January 6, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   HL General Partner Inc. - Application of Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Incentives

2026-01-06 (2.1) Staff Report 320 King Street - Brownfield CIP Application

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, related to the application of HL General Partner Inc. relating to the property located at 320 King Street:

a)    a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $3,000,000.00 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED AND ALLOCATED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, under the following programs in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives (‘Brownfield CIP’) to:

i)    provide a grant through the Development Charges Rebate Program for up to 50% of the development charges that are paid by the applicant on the non-residential (commercial) portion of the project;

ii)    provide tax increment equivalent grants on the municipal component of property taxes for up to a maximum of three years post development.

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to process the incentive application to provide for tax increment equivalent grants for up to a maximum of three years under the Brownfield CIP and the full 10-year term of the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Program under the Downtown CIP;

c)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by the Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP; the agreement between the City of London and HL General Partner Inc. will be transferable and binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

d)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to provide to the City of London any additional soil and groundwater investigations proposed by the applicant’s environmental consultant;

e)    notwithstanding the Brownfield CIP general eligibility criteria and requirements, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include eligible remediation costs incurred by the applicant between the application submission date and the Municipal Council approval of the brownfield financial incentive programs in the above-noted clause a) for potential reimbursement; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include, as a condition of the grant agreement described in the above-noted clause c), that if a Record of Site Condition is not filed to the Environmental Site Registry within four (4) years of the date of this approval to evidence the completion of the remediation work, the grant agreement shall be terminated and any undisbursed funding allocated under the above-noted clause a) may be reassigned to other incentive applications in accordance with the Brownfield CIP;

IT BEING NOTED that no grants will be provided through the Brownfield CIP until:

i)   all remediation work approved under this application is finished; 

ii)   a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Government of Ontario’s Access Environment (Environmental Site Registry); 

iii)   the City of London receives receipts showing the actual cost of the eligible remediation work; 

iv)   MPAC has reassessed the property for the improvements made; and, 

v)   the City of London receives any additional information requested in the above-noted clause d).

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   574 First Street - Z-25142

2026-01-06 (3.1) Staff Report - 574 First Street

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 Ivy Homes Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo) relating to the property located at 574 First Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026,  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 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(_)) Zone;

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

-    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. 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   415 York Street - OZ-25124

2026-01-06 (3.2) Staff Report - 415 York St

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the staff report dated January 6, 2026, related to the property at 415 York Street, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee (no later than Q2 2026) for further dialogue with the applicant regarding the proposed building height and potential “Paths to Approval”, including how to proceed with respect to London District Energy matters;

it being noted that the referral was supported by the applicant on a communication on the public agenda;  

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

-    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.

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

-    a communication dated January 2, 2026, from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.; 

-    a communication dated December 18, 2025, from D. Borwn and W. Thomas, Midtown Community Organization; and, 

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   388 Exeter Road and 1512-1514 Jalna Boulevard - Z-25138

2026-01-06 (3.3) Staff Report - 388 Exeter Road and 1512-1514 Jalna Boulevard

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of WO M.D. Inc. (c/o Elite M.D. Developments Inc. and The Biglieri Group Ltd.) relating to the property located at 388 Exeter Road and 1512-1514 Jalna Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-8h-101R6-3(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-8*R6-5(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)   to ensure safe and direct pedestrian connections between the individual unit entrances, amenity spaces, parking areas, and the public sidewalk on Jalna Boulevard are provided;

IT BEING NOTED TO THE APPLICANT, that as part of a future housekeeping amendment to The London Plan, Map 1 – Place Types and Map 5 – Natural Heritage will be amended to reflect the Natural Heritage features on the subject lands; 

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

-    R. Larocque, Biglieri Group Ltd.; and,

-    J. Jefferies;

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 settlement areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

  •   the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Dingman Industrial Neighbourhood; and, 

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   465 Callaway Road - OZ-25120

2026-01-06 (3.4) Staff Report - 465 Callaway Road

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 2704952 Ontario Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 465 Callaway Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by AMENDING policy 1073A_ in the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the revised attached by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 compound Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-3(19))/Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(53)) Zone/Office (OF1) Zone TO a Compound Residential R5 Special Provision/Holding Residential R6 Special Provision/Office (R5-3(19)/h-8*R6-5(_)/OF1) Zone; and, 

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

i)   the apartment building shall include active uses such as indoor lobbies and amenity areas on those portions of the ground floor that face towards the Callaway Road and Sunningdale Road West intersection; and, 

ii)   all-season landscaping including trees along Sunningdale Road West to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment; and, 

iii)   the principal residential lobby entrance shall be located at the intersection of Callaway Road and Southdale Road West;  

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 Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

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

ii)   the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhood Place Type, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

iii)   the recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

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 2704952 Ontario Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 465 Callaway Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by AMENDING policy 1073A_ in the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the revised attached by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 compound Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-3(19))/Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(53)) Zone/Office (OF1) Zone TO a Compound Residential R5 Special Provision/Holding Residential R6 Special Provision/Office (R5-3(19)/h-8*R6-5(_)/OF1) Zone; and,

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

i)   the apartment building shall include active uses such as indoor lobbies and amenity areas on those portions of the ground floor that face towards the Callaway Road and Sunningdale Road West intersection; and, 

ii)   all-season landscaping including trees along Sunningdale Road West to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment;

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

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

ii)   the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhood Place Type, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

iii)   the recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

that the motion BE AMENDED to remove clause 2(a)(6) of the special provisions from the ZBA and move the provision to the site plan authority for consideration.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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   591 First Street - Z-25136

2026-01-06 (3.5) Staff Report - 591 First Street

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 CMK Investments Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 591 First Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6(_)) Zone;

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

-    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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,

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

  •   the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and, 

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development; 

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   656 Huron Street -  Z-25130

2025-01-06 (3.6) Staff Report - 656 Huron Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2698242 Ontario Limited (c/o Creative Structures) relating to the property located at 656 Huron Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated Jauary 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 Restricted Office (RO1) Zone, TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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;

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

  •   the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and, 

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   1851 Hamilton Road - OZ-25127

2026-01-06 (3.7) Staff Report - 1851 Hamilton Road

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2857571 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 1851 Hamilton Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the place type of the subject lands FROM a Light Industrial Place Type TO a Commercial Industrial Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report to as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 20, 2026, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by REMOVING the subject lands from the Airport Road South Innovation Park Specific Policy Area and Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, and from Figure 17 – Employment Lands of the Official Plan;

c)    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 January 20, 2026, 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 lands FROM an Urban Reserve (UR6) Zone TO a holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-9*RSC2/RSC4(_)) Zone; and,

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

i)   screen all parking and drive-through areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping; and, 

ii)   prohibit retaining walls along both street frontages; 

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 Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •   the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the promotion of economic development and competitiveness and the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns 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, Place Type policies, Airport Road South Innovation Park Specific Policy Area policies, Employment Lands policies, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •   the recommended amendments facilitate an appropriate use in a suitable location, allowing an underutilized site to be developed at a scale and intensity that can be accommodated while supporting a diverse range and mix of land uses 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)

3.8   10 Marley Place - OZ-25129

2026-01-06 (3.8) Staff Report - 10 Marley Place

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1904747 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 10 Marley Place:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 20, 2026, 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 R3 (R3-1) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

c)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process;

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

i)   adherence to the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025, to ensure compatibility with on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources;

ii)   collaborate with heritage staff and the applicant through the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) process to establish a building design that is sensitive to and compatible with the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District; and, 

iii)   provide enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species; and, 

iv) ensure parking and garbage pick-up is designed to reduce impact on adjacent properties; 

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,

-    W. Pol, Pol Associates Inc.;

-    D. Vermue; 

-    M. Collins; 

-    G. Lanctot; 

-    N. Shipley; and, 

-    D. Hutchison; 

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

-    a communication dated January 5, 2026, from D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

-    a communication dated January 5, 2026, from W. Pol, Pol Associates Inc.; and, 

-    a communication dated December 1, 2025, from W. Russell and N. Scott;

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

  •   the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas, conservation of cultural heritage, and land use patterns within settlement areas 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 evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, Key Directions, City Building policies, Place Type policies, Cultural Heritage policies, and the Our Tools policies; and,

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates development a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of 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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1904747 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 10 Marley Place:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 20, 2026, 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 R3 (R3-1) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)   adherence to the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025, to ensure compatibility with on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources;

ii)   collaborate with heritage staff and the applicant through the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) process to establish a building design that is sensitive to and compatible with the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District; and, 

iii)   provide enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species;

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

  •   the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas, conservation of cultural heritage, and land use patterns within settlement areas 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 evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, Key Directions, City Building policies, Place Type policies, Cultural Heritage policies, and the Our Tools policies; and,

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates development a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options within the area.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

iv) ensure parking and garbage pick-up is designed to reduce impact on adjacent properties

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

c)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process;

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

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)

3.9   Holding Provision Symbol Review - Update Report - Z-25119

2026-01-06 (3.9) Staff Report - Holding Provision Symbol Review - TSA Property Update 3

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of London relating to the Holding Provision Symbol Review – TSA Property Update, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix A BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to AMEND Section 3.8(2) (Holding Zone Provisions) of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the “h-213” holding provision and to adjust the zoning of the subject properties to reflect Section 3.8(2) of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1; 

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with 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)

3.10   1040 Hamilton Road and 1050 and 1070 Hamilton Road - OZ-25132

2026-01-06 (3.10) Staff Report - 1040-170 Hamilton Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (c/o City of London) relating to the properties located at 1040 Hamilton Road, and 1050 &1070 Hamilton Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 6, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

ii)   ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type located at 1040 Hamilton Road, in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T- 25508), to permit stacked townhouses up to a maximum height of 3-storeys on a Neighbourhood Street on a portion of the property identified as Block 2; apartment buildings and stacked townhouses up to a maximum height of 3-storeys, or 3.5 storeys within 25 metres of the southern lot line, on a Neighbourhood Street on the portion of the property identified as Block 3; apartment buildings with a maximum height of 5-storeys on a Neighbourhood Street on a portion of the property identified as Block 4; and apartment buildings with a maximum height of 8-storeys on a portion of the property on a Civic Boulevard identified as Block 5, and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, 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 the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property located at 1040 Hamilton Road FROM a Neighbourhoods Facilities (NF1) Zone, TO a Residential R4/R5 (R4-6()/R5-6) Zone, a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(**)) Zone, a Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()) Zone, a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7()) Zone, a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(**)) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1(3)) Zone;

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 20, 2026, 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 located at 1050 & 1070 Hamilton Road and 1040 Hamilton Road - Block 6 FROM a Neighbourhoods Facilities (NF1) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (h-9-R8-4(**)) Zone; and,

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

i)    design a cohesive development with coordinated access from Street ‘A’ to 1050 Hamilton Road and 1070 Hamilton Road;

ii)    design the proposed 8-story apartment building on Block 5 of Draft Plan 39T-25508, expressing three defined components related to base, middle and top design components;

iii)    improved outdoor amenity space for Block 5 of Draft Plan 39T-25508; and, 

iv)     provide a high degree of pedestrian connectivity by maintaining the proposed mid-block connections and direct walkway connections from individual units to the public sidewalk along Hamilton Road;

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

-    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 

-    B. Bathurst;

-    Resident; 

-    C. Saroski;

-    S. McKutchin; 

-    R. Viar Built;

-    K. White; and, 

-    G. Dunn;

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;

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

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates a range and mix of housing options through infill redevelopment of currently underutilized lands; and, 

  •   the recommended amendment facilitates affordable housing in a location evaluated for the provision of municipal needs; 

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

4.1   School Block Status Update Report.

2026-01-06 - Staff Report - School Block Acquisition Update Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to this report on School Block Acquisition Update:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed and implement Option 3, as outlined in this report, that represents the preferred approach developed in collaboration with School Board and development industry representatives, which includes the following:

i)   changes to draft plan conditions by providing school boards with a 6.5- year timeframe from the date of registration to purchase designated school blocks within a draft plan of subdivision, noting that this period includes the City’s 90-day review window if the full 6.5 years elapses; if a school board releases the block earlier, the City’s 90-day review window would begin immediately following that release;

ii)   policy changes to be included as part of Neighbourhood Plans review, requiring school boards, as part of their initial request to reserve a school block, to demonstrate the need for the block through their accommodation plan; and,

iii)   policy changes to be included as part of Neighbourhood Plans review, holding annual meetings between the City, school boards, and the development industry to confirm the ongoing need for reserved school blocks; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore and report back to a future meeting of the appropriate Standing Committee any property tax options available, including but not limited to, a municipal property tax exemption or a property tax refund program, on reserved school blocks while they are prohibited from development;

IT BEING NOTED, that this report fulfills Council’s request; therefore, the item may be removed from the Planning and Environment Committee’s Deferred Matters List;

it being further noted that the verbal delegations from B. Puzanov and M. Wallace, related to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the delegation request from B. Puzanov, Thames Valley District School Board and M. Wallace, London Development Institute, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 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 (4 hours, 9 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It is, you may have passed one. I’d like to get the second meeting of the Planning Environment Committee. Sorry, I’m gonna have to speak.

Sorry, Councilor Hillier, you have your hand up? Yes, sorry. They’re having problems with my connection issue and also with the internet connection. I’m all in one, I’m gonna look them right now and they’re fixing it.

So I’m gonna have to vote remotely. Okay, we can hear you. Can you hear me? Okay, we got the thumbs up.

All right, so let’s get the second meeting of the Planning Committee. Planning Environment Committee, call to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the oddness topic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei walk, and Adawanderan.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact packpec@london.ca or 519-661-899-extension-2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Councilor Hillier, you still have your hand up. So you can take that, thank you very much.

Okay, great. Seeing none, we’ll move on to our one consent item. This is 2.1 regarding the application of Brownfield Community Improvement Plan and Centos HL general partner. I’ll look for a motion from committee.

Councilor Cuddy has moved that consent item. I’ll look for a seconder, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, conversation or questions for staff. Seeing none, we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Yes. Councilor Stevenson votes yes. You do, Mayor Lewis. Sorry, I’m having some e-scribe troubles here.

Pass or change over the holidays. Deputy Mayor Lewis votes yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to our scheduled items.

Schedule item 3.1, this is regarding 574 First Street. We have a number of scheduled items. So I’m gonna look for a mover and a second to open and close our public participation meetings. Councilor Cuddy moves it and Councilor or Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds it.

So we will move, we have a mover and a second to open up that portion of our meeting. I’ll call that vote. Councilor Stevenson votes yes. Seeing no vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. And if the applicant would like to address the committee, please may have give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, well, Associate Planner with Celinka Priemo and the agent for this application. I have read the staff report and would like to thank City staff for preparing the staff report.

I do agree with staff’s recommendations and would urge the committee to do the same. If you have any questions, let me know, but I do believe that this proposal aligns with provincial direction and the London plan. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll love for members of the public that would like to address committee on this particular item. You don’t see anyone coming to the microphones. So clerk, if there’s anyone online, clerk is indicated there’s nobody online. Again, I don’t see anyone coming to the mic.

So I will call the vote to close the PPM. I vote yes. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.2, one step, too fast. I’ll look for a motion from the committee members. Councilor Cuddy, thank you chair. I’d like to move the motion.

Thank you. Thank you. Staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder.

I see Mayor Lewis for any questions or comments or a call the vote. Is there a Hillier? Said yes, sorry, yes again. So seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, now moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 4.15 York Street. I’ll just open the vote to open the PPM. I vote yes.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair. Mike Davis with civic planning and design here today on behalf of our client, BSN London Corporation. To speak to these applications at 4.15 York Street. This site is a vacant surface parking lot that we feel is in a highly strategic location.

It’s immediately adjacent to the downtown, steps to rapid transit, and also beside existing high rise development. Those factors make this site very much unique relative to the remainder of the York Street corridor. It actually acts as a natural kind of transition site between the downtown and the York Street urban corridor place type. There’s also site specific constraints.

We’re dealing with this on this property with the rail line, which make a shorter, wider building for lack of better term, less viable. This slender, tall tower is the most viable kind of form of development for this property. And we feel responds well to the context of the area. There’s two items in the staff report.

We’re seeking direction from a planning committee, support from planning committee on. Firstly, proximity to London District Energy. There was a request made by the planning department for a compatibility study in relation to that proximity. That came late in the process.

It was not identified at pre-application consultation. And thus, what we’re asking of the committee is to help us kind of move forward on the zoning and consider and address that issue through the site plan approval process. That would be much similar to how the city has dealt with the lands to the west. The former London Free Press site where the city’s own those lands for 45 stories.

And we’ll deal with the compatibility issue through site plan approval. Number two is around the height. We did have some, I think, constructive dialogue with staff through pre-application consultation in the early part of the application processing. I do think that they recognize the kind of that logical transitioning function that the site could play.

And I do think they also recognize that perhaps the site might be a candidate for heights that are above the 15 stories spelled out in the urban corridor place type. I’m not sure whether they ended on the exact path to approval and what that height could be. So we would greatly appreciate a deferral today. A little bit more time to speak with staff, speak with planning committee members and potentially take a cooperative approach towards some type of path to approval.

Obviously, the applicant feels strongly about the proposal that’s been put forward and that it has merit, but we are certainly interested in a cooperative approach to kind of resolve that at the local level. So appreciate the committee’s time. Any questions? I’m here to answer those.

And we look for your support on those two requests, if possible. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public would like to address the committee on this item.

(mumbles) If there’s anyone online, what online? Okay, so there’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone coming to the mics. So we’ll open the vote to close the PPM.

I vote yes. We’ll think about the motion carries back to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for the committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. Having read the communications, I’m prepared to move a referral, but I am looking through you to ask a question of the applicant and our staff. If we refer this to come back to a planning committee meeting no later than the end of Q2, is that, I mean, it could come back sooner, but is that through you, Chair, both to our staff and to the applicant, would that be a reasonable timeframe recognizing the communication that the applicant requested a reasonable timeframe commitment? And I’m just wondering if by the end of Q2 is sufficient.

Okay, I’ll go to both of us. I’ll go to staff. Is that a reasonable referral time period? Through you, Mr.

Chair. The deferral would push us beyond the legislative timelines under the Planning Act. So I wanted to make the committee members aware of that. Additionally, it’s difficult to gauge an appropriate timeframe for when it could come back.

One of the concerns of staff is the impacts from the London District Energy site. And so further study is required to determine the extent of any air quality impacts and so forth on the site and how that would be mitigated. So it’s difficult to gauge the timing for when a consultant could be retained for that, how long that study would work or part of me would take. So I defer to the applicant to get their thoughts on the timing.

You know, Mr. Davis, would you like to comment on that, please? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think our vision for the deferral would be more of a quick short-term deferral. We feel confidently that the issue of the London District Energy proximity, that can be dealt with through the site plan approval process or through a holding provision if that gives a council more comfort. We see that as somewhat of a separate issue. The purpose of the deferral would really be to have a little bit of additional dialogue around what is the appropriate kind of height on the property.

Establishing that height by way of zoning would give the landowner confidence that they understand what can be built on the property and they can invest confidently in that compatibility study and any additional mitigation measures, work, et cetera, that might be required. So I see that as the sequence of events. I don’t necessarily see the deferral needing to take to end of Q2, perhaps end of Q1. I think those right conversations could be accomplished and this could be brought back for a decision by council and having good information in front of you to make that decision to Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. So I appreciate both of those answers and fully aware of the legislative deadline expiring on an OPA but recognizing the applicant has committed in writing not to seek an appeal for a non-decision that it’s so long as it’s within a reasonable time. I appreciate Mr. Davis’s response with respect to not expecting it to take that long.

However, I’d like to, I’d prefer to err on the side of extra time and if it can come back faster, that’s fantastic. But I’d hate to set a time and then have it come back asking for more time because we weren’t able to resolve everything. So I think what I’m gonna do chair is, I’m going to refer this application back to civic administration for further dialogue with the applicant with respect to paths, to approvals and with consideration of addressing the concerns around London district energy and to have this return to the planning and environment committee know later than the end of Q2 of 2026. I’ll look for a seconder for that motion.

Councilor Cuddy has indicated a seconder. Okay, any further comments, Deputy Mayor? Yeah, I’ll just say, you know, there were some comments made by the applicant that I actually agree with. I think that more than 15 stories, this might be a location where that’s absolutely acceptable.

I’m not sure that 38 is the right number but that’s something to go back and forth with staff on. I recognize that you’re gonna have some need to make sure that there’s sufficient parking, everything else that goes into a high density development, but I do see the value of on the west side, you’ve got 45 stories, so a drop down to 15 is fairly significant and something in between that might be a more appropriate number. So I’m amenable to the discussion of a higher density, but I do think that we need to get these things in place, particularly with respect to how the London district energy piece would be addressed and what is a more, perhaps a middle ground somewhere on the heights because I do think that recognizing that it was put in place with respect to the Free Press Building, I think things have changed since the Free Press Building with London district energy as well. And so I’m not entirely sure that I’m 100% comfortable with a site plan holding provision.

I might be, I need to have some more information around what that looks like as London district energy is changing what they’re doing in terms of their steam lines in our city. So that makes it a little more complicated and I recognize that the potential need for a consultant and a review of what they’re doing could muddy the waters here a little bit. I’m absolutely amenable to some higher than 15 story density, but I think we need just a little more time to sort out what an appropriate path to approval would be here. So that’s why the referrals on the floor, and I hope colleagues can support that and give everyone staff, the applicant, the word counselor, others time to have some further discussions and figure out how these different pieces are gonna mesh together.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m happy to support the referral. I did just want to, the applicant mentioned that the compatibility study wasn’t part of the pre-consultation discussions and mentioned that it was, you know, came up at the last minute. I just wondered if we could get staff’s input on that.

I’ll go to staff for comments on the pre-consultation and the comments made by the applicant. Through the chair, this was an issue that came up through the circulation of the application. So it wasn’t flagged through the pre-consultation stage, but it was brought to our attention as we were reviewing the application. And now we have to have the requisite information available to adequately review any potential impacts that the site could have.

Councillor. No, thank you, that’s good. One for other comments, Councillor Ferrell. Thanks, Chair.

I have to agree with the deputy mayor’s comments on this one. I do see with the urban corridor place type and then the downtown place type, we do have a very significant difference between the heights 15 stories on one side of the street, 45 stories on the other side of the street. I do know that we just had that heights review, but I would think that this would be an example to maybe re-look into that, because I think a more appropriate transition between those two levels of height is just a little too blunt, I guess. So I would say that maybe at some point, looking into that part, just with the urban corridor place type, just to see if we can still stick within our planning documents and our policy, but not have to have one offs here and there to go above and beyond that 15 stories would be appropriate.

So I do like the past approval part on that. With the studies portion, I guess, well, actually, before I go into that, I just wanted to clarify something with staff. I do hear the proponent talking about a deferral. I know we have a referral here.

There’s two different words. I don’t know if there’s much difference on that. Can I go to the clerks just to see if there is a difference between the two? Well, the emotion is referral.

There’s no mention of deferral, if you want to, if you want to clerk too. So we’re not, they use deferral, but. I know, I just wanted to make sure that this is the same intent. Is it deferral as requested by the proponent, or referral as here at committee?

I’ll go to the clerk to see if she feels comfortable in giving those definitions of deferral and referral. We know what referral means from the clerk’s standpoint. Do you want to comment, clerk on the difference between deferral and referral? I’m going to make that comment.

It’s essentially the same thing. We’re good with referral. Councillor. Councillor.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to do that for the public record. So the public understands I see the deputy mayor might have his hand up. I would refer or defer to him to see if he wants to add.

If you, if the chair would like. Deputy Mayor, do you want to weigh in? Yes, be very brief. This is just a technical thing.

A referral includes a direction with reasons. A deferral is just postponing a decision. This is a referral because it’s including some directions. Thank you.

Councillor Ferrell. Appreciate that. Thank you. With the pass to approval, I do have obviously some concerns when it comes to letting the district energy being so close to the site as well.

I do hear what the proponent is saying about just wanting to get a little bit more heads up. With my conversation with staff early on, I did have this conversation with them. They did bring it up to me. So I just wanted to make sure I guess with staff pass to approval, we are going to be seeking potential, I guess other consultant analysis or however, we can get a study when it comes to the admissions, when it comes to the noise.

And I did hear that the opponent would be able to potentially bring a report back or something back that could show us just any kind of factors or issues that might come up in potential mitigations on that. So just clarifying with staff again, that the pass to approval, you are kind of taking that with the looking for that feedback that those studies and those reports, when it comes to those items that were highlighted. Go staff. Through the chair, that’s correct.

We would require the study to inform any recommendation. We don’t know what the outcome of the study could be. And so staff are challenged in that we can’t recommend residential development without knowing the limitations of that development and what height limitations may come out of that study. Councillor, thank you for that.

So I wouldn’t support 38 stories. I think that is more of a downtown place type kind of density that we’d be building there. Because this is just outside the place type and we are looking for that transition, I do want to see a little bit less. I don’t know where that number would lie.

I had a couple numbers written down, but I’m not just going to off the cuff, start throwing out story heights. But I do want to see a transition between the place, the two place types, especially considering they’re right across the street from each other. I would also say, like I said before, when it comes to our heights review, maybe we should take another look because I think the bluntness between the two is a little bit too much. I think that’s a 30 story difference.

Yeah, 30 stories between 15 and 45. So I think maybe we should reconsider that at some point. But I do want to see the site be developed. It’s a surface level parking lot that hasn’t seen much there for far too long.

We’re looking to, you know, revitalize downtown. We’re looking to intensify downtown. We’re looking to bring people back. So I want to see a development there.

I hope that we can work with the proponent and we can bring something that is reasonable, that works for us, that works for us both on the city side for the proponent as well. So the way I see this crafted, I don’t see any issues with that. But like I said, I wouldn’t be supportive if a 38 story comes back. So thanks.

Thank you, look for other input from the committee or visiting counselors. Councilor Robin. Hi, thank you and through you. Just a quick question, I’m a bit confused because we’re talking about a referral and I’m hearing from staff that in order for any discussion to continue on about changes in height that the study is necessary in order to determine the height.

So I just want clarification from the applicant or the representative from the applicant that the purpose of the referral to get the study can be done within the timeframe to allow for the discussion around the height. Are you asking for comments from the applicant? Thank you and through you, yes, please. Mr.

Davis. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the council. I think the purpose of the referral, we’ll call it, as we would see it, would be primarily to focus on issues of the height and kind of defer the discussion around London district energy to site plan control holding provision.

What we’re looking for on that issue is the exact same approach that staff have taken with the TSA zoning, large portions of the downtown in that area of influence have been zoned to permit the 45 stories and the technical issues surrounding those developments like proximity to London district energy would be dealt with at the time of development through site plan control. So that’s what we’re aiming for on the London district energy element, and we’re hoping that this referral is focused to discussions around the height primarily. We will begin those conversations with the appropriate consultants to see timing for those studies and what that looks like, but I’m not 100% certain that those studies can be completed in that timeline. I’m also not 100% certain what the results of those studies will be that remains to be seen.

And I think the determination around height and zoning can be made in parallel with that as opposed to this being sort of a gateway issue that needs to be addressed before we talk about what’s inappropriate height on the property, our councilor. Thank you. And respectfully, I think what we’re doing is we’re talking past each other a bit on this matter right now. I’m hearing clearly from staff that the next step to advance the discussion would be that study.

So if the study can’t be completed, how could staff go about having the discussion about the height? We do know that air quality changes based on height of the form. So I do think it’s an important distinction and it’s a matter that needs to be sorted in order for the referral to have the impacted result. The other piece I just wanna bring up is in the correspondence last paragraph, second last paragraph, it talks about the fact that the applicant is fully prepared to advance the application through the OLT.

I did hear comment that that would be off the table, but it’s not in writing anywhere in front of me. So I just wanna confirm that that matter would be resolved until such time as this referral is moved through. But I do think that we have a sticking point here that I don’t know that we can get passed when it comes to the height issue. Thank you, I’ll look for a counselor for her.

Thanks, Chair for recognizing me again. After teamwork, make stream work. Those great questions by Councillor ramen. The reports, those studies I would need as well.

I know I focused on the height and the transition, but any emissions, like I guess, going to staff. What type of emissions come from London District Energy? Do we know? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chairs, so London District Energy does have an environmental compliance approval from the ministry for the operation of their site. The emissions coming off of it, I think are mostly natural gas generation and it causes a plume of emissions at certain height levels, which directly will impact where residential uses can be located. Councillor, thank you. So I think it would be very wise to get a study back, especially when it comes to the health and safety of residents who would be in that building.

So I appreciate the questions from Councillor ramen. I’ll leave the comments there, but I would want to see that study as well. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments, questions from committee or visiting Councillors.

Councillor Trassel. Thank you very much. Through the chair, I just, I want to join Councillor ramen in saying that I would like to see something very specific reflected in the motion regarding regarding the inability of the applicant to run to the province. As I understand it, some oral representations have been made.

I don’t know if the solicitor wants to comment on that, but this is an issue that I would always raise when we go outside of the statutory period to protect ourselves. I’ll go to stop. Sorry, through the chair. There’s no formal mechanism to withhold the applicant’s ability to appeal the matter for non-decision.

They can make some, I believe they’ve made some submissions on that respect in their submissions that were part of the agenda, but if they chose to appeal the decision, that would be their prerogative to make, and there’s not necessarily some resolution or mechanism we can have to control that process or restrict their appeal rates. Councillor. In that case, would the more prudent course of action be without prejudice, of course, to deny the application, maybe make some accommodation for them coming back without having to pay the full fees or having to do duplicate studies, but unless there is some airtight mechanism that protects the city from this, I think it’s reckless. It could be reckless for us to go outside of the statutory period, and I lay the fault here squarely at the feet of the province, and I’m not questioning the good faith of the applicant or staff or this committee, but I’m very uncomfortable going outside of the statutory period, and I would like to get a better sense of what our protections are before council, otherwise I just couldn’t support this without knowing that we have better protection, and I’m not seeing disagreement from trying to read the faces here, but what could we do to make this a little more airtight if other than just deny the application without prejudice, which would be without prejudice anyway?

Is that a rhetorical question, or is that— No, it’s a real question. Okay, I’ll go to the staff, thank you. Thank you, through the chair, there’s no mechanism as our legal friends have mentioned. However, for a non-decision, we are at risk, have an appeal outside of the statutory timelines.

We do have a planning report before you, so if we were to go to the OLT, that’s the planning position that would be upheld, or in defended against the applicant. Councilor. Well, finally, we also have gone through an extensive city-wide planning process where we have height limits, and now what I’m hearing when I come to this meeting came up last time is people don’t like the height limits, so they just want them increased, and this is a rhetorical question. What’s the value of doing a city-wide plan where there are height limits if we’re just not going to comply with them?

Okay, the clerk just reminded me that we’re just talking about a brawl right now, so let’s keep our comments there, but do you have more to add, Councilor? No. Okay, thank you, I look for, oh, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Chair.

As colleagues, as you’ve just heard from our legal and our planning staff, we could refuse this, and it’s very clear that the applicant will appeal to the OLT, or we can read page three of their submission on the public agenda, the very first paragraph, which says understanding that the deferral may extend past the decision timeline, we want to make it clear that, underlined, the applicant commits to not appealing for a reasonable time period should Council grant the deferral. So yes, we are taking them at their word on good faith, but we are taking it based on something that is on a public agenda in writing. So I really encourage colleagues to consider, do you want the OLT appeal now, or do you want our staff and the applicant to have an opportunity to perhaps work something out in a path to approval mechanism? ‘Cause that’s what the referral will give them is an opportunity to avoid the OLT entirely.

We can refuse this and guarantee an OLT appeal, or we can give them an opportunity to work it out, and whatever, I mean, if there’s an OLT appeal, the outcome will be up to the OLT, not to us, but that is the choice before you. And I just have to say, Chair, that with respect to other comments that were made, special area provisions are always part of a planning consideration. Planning documents are not carved in stone. It’s always Council’s prerogative to grant permissions that exceed the height plan limits.

Those are guides for the official plan. There’s a process by which those heights can be exceeded in any application anywhere, and that’s through special area provisions. Look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me, and I really do appreciate the conversation here. I do think it’s important that we as a city make decisions here for development in our own city, and try to avoid any types of appeals. So how do we move forward?

And I do appreciate Councillor Raman’s comments around the information that staff needs to make before they can have the conversation around heights. So maybe through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, when it comes to getting a report, what is the expectation for this report? And is the second quarter that is on the referral enough time?

I know everything’s up in the air, but sitting here and listening to the conversation is it a six-month turnaround, or it cannot be a two-month turnaround without putting staff on the spot, obviously. I’ll go staff. Through the Chair, I’m going to defer that question to the applicant, so perhaps they can provide a little bit more information on what it would entail to retain a consultant in the timing behind that. Mr.

Davis, would you like to comment? Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. A consultant could be retained rather quickly.

The scope of that study, I’m not an expert in that field, so I don’t know if there’s seasonality to timing of monitoring, perspective, order, any type of error emissions that it’s possible, so I just can’t guarantee that a study could be completed in a four to six-month window. That would be sort of to be determined. I’ll leave it at that. I think what we kind of spoke to in our comments is that the goal here would be to address those or tie that study to a future planning application process, which would give us efficient time to deal with that.

That would be, again, the exact same process that this Council has approved and staff have recommended for all of the other downtown lands that were recently rezoned TSA5 within that spirit of influence of London district energy. So not asking for special treatment on not just same treatment as past, I think, Councilor. Thank you, and I do apologize if I’ve put anyone on the spot here, I know it’s difficult to predict reports and when they come in, but I think it’s also important that we understand that we have the information to make the decisions that obviously the applicant would like us to make. I find this is a bit of a sticking point right now.

I’m not exactly convinced that this is the way to go forward just because we could be just prolonging the inevitable, which would probably most likely look like approving something and then having a go through the site plan, which I’m uncomfortable about, but I do appreciate the conversation and see what happens to Council, thank you. Thank you, any other comments, questions? Couldn’t you permit? I’ll just make a few comments.

My concern of appeal to OLT is not great given the expressions of by the applicant in writing that they were initiated, actually, a referral. And today, in the public participation meeting, again, emphasized by the applicant. Listen, folks, we’ve got a vacant piece of land that could be used as a parking lot or we have an applicant who’s willing to develop and provide housing. The issue is heights and I understand staff concern about land and district energy.

There’s a number of taller buildings right across the street, but my understanding, those were built before land and district energy was a concern. So I think that concern has to be dealt with. I think the applicant has heard the feelings around heights that was heard today. So hopefully those two things can be factored in and we can get to a resolution here where we get something built in the downtown on this vacant piece of property beside a railway track.

I’m concerned if something like this doesn’t go through, it could just be vacant for years and years and years. So I would like to see a resolution where we can get housing built here. There’s no other questions or comments. We have a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote.

Clerk has asked the mover to confirm, please read in. Sorry, I just sent back a note to the clerk ‘cause I saw that in my inbox. Everything the clerk had prepared is fine, except after a path to approval, comma, including how to proceed with regard to London district energy matters. Do you mind just repeating the last part?

Absolutely. It just says, so after the path to approval, comma, including how to proceed with regard to London district energy matters. Can you refresh and double check that? Yes.

Okay, good. Okay, so we have the motion moved in second, and I’ll call the vote. Look at everyone’s answer hands up. Councilor Ramen.

Thank you and through you, sorry. I am not a voting member of this committee, but I just want to clarify the language on the referral. So typically when we refer to path to approval, isn’t that the section from the report where staff have said, this is the pathway to approval? I’ll go to the mover and the language he’s using in his motion.

Short answer is yes. The reason for the addition is to address specifically to make sure that it’s in writing, that there are differences of opinion and different path was followed with respect to London district energy on a previous property. So we’re making specific reference to that, so that dialogue on the path to approval can decide on which way to proceed, because there are now two different approaches that have been taken with regard to London district energy, one on the free press site, and now a different suggestion on this one. So it’s an opportunity for dialogue as to which path is the appropriate one, no sir.

Thank you, okay, thank you. That does help, I understand that you’re just referring to the terminology, but not as it stayed in the report where staff have said that they don’t see a pathway to approval through the height consideration right now. Although it does mention in the referral, the need for how to proceed with London district energy matters, I think for clarification purposes, it would be helpful, and I know for myself, if I was looking at this when I make the decision at council, I need more specificity around the type of study that is needed and the study delineated in the matter. I think it’s important that be fulfilled in order to move forward with the discussion on height, ‘cause that’s what I’m hearing quite clearly from staff, that that needs to be done, and I wanna be able to honor that in the discussion, so that staff have clear directions, so the applicant knows where the starting point of the discussion is, which is the study.

Look to the mover to see if he wants to change his motion at all. Chair, I’m amenable to having a discussion with Councilor ramen ahead of council and perhaps amending at a council, but at this point, I’m really getting uncomfortable with the amount of word smithing we’re doing on what is a referral at this point, happy to get something that is more comfortable through some further discussion. But given, I’ve deliberately left it vague, so that a dialogue can happen between the applicant and staff, or perhaps not vague, but open-ended, so that a dialogue can happen, having heard that a different approach was taken at the adjacent property. So I don’t wanna presume that the path to approval that is listed in this particular report is actually going to be the agreed upon path when we review the path that was taken with the free press building.

So that’s why I’ve left it sort of open-ended. If there’s a need for folks to get more precise language to make them comfortable before council, I’m open to having that discussion with any councilor, but right now, it’s a referral, I’d like us to vote and move on. Okay, yeah, those changes can be amended after that council is deputy mayor indicated. So the motion moved in seconded now, and it’s left, so.

Okay, thanks, Chair, I’ll be as fast as I can. I think we should be doing committee work at committee. I think this is the appropriate time to be put in that language in there. I also think that we should maybe add that the proponent has stated publicly that they would not bring this matter for an appeal to the OLT.

If we did go beyond those time frames, and I would also say maybe if we were to make that language change right now, maybe we should take out the no later than Q2, 2026, and leave it open-ended. So I would like to see those additions made now, if the mover and the seconder are amenable to that, that would bring my support just to be more specific. And with the specifics, with the studies that we would need, you know, a noise and air emission study, just to make sure that it’s within the permissible thresholds would be appropriate at least. So I guess if that’s all the time I have, I’ll leave it there.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Trossall. I was going to, through the chair, also say that I think it’s best to do committee work at the committee and not defer the committee work to council. This is where we should be hammering these things out.

And I think several visiting members here have raised very legitimate concerns that are consistent with what the applicant is asking for. I would like to see language, and I can’t make a motion now, I will, at council, but I would like to see language that says something to the effect of it being noted that the referral is at the request of the applicant, and that the applicant has represented that they would not exercise appeal rights during the pendency of the referral. And I think putting that in would really alleviate a lot of my concerns. I could even vote for it at that point.

So I’m hoping that that’s okay for the mover or seconder. Otherwise, I’ll just raise this. I think I’ll raise this at council. Okay, thank you, Dr.

Merlos. So with respect to those comments, I will say while I appreciate doing committee work at committee, I think with all due respect to the members of council who are visiting that there are perhaps some questions they need to ask of planning staff offline before around specific details of processes before trying to word Smith emotion on the floor. However, to Councillor Trussau’s point, I am perfectly amenable to it being noted that the referral was supported in a communication from the applicant on the public agenda for this committee. And that way it does capture the fact that the applicant indicated their support for a referral in a communication that’s on the public agenda.

So I’m comfortable with adding and being noted to that effect. It is part of the public record already, but if that makes the council more comfortable, I’m amenable to adding that being noted. Okay, I’ll have the clerk work Smith that up and we’ll look at the revised motion. Okay, you can refresh and check the wording, make sure that that’s what you intend to do.

Deb, anywhere, and Councillor Cutty. Okay, we got the thumbs up. Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me again and just a question maybe through you to clerks.

As the letter from the applicant refers to a deferral is that a concern in the motion. Just want to confirm that. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, no.

Thank you. We have motion moved in a second. I’ll call the vote. Is there Stephen Finn?

Vote yes, thank you. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 388 Exeter Road and 15, 12, 15, 14.

John the Boulevard, I’ll open the vote and opening the public participation meeting. Sir, Stephen Finn, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant.

The applicant would like to address the committee. Good afternoon, chair and members of committee. My name is Rochelle Larock. I am a registered professional planner and partner with the Big Leary Group.

We are representing elite MD developments who are the owners of 388 Exeter Road and 15, 12 to 15, 14, John the Boulevard. These were two separate parcels. They have merged to allow for the development of the rear part of the property. The proposal in front of you is to rezone the property to residential R6 zone with special provisions.

To allow for the construction of 93, three-story stacked townhouse units, each unit will have two parking spaces, one in the garage and one in the driveway, as well as 24 visitor parking spaces, open landscape amenity area as well. As part of the application, both an environmental impact study and arborist reports were provided based on the review of City Ecology staff, revisions were made to that original submission, which changed the plan from a mix of stacked townhouse and standard townhouse units to all stacked townhouse units. The revisions included a 20-meter setback to the woodlands on the property and a 20-meter setback to the wetlands on the property. As part of the development, a small pocket of wetland will be removed from one area and compensated in another, located closer to the white oak drain.

Because of the location of the woodland on the property, gaining access to the development portion on the far west requires a removal of 21 trees to provide that access to gel nable of art. These trees will be compensated elsewhere on the property. The two amendments to the zoning by-law that have been requested are to allow for a landscape open space of 20% and a maximum density of 85 units per hectare. And although the landscape area is being requested to be decreased, the overall property does have a large portion of woodlands that will be remaining.

So it won’t just simply be that the clients are looking to develop a larger portion of the property. We reviewed the comments from staff and recognized that the site plan process that will come later will require additional detailed studies being the engineering reports, as well as a traffic study that will also be required as part of that site plan process. We also note that one of the comments that was received was with respect to the number of parking spaces provided and staff would like to see a reduction to that at the time of site plan. We feel that providing two spaces per unit, as well as the 24 visitor spaces is appropriate for the number of units proposed.

Because this is a condominium development, there will be no on-street parking provided and this will prevent any overflow parking from spilling onto gel nable of art. We have no objection to the holding provisions included by staff. And we feel that the application complies and conforms to provincial policy, as well as the city policies. And we look forward to answering any questions that committee may have.

Thank you. I look for any members of the public who would like to address committee on this item. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is John Jeffries.

I’m a resident of the Conway Gelna vicinity, in there since 1990, about 15 years ago, there was another proposal before council to build townhouses in this area. And for whatever reason, it was not allowed to proceed, mostly because it was going through that tree protection area, which is protected by the bylaw. I think it’s the tree protection bylaw and this area is tree protection area. So I have two concerns.

One is the access onto gel nable of art for that many units and that many vehicles. John the Boulevard is considered a neighborhood connector, not a civic boulevard similar to White Oaks or Bradley Ave. In order to access this site, you’re gonna have to go through a protected area into a residential area, which has since had two houses knocked down for the purpose of having this access road put in. And the proposed site is in close proximity to White Oaks Road.

Yeah, I haven’t heard any proposals or studies or consultants about the feasibility of connecting this project to White Oaks Road, which would alleviate a lot of the concerns of the residents as far as the amount of traffic that’s coming out of this particular area, which is previously his own residential. The area that they’re building on from my experience is a green space that’s subjected to flooding because of the White Oaks train since 2021. The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority has indicated that all the residents along Conway Drive, Conway Lane, John the Boulevard are now considered a floodplain and therefore you can’t get insurance for overland water. Yet this construction is 30 meters from the high watermark of the White Oaks train.

So my concern is one, the residents who purchase these properties will not be able to get proper insurance because I can’t and I want this committee consider the possibility of connecting it to White Oaks Road. There is a commercial property right next to where this boundary line is for this proposed property, 3,600 White Oaks Road that has a bridge and it’s owned by a commercial owner, Kanpar, and transport trucks cross over the White Oaks train every day. So I don’t know why we can’t look at the possibility of deflecting the traffic off of John the Boulevard. And the last thing is the municipal address of this property.

Would it be John the Boulevard? Because there’s no access proposed off of 388 Exeter Road. It’s a drain and therefore no traffic can go up and down that particular address. And it’s misleading to have the public notice say, 388 Exeter Road because they think that’s where it’s going to be accessed and it’s not.

And it’s become apparent when they’ve knocked down this two houses for the purposes of connecting it through a tree protection area. And the tree protection area is the prominent feature as far as tree canopy in the area because the whole area was decimated by the emerald ash borer and the Dutch home disease and new trees have been planted, but they’re not mature trees. And these are my concerns subject to any questions. Okay, thank you.

I’ll look for any other speakers. I’ll just clerk if there’s anyone online. There is nobody online. I don’t see anyone claiming the mic.

So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. I think the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll put this item on the floor for committee.

Councilor Cuddy, I get your all move staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hill here has indicated he will second. I’ll look for comments or questions on the motion on the floor.

Dr. Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. So just briefly, the representative for the applicant mentioned a traffic impact study.

The member of the public who spoke to the access, potential for access to way to grow. Just wondering if our staff can comment as to whether the traffic impact study would consider that and the purpose of generally directing traffic to the neighborhood collectors versus more urban court or place types. I’ll go staff. Thank you through the chair.

The main reason for directing to Jonah is the presence of the White Oak Train. In the open space, the OS4 zoning that’s currently over top of the drain as well. Very similar to the direction we provided for the application at 415 Oxford Street. So we wanna, connecting to White Oak Road may not provide a safe and dry access essentially.

So we wanna direct everything to Jonah and that TIA would address any mitigation measures required on Jonah Boulevard for that access. Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that explanation on that piece.

Other comments or questions from committee members or visiting councilors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. Seeing the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.4.

This is regarding 465 Callaway Road. I’ll open the vote on opening the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll look for the, oh, I see you up there already.

Please go ahead and you have five minutes. Give us your name, please first. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, committee members, members of the public, visiting councilors and staff.

My name is Alia Richards and I’m a planning consultant with Zalenka Priammo Limited. I’m pleased to be here this afternoon. On behalf of the landowners and proponents of this application, I’d like to start by thanking staff for processing this application. We received the staff report and agree with the recommendation.

However, we respectfully disagree with the inclusion of the sixth regulation, which requires the building entrance to be in a specific location. In principle, we have no issue with what staff are requesting. However, we do not believe that the zoning by-law is the appropriate mechanism for requiring, for certain urban design matters related to something that can be addressed at the time of site plan application. The official plan uses unrestricted language to encourage building entrances to be facing the public realm.

So this should not be incorporated into the zoning by-law with restrictive language. We believe this matter can be adequately addressed and looked at in the site plan application. I’d like to thank staff for their positive recommendation once again, and I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Richards. I look for members of the public like to address committee on this item. As a clerk, if there’s anyone online.

When online, I don’t see anyone coming to the mic, so I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll put this on the floor for committee.

Councillor Cudi. Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation on this. I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis has indicated he will second.

I’ll open up for comments or questions by committee members or visiting Councillors. Deputy Mayor. So I do want to ask through you, Chair, to staff. ‘Cause I do agree with the applicant.

I’m very, very hesitant to impose urban guideline, urban design guideline restrictions in a zoning by-law versus a site plan process. And so through you to staff, why is this the approach we’re taking versus allowing the flexibility that the official plan has in its language to work out the urban design guidelines through the site plan approval process? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question.

It is consistent with the approach applied to similar applications in the past. And without it written in the zoning, we want to just have the strength that the site plans to each that it will be enforced. Councillor. Okay, I appreciate that answer.

I’m not sure that I’m going to support that, but look for other questions or comments from folks first. ‘Cause to me, the form and the site plan is where we work out the details, not in the ZBA. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I would just follow up with the deputy mayor there and say I would be supportive of removing that. Okay, thank you. Is that, do you want to make an amendment, Councillor?

I’m happy to move an amendment that removes that. Okay, do you have wording for the clerk? I do not. Okay, I’ll ask staff or I’ll ask the clerk if they have some recommended language to move the entrance from zoning bylaw to site plan.

Yeah, maybe staff could help me out with that wording. Through the chair, we would just have to prepare a revised bylaw that removes that sixth regulation from the zoning bylaw. Can we do that? I’m asking for wording that would direct you to do that, that we would use an amendment to the motion that was made.

Through the chair, I think just along the lines of that staff be directed to prepare a revised bylaw removing the clause six of the special provisions prior to council would be sufficient. Thank you. Chair, just looking for clarification, if it’s from a removal from the ZBA or the OPA through the chair, it’s from the ZBA. Councilor, can you just refresh and take a look and then I’ll look for a second here as well on this motion for this amendment?

Deputy Mayor has indicated he will second the amendment. That looks good to me, thanks. Okay, so we’ll go to Ms. McNeely.

Thank you to the chair. Just clarification, there was some conversation from Councilor Stevenson supporting the change and referring it back to the site plan. Is that also then a matter under the recommendation clause of construction to the site plan approval authority to consider? Councilor Stevenson.

I think I’ll just leave that to site plan unless committee feels otherwise, but I’ll just leave this as is. Thanks. Deputy Mayor. Yes, my comments were with an intent to refer it to site plan, so we do need to remove it from the ZBA, put it in the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following.

So that way there can be a discussion between the applicant and the site plan approval authority on where the appropriate spaces are. So I would, Councilor Stevenson, if you’re amenable, I’d like to add that in to the amendment so that it would be— Sounds good to me. So the motion be amended to remove clause six from the special provisions from the ZBA and move the recommendation to the site plan approval authority for consideration. And Mayor, that would be under clause C and new III under the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following design issues for the site plan process.

Through the chair, if staff could just look on the screen, do you want it to specify the clause III or is it fine as is? Through the chair, we’d prefer that it be listed. It just helps give that direction in the recommendation clause when it does get to site plan approval authority. So the clerk has advised me, they’ll clean that up for a report that goes to Council.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, did you have any else? No, that was it. I was just gonna say we could probably clean that language up. Okay, we’ll have that cleaned up.

Okay, so we’re on the amendment. Any conversation on the amendment? Councilwoman. Thank you and through you, just on the amendment.

I just wanted to ask staff if they can comment on why that language was there to begin with. My understanding is that in this particular design of the building, the second to sixth floor has units on it. The first floor has some combination of parking and indoor amenity spaces and part of this was around the potential use of that space and how it would be constructed and what it would look like on Callaway and Sunnydale. I’m just wondering if maybe you can comment a little bit further about that and what, if any impact or change does it have not being in the ZBA versus in the site plan?

Don’t go to staff. Thank you through the chair. That’s correct, the first floor of the building is proposed to have a portion of it be parking. The intent of the regulation was to compel the applicant to provide the lobby at the intersection to create a more pedestrian-friendly interface and activate the intersection.

Having it in the by-law give staff greater strength at site plan as it is applicable law rather than as just direction to site plan. So that was the intent behind including it as a regulation in the by-law itself versus direction to site plan. Councillor. Thank you and through you and just stick to for my own clarity because this is, if this moves to site plan as a discussion, could the applicant come back with more parking than less in the underground portion?

For instance, could they remove the indoor amenity and just have parking underneath? Don’t go to staff. Through the chair, technically without the regulation and the by-law, there wouldn’t be any zoning prohibiting use of that space for more parking. Ideally at site plan, we would request more active uses in that location but there would be nothing in zoning prohibiting that change.

Councillor. Thank you and I’ll speak to my reason for my questioning on that later on but I’m supportive then of removing it from the ZBA because ultimately for me, the parking is the pinch point on this property. So if removing those indoor amenity spaces to allow for more parking helps the neighborhood, I’m also open to that discussion continuing on forward to site plan. You know, other comments or questions?

Okay, on the amendment, we got moved in second and we’ll call going on that. I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. I need a new mover and seconder for as amended motion. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any comments or questions on the motion as amended? Councillor Ramen. Deputy Mayor Lewis had his hand up and he’s on the committee so I don’t wanna take away your time so I’m happy to go after you. I’m happy to defer to the word, Councillor.

Thank you, appreciate that and through you, Chair. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this proposal at 465 Callaway Road. First, I wanna take some time to thank the city staff but also the applicant for the continuous dialogue. We had conversations up until a couple hours ago on this particular site and the proposal.

Mainly around some of the concerns around the parking on this site. Yes, there is transit nearby on Sunnydale Road but it is a very limited transit service in this part of the city as it is not part of the transit priority network nor is it planned to be so in the next 25 years. With that in mind, we need to think about what kind of movement people in the area can expect. One of the concerns we have right now on Callaway is we have a lot of buildings, a lot of residential forms in the area and not a lot of parking.

And so what we’re seeing is that our roadways are becoming even more congested with parking. Our close access to the Medway Trail is often used as short-term and long-term parking for residents in the area because of these issues. So when it comes to this application, when this application came forward with less parking, then there are units to begin with. That was one of the concerns.

The other I would say is the treatment of and how we understand tandem spots within developments. I think it’s something that we’re still trying to contend with. But for me, although I appreciate that the applicant will look for any opportunity to find a way forward through site plan to add more parking, I see that this site is constrained and there are limitations and for that reason, it will be difficult to be able to meet the parking needs of the area. This building has three bedroom units.

It has two bedroom units. If you look at the build-out around the area, we’re not close to a grocery store. We’re not close to a lot of amenities. Yes, we are on transit, but it’s very limited service.

So for those reasons, I think that parking is important. I do like the fact that this has come, the amendment that we just made allows for more discussion at site plan around parking. But at this time, I know I wouldn’t be able to support it with the parking that is currently provided in this plan. Thank you.

I’ll go to other members of the committee or visiting councilors, Dr. Mayor Lewis. Well, I will just say briefly, I agree with everything that Councilor Roman said. So I appreciate the word council raising those concerns too.

I’m increasingly concerned that our 0.5 parking minimum is becoming seen as that’s all we should have by some applicants, not everyone, but it being seen. And even when I see some staff reports requesting, considering reduced parking, the whole reason for the 0.5 was to let the market decide, not staff, not even the applicant, in terms of short-cutting costs to reduce parking, but to create units that were going to have appropriate parking for them to be sold or rented out. ‘Cause we have seen high density developments, where parking lots sit 50% empty. We don’t need one to one in some high density developments.

But in many developments, we do need one to one. And I’m increasingly concerned that our 0.5 parking minimum is being treated as a maximum by some. And so I appreciate what Councilor Roman said. I hope that by providing some more flexibility in the site plan and with conversations she can have with the applicant that we can get closer to that, because the reality is people drive cars.

They do need places to park them. And we do have a transit system that is not going to serve every neighborhood of the community in the same level everywhere. I think 0.5 is absolutely a great idea in high priority transit areas. The rapid transit corridors and the high prioritization areas with express service.

I think it’s very desirable there to have less parking, but I don’t think less parking should be the default in every application across the city. So I agree with what the word Councillor said. I’m going to support this application. But certainly if she can talk to the applicant and get some of those parking concerns addressed, I think that that’s a great opportunity for some further dialogue there.

So that’s all I have to say. Thank you all. Look for other comments or questions from committee members who are visiting Councillors. If the committee will allow me, I’m just going to briefly weigh in from the chair.

I couldn’t agree more. I remember when we adjusted the parking and it was exactly what the deputy mayor said it was to, instead of city hall arbitrarily designing parking needs, we’ll let the market decide. And we put in the minimum of 0.5 and it was taken up by the marketplace to the many applications that come through here with the minimum of parking. But what I’m hearing now from projects that have been built that as we’ve seen, the market shift as availability increases.

Some units are having difficulty in renting out because of limited parking space for tenants. And I’ve also heard from residents as well, their concerns are well-founded on parking either being take up a street or parking in commercial lots or townhouse complexes where there’s general parking that is tough to monitor. But I think we’re going to be seeing this more and more, quite frankly as we move forward over the next few years. So I think that discussion that we’re having today is important and we’ll probably continue as we go forward.

So fully supportive of this as amended. I’ll look for any other comments or questions. We have a motion moving in second, I’ll call the vote. We’ll think about the motion carries back to zero.

Thank you, moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 591 first street. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. The vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, through the chair. My name is Caitlin Crowley, planner with Selenka Priemo and the agent for this application.

I would like to thank staff for their preparation of the staff report. I agree with staff’s recommendation and urge the committee to do the same. This is a modest form of intensification. I am available to answer any questions, but I have no further comments.

Thanks. Thank you, I’ll look for members of the public like to address committee. Last click if there’s anyone online. Seeing nobody coming to the mics, we’ll call the vote to close the PPM.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councilor Cuddy, chair, I’d like to move the staff recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, conversation questions.

Councilor Cuddy, thank you chair and through you. I wanna thank the applicant for bringing this forward. This is a great repurposing of the property. This is in my ward, so it’s really important to me.

It’s also within a block of Fanshawe College. And as we know, we have a lot of students I’ve heard from many years of the students that are living in some of the homes close to the college. And I’ve heard from residents that looking forward to the opportunity for students to find other accommodations that don’t take up some of the houses. And this is an opportunity for them to do that.

And again, it’s a good repurpose of the land. So, I’m looking forward to more projects like this. As the applicant said, it’s modest, but it’s a good sized project. And again, thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Councilor Stevenson, I vote yes.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 656 here on street. I’ll call the vote to open the public participation.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee or are they online. Last call for the applicant. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone, so I’ll ask any members of the public like to address the committee on this item.

Seeing none, I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’m moving on, I’ll put this on the floor to the committee members, Councillor Cudi.

Thank you, Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hill here has seconded the motion. Conversation, any questions or concerns?

Seeing none, I will call the vote. Councilor Stevenson, I vote yes. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.7 regarding 1851 Hamilton Roado.

Open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. You’re quick. Yeah.

And, you know, five minutes. Thank you, Chair. My name is Leah Richards. I’m a Planning Consultant with Zalinka Premo Limited.

And I’m here representing the property owner. I’m also joined by him today, Peter Watmore. And the proponent of this application for commercial uses at 1851 Hamilton Road. We have reviewed the staff report and thanks staff for processing this application and their continued efforts.

And in looking at this application, we would look to, or we would hope that council and committee would endorse the staff, positive staff recommendation for this application. And I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for anyone from the public who would like to address the committee. So, clerk, if there’s anyone online. Hi, are we talking? I see you up there.

Please give us your name, you have five minutes. Are we talking about the old Fairmont Public School area? No. Okay, sorry.

Anyone else would like to address us? Seeing none, I’ll open the vote to close the PBM. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members.

Councilor Cudi. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to move the second recommendation. Okay, and I see Councilor Hillier is seconded.

I’ll look for any comments or questions. Councilor Hillier. Yes, thank you. I encourage my colleagues to please support this.

(mumbles) This is directly in front of a brand new fire station that’s been built out there. And if any of you have a chance, please take a bite to the information park and look at the expansions that are going on. We do have progress going on in part. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. It’s up to you, Mayor Lewis. So I am not inclined to support this and my concern is really with respect to one primary issue.

I’m very familiar with this intersection. I’m also familiar with the fact that the master mobility plan has this intersection. I’ve listed as a near term project for intersection improvements, which preliminary suggestions indicate a roundabout, which again, being familiar with the area, makes some sense to me. Traffic may actually have a different design when all is said and done.

I’m not gonna pretend to be a traffic engineer and say that that’s the only option here. But I’m concerned about approving this, where the entrance is and what that means with respect to its proximity to the intersection and the potential for a future intersection improvement that could include a roundabout and have an access to a convenience stop, meters from a roundabout. So through you, Chair, I need to hear from staff why from a transportation perspective, they’re recommending this when the area is due for a major intersection upgrade in the very short term as we just approved in the master mobility plan and with the volume of vehicles coming in and out of here. And frankly, to Councillor Hill here’s point about a new fire hall being immediately across the road where emergency vehicles are going to need immediate access to get in and out of their site safely.

Why would we consider a high traffic destination like a Tim Hortons or a gas station be approved to this location? I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair. Transportation staff is okay with the zoning moving forward at this point because we do have the site plan approval process.

We have been coordinating with the project team for the roundabout and we’re looking at restricting the accesses to this location so it’ll only be right in, right outs, potentially. But how we move forward is we’re not going to approve the site plan until that design is established and we know exactly what it’s gonna look like and where those accesses will be the most appropriate. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so I just gotta follow up with the clarification point just so I make sure I heard you correctly.

So the site plan approval will actually not be granted until the design on the intersection improvements is complete. Is that correct? I’ll go to staff. Yes, we need to have good indication of what that design looks like.

We finalize to a point where we’re comfortable moving forward with the site plan and the access locations shown for that particular site, you know. Deputy Mayor. Okay, that makes me much more comfortable hearing that. I do not want to get into a battle two years down the road about a roundabout going in and then not having sufficient land or having to restrict what was previously unrestricted as to write in, write outs.

Hearing that answer, I’m more comfortable pursuing this moving forward. Just feedback for the future really just meant as a perhaps where we have these intersection improvements indicated in the master mobility plan. Perhaps we can reference those in future staff reports just so that we know that there’s the convergence of the two plans. I really appreciate the answer.

It makes me feel much more comfortable approving this ‘cause I had visions of some real traffic nightmares of fire trucks and Tim Hortons customers trying to get in and out in the middle of a roundabout construction. So I’m more comfortable hearing the process that staff are saying will be in place. Councillor Hill here. Yes, just so we have this.

When can we receive an update on when a roundabout will be done? Go staff. The information that I’ve been given so far is it’s tentative for 2027 construction. Councillor?

Further comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, we have a motion. Moving to second, I’ll call the vote. Yeah, so Stevenson votes yes.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on, three point eight. This is regarding 10 Marley Place.

I’ll call the vote and opening the public participation meeting. Vote yes. All right, yeah. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, now I’ll look for the applicant to address committee. Please, sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of committee.

My name is Dan Murphy. I’m a planner with Civic Planning and Design. I’m here today on behalf of TKFV Holdings Inc, the owner of 10 Marley Place. I’m also joined by one of our firm’s partners, Jersey Smalleric.

The application before you proposes a 2.58 unit stack townhouse building located at the rear of the property. In addition to the retention of the existing heritage home, which is currently being converted to a four unit building, this brings a total number of residential units on the site to 12. The stacked townhouses represent a modest and appropriate form of residential intensification that aligns with the scale and function of the surrounding neighborhood while making for efficient use of existing land and infrastructure. The site’s depth surrounding context, which includes a surface parking lot immediately to the east and stacked townhouse permissions to the north.

In addition to the retention of the existing heritage building, we represent unique conditions that support the proposed special area policy without creating a broader precedent for itself. Through the placement of the stacked townhouse building at the rear of the site, we’re able to main 22 of the 26 onsite trees and provide for enhanced landscaping within the front and side yards, which will further buffer neighboring properties and respect the existing historic streetscape on Marley Place by screening the proposed area and townhouses from Marley Place. We are requesting a site specific R5 zone with seven special provisions. Six of those seven special provisions will ensure compatibility with the surrounding low rise homes, including a reduced building height and a larger parking setbacks and enables the converted heritage home to remain as a legal use.

Lastly, community engagement was a key component of this process in addition to hand delivering over 170 postcards to surrounding residents and hosting a virtual public open house in February 2025. We also met in person with community members during Councillor Frank’s December Town Hall event and stemming from those conversations we held follow up conversations with Old South Community Association to walk through our concept plan, explain the planning rationale and respond directly to questions raised by residents. We’d like to thank Michaela Hines and the rest of planning and development staff for their work in this application. We are fully supportive of the staff recommendation and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address. Please, sir, give us your name and your five minutes.

Good afternoon, my name is William Pole with Pole Associates Inc. I’m here on behalf of residents on Marley Place. The recommendation that the neighbors would like to put forward is refusal of the special policy for stock townhouses on a local street, approval of townhouses for a maximum of eight units. We agree with the building height, parking setback, but we request that the parking minimum be increased to one per unit.

Furthermore, the considerations for details should incorporate neighborhood, neighbors and staff in their consideration. Notwithstanding the comments you heard today with respect to neighborhood participation, you will note that on your agenda today, there’s over 20 articulate, informed and passionate comments responding to the application. Pole Associates has submitted an additional item on the agenda of today and I’ll just go quickly through the slides. First of all, the community is suggesting a small conceptual design change where the exact same number and layout of buildings can be attached to the existing residential building.

This approach has been done in other locations in the city of London to favorable responses. This will allow better protection of trees, not only on the site, but specifically on adjacent sites. It will reduce the impact on the Heritage Conservation District and more importantly, this will be a better form and fit consistent with the official plan policies. Slide number two, one of the criteria for the special policy is that it will not set a precedent.

In fact, just down the street at 25 Marney Place is exactly the same situation. It’s on a neighborhood street, the same lot area, same lot frontage, backs onto parking and is in a Heritage Conservation District. This approval of this site will set a precedent. Slide three looks at the potential to set precedents throughout the Old South community.

I’ve identified 16 separate sites that would be eligible for eight stacked townhouse units, seven of which are in the old, Warly Village Old South Heritage Conservation District and eight are nine or outside of the Conservation District. So there’s actually 16 potential precedent sites. My fourth slide addresses councils and this committee’s decision to identify specific streets where street townhouses could be permitted. You intentionally did not prove them on neighborhood streets.

Within Old South, we’ve got 11 existing streets that permit stacked townhouses as permitted uses. These include neighborhood connectors, civic boulevards and rapid transit boulevards. City and staff have provided significant opportunities in Old South for stocked townhouses. And finally, my fifth slide just has a quick look at the number of residential units we’re actually talking about.

The community recognizes that infill is important and they’ve accepted number of sites. Before the committee today, we have over 1,000 dwelling units that could be approved. Our request is to reduce the number of units from 12 to eight and that constitutes less 0.4% reduction in the number of units that the committee could recommend today. With that, Mr.

Chairman, we have done the work in terms of land use planning, both at the site, neighborhood and city scale. This project does not conform to the form and fit policies of the plan and a special policy for stocked townhouses would set a precedent for the city. Thank you, I’m available for questions. Thank you, I look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good day, my name’s Dave from you. I reside at 28 Marley Place. I did have a submission.

My family moved to Old South in 1956 and lived at various places. My current home at number 28 is the same block as number 10, just at the opposite self end, looking towards the normal school. I live beside a three-story walk up that got converted from a 19th century home that was taken down the Elmore Apartments right on the corner of Marley Place and Elmore, so what do I have to deal with? 24-hour lighting, they can adjust it and then beams in my house.

No flood, water management, no drainage. All the water from that property comes onto my property, number 26, number 24. When I do go to concerns about issues with noise, vandalism, we have a fire set behind my neighbor’s house, almost lost his truck, just things like that. I asked for a tree limbs to be cut.

Instead, I have a 120-year-old tree cut down. So I’m very well aware of what’s it like living in a house beside a right-of-way, beside a building that’s massive. When I look at number 10, yes, 103 by 120 foot lot, it’s an 1872-era property. The home is in great deal in need of repair.

I was sad to see the roof taken off when one of the chimneys lost this past November. I did not get an explanation from heritage why that happened. However, more concerning, numbers 16, a great day, property, right beside number 10, beautiful wooden structure, award-winning renovations, context to the street. The street has six homes on the east side, nine homes, on the west side.

One of the infills, unfortunately, is modern and doesn’t conform. It’s out of scale. It sits too far forward. However, family is also fought.

Number 25, Marley Place in 1986 was supposed to become a parking lot for the medical building at Worley Road. We thought that that home was not torn down and turned into a parking lot. Number 21, Marley Place was supposed to be a four-condo unit in the late 1999-2000 era. It was not approved because of scale context.

Instead, a neighbor came and perfectly matched an infill house, scale, size, everything. In fact, he got penalized because his bricks were a little bit too yellow. One man laid the entire bricks for that house. That house fits.

The proposal of stacked house town housing is out of scale, out of scale from standing at the sidewalk, out of scale from the neighbors’ backyards, especially those on Bruce Street, a shadow plan study. I’ve seen for the tower going up on right out, the Mayfair Building. We’re already gonna lose our sunrises. That’s gonna be a densification on intensification.

Parking, ideal with not being able to have parking. The only place I can park is in my backyard. It’s already hard enough to get a on-street parking if you’re loading groceries or doing something temporarily. The size of that house, double stacked, it’s not allowed because it doesn’t fit.

The heritage from that 2014-2015, Natsuki Tofsky study shows why it doesn’t fit. Too big, too large, out of character. I apologize. I’m gonna finish up by saying, I think one level, maximum nine meters to the middle of the roof is fine.

But we’re asking for trouble here. And once Eureka has a straight, it’s wrecked forever. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I’ll look for their speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hello, my name is Greg Langto and I live at 16 Marley Place. My property is directly south of 10 Marley sharing 226 feet of lot line.

This proposal conflicts with the Warly Village Heritage Conservation District and the London Plan by directing high-intensity, high-mass development into a low-rise residential area where it is not appropriate. The HCD Plan clearly directs intensification to areas such as right up street, not Marley Place. The approval of a zoning amendment and site-specific policy would undermine established planning principles and weaken the heritage district. Marley Place’s location on the boundary of the HCD should not be used as a rationale to justify this application.

I urge the committee to consider an alternative design that places the new development directly behind the existing structure, significantly reducing impacts to streetscape. A similar approach exists at 211 and 213 Warly Road where additional units were added to the rear while maintaining neighborhood character. This is exactly what the HCD calls for. There has been little discussion about the architectural style of the stacked town homes.

I’d like to encourage the developer, the planners, and heritage staff to design and approve a building that would commemorate the existing carriage house at the rear of the property. That structure does have an appropriate design for a building that would have served the residents of 10 Marley Place in the past. A gambrel roof with gambrel dormers would reflect that history better and better fit the neighborhood. Heritage is more than just using wood siding and avoiding vinyl products.

It’s blending the new one with the old and this was certainly checked out box. I like to address the parking as it’s proposed on the site plan. All parking stalls point directly at my home and property. I would appreciate some consideration for my privacy so I’m requesting to have all the spots relocated.

The soundproofing of my heritage home is less than ideal. The vibrations and sounds of vehicles coming and going with lights flashing into my kitchen and dining room from only 10 feet away will be felt and heard throughout my home. This will forever be intrusive. Also, I’d like to point out that there are two structures that are no longer present on my property that would have acted as a buffer.

Those two structures are referenced as being present in the documentation on the application even though they did not exist as of November of 2024. The Stafford Port is recommending that the parking setback increased from 1.5 to two meters. Although appreciated, I am still advocating that the parking be removed entirely from the side yard and positioned directly in front of the anticipated development to the rear of the property. I also have concerns about the proposed garbage location which is immediately adjacent to my workshop where I spent a great deal of time with the door open.

I asked that garbage be relocated elsewhere on site. I provide a suggested revisions for both parking and garbage placement in my December 2nd feedback letter. There are two boundary trees at 191 Bruce and 89 Rideout that require protection. 89 Rideout is directly behind me.

Their canopies extend into the development area where root zones would likely be damaged by excavation and construction activities. Any loss or decline of these trees would further erode neighborhood character in the established tree canopy. Residents are not opposed to change or investment in Wortley Village. We are asking that it occur in a way that respects the scale, character, and history of our neighborhood.

Marley Place is a small residential street where people have invested time and money into their homes on the protections of the HCD and the London Plan. Approving this application would erode those protections, alter the character of the street and diminish my quality of life. A more appropriate form of development is possible and I feel the to the committee to seek those out and rework this application. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have 30, sorry, five things. Can you give me 30 seconds?

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee and thank you for the chance to speak to everybody. My name’s Michelle Collins. I live on Bruce Street. The rear of my property joins the site on 10 Marley Place and has already been previously said by the previous speakers.

There are a lot of concerns about the development as is in it not fitting into the characteristics of the neighborhood or the fact that we are a heritage district. Of great concern to myself is the reduction of the interior side yard setbacks. I am the owner of one of the trees. I have a maple tree that is quite big.

The circumference of this tree is two metres and 79 centimetres. And this gives an approximate diameter of 88 centimetres. This was not accurately reflected in the arborist report that’s been put forth as part of the planning process. They reduced that to 80 centimetres based on an estimate.

For the species of this maple tree, this would put the diameter based on age at approximately 150 year old tree. So you’re looking at tree that’s about the same age as the actual heritage property that is on 10 Marley Place. The site proposal with the reduced setbacks is planning to excavate into the interior critical root zone and build up what’s into the canopy of this tree. This is going to cause significant injury and likely kill my distinct tree and what is also a neighbourhood attribute.

Trees of this magnitude form part of our urban forest. The benefits of urban forest are significant and well documented in numerous studies. Urban forest themselves are important for infrastructure systems. They provide benefits to neighbourhoods like temperature regulation, reducing air pollution, providing habitats for multiple species.

They improve our health and mental well-being and they enhance walkable communities which Watley Village is well known for. Damaging such an old growth tree of the significance is not in keeping with the goals and the mission of the London urban forestry strategy. With the reduced side backyard setback, there’s not going to be enough space, not only for the tree itself to be survivable, but proposed plantings for the development that are supposed to happen on the site of 10 Marley Place, being on the north side of the property, are not actually going to be very viable. The tree protection plan that was put forth on the development plan has the excavation within the interior critical root zone, not just the full root zone.

This section of a root zone is where the structural integrity of trees is most important. So we’re not looking at just damaging some tree roots. We’re looking at this tree is going to become possibly a hazard and on the way to dine off. The usual setback or a quiet setback for an end wall that contains no windows to habitable rooms is 4.25 meters.

And noted that this has been a concern that with this additional reduction of setback be a problem. And I think adhering to you, what is your standard setback of that 4.2 meters would help to mitigate a lot of the problems, not only with the tree on my property, but the adjoining trees on other properties such as on 16 Marley Place and along the back of that right out street property. Placement of the building itself at the rear of the lot, the parking in the front of the proposed townhouses, removal of onsite trees, damage to neighborhood trees, all of these are having negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood and surrounding streets. The way that the site proposal has been put forward will not oppose to having site proposal back there and having a building back there.

The way things have been set out, it doesn’t seem to adhere very well to the heritage conservation district land that we have set out for Woodley Village and Old South neighborhood. I like Council to consider the fact that as it’s been put forth, this is just not a very good fit for what’s being proposed. Thanks. Thank you.

Now look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hello, my name is Neil Shipley. Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to speak.

I live at 23 Marley Place, excuse me, a few doors down from the subject property at 10 Marley Place. I’m gonna get personal just for a sec, but it’ll circle around to something more meaningful. I met my wife in Toronto. She grew up in East York, a fantastic Toronto neighborhood.

I talked her into moving here under one condition to live in Old South. We fell in love with the neighborhood immediately. I’m from North London, but I love the Old South today. It’s character, diversity and liveliness.

Obviously, it’s a place that I hope to call home for the rest of my life. I’ve welcomed three young boys into the home today. I’ve worked with inheritance in the existing rules to complete a complete renovation of the home inside outside and I’m considering additional investments today. Moving to Old South, there are certain rules, certain requirements that we all sign up for effectively signing a contract from zoning, heritage and other bodies.

These rules are in place for a reason. And all I’m asking for you today is if you’re going to change those rules, please make sure there’s justification. I think what we heard today is they can develop on the property today without changing rules. William shared an example and it’s in this slide deck.

We’re talking about all these exceptions, all these changes to allow for four additional homes. And as William mentioned, that’s less than 1/2, 1% of the total homes on the agenda today. On the opposite side, you’ve seen the direct local community concern through the letters. William referenced 20.

The gatherings of neighbors as part of the OSCO. There’s a separate meeting as part of the OSCO committee where I don’t know 40 or 60 people probably showed up. And you’ve heard today from a bunch of neighbors today with the concerns and one thing’s obvious when I share with my neighbors, a passion and a pride for the neighborhood and we’re here because we love the neighbor. It’s a special part of the city.

Anyways, I’m also confident you’ll be posed with similar questions in the future. William referenced some similar properties and I happen to live exactly beside one of them. That’s referenced a couple of different times today. 25 Marley Place, it’s a beautiful home.

On the same size property as the 10 Marley Place we’re talking about today, these decisions you make today matter. And again, all I’m asking is that if you’re going to change your rules, make sure there’s justification to do so. And we’ve seen opportunities for them to develop this land without changing any rules as they exist today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Am I on here?

My name is Dave Hutchison. I live at 171 Bruce Street. I’ve lived in that century home and spent a lot of money over many years doing what my neighbors have talked about, trying to keep in touch with our heritage district. Sympathetic is the word that I use.

We have a great passion and a neighborhood we’re all concerned about the fit, form and size of this building as it’s proposed and the request for a change in zoning that should not happen in this heritage district. It will set a precedent and it’s not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. We do welcome intensification, certainly, but it has to be appropriate and adding in 12 units on this size lot is not appropriate. And I look forward to this committee to negate the request for a change in zoning and for the developer to come back with other plans and consult thoroughly with the neighborhood and the local old South Community Organization in working towards a design and look that we do feel proud of to welcome into Wortley Village old South.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

There’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone. So I’ll open the vote to close the PBM. Mr.

Stevenson, second call for Councillor Stevenson. I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members.

Mr. Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I know our word Councillors with us and has their hand up.

So the frame of the discussion, I’m happy to put the motion on the floor. I believe Councillor Frank has an amendment she wants to make as well, which I’ve indicated I’ll happily put on the floor for her. But in order to give the word Councillor an opportunity to talk, I’ll put the motion on the floor unless you’re gonna go to staff for any of the questions that came up from the PPM. Do you want to, okay.

So if you put the motion on the floor, if the Councillor has an amendment, we’ll go through the amendment process. Okay, gotcha. So I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Councillor Hillier has seconded.

So now would you like to speak to it or I’ll look to committee members if you’d like to go to the word Councillor, that’s fine. Yeah, I’m prepared to hold and let the word Councillor go first. Councillor Frank. Thank you, much appreciated.

As I know, I’m not a member of the planning committee. I just wanted to start off with a couple comments and some questions. So I wanted to first off, thank staff and the many residents who’ve taken the time to come out to provide thoughtful, eloquent and detailed feedback. I think that the volume of emails you saw and I received more that weren’t on the agenda as well as the passion you see demonstrates the care that these residents have for the neighborhood and for the Heritage District.

And I think the pride that they have in the community. So I just wanted to, again, thank them for taking that time. And I also wanted to add that I have only heard positive feedback about repurposing and restoring the existing heritage home, which has, will have four residential units. So I just want to highlight that the preservation of that building is strongly supported from the community.

And I appreciate the commitment to rehabilitating it. Although I have heard some concerns about how that process is going. So I look forward to the end result. I did want to ask a couple questions.

First, to heritage staff. As there’s no outstanding heritage permit for the potential town homes. And I have heard concerns from residents about what the final product will look like given the renderings look like just a giant massing. I’m wondering what the town homes would look like if they’re approved and how would they be able to align to the conservation district.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you for that question. And through the chair, a heritage alteration permit is still required as it is a new building in the Wortley Village Old South Heritage Conservation District. What’s being established through this process is the building envelope, if you will.

So the heritage alteration permit application will be able to go into much more detail in terms of how that building is finished or decorated. Of course, this scope and extent of the heritage conservation district only affects the outside. But what we’re anticipating to see and discuss further through the heritage alteration permit process are those exterior materials and finishes. We heard comments and I’ve heard them before too about something that can fit in.

Perhaps something with a gambrel style roof. But those are all details that we can consider and review for compatibility with the Wortley Village Old South Heritage Conservation District Plan through the heritage alteration permit process. As staff do recognize that this is a substantial alterations to major change for this property. Staff are anticipating that this will proceed through the regular process not delegated.

So that means that the community advisory committee on planning would be consulted. There would be a report on the consent agenda for the heritage alteration permit at this committee and ultimately municipal council will be able to make a decision to approve with terms and conditions or to refuse that heritage alteration permit application. It’s not a public participation meeting, but it is certainly a process that is as public awareness in terms of being posted on those public agendas. Councilor.

Thank you, yes. I think it’s important for people to know that essentially there would be a second process and that council could refuse the permit if they don’t feel that the heritage district’s plans have been achieved. My second question is regarding boundary trees. So I’m just wondering if an adjacent neighbor does not agree to removing their boundary tree.

Is the building able to be built if that, with the building and the excavation would impact said tree? Additionally, are there to be protections that the drip line for those trees? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, boundary trees do require consent from both property owners to remove.

That would be taken at site plan, which is the time that the tree preservation plan is reviewed and approved. If that consent is not obtained, then the boundary tree cannot be removed and the development would have to be redesigned to ensure there’s no damage done to that tree. Councilor. Thank you.

And just to the follow up, when protecting existing trees on site, are the protection lines drawn at the drip line for the trees? I just wanna make clear ‘cause I noticed there’s some discrepancy between drip line and root lines. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair and reviewing the comments from our landscape architect, it does appear that the fencing is to be brought to the drip line.

But again, that’s a matter that would be reviewed through site plan. Councilor. Thank you. That’s a lot to be clarified for residents.

So I’ll just start off with a couple of comments as well. In principle, many people know I’m generally supportive of sensitive infill and neighborhoods, especially in this specific instance where it conserves heritage assets and contributes to our housing targets, which we have been working very hard on. And that being contingent on the development actually being compatible within the context of a heritage conservation district. We’ve heard that residents have concerns regarding the scale, massing, height, parking configuration, the loss of trees, setting a precedent in the overall fit of this proposed stack town homes.

And while there’s general acceptance from the community for density, we heard that many residents feel that the current proposal is too intense for this location. And I can appreciate those perspectives from residents and them sympathetic because I know living beside a construction zone, especially one that people do not feel is a good fit would be difficult. Should this application move forward through planning and to council, I would like to see continued dialogue. And as we’ve heard from staff members in regards to tree protections, in regards to ensuring alignments to conservation district guidelines and trying to minimize any visual or physical impacts on adjacent neighbor properties.

Because I feel like we have heard from residents that those are genuine concerns and there are a variety of different paths that can pursue to remedy them. Additionally, again, I’m generally supportive of infill because it uses our existing infrastructure and services. It’s more cost effective for existing taxpayers. It supports our climate targets and creates a greater diversity for different housing types.

We talk a lot about the gentle density and the missing middle that we are missing out to try and achieve some of the housing types that we want in the city. And so this proposal does address some of those. And I have supported stack towns in ward 11 in the past as well as well as nine units on baseline road west as recently as last month. So I just wanna highlight that we also heard residents are supportive of infill.

Again, them feeling that this is a little bit too much. For me, putting the units at the back of the property, restoring the existing heritage property and adding significant landscaping to block the view of the parking address some of my concerns that I’ve had. And I will say there are some comments in regards to precedent setting. My person is a counselor take each application individually and evaluate them on the merits of the application.

So I do hear that there’s some concern approving this would allow for other applications across old south to move forward. But I believe that every application stands on its own merits. So I can understand the concern for that. But again, would view any application on its individual own merits.

I think we have heard from staff in the report that they generally feel that in regards to heritage, in regards to the intensity and form these do align and are able to be approved through the existing HCD guidelines that we have for the area. And they have identified that this is a well-suited location for intensification because it’s a close to a transit route. And old south is sprinkled with examples of quirky infill and a variety of building types, which is part of the joy that I think some of the residents have said of being in a neighborhood that isn’t exactly cookie cutter homes, things don’t all look the same. And I have also spoke with residents across old south who don’t live immediately adjacent to Marley Place, and a lot of those folks were generally supportive of infill projects.

So that all being said, should this application move forward at planning? I did ask the deputy mayor to include a site plan condition to ensure parking and garbage are located in the best place to minimize issues for adjacent neighbors. We heard some concerns regarding that. But since I’m not a member of the committee, I will request that he move that if he is still willing.

OK, Councillor, thank you. Then I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Yeah, so I am willing to move the amendment for Councillor Frank that would add an additional clause to the site plan authority consideration that would ensure parking and garbage storage is designed to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. I’ll look for a seconder for that.

Councillor Cudi is seconded. So the clerk is loading it into eScribe right now. I’ll let you know what’s there. Sorry, Chair, and through you, if it’s of assistance to the clerk.

So that would be— so we’d be adding a new clause C-I-V. Refresh, and you should see it there. Please look it over and see if that’s the intention. That captures my intent, although I’m going to look to Councillor Frank to confirm that he’s capturing her intent.

Yeah, I see her hand up. I will go to Councillor Frank. Please go ahead. Yeah, I’m getting the thumbs up from the Councillor.

Did you want to speak to it, Councillor? No. No, sorry, those are holding it. Thank you.

OK. So we’ve got the amendment worded correctly. So any comments or questions before I call the vote on that? OK.

We got that amendment moved and seconded. That’s called a vote on that one. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. OK, so I’ll look to the mover and the seconder to move as amended and the seconder, both the Councillors and Deputy Mayor is reading.

OK, while the clerk is doing that, we’ve got motion moved and seconded as amended. And I’ll look for speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So through you, Chair, the questions to staff, specific to a couple of things that were raised here, I don’t know whether the alternate design that Mr. Pole presented was shared with the applicant or not.

But if we were into a scenario— and that’s really a private matter between his representation of the residents and the applicant— but if we were in a scenario where, for example, the boundary tree consent was not obtained, and so a redesign has to happen, would that not to presuppose the heritage piece, which I appreciate Mr. Ganyu sharing that that will come back as a separate process? But if the design were to change substantively where the building was moved to be in alignment with the rear of the existing property, would that need to come back to us through the planning process? Or would that be something that, through site plan, you would deal with because it’s something like consent on a boundary tree as one example wasn’t obtained?

So that’s my question to staff is, should an alternate design need to be pursued? Would this zoning cover that? Or would you see that as substantively different that would require it to return here? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, through this process, we’re essentially just establishing the building envelope. If it’s determined through site plan that this design cannot be achieved, it wouldn’t necessarily preclude development of the site. It may trigger additional variances, but if a new design is needed to accommodate those additional site plan considerations, it wouldn’t necessarily require a full rezoning, but relief may be required in other ways, like a minor variance. Deputy Mayor.

And understanding that the province has also changed some of the thresholds for minor variances. And some of it’s now delegated authority. And some of it is just an as-of if it’s within a certain percentage. Would that then mean that potentially it’s just the variances are within the threshold that the province has said is acceptable?

And if they’re not, it would go through a committee of adjustment process then, or what would that process be with the variances? Go stop. Recognizing that, sorry, just recognizing that we’re not capturing those in a ZBA today. So if there were further variances, this committee of adjustment, the mechanism for relief to those other staff?

Through the chair, it’s hard to say. If it’s a setback, then it could, within that 10% threshold, permit it under the Planning Act, then it could be permitted as a right. If it’s a different regulation that isn’t captured through those regulations in the Planning Act, then it could require additional relief through either a minor zoning by law amendment process or committee of adjustment process. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Appreciate that. I recognize the province is kind of creating some moving targets for us. So understand you can’t be precise with that because you don’t know what the variances might be at this point.

My other question for staff through you, chair, would be, I think, directed to Mr. Ganyu and follow up to his comments, although the heritage alteration permit would be a consent item on a future agenda, which, as consent is not a public participation meeting, that still would not preclude residents from providing written comment through, once the agenda is public, they’ve had a chance to see it. They could then provide comment to us through that heritage alteration permit process as well, correctly, even though it’s not standing in the gallery and having five minutes to speak, they could still make submissions on the staff recommendation on the heritage alteration permit. I’ll go staff.

I thank you through the chair, yes, that’s correct. And I would just add that, and I don’t want to wish to speak for the chairperson of the community advisory committee on planning CACP, but it has been their practice in the past to receive comments from the general public. The CACP is a more casual committee as an advisory committee than PAC and council, of course. Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, I just, I saw Ms. McNealy’s hand, so. Ms. McNealy, go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair, I’d also like to add that at any time the public could also request delegation status, and it’s up to committee to decide whether or not they hear those members of the public. Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, so to me, the concerns are largely still to be addressed, I think, as I supported Councillor Frank’s recommendation, definitely understand why there’s a desire to make sure that the parking’s clearly separated from the adjacent property and the workshop that the resident has there.

I know they’re right up abutting the property lines in both circumstances, so pretty close to it. So hopefully we can see some sort of mitigation measure there. I know the council had indicated she’d spoken to the applicant about perhaps some flexibility and they indicated that they could look at that. So with respect to the boundary trees, that is a concern for me.

I understand that there’s a consent process that has to be followed through with the resident who has the boundary tree partly on her property. Certainly 150 year old tree is not something that’s replaced by just planting a new one. So hopefully that this can be arranged to protect that tree ‘cause that has to be a consideration in this instance. I will say again, and I said it on the previous application, and I’m gonna have some discussions with staff and follow up further on this in the course of the next few months, but obviously, there’ll have to be some discussion at council as well.

But I am concerned that again, we’re seeing an area where it meets the parking minimum, it meets the 0.5. So from a planning perspective, we don’t have grounds to refuse it for insufficient parking. But personally, I’m very concerned that we’re continuing to see these developments come through that don’t have a one-to-one ratio where the expectation becomes park on the street or park in one of the spots that’s available while somebody else is at work and hopefully your shifts are overlapping and changing and so you won’t interfere with one another. It wasn’t the intent when we passed a 0.5 parking minimum ratio to create these sorts of situations.

So I feel like right now our hands are kind of tied by the fact that we have approved them, it is policy, but we’re again seeing another application that’s below a one-to-one and that is a concern for me. I know Marley Place, I have friends who live in the area, I do business with a business in Wortley Village as well. So I’ve driven both Elmwood and Bruce regularly. I know the on-street parking that’s available already is fairly well utilized by the existing residents and the existing patrons of businesses.

So I am concerned when we see the idea that on-street parking will absorb or we would just won’t have tenants who will have cars, which in some cases you can market to that, but it’s gotta be in a way that makes sense. Maybe that’s the purpose of the ARU. There’s an expectation perhaps that not everybody in the ARU will have a car. I know the downtown or the Wellington Road Gateway is relatively nearby, but it’s still a fairly good hike from Marley Place to Wellington Road.

So I’m just sharing that I’m continuing to be concerned about these developments where there’s not enough parking. I’m gonna have to talk to staff about processes that we use to revisit some of these decisions ‘cause it might be legal, but it’s not meeting the intent of the decision we made a couple of years back. And so I just wanted to share those thoughts as to the situation here ‘cause I understand the residents concerned about not enough parking and what that will mean in the neighborhood. Look for other comments, Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you again, Mr. Chair. For recognizing me, I know I’m not on the committee, but I’ve been listening very intently and I really appreciate the public being here and listening to your comments as well as the Board Councilor as well. And I appreciate the work that’s being done in the recommendation.

There’s a number of concerns still to be dealt with as we go through the site plan process. But what I’ve heard from the public is privacy and buffering is a big part of this development. And I too am concerned that given the decrease in setbacks as well as the recommendation in CIII, which is to allow for enhanced all seats and landscaping beyond the requirement, again, we have the boundary tree consideration. So I’m trying to picture how this is all going to work as it goes through the site plan process.

And maybe the question is very similar to the deputy mayors. As the application goes through the site plan process and it is determined there is not enough room for enhanced boundary, the boundary tree. Would that come back to us? It’s got nothing to do with the app.

And again, would it be a rezoning or a minor variance in terms of if it’s not working to allow for these recommendations in particular the buffering, then what happens? Board staff. Thank you through the chair. There’s a lot of moving parts to some of these developments.

And at the end of the day, we had one on Fanshawe Council that you may remember. And in that case, in particular, they had to lose a unit to accommodate or lose a parking space to accommodate a distinctive tree and protecting the tree roots. ‘Cause that’s the drip line. It’s the 80% to protect that tree.

So that’s part of that evaluation through the site plan process. Unless it goes through needing a minor variance, it won’t go through a public process. It’s the matter for the approval authority, site plan approval authority to consider and evaluate and ultimately make that recommendation. Councillor.

I’m glad to hear that there’s still some checks and balances. And I think it’s important that the public understands that as we go through that process, especially given I think there are a number of things that we haven’t really understand how it’s going to all work given the recommendations. And even the amendment, how that is going to work. So it will be interesting.

And I’m glad we have those checks and balances to make sure with the issues, items in the recommendation that they’re adhered here to, I think that’s really, really important. So I’m glad to see the amendment come forward as well as the other amendments here as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Look for other comments or questions. Councillor Rama. Thank you and through you. First, I wanted to take a moment to thank the public that came out today to provide their feedback.

This is a beautiful street. And while you were speaking, I was just online looking at the houses and their glory. And I’ve driven on the street a few times and been able to take in the neighborhood and really do appreciate the character of the neighborhood. And as we talk about our need to increase units and housing in the city, we also have to remember that these are investments, these are significant pieces of property that people own that have spent time and lots of care with.

And I appreciate the stories of that care and that time that people have taken because I think that it helps to again, shape the narrative of why we do what we do. The matter before us here is something that we’ve talked about quite often in the last little while about how to address the issue of the missing middle and where that missing middle makes sense. And for me, in this particular case, I do see some challenges with this development and some things that I personally can’t get behind. The lack of parking is one of them, as I spoke to on 465 Callaway as well.

But more importantly, I think it’s the form of this, of housing that’s contemplated. I do think that the residents of the area, the Community Association have taken the time and have contemplated different ways forward. And I do think that the developer needs to understand that these processes work best when we work together as a community to find the right solution for the neighborhood as well as for the developer in the end because at the end of the day, their product sits and their product sells and someone has to live there within that neighborhood and fit into that community. And this is ultimately about community.

So although I appreciate the amendments that are here before us, I think that there is a possibility to address more of those concerns. And one of the challenges I have with a lot of these things just going to site plan is that that really throws that responsibility back to the site plan authority and staff and it takes away the ability for council to be involved and it takes away our ability to act as an advocate in a sense at times. And I think that for me is a challenge because that means that we have to make sure that we get all those pieces that need to go into site plan right at this moment. So I heard and listed all the concerns that were addressed in the communication that was provided.

I don’t think that in our amendments and in site plan, all of those concerns are addressed, not saying that everyone would be, but I do think that we need to give more thought to these types of proposals and whether or not they fit and are in context with every single neighborhood. In my opinion, this isn’t the right one for this neighborhood. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

As colleagues were talking and as I was listening to Councilor Hopkins and then to Councilor Raman, very quick consultation with Councilor Frank. We’d like to add an additional amendment. And I’m gonna need staff’s help to make sure that the language is correct. Sorry to clerks, we clearly have holiday rustiness ‘cause we haven’t gotten all the language to you in advance today, but we’d like to add a clause that makes the site plan process a public site plan process.

So that as these issues are being dealt with, members of the public have a chance to see what options are being looked at to address the boundary tree, to address perhaps changing the direction of the building so that it’s closer to. So it would add another public piece. And I’m just not sure whether we need to, how, where in the recommendation it needs to be put, but that the site plan process be a public one. So if through you, Chair, Ms.

McNeely can perhaps provide us some advice, Ms. McNeely? Thank you, through the Chair. My suggestion would be to include direction to the site plan approval authority to hold a public site plan process or meeting, that which would be a public participation meeting through Planning Environment Committee.

And I would suggest that that clause be added in prior to direction on the matters that are listed for the site plan approval authority to consider. Is that your intent, Deputy Mayor? Yes, so what I’m hearing is there would be, the C clauses would get renumbered and there’d be a new C1 that would, that the site plan approval authority be directed to hold a public site plan meeting. Ms.

McNeely. Through the Chair, I would suggest a new clause C and then C and D be renumbered. Deputy Mayor. Okay, we can do that.

So we’ll add a new clause C. So the current clause C will become clause D. The new clause C would direct site plan authority or civic administration. Ms.

McNeely. Civic administration. So a new clause C, the civic administration be directed to hold a public site plan engagement process or public site plan meeting. Okay, the clerk is wordsmithing that, I’m just gonna wait to have her put it up before we look at a seconder and proceed.

So let’s just take a breath there. And I will say to the Chair and clerk and to the members of the public with apologies, we were really checking last minute to see if the province had changed the rules on us or not ‘cause they have been changing a number of them. They have not. So we can still do a public site plan process in this case.

And so that’s apologies that we didn’t have it. The first time around, we’re kind of adding a piece at the end, but some quick research said the province still hasn’t taken away that ability for us to do that. Brains and then I’ll need a seconder for that. Councillor Cuddy has seconded that amendment.

Okay, we have a motion moved or amendment moved and seconded I’ll look for any discussion questions on that. Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. Does the site plan, does it need to be delineated?

The issue with setbacks and the adjacent properties was that well covered in the current motion? I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, can you please clarify the question? Yes, sir.

Thank you. It just in the report, it notes direct and indirect impacts to the nearby onsite and adjacent properties due to setback issues. And I’m just wondering if because normally those are dealt with in site plan, do we need to be very specific? Because as we are contemplating a public site plan discussion, I just want to know what are the extent of those discussions that can happen in public process?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, just so if I’m understanding correctly, the zoning that’s recommended before you today counts for that building envelope that we’re trying to establish here. Through the public site plan process, what that will do is hear more feedback from the public. There’s no decision by the committee.

It’s just an opportunity for more feedback based on the site plan that’s been submitted. So then that’s again, further direction for the site plan approval authority to consider. Councillor. Thank you.

Sorry, just to clarify then, so is it direction or is it just for can motions be brought forward during that public site plan process to make changes or is it only for the purpose of hearing feedback? I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. The direction would be more clarification or items for the site plan approval authority to consider.

Councillor. Thank you and through you. So ultimately the approval though, still lies with the site plan authority. It’s just a mechanism to provide more feedback, just for clarification.

Staff. Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. Councillor, other comments or questions on the amendment before meeting? Okay, I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look to see the movers and seconders are okay moving as amended as amended. Premier Lewis, it’s indicated yes and Councillor Cudi is seconded. Okay, we have a new motion as amended as amended.

I’ll look for further discussion on that, questions. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Opposing the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.9, this is regarding the holding provision is similar review update report.

Opposing the vote on opening the public participation meeting. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look for anyone from the public who’d like to address this item. This is an update from staff, anyone online.

There’s nobody online, I don’t see anyone approaching the mic. So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look for a motion from committee.

Councillor Cudi moving it. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hillier has seconded. I’ll look for comments or questions that committee members are visiting.

Councillors. Okay, seeing none, this is a comment from the chair. Thank you to staff for this update. Once again, cleaning up inefficiencies in my view and getting various things through staff consideration.

We have motion moved to seconder, I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.10, this is regarding 1040 Hamilton Road and 1050 and 1070. Hamilton Road, I’ll open the vote and opening the public participation meeting.

I was thinking about the motion carries five. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good evening, I’m Jay McGuffin, President and Principal Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants.

We’re here on behalf of MHID, the Municipal Housing Industrial Development Department for the city with regard to the proposals at 1040, 1050, 1070 Hamilton Road. This is an affordable housing project that is being brought forward. We’ve had an opportunity to review the staff report and our in agreement with the recommendations of the report. This is a thoughtful affordable housing process.

The design has been implemented to gently transition the height and the intensity of the development from Hamilton Road north into the development on a single lake road which will form sort of an urban residential complex, servicing only the units that are within the proposed development. We have provided larger than typical setbacks to buffer the surrounding community to aid in the transition of the land use in this location. The applications are supported by a series of technical studies including traffic impact assessment, hydrogeological, stormwater, and functional servicing report and tree preservation available to respond to any questions that committee may have. Thank you.

I’ll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this item. Please sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. Are there, my name is Baden Bathurst.

I’ve been a long way to have this little talk here but as this gentleman here said about tree preservation, my main objection is the two trees that are located in the green space. They used to be the playground of Fairmont Public School where my daughter was the last, one of the last students to graduate from that school. I watched her go to school every morning and come out of recess and play underneath those trees. And they’re gonna be located in a parking lot now which means they’re gonna be gone.

I’m a 93-man tool and drive. My backyard backs on to the Fairmont Public School and I enjoy my peace. I enjoy, as a veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force, I enjoy my peace of mind and my quiet and my darkness at nighttime. And the development is gonna be sticking as their plan is to be sticking stack town houses right behind my house.

So that’s what I get to look at now in my backyard. When I moved to that house 13 years ago, I was a renter at the time, but six years ago I bought the house and I’ve watched my proper device go up and with this new development, my property values will significantly go down and it will take away from the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood. We’ll establish neighborhood since the ’60s, I believe. There’s many people here that I can see from my neighborhood and we do not agree with the proposed removal of the big green space that used to be the Fairmont Public School fairground that people still use and enjoy and like— And I would just second, sir.

I’m not done by five minutes. I’m not done by five minutes, just let me talk. No, I’m just, just a second, just put you on hold. I just wanna advise the public, the sign on the door coming in and just advise folks to keep your vocal applauding, booze, vies, whatever to yourself.

So that allows people to have independent thought and a way to express their opinions. Please, sir, go ahead. No, you’re trying to, you broke my train, I thought, by saying that and not giving me the same chance to get whatever’s on my veteran brain out into my lips and into your ears, which you guys need to hear, that I will do my darndest ‘til my death day to make sure that this development is not pulled through. You guys need to leave our green space alone.

There’s a footprint already that the Fairmont Public School has left and there’s the old Bobberwood wide that’s now vacant and not being used. That can be torn down. Single family lots of Long Hamilton Road will not add to our infrastructure problem. It will not add to the traffic.

It will not add to the crime in the neighborhood, which will definitely rise up. When you start adding more than 200 people to a one single little area, affordable housing, you guys have a huge lot that’s up at the old psych hospital area. That’s almost a whole entire city block that can be well used for this affordable housing crisis that we have in the city. If you go and develop single family lots along Hamilton Road, the same depth is what we have all in that area.

There’ll be a fair amount of public being taxed revenue to the city. It will not take away our green space. It will not take away our peace of mind. It will not take away our tranquility.

It will not raise the crime in the area. I have a problem with sleeping. As a veteran with PTSD, I’m awake all night long. Not the Diwali fireworks going off in my backyard, hitting my window at nighttime at two in the morning.

You guys allowed that? Sure, whatever. But this development that’s gonna be permanent, it will not happen as far as I’m concerned. And I will stick by that.

You guys touch those trees or even think about it. And like I said, in an interview that I gave to CTV when we had our meeting back in the summer, I will be chaining myself to those trees because I am a sixth generation resident of London, Ontario. My great-great-great-grandfathers was a surveyor for child and middle six, and our family has been here, and it will be here for many more generations. So I will stand by the non-destruction of our happiness in this area.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you guys listening me. I’m sorry for being upset, but I’m very passionate about my neighborhood. Thank you very much.

We understand, thank you. Hello for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Edna Kefal.

One of the concerns that most of our neighbors have is the density going into this site. In the initial meeting, they were planning over 400 units in this particular area, which is right now, as far as I know, they still don’t have the Y property. Is that correct? Or has that changed since the meeting?

We can ask that question after. Okay, after a finish. Living in that area for 35 years, they had also told us at that meeting, they were gonna tie into the existing infrastructure, which really poses a problem, because I don’t think they’ve taken into any consideration all the development that has happened east of this site and south of this site. And maybe council should be aware too, just recently, that a 92 unit townhouse complex, south of this property, has come to a standstill.

It has stopped being developed. And further south on this property, there is a subdivision after three years that still only has a model home on it. I’ve also been recently informed that the city has a 4% vacancy rate. So the rush to start building high rises, which would not conform with the neighborhood, ‘cause there is nothing in this area that is higher than four stories.

An eight story apartment building that fronts right onto Hamilton Road on the school property would create an issue because the surrounding side streets have no, it’s bad enough now to try and turn left onto Hamilton Road from a lot of the side streets. They had in the initial meeting, they had said that there would be no change, no street lights, no nothing, other than a turning lane into the property. And also, since before this plan came up, they have to take into consideration all the traffic that comes from War Road, that comes from the industrial area, the newer industrial area by Victoria Road, there’s constant transport trucks that run up and down between Highbury and Ford’s Veterans Memorial. I know kinda, there’s the three way intersection there.

It is also a main corridor for the police, the fire, the ambulance, and believe me, we hear it anytime from first thing in the morning till two or three at night. And also, he had mentioned something about environmental studies, and I wonder if people realize that area is susceptible to a lot of underground springs, because there has been problems with some of the developments that people have tried to put in, and a lot of them have been one property, in particular by the bridge on Middle Lily, there’s numerous, numerous applications that have gone in and nothing has ever happened with the property because it is sitting basically on floodplain. They also mentioned at the initial meeting that they were building the same type of density area over by Argyle, and they wanted our city council to take some consideration into seeing how well that goes first before they try and throw another one into an area that it really doesn’t help at this point in time without considerable infrastructure repairs to Hamilton Road. And also, we’ve heard over and over, but nobody’s got any kind of confirmation if they’re actually going to put around about at war and Hamilton Road to ease some of the traffic.

That’s pretty much it. And the latest thing I heard was 4%, that the city currently has a 4% vacancy rate. So I don’t know what the big panic and push is to get this stuff built when we’re sitting with such a high vacancy rate at this time. And that was as of December, when I say.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you’ll have five minutes. My name’s Katherine Swarovski.

I live at 1049 Hamilton Road, directly across from where this new development will be. My parents bought a house in Fairmont when the houses were brand new. I raised my children in Fairmont and I lived for 27 years on Hamilton Road, directly across from where this development will be. So this has been primarily single family homes for many years.

The way that they have this set up, when Bob Hayward Y was opened, I can attest to how many accidents have been on Hamilton Road. I read the traffic impact studies. I really don’t think they’ve done enough because if you sit in my living room and I’m happy to have anyone come and sit at any time of the day, you will see near fender benders, fender benders, all kinds of traffic issues. The traffic runs down Hamilton Road, past Gore, on rush hour, it’s impossible to get out left.

The increase in the density there with minimal parking is gonna impact all the streets around. There is no where to park, where you have this development with half a parking space per person. So where do these people who have visitors or who have cars? Where do they park?

They’re gonna park on Mallory, Fairmont, which is already in Narrow Street and probably Hamilton Road. My other issue is the schools. It says geared to income, low-cost housing. Where are these kids gonna go to school?

‘Cause I’m assuming you’re gonna have a few hundred kids. Where do they go to school? You tour down Fairmont and Tweetsmere is full. So where do the kids go to school?

I mean, this is, the spaces for parking is gonna be enough of an issue. Now you’ve got people parking on the street and huge amounts of traffic. I just, I really, I can’t even see that this would be feasible. It’s just gonna be an accident looking for a place to happen.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. The gentleman up at the top right, please sir, give us your name, you’ll find us.

Thanks. My name’s Scott McCutchen. Just a couple of points. I was looking at other areas where there were schools and they got tore down.

I know in Lauren Ave, public school got tore down and they didn’t put an apartment there. It’s a park. And I also noticed that, which would park ensure with forest, they had a school there and it’s got a million dollar separate detached condos in there now. They’re not high rises.

So I would, my opinion, whatever it’s worth is, I would like to see residential housing in there. Single family homes and I think most neighbors in the neighborhood would prefer that. The eight story building is a little bit over the top and doesn’t really fit in the area. And the other point I wanted to make is Watmar, the street that’s just off of Ham Road.

It’s a dead end that runs into Strathcona. That will be opened up. My feeling is ‘cause people won’t be able to get into the neighborhood, they’ll cut through there. So I don’t really want that opened up, but it is a dead end street and it could be opened up in the future.

It’s the way I see it. But anyways, I hope you take that in a consideration like Old South. They want stuff that fits. And we would like homes in there that fit the area.

I don’t think anybody would have a problem with that. And a small park would be lovely. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name when you have five minutes. My name is Ralph Guireville. I’ve moved to London back in 2017 and purchased a house on Fairmont Ave, which backed onto the school.

Beautiful property, beautiful trees. And shortly after we took possession, heard that the school was slated to close. I do believe the plan that you have is very much gonna destroy the property values of everybody in any somewhat adjoining properties. The East London area, I feel like the last number of years, whether it be homeless or whatever else, all seems to fall on East London.

And I understand the values have been lower, but East London is the backbone of what created London, the 3M workers, the GM workers, that all these blue collar workers lived in East London, raised their families. And I feel like the city of London doesn’t care. They wanna dump what they don’t want in North London or West London in our labs. And I don’t think it’s right to do that to the people of East London.

Yeah, the density of this is just crazy. Hamilton Road is awful to try and get on to highbury, to get on to Hamilton Road. I do believe the infrastructure has to be upgraded way before they even consider putting something of this size in. And like everybody else is saying, I think it should be individual residential homes like the rest of the neighborhood is.

The green space needs to be conserved. When they built the school, the Thames Valley was instructed to had to leave the trees. And now the city comes in and well, now we can just cut them down. And it doesn’t make sense to me why what happened in 1958 is ignored now and we can just change the rules, whatever.

Yeah, I just, I don’t understand the scope of this project and why that has to be crammed into that piece of property. It’s definitely gonna destroy the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

A look for the next speaker. It’s Clerk, if there’s anyone online. That’s Reno White, if you can hear me. Yes, yes, thank you.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes, we can’t. Yeah, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Katrina White and I reside on Strathcona Drive. And I’d like to take a quick moment to say thank you to the many passionate residents of my neighborhood here today.

It brings me great joy. I’ve heard talk today from some of the counselors regarding place types and respecting high limits of the city itself set. And I really appreciate that. This proposal is not thoughtful.

It introduces five-day story apartment buildings by the density of up to 289 units per hectare in a protected neighborhood place type, which is intended for stable, low-rise residential form. I know that the Ontario Land Tribunal has repeatedly ruled that intensification in such neighborhoods must be compatible, proportionate, and transitional. Developments that create abrupt jumps in height with density, family’s tests, and constitute core planning. I feel this is the case here.

This is an abrupt change in density. It’s not gentle. Approving this project as it would require sites to specific zillany exemptions, amounting to spot intensification here. And that does not conform to the London Plan as I’ve read it.

It’s density is incompatible with privacy separation. And I don’t believe this college neighborhood transition policies. Tribunal rulings in the past may get clear that housing need does not override compactly for protection policies. I read recently that in a 2025 council did reject a 10-store proposal on Starnia Road for exceeding its neighborhood limits.

So I see that the city has respected those guidelines on place types before. And I know that the neighborhood place type again does not allow for heights of five to eight stories. I purchased my property on Strathcona Drive because at the time you lose an established low rise predictable, quiet character of the neighborhood. It supported safety, accessibility, and my well-being.

I’m neurodivergent. I admittedly am not a big fan of change. Simple why I bought such an established neighborhood. I once had not notified of this application originally.

This might be within what I feel like is an impact zone at these proposed heights. I know that the Planning Act has set a minimum notification radius, but I don’t feel that that prevents municipalities from considering larger impact areas. That’s not to say I’m against development here. I think that this is a good interval site for single family residential homes, town homes.

I know it was previously originally green space with the school. However, I would like to see development that respects the neighborhood character and place type with low density. So I request that council respect that place type zoning deny a request for something this dense. Additionally, the setbacks are as low as 1.5 meters, which is incredibly small.

I believe that will remove the privacy of those people who are surrounding this former school. And again, hurricane is a huge issue here. Apologies for the lack of remedy and thank you. Thank you.

Look for other speakers. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I thought about the intersection of Hamilton and Highbury. It’s a mess.

You can’t get out at the best of times. Rush hour traffic, it’s a joke. You’ve got to look at expanding that area before you even consider putting a new subdivision in. It makes no sense.

Just walking across the road is a major ordeal during that time if you want to go to the corner store. I mean, the road that I live on in Fairmont, they use it as a bypass. People are speeding down at it. I know it’s 40 kilometers an hour posted, but that’s a joke.

It’s 60. I’ve seen people at 80 kilometers going down that road. So just, they kind of figure out the infrastructure on the highway ‘cause it’s a mess right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Look for other speakers. So Clerk, if there’s anyone else online, okay. I don’t see anyone else coming to the mic.

So I’ll open the boat to close the PPM. Closing the boat, the motion carries back to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for community members. Pretty mayor.

So as I did with the prior application, I’m gonna put the staff recommendation on the floor, but then I’m going to leave it there. Councilor McAllister, as the word counselor, let me know he’d really like to speak to this. So I will put on the floor so we have a motion and then hold my speaking and let my word council colleague have the first crack. Okay, Councilor Hill here has seconded the motion and we’ll go to Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the chance to speak first as I’m not a member of the planning committee. I do wanna thank staff in terms of what they’ve repaired. I wanna thank all the members of the public who’ve sent in their submissions and came to speak today.

You know, on big projects like this where there’s a lot of change coming. I think it’s important obviously we have that feedback. I do have some comments, but I do wanna start with some questions. I get a lot of these questions and I think some of the members of the public asked them, but I just wanna give the opportunity for staff to clarify these things because they come up a lot.

So my first question, the roundabout question comes up all the time. That is still on the books, I believe, but I just want staff to confirm the roundabout is still proceeding. I’ll go to staff on the board. I’ll go to staff on the question if you’re in the roundabout.

Thanks for the question through the chair to confirm we’re talking about Gore and Hamilton. Yes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that’s still on the books.

It’s planned for 2027, Councillor. Thank you. And then even through the chair with the Hamilton Highway discussion, recently we had the discussion in terms of North Garbage Cleanup with Hamilton and Highbury. That is still on the books, I believe, for 2029.

But my understanding is that the mayor has also made a request in terms of Highbury being uploaded as a provincial highway. So those discussions are ongoing, but I do just want staff to confirm that Hamilton Highbury is still also on the books for the 2029 date. I’ll go to staff through the chair. Yes, that’s correct.

Highbury and Ableton is still shown as 2029 for the development charges background study of that intersection improvement. Councillor. Okay, great. And then also, and I don’t know if the consultant wants to speak to this, but in terms of the hydrological and traffic studies that were conducted, if they can just speak to that and if any concerns were raised with those.

So I’ll go to the applicant. There’s some questions regarding the hydrological studies. Can you kind of expound on that or speak to that? Yes, through you, Mr.

Chair. Understanding the hydrogiological study will be done at detailed engineering design. The geotechnical work was completed that identified the soils and depth of water, the more detailed hydrogiological element has been slated for that detailed engineering design through the subdivision process. With regard to traffic, yes, there was a traffic impact study completed.

The only recommendation coming out of the traffic impact study was the installation of a left-bound turn lane in the eastbound direction at the proposed street A, or street A, my apologies. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, and then if staff could speak to any improvements along that stretch of Hamilton Road that would be slated between these projects. So looking at that 2027 timeline to 2029.

And this would be between the hybrid. Okay, I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, currently we don’t see any development capital works planned for Hamilton Road, but we can take that question back to our transportation planning and design division and get you a firm answer prior to Council. Councillor.

Okay, thank you. Through the Chair, and my understanding from the studies that have been done to date though, that in terms of the infrastructure for that amount of residential, that we believe that it can handle that volume. I’ll go to staff. Are we talking, sorry, through the chair?

Surface like road infrastructure, underground infrastructure. Can you just clarify, please? Councillor. - Sorry, Dean.

As we’ve just talked about the above ground, I’m speaking more about the underground infrastructure. Go to staff, go to staff. Thank you, and through the chair. Yeah, that’s correct, the underground sewers and water mains may need some adjustments, but the existing capacity services this development adequately.

Councillor? Thank you, and I appreciate all those questions being answered. I think I get them quite frequently, but I do just want to make some comments that also kind of address some of the questions. One of the ones I hear a lot is in terms of, you know, when Fairmont School was closed.

That is not a decision the city made, that is a school board decision. I know there’s issues obviously with Queensmere, St. Bernadette’s, but in terms of the capacity issue, that is a school board issue. And I have had discussions with them as well, but that is something that does have to be directed through to the school board.

We didn’t have any decision made in that regard, but when the site became available, you know, we have right of first refusal as a municipality, and there is a great need in the city for affordable housing. And on that note, I do just also want to say, this would be a mixed community. What we’re looking at having is a mix of affordable units, affordability, it’s a very fluid term these days in terms of what would be available. But this is just to do the residential rezoning.

We have not yet got to the RFP stage. We don’t actually know who bid on these blocks and what that would look like. But I would say we do have examples that have already gone forward. We have the Duluth Crescent in Ward 2, which was the former St.

Robert’s Elementary School. And that was a site intensification. So I know someone I commented earlier that their former school lots have not been used in that regard, but I would say they have. And so that is an example that we do see.

And then I’d also say on Hamilton Road, we saw great success with Residencea, Talia, and Ortona. That’s a great nonprofit that was able to do some intensity on the site and provide affordable housing for seniors. And there’s nothing precluding an organization like that of applying and having another affordable housing project for seniors as we have seen on Hamilton Road just beside the property. So I think there are some great examples in terms of the affordable housing could be built on the site.

We haven’t got to that process yet. This is just the residential rezoning. So I do think that there’s a lot of opportunity and we don’t know the final makeup yet. And I do just, again, sorry, another question in terms of how we would be dispensing these blocks.

I believe we were going to do, you know, with the RFP, people would bid on the blocks and then we would review those proposals. So the individual proposals would still come before council for approval. I just want to confirm with staff that that’s the case. I’ll go to staff for that.

Thank you through the chair. My individual RFPs would come through to council for approval and approval of, I believe, with the contribution agreements as well to some degree. Thank you, Councilor. Yeah, great.

So, I mean, again, this is a conceptual proposal. We do need to rezone for residential to have any sort of development on the site, but we have not got to the RFP process. And so we don’t know what could potentially go on the site. And I would also like to comment, if you’ll refer to the site plan that’s been proposed, there is a designated green space.

That was something I definitely heard from the community in terms of maintaining parkland. And that’s something that the city was very adamant that we would maintain. So that is still, regardless of whatever it looks like, that is still there. So I just want to call that out for folks awareness.

I think I’m going to leave my comments there. I might have used up a good amount of my time. I do, again, I want to thank everyone who’s been involved with this, all the comments that have come forward. But I do want to hear from my council colleagues about what they think of the plan.

We have had other examples of this. And I do think it’s a good use of a site for intensification and to get more affordable units of a mixed background online that we do need in the city. So I’ll leave it there. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say.

Thanks. Thank you. So I’ll look for other speakers from committee members of our visiting councilors. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair. So I want to start. There was a resident in the gallery who asked the question. And so just through you, if staff can confirm, this does not include the YMCA property.

That’s still property of the YMCA of Southwestern Ontario until they decide how to dispose of it. I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair. The YMCA lands are included as part of the rezoning for this application.

This was based on a direction from council to include it to see and collaborate on opportunities for more housing in the area in addition to this development. However, the city does not take ownership of that land. We’re simply doing the zoning on those lands proactively for the YMCA’s purposes and future needs and what their intended vision for that property is. Deputy Mayor.

Okay, so it’s not our land, but because they’re developing some sort of housing proposal, we’re doing it as one rezoning rather than multiples. Hello, staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. It’s included as part of this application for the zoning by-law amendment.

It’s not necessarily being considered as part of the subdivision other than it’s adjacent to and being considered as part in the ultimate design and engineering design at the next stages of the subdivision application. Deputy Mayor. Well, and just looking at the mapping with respect to the right of way access on street A, that’s why we’re, that would also be part of why we’re doing this in conjunction with them. Good stuff.

Through the chair, that’s correct. We’re looking to improve the access if possible, depending on what the YMCA intends on doing with that in the future through the redevelopment. The plan you see is the conceptual in nature. It really is looking to identify that as early as possible for the YMCA and their future purposes.

Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you. I just needed a little bit of clarification on the YMCA property and I know that a resident did raise it. So that’s still under their decision to move forward.

I mean, they’re their own entity and they are doing some different things now in terms of their properties around the province. So what they decide to move forward with will ultimately be up to them within the rezoning that’s happening. So I’m also wondering through you to staff, if we can indicate, I know it’s a broad umbrella term as Councilor McAllister referenced. When we talk about developing affordable housing, I think it’s important if you could explain to Council and to the public, there are multiple levels of affordable housing, the 70 to 90% AMR options, the RGI that’s offered by places like London Housing and Homes Unlimited and others in that sphere.

And then there’s also the other highly supportive housing piece that’s done by specialty groups like Inwell and organizations like that. So just through you, Chair, if staff can give us an indication of the types or the range of affordable housing types that are being suggested from the housing continuum on this site. I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair.

Excuse me, as Councilor McAllister alluded to, it is a pretty broad term and it is used in unique ways. The, from our definition of affordable housing, we’re looking at approximately 80% of average market rate to fall into what we’re looking to achieve through ERFPs when we’re divesting of these properties. The term mixed community was also brought up today, which is an excellent term that we use to describe how we anticipate these communities to unfold. A couple of our RFPs have been at approximately 50% of the units to be affordable.

We’ve had one recently as low as 30%. It all depends on context of the situation. Generally, they’re looking for anywhere from 30 to 50% of the units to be affordable when those lands are divested. 80% is the minimum in the sense that there could be rents that come in lower as part of a successful proponents proposal.

However, at this point, we’re looking to achieve that 80% to achieve that next community target and goal. Deputy Mayor. Through you, Chair, I think to thank the staff for that little bit of an overview, ‘cause I think there’s a lot of misconception in the public about what affordable housing means. It’s not always going to mean rent-care to income or an indwell building where people are, sometimes paying less than $100 a month for rent out of their ODSP or their OW, just to give folks a sense.

And because the St. Robert’s School site was referenced, and that is in my ward, and I’ve been working on that project as well around Duluth Crescent and the new road that’s opening up between Duluth and Admiral and what’s happening there, which is a very similar project to what’s being proposed here. The first applicant that we have for one of the five story buildings that the zoning was approved for there, Wostell is moving forward, and that is intended to be a geared to seniors building that’s going to range from 70 to 90% AMR. Now, people think that average market rent is what you see when a new apartment is advertised.

Right now, that’s about $2,000 or $2,100 on average in the city of London, but average market rent is actually based on the total combined rent of all rental properties paid in the city, then averaged out. So in London right now, and I’m using numbers that are a little bit old ‘cause I’m using October numbers from CMHC, but that’s roughly $1,300 or so a month. So the rent at 80% would be about 1,040. So we’re talking about working folks or folks on a pension perhaps, but not talking about people who are subsisting on social assistance benefits.

That’s still going to be able to range in these units if that, in fact, is the bid that comes forward with what we heard from Mr. Pease. So I do wanna say and as someone who sits on the London Housing Board as well, I do understand people have different opinions. When people say to me though that affordable housing is going to bring crime, that’s just not something that I put a lot of weight to.

And people are entitled to their opinions, but that’s just not backed up, especially when we’re talking about rents that are in that $1,000 range. These are still people who are going to be going to work, caring for families, being involved. Again, I’ve said this three times today, and I know that it was raised by residents again on this application. The parking ratio concerns me, continues to be an issue.

I do know, and again, my London Housing Board experience here where you do have some affordable rents, you do end up with a lower parking ratio. You don’t have everybody having two cars, sometimes you have families that have no cars. I’m still a little bit concerned about the number of parking spaces that we’re being provided here. Again, I recognize it meets the planning minimums that are established, but I still have some concerns about that.

I do have to say as well, you know, and again, I know people are speaking from the heart and with passion ‘cause it’s their neighborhood, but I have to correct a couple of misperceptions. The psychiatric hospital lands are not ours. They were never ours. The fact that it was the London psychiatric hospital never meant that it was owned by the city of London.

It was owned by the province of Ontario and sold by the province of Ontario and is being redeveloped. Just as we heard with the school grounds, the city does not own purchase or demolish school grounds. That’s a decision made by the boards of education through the Ministry of Education provincially with the funding that they’re provided. Those are outside of our control.

The CMHC vacancy rate was in December, at least out of about 4%. That’s correct. The CMHC recommended range for a vacancy rate in a city for a healthy housing market, however, is in a 3% to 5% range. So it’s where it’s supposed to be right now.

And even then, when you look at the reports in greater detail, the vacancy rates increase has largely been, not exclusively, but largely been on the higher end units that are provided in more of the downtown high rise condos, not in the more affordable parts of the city. So there is still a need for housing. There’s an end of all forms from townhouses to high density residential. That’s a need across the city.

And the affordable piece though, I will say, is never gonna be filled by single family homes. It’s not a viable economic model for home building in today’s reality. And there’s a whole gamut of reasons for that, changes in building codes, labor costs, supply costs. Things are a lot different than they were when, and I live in the Pottersburg neighborhood.

I’m on Weavell Street, very similar era of homes. So it was a very different era when those homes were built in terms of the ability for those to be affordable for families versus what’s built now. Townhouses really are the new starter home in the housing market these days. So I do appreciate that this is some difficult change.

I think that the, and I recognize the attachment to the trees and the green space. And so I think it’s very important to underscore that there is green space provided here. There is tree preservation provided. It might not be that the trees that everybody wants preserve, preserve, but there is tree preservation happening here.

So the other thing that I think is worth mentioning is this draft concept. And again, ‘cause I’ve been through this, on Duluth Crescent. It’s changed over there since we approved the initial zoning. It looks different than what the original composition looked like, there’s been some changes in terms of the building envelopes, squeezing them in.

In that case, they went up one story, but they made the building much smaller so it wasn’t spread out so that they had further setbacks from the properties. Those things do happen as we get bids to come in. But right now, I think the main thing is that the city isn’t building this ourselves. We will go to partners who will look to develop these lands.

That might be a partner like Home’s Unlimited. It might be a partner like London Housing, but it might also be Residence of Affordable Housing, which is now the organization that runs Residence of Italia and Residence of Rotona, just down the road. So to me, my big concern still is where we are on the parking and that may mean through site plan, as we heard on the earlier application, might mean a couple of units get lopped off because things can’t fit properly. But that, the overall plan that we have is for the rezoning and so that’s why I’m gonna be supportive of this today.

I hear the concerns about traffic. I hope there’s some consolation taken by the fact that the roundabouts for both Hamilton and Commissioners, as well as Hamilton and Gore are on the books and coming forward when we talk about traffic that’s coming through. And I heard the comment about the speeding on Fairmont. And I have to say, and this is supported by lots and lots of decades actually of traffic impact studies, when we see cut throughs on a road like Fairmont, what we’re seeing is those are people in the neighborhood cutting through and speeding.

That’s people on Manitoulin on Tweedsmere. It’s not people who are going into my neighborhood. They’re going up Hale ‘cause it’s straight through. They’re not going around about on Tweedsmere or Manitoulin in those areas.

So if there’s traffic calming needed, then that’s something that absolutely can be worked with, with your word counselor in terms of a traffic impact study. But that traffic is coming from the neighborhood. It’s not cut through traffic. So I’ll wrap up there just saying, this is still going to be a piece that will develop as partners come forward with different bids on different blocks.

But this is the reason that we acquired these schools in the first place is for affordable housing. Thank you. Well, look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors. If the committee will permit me, if there’s a few comments, Deputy Mayor kind of summed it up in a number of aspects.

This is an opportunity for London with both the Y, not being in operation and the school. To present a tract of land right on Hamilton that can be looked at for addressing our affordable housing needs. And you know, as the deputy mayor said, there is a vacancy rate that doesn’t break it down into levels of rent. And affordability is still an issue when I first saw this, I thought this is an opportunity for seniors having trouble on a fixed income to maybe find a place that’s like an 80% of average market rent or those working and still having challenges to make the rent.

Both, a lot of folks are working at the south end. And as was mentioned, yeah, the east end is back one of our city, they grew our city from their hard work and efforts. And that’s still continuing today with Volkswagen plant coming online. It’s just south of us.

There’s gonna be people that can’t afford, quite frankly, the average rent that we have in this city. This is a good place to start. We had to start somewhere. This is a drawing that’s set out that we can now set out to tender.

And those tenderings will be brought to council to make sure they’re meeting the objectives of affordability that we set out. So I think this is an opportunity that we have to take advantage of right now with concerns that were mentioned by those folks that spoke to us today. So a good starting point. And I look forward to seeing the progress that we make and who comes forward with the interesting plans on providing homes for those that are having challenges right now to get into the marketplace.

I’ll look for other speakers, comments from many members of visiting counselors. Okay, my motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Regent Mayer-Lewis and Councillor Stevenson. I vote yes.

Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Before we get to items for direction, there’s one small point I’d like to make. 3.4 regarding 465 Callaway Road.

There was a small technical error made in the by-law that will be corrected in the report coming to council. Okay, items for direction. We’re going to 4.1 school blocks status update. We do have two delegation requests, both from the school board and from LDI.

So I’ll look for a motion to accept those delegates. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will open that vote. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Wants to go first. Mr. Puzanov, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you Chair Leland, members of the committee and visiting counselors.

My name is Ben Puzanov and with me today is Eric Miles. We are with the Thomas Valley District School Board. We wanted to thank staff for facilitating the discussions over the last while with industry partners. And for the recommendation, we are available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wall, I challenge you to be so succinct.

There is no way that that’s going to happen. I got on a plane and Dallas this morning at 7 a.m. So I could be here for this meeting. So I’m taking all my five minutes, my friends.

You have full five minutes, sir, please go ahead. I’m just glad I got here. Anyways, first of all, I also want to thank City staff, Peter, Kavizak, and his team. And also the representation of the staff of the school board.

And this was not an easy conversation. Let me just put it that way. Lots of information was provided by staff in terms of helping us get to where we are today. In brief, we are supportive of a compromise position that has been put out in option three, which is your recommendation with the six and a half years of reservation of a school block.

And the trigger that it takes place for when that time starts. And there was lots of back and forth and whether that was too long or not long enough based on your opinion. We’re here today. We’re happy with the, we’re supportive.

We accept the recommendation. I did send all council, one other additional item that staff were not able to do from there. It wasn’t part of their mandate in this piece. But I’m asking you as a council to direct your staff to look at the possibility of reviewing what the options are for school blocks that are reserved, how they are treated from a tax perspective from a municipal tax perspective.

You need to know a school and you guys can correct me if I’m not an elementary school. I wanna say is around five to eight acres. Sorry, I’m old, I still use acres. And a high school is 15 acres.

It’s a fair chunk of land. And it’s reserved for at least six of them, if this passes, which is six and a half years. And the developer pays the full cost, municipal costs for that. Now I do have one developer who takes the time to appeal to the impact every year that they’re on the block that’s reserved to try to get a reduction.

And they have gotten significant reductions. But they have to do it every freaking year to get that reduction. We’re asking you to ask staff, not a decision, to bring a report of what the options might be to look at how reserved land is treated. Remember, school boards, if they bought the property, they don’t pay municipal taxes on it.

They are tax, municipal tax-free. But they don’t own it yet. We still own it, we have to hold it. We pay the price of whatever the tax rate is that surrounds that land.

It’s not serviced. We can’t develop on it. We can’t do anything with it. So why are we paying the full tax price on it?

You would make a significant impact on that money being released to be able to be redeveloped or repurposed at other housing involvements. Because they have to set aside in their annual performa pay for those costs that they can’t do anything about. But you can’t. And so there are some options we think that the city should look at.

We don’t expect you to have any answer now, but I would ask that you ask civic administration to review the options of tax treatment of reserve school properties and new developments. And I think that’s it. Thank you very much. That is worth the trip from Dallas.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I’ll open the inside on the floor for committee and visiting councilors.

Oh, sorry, before I do that. Might, yeah, I’m going to go to staff. I just want a brief presentation of what we’re talking about both for those attending and for the public as well, my apologies. Through the chair, thanks for the opportunity.

So this report fulfills council’s June 2024 direction to review the process for acquiring school blocks through subdivision planning process and recommend improvements. It addresses the current challenges, summarizes our consultation findings and presents a preferred approach that balances this need between the school boards and development industry. Under our existing process, school boards have three years after 70% of building permit issues are reserved for school sites. School sites can be reserved through subdivision consultation process or our draft plan of subdivision process.

If the school board doesn’t purchase the property, the city then has an additional two-year option period to acquire the land for municipal purposes. While this process does provide flexibility, it can be proven problematic, especially for the local school boards, as they often cannot meet this three-year window because provincial funding requires multiple business case submissions to the province for approval. For the development industry through our consultation, they’ve referenced prolonged uncertainty with these timelines and land sitting idle with additional carrying costs, as Mr. Wallace mentioned.

Staff have also engaged with local school boards and development industry to review best practices from other municipalities. Some of our key findings highlighted that school blocks within other municipalities are typically reserved between seven to 10 years from registration and included as a draft plan condition. So from this review and each group’s preferred option, staff came forward with a balanced option, which is three, this option was agreed to by both the school boards and the London Development Institute. And what it does, it extends the school boards, purchasing window to 6.5 years from subdivision registration rather than the 70% issuance of building permits.

So this results in an additional 1.5 years for school boards to purchase the land. And what we’re doing also is changing the trigger date for when the clock starts. Currently, the trigger date is 70% issuance of building permits and we’re changing it to registration, which is a more predictable timeline. Additionally, the city’s reducing our timeframe to 90 day review period within the 6.5 years.

And then if that timeline from the school boards comes to the 6.5 years, we would just add another 90 days rather than the two years. And then further this, at the request of LDI, staff will also incorporate policy changes within our neighborhood plan project, which is slated for this year as well, to include some of that justification for school boards to reserve these blocks as well as hold annual meetings between school boards, development industry, and the city staff. So if it proves, staff will implement option three and incorporate these related policy changes. Thank you.

  • Thank you. Now I’ll go to committee, Deputy Mayor. We can do this one or two ways chair. But I think I’m just going to move an alternate motion, which is the entire recommended motion with a new clause C.

Mr. Wallace, you’ll be glad to know that your flight back from Dallas was very persuasive. The new clause C would read that civic administration be requested to explore and report back to council on any property tax options available, including but not limited to a municipal property tax exemption or property tax refund program on reserve school blocks while they are prohibited from development. I have sent the clerk that language by email so that it’s easier to copy and paste.

And if I’ve got a seconder for that, then I’ll speak to a little further. Okay, Councillor Cudi has indicated you will second that, and then we’ll just wait till we get that up to make sure it encompasses what you just described. The chair, I just haven’t received the email yet. I’m gonna blame IT for that one, ‘cause it’s showing us sent in my inbox and sent in my items folder.

I can just read it slowly if that helps. So it’s everything that’s in the option three recommendation that’s in the report, but there would just be a new clause C, that civic administration. Oh, a lot, Deputy Mayor. Oops, I’m sorry, clerk.

I sent it to the wrong email. That’s why you haven’t received it. I’ll resend that. Deputy Mayor, it says it’s sincere apologies for the embarrassment cause of the clerk today.

Completely blame it on holiday rest of this. Okay, if something is scribed, so take a look. Thumbs up, okay. So we got a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll look for speakers to this, Deputy Mayor Los. Yeah, so this isn’t gonna take me long. I think that everything that’s been outlined makes a lot of sense. We know that there’s been issues with the current period and school boards then needing land after it’s too late and the land’s been released.

Lots of changes in demographics and population happening and it’s hard for everybody to predict accurately. To me, I’m just gonna speak to the addition that I’ve made. I do think we should look at some fairness around property taxes if we’re gonna have a land sitting vacant and essentially Mr. Wallace used the term sterilized.

That’s kind of what it is until there’s a decision as to whether or not a school is going to be needed there. And we are charging property taxes on a property that if it becomes a school doesn’t pay property taxes anymore. So yes, it would be the cost of covering that land sitting there and the taxes on it is going to be factored into the cost of the homes that are being built around it. At the end of the day, our home builders are in business and they make profit and they’re not gonna take a loss to hold a bunch of land for a potential school that may or may not develop.

So I think looking at options at least, whether we decide on anything or not, looking at at least what options we have makes some sense. I don’t mind maybe a refund sort of program where if it does get purchased, maybe the owner gets credits on their next, whatever that might look like. There’s options to consider. But I think in the interest of fairness, it doesn’t hurt to take a look at some options, especially if it’s going to relieve some of the cost on home buyers who wanna buy homes in these new subdivisions where the schools might ultimately be built and keeping a little bit more housing affordability in mind with whether or not this is something we move forward with.

Of course, I wanna know what it’s impact to the municipal property tax base is gonna be too. How much revenue are we giving up? I might not wanna give that up, Mr. Wallace, when I see the number, but I wanna look at the options and then we can make a decision once we have a little bit more information.

So I think that’s worth looking into. Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. Councilor Rama. Thank you and through you.

So first I just wanted to start by thanking staff and the school board and the development community for the work they’ve done on bringing this report back. I really do appreciate the effort. I do know that this has been a longstanding concern, especially from the school boards and I remember it not fondly from my time being on the school board. So I do agree that we are addressing one concern that is substantive to the community by doing this.

And I do appreciate the feedback from Mr. Wallace. I would like to further understand from the amendment what options are available through MPAC already to be able to provide relief and what that looks like. And I’m not sure if an example could be given to us of a property that would be eligible for an MPAC reimbursement or sorry, reconsideration and what that might be able to tell us so that we can do some comparative analysis.

And maybe there’s a way for us to do something, but again, I’d wanna see the numbers. So appreciate the amendment so that we can have further conversation at this time on that matter. And I do like the idea of an annual meeting to have these blocks discussed. Even the list that was provided in this report was really helpful to me because there are places that I didn’t realize were school held school blocks in my ward right now that have given me some thoughts or thoughts around what potential uses and other things could be there if they’re not used for schools.

So appreciate all the work that’s went into this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you again for recognizing me and really appreciate the comments that I’ve heard and thank you to the school board and for LDI for being here.

On the amendment, I have no problem finding out more about the costs. I do have a concern though. Impact has not been working at the moment and we are and have been, especially at AMO, encouraging the province to have impact assessment started. So we as a municipality can understand exactly, exactly how much money we have.

So, I think that’s where we need to impact back, working and assessing and seeing where we go forward. On the recommendation, I really do appreciate the development community sort of doing that compromise and supporting the recommendation. When it comes to the annual meetings between the city and the school board and the development community, I really do think that is very, very important. I would like to just underline the importance of not only the planning department staff being there, but also infrastructure, having a representing award that has already built a new school this year, opened up and another one to come.

It’s great having the school come in, but then again, we’re reacting to how we move around safely, having a broader conversation and expectations on, not only subdivisions being approved in the area, but the infrastructure that’s going on, planned infrastructure in particular, but just how we all talk to one another, I think is really, really important and really appreciate the recommendation coming forward. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors?

Seeing none, just to continue to allow brief comment from the chair, it’s in my experience, it’s a challenge for the city and for the school board to properly plan new school development. And the issue a lot of times, the funding from the province, I understand, is the unknown, right up to kind of the last second. This allows us to, while not finding a solution to that, at least mitigates it to some extent. And I wanna thank LDI for engaging in this conversation and working with the school board and staff to find out, to land at this number.

And I think it’s incumbent vote on us, to listen to LDI’s value concern about, you know, property tax costs on vacant land that will be held vacant, could be held vacant for a longer period of time and to do a proper study on that. You know, given that one comment, you can just go to impact every year and, you know, and get a reduction that way. So, I think a proper study is an order to see what the costs are to the city, to any costs for going. But I think that would be incumbent on us to do that, given the agreements between the all three parties.

So, glad to see this before us. Any other comments or questions? Clerk has advised me. Clerk is just making clarification on C clause.

So, just check that out, just the appropriate standing committee wording corrected. So, for all good, any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Mr.

Stevenson? I vote yes. Housing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. There are no deferred matters.

So, I’ll use a Germano for motion to adjourn. Oh, they don’t want to go home. Oh, nice, okay. Councillor Cuddy, seconded enthusiastically.

Field goal, no miss right. (laughs) Second by Deputy Mayor Lewis, a hand vote. (mumbles) Motion carries. Okay.