dramatically in the last five years, adding a population almost the size of Woodstock, as I’ve said before, to give perspective.

[20:49] And it’s coming upon the building community, staff here at City Hall and other partners that we have in our social housing needs to find ruse overheads. And so very encouraging with that report, but also with the building report that’s presented today. So again, thank you for the good work of your staff, Mr. Mathers, for doing that next piece and getting those building permits through.

[21:24] And so we can get, as I said, shovels in the ground. So if there’s no other comments or questions, I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, so we’re moving to the consent item that was pulled and moved with consent of committee, 2.2 regarding the heritage designation appropriate 1269, Hyde Park Road, so I’ll put that on the floor.

[21:59] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, Chair, and through you, I’m not supporting this. I’m gonna move an alternate motion that the notice to designate, the recommendation to designate, be refused, not approved. And once that’s on the floor, then I’ll speak to it. Okay, Clerk, I do have that wording in the eScribe for committee members. I didn’t have it prepared. Okay, the clerk was putting that on the eScribe. Council cut to you, seconding that motion, okay.

[22:33] So we’ll get, I’m just gonna hold discussion until we get that in front of you so people can see. And so now, I’m gonna eScribe.

[25:08] So Deputy Mayor, can I go back to you? Okay. Thank you, Chair. So my reason for not supporting a part four designation on this property, I mean, there’s multiple reasons. We take a look at the consultants report and the staff report. It fails on six or seven, depending on which report you wanna look at, of the nine criteria for designation. When we look at the contextual attachment to the historic Hyde Park Corner, when you look at the aerial, and this is the aerial photograph from the Hopkins consultant, but it’s there in the report, you can’t even see Hyde Park Corner in the aerial photo outlining this block of property.

[25:56] That’s the distance that you’re talking about separation from that original hamlet to this property. So, you know, I’ve been very consistent. I do not support part four heritage designations if they’re not meeting at least half of the criteria. This one does not for me. Even when the criteria that we’re looking at being recognized as it meeting the criteria, I actually have some disagreement with some of those findings. You know, it being a visible landmark in the community. If you’re approaching south from the south heading northbound, there’s a commercial development, a car dealership, a grocery store.

[26:34] You don’t see that building until you’re right on top of it. If you’re southbound coming from the north, you’re actually blocked by the railway berm. This item, and I get that there’s a two-part process, and I want to acknowledge and thank Ms. McNealy for clarifying why there’s a two-part process to this. But this was before our community advisory committee in September, their subcommittee. Their subcommittee did not support recommending a part four designation on this property. So for me, those things start to add up. There’s a cumulative effect here.

[27:08] When the community advisory committee is saying no, when I’m looking at the reports and the distance from the cultural context component from that distance, from the landmark perspective of it actually not being a really visible landmark from anybody in terms of their commutes, that for me is a reason to say no. Even when we look at the future development and re-adaptive use as part of the staff report and we’re talking about the, sorry, the consultant, no, this is the staff report, two of them here. When we’re talking about the adaptive re-uses and when we start to talk about things like the So Street Hospital Redevelopments and how those are being maintained and integrating into a new project, yeah, that’s true.

[27:54] With very, very significant public subsidies to do so. Not as a private redevelopment of housing, but through a very large public subsidy to redevelop the entire So Street Hospital project into affordable housing. So that doesn’t carry weight with me in terms of the influence there. Quite honestly, when I see properties like Jarvis Street in Toronto, Hunter Street in Hamilton, I’m actually not influenced by what happens in other communities, not too long ago.

[28:29] We had a discussion in this chamber about the impact of insurance on heritage properties and the use of alternate materials and heritage properties. I’m very mindful of the fact that in this case, the same thing comes into play. You’re talking about big dollars. You’re talking about materials that are not going to be easily sourced. You’re talking about probably in the range between one and two million. If you’re going to try and move this building, we’ve seen movement attempts in other projects in the city run similar to that for moving them less distance.

[29:08] And so for those reasons, when I’m looking for an assessment on a part four heritage designation that’s come forward as a result of a planning application, if it’s not meeting at least half the thresholds, for me it’s a no. We have to look at the cost implications of things. We have to look at the context of that checklist and make our decisions, just because a recommendation for approval can be brought forward with two, does not mean we have to designate it. That decision still lays with council and I’m not supportive of a designation in this instance.

[29:42] Thank you. I’ll look for other comments from the committee and visiting councilors. I see a councilor Frank online. Please go ahead, councilor. Thank you, yes. I just had one question and I was hoping staff could refresh my memory. How many criteria does the two heritage properties need to be designated by to be brought forward? And do we have any that meet all nine? Or what’s the max number of criteria we have that a heritage property has met in the past to their knowledge through the chair?

[30:21] I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through the chair, under the Ontario Heritage Act property, must meet two of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906. In terms of other properties that we have that have met various criteria, it really kind of varies depending on each individual property. Most recently, I think the Kellogg’s properties hit about six or seven, I believe, between those ones. And that’s considering various resources and layered histories and multiple architects involved in those projects.

[30:58] For other properties like, let’s say, Blackfriars Bridge or Elden House, their evaluations were done at a different time. So we have Ontario Regulation 906 wasn’t used, but I would assume those would probably meet about five or six, don’t start. Thank you. So it sounds like we don’t have a single heritage property in the city that meets all nine. So anyway, I just wanted to flag that during our deliberations on this. And then I had one follow-up question, given that this is coming forward to designate, and I believe that there’s also a planning application, what impact would it have if we designate this property to the planning application that I believe is coming forward for this site?

[31:42] Or is this not one that’s under, I believe it is, I saw it in the media, so. Yeah, Councilor, yes, there is. Dealing with specifically the site, so I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, I’m not sure I understand the question, are you able to repeat that? Council, I could try to summarize, but I’ll just let you go ahead. Okay, yeah. Yeah, so my understanding is there is a planning application for this location in queue, some apartment buildings.

[32:17] And now we have in front of us, the option to designate this building. I’m wondering if we designated it, what would happen to the planning application process? So what the Councilor is asking is, or the impact, so let’s say this failed, what would the impact be on that application, which is further on in the meeting? Thank you through the chair. I’ll do my best to try to answer this one.

[32:50] On the agenda later this afternoon, item 3.4 is the Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment application. The staff recommendation on that is for refusal. The loss of a significant cultural heritage resource is found through the evaluation exceeding the minimum criteria for designation contributes to that staff recommendation for refusal on the planning application. Conserving protected heritage properties is direction in the provincial planning statement. And the staff recommendation is that this property should be considered as a protected heritage property through the recommendations before you today.

[33:30] Councilor. Thank you, yes. I imagine that was part of it, but I just wanted to clarify, given that there are two separate items on this agenda. So I’m not a member of the PEC committee, but I will be thinking about this before Council. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. I know I’m not part of the committee, but I would like to encourage the committee to support the staff recommendation. It does exceed that criteria, but more important, Londoners do value this building.

[34:06] And it is a great opportunity for us to support heritage and how we value our heritage buildings. So I would encourage you to support the recommendation. Thank you, work further. Dr. Mayor Lewis. Yeah, thank you, Chair, sorry. One other thing that I wanted to mention in my reason for not supporting this. One, two cycles ago, the community advisory committee actually brought forward after a research of their list of the 2000 or so properties on the cultural resource list to be reviewed. They brought forward a list of their top items.

[34:43] This was not one of those top items that even our community advisory committee recognized as being really crucial for designation. If this wasn’t coming forward as attached to a planning application, we wouldn’t be seeing this as a recommendation as a top priority. And so for me, that’s another factor. We did ask our community advisory committee to identify the top priority properties for part four designation evaluation. They brought forward a list. This was not one of them.

[35:15] Thank you. Look for other comments in the committee. Councillor Pluzza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to appreciate the core response that was sent in. I’ll say that it wasn’t under the designation of the property. And I’m 2.2. So just highlighting that the feedback was more tied to the application that we’ll see later in the agenda of residents reaching out with concerns about the proposed application as well as the ACO of London raising concerns about losing this architectural history as well.

[35:51] Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from any members who are visiting? I’ll ask Vice Chair to take the chair. Please, I’d like to comment on this. I can do that chair, but I have a motion on the floor. So did you want to— Oh, I guess. Member of committee. Okay. I’ll go to Councillor CUNY if you could take the chair so I can speak to this. Thank you and the chair recognizes Councillor Lehman. Thank you. So yeah, whenever we’re looking at heritage designation, there’s a certain amount of opinion that goes into it.

[36:27] It’s not, it’s more subjective than objective. It can be a challenge from that standpoint. I tend to agree with the deputy mayor’s remarks out of nine criteria. This meets three or two, depending on which opinion you’re going with. It did not make the list from the community advisory group on heritage when they looked at potential heritage properties, a project that they’re working on now. I think they identified 12 or 13 roughly.

[37:01] And this was not on that list. And specifically, when looking at this property, the heritage advisory committee did not recommend this for heritage designation. The other thing I look at too is, this property has been for quite a while. And up until this point, it has not been brought forward by anyone for heritage designation as well. So, is there an urgent need out there? I tend to believe not.

[37:34] I think there are certain aspects of it that some folks believe that should be designated for heritage. But as a judgment call, for those reasons, I will support the motion on the floor. Thank you, Presiding Chair. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I’ll return the chair to you with no other speakers. Thank you, I’ll look around for any other speakers. Councillor Rowan. Thank you and through you. I wanted to wait until Board eight Councillor had spoken as this is in his area as well. I understand the motion that’s on the floor and the rationale behind it.

[38:11] I will say though, living in the area, this is an iconic building and it has a lot of significance to the community. And I can’t imagine the landscape without it. So I do hope that we are looking at some options to do something to recognize if it is not to be registered. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, I’ll follow up on that to staff. Realize we have two things on the agenda that’s interrelated.

[38:43] If heritage status is not granted to this building and Council and committee would like something preserved if we don’t have a heritage status on this property and on this building, do we there inherently lose the opportunity to impose some sort of a building being maintained or recognized as a historical context to that part of the community?

[39:16] That’ll go south. Thank you for the question through the chair. There is no demolition request presently for the building at 1269 Hyde Park Road. However, it is only a heritage listed property and there is no ability to attach terms and conditions on a demolition request for a heritage listed property. The question really before the committee this afternoon is is this resource significant? And if it is significant, how is it conserved? Through the limitations on the site plan process through Bill 23, it’s extremely difficult to attach terms and conditions that are related to building design.

[39:53] And I would understand that to include items like heritage commemoration that are outside of the process under the Ontario Heritage Act. You might recall some of the recent decisions that were made about the Kent Brewery, which was designated and through that designation process, there was commemoration efforts that were able to be secured for the future building on that site. Councillor. And we have a motion moved and succulent. I’ll local more time for discussion or comments. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

[40:43] Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you. We’ll move on to scheduled items. First item being 3.1 and this is regarding 144 baseline road west, I’ll look for our motion. And what I’d like to do, we’ve done this in the past. We open and close public participation meetings. So if I could have the mover and seconder be okay with both those aspects throughout the meeting, that’d be great. Councillor Cutty, who is Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll second it and I’m assuming that’ll be okay for the closing as well and then throughout the afternoon.

[41:23] Okay, thank you. So I’ll call the vote to open the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll look for the applicant, the applicant would like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dan Murphy.

[41:57] I’m a planner with civic planning and design. Here today representing 9515 5222 Quebec Inc, the owner of 144 baseline road west. This application proposes a 2.5 story nine unit stacked townhouse development, representing a modest form of residential intensification at the northwest corner of Baseline Road West and Caldwell Gate. As part of this project, we undertook our own community engagement program to involve nearby residents early in the planning process. Through that over 70 postcards were distributed to surrounding homes and we later hosted an online webinar on July 17th to present the proposal and to receive feedback from neighbors.

[42:37] Based on that input from residents and city staff, we made several refinements to the site design, specifically to increase building setbacks, improve parking area setbacks for landscaping and screening and to enhance the pedestrian connectivity to baseline road west. Together these refinements reflect that, that strong back and forth with the development team and city staff, resulting in a street oriented build form that respects the adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. This proposal conforms with the London Plan neighborhoods place type and is consistent with the provincial planning statement.

[43:11] We want to thank Isaac to Kuster and the rest of the planning and development staff for the collaboration and feedback through this process. We’re in full agreement with the staff recommendation and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this. Please, sir, go to the mic. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very, thank you very much. My name is Glenn Giroux. My wife Denise and I live at 148, which is property right next to the proposed project. I have three areas that I wish to discuss. Number one is they’ve got on the site concept that the waste storage site, which is basically nine garbage bins, be put on the west side of their property right next to our home, right against the fence.

[43:58] I believe they’ve asked for a variance to make it even closer to my property. My concern is one, the smell, it’s easy right now in winter not to think about that, but you have nine garbage bins, right literally against our fence. And the closest window to that property is, to our property is right around the corner there. And I have a 37 year old autistic son who lives with us and that is his room basically 90% of the day.

[44:34] And there’s two things that are very difficult for him to deal with, one is extra clothing and smell, specifically decaying smell. So here you have the closest window in my whole house, right next to nine garbage bins. So I would appreciate them seeing that they get moved to the other side or somewhere away from us. In addition to that, my concern also is that it’s in an enclosed area you might say. And Skyler Frank, who we just talked to last month, she had a meeting just down the street from my place that the seniors building is having a real problem with homeless and drug paraphernalia.

[45:18] And people are going through all their garbage bins on a regular basis. And here we have basically a hidden area right next to my house, but also away from the public where they could spend hours going through garbage and it’s right next to my property. That’s my first consideration. Second is they have a beautiful, we have a beautiful tree right on the corner of our Southwest corner of the property. It’s about 75 to 100 years old and I’d appreciate them considering keeping it and not having it destroyed.

[45:53] The canopy certainly goes over to my property. It’s in the furthest corner where this building needs to be put up, but saying that it could easily be demolished just by the fact that they want to do it. And the third area I’d like to discuss is on my east roof line is a fireplace chimney. Now, when you look at the demands for a chimney, it has to be higher or parallel to the roof line, which is what it is.

[46:25] My concern is that they say that if the roof line is higher and smoke and toxic fumes can be pushed down and it then goes into the room. So I now have a two and a half story building right next to this chimney. So my concern or my hope is that I’ll get some kind of assurance that on a snowy, Monday day like we just had, I don’t open up, I have a fire and find myself having toxic fumes coming right into my family and with my family and all that because that’s what could happen.

[46:58] So those are the three points I’d like to discuss. Thank you very much for your time. I style it. Thank you, I’ll look for another speaker to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone else coming up to the microphone. So we have a motion already moved in second to close the PPM, so I will call the vote. Thinking about the motion carries five to zero.

[47:42] So I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Councillor Cuddy. Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll look for comments, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, rather than making any comments myself, I know Councillor Frank is with us, but she’s only got a limited time. I know we typically go to committee members first, but I’m gonna yield my time and ask that the committee here from the word Councillor first. Yeah, sure, we’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you very much.

[48:15] Appreciate that. I did want to make a couple comments and then through the chair, I asked some questions, perhaps to the consultant given the questions raised by Glen. Also, hi, sorry, I’m not there in person. So as the Councillor for the area, I’ve had a lot of engagement on this application, and you saw some of the concerns listed in the report in regards to traffic and congestion. I did want to share that staff will be looking into some traffic studies for the area to see if there’s any traffic calming that can be added, as well as some new crosswalks on a couple of the ends of the street.

[48:50] So I’m hoping that that will address some of the concerns in general in the area, and imagine the limited parking is another one that people are a little bit concerned about having people park on streets. And then we did hear from Glen regarding waste stores. So through the chair, I was hoping to confirm with the consultant that there will be some sort of enclosure on the east side of the building away from the west side. And if that could perhaps be confirmed and then maybe at the same time, I have a question about the tree on the southwest corner. And then I’m not sure if the consultant could ask the question about the down draft or if that’s something that our building folks could answer, but I’m just wondering if we could have those three questions asked.

[49:33] So Council, let’s start with the first one. The enclosure is up for the garbage bins. Yes. - Okay, thank you. So I’ll go to the applicant. Can you tell us, sir, one of the plans for, you know, mitigating the concerns of odors, et cetera, for the garbage bins on your property? Absolutely. And through the chair, the waste is currently proposed to be stored in these little private lockers that would be on the west side of the building. They’re set back approximately 1.2 meters from that shared property line with the member of the public.

[50:11] They’d be brought out to the curb on collection day. That being said, where the development team is open to looking into other solutions, potentially relocating it on site to where those waste collections can be stored. Okay, Council, I’m just gonna go through your list and then I’ll go back to you, okay. Regarding the tree, the concern of the tree removal, what are your comments on that? Through the chair, tree preservation plan was submitted as part of the zoning by-law amendment application. That tree in question will be preserved as part of this development concept.

[50:46] Okay, thank you. Council, I forgot your third question. Could you remind me, or was there a third? Yes, the down draft in the chimney. I understand the science of it, but maybe staff will. Yeah, I might go to staff on that with the concerns of a down draft coming in from the chimney area. I’m not too sure if that can be answered or if that’s something that I need to go the applicant on. Through the chair, I believe this would be a question more so for the applicant.

[51:22] However, it probably is a building code matter. Okay, so yeah, that would probably be falling on their building code. Councilor, do you want me to go to the applicant with that concern? Sure, if they have any comments. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. A, if you’re aware of that concern or if there’s anything that are in your plans to mitigate that. Through the chair, this would have to be looked at further through the building permit and detailed design phase. Definitely take that into consideration.

[51:54] However, existing zoning, it will mention would allow for up to three stories currently as of right. So that’s just something that would, you know, inform our designs and such. But yeah, definitely something we can look forward to. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I think it’s important given that there is a request for a due setback. So the building will be closer to Glen’s house that that is looked through. But I assume that if building code would prohibit some something like that, then that would be resolved through building code.

[52:27] I just wanna make a couple comments. So I do wanna say thank you, especially to Glen, for being so thoughtful and thorough in his communication. And I think that it really raised some good valid points. I did hear from the consultant, they’re willing to have the enclosure be located away from that shared property line, given the concerns of smell on the samurai. Again, I think Glen articulated it really well, but it’d be nice if it was located either in the back or on the east side of the building, given the west is the shared property line. So given we don’t have site plan control, I will just ask in good faith that the consultant and the applicant do their best to respect and honor that discussion.

[53:09] And then in general, I am supportive of this application. I do find that it’s a good location. And I do think the consultants have tried to make an effort to make it compatible within the area. I will share that there are ongoing concerns along this strip of baseline at the growing propensity for density. So I do want folks to be aware that there are some concerns from neighboring residents, and that was highlighted in the report as well. But overall, I am supportive of this. And though I can’t vote here, I will vote at council in support.

[53:44] Thank you, councilor. I’ll look for other comments, Deputy Mayor, would you want to weigh in here? No, I’m just gonna echo Councilor Frank’s comments to the applicant while they’re here. We’ve expressed your willingness to work on an alternate garbage management option. We don’t have site plan approval, but given the reduced side yard setback, again, I’m gonna say the same thing. I’m gonna take it on good faith that you’re gonna follow through on that.

[54:16] I don’t think the west side is the appropriate place for the garbage location given the reduced setback. So please find another spot on the property to respect the neighbor with the reduced side yard setback there. Thank you. Look for other comments from committee questions, our visiting councilors. We have a motion moved in second, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[54:53] Thank you, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 1453 to 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 to 658 Ayreswood Avenue. So we have a motion already. We moved in second to in the PPM, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

[55:26] I’ll look to the applicant to like to address the committee. Please man, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Chair, members of committee. My name is Lauren Suley, and I am an urban planner with Civic Planning and Design Inc. I’m here today representing our client, Red Maple Properties Inc, who are the owners and developers of this project. I’m also joined today online by Paul Champagne, who is from Red Maple Properties Inc. This application is to permit a mixed-use department building on the lands known as 1453 to 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 to 656 Ayreswood Avenue.

[56:04] The proposed development consists of a 25-story apartment building with 352 units and ground floor commercial space, and the development concept also proposes a new lay-by parking area off of Ayreswood Avenue located in the public right of way to accommodate resident drop-offs, pickups and food delivery. This proposal conforms to the policies of the Lended Plan, which direct high density and mixed-use development to rapid transit corridor place types to achieve transit supportive densities. From a form perspective, the proposed development represents the desired massing of new development along a rapid transit boulevard.

[56:39] The proposed zoning by-law includes enhanced building setbacks and step-backs beyond what is required in the transit station area one base zone. Recognizing the existing residential development, low-density residential developments to the south. We would like to thank staff for their work on this proposal. We are in full agreement with their recommendation, and we are available to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll now go to members of the public that would like to address committee on this. I’ll ask the clerk if there is anyone online.

[57:13] There is no one online. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone, so we have a motion moved to, and seconded to close the public participation meeting, so I’ll call that vote now. I’ll sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll put this item on the floor. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[57:47] I have a motion moved in the seconder. I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. And since this is in my ward, I’d like to speak to it, and I’ll be very brief. You know, when I came onto this job three years ago, I think I had a call for Mr. Champagne, and I had no idea what this was about. No one, as much as I’d like to take credit for this, I had no idea that there was a proposed building going there, and so we had a nice conversation. And then I worked my way down to Deputy Mayor Lewis’s office and said, “Do you have any idea what’s going on?” (laughs) And so we had a good conversation, and he filled me in.

[58:27] And since then, Mr. Champagne and his team, the planners, they’ve been excellent to work with. And this project, Chair, is coming at a perfect time, in a perfect area. It’s an area that needs development. We’re seeing a lot of development on that Oxford corridor right now. We have the BRT starting up shortly through there. But also, Chair, this scenario where some of these homes that are coming down for this development to go up, it’s going to really make a huge improvement.

[59:08] I will give Deputy Mayor Lewis credit, because he actually came up with the idea of, I think, a breezeway, I’m not sure what you call it, for Ubers and Uber Eats to pull in off the, to accommodate, so we don’t hold up traffic. But in closing, I will say thank you to the developers, or to the developer, Mr. Champagne. Thank you to the planning group, and also to our staff. Thank you. I look for other comments or questions on this particular thing. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[59:41] Thank you, Chair. So this one goes back to 2019 for me. Councillor Saleh previously in ward three. We were the only two to support a previous iteration of this development, that had a holding provision on it, but council wasn’t comfortable with the holding provision with regard to the sanitary servicing. I raised earlier in the meeting, the half funding with the second Knoxford sewer up sizing. That’s an important component of this entire area, because it impacts Oxford in second as well.

[1:00:16] We’ve got the old Oak redevelopment of the Legacy Village happening right next door to this. It is on the East London link rapid transit corridor. It is purpose built for student rentals, which we know are desperately needed around the Fanshawe College area. I am very, very, very pleased to see this before us. I support the staff recommendation. I think the applicant and the planners have done some great work to keep this alive and moving forward. I’m thankful that Red Maple and Mr. Champagne did not give up that they could have, this is kick of the can number three, I think, if memory serves properly.

[1:00:58] And they worked with us, they took some feedback, they changed some of their designs. What we have here is going to be an excellent redevelopment of what Councillor Cudi, I would agree with his comments, is an area that’s, in the last couple of decades, has sort of been in decline. We’ve seen single family homes that have been cannibalized into student rentals, that are, frankly, they’re overhoused in terms of the number of people that are trying to fit into those small, what used to be single family homes.

[1:01:33] This is going to provide an actual good building for students to call home while they’re attending Fanshawe College, it complements the building that’s already at Oxford and first, and it will complement some of the rental development that’s happening in Legacy Village in the years ahead too. So very supportive of this, I want to thank, I also have to thank our staff because you continued to work with the applicant as well, identified areas of deficiencies that needed to be changed. We’ve seen some of those addressed and corrected in this most recent iteration.

[1:02:08] So I’m happy that working together, none of us have given up on it and we’re finally at the finish line where we can give an approval to this one today, I hope, and an approval at Council. And then we can start moving forward with site plan and getting shovels in the ground and the foundation’s port and getting that counted towards our federal and our provincial housing targets and get some students housed. And let some of those areas slightly to the south and to the east, along Hansel, along Dale, start to return hopefully to some single family housing opportunities as some of those cannibalized properties are able to go back on the market for family rental or for purchase to become single family homes again.

[1:02:48] Because I think that will be the impact that this has as the Fanshawe, student population changes and as rentals are available right across the street from campus, it will take away that need to spread further and further into the neighborhoods. So I think this is a win for everyone and I just thank you to everyone who’s been involved in this. Thank you, Councilor Perble. Thank you, I certainly love this project and I love how it mirrors the one on the first street but my questions through you, Chair, to the staff. Is this really gonna be going to the source on the second street?

[1:03:23] And if it is, I just wanna make sure because there are some other proposals on the south, east corner, second and Oxford. And if it is, do we still have sufficient space? Thank you. Good staff. Thank you through the Chair. Yes, basically everything starting at this development going east goes to Don Oxford to second street. So the upgrades that were anticipated for 2026 will open up about 30 liters a second which is pretty significant. So it should be able to accommodate many developments in this area moving forward.

[1:04:01] Thanks, Councilor. Thank you, no more questions? Thank you. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions. The motion move in a second and we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 1447 to 1449.

[1:04:37] Dundas Street has 684 to 690 Hail Street. We have a motion already moved and seconded to open the public participation meeting. We’ll call that vote now. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant there she is. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members of PEC, attending Council members, staff and members of the public.

[1:05:11] My name is Alia Richards and I’m a planning consultant with Zalinka Priema Limited and I’m joined here today by my colleague, Harry Frucios and the property owners and proponents of this application, Andy Larricos and Peter Larricos. I’d like to start by thanking staff for the continued efforts in processing this application. Even though there are elements of the staff report that we are in agreement with, we respectfully disagree with the staff recommendation for an alternative amendment that supports a maximum height of 15 stories.

[1:05:45] We submitted a letter to PEC that is on the added agenda that requests a number of revisions to the draft zoning bylaw amendment that is attached to the staff report. In summary, it is our opinion that the requested height of 18 stories is appropriate in this instance as the subject lands are within 500 meters of the boundaries of the primary transit area and both the rapid transit corridors and the transit village place type that extend along Dundas Street and Highbury Avenue. This height can be seen as appropriate, as an appropriate transition between the 15 stories permitted in the urban corridor place type that extends westward along Dundas until it changes to the rapid transit corridor place type at the intersection of Dundas and Highbury where 25 stories is permitted.

[1:06:33] The subject lands are located along a primary east west corridor and are in close proximity to a range of convenience and day-to-day needs for future tenants of the proposed buildings. We note that staff are supportive of the proposed density. However, we believe that this density is best achieved within the 18 stories in accordance with the provided drawings. Otherwise, a different design that would include larger floor plates and a reduced outdoor amenity and landscape open space would be required to achieve the same density within 15 story buildings.

[1:07:09] We also do not agree that the approval of our application is precedent setting or that it does not uphold the integrity of the recently approved heights review. All proposals should be evaluated on their own merits based on the specific context and characteristics of the site and the surrounding area. In our opinion, the height standards that were approved as part of the heights review process are not intended to be applied rigidly in every circumstance. There may be certain situations such as this application that weren’t additional height for the reasons already provided.

[1:07:45] A community open house meeting was held on March 27th of this year and was well attended by members of the community. To date, there has been no public opposition to the proposed development. Lastly, in our letter, we have requested some revisions and minor adjustments to the draft zoning by-law, primarily to permit the proposed development as per the submission material and to allow for some flexibility in building design during the site plan application stage and to avoid potential zoning issues down the line.

[1:08:19] We know that staff did not prepare a draft official plan amendment to recognize the proposed height increase. We have requested the OPA be approved for council consideration together with the revised zoning by-law amendment. We have also been in communications with CN regarding their comments relating to the proximity of the development to the rail line and are pleased to advise that our clients have signed a commitment letter to work with CN throughout the approval process and enter into a development agreement with them. As such, the H-180 holding provision is not necessary to be applied to this ZBA.

[1:08:57] Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments this afternoon and we remain available to answer any questions you may have regarding our letter or our presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone so I’ll call the vote on closing the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:09:37] So I’ll go to committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I submitted to the clerk last night and copied you on an alternate motion to approve the proposal. So I’m just confirming that we’ve got that ready in eScribe and then I’m gonna move that. And once we have a seconder, I’ll speak to it. Okay, thank you. I’ll ask the clerk if that is up in eScribe. She has confirmed it is up. So I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi is second. So do you want to speak to it? Thank you, Chair.

[1:10:11] So again, with this one, Ms. Richards spoke to the community engagement session in March, I attended as well. Lots of community interest, lots of good questions and lots of community satisfaction with the plan when we left. We didn’t actually have any opposition coming from the people who attended the open house that night. They had some good questions. Once those questions were answered, they were very supportive of this moving forward. I mentioned earlier in the meeting, I was at the Argyel PIA AGM this morning. Warehouse guy’s owner, Chris Metron, is a member of that board. He was at that meeting.

[1:10:46] He was aware that this is coming forward this afternoon. You know, the most immediate neighbor to the north, very supportive, can’t wait. He wanted to know when he could come out and start helping dig the hole. So that’s the kind of feedback that I’ve been getting. I also, and I know that staff have to interpret our official plan things in black and white. I think this is exactly why we have a planning committee because we do get to operate a little bit more in the gray and look at very site-specific realities and whether or not a little bit of variance is okay. We are looking at ground floor commercial here.

[1:11:21] It’s the main corridor of the Argyel PIA. Ground floor commercial is obviously a different beast than residential rentals. And so when we’re looking for those ground floor commercials, which I don’t think we want in every development anyway, but certainly in our BIA corridors we do, then I think we have to be a little more flexible on the height because it’s the residential component that makes these projects viable. That’s where the surety of the economics come in that they know they’re gonna be able to pay back their financing once the building’s built.

[1:11:54] And over the years, I mean, filling commercial spaces can be a little bit more challenging. Their bricks and mortar retail and service provisions are changing. And so to have that opportunity, then I wanna also acknowledge that that opportunity comes with some additional challenges and that a little bit more residential here is fine. It is also worth noting, we’re recognizing Hail Street under policy 43, that Hail Street portion of the property is being part of the urban corridor because of its attachment to the Dundas properties.

[1:12:27] I think that’s the right way to go. Where I disagree with our staff is on the application of policy 86, which does encourage and direct the most intense forms along the rapid transit corridors in downtown. But it doesn’t say only intense development should be in those areas. It says that the most intense development, but we’re not talking about 35 story or even the 25 story that would be allowed 500 meters away. We’re talking about a 15 as of right, going to 18. Sufficient parking, there’s a one-to-one ratio.

[1:13:02] So I’m not concerned about the parking impacts in terms of the rest of the neighborhood. And it is, as I mentioned, within 500 meters of what will be a major rapid transit corridor transfer point. But beyond that, this area is actually very well served. I’m sure members of the London Transit Commission will be happy to hear me praise part of the London Transit Commission service with express and regular service through the 93 and the two. And so this is one area where actually the transit service is excellent.

[1:13:35] And so a little bit more intensification along a transit corridor that’s very well served makes a lot of sense to me. So again, very supportive of this. I have had no real community objections. There’s been a lot of community support for this. Peter and Andy and the Zalinka Primo team have kept in touch throughout the process as they worked on this. The BIA has been involved. The Community Association has been involved and sent members to the public meeting that was held in March as well. The Argonne Community Association had their meeting last night.

[1:14:09] They’re aware that this is coming too. And again, no objections, just supportive encouragement to start getting some new rental spaces built in Ward 2. So with thanks to the applicant for all the work that they’ve done on this, with thanks to our team. And again, I know your recommendation is a refusal, but I know you also have to interpret the policies as they are. We get as counsel to be a little bit more flexible with those and in this case, I think we need to be. And I’m looking for that additional flexibility and asking for my colleague’s support. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee. Councillor Palazzo.

[1:14:49] Thank you. I appreciate that there was a community consultation. Down in the Ward Council has been very involved throughout this. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say I would have appreciated this was circulated in advance. This is the second one at committee today. For those who are trying to come prepared and looking into this in advance, especially considering it was noted for original refusal, sometimes you go through it with a different lens. I appreciate that a lot of checks and balances seem to have been along the way with engagement done.

[1:15:22] Just I know a lot of times when residents don’t think something’s coming, they don’t bother to make comment ‘cause it’s what they wanted. And we usually only hear from them when they’re opposed. So those are my main concerns. Through you to staff, just making sure that the bylaws and everything could be in order and obviously in time for councils. And both the added Zilinka letter and the original refusal do cite the maximum of 15 stories. I just don’t see that exactly in the wording that’s before us. So making sure that we’re all on the same page as I compare different communications and letters.

[1:15:59] That’ll go to staff. Through the chair, if I may confirm the question, is it just requesting clarification what the maximum contemplated height is? Councillor. Yeah, just Zilinka in their letter on the added is saying maximum of 15 stories and we were talking about the 15 stories and I don’t see 15 stories necessarily noted in here. So just making sure that this would pertain to maximum of 15. Go to staff. 10, sorry, Sean, we’ll go to Deputy Mayor later. Deputy Mayor Lewis, the maximum under the London Plan is 15, the request is for 18.

[1:16:42] So to staff, is that correct? In which bylaws are coming back with 15 or 10 stories in a bylaw? I guess I’m looking for clarification of what’s actually on the floor. Oh, go to staff. Through the chair, the maximum height contemplated in the London Plan is 15 stories. The height requested by the applicant is 18 stories, staff are recommending 15. So refusal of the request is specific policy to the London Plan. Councillor. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded.

[1:17:15] I’ll call the vote. Will seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 1269 Hyde Park Road. Oh, your motion moved and seconded to open the public participation meeting. So I’ll call that vote.

[1:17:58] Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go look to the applicant. I’d like to address committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. afternoon planning committee, members of council and staff. My name is Paul Weigel from North Development. Wanna be here to represent our— Mr. Weigel, can you just raise the mic up?

[1:18:38] Is that better? Yeah, much. Thank you very much. Good afternoon planning committee, members of council and staff. My name is Paul Weigel from North Development. I’m just here to speak to this application and answer any questions. So to date, this project has had extensive design reviews, planning, has gone into this proposal, particularly given the site’s challenges and its opportunities, including the railway to the North, the alignment of the driveway, and of course the existing structure that’s located in the center of the property.

[1:19:17] This project we feel does transform an underutilized site into a development that has much needed housing, density to Hyde Park without negatively impacting any existing residents. This is a rare opportunity we feel in field development. In addition to new residential units, Plan introduces streetfront commercial space along Hyde Park Road, as well as connects the municipal walking trail to the east directly to Hyde Park Road, improving accessibility and community connectivity.

[1:19:54] City staff’s housing needs and assessment report for Hyde Park presented to this committee on April 29th, identified this area as having the highest concentration of unaffordable houses and among the highest example of core housing needs across the city of London. Overall, we feel this proposal represents a win-win for both Hyde Park and the city of London by delivering attainable new housing needed, local economic support for businesses and improved community linkages.

[1:20:30] In addition to myself, I also have representatives, Megan and Frank from Stantec, our heritage consultants here to answer any questions about the heritage aspects of this project, as well as discuss the commemoration plans we’ve included in our report. Thank you, and I’m here to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this particular item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

[1:21:06] There’s no one online. Please serve, give us your name, you have five minutes. I’m Ed Musa, don’t know where to start. I will start at the point of, same point I was making a couple of months ago. This is another one of these recommendations of staff that you will, and I will use the term ignore again unless they give you what you want. I’m looking forward to, and I don’t see the mayor here today, but I’m looking forward to a notwithstanding the recommendations of staff as an amendment.

[1:21:51] I stopped having an opinion on things or trying to point you towards the proper legislation or policy considerations. I’m more concerned right now with the consistency. The inconsistency, the inconsistency of the staff, sorry, I apologize to staff of this committee and Ergo Council in how they rationalize what they push through and what they do not, or what it does and does not. Through the chair, through the chair, you pride yourself on consistency, yet in 2022 and in July of this year, you voted against the exact same type situation at Capulet and Oxford, close to the railroad tracks, close to a transit center, which had the advantage.

[1:22:50] And I see nothing here with step down or any of the density or the increased heights. And I would ask counselors through the chair, I would ask for counselors to please rationalize to us as Londoners, how you come up with your decisions, because the only consistency we can see is the inconsistency. So you wonder why people question your motives. I will not question motives or cast any aspersions onto what your motives may be, but frankly, as a resident of London, I play a little bit of game with myself to see if I can predict how each member of committee and council votes on things.

[1:23:53] Surprisingly, with respect to the Oxford and Capulet, although you voted against it numerous times in 2022 and in July. - Mr. Chair, I’d respectfully remind the member of the public that we’re not here to discuss the Capulet application. We’re here to discuss 1296 Hyde Park Road. Thank you. And yeah, I support that comment coming from the Deputy Mayor. Please keep your comments to the item that we’re discussing this afternoon. Somehow I thought that kind of personal privilege or point of order might have been called.

[1:24:30] I’m only asking with respect to reconciling this decision with previous decisions. I mean, is that not fair for me to ask or am I being told I cannot refer to a previous application and compare it, compare and contrast it with this one? Is that, may I ask the Chair? - I’m just asking you to keep your comments to this particular application. Okay, with respect to this application, may I have, not from staff, may I have the, don’t expect it, but I’ll put it on the record, you’re comparing and contrasting and reconciling with previous decisions of the exact same type of application.

[1:25:19] I do yet, I do have one question of staff though. If this application requires, you know, upgrades to pumping stations and stuff, is it going to be on the developer or is it gonna be pushed on to the taxpayers of London, the overburdened overstressed and overtax taxpayers of London? Thank you, I’ll look for other comments or questions from, or other comments, sorry from the public. Again, I’ll confirm with the clerk if there’s anyone online, no, okay.

[1:25:55] So we have a motion to close the public participation meeting and second, it’s all call that vote. Those in the motion carries five to zero. There was one question raised that will go to staff regarding infrastructure for this particular project, like comments on that. Thank you, through the chair.

[1:26:28] This particular project, the upgrades to the pumping station are funded through the housing accelerator fund, which was part of this agenda under the consent items. Thank you. - Thank you. So what I’m gonna do is because I have alternate motion, I’m going to hand the chair to my vice chair. I will take the chair, Councillor Layman. Thank you, so I do have an alternate motion that has been circulated, I believe, and through you chair, you can confirm with the clerk that it is an e-scribe.

[1:27:15] And I will check with the clerk on that. It’s amazing if you can confirm. It’s like to clarify, I did receive this from Councillor Layman, and is this the same as the one from you Deputy Mayor Lewis? Is it similar, are they different? They’re different, and I’m not putting one forward, the one you received from Councillor Layman, I think is the one that he’s asking to be put in e-scribe.

[1:28:00] We also have confirmation that it was circulated, I’m just looking for a time sign for my emails, and I don’t see it. Councillor Palosa, I did not receive it either, so if it was supposed to be circulated, it did not get circulated, so make sure the clerk’s got. Once the appropriate motion is in e-scribe, can I just get a thumbs up from the clerk, please? Okay, I’m seeing the clerk nod that it’s in e-scribe now.

[1:28:55] Councillor Layman, did you want to introduce that? I’ll introduce that presiding chair, and I’ll look for a seconder. And you just want to give us the gist of your alternate motion? Yeah, so the gist of the motion, and then once I get a seconder, I’ll go further into it. It is to give approval for this development, to go ahead as well as the commercial side of things, and then some additional pipeline direction. And I do see a Councillor, Councillor Hill, you’re indicating a second.

[1:29:34] So if you’d like to speak to it now, Councillor Layman, or did you want to go to other Councillors? Yeah, no, I’ll speak to it now. There’s a number of issues, and please, if you could give me a kind of a heads up, when I kind of get to four minutes, so I don’t, ‘cause there’s lots to speak to here. Basically, this comes down to two things. One is heritage, and second one is height, so I’ll speak to heritage first. I didn’t support the heritage designation earlier in the meeting for the reasons that I gave. There were comments made during that discussion about incorporating heritage attributes into the development, which I have included in my motion to request that consideration be given as site plan.

[1:30:25] So I’d just like to go to the applicant right now through you presenting officer, and just get a general feeling for the willingness to incorporate heritage features and material into the new build. So we will go to the applicant. I know there was comments about that in the submission that they made, so we’ll go to the applicant for further. Not really, no.

[1:30:59] Give us just a second for the IT folks to make sure your mic’s on. Okay, we should be able to hear you if you use the mic now. Planning committees, Councillors and staff. We certainly have put a lot of consideration into the commemoration of the heritage aspects of this building and also Hyde Park into this application. I think I would like to turn over the discussions and questions specifically on that to the heritage staff that’s put a lot of work into making recommendations to us, but essentially at a high level, we are incorporating aspects of the building and the architectural features of the building into commemoration as well as heritage aspects of Hyde Park in an area that would be very publicly visible along the path that connects the community trail to the east along the Hyde Park.

[1:32:02] So I think specifically maybe I can let both Megan and Frank talk more about that, but we’ve really followed their recommendations on what would be most appropriate and bring value to London. Councillor Layman, did you wanna hear from I believe it’s the stand tech consultant on that? I wouldn’t mind, it’s up to you, Chair. Please, if you can respond to the Councillor’s question for us.

[1:32:35] Perfect, through you, Chair. Yeah, the commemoration plan that was attached as an amendment to our addendum, sorry, to the impact assessment kind of outlines in broad strokes, what we would be looking to do. Kind of as you’ve heard, the significance of Hyde Park as a community would be explored through a commemoration wall that would span a public pathway. So without going into too many of the details, we’ve identified some historic photos, also some material from the house that could be salvaged and incorporated as well into this kind of commemorative space.

[1:33:10] But we would look to make it a community exercise as well as one informed by the history of the property specifically, as well as the built materials. Councillor Layman. Thank you. So, yeah, I did hear some feedback regarding the heritage. The other side of heritage stuff is the restaurant that’s operating there. And I remember going to the horse and hound, that was the original restaurant there. And then there’s been three restaurants since then, the most recent being crossings. And I just wanna ask through you chair again to the applicant, with regards to future restaurant being there, are you willing to engage in discussions with a restaurant operator, including the current operator that’s operating right now?

[1:34:02] Again, we’ll go to the applicant for their response. I’m also gonna get staff to comment on the specific area policy, shopping area, place type and what that would allow. Through you chair. The site plan that we presented does have an area, building in front that we’ve intended for a restaurant. We’ve certainly all eaten up the current crossings I have and very much enjoy the food there and have even discussed the opportunity to continue the lineage of a restaurant on that property.

[1:34:38] So if not even the current operator, a future operator could continue to operate, that kind of service on this site. Thank you. And Councillor Layman, if you’ll just hold. Ms. McNeely, could you or a member of your staff, whoever wants to feel this one, the motion does speak to a specific areas, shopping area, place type, holding restricted commercial service to a holding business district special provision?

[1:35:12] Can staff comment that those provisions in fact would allow the operation of food service, restaurant type establishment in the commercial? Thank you and through the chair, the shopping area place that permits a wide range of uses, including retail, service, office, entertainment, recreational, educational, institutional and residential uses. So this includes a restaurant use, restaurant uses are permitted in the shopping area place. Thank you, Mr. DeCuster.

[1:35:44] Councillor Layman. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So in my motion, there is reference in the site plan to those things. I want to go over and discuss the next thing, which is the height, that’s the other concern. I’m glad the gentleman in the public participation portion raised my personal actions in the past in this committee. You know, we have the London plan, we have, you know, height bylaws or not bylaws, but height guidelines, so to speak, that have been passed.

[1:36:23] What’s the purpose of this planning committee? If we, if this wasn’t up for discussion, then we wouldn’t be needed. It would be a staff direction on all these things, but those are guidelines. And in the case of the one that was referenced, which I was planning to bring up anyway, ‘cause I think it kind of makes my point, there was a situation where, although it was on the border of the transit village, so the height of 23 stories, I believe, was allowed or permitted by staff and was approved by my council, I opposed it because I believed in that particular instance, it wasn’t appropriate, behind it was a, right behind it was a long-term care facility for seniors.

[1:37:08] And then to the west of it was a single family residence is on the other side of the tracks. So I didn’t agree with that recommendation at that time. Now I’m on the opposite side, because I look to believe there’s mitigating factors to the other way. Where this particular land is is a triangular land on the south and east, it’s essentially surrounded by a very large car dealership.

[1:37:41] On the north are railway tracks, and then beyond the railway tracks is a continuing of a commercial strip. The resident, there’s limited residential impact. I think that’s important because we hear this committee here very often every meeting, the impact on residents when we do infill. We’re faced with a housing situation where we need to address it through various means. When we look at our own urban growth boundary review, we hear, well, we don’t want urban sprawl, we don’t want to pave over farmlands, we need higher density and we need infill.

[1:38:20] Well, in my opinion, I think this is an ideal opportunity for infill with very limited impact surrounding residential neighborhood. That is usually the case as we heard earlier this afternoon. Councilor, just letting you know you got about 45 seconds. Thank you, I appreciate that. This also follows the ideals of the London plan in terms of walkability. This is within a five minute walk down to Sarnia and Hyde Park commercial center where there is a grocery store.

[1:38:53] It’s also a five minute walk to Hyde Park in Gainesville where there’s another commercial area. Well, by the way, on that five minute walk, you’re gonna pass an 18 story and a, I’m sorry, a 14 story and a 12 story apartment building. So I don’t think it’s out of context within the surrounding area. Listen, if we’re gonna have proper infill, there’s times when it’s not gonna meet up exactly with the guidelines we set down. I look at this as an opportunity, it’s an opportunity to provide housing in an area that’s underserved and I drive by frequently and think of the ideal spot for additional housing for Londoners.

[1:39:33] So I appreciate your support. And you’re at your time. Looking for, actually, you have a motion so I’ll retain the chair and look for other speakers. Seeing none, Officer Hopkins. Thank you, I was just waiting for committee members to make comments, but thank you for recognizing me. I do have a question through you, presiding chair to maybe the applicant. He did in his presentation speak to the development of attainable housing in this area.

[1:40:15] I just wanna understand exactly what does that mean. We can ask the applicant. In this case, attainable housing refers to the intention here is rental housing and rental housing of a size and scale that is, I’m reticent to use the word affordable as technical definitions, but typical rental housing that is within the means of people to afford, pay for, and live it.

[1:41:01] Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that. And I would just like to make a comment here that I am still going to spend some time before this comes to council with the heritage designation that is not on this property right now. And we’re here talking about a commemoration of some sorts. I appreciate the comments from the gallery on the plans going forward, but I would also suggest maybe reaching out to the Hyde Park BIA as well.

[1:41:40] And still not sure if a commemoration is going to be enough. On this property, it is something that does belong and has significance in the community. And I just want to make those comments again. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I will note that the Hyde Park BIA did send a letter in support of the application.

[1:42:13] Their concern was to ensure that there was ground floor commercial dedication and that was addressed. So just wanted to draw people’s attention to the fact that that letter, it was part of the package. It was a part of the added though, it was not part of the original. So just want to make sure all colleagues are aware that there was an added communication from Ms. Spakowski at the Hyde Park BIA. And we’ll look for other speakers. Seeing Councillor Palosa. Thank you. As the presiding officer highlighted that, I’ll highlight there’s other communications from residents opposing the development as well.

[1:42:53] Any other speakers? Seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to one. And I will return the chair to Councillor Layman. Our next item is 3.5, the 4402 Colonel Talbot Road. Thank you for taking on those duties. As you said, it’s 3.5, regarding 4402 Colonel Talbot Road.

[1:43:30] Call the vote for opening the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you apply minutes. Good afternoon chair and members of committee. My name is Jersey Smoharck. I’m a partner at Civic Planning and Design. Here today representing our client’s Lambeth Health Organization, who are the owners of 4402 Colonel Talbot Road, the subject property.

[1:44:07] This project is the third and final phase of the McKecherton Elementary School Redevelopment, and comprises of a recently severed parcel of land at the south end of the former school site with frontage Ontomeriano Drive. The application is to permit a three story cluster townhouse development consisting of 31 units. Due to the configuration of phase three and the newly severed parcel of all access, vehicular and pedestrian will occur from the end of Mariana Drive. Townhouses are rare in Lambeth.

[1:44:40] In fact, only 16 units exist south of Main Street. As such, we believe that this is a great example of modest infill development that will help improve housing diversity in Lambeth, allowing existing and future residents to age in place. We’d like to thank staff for their work on this application. We are fully groomed with their recommendation. Additionally, we would like to thank the committee for their time and consideration of the application. We are available for questions as they arise. Thanks. Thank you, I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee.

[1:45:19] Please may I have to give us your name and you have five minutes. Josie, too good. I live at 18 Mariana Drive, which is directly beside where this new development is planning on going in. We’re not objecting to progress. We knew when this school got sold that something was going to go in there, but we were told initially that it was going to be a Lambeth Health and Wellness Center and that the end of Mariana Drive would be a cul-de-sac with houses. Now we’re getting 33 foot high condos, three stories high going in there.

[1:45:58] So we are not objecting to the development. We’re asking council to reconsider some of the things. So the first one is that the severance at 4402 have access to Colonel Talbot Road. They’ve pulled from the school out to Colonel Talbot. And so there’s a nice access going that they could tie into because this is significantly gonna change Mariana Drive. Right now we have no cars going past our house and now we’re gonna have up to 60 cars.

[1:46:37] The developers will tell you that only 15 cars are gonna go by in the morning and 18 at night, not true. We know that Lambeth is a driving community. Two that the height of the condos be reconsidered. Right now 33 foot high condos do not go in with the neighborhood. We are all in bungalows and that a privacy fence be built and continued along Mariana Drive in the whole length of the schoolyard that exists.

[1:47:11] And really what we want is I know there’s an accelerator plan and I know that we’ve been given a lot of money but that we really stop for a minute and think about how we’re developing these communities. Lambeth has been a village. And now we’re having all these big projects green lit around us all along Colonel Talbot. They’ve narrowed Colonel Talbot. And so we really want them to think about what we need in Lambeth is for people to age in place which is seniors housing, senior apartment buildings.

[1:47:53] There’s one on Howard Street that has a seven year wait list. Why can’t we build that there? So that’s a consideration and that it not be about infill and fast that we really take a minute to think about thoughtful design, thoughtful planning and that we really think about where the communities go in the future. So I just want you to take a beat and think about it because this is really going to affect all the streets around us, not just my street.

[1:48:35] That’s it. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes. Can you hear me through the mask? Can you move the mic just a little closer? Maybe, or can you stand just a little closer? (mumbles) There we go. (mumbles) All right, good afternoon, committee.

[1:49:08] Thank you very much for your time today. I am Barbara Cole. I reside in all 19 Mariana Drive, which is two doors east of where the proposed development is going to go. I oppose this development and I’m here to explain to you the four reasons why I oppose the development as it is currently proposed. Number one, the first reason is that it’s not the optimal type of residential development for that particular site. Secondly, is that the type of dwelling that they’re proposing is incongruous with the old village style of housing.

[1:49:47] And number three, the third reason is that unlike all the other high density developments in Lambeth, there are two on the north side. The third, excuse me, hang on, hang on. The plans for vehicular ingress and egress to the proposed 4402 Colonel Talbot does not connect to a main road such as Colonel Talbot. Instead, the direct traffic is to be going through the residential streets that lack sidewalks and they were never intended to handle the volume of traffic that the development will create.

[1:50:22] I mean, Mariana Drive has homes on it that are 80 years old, mine is 75. The fourth reason is that similar to reason number three, Mariana Drive and surrounding streets, they weren’t designed to accommodate huge dump trucks and the other type of construction vehicles that will be required to build the development. And for two years, our end of Mariana Drive experienced huge dump trucks and construction material. It was a nightmare to the point that site is not for three-story tall, cluster townhouses.

[1:51:22] Instead, as Josie said, we need retirement living in Lambeth. With a seven-year wait for the unit on the Howard, that tells you right then and there that we need retirement living. There are 4402 Colonel Talbot Road proposed housing site would be ideal for retirement apartments modeled after the two-story, 11 Howard, have retirement apartments. There’s the medical center.

[1:51:55] There’s a pharmacy right there. And so it’s just right across the lawn, if you like, for people. And I really think that people who have made Lambeth their home, they could continue living in their familiar setting. Their homes would be freed for younger people to buy. And that’s what you want people want houses. That could be so. Lambeth is a vehicle community. The traffic impact brief that was prepared by Strick and Baldonelli for completed at the corner of Mariana and Howard in 2022 for the Civic Planning Design Report.

[1:52:38] It was to determine the increase in vehicular traffic that would be generated by 31 cluster townhouses. It states that the traffic will increase by 15 vehicles in the morning and 18 in the afternoon. 31 cluster houses will generate an increase of a minimum of 31 cars. Lambeth is a traffic of vehicle community. As we travel west along Worncliffe Road, which becomes Main Street Lambeth, on the north side, there are two townhouse sites.

[1:53:11] The first is Savoy Street. Savoy Street was built off Worncliffe Road South so that they bought up farm area, so that the residents could ingress and egress via Worncliffe Road, a main thoroughfare, instead of having to be increased traffic travel through the residential streets. The Boy Street has 52 cluster units housed in three long buildings. On November the 9th, Sunday, at 6 o’clock, I counted the vehicle that the Savoy Street site. There were 25 cars parked along the street in front of the buildings.

[1:53:46] And there were 97 cars in the parking lot behind 122 vehicles. So cluster townhouses generate a lot of cars in Lambeth. The second site was Wonderland Path. 30 townhouse condominiums are there. And each house has one or two or three attached garages. When I went on Sunday, I counted the cars and trucks that were visible in each driveway. There were 73 vehicles parked in the driveway, five cars parked in a lot by itself.

[1:54:22] And there were 37 garages, which may have housed the vehicles, which I couldn’t count. So there you are, 30 of them, 78 vehicles visible. And the conclusion— 30 seconds, thank you. OK. If I only have 30 seconds, then what I want to say is, I implore you to consider that we need to close Mariana Drive off, open up Colonel Talbot Road as the access route.

[1:54:57] The 60 cars, 30 cars going out into Colonel Talbot Road will not materially affect the flow of traffic there. But that number of cars coming down Mariana Drive, David Howard, we don’t have any sidewalks. And we weren’t made to have traffic like that. So I’m imploring you. Please consider that solution to the situation. OK. Thank you very much. I’ll look for another speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[1:55:32] Yeah, my name is Dean Matthews. I am the property manager for the aforementioned Lambda Seniors Housing Corporation. We’re located on 11 Howard Avenue. We’re a non-profit seniors housing complex that houses up to 25 units. I also live on Mariana Drive at the intersection of Mariana and Howard. As the planner did mention, it is 44— sorry, I forget the address— Colonel Talbot, but it is more appropriately for this section of the housing labeled for Howard Avenue.

[1:56:18] It will definitely greatly affect the layout of Lambeth. We’re— sorry, I’m a little bit shaky here. Yeah, so the Lambeth is— try to keep it brief. The annexation, I guess, is over two decades now. It’s before my time, but there’s still a lot of tough feelings over it. And it just— the way the development has gone about, we’re a little bit concerned, at least from the appearance from what I can tell.

[1:57:01] It feels as if the issues that they’ve had in the development of their earlier phases are have affected or changed the latter part of this last phase. And we’ve gone from a potential bungalow-style extra housing attached to the end of Mariana to 31 three-story units. And it just is not congruent with the flow of the neighborhood. Yeah, sorry, I’m not very good at this.

[1:57:41] Jeez. You’re doing OK. Yeah, sorry about that. It’s not a problem. All the speaking is not my— Oh, that’s all right. Just tell us what you’re taking. Yeah, so regardless of what is decided with this project, as two of my neighbors have previously stated, I would like the council to keep in mind the drastic need for seniors housing in the area. I know we’re sort of late in the process for that, but with the amount of development that is happening in Lambeth, it is something that needs to be seriously considered the wait list.

[1:58:20] I take phone calls from people all week that the stories are heartbreaking, and it’s something that needs to be considered. I know we’ll try to keep it focused on the proposal. But yeah, with that in mind— yeah, I should probably just wrap it up. But thank you for your time. Appreciate it. OK, thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

[1:58:54] Please, ma’am, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Hi. My name is Lynn Matthews. I live on Mariana, right on the corner of Howard and Mariana. I grew up in Lambeth. I went to Embi McKecherin public school. I have many fond memories. I’m one of those people that wants to come back and spend my retirement in my village. Having said that, our property backs on to the Christian school, which is right in our backyard. Buses go stop there in the morning, pick them up. They’re there for field trips. Down the side, in front of my property, when anything’s on at the school, because they have inadequate parking, they’re lined up down our street.

[1:59:33] I see children because we don’t have sidewalks running down the road. My granddaughter lives next street over. She crosses without a crossing guard to catch the bus in front of 11 Howard that goes to Lambeth Public School. I’m from a safety concern. I don’t want traffic increased down this valuable corridor. When there’s events on at the school, the traffic in front only allows for one-way traffic. If you’re talking 65 vehicles coming and going, it doesn’t seem to make sense when Colonel Talbot has sidewalks on both sides and has a big traffic flow.

[2:00:12] Our community is important. We have a lot of Lambeth people that have gone into 11 Howard from our village. And I just want to know who’s going to be responsible if there is a child involved in an accident. The cars, when the moms drop the children off at the Christian School behind, they keep their cars running. They’re there for 10 minutes. The kids are running around. It’s an accident looking for a place to happen. So I want you to just reconsider. It doesn’t make viable sense.

[2:00:45] And there’s a lot of reasons to reconsider the application as it stands. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. Is there someone online? Is Howard, are you online? Yes, it’s Nancy Howard. Please go ahead to five minutes. Thank you.

[2:01:18] It’s Nancy Howard. I live at three Martin Street. So my property backs on to the existing medical center. Plus Martin Street would be one of the rights that all of the traffic would have to use to exit via a broad layout. I wanted to go over, I looked at the consultant’s plan that they submitted. And I’ve looked at the City of London plan. And I just wanted to review a few factors. Starting with the history, what the consultants provided to the City of London fails to report that the property didn’t go from being a school to being sold in 2021.

[2:02:06] It was sold and rezoned in 2015. It had great public support at the time for a medical center with a residential unit on the south side that would have a laneway exiting off of onto Colonel Talbot. And at the same time, 4366 was to be commercial. But it has since been rezoned to accommodate a fast food establishment. So I want you to know what the arguments you’re hearing today are based on.

[2:02:43] We agreed to residential infill emptying out onto Colonel Talbot, not through the village. When I reviewed the transportation impacts presented to the City, basically they assume that we have bus services here. Our bus, we do have one. It goes to white oak small. That’s it, only weekdays for a few hours in the morning, few hours in the afternoon. And if you check with your London Transit Commission, they will tell you what’s less than 40% utilized.

[2:03:22] Unless you work at white oak small, you can’t get to work. So we are very much at a driving time. The majority of working families here are required to vehicles unless you both happen to be lucky and working the same place. If you read their traffic impact, it says half a unit of each of the 31 units. They’re only going to use a half a car per unit in the morning. So that’s not going to happen.

[2:03:58] We’re going to have extra street parking because they aren’t going to have the facilities to keep all of their vehicles in. They’ve told us their garbage will be kept in their garages, plus their expected to keep a car in the garage as well, I guess. It’s just not a good idea to be throwing this traffic through the village. According to their own traffic impact statement, 55% of the traffic generated will exit down Mariana, down Campbell Street, and turn right on to main street.

[2:04:38] There is no right turning lane on to main street from Campbell. It’s already an intersection that causes problems. So if they went out on to Colonel Talness, there is a great turning lane to take them down main street which then turns into warm floor. So they should have conducted. They conducted their study at the end of a dead-end street. They should have conducted their turning movement camp at the corner of Campbell and main street, which is where the traffic will happen.

[2:05:18] So the other thing is when you read through their proposal, it’s all based on urban intensification. We need in-villain lane, and we do have to create more housing. And this is a great in-vill site if it’s used properly. But the old south village doesn’t meet any of the criteria for urban intensification. It doesn’t provide any transportation. We have no walkability to commercial or you can’t walk to work.

[2:05:59] We’re not in urban area. We’re a very suburban community. The other thing is I won’t re-address the age in place even though in the proposal you’ve received from the consultants, it does say that it’s promoting aging in place. A three-story walk-up is not an age in place facility. So I won’t further address that. I think some of my previous speakers have addressed it. As far as the city services go, this is going to affect our snow plowing, the speed which our emergency services can get through.

[2:06:44] It really doesn’t take a holistic approach to looking at keeping all the old village as a safe environment for the residents. 30 seconds, Ms. Allen? 30 seconds. OK, go ahead. I have Lisa Fox with me. I’m sharing Nancy’s computer that I have my five minutes, please. Sure, just if you can give us your name and you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Lisa Fox, and I am the owner and occupant of Seventeen Mariana Drive.

[2:07:20] I just want to add to the snow part. Historically, I just want to build on that. Historically, the city has always filled with snow all the way up Mariana Drive to 17 Mariana Drive and pushed up against the gate, wondering where are they going to put the snow in the winter. Then I am going to talk to the impacts privacy of the neighboring properties. Privacy is a major concern for the homeowners whose properties have left the proposed development. Privacy fencing was installed on the medical central portion of the property that backs onto the rear of residential properties on David Street, Martin Street, and Broadway app.

[2:08:03] This proposed site design includes only a five meter green space buffer without fencing. The proposed site runs full length of the adjoining properties, and a small green space of new planted trees does not respect the neighbor’s privacy. Fencing would also help with noise concerns of those properties that are abutted. At the same time, the proposed site recommends a reduction of the hedge at Mariana Drive, which I object to, also for privacy reasons.

[2:08:46] They’ve suggested putting in trees that our property at Mariana Drive does have a floor that these trees may affect died in the future, as well as the street stories that affect our privacy looking down into our yards and pools for those of us that have them. And just finally, the design does not integrate with the existing neighbor’s hedge at all. So I hope that they reconsider what they put on this property. And that’s all.

[2:09:19] Thank you. Thank you. As a clerk, there’s another person online. If there’s someone else online, Nina, if you’re online, please indicate so, and go ahead, you have five minutes. Nina? Hi, sorry. I was trying to figure out how to unmute. Now, they do sound like you have the same skill set as I do, so please go ahead. Nina Raul, and I live at 20 Mariana Drive.

[2:09:56] I’m the neighbors with Josie. I’m here to express my strong opposition to the current access plan for the proposed Lambeth townhouse development. Mariana Drive is a quiet dead-end street with no sidewalks. It’s home to many families with young children, as well as seniors. And because of the nearby school, kids frequently, including my own, hold on. I wrote a speech, OK. Play outside and walk along the road. My child is out there all day, every day.

[2:10:29] This street was originally promised to be called a SAC, safe, low traffic environment. The proposed change will completely alter that. Adding over 30 houses means 30 to 60 more cars using our street every single day. That’s a dramatic increase in traffic for a street that was never designed for this volume. This is not just an inconvenience. It’s a serious safety risk for the pedestrians and our children. With no sidewalks, how does the city, if they approve this, plan to protect our children? Will there be traffic calming measures, crossing guards, speed enforcement?

[2:11:06] These questions need to have answers before this project moves forward. I also want to raise a critical concern, our property values. Increased traffic congestion and noise will negatively impact the desirability and value of our homes. Many of us, and I would probably say all, invest in this neighborhood because of its quiet character. This area is very well taken care of. And this development threatens that on transparency. Where and why was the original call to SAC plan changed? Why is the entrance routed through our quiet street instead of the Colonel Talbot, which is designed for higher traffic?

[2:11:48] Their medical center, which they’ve been building since I’ve lived here and we’re almost here for five years, is sitting empty. Therefore, for them to change their plans to have people routed that way should not affect anybody there because the building is empty. So there’s plenty of room for change here. Neighborhood fit. We were told a proper study was done to ensure the development fits our existing neighborhood. Please explain how a three-story townhouse complex at the end of a street of all bungalows is considered a fit. This is a drastic change in scale and character.

[2:12:24] We understand the need for housing and growth. And listen, I’m 40 years old and it took us forever to land a home, so I get it. But development should not come at the expense of safety and quality of the lives of the people that live here. There are alternatives such as connecting this complex, the Colonel Talbot and blocking Marianna Street off completely. This will allow the project to proceed without putting any of us at risk. I urge the council to reconsider the current access plan and work with the residents to find a safer solution that preserves the character and integrity of our beautiful neighborhood.

[2:13:04] Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I look for other speakers on this item. That’s a clerk if there’s anyone else online. I don’t see anyone else at the microphone, so I will open the vote to close the public participation meeting. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, now I’ll put this on the floor for committee.

[2:13:41] Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, I’m happy to move it. Mr. Chair, then I have a few questions, but always happy to yield once it’s on the floor to the word Councillor. Okay, so you’re moving, I’ll up for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll go to Councillor Hoppe. I think Councillor Palazzo was— I have a couple questions that I would like answers from the staff just to clear that up and then always happy to yield to Councillors. A couple of questions that were raised during the public participation meeting.

[2:14:13] A question through you to staff. What was the determining factor that the point of access would be from Mariana Drive versus Colonel Talbot, if they could speak to that? Yes, why is there not an exit going on to Colonel Talbot? Thank you, through the chair. First of all, it’s the land severance was a contributing factor, so it doesn’t have direct frontage to Colonel Talbot. Another one is that Colonel Talbot is a civic boulevard with heavy volume, and as per access management guidelines, we try to limit access connections to the civic boulords just due to the, like I said, the volume and potential conflicts with stop-starting and turning movements.

[2:15:03] Transportation staff supported access on to Mariana Drive. Residents of the development can utilize multiple routes to access Colonel Talbot in Main Street. And I think one of the members of public mentioned a potential easement through the commercial parking lot, we would not support that as it’s a busy commercial parking lot and would introduce conflicts with pedestrians. Councillor, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that expanded answer. My second question would be through you to the applicant if they’re willing and unable.

[2:15:39] One of the early questions on was about privacy and fencing down the, what was the school line property? I know that under part C of the motion, it’s that the applicant be requested to consider the installation of board on board fence that exceeds requirement of site control by-law for privacy, looking for a comment from the applicant if they’re willing and unable. I’ll go to stop on that. Through the chair, I will direct this to the applicant to see if they are able to accommodate the staff request.

[2:16:13] Okay, I’ll go to the applicant to see if you can respond to those concerns. Yes, we will be looking at through you, Mr. Chair. We will be looking at installing board on board fencing, absolutely as it is a requirement from through the site plan control by-law. We will explore options of trying to exceed that if we’re able to, in terms of at least with the frontages that are adjacent to the single family homes along Mariana Drive, we’ll take a look at that. Councilor. Thank you.

[2:16:45] I’m not sure through you to staff if there was other questions that they picked up on that they wished to answer at this time, but that concludes majority of mine. Okay, I’ll look for other questions or comments from committee and visiting Councilor. I don’t see anyone else indicating they want to speak. Councilor, so if you would like to go ahead. Thank you again, Mr. Chair for recognizing me as I’m not part of this committee, but this application is in my ward and I want to first of all thank the community for coming out. I really do think we as a committee and as the board councilor need to hear the concerns.

[2:17:24] And there are many, many changes going on in this area, especially the north, we’re gonna see another application coming forward on this agenda. And so I can understand why there’s a lot of questions from the community and maybe to follow up on a couple that were asked by the community. And as it relates to aging in place, a seniors home, the Lambeth community is becoming an aging population. And I’ve heard loud and clear opportunities to age in place.

[2:18:02] And maybe through you to staff or I know the applicant is here as well, reasons why a seniors housing development was not considered on on this property. We have your mic, Councilor. Through the chair, as staff, we respond to the application that’s provided by the landowner.

[2:18:34] I think the question should be directed to the landowner and the preference of the townhouses versus a seniors home. Councilor, do you want me to go to the applicant? I call the applicant was a different type of build here considered and why did you go to the structure. Through you, Mr. Chair, a couple of things I think we want to just put on the table is that the London plan actually wouldn’t permit for seniors housing on this site. Currently it is a neighborhood’s place type. It’s intended for residential uses, but does not specifically allow for this seniors apartments type of use.

[2:19:11] However, we have, I know the owners have had conversations with multiple senior housing operators who have, they’ve had looked at the site and they feel that the site is too small. It’s about half the size of what they typically do and wouldn’t be able to accommodate the minimum number of beds for them to make a project viable. So that’s why that’s not something that went forward. Councilor. Thank you for that. And maybe another couple of questions as it relates to emergency services and the concerns of being able to move along Mariana.

[2:19:55] What is staff regarding access for emergency service vehicles? Sorry, through the chair. The access for emergency vehicles would also be off of Mariana Drive as well. I’m sorry. Can you say that again? Sorry, there was a, just a yeah. Well, please repeat. For sure, through the chair. So the access for the emergency vehicles would still be off of Mariana Drive. Councilor.

[2:20:26] And there’s no concern about movement and traffic going along Mariana for these emergency vehicles. And while I’m at the mic here, if you could talk a little bit about snow storage as well. Okay, let’s start with the access again, raised for emergency vehicles on that street. Coming on that, then what was the store removal? Through the chair, as Brent Lambert had mentioned there, the neighborhood street of Mariana Drive so it’s identified as a neighborhood street.

[2:20:58] So it is meant to carry these volumes of traffic. So we don’t have any concerns ever raised by our staff for that. With respect to the snow storage through the site plan process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate how it’s all contained internal to the site and avoid overfill or spillage into neighboring properties. Councilor. Thank you. I think those were some of the questions that I gathered from the input from the community here this afternoon. I do wanna maybe follow up again. I know we are going to have fencing.

[2:21:34] I appreciate staff’s recommendation that through the site plan process, we’re right now at zoning, that they look at board on board fencing, that fencing exceeds the requirements of the site plan by-law. So a question around the height, but would that height look like of the fence, as well as would fencing be completely around this development or would it be just on one side? I know we still have the site plan process to go through, but we heard here that privacy is also important to the community.

[2:22:17] I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, the site plan control by-law permits board on board fence up to six feet in height. With having it exceed the site plan control by-law, we can then utilize the fencing by-law, which gives us a maximum of seven feet in height. Right now, we would be looking at the board on board fence around the perimeter of the property to ensure privacy for all neighboring residents. Councillor? Thank you for that. I would like to, maybe now’s the time to bring forward an added part to the recommendation.

[2:22:59] As we heard loud and clear that the safety of the street needs to be maintained for traffic and pedestrians, and there are no sidewalks on Mariana. We just went through a Lambeth neighborhood conversation at committee a couple of days ago, where sidewalks were recommended in the 10 year plan, but I would like to have an add on that civic administration, if the committee is going to support this application, that is be directed to reassess the need and timing of the sidewalks along Mariana drive.

[2:23:38] So that is my add on to the recommendation. Looking at committee, if you would look at doing something like that or not. So, I’ll go to Councillor Plaza. Thank you, I’d move what the Councillor said to make sure that conversation here at committee and would also like to hear from staff that of what reassessing and timing would look like. So Chair, I’m actually gonna call point of order now. Okay, go ahead, Deputy Mayor, call point of order.

[2:24:13] While I understand where Councillor Hopkins would like to have Mariana drive assessed, as she mentioned, the Lambeth neighborhood area connectivity plan is actually an outstanding agenda item on CPSC right now. The appropriate place to make an amendment for Mariana drive would be at council on the CPSC report. I’m happy to actually support the Councillor at council. If she wants to bring that forward there, I don’t think however, it’s appropriate to tie it to a specific planning application. I think it has to be part of the neighborhood connectivity plan and that we’re actually now starting to mix the CAHPS agenda with the PEC agenda.

[2:24:50] And I say that with respect to the Councillor, thinks Mariana should have sidewalks. I will happily second that motion at council, but in regard to the Lambeth neighborhood area connectivity plan, not with regard to a specific planning application. Yeah, I think there’s certainly support for that Councillor, but I tend to agree and maybe I’ll go to the clerk to see if that is the more appropriate way to— Mr. Chair, I’ll withdraw. Sorry, Councillor.

[2:25:22] I’ll withdraw. You’ll withdraw. Okay. And then I’ll ask another question of staff. When the Councillor’s done. I did it. I withdrew the motion. Okay. As I had no seconder, so it’s not committee’s purview yet and you’re here. - Right. And then put me back on your speaker’s list. Okay, then I’ll go to you. Oh, Councillor, sorry, Councillor Hopkins, my apologies. Councillor Hopkins, you were looking for that motion to go on the floor, went to Councillor Closer. She’s with through us now, she’s thrown it back to you.

[2:25:55] So let’s go back to you. Thank you. So my understanding was I could bring it forward here. I have on previous applications brought forward sidewalk, looking at sidewalk connectivity in infills, but I appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments that this can go to Council. I will bring it to Council. And maybe since I have the mic again, I’ll just make a few comments about this application. There’s been a lot of history with this application.

[2:26:29] I know the applicant has done a lot of work creating, maybe I can take this opportunity to thank the applicant for the heritage facade and developing that. The health center around the facade, I know it’s taken many, many years. And we know that there was always some form of development that is going to happen. I’m disappointed to hear that there’s no access or opportunities to create pedestrian traffic or vehicle traffic over to Colonel Talbot. If you look at the map, it kind of makes sense that we could do that.

[2:27:05] But I also understand, I appreciate what we can and can’t do within our policies. I will be supporting the policies. They, the London policies do support this kind of infill. And, but I do think we really need to take a good look at how we move around. Mariana, if this application is going to move forward. Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question through you to staff having heard from residents in the word council that there’s no sidewalks on the street looking to see if there is street lights.

[2:27:46] You’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. Sorry, could you repeat that question? You’re looking for street lights on Mariana’s drive? Councillor. I’m asking to know, are there currently street lights on Mariana drive? We’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. No, there is none. Councillor. Thank you, appreciate that. Would just want to make sure that when Councillor Hopkins brings something forward that I could work with her if she’s willing and make sure that street lights are that consideration as well if more residents are going to be walking and especially seniors.

[2:28:27] Thank you, look for other comments or questions from committee members and visiting Councillors. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So I will be supporting this. I think it’s important that we have mixed housing forms in all neighborhoods. Townhouses are the new starter home for a great deal of families. I actually agree with the residents who said it doesn’t align with aging in place. I do agree with you on that.

[2:29:00] I don’t think a three story and a townhouse model is good for folks who are aging. Stairs can start to become a challenge. As you age, I recognize that. Certainly there’s the benefit of not always having to maintain the grass or the driveway, but the stairs don’t change. So I agree with you on that. But I do think that it opens up the opportunity for new families, for young working people. Townhouses are all often known, the first home opportunity they have, particularly those who are in, I’m not gonna say minimum wage jobs because housing is out of reach for those in minimum wage jobs.

[2:29:39] But for those in sort of that middle income, trying to get into the housing market, the townhouse is now the model that works. And one of the reasons that single story bungalows don’t work anymore is because land prices are one of the single biggest driving factors of affordability now. And so that has a big impact. I appreciate the comments as well about the need for seniors housing. We have that need in my part of the city too, in the Argal area. Happy to say that there is a new purpose built for seniors application, or not application development, actually underway at a former St. Robert school site.

[2:30:17] But as our staff indicated, when land gets sold off, it really is about what the applicant can make work and what field they’re in. So it’s certainly different to administer a townhouse complex than it is perhaps for some long-term care, whether it’s independent or assisted living or a mix of both. I mean, there’s some differences that go into that model of operation. But I certainly do think that your call for seniors housing is something that I hope applicants are hearing.

[2:30:51] And if there are opportunities where the city itself acquires land through our affordable housing program in the future, that that needs to be one of the priority populations that we are serving. We’ve talked a lot about, you know, folks who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of, and we talk about target populations, but I see it in my own neighborhood. And I believe you that it’s the issue in your neighborhood too, that we have to also look to seniors, particularly I know when, you know, if a spouse passes and you go from two pensions to one pension, that can radically change your ability to stay in your home.

[2:31:27] There needs to be options for people to stay in their own neighborhood. I talk regularly about my friend Joyce here, a senior in the Argal neighborhood who constantly tells me she needs a place to downsize too. She has no intention of moving to Cherry Hill. She knows where everything is and every aisle of her no frills. And she doesn’t want to relearn. She wants to stay in her own neighborhood. And I’m sure that’s a similar sentiment that some of your neighbors are experiencing too. So I do hear that and I think particularly with our municipal housing development corporation as we look at affordable opportunities, that has to be front and center as part of the discussion.

[2:32:00] So I just wanted to acknowledge that. I think it’s important that we don’t ignore the fact that a lot of seniors are facing increased financial pressure and challenges to age in place. An aging in place might not mean living in the home you’re in, but it does mean living in the neighborhood that you’re in. And that’s where we need to look for those opportunities. I also want to say, I heard your concerns about the parking around the school. And one of the things I would encourage you to reach out to Councilor Hopkins on and our staff are happy to help as well is neighborhoods can institute street by street parking restrictions.

[2:32:36] So you could look at no parking on one side of the street. There are some neighborhoods particularly around school areas where we restrict parking during certain parts of the day. So at the beginning and end of the school day, there are actually no stopping zones so that we are keeping areas open and clear for those kids who are leaving school to get into their ride home, a clear path to mom and dad without being obstructed by school buses or parked cars on the side of the road. So please do investigate that. I know I’ve had a couple of neighborhoods in my ward who have done that and they’ve been successful like getting parking restrictions put in place.

[2:33:13] So I know Councilor Hopkins would be happy to help you with getting the ball rolling on that. It does take a few neighborhood signatures to get the ball rolling, but it sounds like from the presentations we’ve heard today that there are enough neighbors who see this as an issue that you’ll be able to get those 10 signatures to get the ball rolling there. I think it’s still 10. I see a nod from staff so and then they’ll do a study and they’ll provide some options and it can go to a neighborhood vote. But there are some options to address some of those concerns. So I do encourage you to follow those. I’m gonna support the application, but I did wanna share that there were some very valid points that were brought up today in terms of your concerns and I just wanted to share that feedback with you.

[2:33:58] Thank you, I’ll look for other comments or questions from Councilors. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I will call the vote. Thank you. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding amendments to home occupation. Okay. Yeah, it’s a 3.6.

[2:34:40] This is regarding amendments to home occupation. We have a motion moved and seconded to open the public participation meeting. I’ll call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll look for people that would like to address the committee on this particular item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. I don’t see anyone at the microphones.

[2:35:17] So I’ll open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll go to committee and I’ll look to Councilor Hillier. Yes, and thank you. I have a lot of concerns regarding this and this minor change or amendment changes are saying it. This has huge regards to staffing and health inspection staffing.

[2:35:55] And I want you paid concern to pay attention to concerns raised by the health department. Point of order. We have a point of order. All right, Councilor Hillier. Go ahead, Councilor. Is there anything on the floor at this moment before we start making a whole speech? There is no motion on the floor right now. So go ahead, Councilor. Go ahead, Councilor Hillier. Sorry, yes. I’ll put the motion on the floor to get it started. All right. Mr. Chair, I believe Councilor Hillier moved the staff motion to get on the floor.

[2:36:31] I’ll happy to second it and then he can continue. Councilor Hillier, are you moving the staff recommendation or not? To get the conversation started, yes. Okay, so sorry. Councilor is moving the staff recommendation and Councilor, are you seconding that? I am. Okay, so now we have a motion on the floor moved and seconded. And I will go back to you, Councilor Hillier. Sorry about that. Yes, I’m moving it, but I do not agree with it. I’m hoping my colleagues who have read it quite detailed and have read all the issues and considerations for nuisance to neighbors, the health unit and all the other problems that it’s gonna cause us from this little tiny change.

[2:37:14] I am very concerned about the amount of health inspectors we’re gonna, sorry. Health inspectors we’re gonna need plumbing inspectors because looking at a quick perusal of other cities and how they’re doing this, some of these cities are requiring completely independent kitchens be built with commercial grease interceptors and some are allowing people to use the existing kitchens. I can tell you with my decades of experience, this is a scary situation we’re getting into. We cannot allow this to happen. We have to have properly inspected kitchens and places for people to prepare food for our residents.

[2:37:50] Now I wanna talk also about wastewater, system capacities and then fog. Grease is a very dangerous things in residential neighborhoods because the infrastructure is so small compared to our large areas. If you start putting one of these kitchens in a residential area and they happen to put some grease down that, we are looking at a backlog that runs into the entire neighborhood. Will these houses be required to have grease traps and will they be inspected properly because of the backlog we have on inspections now? Now I wanna talk about all of my different counselors that have problems with Airbnb’s in their residences.

[2:38:28] This is an Airbnb on steroids as it goes viral. Think about one of these food locations taking off and the amount of delivery vehicles showing up to bring food to and from. I do not think we should be going down this pathway because there are expenses and problems that no one has even looked at yet and we’re not considering them. I’m hoping my colleagues will vote no on this and continue with what works and protects our residents. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councilor cutting.

[2:39:02] Thank you Chair and through you and I tend to agree with Councilor Hillier. It doesn’t even matter if it’s a commercial kitchen. They still have problems and we noticed that this year with the local company, Safina, where they had a no-break and regardless of how well you’re inspected or the processes and protocols that you take to protect yourself and protect others, there’s always the risk. And I think this puts an unnecessary burden on our Middlesex London Health Unit and on our bylaws.

[2:39:39] So I think this, I do tend to agree with Councilor Hillier. I think we have a problem with this. Thank you. Thank you all going to Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that this came from and resulted as the mayoral direction intended to help support small businesses. I’ve had concerns from different neighborhoods about and we know it’s coming through budget collection, budget cycle for the collections of blue box material and green bins and home-based businesses and some that aren’t actually registered that I know there’s waste collection issues already out there.

[2:40:16] I appreciate Councilor Hillier’s passion and he’s welcome to get back on the speakers list and do more about home-based businesses and food. As I know, that’s part of his past history and his passion. I also shared the concerns that Councilor Cuddy raised in regards to the health unit, having been part of a delegation at AMO with the medical officer of health, just knowing that London is already drastically under serviced per our amount of money per resident compared to neighboring municipalities and how dire some of those services are stretched, especially when we start coming to what I would expect Londoners would expect as the basic service of restaurant inspections.

[2:40:59] You look for that green card when you go in and we’ll hear about that more come budget time about some of those cases and the needs and how the situation is. Right now, looking and expanding this area, I don’t believe that the health unit would have capacity to start monitoring all these places. Therefore, it’s not prudent to put public health at risk with the decision, so I’m not able to support it this time, but very appreciative staff of bringing this information forward. Maybe in the future, we’ll be able to use it and dig into it, but I have too many concerns right now that are outstanding to support. Deputy Mayor.

[2:41:33] Well, everything that Councilor Plaza said, copy that. And I appreciate the work that staff have done. I know this was a mayoral direction through Council. This wasn’t something that you came up with on your own. I can almost hear former Mayor Holder’s voice in my ears objecting to how unfair this is to brick and mortar businesses who are paying for their commercial rates. We do have commercial vacancy concerns in this community as well. A large part of that is office, but there are commercial retail spaces that are sitting vacant as well.

[2:42:08] One of the things that Councilor Hill, you’re touched on, the delivery is coming and going. I have concerns about how we’re gonna accommodate parking at a residential home for three employees. We’ve had a number of discussions at this horseshoe during both planning and at Council around residential parking. Driveway, widening, permissions, front yard parking, all of those things that we say we don’t want, but we’re gonna encourage three employees. And these are residential areas.

[2:42:40] They’re not all gonna be serviced by transit. We’re gonna encourage them to come and over park at a residential home to operate a kitchen type business. So that’s a concern for me as well. But I’m certainly not gonna put myself in a position where I then have to turn around and support a larger ask from the Middlesex London Health Unit at budget time, whether it’s this year or next year or the following year, because they need to do more inspections because we’ve greenlit all of these home-based businesses. I had a award get together on the weekend with some residents from the Portsmouth Crescent area.

[2:43:19] Ms. Feffer is gonna be getting an email from me before I go home today. Although at this rate, it might be midnight with 15 different properties that residents have concerns about which are operating as rental units that don’t have residential rental unit licenses. Like we have a problem with our residential rental units not being licensed and following the rules. We, as Councilor Cuddy said, we have issues with Airbnb, home operations, and the disturbance to neighbors. I’m not prepared to add to that by adding small businesses into residential neighborhoods. I think the by-law we have is sufficient for now.

[2:43:52] I’m not prepared to expand it, so I’ll be in no. Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you. And as I’m a guest at this committee, I just wanna share my perspective, but I cannot vote. So first, I’d like to say I ask my colleagues to take a look at a guide to starting a home-based food business that is from the Ministry of Health. That guide outlines that this is already permitted by the Government of Ontario. So under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and under the Food Premise Regulation Changes that were issued in 2021, this is part and parcel to what someone can already do, which is create low-risk foods in their home for resale.

[2:44:41] The reason for this discussion coming forward is we are in a gray area right now, where people have these types of businesses, they are doing them in their home right now, and they’re not registering these businesses. So they don’t have a business license and they may or may not be following the steps that are in this guideline. Step two says you are to contact your local public health unit. What that means is if the health unit is saying, we have concerns that this is going to mean that more people are going to reach out to us because they want to start a business, I just wonder how many have actually reached out that have a business.

[2:45:25] If anyone’s on Facebook, Marketplace, or any of these other websites where you can find cakes for sale, you can find chocolates for sale, you can find granola and trail mix, all of these things which fall under the category of low risk food production are happening already. The challenge here is that they’re not being, they’re not being part of the economy in a way that makes them compliant and we have a way to make them compliant. The reason I bring this up, and the reason I support in moving this forward, was if you go to any ethno-cultural marketplace in this community right now, they are hosting events where they have people that are selling product that may or may not be produced in a home-based business.

[2:46:18] And there have been instances where the health unit have come and thrown out all of the food. So we do need to set some parameters here so that people understand what is allowable in a home, what can you then go and sell? And as I mentioned, it’s allowed in by the province of Ontario. This is us making it so we have more of a regulatory practice, we have a business license, that now we have the information that they have a home-based business.

[2:46:53] And wouldn’t it be great to allow all those small business owners who are already doing this to have a licensed business? One that they don’t feel like they have to go into an underground marketplace and advertise for their wares and their sales? So I think there’s value in having this discussion and would love to have it at more length. I don’t think that this is going to cause a significant increase to health unit because as I mentioned, it’s part of parcel of what they are supposed to be doing as they’re providing a service for the province of Ontario. So I’ll leave my comments there but I’m happy to circulate the information on the Ministry of Health website on this matter.

[2:47:35] Thank you, I’ll go to Council earlier. Yes, thank you for recognizing me again. Yes, just to address through the Council’s concerns. Yes, in Ontario, yes, we can make low-risk foods in our home-based kitchens and we can sell them at church socials and small community events. This is true, but there is a difference between doing something on a commercial stage and doing something on a small stage. We are talking with someone setting up a business with regular sales versus doing something for a community event and that’s what concerns me. We could be transforming our neighborhoods into business centers and this residential neighborhood was not designed for it.

[2:48:14] Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. Just to bring some reality to this and some numbers and Councilor Hill, you’re touching on this earlier. Someone were going to install a grease trap, which would be required even with soft foods and low-risk foods. That’s a $15,000 investment, Chair, at minimum. And you probably need two. And installing something like that in someone’s home, I don’t even know if it’s possible because you need larger drains and the whole grid system has to be enlarged.

[2:48:49] So I don’t even know, Chair, how this would be possible in someone’s home. And by the way, if they were successful and they were doing some sort of cottage industry business and they started to ramp it up, are they likely to leave their home to go into some commercial or just continue to operate out of a home-based business? So thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councilor Palosa. Thank you.

[2:49:21] Earlier when I had highlighted potential concerns to the health, you’d be able to do this work. That was from the comments that they submitted on page 401. Looking through you to staff, having seen within the report that London currently doesn’t have it. I think it’s with any by-law or things that Council sets regardless if we have Airbnb guidelines. Some people follow them, some people don’t. Same with registering your car for overnight street parking in the snow. Some people follow it, some people don’t.

[2:49:54] So I know it’s always best practices. Looking through you to staff, having heard Councilor Romans’ comments about the province. I know we always serve and we’re mandated by the province to do things. In staff’s interpretation, I don’t want to put anyone in opposition. It’s what London has on the books adequate to address any provincial concerns that we would need to do or do we have to dig into some of these things?

[2:50:28] I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, so the approach we took with this project was to bring forward the zoning report or the zoning amendment for consideration at this point. There’s also a direction for civic administration to review the business licensing by-law and consider approaches through that process more from an implementation perspective. So those types of questions would be answered as part of that next step. But we’re hoping to get a decision on the zoning part of the process first, Councilor.

[2:51:05] Thank you. I look for other questions or comments. Committee will permit me. I just have a question for staff. Regarding inspection by the Health Unit, my understanding is we have someone here that could maybe we might like to comment. I understand it’s David Pavlatak. Please sir, could you kind of give us kind of your thoughts from a Health Unit’s perspective on your concerns or with inspections, et cetera, going down this direction?

[2:51:47] Sorry, Mr. Chair, we also know his position within the Health Unit when he speaks. I’m sorry? We also know what he does at the Health Unit, his position. So the gentleman’s from the Health Unit. Yes. I would just like to know what his position is with the authority that he’s speaking for. Oh, okay. I think it was your name and your title, that’d be great. Thank you very much. Yes, so my name’s… And you can speak into the mic, please. That’d be helpful. Sorry, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, yeah, my name’s Dave Pavlatak and I manage the food safety program at the Middlesex London Health Unit. And I can sort of speak broadly about sort of some of the challenges and resources implications for health inspection work at the Health Unit.

[2:52:26] Over the past few years, we’ve really had to get better at prioritizing higher risk inspection work. We’ve seen huge increases in special event inspections or the need for special rent inspections, the number of food premises that are popping up within the city and county that require inspections. But we’ve also seen a lot of new sort of trends in the food safety or in the food industry post COVID. Like we’re seeing a lot of small scale businesses, manufacturing products for retail that would necessarily be inspected by larger agencies like the CFI that are now landing in the lap of public health for inspection.

[2:53:06] We do respond to a lot of concerns about home-based businesses. We have done that for years in cooperation with the city for enforcement and that sort of thing. So we’ve tried to get the awareness out to the community that home-based businesses are not currently permitted. So from a resource standpoint, it would represent additional facilities for inspection, but also additional risk assessment, additional response for consultations. What can and cannot be done within the kitchen? Just like operational types of questions complaints from other folks that might be concerned that it’s not just low-risk food that’s being prepared but that it’s higher risk food and then we would need to sort of go in and force the low-risk requirements within the amended by-law.

[2:53:55] So it would represent obviously more challenges for resources for us. We would need to sort of look at that within the context of all the other inspections that we do in the city in terms of prioritization. But we are pretty strapped right now as it is given the additional demands that I’ve mentioned earlier post-COVID. So that’s just a little bit of context around the inspection order. Okay, thank you for the feedback. Councillor Robin.

[2:54:29] Thank you and through you. Thank you for the delegation. I’m just wondering if you can comment, do you have people reaching out to you right now that have low-risk food businesses or are preparing low-risk food in their house for sale that are following the province of Ontario guideline that says that they can do so in their homes and that they are supposed to reach out to the health unit in order to be inspected? Please go ahead. Yeah, are you asking about within the city of London or within the Middlesex London area?

[2:55:06] There’s a difference between. Thank you through your turn for the city of London. So through the chair currently, there’s the zoning restriction, which would not allow for home-based businesses. So that if people were to ask questions about home-based businesses, we would refer to the existing by-law that would not permit the allowance of food businesses from home. That’s the way that we handle it. We provide education on what the regulations do say. Councilor.

[2:55:42] Thank you. And I guess this is to staff. I’m wondering if someone can provide me with an explanation as to how the province of Ontario Ministry of Health guideline is in conflict with a local by-law that doesn’t allow for low-risk food preparation. As it is my understanding that we’re creatures of the province in that way, we would have to allow this. I’ll go to staff through the chair. So it was in 2020 that the province updated the food premises regulation to open the door for low-risk foods within a home business.

[2:56:21] Dating back to that time, our by-law has always had the prohibition on any type of food preparation as a home occupation. So the guidance that’s provided by the Ministry of Health on their website does include that it is recommended to review any zoning by-laws, municipal permits and licensing requirements that pertain to your region prior to contacting the local health unit. So it does allow for municipalities to regulate these types of businesses in addition to what the Ontario regulation requires.

[2:56:59] So we have the authority as a municipality through zoning to apply additional restrictions. Councillor. Thank you, and it’s our only existing regulation right now that they can only have one employee. I’ll go to staff, that’s correct, Councillor. So technically you can prepare low-risk food in your home as long as you’re a single person doing it. I’ll stop. Through the chair, no, that’s not correct. So there’s a separate, there’s two separate requirements within our home occupation set of regulations in our zoning by-law.

[2:57:37] So one of those regulations is a complete prohibition on any type of food preparation. A separate regulation is the limit to one additional employee, Councillor. Thank you, and I’ll see clarification offline to see whether or not, again, because this is from the province saying that we can do this, how we’re able to say that we can’t do it in a home. And I thought the only restriction was the number of employees.

[2:58:10] Okay, Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you, to take from that. I believe one of the restrictions is a commercially inspected kitchen, if I’m not mistaken, can I have staff correct me from room? I’ll go to staff. Perhaps I’ll defer that to the health unit to provide those technical details. David, can you dig into that question? Can I just have the question once again? Councillor Hillier, can you repeat the question? That’s assuming that the work is being done in a commercially inspected kitchen by the health department.

[2:58:48] David. If the question is like, I mean, with commercially inspected kitchens, I’m still a little bit unclear. Let me rephrase. Let me rephrase. Sorry. If a home-faced food business is to allow production, it still has to be done in a kitchen that has been inspected by the Ontario Health Department. That’s correct. Thank you. Yes. Okay, any other further comments? Yes, just so my colleagues know, I have started from scratch, four bakeries in the city of London.

[2:59:20] I started in a little, in a, oh, God, I have trouble with it, a market. So I understand what it’s like to build a business. And the reason we have these checks and balances in place is to make sure that you build your business correctly and don’t take risks with the public safety. That’s one of the big reasons I’m very concerned about this, did you know, you all know my background and public safety is my key concern, especially regarding our festivals and events. So yes, I’m gonna be very passionate about this one. And I’m gonna keep the health department in my good graces ‘cause I have worked with them for years.

[2:59:53] They are awesome. They keep us safe. So I am gonna keep them on my side. And I hope the rest of council keeps them on our side because they are the ones protecting us. We can’t put them behind the eight ball in this problem. We really can’t. I hope my colleagues will vote this down and keep going forward and keep our citizens safe. Thank you very much. Thanks, councilor. I look for other comments or questions from many or visiting counselors. Councilor Robin. Thank you and through you. And I appreciate the councilor’s passion because I too am very passionate about food safety.

[3:00:26] And my concern is that these businesses already exist and you can go and purchase these products. And especially on Facebook marketplace and in particularly in ethno-cultural groups. You can find many services that are already providing these types of production. My point here is that we have an opportunity to make them compliant. And this is actually what we should want to do. We should want to ensure that these are safe places where people are making food.

[3:01:03] And we do that by giving them a way into the system, by giving them business licenses. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, a question through you to staff. When the province made this legislation for home-based food businesses, was there any funding available to help municipalities bring all these places on board? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, none that I’m aware of, councilor. Shocked. Thank you.

[3:01:35] I just, I appreciate trying to get people in compliance. The rules followed but knowing how stressed the, stretch the funding is in the capacity to help the health unit right now, really does put us a predicament with the health unit, has not been made whole by the province with equal funding. And that’s my big problem. So I just, I can’t knowing that we don’t have a way to enforce it and allow inspections with the capacity that we have. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Hillier, no go ahead. Yes, just one more question for staff.

[3:02:10] I know that if a home has been used as an Airbnb, it has to be disclosed when you sell the home. I’m wondering if a home has been used as a commercial food preparation space, does that have to be disclosed as well? I’ll go to staff, through the chair. I don’t think we have that information available right now. We can look into it if the counter would like. Councilor, maybe you can get that between now and council. Yeah.

[3:02:42] Councilor Perbal. Thank you. A little bit sort of chair to the staff. And if you can comment or answer my question, I’m hearing it that we can make this, if we move this forward, we can make it the individuals, the organizations as well at home compliant, having said that. And that’s based on the provincial regulation 2021. But what I’m hearing from the staff, and also from health unit, that actually these individuals are not compliant.

[3:03:15] And they’re not compliant because of the commercially inspected kitchens, number of staff potentially and selling. So I really don’t see, I think that the issue is here, if it’s really the case, what I heard from health unit and our staff, that these individuals who are selling it through social media, et cetera, that Daniel compliant and our enforcement should be disallowing them to process in this. So if you can kind of confirm this to me, because what I heard from the staff and health unit, Daniel compliant and our enforcement should be stopping them instead of us opening up the gate even more and supporting this and saying it to Londoners, go ahead, you can do that.

[3:04:00] Which again, this little bit of a confusing for me, if you can clarify this for me, thank you. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, so again, the zoning by-law currently has a restriction on any type of food preparation that’s conducted within or as part of a home occupation. So if there’s any businesses currently operating in that way, they would not be compliant with zoning. Councillor. So thank you very much for that. So in that case, if that’s the case, I certainly at the council will not be supporting this. And if anything, because I do have a issue as well, Greece, mile, parking, competitive advantage, like Spain, property tax, commercial versus residential.

[3:04:42] So I have a lot of issues with this as well. What I heard now, I will not be supporting it. And I don’t want to open up this gate even more. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I really do appreciate the committee’s conversation here. I’m a little bit behind the ball here. I haven’t read the recommendation, but listening to the concerns both for and against. I am starting to try to assess the health unit needing support. The fact that we can regulate, bring our policies together, maybe through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, what would be the downside, just looking at funding?

[3:05:29] Or why wouldn’t we do it? I’m just trying to come up with a good understanding. I appreciate Councillor Hiller’s comments as well. So I’m just balancing everything off, but I’m just surprised that this is divided in a sense. I appreciate Deputy Mayor’s comments around the parking issues on the road. Again, we have Airbnb’s, we have young adults living with parents. The list goes on and on, but to me, I see this as bringing everything in alignment.

[3:06:07] What piece am I not missing here? We know the province, we’re aligning with the province as well, but if you can just kind of expand on it. So I have a better understanding, thank you. So I’ll go to staff, but this is what we’re debating here, and there’s opinions there, but from, I guess from a staff perspective, from policy standpoint, maybe you can get some insight for the Councillor. Through the chair, and again, I’ll go back to one of my earlier comments that really there are a lot of implementation types of considerations still to be worked out through that update to the business licensing by-law.

[3:06:50] That’s where we would determine the process for inspections and business licenses and any additional restrictions from that perspective. At this stage, we’re really just talking about what should be permitted in the zoning by-law, and whether the current complete prohibition on any food-based business is appropriate. Councillor. Now it’s starting to make a little bit more sense. This is strictly on the zoning. More work to come, thank you. Other comments or questions?

[3:07:22] We have a motion on the floor, moved and seconded. I don’t see anyone else wanting to speak to it, so I will call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion fails, zero to five. Mr. Pavletek, thank you very much for helping us in the debate.

[3:07:57] Appreciate your insight. So I’ll look for a motion to receive the report. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any discussion, then we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:08:53] Okay, the next item is 3.7, and this is regarding amendments to the city building, policies specifically street, classification, design features, and I’d like to just go to staff for a quick overview of what we’re looking at here before I go to the PPM portion. All right, hello again. So this is a fairly technical amendment to the London Plan that is intended to ensure that the street design requirements are included in all the right locations. So table six is part of the London Plan, and it requires the street design features based on street classification.

[3:09:32] So it says when features such as turning lanes, bike lanes, or sidewalks are required based on the different street classifications. So following some internal discussions on whether that’s the right place for such a detailed policy direction, it was determined that a more appropriate place for that level of detail in terms of the direction would be in a implementation or design manual. So the effect of this amendment would be to remove table six from the London Plan and ensure that the complete streets design manual is available and to be applied to determine the design features for each street classification.

[3:10:15] Thank you. Okay, so I’ll look to open the PPM, so I’ll open the vote on that. Seeing the motion carries five to zero. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. My name is Mike Wallace and I’m with the London Development Institute. We are here just to be on the record for this OPA. We understand what is staff are recommending a fish plan was passed in 16, officially done in 2021, whenever it was officially done.

[3:10:57] And the complete streets manual was developed and passed in 2018. So we, it has, I’ll be frank, it has caused confusion or some discussion with our developments that have come through with applications whether the London Point and Howard applies and so on and so forth, competing with what’s in the chart or what’s in the table and what’s with the police streets. The only comment we really want to make is to make it clear that where this complete streets design manual is going is in the guideline document section of the London Plan.

[3:11:34] That makes it guidelines. And all we’re looking for is, and I think staff are on for this, is that we need to look at each street and even if it’s even written in here as make contact sensitive design decisions. And so not every neighborhood connector street is the same. They don’t connect the different streets to each other that have the same facilities on them and so on. All we are looking for is that with this attachment, particularly on areas such as cycling facilities, we cannot treat every street the same just because it has a street title and that we need to have the context of motor vehicle traffic, speed, cycling volumes, parking, all those issues when we’re doing our applications.

[3:12:28] So we’re hoping this will help the process based on what we’ve experienced up to this date. And so we’re in favor of this change in that sense about we’re looking forward to the flexibility that each street’s document actually speaks to. Thank you. Thank you. I look for any others that would like to speak to this item. As for clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone going to the mics.

[3:13:01] So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this out on the floor of the committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll move to the staff recommendation. All right, see Councilor Cuddy will second it. I’ll move for discussion, Councillor Ploza.

[3:13:38] Thank you, as we had one very patient person waiting for that public participation meeting, would like what staff like to make comment on where the guide will appear for process? I’ll go to staff for comment through the chair. So the complete street design manual will appear on the list of guideline documents, that’s correct. Councilor, I don’t see any other comments or questions. I’ll call the vote. That’s a hairlier.

[3:14:28] Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding 3563 Bostwick. Again, before I go to the PPM, I’ll go to staff for a brief report on this. Through the chair, through the chair.

[3:15:30] Good afternoon committee, staff and members of the public. The purpose of today’s meeting is to present and discuss the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment submitted by MHBC planning on behalf of York developments for the property located at 3563 Bostwick Road. The subject lands are located southwest of the Bostwick and Pack Road intersection and the request is to amend the official plan, excuse me, the London plan, the Southwest area plan and the zoning bylaw to allow for the development of a residential plan of subdivision consisting of four high-medium density blocks, one park block, one open space block, three multi-use pathway blocks served by three internal streets with an estimated 1,700 new residential dwelling units.

[3:16:24] In the context of the Southwest area plan, lands are within the Bostwick residential neighborhood, which was always intended for the highest residential intensity to support the Wonderland Boulevard corridor. The Southwest area plan allows low to medium density residential development, up to nine stories on civic boulevards which are pack in Bostwick and then a high density designation within the Bostwick residential neighborhood supports up to 12 stories. The London plan also supports inward and upward growth, complete communities and diverse housing options consistent with the London’s long-term growth strategy.

[3:17:04] While higher densities are proposed here, they do align with recent approvals and advance transit oriented, high density development along major corridors. Since 2023, there have been a few revisions proposed by the applicant, mainly adjusting the height, including in 2023, an original submission of a maximum of nine stories. In 2024, a maximum of 19. In May 2025, a maximum of 17. And then in September, just as past September, readjusted to a maximum of 16 stories.

[3:17:42] To the north and east of the Southwest area plan, permits a maximum building height of nine stories within the medium density designation, adjacent to Pac Road and then Bradley Ave. To the south, an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment was approved in 2019, permitting six-story apartment buildings, adjacent to the site, and then nine-story buildings further south along Bostwick Road. Directly to the west, an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment was just approved this past July, permitting a maximum of 16 stories limited to the northeast part of the development along Pac Road, abutting the subject site.

[3:18:24] The public feedback included concerns around the height and density, traffic and congestion, a lack of privacy, the impact on schools and hospitals, the need for sidewalks and bicycle lanes, the impact on servicing, and the need for enhanced transit services in the area. Sanitary servicing was originally proposed through the W-3 subdivision to the south. The updated servicing strategy includes a connection through Bostwick Road and the future Kilborn subdivision directly to the east.

[3:18:59] The timing of the Kilborn services is still pending, approval to be coordinated as plans advance. An H-8 holding provision has also been recommended to ensure adequate servicing is confirmed before the development proceeds. City staff are satisfied that sanitary servicing can be accommodated with coordination and phased implementation. The recommended plan includes a range of town homes, low, mid, and high-rise apartments with ground floor commercial uses.

[3:19:35] The purple and white hatching at the very northeast corner is reserved for the future build-out of the roundabout. Bostwick and Pac planned for 2027. The building heights range from three to 16 stories, whereas a maximum of 16 stories is proposed for the portion fronting pack in Bostwick shown in purple. A maximum of nine stories would be internal to the site, shown in red, and then a maximum of six stories for more of the southern portion shown in orange.

[3:20:09] The very most southern portion of the block will also include a series of lower density zones, open space, and then multi-use pathways. Although the proposal aligns with the city’s strategic growth direction, staff acknowledge and are extremely supportive of a comprehensive review of the southwest area plan to ensure that future development remains consistent with London’s long-term vision and policy framework. Such a review will support the creation of cohesive, well-serviced, and resilient neighborhoods that considers the principles of good planning and promote sustainable urban growth.

[3:20:52] The proposed development provides a range of residential densities, promotes intensification, and contributes to the planning of complete communities. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I’ll look to open the vote on opening the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:21:38] So yeah, public participation meeting is open, so I’ll look for the first speaker. Please give us your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC Planning. We are acting on behalf of the applicant, and with me today are several representatives of our project team who are available to answer any questions council members may have, or committee members may have. At this time, we’d like to briefly express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report as recently presented.

[3:22:15] In particular, we agree with planning staff’s conclusion that the range and mix of housing integrated into the proposed subdivision, that range is appropriate and compatible with the character of the surrounding community, and provides for greater housing choice within the Boswick neighborhood. We are also in agreement with planning staff’s assessment that the Pack Road corridor is evolving, and presents a prime opportunity to intensify an inward and upward manner, to encourage housing diversity and complete communities.

[3:22:50] Further, we support the zoning structure and urban design directions set out in the recommendations to help appropriately guide the ultimate site development, and to conclude, Mr. Chair, with approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and the subsequent draft plan approval, the applicant intends to advance this project to the detailed design phase expeditiously, and we’d also certainly like to thank staff for their assistance through this process. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions committee members have.

[3:23:23] Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers to this item. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, members of the public as well. My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with Salinka Preamo. I’m here representing our client Southside Construction Management Limited, the owner of the adjacent lands to the west of the subject property. A letter was submitted to the clerk regarding some preliminary comments we had, and I am here to reiterate those comments for committee’s information today.

[3:24:04] Southside is generally supportive of the development proposal and the H8 holding provision relating to appropriate servicing arrangements for the subject property. However, Southside has noted that the proposed servicing strategy was not contemplated in the original Colonel Talbot Pumping Station catchment area. Southside is requesting confirmation from the city that the servicing strategy for the proposed development will not affect capacity in the downstream sanitary system that would hinder their lands at 6309 Pack Road, which were recently draft approved.

[3:24:44] That’s all that I have for you today. Happy to clarify any of my comments, and thank you for your time. Thank you. Look for other speakers. It’s a clerk if there’s anyone online. No, there’s no one online. I’m also approaching the microphone, so I will call the vote on closing the— Think about the motion carries five to zero.

[3:25:30] Before I go to committee, I’ll just go to staff on that concern that was raised regarding the pumping station and the servicing, the impact it’ll have on adjoining lands. Thank you for the question, Chair. So through the chair, the speakers correct, the initial construction of the drainage design for the Colonel Talbot Pumping Station did not include these lands. However, as soon as development began to occur and started running sewers, as early as 2019, there was an assessment done to bring these lands into that drainage area.

[3:26:13] So it had been contemplated for some time, soon after the installation of the Colonel Talbot Pumping Station. As far as impacts on that pumping station, so there’s gonna be a coordinated effort between the upcoming developments, applications that have already been approved, and maybe wants to come as well, as we bring on new roads and services to assess the Colonel Talbot Pumping Station and work through our growth management implementation strategy to ensure that there’s no capacity concerns and developing a common line when they’re ready.

[3:26:56] Thank you. I’ll go to committee now. Councilor Cuddy. Chair Omusta for recommendation. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Palosa has seconded and going for committee members for comments or questions or visiting counselors. Okay, from Councilor Hopkins, go ahead.

[3:27:31] Sorry, I was hoping that committee members would make comments first, but thank you again for recognizing me. This is an application that is in the ward that I represent, and I have heard from community members, some of their concerns, and I would like to just make a few comments here just following up on this application. It’s, as you can see, it has had numerous revisions, and I want to thank the applicant for working with city staff to come up with a recommendation that looks like everyone can agree on.

[3:28:12] I am supportive of the commercial component. I think that’s an important part of the development in this subdivision. It’s also important to have that multi-residential development going from high rise to low rise. Do have a question, as we have seen many applications in this area dealing with wet ponds, the environmental impacts to this development. So a question that I’d like to have asked through you, Mr. Chair, to staff would be how, as we go through the site plan, how do we demonstrate that no net loss to the environment will be to the natural heritage system such as woodlands and wetlands in this application be protected?

[3:29:08] I’ll go on staff. Through the Chair, thank you for the question. With this application, the vast majority of the woodland is being protected, and the parts that are being removed are actually being relocated on the south side of the subdivision. In addition to that, there’s two unevaluated wetlands that are being protected as part of this plan, and through the future design of the subdivision, we will make sure that there’s the ecological compensation and replacement plan that is required, and that will be required as part of our draft plan conditions. Further to this, we do have appropriate land use as well as zoning in force for these woodlands and wetlands, which does include OS5 zoning to ensure their protection.

[3:29:51] Councilor. Thank you for that. I also appreciate the comprehensive review that we’re going to have going forward with SWOT. We’re not there though with this application, and I would like to address some of the concerns that I have, and one of them relates to 4.5, which is the future planning, and why we continue to evaluate zoning applications in isolation without understanding the cumulative impacts in this neighborhood, and that is the concern that I hear from residents, not understanding as we approve one application, the implications to other developments.

[3:30:41] Obviously, it’s noted that this is a transit corridor, there’s no transit in this area. So, as we go forward and create these developments with the density and the intensification, we should be looking at opportunities to move around with different modes, which would be transit and supporting more routes, more ways to move around is just something that is mindful when I look at these applications that it’s missing.

[3:31:18] As much as we say, it’s there, it’s not there. So that is a concern part of the concept plans. We really don’t know how this is going to look. The density is a challenge and how we have permitted heights based on ministry guidelines, but we are going beyond that. These things, I think, need to be looked at and have a better understanding how we build these neighborhoods, these livable neighborhoods that people want to live in.

[3:31:54] And I am starting to see that it is becoming more of a concern as we support applications for these densities in this area. And there are many, this is about 1,700 units. We know just less, we’re 4,000 units. We know that there are further applications coming forward. We are going to see a great change in this community and change is difficult there. We need to have a better understanding when we allow further zoning how everything is going to work.

[3:32:32] I am just sharing those concerns. I’m not supportive, even though I am supportive of development, but I think we do need to have a better comprehension on exactly how this is all going to work in this area. So I wanted to thank you to allow me to express my concerns here at planning and I will continue to question these intensification subdivisions that are coming forward in this area. Thank you.

[3:33:07] I’m just going to follow up from the chair on that a bit. We have a secondary plan. Although they are individual applications that come forward, does staff look at a more holistic view of how all these pieces work together? Through the chair, thanks for the question. As applications come forward, we definitely do have that comprehensive review of the surrounding area.

[3:33:40] A good example of that is through our traffic impact assessments, we do have the consults include those upcoming applications as well to evaluate those. But in saying that we recognize this area is growing out, so we do see a need to do a further comprehensive review through SWAP, there’s an opportunity there. So that’s why we’ve highlighted it in the recommendation. And as far as, you know, transportation, how we get around, at what point do you bring in London Transit? Do you bring them in at this point to give them a heads up here as what’s coming?

[3:34:20] Is it covered off by the master mobility plan? Just to give some indication to those concerns that were raised by the councilor. Through the chair, we do have our transportation staff online. So I’m just checking to see if they’re okay to answer that question and yes, this side is here to answer. Through the chair, can you hear me?

[3:34:55] Yes, I can, thank you. So basically, the application was just for zoning and official plan. So as part of the next iteration of mobility master plan review update, we will definitely look into that and make sure that the area should be provided transit priority measures. And also we will incorporate the transportation demand management measures into the new plans of subdivision, especially in, because the plan of subdivisions are integrated into each other.

[3:35:32] And there is a good opportunity that they should be also be connected through internal sidewalks and many other active modes of transportation like biking. And so yeah, there will be several opportunities at every phase of the developments. We will monitor and ensure that the thinking, current thinking for the sustainable transportation is in alignment with the mobility master plan. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lowe’s. Thank you, Chair.

[3:36:07] Based on both Councilor Hopkins and the questions that you just asked, I have to comment. And I think it’s really important that we keep our eye on what the planning committee does. And we just heard this is a zoning plan amendment. Things like transit. And we heard it with the Lambeth application. And I heard and recognized some of the concerns that the residents raised there. But we also heard that there’s only one bus, but there were people who weren’t supportive of the intensification.

[3:36:41] We’re not going to have transit in every neighborhood until there are enough people living there to justify transit. And I’m delighted that we’ve heard from LTC that we’re gonna start getting assessment growth business cases to help growth pay for growth in the transit service as well. But when we start speculating on when transit will come, well, that will come when housing’s built and occupied so that there are riders there.

[3:37:15] Because we’re not gonna run a transit line that’s 10% occupancy or 20% occupancy. It doesn’t make economic sense. You have to have the density before you have the ridership. And so, you know, and I think it’s incumbent on all of us as Councilors to repeat that to our residents when they raise concerns about, I don’t want intensification ‘cause there’s no transit. You frankly can’t have transit until you have intensification. Because there has to be enough people to actually ride the bus. And it’s just been a theme that’s been recurring around a number of applications that we’ve heard.

[3:37:55] And I do hope that transit certainly is taking advantage of the assessment growth business cases as well. Because I know we have neighborhoods, I know Councilor Ramans had to leave, but I know Councilor Lehman and his chair and you and her represent the same areas. I know that there’s a couple of neighborhoods in your wards that are waiting for transit to come. And those do need to be looked at ‘cause the people are already there. But when we’re talking about planning applications and zoning approvals, we’re giving those with the acknowledgement that some of these projects are going to be three to five years before they’re completed.

[3:38:29] Some of them even longer. I mean, Legacy Village, which myself and Councilor Cuddy and the Mayor were at their sod turning of last week, most more gravel turning ‘cause there wasn’t much sod, but that’s the time of year we’re in. But that’s a 15 year project, possibly 18 years, depending on the pacing. So there’s not gonna be transit there right away either. Through that new neighborhood as it’s created, yeah, there’ll be some transit still at Oxford and Highbury, but it’s not going to go into a subdivision where people don’t live yet.

[3:39:01] So I think that’s really incumbent on all of us. And I don’t think it’s incumbent on us to be asking staff to respond to when transit’s coming. I think it’s our job as Councilors to say to residents, transit will come when people live here. So I had to follow up on the conversation that I’ve just heard from my previous two colleagues. I understand the desire to have that. And that’s why we do things like the master mobility plan for 10 years out and identify transit priority corridors and those sorts of things. But we also know that there are planning applications that don’t come to fruition.

[3:39:38] There are some that sit in the land stays sterile for quite a long time. And we still see some of those going back to the 2014 to 2018 Council where bonus and conditions were put on and they’ve never been developed. So I think we just need to keep in mind that at this committee, what we’re looking at is the zoning planning requirements that we’re passing, whether or not we’re going to, you know, the H provisions for sewers even, recognize that the capacity might not be there today, that you might not be able to build until the capacity is there.

[3:40:11] And the same thing goes with transit. You’re not going to get transit until there’s ridership capacity. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to respond. I know I’ve already spoken. I do appreciate Deputy Mayor’s comments, but transit is not the only concern I have with the development and other developments in this area. Thank you. Thank you. I look for any other comments or questions. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:40:57] Thank you, that concludes the scheduled items. We have no items for direction. We do have a deferred matters list. I’ll look for a motion to receive that. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions? I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

[3:41:30] I’ll just look for a motion to adjourn. Our motion first, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, a hand vote. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you, everyone.