Council Meeting
Note: Official minutes for this meeting have not yet been published. This page currently shows the meeting transcript only. Once official minutes are available, this page will be updated with full meeting details including agenda items, motions, and votes.
Full Transcript
Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.
View full transcript (2 hours, 49 minutes)
Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, welcome everybody to Municipal Council. It’s a pretty special day, because we get to do the Mayors, New Years, Honors list recognitions, but first I’d like to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that today we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Piawak, and Adewan drawn peoples.
We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampumbell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to Lene are the Chippewas, the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making efforts to provide alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon any request.
To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 Extension-2425. With that and to kick the meeting off, I am going to introduce our O Canada performer today. Craig is a Canadian musician, singer/songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist based here in London, Ontario. Known primarily as a member of the Canadian rock band Pro Wrestling the Band, he also writes and records his own original music independently, performing many shows across Ontario on a regular basis, and weekly in the London, Ontario Bar & Restaurant circuit, and writing and recording studio albums with Pro Wrestling Band, the music never stops for Craig.
Please rise and join me in welcoming Craig who will now perform the National Anthem for us. Craig had the best backup singers I think he’s ever had there for everybody in the room. Okay, we’re on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. Look to members of Council to disclose any complex.
Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’d like to disclose a conflict of interest for item 8.3 for Planning and Environment Committee, item number 13, the School Block Status Update Report, as my partner works at the School Board, the Thames Valley School Board. Okay, thank you for that.
Any other declarations? Seeing none, we’re going to move on to the main recognition of today, although there are two, but we’ll move on to the Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List recognition, so I’m going to move to the podium in the front to do those recognitions. Okay, this is a very exciting day. It’s the first Municipal Council of the New Year, and that means we get to recognize the Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List recipients.
The Honors List is an annual recognition of Londoners who have made outstanding contributions to the community. For this year’s recipients, the categories include Age Friendly, which are contributions to empowering older adults and advancing age-friendly and age-friendly community. The arts, contributions of fostering, and/or the production of human creativity, distinguished Londoner, and outstanding contributions to the community in collaboration or acts of goodwill by giving back to our city. The environment, contributions to the awareness, preservation, and protection of the environment, heritage, contributions to the awareness, preservation, and protection of heritage resources, humanitarianism, contributions to the human welfare effort through philanthropic or other efforts.
And now I will introduce this year’s honorees, and the way we’re going to do this is, I’ll say your name, you can actually come up. Well, I read the nice things about you, so your family has more time to take pictures of you. We’ll give you a nice round of applause. You can get the certificate, go back to the side, then we’ll invite everybody up at the end, and there could be a group photo.
So why don’t I have Gord Miller come up first? Come on up, Gord. All right, in the category of age-friendly, Gord Miller is a longtime volunteer in the London community supporting and empowering seniors in a variety of organizations. He has a strong commitment to the community involvement and gives generously of his time.
With his boundless energy, Gord builds strong relationships with organizations and activities to which he’s involved. Due to his recent experiences in association supporting older adults, and with his volunteer background in several healthcare organizations, Gord continues to contribute to the improvement and well-being of seniors, and their active engagement in an age-friendly community. Gord has been a vital member of several community organizations, including but not limited to navigating retirement, the London St. Thomas chapter of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Byron Spring Bank Legion Branch 533, the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church Session, Diabetes Canada, Southwest Ontario Region, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, home instead of senior care, and I’m sure many others, but that’s quite the list.
For all of these reasons and more, Gord Miller, you are named to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of age-friendly. Congratulations. In the arts category, Brenda Zadorski come out please. With vision, passion, and dedication spanning four decades, Brenda transformed a spontaneous musical moment into Canada’s leading youth choir organization.
Through her leadership, tenacity, and inclusive mentorship, she cultivated artistic excellence in a family-like community that continues to shape music, education, locally, nationally, and internationally. Her legacy is not only carried on by music, but the countless lives she has influenced. Brenda co-founded the, and how do I say this properly? A Model A.
A Model A choirs of London, Ontario in 1985, sparked by a spontaneous and seredipitous ice cream moment, which I think we can ask you about afterwards. After the London Quannist Music Festival, 27 girls climbed into risers and began singing, revealing a magical harmony that inspired Brenda and her co-founder, John Barron, to create the youth singers. A choir that would evolve into a leading, choral institution in Canada and beyond. Brenda’s dedication extends beyond music.
She created an environment where thousands of young singers grew not only as artists, but as individuals. Her influence fortified London’s music community, with a shared vision of excellence and belonging to our beloved city. For these reasons and more, Brenda, you are named to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the Arts category. Congratulations.
I’ll have for distinguished Londoner category, Charlotte Cleveland, come out please. Charlotte Cleveland is a retired teacher who continues to teach piano in London and has been the festival administrator of the Quannist Music Festival since 1979. For 46 years, Charlotte has played an important role in growing and ensuring the successful continuation of the Quannist Music Festival. This festival is an opportunity for a pro-grade church organ, piano, vocal, string, and wind instruments, trios, quartets, and church choirs, glee clubs, and school orchestras to share their talents and compete.
Charlotte’s hard work and dedication has helped provide an opportunity for artistic expression and personal growth in an encouraging and supportive environment. In addition to providing a performance experience and a learning experience, and a learning experience critique of the performance, entrance must be identified by the adjudicators, can be identified by the adjudicators for monetary awards. The festival returns about $45,000 per year to the community through awards to individuals and schools. Charlotte has continued to serve her community with a commitment to local music and the Quannist Music for 46 years, and for these reasons and many more, Charlotte, your name to the 2026 Mayors New Year’s Honors List in the category of a distinguished Londoner.
Okay, next I’m going to have, this is a distinguished Londoner’s category, but I’ll invite two people up, Chris Heuer and Nancy Wister. For more than 25 years, Chris and Nancy, long-serving members of the White Oaks Community Council, have been the driving force behind the Canada Day celebration in White Oaks. This cherished event unites community members from all backgrounds in a spirit of celebration. Throughout the afternoon and evening, local musicians perform live and cultural groups share their traditions through a vibrant dance showcase.
Entirely community-led and funded, this event provides immense value not only to White Oaks, but also to the broader London community and the many visitors who travel from across the region to take part. The event is a major undertaking in event management requiring a year around planning and coordination effort. The ongoing organization team oversees every detail from booking food vendors, musicians, cultural performers, to recruiting volunteers, securing sponsors, and running marketing campaigns. Entertainment arrangements such as fireworks and inflatable rides along with events set up and park cleanup are all part of the extensive effort needed to bring this celebration to life.
For these reasons and more, Chris and Nancy, you are both named to the 2026 Mayors New Year’s Honors List in the category of distinguished Londoners. I’ll next invite out Margaret Hopkins. This is the category of distinguished Londoner as well. Margaret Hopkins is known throughout Old South as a community organizer, instigator, and tireless advocate for making Watley Village one of the best neighborhoods in Canada.
She has served for years on the Old South Community Association Board, organized gathering in the green, and many other community events. She organizes the Christmas market program, which is part of the Christmas in the Village program, which offers local businesses and not-profits a market stall on the green to sell their wares with a portion of the proceeds going to nonprofits. Margaret hosts a little free library and collects books to ensure libraries across Old South remain stocked, and thank you for providing me some books from your library for my kids. I will bring them home tonight and read them.
She also organizes the gathering for the little free library, hosts a gathering for that to share stories. Margaret is an incredible volunteer recruiter. The first time I ever met, this is from the person who nominated met her, she was adding mulch to the cove’s ESA trails with the help of the South Collegiate High School students that she had recruited. Margaret knows all the business owners along Watley Road and can be regularly found walking her dog buck throughout the Village and chatting with neighbors.
For these reasons and many more, Margaret, your name to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of distinguished Londoner. Next I’ll invite out Tom Delaney. Also in the category of distinguished Londoner, Tom Delaney is the guy you call in Northwest London when you want to do good things for the community. Tom is at the ready to lead, champion, and pitch in wherever he can.
As a business leader known for his ethical and compassionate approach to management, Tom applies the same leadership to the community. He is the chair of the Hyde Park BIA and an active member of the organizing committee for the Hyde Park Santa Claus Parade. Tom supports a number of community initiatives that benefit the city from clothing drives, breakfasts with Santa, local parades, pondfest, and support for food rescue and redistribution. Tom is a strong advocate for the local community.
His positive approaches are infectious and his quiet leadership is centered around bringing out the best in the team he leads and the volunteers who works with him. For these reasons and many more, Tom, you are named to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of distinguished Londoner. Congratulations. Next is the category of environment and this one is posthumously.
So accepting on behalf of Beth Hunley is her husband, Seneca Stanford, and her dad, Rick Hunley. If you want to come out, you can come out. Beth was an adjunct research professor for the Center of Research on Teaching and Learning at Western University. For over 20 years, Dr.
Beth Hunley was an unwavering in her commitment to making people aware of environmental issues and inspiring action to protect and preserve our natural spaces. Beth joined the Lakes and Reservoir Systems Research Faculty, a facility, sorry, in geography and environment at Western in 2028 to pursue a master’s degree but fast tracked to a PhD. Her research was important as it showed for the first time what was driving unprecedented change in mountain lakes. Knowledge required to protect and preserve these important ecosystems.
The importance of making scientific research accessible to everyone to raise awareness on how humans are altering ecosystems was something Beth was exceptionally passionate about. Beth was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer but this did not slow her down. Beth’s legacy will continue to live on through her findings, her teachings, and her many contributions to the earth and our local London community. For all of these reasons, Beth is named posthumously to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of the environment.
The next one also has a posthumous award and McCall Lindsey but also awarded is David Lindsey who will be coming out and accepting the award for both of them. Anne and David have enhanced our city’s heritage in a my rid of ways both built and cultural. Anne’s kitchen soup was a destination ever evolving and offering people from across the city a place to mutually absorb the benefit of Anne and David’s unique example of how to blend culture and commerce in one of Canada’s finest cookware shops. They had their buildings designated to residential and to commercial and they gave generously and vibrantly and consistently to the downtown London for over 50 years.
Core organizers of the 1990 hand around the Talbot block protest which saw two thousand Londoners join hands around the buildings on Talbot Street between Kind King probably King and Dundas. Anne and David threw their passion for heritage and community into everything they did. Founding members of the West West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District they were hands-on volunteers for all the neighborhood events, the street parties with more dancers, caroling door-to-door, plant sales, garage sales, tea parties and more. Sometime around 2028 Anne was instrumental in recreating the original Herb Garden at Elden House and died this year and David lives on in their beautiful home at the corner of Princess and Palace.
Beacons of quiet determination their lives are a testament to the road less traveled on a road to which people and buildings are mutually respected for for their originality and their contributions for community. For these reasons and many more Anne and David are named to the 2026 New Year’s Honors List in the category of heritage. Finally Sherry Evans. Sherry Evans does important and meaningful work with the kinship service unit.
Oh by the way this is in the category of humanitarianism. kinship service is kinship services support provided for children not in the Children’s Aid Society of London Care but who are living with kin as they are unable to remain with their family due to protection concerns. Many people assume that kin providers receive compensation and support services similar to what a foster parent receives. However this is not the case.
Kin are financially responsible for the children they are caring for and many kin providers are just making ends meet when they open their doors to their nieces, nephews or grandchildren. Sherry understands the mentality of a hand up and not a hand out philosophy. She wants to provide a dignified assistance. Sherry began sponsoring family six years ago at Christmas time for families in local women’s shelters.
Then through mutual connections she was connected to a fellow kinship worker with CAS. Sherry began doing year-long planning and fundraising to provide a full present hamper, gift cards and complete holiday meal baskets for our kin families. She provided attention to detail for every family and all of her donations are intentional and not just thrown into a bag. This year she provided for 35 families and over 100 people.
She raised thousands of dollars over the years to support this cause. For these reasons and many more Sherry Evans is named to the 2026 mayor’s New Year’s Honors list in the category of humanitarianism. And now I’ll invite everyone back up to do a bit of a group photo before I do or as people come up I’m just gonna say although this is the mayor’s New Year’s Honors list I want everybody to know this is a decision that all of council participates in. Nominations are come through committees in camera we discuss them and we hold an actual council vote so I want to thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful nominations as well as their thoughtful deliberations on these phenomenal monitors we get to recognize today.
So we’ll just organize for a nice photo and then we can move on with the meeting. And as everybody’s just leaving the room let me also say a number of the loved ones who are here today to kind of look up for taking photos. As I said to the reception before amazing people do amazing things because they’re supported by loved ones and family members and friends so thank you for everything you do to make these people we recognize today have the capacity to do what they’ve done for our city and continue to do so thank you. You’re welcome to stay for the meeting but I’m sure you want to go out and maybe have a nice lunch or a good time with your loved ones so thanks for coming.
With that we have one more recognition to take care of and I’ll have Council Raman present that recognition. Thank you. As this is the closest meeting of council before January 29th I want to take a moment to acknowledge the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque attacks attack and action against Islamophobia. January 29th is a solemn day for our country.
Nine years ago six people were killed and 19 others injured when an individual entered the Quebec City Mosque and carried out the horrific act driven by hate and Islamophobia. Here in London we know all too well the devastating impact of Islamophobia. Our own community continues to confront the fear the trauma and lasting harm that hate fueled violence inflicts. Today you’ll see we are wearing green squares.
The green square campaign honors the victims and survivors of the attack symbolizing the beautiful green carpet in the mosque where they stood last to pray. In London we wear the green square in solidarity with our Muslim neighbors with the community in Quebec City and with the Muslim community across the world. Today we remember and honor those whose lives were taken nine years ago. Ibrahimah Berry, Mamadoo Tanu Berry, Khalid Belkami, Abu Bakr Tabti, Adil Karim Hassani, Azidin Sufen.
May their memories strengthen our community to build a truly inclusive London for all. Thank you and we’ll just take a moment of silence after that recognition. Thank you. Are there any further recognitions?
Seeing none we have review of confidential matters because they’re in public we have none. Council on closed session we have five items on the regular agenda. One item from the added agenda. You’ll see the reason there on the added agenda and I look for motion to move into closed session moved by Councillor Vameira-Briggan seconded by Councillor Palosa.
Any discussion on that? Seeing none we’ll open the vote. No votes yes. No to thank you closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0.
All right we’ll be moving to community room five so for members of the public we will return after our in-camera session. Be seated. Okay that concludes the closed session. We’re going to move on to confirmation signing of the minutes for previous meetings.
We have the minutes from the December 16th meeting and I look for a mover and a seconder for that of the Councillor Vameira-Briggan seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any questions or comments or changes to the minutes? Seeing none we’ll open that for voting. Close the votes yes.
That’s why Stevenson votes yes. I’m Sir Trosso votes yes. Moral votes are noted as indicated closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0. Next we move on to communications and petitions.
You’ll see that 6.1 and 6.2 are expropriations where we need to convene as the approval authority 6.3 and 6.4 refer to other pieces of the agenda so we’re going to deal with 6.1 and 6.2 first and then we’ll deal with the other two afterwards and for colleagues a reminder when we move into expropriations we first move from council to convene as the approval authority. We then debate and discuss whether or not to approve the expropriation as articulated. Then we move back to become municipal council and then we vote on the advice from the approval authority which is us as municipal council to to move forward which is the same motion that we consider as the approval of approving authority. So step one is I need a mover and a seconder for council to convene as the approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act of 1990.
Councillor Hillier seconded by Councillor Cudi. Any discussion on making that move? Okay we’re going to open that for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1.
Okay we’re now sitting as the approving authority. There is a motion before us which I’m required to read out and then I will look for a mover and a seconder for it. Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project A. Council of the Corporation of City of London acting as the approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE 26 as amended hereby approves the proposed expropriation of lands described in schedule A as appended to the staff report dated January 20th 2026 the city of London County of Middlesex it being noted that the following reasons for making the decisions are one the subject lands are required by the Corporation of City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project 2 the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along this corridor and three the design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway approved by municipal council at the meeting held May 21st 2019 and B subject to the approval of A a certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in the prescribed form and C it being noted that requests for a hearing of necessity have been received for the properties listed below 300 Wellington Ave requested by the owner 385 Wellington Ave requested by the owner 387 to 395 Wellington Ave requested by the owner and requested by the tenant and that is the motion before us it’s only to move that moved by Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins any discussion on this then we will open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 okay now I need a motion to adjourn as the approving authority and reconvene as municipal council moved by Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Hopkins will open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 okay and now sitting as municipal council you’re aware we just received some advice from the approving authority and I have to read that too that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environmental infrastructure on currents of the director of construction and infrastructure services at the advice of the director of reality service with respect the expropriation of lands that may be required project known as Wellington Gateway Project the following actions be taken by municipal council a the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report date of January 20th 2026 as appendix a being a by-law to expropriate lands in the city of London in the county of Middlesex in the east London link project be introduced at municipal council meeting held January 20th 2026 be the city administration be directed to take all necessary steps to prepare plans and plans showing expropriated lands and register such lands and plans as the appropriate registry or land title offices pursuant to the expropriation act RSO 1990 E26 within three months of the approving authority granting approval for set expropriation see the mayor and city clerk be authorized to sign on behalf of the expropriating authority plan or plans as signed by the Ontario land surveyor showing the expropriated lands and D city clerk be authorized and directed to execute and serve the notices of expropriation as required by the expropriation act RSO 1990 CE 26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the expropriated lands need a mover and a seconder for that moved by Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Hillier any discussion on that okay seeing none we’ll open that for more I just want to note the reason why it hasn’t come up yet is there was a small typo it is Wellington gateway project it at one point said East London link it’s actually the Wellington gateway all the way through the motion will reflect that consistency throughout the entire wording of the resolution was in the vote motion carries 13 to 2 okay now on to 6.3 and 6.4 which are other items of communication they both have places the agenda that we can refer these two there’s a motion prepared for both look for someone to move them to Councillor Ferra seconded by Councillor Frank any discussion on bringing those to other parts of the agenda seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 all right item seven motions to which notice is given there are none so we’re on to the reports part of the agenda we’ll start with 8.1 which is the second report of SPPC I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report thank you worship I am pleased to present the second report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee I have not been asked at this time to pull anything so I’m prepared to put all four items on the floor would anybody like anything done with separately from the SPPC report good seeing none that’s on the floor any discussion then good seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 all right that concludes that report we’re on to 8.2 the second report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee I’ll turn it over to Councillor ramen to present the report thank you and through you I’d like to put items 1 through 10 and then 12 on the floor I’ve been asked to pull 11 other than that I’ve not received any other requests all right would anybody like anything that was separately other than 11 okay all right so you’ll put that on the floor thank you I will all right any discussion on items 1 through 10 and 12 ding none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you I’ll look to put item 11 which is the contract award for the East London link in municipal infrastructure improvements phase 3 a east and ask street on the floor okay that’s on the floor I’ll look for any discussion being none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 thank you that completes my report great we’re on to the item 8.3 which is the second report of the Planning Environment Committee I’ll turn it over to Councillor Layman present that report thank you Mayor and please present the second report of the Planning Environment Committee I’ve had requests to pull 4 6 and 12 13 had a conflict as well so we’ll do 13 separate as well thank you so that’s 4 6 12 and 13 separate anything else anyone one separate okay I let you make a motion so I’ll move 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 and 11 okay those items are on the floor I’ll look for any discussion seeing none we’ll open those items for voting in just a moment okay we’re open that for voting now closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 go ahead Councillor Layman thank you I’d like to put item number 4 regarding 4 15 York Street Councillor Hopkins requested that to be pulled okay that item is on the floor I look for any speakers Councillor Hopkins go ahead yeah thank you your worship I just want to ask for this to be pulled I am not supporting the recommendation out of the from the committee but I do think that committee I think there are many paths going forward with the rezoning I am supportive of the refusal until the studies are done I think it’s really important that we do that and that’s why I’m not supporting it okay any other discussion on this go ahead Councillor Ferrell thanks Mayor I saw also at the discussion we did have I guess a little chat about potential reports about some of the health and safety concerns about what’s building being so close to what in district energy I did hear that there could be maybe some cleanup into this language just to kind of put in specific types of I guess reporting or studies that could be brought in there just as an addition to the pathways to approval I don’t see I thought that we were expecting something like that at Council I don’t see that here I would need that to support this I do I do have issues with the height as it is I did hear that there was some discussion there about the height might be a little bit too much I’m willing to go maybe a little bit beyond what’s zoned in in the area that it already is but for the pastor approval I was expecting some type of report or study on that and I did hear a staff that we do need that type of language to move forward so I’m just wondering is there is there a potential to make an amendment here and add some specific studies here because I did hear some members at PEC say that that would be something that could be considered here at Council so I know I only have one moment to speak but without that I won’t be supporting this motion all I can say Councillor is that the committee suggested a referral I’m not sure what the dialogue was of committee members related to adding studies but these things can be amended to Council I would say it’s a little bit difficult in the absence of language if you’re not sure what studies you want but it is being referred back to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee certainly again for the reasons that are listed I mean committee can have a discussion then they can refer it again they can ask for more things obviously there are timelines to these applications but I don’t have a motion I’m no one’s approached me with any sort of amendments so far thanks I did I did speak to the proponent after the meeting and I was told that I was gonna hear from them I didn’t hear from them I did reach out to the owner the property trying to discuss it I’ve been having a little issues trying to get some kind of additions to this language just because I feel there could be some concerns and we don’t even know what they are so I think the pathways to approval here should include that so maybe if I could go to staff and ask with the language right now a path to approval when it comes to a study with respect to any health and safety concerns that could come up any admissions studies noise studies or anything like that is this enough language to potentially bring a report like that and also with the time Q2 2026 is that enough time for that as well go ahead thank you through your worship yes the language is sufficient however what was discussed at Planning and Environment Committee was a land use compatibility study and that’s what staff have already disclosed to the applicant that would be looking at working towards and the timeframe is efficient and that was something that was also discussed at committee with the applicant support thanks so if you don’t need any specific language for like an admissions study or a study just to make sure that the health and safety of any potential residents in that building would would need to be done do you need specific language like that or is this enough go ahead thank you through your worship this is sufficient and through a land use compatibility study that would be it is more encompassing to deal with all those anything to deal with noise odor emissions etc okay thank you for that and with the wording of the motion we’re gonna have a report back at that stage we would be able to see what studies there are and potentially vote yay or nay for this approval for the zoning by-law amendment go ahead thank you through your worship yes that’s correct and also any other mitigative measures that can deal with the we’ll say the the source good cancer okay with that that’s enough to carry me over for now but I’ll be watching closely for the report back in Q2 2026 thank you any other discussions on this matter seeing none that’s put on the floor again it’s referral for the reasons stated in the motion we’ll open that for voting Councillor Palazzo sorry my e-scribe has frozen I vote yes vote noted closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 go ahead Councillor thank you mayor I’d like to put item number six on the floor this is regarding 465 Callaway Road Councillor ramen requested people okay that item is on the floor I look for speakers Councillor ramen go ahead thank you I’d like to introduce an amendment that’s okay my amendment would be to add a new part CIV to read as follows increase the number of parking spaces to the greatest extent feasible subject to an in compliance with the requirements of the zoning by-law and the site plan by-law with the objective of achieving one parking space per dwelling unit where possible okay that’s yes that amendment can be made I look for a seconder Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second let’s make sure that gets up on the screen but while we’re doing that if you want to provide some rationale if you’d like on that and then we can continue with the debate on the amendment sure thank you and through you so this has been an ongoing discussion with the the community and buildings nearby as well as residents in the area 465 Callaway Road is fronting on to Sunningdale and although there is nearby transit transit is not frequent at this time and it’s not considered part of the transit priority network for the mobility master plan either so with those things in mind I think it’s it’s incumbent on us to look at parking at a one-to-one ratio for a building like this there is already issues with street-level parking in the area because of insufficient parking with some other nearby buildings as well as some other challenges in the area with just getting around so this is something I hear quite often from neighbors and a concern that they have brought forward okay and just for colleagues it’s up now and you’ll see that it’s in addition to the directions to the site plan authority to have that direction that Councilor ramen read out so just wanted you to know where it lands and it can go on the floor today because the directions of the site plan authority don’t impact the by-law so that’s why I’m allowing this particular change to be put on the floor I’ll look to speakers on the amendment all right seeing none then we’ll vote on the amendment closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay and now I need to as amended you’re willing to move that so I will okay and seconder for the as amended Councilor ramen no Councilor Dr.
Mary Lewis okay seconded as amended all right so we’re on the as amended motion now which includes the additional direction to the site plan authority any discussion on this go ahead Councilor ramen thank you and through you so although we did make the change and I appreciate my colleague support on the change to direct site plan I do think that ultimately where staff provided approval on this item where it has in my opinion in sufficient parking I understand staff were following our guidelines but I do believe those guidelines need to be changed and it is something I will be supporting as those items come forward for discussion I think it’s really important that we’re realistic with where transit is available how people can get around easily in the city and what kind of options are available to them and for that reason I won’t be supporting this development but I think it’s important as it moves forward and if it moves forward to allow the conversation the site plan authority to ask for increased parking should this pass thank you any of the speakers all right we’ll open this for voting then answer trust on closing the vote motion carries 12 to 3 go ahead Councilor thank you Mayor I’ll put item number 12 on the floor this is regarding 1040 1050 and 1070 Hamilton Road and Councilor McAllister requested this to be pulled okay so that’s on the floor by the chair Councilor McAllister you want to speak so you can go ahead now thank you and through the mayor I do have an amendment that was circulated to Council and I’d like to move that and Deputy Mayor is indicated that he was willing to second okay Councilor the cliff notes in terms of the changes I request yeah I want to I just only because it wasn’t on like the added agenda I just want to for transparency so that the public knows exactly what you’re doing you provide a summary I’ll listen to it if there’s anything I need to add based on what the motion says I’ll add that as well but if you could provide a summary of the change yes and through you absolutely the short version in terms of the changes I’m looking to make with this amendment I’m requesting that block five which was originally zoned as eight stories be reduced to a six-story building and that as part of the site plan that public participation meetings with respect to all blocks be added in yeah and I’ll indicate to I’m going to allow this to be on the floor because the Councilor did work with staff on this had an alternate by-law prepared that aligns with the changes within it the by-law has been checked by our staff and it’s before us today that we can actually approve so I want to thank you Council for actually doing that that diligence which allows us to move forward at committee rather than referring it back I think you’ve covered the the changes pretty clearly if colleagues refresh the motion I actually put the motion on the screen so you can see the additions and the deletions just for clarity and we’ll open discussion on this now I don’t know if Councilor if you want to go first talk about it okay go ahead well yeah thank you once again through you appreciate everyone who came out to the PPM for the last PEC meeting on this had a number of discussions in the area about this I think in terms of going from the eight to the six I think that’s in keeping with the densification we’ve seen on site and in the area I think it’s a fair compromise in terms of what we’re looking to do and I’d also say in terms of having the public participation as the proposals for each block come forward I think it’s appropriate to have that public feedback also recognizing that there would be public park on this parcel and I want to ensure that there’s ample opportunity for the public to have their feedback on all the proposals that come forward and what we’re looking to do on the site to create some more affordable housing so I’m looking for your support and thank you all right discussion on this this is the amendment to change the language as was described and that shows on the screen go ahead Councilor Stevenson thank you through you to staff I just wanted to check was eight stories an exception or was it what was allowed per the London plan go ahead thank you through your worship six stories is permitted through the London plan eight stories was a specific policy framework Council Stevenson so it was a policy framework we have set up for that area just so that I’m clear go ahead thank you through your ship the eight stories is what’s being recommended over and above the six stories that’s in the London plan Councilor Stevenson I don’t know if you had anything further to say I just wanted to make sure you’re finished because when you see the floor you’re done I’m finished thanks okay perfect just wanted to confirm before I went to the next speaker I’ve council for our next thanks mayor I watch this one with intent on pack I guess I got one question with respect to the public participation meeting at the site plan process huh is that a normal thing that we usually do do we usually have public participation meetings at site plan go ahead thank you through your worship it’s at council’s discretion if they so choose to request public site plan meeting I had council for thank you and with this this is still a zoning by-law amendment change correct with this motion as it is so this motion will change if approved what went through committee the by-law will reflect this and then it will be what committee approved with councilor McCallister’s changes and then that decision will be the decision on the site of municipal council it won’t come back in any way the appeal period would start and we would be making a decision today thank you so at the public participation meeting would the public if they didn’t like the change the change has already been made what would the public be able to do in that situation is this a public participation meeting or is this public information meeting the I can articulate it I’ll have her staff have been there was a public participation meeting where feedback was given the counselor has taken those thoughts as well as his engagement the public made an adjustment today to what was approved by the planning committee with the public participation meeting and is ready to proceed with these adjustments based on the feedback that he’s received so there I’ll let Mr. Mathers jump in but there’s not another public participation meeting it’s basically this would be the decision of council and and then there’s obviously a mechanism to appeal but there’s only certain people who can appeal Mr. Mathers through your worship there is an additional item D that is requiring a public participation a site plan participant public participation meeting it’s not bolded so maybe that’s something that could be just clarified because that is an also additional text so that would require a public participation meeting that just speaks to the site plan and provides input that would be considered by the approval authority when they’re determining the final site plan yeah sorry and I thought the counselors asking about the public participation meeting that led to the decision counselor you’re right E adds a second public participation meeting not on the zoning decision but on just items related to the site plan approval authority so and the decisions that they made so that they can get some additional feedback as well so there would be one more public participation meeting but only with respect to the site plan authority direction it’s confusing I can understand why that would be confusing and I don’t see how a public participation meeting at that stage in this process is going to actually allow us to make any changes whatever the public requests I’m confused on that with that I don’t know if I can support this one I’m just I’m just a little confused I don’t remember seeing a public participation meeting at site plan process in the past I’m we’re supposed to have public participation meetings and as the process goes at this council and at committee public participation happens before we actually talk about the zoning by-law amendment so we can get the public’s feedback and then take that into consideration when we make a change this is after we make the change we’re making the change here and then we’re looking for a public participation meeting for the site plan process when everything is already set still so respectfully I can’t can’t support this one the way it is and I’ll just take just a tiny bit of discretion here as chair because I know we don’t do site plan I would say previous terms of council I think we did more site plan holding provisions that would require a site plan public participation meeting than than more recent times but maybe if Mr. May that are Ms.
McNeely could articulate what decisions are locked into the zoning what are the types of things that would be feedback at a public participation meeting on site plan that that would be within scope if you could just articulate that I just don’t want anybody have any confusion about what’s happening go ahead thank you through your worship yes typically we haven’t said we had historically have a numerous public site plan meetings and that’s the opportunity for the public to weigh in on site matters functionality extra tree planting enhancements landscaping heights of fence elements that our site plan matters and that is the direction to the approval authority for matters to consider in this case there’s five at least five blocks so there’ll be five separate public site plan meetings that come through planning and environment committee the zoning if it’s approved today is the applicable law and there’s no opportunity of changing that zoning unless again they get the applicant comes back through a full public process for the zoning bylaw amendment so I hope that provides some helpful clarification counselor it does we making the decision now and then we’re gonna consult with the public about the decision now so thank you well that’s not true there are certain things that we locked in now but as was articulated by our staff there are parameters that the site plan authority has within their discretion and I would say matters that sometimes the public cares very much about landscaping tree retention heights offenses location of those things that has been requested through the process given the complexity of the site and given that it is you know an old school site that planning committee and just recommending that this process is valuable to the community but it is not consulting with them after the consultation on the zoning has happened with the public meeting there are other elements and decisions that we made with site plan that the public will have a chance to weigh in on and the council’s constituents will as well I’ll go to council Frank thank you yes and I am supportive of a public site plan process we just approved it for 10 Marley place and I appreciate council doing that but I do have a question in regards from going to eight to six stories through the chair to staff in regards to could we potentially be losing affordable housing units on those two floors go ahead through your worship yes estimated approximately 24 units would be lost with dropping from the eight to the six stories and we would just have to reflect that in our road map to three thousand estimates moving forward go ahead thank you then at this time I’m not supportive of going from eight to six I understand the counselors representing his board residents but at this point I would prefer to keep those units available for us to be able to utilize towards affordable housing okay next I have councilor Hopkins and then deputy Marlous yeah through you your worship I do have a technical question I’m sort of little unclear as to the changes that we’re making here now we’re going from eight to six losing 24 units are there any changes because of that decision that we’re making here in terms of setbacks so just I would think reading recommendation that we were looking at eight so the development itself if we go down to six would we have to redo those setbacks because we had an eight story now we’re gonna have a six thank you go ahead thank you through your worship the only change really is just to the height for both this owning by law amendment and for the official plan amendment you’re good council offense okay thank you deputy Marlous thank you chair so I’m going to address a couple of points that colleagues have raised and I was happy to second this for councilor McAllister I’m supportive of the eight down to six sixes of the as of right it’s also consistent with the approach we’ve taken at LMCH with the reimagined Southdale project sixes as of right we’ve gone with six or three six story buildings there it’s consistent with the affordable housing development that we’ve proposed on Duluth Crescent I know that there is a potential loss although as we’ve seen in other developments sometimes if you push the height down you marshmallow the sides out and add some units back and that could still be a potential option here so I’m supportive of what the council is asking and it’s consistent with what I heard from the public participation meeting with regard to resident concerns the main concern was the eight story building there’s still a lot of density on this site in the other blocks where I’m not going to be supportive is on and I’m going to ask for clause D to be called separately so the public site plan participation meeting for all blocks and the reason that I’m not supportive of this is twofold I heard really objections about one block and the height that were really zoning related matters for site plan to request the council is fixing that with the change in height council Frank’s correct we did approve a public site plan process for 10 Marley place the significant difference there being when we discussed 10 Marley place at committee there were a number of questions about very specific site plan related items snow storage the direction of parking and how that might be pointed into someone’s rear yard and even the potential that the boundary trees may not have consent for removal and so the building itself may have to actually change it may have to be realigned setbacks location on the lot with regard to the existing heritage building there could be some significant site plan alterations because of those specifics and particularly because there may not be consent on the boundary trees which requires the the neighbor who shares the boundary tree to consent to its removal so that could radically change the 10 Marley place so I think the 10 not in terms of the density but in terms of the physical layout on the property with regard to the blocks that are proposed in this plan of subdivision for the former Fairmont school I really think that what we’re approving in terms of the zoning is not going to be a legitimate site plan approval I think we will continue to hear people say I don’t want townhouses or I don’t want an apartment building but it’s not going to be about where’s the snow going where the parking lot lights pointed you know we heard very clearly that there’s an objection to the density it’s being addressed through the six and if it was purely a public site plan on the block related to the eight to six story I might be somewhat more amenable to that but I don’t need to to ask staff to do a public site plan on all five blocks here for me this is a change very supportive of the eight six I think it’s consistent with what we’ve done in other projects but I’m very very hesitant and I will always be very hesitant to support a public site plan process I think that it is should always be the exception not the rule and should only be exercised in cases where there’s really site plan approval authority considerations things like where’s the snow going where’s the garbage collection going and where’s the parking going because if we aren’t able to use this piece of the land we may have to reorient the building on the land and so that’s where I support those kind of things because there could be some significant changes with individual blocks like this where we know we’ve got townhouse apartment that’s to me is not a piece for its public site plan so appreciate where the council is coming from I’m going to support him on the height reduction I just don’t think that this is at the threshold where a public site plan engagement process is met for me so appreciate the comments on the voting separate on D I just want to be clear the councilor’s amendments don’t impact D currently so we’re going to deal with the amendment I can have D hold separately in the as amended motion after this part of the process would be the the cleanest way to let people vote the way they want also there’s a slight wording update that I’m just going to allow from the chair the the change affects both bylaws and so we’re just going to make sure that’s noted the council has both bylaws prepared but it’s both the OPA and the ZBA so so that’ll just it’s just a bit of a technical change you’ll see that if you refresh your screen other speakers to Councilor McAllister’s amendment okay seeing that so we’ll vote on the amendment and then should it pass I’ll need it as amended and then I can have a debate on that and then I can call things separately after that debate is concluded okay so we’re opening the vote on Councilor McAllister’s amendment Mr. Stevenson I can call for Councilor Stevenson marking Councilor Stevenson absent closing the vote motion carries 12 to 2 okay now I need an as amended version of the motion okay so now we have to vote on part D because it’s part of Council McAllister’s amendment so just the part D part of the amendment now which is the piece about directing civic administration to hold the public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process for all blocks okay so we’re gonna vote on that now we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion fails 7 to 7 so now I need an as amended motion which will include everything Councilor McAllister suggested with the exception of D which was not so Councillor you’re willing to with the album of that and seconded by I need a seconder sort of cuddy okay so as amended it’s everything Councilor McAllister changed with the exception of the public site plan meeting piece we’ll have a discussion on that now as amended go ahead Council McAllister thank you and for the chair appreciate the discussion appreciate the support in terms of lowering the height I do think there’s a lot of density on this site obviously disappointed in terms of the site plan to the the comments we made earlier I think this is a unique site especially considering we’ve dedicated parkland I really do want this to be a community space that the whole neighborhood can utilize and I think having those conversations would have been valuable I would still encourage my residents as the proposals come forward to have those discussions you know I I guess my question to staff would be in terms of approving this today when would we expect to see some of those come forward for the individual blocks go ahead Mr. Manners through your worship so that we’re likely a year away from seeing any development proceeding we have a detailed design process we have to go through and there’ll also be a procurement process looking for partners to actually construct these that the map for housing on the site so approximately a year go ahead Council thank you and through the mayor appreciate that clarity just from my own residents often get asked that I think it also speaks in terms of what we heard with the feedback from the community there are a number of construction projects Hamilton and Gore that roundabout comes to mind and that is still slated to go ahead within the year so hopefully we can get some of these projects done before any work on site would begin also hope the mayor’s effort to upload hybrid bear some fruit because I hear no end of complaints with that and Hamilton hybrid is definitely area we’re seeing a lot of growth and to the comments are brought up at committee in terms of trying to deal with some of that traffic ingestion I think that intersection is going to be a key choke point in the area as is Hamilton and commissioners with Councillor Hayley here is that a lot as well so these are a lot of issues that I hear I wanted to make Council aware as this process moves forward I’m still supportive of it and even moving from the eight to the six there’s a lot of density on this site we’re still making substantial movement towards our goal of affordable housing and I just want to say I mean this is something I’m very passionate about I want to see this be a welcome addition to the community we’ve got two schools in the area I know people also raised concerns about that not on the school board but it would be nice you know to kind of welcome the the people who will eventually live in these units to the neighborhood this is my home turf as well I hear that’s a lot from my neighbors I know these kind of projects freak people out a lot initially but as we move through this process I want to keep that engagement going I want people to be involved much as we’ve seen with something like vision so ho Duluth turning unused school lands into housing I think is a very worthy goal and I want to see this move forward and I’m still supportive of it so thank you Deputy Mayor Lewis yes thank you so I’ll just say ditto to Councillor McAllister’s comments about uploading highberry and the Hamilton and Gore roundabout long long requested needs in the east end that need to be addressed and I know that Mr. McRae’s team is working on the roundabout already and I know the mayor is working on the efficacy for highberry I will say and and just to follow up on the councilors comments about parkland and I want to make sure we’re consistent with Duluth where we set aside a parkland block on that former school site as well through you chair while we set aside a parkland block the actual parks planning process will be a separate process from the development of the affordable housing piece and will involve our parks departments and presumably our neighborhood services team with Ms.
Smith and filling in today Mr. McGonagall in terms of the amenities that we would see in that sort of parkland so I just want to confirm that that’s a separate process from the development of the affordable housing pieces for the park land planning and development go ahead do you worship absolutely that is part of the standard subdivision process and we’ll work very closely with those teams to ensure that we proceed with a great parking area yeah I just want to make sure for clarity sake parks as we move forward with parks planning parks will actually be looking at public feedback and input on what sort of amenities the neighborhood is looking for in that park that it won’t just be a parks brings forward here’s what we’re gonna do but there there actually is a public engagement process on the parks planning piece mr. Mathers do you through the chair yeah that’s a part of our standard subdivision process so absolutely that is accurate go ahead thank you any other speakers to the as amended motion right seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 that’s our layman thank you mayor I’d like to put item 13 regarding a school block status update report on the floor okay that’s on the floor I look for any speakers to this item go ahead council for error thanks mayor so I got to speak to this one I’m gonna support the staff recommendation part I think kind of extending the time for the school blocks bringing the time beginning at registration is a good way to go but I’m not supporting that motion that was added at the end that motion was specifically something that I think is against the interests of the city so a school block is a piece of land that’s owned by developers as far as I’m concerned so I want to go to staff and ask who owns school blocks typically when we’re developing new residential go ahead thank you through your worship yes it remains in the developers hands until a decision is made either to advance it towards a school block or a park block but ultimately then it would revert back to the developer go ahead thank you so that this clause see you that motion specifically read that 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 reserve school blocks while they are prohibited from development so my first question would be is is this something that we can even do as a municipality can we give a property tax exemption or refund program to a private developer who owns these reserved school blocks I think that’s part of the report we might have some of those answers now but I’ll go to the treasure thank you through the chair so with respect to the taxation regulations there are no exemptions unless the land is held by a school board so we would lead to look at if there is some applicability for some other program that may exist we don’t know of any but certainly our intent would be to liaise with the other larger municipalities to see if they know of any programs that may be applicable in this circumstance that certainly would avoid any promising provisions which we would need to be mindful of go ahead Councillor Ferra thank you so yeah school boards schools don’t pay property tax but they’re public institutions providing a public good this is a motion that is looking for property tax exemption or refund program for a private business so I guess my follow-up question would be is if we did do that even though it seems like we can’t under the municipal municipality act if we did do that who would pick up the tab for that lost revenue thank you through the chair if there was an ability to provide some form of tax relief those lost taxes would need to be made up through other property tax classes and or the budget approved by Council go ahead thank you so we need to reduce our property tax level and I’m not want to start kind of flipping the bill for property tax taking property tax away from a private company and putting it on the backs of hard-working Londoners that’s just not my intention at all and I feel like this is a motion that is going to take a report back which is in my opinion a waste of municipal resources as it is and the questions staff seem to know right off the bat I didn’t see any questions get asked at committee about this but it’s it’s a motion that is is is flipping the bill from you know private company and putting it on the taxpayer putting on the rest of London it’s it’s taking the cost of doing business and putting it on all of us you know as far as I’m concerned a private company of private developer has costs of doing business and this is one of those costs this is not one of those costs that we should be paying for I heard a committee about seeing the numbers I heard at committee about I’m I just want to see this not a final decision but this signals an intention to have us pay for private businesses costs I’m not I’m not for that at all I don’t think that’s that’s appropriate and I don’t think that serves the interests of the city so I am going to support their staff recommendation I think the staff recommendation spoke to exactly what the concerns were it’s giving predictability on how long these reserved school blocks are going to be held and that’s exactly what the issue was this motion this specific motion is looking for you know taking away that cost of business to private developers who are developing and looking into the numbers to see if it’s appropriate to have the rest of the city pay for it I try to bring a motion about preventing people from being homeless to stop people from going out on the street we didn’t want to hear that but this now we want to hear this I don’t think so I think we need to vote this part down so you’re asking for that to be voted on separate we can do that look to Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Hopkins thank you Your Worship so following up on the council’s comments let’s be clear about something the cost right now is directly tied to the price of new homes because that land sitting sterile it’s not made up by anyone in the private sector business it’s made up by those purchasing homes in new subdivisions period it’s adding to the cost of a home purchase price these businesses are not when you’re going from our current holding time of three years to six and a half years they’re not going to eat that loss they’re going to just add it to the price of a new home so when we talk about housing affordability in these chambers you have to look at all aspects of housing affordability and what this is saying is go back and look at how this land is treated nobody’s suggesting that they’re going to pay no tax on this land which is what happens when it becomes school block but what they are suggesting and what this motion suggests is look at what the options are prior to a plan of subdivision these lands might be zoned open space they might be zoned agricultural they could be zoned a number of things where they’re paying a lower rate than what you’re paying for a residential property so maybe the path forward is that we look for some sort of program where they’re charged at the rate they’re being charged until the land is either released or or claimed by the school board whether or not that’s viable as was mentioned by miss barbone is something that staff have to go and look at with other large municipalities but I think colleagues you should be under no illusion this is not a private developers cost this is being added to the price of homes period full stop and council for error you can shake your head all you want through the chair please through the chair but that is the reality and that is what we heard at the public participation meeting and that is at the end of the day how home building works and whether you like it or not we’re not the ones building the homes and we’re not the ones setting the purchase price so we do have to look at whether or not there are tools in our tool locks that we can implement and it’s not saying people can’t change zoning because they can that’s a right under the Planning Act of Ontario but it is looking at whether or not there are incentive programs similar to what we do with CIP is where we have an office to residential conversion incentive downtown that’s another incentive for a change of land use this is about a change of land use whether or not it becomes a school ball block or whether it becomes residential and it’s about the industry having sat with us having sat and worked with our staff and said we can meet you at six and a half years but we would like you to look at whether or not there’s different things we can do in the property tax rate so that we’re not passing that on to add to the cost of a new home in our city and I think we all agree that the cost of a new home is a challenge for residents in London Ontario right now to move from rental and free of rental space into homeownership that price is a barrier in fact we are running an incentive program that offers qualifying applicants a loan on a down payment to get into the housing market so we’ve recognized that through that incentive program this isn’t making a decision on whether or not there’s going to be any changes rebates refunds this is saying take a look at what other municipalities are doing and come back and talk to us give us a report then we can make a decision on that so I would strongly encourage colleagues to support this as it is today let’s see what if any options are available for us and then we can have a debate about which tools we want in the toolbox and which ones we don’t yeah I have Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor ramen yeah thank you yours if I was at planning I did hear the comments made at the public meeting I would like see pulled I’m not going to be supporting it and I’m not exactly sure even what this report is going to look like coming back to us I’m not sure what kind of information will be in it whatever information is going to be in there we know impact assessments have not been done since 2016 there’s going to be information there but that may not be updated it be interesting to explore what other municipalities are doing but I’m not sure if we need a report back to explore whatever municipalities are doing my biggest concern is the report coming back to us will not have updated information that’s what’s important if we’re exploring property tax options we need to have the information available to us that’s updated so if seek to be pulled I’d appreciate it yeah I’m gonna pull it for Councillor Ferra so it’ll already be voted on separately at the end of the debate so no problem with that and I’ll go to Councillor ramen next thank you and through you so I just wanted to bring us back to the purpose of the school block status update report and that was the good work of staff the development community in the school board around working collaboratively to find a way forward so that we can hold blocks of land for our school needs here in our community I hear quite often from residents in my ward who have had significant challenges with overcrowded schools because of the timeline it takes to build schools secure land etc etc so this is a way for us to move this conversation forward in a productive way working with all partners something we haven’t done I will say enough of in the past and so this is an opportunity for us to take those conversations forward so I want to thank the partners that came to the table for those conversations because I think it’s really important when it comes to the next part of the discussion around what does this mean in terms of costs I agree that there may be some additional costs that are born by the developer and so we had members the development community saying let’s take a look at what that might be for me that take a look at and and it was mentioned actually in the gallery that day by mr. Wallace is something that could be done on the developer side as well so there are options the developer can exercise and and through my understanding is through impact in order to be able to recoup some of that cost is the lancet’s vacant even if all we do is say here’s what we can’t do but here’s what your process is through impact I think it just goes back to showing that we’re willing to think about this in a collaborative style to say you were willing to have some of these discussions here we went and looked at some information for you so I’m willing to entertain that but I agree with Councillor Ferrera I’m not looking to make an exception in the long run for for a development property but I do want to hear on balance both sides of that conversation and I do hear what Deputy Mayor Lewis is saying that these will add costs in those neighborhoods that are being developed and who’s going to bear that cost but the people buying the homes so a lot of things for us to consider we shouldn’t be fearful about getting information back we should want that information coming to us so that we can make a decision with all the appropriate information in front of us so I’ll be supporting them what’s on the floor other speakers Councillor Lehman I just want to follow up on that as Councillor ramen said this was brought forward because of the frustration school boards have and what the Councillor said in getting schools approved in a short window that we have right now I believe it’s three years that developers have to keep the space set aside provincial funding can easily exceed that time if ever in the time the clock has passed the lands are are not assumed by the school board because they haven’t funding from the province the city has an option it up so the we lose that opportunity so the three parties sat down school boards representation from developers LDI and city staff say how can we address this and the solution has come up with as I think is a good one let’s extend that period to six years that’s doubling the amount of time land can sit vacant without being developed the developer will have to pay those carrying costs etc so that’s what we’re looking at today I think it’s fair to look at is there a compensation model for the extra cost extra cost that will be born by the entity owning the land and paying carrying costs on that I don’t think there’s anything wrong to look look at that so those solutions like property tax exemption was something that was put out as an example hearing this is my bone I don’t think that’s probably a path forward but I think I think we do have to take a look at at who’s carrying the cost of this extra extra period that that land can be held vacant to achieve what we want to achieve is just some extra time in rapidly expanding a city with high density that we can keep a chunk of land to set aside for schools because once that land is gone developed then we get in all sorts of situations we’re overcrowding busing etc that we can avoid it at this point so I will support both both points of this I have myself on the list next I’ll turn over the chair to Deputy Carlos and then I have Councilor Tross out after me go ahead and make Mayor Morgan yeah so I just want to weigh in on this because I’m listening to colleagues and I think they have I think they have fair and legitimate concerns and perspectives but I think sometimes in the debate we can kind of talk past the point of what we’re doing so I appreciate Councilor Raman and Councilor Layman trying to pull it back to what’s happening so I just want to articulate that in a clear way I represented award Councilor Raman represents it now where the timeframe expired on all of the school blocks and then there were two schools needed in that area and it became a very challenging and expensive process for the school board to acquire those lands and a complicated process for the municipality which involved having to swap some land and think about different things coming into the urban growth boundary at different paces it can create a lot of complications if you don’t hold school blocks for the right amount of time that gives the schools the opportunities to acquire them so what this says is instead of three years we’re gonna more than double that we’re gonna give school boards way more time on deciding whether or not they need these lands as we build out new subdivisions so guess what the developers in the meantime are local servicing and paying for the local servicing of that entire subdivision and then what we’re saying is but you can’t build here for an extra 3.5 years not just on one block on all the school blocks and there could be multiple ones of various sizes within the neighborhood so I agree having a fairly good understanding of the property tax system with the treasurer and the deputy city manager there’s probably not a lot that we can do on the property tax side of things but there are probably other ways we can look at the way the land is taxed or assessed or how it is zoned in the meantime while it’s being held to give the school boards an opportunity because make no mistake what we’re deciding today is we are forcing them to hold it for an extra 3.5 years more than double so there are some consequences to that that we should be aware of and I think a reasonable information report back to say what does that look like is fair it would I support everything that comes back in that report I’d have to see it first probably not but there’s some things that I probably could I’m not even sure what would come back so I’m supportive of C I recognize that it says options available including but not limited to and then there’s probably some things in there that some colleagues don’t like but you just have to remember these are just options we are making decisions some of those options may not be viable others may be there may be some that we haven’t thought of yet but at the end of the day going back to Councillor ramen’s point the point here is about having adequate land supply for the right period of time for schools to be built in growing neighborhoods with a lot of pressure and the discussions that came out of that are yes we can more than double the time but we want some things looked into in the meantime so we’re proceeding with doubling the time today and we’re making no commitment to any sort of compensation today right we’re making the decision so I just wanted to pull it back to what we’re actually deciding on today we can make other decisions tomorrow on what comes forward from the support so I’m supportive of proceeding with the report but I’ll reserve judgment on the content of that report when I see it thank you Mayor Morgan I’ll return the chair to you and we’re reminding you of Councillor Trossa on next on the list Councillor Trossa go ahead thank you thank you Mayor through you I’ll keep my comments really brief I think the advice that we received from the treasurer pretty much disposing of this matter the part C it says property tax we can’t do that yet yet we get a request from a lobbyist saying please do some special things for us and you know we only have a limited amount of time and ability to send back staff reports which I become very painfully aware of on many occasions when I’m told well you know we we have to we have to sort of not send a lot of things back for reports if it can’t if it can’t be done so I’m I’m strongly opposed to see I appreciate the overall framework in terms of giving giving the parties more time just sort out their affairs but not see that that is that’s just asking for a special interest subsidy that we cannot legally even if we wanted to provide so let’s just vote down C and get on with this thank you very much okay any other speakers on this so we’ll certainly call C separately do that first that way everybody can get that one out of the way and then we’ll call the balance afterwards so we’re gonna vote on C Councillor Layman I assume you can we can just use you to move both of these parts yes okay so C is put on the floor by the chair we’ll open the vote on C closing the vote motion carries 11 to 3 and now we’ll open the vote on the balance of all of the items closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 with one recusal Councillor Layman thank you mayor that concludes report okay we’re on to added reports and great news Councillor Rama’s got an extensive one which she has agreed to read out because it comes from from her committee so we’ll do the added reports which includes the council report from council closed session Councillor ramen thank you I’m pleased to provide the second report of the council in closed session your council and closed session report reads item one property acquisition 500 Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation the deputy city manager find in support of the concurrence of the director construction infrastructure services on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located 500 Wellington Road further described as block seven on plan 33 m 501 city of London County Middlesex designated as part one on plan 33 are 2 1 9 8 1 in the city of London being part of pin 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 5 9 4 containing an area of approximately 2123 meter square 22 846 point I have one square feet the simple and a temporary is been containing 1.193 meter square 12 839.84 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of the future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by the London Health Science Center the vendor to sell these subjects property to the city for the sum of $1,190,000 and granted temporary easement for the sum of $135,000 for the term of two years with an option to extend the term for up to two years sorry up to two times subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C be accepted and be the civic administration be directed to apply the financing for this property acquisition as set out in the source of financing as appendix A to property acquisition acquisition for 10 Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation the deputy city manager finance reports with the concerns of the director for construction and infrastructure service on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located at 410 Wellington Road further described as part of lot 24 concession 1 designated as part 1 on the plan 33 R 2 1 9 7 5 in additionally and additional lands fee simple interest containing a total area of 30,850 point 4 4 square feet and a temporary easement over part of part 2 on reference plan 33 R 2 1 9 7 5 containing an area of 18,263 77 square feet in the city of London being part of pin 0 8 3 6 1 0 0 3 8 sorry - 0 0 3 8 shown as part one and two draft reference plans not deposited prepared by stantic geomatics limited dated November 20 2025 as shown on the location map and sketch attach as appendix B for the purpose of the future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by London Health Sciences the vendor to sell the subject properties to the city for the sum of one million five hundred forty two thousand dollars in branch temporary easement for the sum of one hundred forty one thousand dollars for a term of two years with an option to extend the term up to two times subject to the terms and conditions as set up by the agreement attached as appendix C be accepted and be the civic administration be directed to apply the financing for this property acquisition as set of the source financing as appendix A 3 property acquisition a hundred and sixty two Wellington Road Wellington Gateway there’s a lot more to read people that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction infrastructure services on the vise of the director real estate services with respect to the property located 162 Wellington Road further describes part of lot 25 broken front concession geographic township in Westminster designated as parts one two three on our 33 are two two one eight seven in the city of London County Middlesex being all of pin 0 8 3 5 8 - 0 1 1 as shown on location map and reference plan as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by Eden Rajayak the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the total sum of six hundred and twenty thousand dollars subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as a appendix C be accepted and the civic administration be directed to apply the financing of this property acquisition as set out in the source of financing as appendix A for property acquisition waterman road allowance east of Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendations of the deputy city manager finance support with the concurrence of director construction infrastructure services on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property known as waterman road allowance east of the Wellington Road further described as part of block eight on plan 33 and 501 designated as part three on 33 are two one nine eight one city of London County Middlesex being part of pin 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 5 9 5 as shown on location map as appendix B for the purpose of the future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Road Gateway project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by st.
Joseph health care London and London Health Sciences the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of a hundred thirty thousand and grant a temporary easement for the sum of eight thousand for a term of two years with an option to extend the term up to two times subject to the terms and conditions as set out the agreement as appendix C be accepted and the civic administration be directed to apply the financing for this property acquisition as set out in source of financing as appendix A 5 lease agreement 9 9 9 call up circle convergent center units 201 229 230 and 231 city clerk’s office that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance reports of the current of the city clerk and on the advice of director of realty services with respect to the lease agreement of commercial space located 9 9 9 call up circle unit 201 229 230 and 231 the following actions be taken a the news lease agreement the lease as appendix A between the city and the University of Western Research and Development Park the landlord for the lease of approximately eleven thousand four hundred thirty one square feet rentable space located 9 9 9 call up circle units 201 229 230 231 for a term of one year and four months commencing on February 1st 2026 and ending on May 31st 2027 for the city clerk’s office at a gross lease price of forty two thousand two hundred nineteen dollars per month plus harmonized sales tax be approved with a further right to extend on a month-to-month basis if required until December 31st 2027 B the mayor and the city clerk be authorized to execute the lease agreement C the civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrations administrative steps necessary in connection with the lease agreement and D the civic administration be directed to apply the required financing from the municipal election reserve fund for this lease space as required and that progress was made with respect to items 4.1 and 4.7 as known on the public agenda 6.12 SPPC added reports related to 380 390 Princess Avenue okay so thank you for that we’re going to handle this as we’re going to deal with one two three and four which are all the things related to rapid transit projects as one block of votes we’ll deal with the lease agreement at the University of Western Ontario Research and Development Park and the progress clause as a separate vote so that’s not good okay so first we’ll do all of the BRT related ones and so the council has your your if you got a question on that oh you just oh councilor ramen will move because she’s presenting the report and we don’t need a seconder so all the BRT ones are on the floor I need to be on that okay we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 all right and now we’ll put on the floor the the lease of office base at the convergence center and the it being noted clauses are sorry that the progress clauses related to the items that are still in camera items any discussion on those we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay that means we’re on to bird matter so I don’t have any inquiries any inquiries okay I don’t see any emergent motions there are none so we’re on to bylaws here’s how I’m gonna do the bylaws based on how people voted today we’re gonna do Bill’s numbers 36 43 and added bills 55 to 58 which are all related to Wellington Gateway and the and the rapid transit projects we’ll do all of those bills altogether first then we’ll do bills 31 and 47 which are related to Callaway for 65 Callaway then we’ll deal with bills 34 and 53 which are the revised bills that Council McAllister made some changes to with respect to property on Hamilton Road and then we’ll do everything else that sound okay all right is there someone who supports all of that so I can use the same over and seconder Deputy Mayor Lewis and Council Pribble okay I’ll use you for all of those motions all the way through okay so first like I said we’re gonna deal with bills 36 43 55 and 58 which are all related to the Wellington Gateway project we’re gonna open first reading of those bills closing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 all right second reading same over and seconder of all of those bills any discussion on second reading seeing none we’ll open this for voting motion carries 13 to 2 third and final reading of these bills same over and seconder will open third reading for voting carries 13 to 2 okay next we’re gonna deal with the 465 Callaway items it’s bills 31 and 47 I’m gonna open first reading for voting carries 13 to 2 and second reading of these bills I’ll look to see if there’s any speakers seeing none we’ll open this for voting carries 13 to 2 and third and final reading of these two bills will open that for voting carries 13 to 2 okay next we’re gonna do bills 34 and 53 which are the revised bills related to I think it’s 1040 Hamilton Road this is Councilman Callister made some changes to these so those revised bills will open for first reading carries 15 to 0 and second reading see if there’s any discussion okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting motion carries 15 0 and third and final reading of these two bills we’ll open that for voting she carries 15 0 right and then all the remaining bills that we haven’t approved I’ll put those on the floor with the same mover and seconder and we’ll open first reading of everything that’s left carries 15 0 and second reading I look for any discussion seeing none we’ll open second reading for voting carries 15 0 third and final reading of these bills I’m gonna open that for voting motion carries 15 0 okay that brings us to the final item which is a adjournment I’ll look for a motion to adjourned Councillor van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Hillier we can do this by hand so all those in favor of adjournment. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
We’re adjourned.