January 27, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM.

None.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items 2.1 to 2.3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   Homeowner Information Brochure - Report Back

2026-01-27 (2.1) Staff Report - Homeowner Information Brochure

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the Homeowner Information Brochure; BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that this report fulfills Council’s request and the direction for public input; therefore, the item may be removed from the Planning and Environment Committee’s Deferred Matters List.

Motion Passed

2.2   Heritage Alteration Permit Application by Kunzum Inc., 484 English Street

2026-01-27 (2.2) Staff Report - 484 English Street - HAP25-103-L

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the alterations of the front window of the heritage designated property at 484 English Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

it being noted that the alterations were completed without Heritage Alteration Permit approval and do not comply with the policies and guidelines of the Old East Heritage Conservation District Plan and Conservation Guidelines.

Motion Passed

2.3   Heritage Alteration Permit Application by C. Fowler, 46 Victor Street

2026-01-27 (2.3) Staff Report - 46 Victor Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the application by the owner, C. Fowler, under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of the roof on the heritage designated property at 46 Victor Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED.

Motion Passed

3.1   1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2026-01-27 (3.1) CACP Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on January 15, 2026, was received;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J. M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   233 Cambridge Street - Z-25155

2026-01-27 (3.2) Staff Report - 233 Cambridge 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 Distinctive Homes London Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 233 Cambridge Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 (R1-7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (h-9*R2-1(_)) Zone;

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

- C. Alister, Zelinka Priamo Ltd; and,

- A. Hostman;

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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153

2026-01-27 (3.3) 644-664 Southdale Rd E and 821 Nadine Ave

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Limited, relating to the property located at 644-664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_ of The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), for the subject lands representing 650-664 Southdale Road East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 (R3-2) Zone, an Office Conversion/Holding Transit Station Area (OC4/h-13TSA1) Zone, and a Residential R3/Holding Transit Station Area (R3-2/h-13TSA1) Zone TO a Residential R3/Transit Station Area Special Provision (R3-2/TSA1(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide enhanced all-season landscaping and fencing beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law along the interior side and rear property line;

ii)    require the principal entrance to be located on the Southdale Road East façade; and, 

iii)    achieve a human-scale along Southdale Road East through the detailed design of the building by incorporating design measures including, but not limited to, architectural features and/or articulation;

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

- L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

- R. McQuiggan;

- M. Baron;

- J. Vander Re;

- C. Richards; and,

- J. Larivier;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at an appropriate scale and intensity 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151

REVISED - 2026-01-27 (3.4) Staff Report - 767 Fanshawe Park Rd E 679 Dunboyne Cres

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Northbound Development Corporation relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(25)) and a Residential R1 (R1-7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-8*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    all-season landscaping along the rear and interior side yards;

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

iii)    screened parking to minimize the visual exposure of parking area to the street and create an inviting, active and comfortable pedestrian environment along Fanshawe Park Road East; and,

iv)    all concerns raised by the public during the public participation meeting on the zoning by-law amendment as they relate to site and building design.

v)    maintain privacy for the adjacent low rise residential properties by restricting balconies to the north façade facing Fanshawe Park Road East.

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

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

  •    a communication dated January 2, 2026, from K. Gilbert and R.Howell; 

  •    a communication dated January 21, 2026, from L. Smith; 

  •    a communication dated January 22, 2026, from M., R., M. and T. Wilson; 

  •    a communication dated January 26, 2026, from M. Wilson; and, 

  •    a communication dated January 22, 2026, from S. Calvert;

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

  • O. Alchits, Strik Balindelli Moniz;

  • E. Wilcox;

  • S. Berberich;

  • M. Shantz;

  • R. Wilson;

  • M. Wilson;

  • M. Reis;

  • D. Seguin;

  • R. Miller;

  • M Mussio;

  • P. Vollick;

  • D. Berberich;

  • S. Calvert;

  • M. Wilson;

  • N. Gilbert;

  • P. Rivard;

  • B. Nailer;

  • K. Gilbert;

  • C. MacDonald;

  • B. Renard;

  • G. Kumpf; and,

  • L. Smith;

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

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

ii)    the requested amendment is in conformity with the London Plan;

iii)    the requested amendment is appropriate within the existing and planned context;

iv)    it ensures compatible built form, adequate provision of municipal services and the orderly development of the lands, the h-8 symbol shall not be deleted until a stormwater servicing report has been prepared and confirmation that stormwater management systems are implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

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 (3 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   3334-3354 Wonderland Road South - OZ-25140

2026-01-27 (3.5) Staff Report - 3334 3354 Wonderland Road South

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Committee recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 4:11 PM and reconvenes at 4:26 PM.

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland Road South:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies of the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height of 20 storeys, excluding mechanical penthouses and rooftop amenity space, and a maximum residential density of 350 units per hectare; and,

c)   the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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) and b), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreational Special Provision (CR(6)) Zone TO a holding Residential R10 Special Provision/Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (h-1h-3h-8h-13R10-5()*H70/ASA1()) Zone and to AMEND the Open Space Special Provision (OS4(12)) Zone;

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

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

  • S. Allen, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture;

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

  •    there has been significant density pressure in the north and northwest, which is expected to continue with the recently approved Urban Growth Boundary, highlighting the need to redistribute growth across London;

  •    the proposed building heights will not affect neighbouring single-family homes;

  •    industrial growth in south London is increasing housing demand, and consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary discussion, this site is appropriate for higher heights by building up rather than out; and

  •    regarding water and wastewater capacity, the adjacent property owner has indicated a willingness to accommodate increased capacity through their lands at their own expense. The proposed holding provisions recognize this arrangement and would permit development only once the additional capacity has been secured.

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   965 Adelaide Street South - Z-35144

2026-01-27 (3.6) Staff Report - 965 Adelaide Street South

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 God’s Favourite House Canada (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 965 Adelaide Street South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 Community Shopping Area (CSA2) Zone TO a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA2(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made 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 Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

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

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

  •     the recommended amendment facilitates an appropriate use in a suitable location, allowing the reuse of an underutilized site at a scale and intensity that can be accommodated within the existing building 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.7   68-76 Commissioners Road East - 25147

2026-01-27 (3.7) Staff Report - 68-76 Commissioners Road East

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 Faith Quais (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 68-76 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)    a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 80 Commissioners Road East under a single Development Agreement; 

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

iii)    Units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed towards the street;

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  • M. Hothorn;

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

  •    a communication dated January 23, 2026, from J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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 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 Key Directions, City Building policies, Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.8   80 Commissioners Rd East - Z-25146 

2026-01-27 (3.8) Staff Report - 80 Commissioners Road East

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 Utopia Homes Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 80 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated 27th January, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)    a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 68-76 Commissioners Road East under one Development Agreement; 

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

iii)     implementation of the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025, to ensure mitigation measures are incorporated into the site design; and, 

iv)    units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed toward the street;

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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 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 Key Directions, City Building policies, Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •     the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.9   610 Princess Avenue - Z-25154

2026-01-27 (3.9) Staff Report - 610 Princess Ave

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Iron Door Properties c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc. relating to the property located at 610 Princess Avenue, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC2(4)) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

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

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);

  •     the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Urban Corridors 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.10   732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street - Z-25148

2026-01-27 (3.10) Staff Report - 732 Wellington St 282 Piccadilly St

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 732 Wellington Street Inc. & London Bridge Childcare Services relating to the properties located at 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 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 732 Wellington Street FROM a Day Care (DC) Zone, TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(*)) Zone and a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(**)) Zone;

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

  • D. Sikelero-Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

  •    a communication dated January 24, 2026, from T. and N. Tattersall;

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);

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the conversion of the existing buildings to fourplex and triplex dwellings, which are appropriate uses for the sites 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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.11   5150 Wellington Road South - OZ-25135

2026-01-27 (3.11) Staff Report - 5150 Wellington Rd S

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London in Ontario relating to the property located at 5150 Wellington Road South:

a)      the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, the request to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy in the Specific Policies for the Farmland Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan BE APPROVED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment does satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies; and, 

ii)    the requested amendment does facilitate an appropriate use of the lands;

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 10, 2026, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Facility (CF1) Zone, a Holding Community Facility (h-1CF1) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO Holding Community Facility (h-9CF4) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(_)) Zone BE APPROVED for the following reasons:

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

ii)    the requested amendment is appropriate within the existing and planned context;

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 presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

-    L. Jaimeson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.12   3680 Wonderland Road - OZ-25128

2026-01-27 (3.12) Staff Report - 3680 Wonderland Road South

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1001320818 Ontario Inc. (c/o Miami Developments) relating to the property located at 3680 Wonderland Road South:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to:

i)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to ADD one Neighbourhood Connector for Street ‘A’ as detailed on the Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505);

ii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505), to permit a maximum building height of 18-storeys for Block 1 and 16-storeys for Block 2, both with frontage on Wonderland Road South and; ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and,

iii)    AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood to permit the following in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505): an upper-maximum height of 18-storeys for Block 1 and 16-storeys for Block 2, both with frontage on Wonderland Road South; a gross density of up to 216 units per hectare for the subject lands; and, an additional 1,190 square metres (12,800 square feet) gross floor area for commercial development.

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend the 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 FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (h-9h-108h-151ASA8(15)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8h-14R9-7()H62) Zone, a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8h-14R9-7(**)H55) Zone, and a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8h-14R5-7(*)) Zone.

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    prohibition of front yard parking;

ii)    provision of a minimum step-back of 5.0 metres above the third or fourth storey for apartment buildings (Building A1, A2, B1, B2, & B3, as described in the Preliminary Draft Plan of Subdivision dated September 25, 2025) along public streets (Wharncliffe Road South, Wonderland Road South, Exeter Road, Street ‘A’, and Street ‘B’);

iii)    provision of a minimum ground floor height of 4.0 metres for apartment buildings (Building A1, A2, B1, B2, & B3, as described in the Preliminary Draft Plan of Subdivision dated September 25, 2025); and,

iv)    orientation of front facades and primary entrances of buildings to face the adjacent public streets with direct pedestrian connections to the future public sidewalks;

d)    the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    the Applicant shall prepare an updated Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), to the satisfaction of the City, as part of the subdivision design review process. The TIA shall determine the required intersection control measures for the intersection of Exeter Road and Street ‘B’, including any temporary full access configurations such as a temporary signalized intersection. All such works shall be completed at the Applicant’s cost as part of the external works for the subdivision; 

ii)    as part of the temporary external works, and once the development to the east (municipally known as 1620 Wharncliffe Road South) is fully constructed, the Street ‘B’ and Exeter Road intersection is to be converted to right in-right out access, and the Applicant shall be responsible for:

A)    contributing financially to the removal of the temporary intersection control measures;

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

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

  • A. Shenouda, SEM Construction; and,

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

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

  •    there has been significant density pressure in the north and northwest, which is expected to continue with the recently approved Urban Growth Boundary, highlighting the need to redistribute growth across London;

  •    the proposed building heights will not affect neighbouring single-family homes;

  •    industrial growth in south London is increasing housing demand, and consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary discussion, this site is appropriate for higher heights by building up rather than out; and

  •    permitting one full access on Exeter Road will alleviate traffic concerns while retaining overall traffic impact on Wonderland Road South.

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.1   Councillor E. Peloza - Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Update Request

2026-01-27 (4.1) Submission - Brownfield CIP - E. Peloza

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in Q2 2026 with a list of current Brownfield CIP approvals including the municipal funding allocation, project status updates for each site, and recommendations for any inactive or unprogressed applications for Council’s consideration including but not limited to a sunset provision; 

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

  •    a communication dated January 24, 2026, from C. Butler.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2026-01-27 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the January Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

it being noted that the meeting adjourned at 5:58 PM.

Votes

15 substantive votes at this meeting (1 contested, 14 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

That Items 2.1 to 2.3, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.1. 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on January 15, 2026, was received; it being noted that the verbal delegation from J. M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to this matter, was received.

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.2. 233 Cambridge Street - Z-25155

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Distinctive Homes London Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 233 Cambridge Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff r…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.3. 644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Limited, relating to the property located at 644-664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue: a)    consistent with Policy 4…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.4. 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Northbound Development Corporation relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent: a)    the proposed attached b…

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 1) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Steve Lehman

Nay (1): Steve Hillier

Absent (1): Susan Stevenson

3.5. 3334-3354 Wonderland Road South - OZ-25140

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland Road South: a)    the proposed attached by-law BE I…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.6. 965 Adelaide Street South - Z-35144

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of God’s Favourite House Canada (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 965 Adelaide Street South, the proposed by-law as appended to th…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.7. 68-76 Commissioners Road East - 25147

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Faith Quais (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 68-76 Commissioners Road East: a)    the proposed by-law as appended t…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.8. 80 Commissioners Rd East - Z-25146

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Utopia Homes Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 80 Commissioners Road East: a)    the proposed by-law as appende…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.9. 610 Princess Avenue - Z-25154

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Iron Door Properties c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc. relating to the property located at 610 Princess Avenue, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff rep…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.10. 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street - Z-25148

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 732 Wellington Street Inc. & London Bridge Childcare Services relating to the properties located at 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street, the propose…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.11. 5150 Wellington Road South - OZ-25135

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London in Ontario relating to the property located at 5150 Wellington Road South: a)     …

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.12. 3680 Wonderland Road - OZ-25128

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.12. 3680 Wonderland Road - OZ-25128

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1001320818 Ontario Inc. (c/o Miami Developments) relating to the property located at 3680 Wonderland Road South: a)    the proposed attached by-law BE AP…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

4.1. Councillor E. Peloza - Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Update Request

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in Q2 2026 with a list of current Brownfield CIP approvals including the municipal funding allocation, project status updates for each site, and recommendations for any inactive …

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

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 (5 hours, 15 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It is 101, so I’d like to call the third meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting and detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands on Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Lenna Peiwak, and Adirondron.

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 PAC, PEC@london.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I’d like to move on to our consent items. We have three, so I will put that on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll move to the consent. You’re moving to consent items. Councillor Cuddy, you’re seconding. I’ll look for any comments or questions regarding the three items.

One is a homeowner information brochure, and then we have two heritage alteration permit applications. Just from the chair, quickly. Thank you for staff on the homeowner information brochure. Appreciate that information, guiding new residents of their environment.

I know there has been concern in the past. This is another matter, but just an FYI. I don’t know if this can be done through planning department or not. A lot of times we have vacant fields that have been zoned for development, and over time, if they’re not developed, people consider them open space, or parkland, et cetera.

And I don’t know if there’s a way to sign or have information go out to those property owners around for that misconception. A lot of times it comes in, sometimes with new residents, that they move in thinking they have got a park behind them, and then they’re surprised when development happens. So just to be in the bottom for that. One last time for any comments from many.

We have a motion movement. Oh, just a second, please. Okay, thanks, it’s been informed that we have a couple of counselors join us online. Please raise your hands if you wish to address, or address the committee.

We have no further comments regarding consent items. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call that vote. Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you. Our first scheduled item is a delegation from the chair of our Community Advisory Committee on Planning, Mr. Metralier. Please go ahead, sir.

You have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of PEC, thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak briefly because both the items I wanted to talk about were actually in the consent agenda.

So I might be a little late on it, but the point I wanted to make applies a little more broadly as well. So the items we saw on our report were 46 Victor and 484 English Street, which were a heritage alteration permits. 46 Victor was a replacement roof asphalt to metal, I think I recall. 484 English was an expansion of a window in a replacement with a door at the front of the house.

And I know sometimes these are contentious. And so I just wanted to highlight that. These are actually two examples where we agreed with staff, 100%. And importantly, I think they are consistent with the new guidelines that the committee has provided input on and that PEC has staff to develop.

And so 46 Victor, staff acknowledge that while it’s not something they would maybe recommend from the outset that it’s not something they’re going to prohibit. That’s exactly the kind of thing we’d like to see. And it’s consistent with the guidelines we worked on. 484 English was a recommendation to refuse the application.

And now the committee likes to be reasonable. We’ve had a few of these where we disagree with staff and said it should be permitted. But this is actually in the committee’s view was kind of exactly the kind of alteration that we think even with a more permissive set of guidelines staff shouldn’t be approving. ‘Cause if you’ve seen the house, it actually is quite a substantial alteration to the streetscape, very visible.

In our view, it’s not something as minor as replacing the material on a window. It actually does quite substantially alter the streetscape. So I just wanted to extend our thanks to staff for I think internalizing some of the guidance we gave on those guidelines. And we’re fully behind them on these two and look forward to more applications like this where we can start to see those guidelines come forward.

And more permission where it’s warranted and none where it’s not. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Metrelli, and just from the chair, I appreciate the work that you do and the guidance you provide in conjunction with staff for committee members and council.

Sometimes this stuff falls in gray areas and to have your committee give us your opinions is very valued. And I will say just for the public again, please go through your due process before you start work. The hard thing for us is to deny the application after the work’s been done and it will need to increase costs. And it’s better to know going forward with your project where you stand.

And I think we have a very reasonable committee and staff and very reasonable advisory committee so that we’re willing to work with you to find solutions. So please seek approval before going in with your project. Committee members have any questions or comments or Mr. Metelli.

Seeing none, thank you, sir. Appreciate the good work that your committee does. Appreciate being here. So I’ll look for committee to make a motion to receive the report.

Councillor Cutty seconded by Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis and no further questions, we’ll call that vote. So think about the motion carries four to zero. Okay, next item is 3.2. This is regarding 233 Cambridge Street.

And I’ll look for a mover and a seconder that we can carry on through the whole meeting today to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Cutty has indicated he’ll move it and Councillor Hill here will second it. So we will use the same mover and seconder to open and close public participation meetings for time come straight. So we’ve got a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote to open them. So seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant. If the applicant would like to address committee, please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Hello, my name is Kayne McAllister. I’m a planner with the link of pre-emo here on behalf of a distinctive homes London limited for the zoning application at 233 Cambridge Street. Our zoning application seeks to rezone the subject plans to residential R2-1 in order to facilitate the development of a two-story semi-detached dwelling. This is running concurrently with a consent application that severing the lands into two parcels down the demising wall of the proposed semi-detached dwelling.

So that there’ll be one semi-detached dwelling muted on each lot. And with that, we are seeking one special provision with the zoning for a lot frontage. And outside of that, I’d like to thank staff for their report and recommendation for approval. And I’m here to answer any questions regarding this application.

Thank you, Mr. McAllister. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address, please, sir. Go to the mic near you there.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name’s Al Dawson. I live at 147 Britannia. That’s three dollars away from this project.

I’m not very good at public speaking with soil, but my thoughts on paper, I’m just gonna read it. Thank you for your time. This development requires some exemptions to existing rules. Too many when considered in conjunction with potential parking and traffic congestion, building higher than permitted and reduced lock fundage.

Seeking multiple exemptions, this project represents too much intensification and too small an area without demonstrating that it would not cause undue hardship to existing residences. And I’m talking about parking. I live three doors away for 45 years and a lot has changed. In my experience, living among student populations, students who seek housing away from campuses drive cars.

Not all cars, students in my area drive cars, but many do. And I do not expect that to change drastically with the introduction of the BRT in the near future. And this location is not on the rapid transit corridor. 25 years ago, uncontrolled parking was such a problem on these streets that the neighborhoods in the city settled on restrictions.

A two hour parking limit and parking on one side of Britannia only from Cambridge to Oxford Street. This block of Cambridge Street annexed by the city of London about 1920 still has no sidewalks and no curbs and is edged with deteriorating swale that offers per day drainage to the road and accommodates eight parking spaces on the whole block. Last Friday about noon, a city snow plow was unable to navigate Cambridge Street and was forced to the back out. This was too due to cars parked legally on both sides of Cambridge Street, which is a narrow street, no curbs.

I’ll give another example of the parking tissues. 218 Cambridge Street began as a duplex and evolved into student housing, five bedrooms, five tenants, five automobiles, not including guests with automobiles. The parking area provided consists at two rows of parking, one holding three cars with last in first out parking, jockeying becomes necessary, often culminating in one or more cars being parked on the street. This is a street where parking is limited to two hours with no overnight parking in the winter.

These rules are constantly ignored and that can be substantiated by city records. Also problems with emergency vehicles getting stuck, not being able to get out in the street. Recent developments in our area have largely involved converting signal homes into denser occupancy. Typically a small home is enlarged and extended to maximum allowable size.

Student housing in the form of five bedroom units and large duplexes now abound. Parking must be considered when a project has the potential to house 10 individuals each with a car. In this case, the proposed two rows of single lane parking is not adequate for single parking, for student parking. One remedy to the situation is might be to move the building closer to the rear of the boundary, allow parking across the front of the street, front of the building as demonstrated at 165 Britannia.

Another option would be to use the basement for underground party, leaving a duplex above with 2400 square feet. That’s 112 square meters, that’s still a big place. Alternatively, the size of the project could be reduced to a single unit with parking provided along with a side. Again, I say address student parking.

Two very large semi-detached buildings, 3,600 square feet each on three floors, lend themselves easily to conversion to students’ bedroom style accommodation. This maneuver, this change is lucrative, very lucrative and completely legal and very possible. Consider the concerns of city service and emergency vehicles, especially during construction of this unit. Stop this project as too big for lack of parking, thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. I would like to address committee. Also, clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s nobody online.

I don’t see anyone approaching the mic, so we have a motion to close the PPE app, moved and seconded, so I will call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries, forward to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for a committee. Councillor Cudi, thank you Chair.

I’ll move staff for a good recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded. Comments or questions?

Councillor Ferrer. Thanks Chair, just wanna make some comments and maybe some questions on this. I did speak to Al there. I think his concerns are rightfully valid.

I did speak to some other residents in the area as well, and they are saying the same things. When it comes to the parking concerns, people are curious in the neighborhood about whether proposed parking functions, particularly in the near campus neighborhood, ‘cause that is the context we’re working in, we’re considered. And I’ve seen these developments routinely in the area, and they usually generate a higher parking demand due to bedroom count and rental patterns. And these housing units are usually geared towards student oriented housing, and often it’s a one student per car reality that we’re seeing there, which raises the risk of spillover parking into the already constrained residential area.

So I guess I would ask a question to staff if they can speak on whether the proposed tandem parking arrangement has been considered functionally adequate for rental student housing types, and how that parking design is evaluated in the near campus neighborhoods, and whether staff have assessed the relationship between the potential bedroom configuration and parking supply and the likelihood of spillover impacts in the surrounding area. Okay, so we are talking about a two-story semi-detached dwelling with a total of two residential units. So I’ll go to staff with the concerns that councilor has raised regarding parking. Through the chair, thank you for the question.

As the proposal is for a semi-detached dwelling, it only requires one off-street parking space per unit, and the applicant is proposing a separate driveway for each unit with space to accommodate two parking spaces per unit. There are no special regulations for the near campus neighborhood and staff have evaluated and we have no concerns with the parking rate. Councilor. Thanks for that.

I understand we don’t have, I guess, any requirements when it comes to a potential student housing in the near campus neighborhood, but the reality is we do see these types of housing get built in a near campus neighborhood, and this one is looking like it could be considered that. I guess I would ask, I know what the answer is, but are we able to know, or maybe from the proponent, if this building development is gonna be intended for student use or not, or if it’s intended for anything up in the air right now? Okay, I’ll go to the applicant on that question. Thank you.

At this time, the ownership model hasn’t been determined. As of yet, I don’t have any further information to provide you at this time. Councilor. Thanks.

I think the likeliness just because of how the neighborhood has been developed in the last little while is this gonna be student housing. My concern is that this proposal pushes right up against the limits of what the site can reasonably support, especially when we consider the bedroom count and the likeliness of a per car per student bedroom count. And that will push parking onto the street. So I understand that the application technically meets or even exceeds the minimum standards in this situation, ‘cause we round up from the minimum parking requirement.

It is within the near campus neighborhood, and I’ve seen in practice the proposed parking configurations is likely to result in spillover. There’s many examples of this in that area. I don’t think that this will strike the balance between an intensification and the neighborhood impact. I would hope that this committee doesn’t approve this application.

I’m not gonna be supporting it at council. People in the neighborhood have been saying exactly the same thing as Al there has spoken to. Just a question from the chair. Is this proposed development fall within our near campus housing policies?

Through the chair, yes, it does. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee members or Deputy Mayor Lewis? Thank you chair.

I’m gonna be really brief. It was said by the speaker in the gallery, they can legally do this. For us to reject an application, we have to have a legal planning rationale under the Ontario Planning Act and under our official plan. We do not have that.

This meets the requirements as staff have outlined in the report and so I will be supporting it. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved in second.

I’ll call the vote. I was thinking about the motion carries four to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 644 to 664, Southville Road East, NA21, Nadine Avenue.

We have a motion to move and second it to open the public participation meetings. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you.

I’ll look to the applicant. Does the applicant like to address us? Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee, members of the public, members of staff.

My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with the link of pre-ammo. Here representing our client’s outside development, or Southside group with respect to this application. We are here today requesting a zoning bylaw amendment to extend the transit station area or TSA one zoning across the subject lands to accommodate a 14-story residential apartment building with 207 units.

There will be 110 surface parking spaces and one level of underground parking with this development as well. We have reviewed staff’s report and we appreciate the recommendation for approval. We did host a community open house as there were some comments and concerns from members of the public. At this open house, we made a brief presentation and fielded a number of questions, particularly with respect to the building height and traffic and noise.

The building height is permitted in the rapid transit corridor place type, which permits a maximum building height of 25 stories. And through the interpretation policies of the rapid transit corridor place type, up to an additional 150 meter depth within an additional place type can be considered to be included in that place type as well. The building does step down from 14 stories along the east to eight stories along the west to provide a more gentle transition from the rapid transit corridor to the neighborhood’s place type in the interior. I will also note that eight stories is the maximum building height permitted within the neighborhood’s place type along Southdale Road, the Civic Boulevard.

Our traffic impact assessment confirmed that a four-way stop at the site entrance at Montgomery Street and Southdale Road would be required. Our team will be working with city staff to ensure the design of the intersection meets all city requirements and will function appropriately for the future development. And a noise study will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Overall, again, we are pleased with staff’s recommendation or approval of the application.

I’m here to answer any questions that members of the committee may have. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Jamison.

I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. All right, my name is Ron McQuigan. Good evening, council members.

My name is Ron McQuigan. I live at 821 Nadinev. I’m here tonight because my family home is being demolished to make way for this project. I have lived in this community for five years.

And right now I am facing displacement with no clear path forward. Losing our home isn’t just an inconvenience or disruption. It’s our life, it’s our livelihood. As renters, my family has contributed to this neighborhood’s growth.

We feel like we have being pushed out to make room for a project that hasn’t accounted for the people currently living in this neighborhood. Before this project moves forward, my family has three specific questions for the council. What is the specific relocation assistance plan for the tenants being displaced? And will it cover actual cost of moving in today’s market?

Two, will the place tenants have the right to return to the new building at a rent that is actually affordable to us? What is the city doing to ensure that redevelopment doesn’t just mean displacement for long-term residents? I would also like to add that this is a family neighborhood. There’s a lot of children.

And with the high amount of traffic that’s going to be developing, that is a big concern to not only me, but to everyone else in the neighborhood. There’s going to be trees torn down, many other things. And I’d just like to know what’s going on in your future. That’s all.

Thank you. I look for another speaker. I’d like to address committee on this particular item. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

You’re with me here, get the glasses on. I’m going to read it, a little nervous doing this, but we’re going to go through it. Here we go. My name’s Mark Beren.

My wife and I are against the proposed zoning change. I moved to London with my girlfriend. Eventually, my wife in 1981, and we have lived at the current address on Wind Bluffs for the last 30 years. When we moved to London, we dreamed of owning a home in the Lockwood Park area.

The area had anything, everything we wanted, including large lots and privacy was excellent. The area was populated with veteran land act homes and didn’t even have curbs at the time. Basically, I referred to the area as a little bit of country in the city. In 1995, we purchased our home, current home with two children in tow and started our life’s journey.

Over time, we added an in-ground pool, hot tub, large vegetable garden, never ending flower gardens, a greenhouse, a fire pit, and a utility shed. During our 30 years at this location, we have had barbecues, pool parties camping around the fire pit and lots of family functions, and now with the inclusion of grandchildren. The joy and smiles of being together with my wife working in our gardens is irreplaceable. Fast forward to today, when I open the curtains in the morning and look into the backyard, I’m distressed by the thought of a 14-story apartment building, a 60-meter concrete wall with 100-plus residents staring down my backyard.

After talking to neighbors, no one wants this proposal. During a phone conversation, later meetings with agent Zalinka from Southside Group, they emphasized with the situation we found ourselves in. And when I asked the agent directly, would you want this building towering over your backyard? The answer was a decisive no.

When I go to the Southside Group’s website, they talk about building community, but there’s no community in this proposal. In fact, it’s tearing the community apart. Do I sell? Do I stay?

If I sell, am I selling out to my other neighbors by letting a developer buy up the neighborhood? When this neighborhood was built years ago, it started with apartments on Wilkins and Sandringham, transitioning to town homes and then to single-family homes. There’s no transition from a single-family home on Windblest to an apartment on Southdale, just a 14-story wall. Let me be frank, if this apartment goes ahead, we will lose our privacy.

I invite anyone here today, come stand my backyard and experience what a 460-meter wall would look like. Can you imagine having the family and grandkids over for a barbecue and pool party only to have the 100 or so residents peer over our property that was once private? In fact, the greenhouse in our backyard is often a place for enjoying a beverage after a day working in the garden, but the developer has placed a garbage recycling area on the opposite side of the fence where my greenhouse is next to. The number of trees or landscaping, no number of trees or landscaping will provide a privacy from a 14-story building.

The building does not fit with an neighborhood and is not consistent with the London plan and even with BRT. The shadows that the 14-story building, again, no transition will affect the productivity of our gardens, no sun, no vegetables. There’s not enough parking. Deputy Mayor Lewis has discovered apartments with 50% ratios lead to residents parking on neighborhood streets and business parking lots.

In fact, Deputy Mayor Lewis is going to propose a one-to-one ratio for apartments moving forward as apartments are not renting or they are at minimum, causing grievance over the street and business parking. But wait, the developer is going to, but wait, the developer is going to claim it is allowed under BRT. Well, that may be so, but we are city of cars and Londoners love their vehicles. The developer has said that there will be underground parking, but has not committed to any numbers in its plans.

Perhaps they are waiting to see if it will even be necessary. There are several water monitoring wells on proposed site, but there’s no mention of any results from these monitoring wells. I asked the company that puts in these wells and they told me sometimes the development has been delayed for years and possibly permanently. I can also say that when we put in our pool, we had to put in a shallow pool, less than six feet deep in the deep end due to water concerns that we realized during the digging process.

I imagine digging an underground parking structure is a lot deeper than my pool and we certainly need some environmental investigation. Let’s talk about traffic and the proposed changing of the intersection at Montgomery to a four-way intersection. 30 seconds. I acknowledge there was a traffic report, but it’s incomplete.

The firm that did the survey acknowledges this, there are constantly accidents that Wellington and Southfield, Southfield, Montgomery, Southfield, Birmingham, a recent horrific accident between OPP and the taxi come to mind. When I asked my insurance company, why my car insurance is so high for the area they point to the traffic statistics for the area. The survey does not take into consideration the 329 story apartments being built north of the liquor store in Wellington that will back onto Montgomery as well as the 32 story apartments going in and the unused parking lot at White Oaks Mall. Okay, thank you, sir.

That’s your time. Thank you. I only have about 30 more seconds here. Well, if you can wrap it up, that’d be great.

We have a lot of busy afternoon. Okay, I understand. During construction, they will tear down four houses, did not the merit to talk about the fact that we need to focus more on the homeownership at his year end remarks. In fact, single homes start to stagnated in recent years and apartment vacancy rates are at a 15 year high.

The developer states the project will take approximately two years complete, but likely a construction goes it will be more like three years as opposed to one year from townhouses. During those three years, our properties will be taken by noise, construction, dust, idling, trucks, and towering crane taken away from our lives. Who will be keep my home free from the increased dust? I guess I’ll have to keep my windows shut.

Is that fair? Who will pay for my pool to be cleaned? Will my guard never grow again? Okay, sir.

I gave you extension, that’s enough. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have 35 minutes.

Hello, my name’s Josh Van der Reed. I am the owner and landlord of 642 South of Rhodes. This is the property that’s directly west of the property being proposed. I’m reaching out to you to direct because of the curb proposal, a 14 story, 207 unit apartment tower with only 10 feet setback for my property line.

So just picture that for a second, 10 feet. My property is about five, six feet off the property line. So 16 feet off my property, there’s gonna be an eight story tower. And I will have severe and lasting impacts on my home.

My tenants and my long-term financial stability. I wanna ensure that you’re aware of the magnitude of these concerns before the application comes to council. So there’s an extreme height and zero transition next to low-rise homes. The proposed building is a 14 story tall, positioned only 10 feet from my triplex.

This is an unprecedented adjacency in our ward and appears incompatible with the intent of the London plans, transition to scale requirements, urban design guidelines, good neighbors policies. There’s no step down, no transition, no mitigation for massing between high-rise tower and existing low-rise homes. There’s significant privacy and livability impacts. So the east elevation facing our home includes a continuous balconies and windows, which is directly overlooked by tenants’ bedrooms and living spaces.

They’re private outdoor areas, my driveway and parking. As such, small separation distances will effectively eliminate any reasonable expectation of privacy on my property. Shadows and light impacts. So the developer’s shadow studies do not assess the impacts on my home or adjacent properties.

Given the height and proximity, my property will be in shadow for substantial portions of the morning and early afternoon across pretty much the entire year. This missing analysis is a major concern. Financial impacts on rental income. So currently, my property is operated as a furnished medium-turn rental.

We deal with a lot of relocation companies. Currently, we have a bunch of pilots that are staying with us from the International Flight Training School. These are the types of business professionals that we cater to. So the proposed development reduced rental demand, reduced monthly rental income, increased vacancy risk, and directly impact my property value.

This is not speculative. It’s predictive consequence of placing a tower wall at 10 feet from my property. Construction risks to my building. With a proposed separation distance, there are serious worries about vibration damage, shoring failures, crane swing over my property, dust, noise, and access restrictions.

No construction mitigation plan has been provided to address these risks. Intensification should still respect existing homes. I support thorough growth and intensification in the city. However, intensification should not come at the complete expense of existing residential properties.

A development on this scale with the setbacks is not consistent with responsible planning. And I will make a note that current requirement is 9.5 meters from the west boundary. They have proposed just over three meters. So my request to council, first of all, I’m asking you to not support it in its current form.

And I require the following before any approvals are considered, a meaningful increase in setback from the west property line, significant building setbacks and/or height reduction, proper privacy protections, a full shadow analysis, and construction protection measures for neighboring buildings. So thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers in the gallery.

We have someone online, I believe. Chris Richards, sir, can you hear me? Yes, again. Please go ahead, sir, you have five minutes.

My name is Chris Richards, and I live at 815 Nadine Avenue. It’s directly designed to propose development. I support housing, and I understand the city’s push to build in your transit. I’m not opposed to development in principle.

In fact, when the developer first approached me, I agreed to sell my home and relocate once we reached a fair agreement. So said group ultimately backed out of the agreement, and I am now facing this proposal as an adjacent homeowner. I’m also living with multiple sclerosis. My home is not just an investment to where I manage my health, my stress, and my day-to-day functioning.

I’m not sharing that for sympathy, but because livability matters when planning decisions have permanent consequences. I bought my home for its peaceful environment, access to sunlight and outdoor space. It is my sanctuary, and it’s critical to my well-being. I remain open to solutions, whether that be improving the plan or a bio.

That would allow this project to move forward while respecting my rights as a neighbor. My goal is constructive and to ensure the development is good planning and good neighbor. I’ve taken time to review the application materials. I want to focus on some specific issues.

First, the most direct impact on my property is the parking lot. The site plan places surface parking and vehicle movement directly against my backyard. As design headlights will sweep across my yard and into my windows every time a vehicle enters or exits. This will be constant at any time of the day.

The parking area places people walking, standing, idling, circulating, directly beside my vent sign, eliminating privacy at ground level. This fundamentally changes how my home can be used. Right now, in the proposal, there’s no meaningful physical separation to stop this. I would no longer have privacy in my own yard.

If this project proceeds, there must be a real physical separation between my home and the development. I’m asking for a green fence solution, not just cosmetic landscaping. That means a two meter landscape buffer, dense full height evergreen planting, and a solid opaque fence designed to fully block headlights and light spill. The buffer must run the entire shared property line and function year round.

This is the minimum necessary to restore some privacy and reduce constant intrusion. I’d also like to be clear about lighting. The proposal includes parking lot lighting, building lighting, vehicle headlights, all directed towards my property. Without strict controls, this will result in tons of light trespass into my yard and home, particularly at night.

I’m asking council to require fully shielded, downward directed lighting with no pole lights or flood lighting oriented towards residential properties. And a lighting plan that ensures a zero light spill beyond the property line. My second concern is from Nadine Avenue that creates, I would say the access from Nadine Avenue that creates unnecessary neighborhood arm. Nadine is a quiet street without sidewalks, allowing regular access from Nadine will encourage short cutting, both pedestrian and vehicular, especially during peak traffic on Southdale.

That means more cars, more headlights, more noise. The traffic impact study may say the intersection functions within capacity, but the numbers don’t reflect lived reality in that area. There’s already access from Southdale. I’m asking council to restrict or eliminate regular access from Nadine or limit it to emergency or service use only.

Third, I’m concerned about height and shadow. And this has been a shadow study. There’s an image that shows my house in complete shadow at approximately 3 p.m. That’s not just partial shade, it’s full darkness in the middle of the afternoon.

That loss of sunlight affects how I use my home and my yard and directly affects my health. Once this building is approved at its height, that loss is permanent. I also wanna address the idea of transition. While there is a drop from 14 stories, eight, the part of the building that’s directly over my home is the 14 stories.

My house is about five meters tall. Five meters tall, the building would be roughly 45 meters. That height dominates the site visually and physically. The fact that other portions step down does not change the impact on the tallest mass, which defines my experience from my yard and windows.

From my perspective, the transition exists on paper, but not in reality. Lastly, these impacts are causing real stress. Loss of privacy, constant light intrusion, and uncertainty about what will happen beside my home have already caused significant emotional distress. That stress is directly tied to design choices that are preventable.

A good planning exists to reduce harm where it is foreseeable. I’d like to hope that I can advocate to save my home and lifestyle that I’ve built for over 10 years. I’d like to be very clear about what I’m asking for. I’m asking for a meaningful two meter green buffer with solid fence, a reduction in height, something around the range of five to six stories with still ad housing, which I support while reducing many of these impacts.

Elimination of, or limitation of access from Nadine Avenue, full prevention of lighting and headlight intrusion onto my property. Nadine has seen Council to stop housing. I’m asking for one of two reasonable outcomes. Either developer works with me towards a fair purchase of my property, allowing the site to be designed without forcing incompatible edge condition, or Council approves the project only if these mitigation measures are required.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I’ll look for anyone else that would like to speak to the committee. So clerk, if there’s anyone else online, I don’t see anyone approaching them like so we have motion.

Oh, sorry, so clerk, do you have someone online? Yes. Joanna Riviere? Just hold on a second.

We are currently speaking regarding 3.2, which is 644 Southdale Road. Yes. Do you want to speak to that? Yes, please.

Okay, sorry, the clerk indicated that you might want to speak to the next one, but please go ahead. You have five minutes. My name is Joanna Riviere, and this development directly affects us as it’s literally in our backyard at 657 Windblest. I’ve lived here for almost 60 years.

Our yard is considered a double lot at 106 feet by 207 feet with many trees on it. It’s probably the closest to country living within the city. Our VLA neighborhood is quiet with a mix of older and newer single-family homes. There is a park on my block.

We have invested in two major renovations to make this our forever home. If this goes through, the market value of our home will decrease. Our backyard privacy will be invaded by at least 80 apartments plus a rooftop patio. The view from our deck will be a wall with windows rather than a skyline.

According to the shadow study on December 21st, our property will be completely immersed in a shadow and eliminating the sunlight and its benefits. Vehicle traffic from the parking lot will be approximately 100 feet from our actual home. There is no green space between the parking lot proposed six-foot wood fence for landscaping or trees to muffle the sound or emissions. The plans do not show placement of parking lights or building lights, which may also affect us.

Our street will definitely become a throwaway to avoid congestion on Wellington Road and Southfield Road, especially to access it and trends on AD&F. The increased traffic becomes a safety issue without sidewalks and having Southfield Park on the block. The projection timing is six to 10 years for a sidewalk from Nixon to Nad. We already have had to deal with increased traffic due to rapid transit construction on Wellington.

The expected two years of construction will be unbearable with the noise, dirt, dust, construction vehicles and just the daily disruptions. It’s understandable no one likes change, but this isn’t about change. It’s about the proper development for the VLA subdivision. Without proper green space, it’s lacking landscaping and trees and just does not flow with our subdivision charm.

The building is oversized and this is an ad reason zoning should remain as it is. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. So, clerk, if there’s anyone else online, clerk has indicated there’s no one else online.

I don’t see anyone approaching the mics. So we’ll look for a vote to close the public participation meeting. Sing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, so I’ll put it on the floor. I’ll move it and then I’ve got some questions to direct through you to staff. Okay, Councillor Cudi has indicated he will second it.

So I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. All right, I just locked my device. I just got to get it unlocked so I can further my questions. So first through you chair, we heard a couple of residents ask about construction mitigation, things like that.

I think it’s important to be really clear that we’re here to address a zoning change today, not building permits and construction designations, but I wonder if through you if Mr. Shaw might comment on where in the process considerations or where Mr. Mathers or whoever is appropriate, where in the consideration steps, the measures are looked at around construction implementation and the mitigation for the surrounding properties, et cetera. Where does that come into the process?

I think the public would appreciate understanding that. I’ll go stop through the chair to the Councillor. The requirement in regards to servicing the lot would address some of the items in regards to accessing and work onto the lot. There would be requirement for shorting allowances through site plan and site plan control.

And finally, any kind of work that is required under the building permit or building code would require a permit to be reviewed and designed by appropriate professionals. Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you. I think it’s important to know that those measures aren’t forgotten.

They’re just not what’s part of the process here today and where they come in terms of the site plan review and then the issuing of building permits. One of the speakers referenced and I will say, I appreciate that you’re hearing the concerns I’m raising with parking across the city, not just with respect to this development, but other developments that are happening elsewhere. And in February, I’ve already been working with staff around some of the technical pieces of what we need to do. And I will be bringing something forward in February to address that, but we have to address what’s before us today.

And what we have right now is 207 units, 114 surface, and an unknown number of underground. There’s a deficiency of about, if we were looking at one to one, there’s a deficiency of about 93. I don’t know if through you or staff or if the applicant can indicate what the estimated number is for the underground because when the report was written, it said it’s unknown at this time. So I’m looking at staff.

We’ll go to the applicant to answer that or comment on that question, please. Through the chair, the TIS, the traffic impact study, did note that the site could accommodate approximately 177 underground parking spaces in one level. Deputy Mayor, okay, thank you. I do appreciate that.

Through you to our staff, that would be a matter that would be looked at through the site plan review, I assume, since we don’t have the actual account in our planning today. So if I can just get staff to confirm that. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct.

The proposal with the number of spaces proposed as of today complies with the zoning by-law. So any subsequent plans for underground parking would be reviewed and approved through the subsequent site plan state. Deputy Mayor. Okay, and just to confirm quickly, and again, I’m pretty sure I know what the answer is, but for the public’s sake, in confirming that you wouldn’t be looking at alterations to the footprint of the building, the setbacks and what we have right now, they’d have to be accommodating that within what’s recommended in the proposal today.

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. They’d have to comply with the zoning by-law as being recommended today, as well as any general provisions related to underground parking. Deputy Mayor.

Okay, thank you, that’s good to get out there because it is a concern of mine that we have situations where we are dealing with a lack of parking in a number of places. And there is certainly a spill over into the neighborhood when that happens. So I do recognize that. So I will say with hearing that, I’m confident that we’re gonna have enough parking on-site to get to one-to-one, 93 and 177.

There’s a big difference. So even if we can’t get to 177, achieving 93 and getting 201 to one is certainly within the scope of what’s before us today. I do hear the concerns about traffic, but I also look at the traffic counts on Southdale. And I know that the entrance exit is on Nadine, but the traffic counts on Southdale are in excess of 25,000 trips a day.

So a development like this doesn’t move the needle on the Civic Boulevard expectations for the roadway that’s being contemplated. Nadine obviously is the place where the vehicles will be coming in and out, but the traffic patterns will take them to Southdale. So for me, the traffic issue is not a consideration. Other than the fact that we’re gonna have through the site plan approval authority looks at how the traffic flow is managed in and out of the site.

So with that already written in there, I can be supportive of that. I do hear the frustration from a couple of tenants that are there, but again, we’re here for a zoning application today. There are obviously conversations that you can have with the builder. There’s landlord, tenant board considerations and the residential tendencies act, but that’s separate from where we have to make a decision on a planning application.

So I can’t really speak to what your processes are there in terms of how to proceed other than there are options under the residential tendencies act to seek compensation for displacement and those sorts of things, depending on the situation, but we have to make our decision based on the planning act and the zoning application that’s before us today. So having heard those things and seeing considerations in the site plan documentation about landscaping, fencing and those sorts of things, I’m satisfied with the work that staff has done. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Palosa.

I see Councilor is online. Please go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just fighting with the technology.

Just wanna thank the applicant for having the open house on January 8th and the residents who came out to it. I was there in attendance. Their comments followed around the same lines that you heard today, though the attendance was much greater. And I do see some correspondence within our Council package again today.

I wanna highlight that it wasn’t the traffic count so much that was a concern to residents. It was gonna be the flow of traffic. My understanding is that this three-way stop is going to now be a four-way stop and residents were concerned with the traffic light. If you look at your Google map of being so close to the Wellington and Southdale intersection for bus rapid transit, there’s also a gas station around that corner that has three different exits coming out of it and people already cut through that surface area of the gas station onto Nadine.

And certainly for light changes, we know people can easily duck into a neighborhood to start avoiding things, which would put it into a residential neighborhood. We’ve already had to install speed bumps around Verlem coming up in other streets in there are currently getting traffic coming next year to the construction for bus rapid transit. So the neighborhood is already seeing an increase. So that’s where a lot of their concern comes from there.

Also welcoming new residents to the area. The only green space in the area is that small pocket park on Whimblest. It really is a picnic table and a small piece of equipment to address the residents’ concerns of the ones who are current renters in those homes. They’ve been there as you’ve heard for a long time.

That is their home. On January 8th, I did through Miss Jamison and subsequent conversations with Southside. Raise that as a concern of it is only a couple of families. Can they not rehome them or offer them something in the interim, then allowing them, as you’ve heard the residents say, to perhaps be new renters in that building and come back to their neighborhood.

They’re still gonna get back to me. So I’m disappointed with that, especially with who the applicant is and their impact in the community that this is starting to sound like a really expensive form of rent eviction. For people who have lived there, they’re gonna lose their house and can be accommodated within another rental unit. You’ve heard residents’ concerns about parking.

Commercial concerns are coming forward with the ones right across the street that obviously you’re not parking on Southdale and you’re not parking on Wellington Road that people are gonna then have to park potentially in the parking lot. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant, we were told there’s gonna be about 114 parking spaces on the surface and up to 177 underground. Is there any, do they have any information of up to?

Up to can be 10, up to, could be 177, like just looking to see if they can clarify what up to 177 might actually look like. I’ll go to the applicant. Through the chair, thank you, Councillor Palosa, for the question. Underground Parking is quite expensive to develop.

In order to make the underground parking structure worthwhile for our client, they would be looking to develop a significant portion of the site for underground parking use. As we’ve heard today, the deputy mayor and the residents are hoping for at least a one-to-one parking ratio at this site. And I do believe that is our client’s intent to provide at minimum one-to-one, likely slightly higher than that. Councillor.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Also being a second-term Councillor and seeing the staff report, and it’s in line with what we’ve been seeing about allowing these really large changes in setbacks, that if the underground parking has that much capacity that the developer is developing it, that perhaps we can maintain some of those buffers to a greater extent with neighboring properties. As you heard, it’s right in their backyard. Also highlighting, Mr.

Chair, how long do I have left for comments? I didn’t time myself, but assumed you are. Please, just go ahead. Okay, you can stop me or just y’all when I’m at a minute or 30 seconds.

If you’re looking at that Google map, it really is an interesting subject lands as we’re building up bus rapid transit, that it’s actually not on a bus to transit route. And we were using some of the parameters that would allow the higher density around that quarter to come further into the applicant property. Some of the subject lands is zoned for eight stories. Residents would have been much happier with that being allowed throughout it.

Just we are so close to the bus rapid transit that I think some of these provisions, at least for me when I envisioned it, we’re getting higher height in residential neighborhoods, even though there was this whole street between the bus rapid transit corridor and a residential street. ‘Cause Nadine certainly isn’t on the transit route. So those are some of my key concerns. I’m here, I’m looking at bringing some site plan, be requested things to council based on some conversations that I’ve been having with staff behind the scenes, and still concerned about residents becoming unhoused as we make more housing.

As some of those residents are on different supplements and are going to likely hit our New York City staff’s help for housing and become on our wait list as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I see Councillor Ferrer has his hand up.

Please go ahead, Councillor. Thanks, Chair. My internet cut out there and I lost the first part of Councillor Palazzo’s comments, but she was kind of commenting on something that I wanted to speak to as I got logged back in. So if I ask some questions that she already asked, just please let me know.

I have been listening with intent on this one. I’m not too familiar with the application, but just hearing from the delegates, I wanted to just go to the proponent and ask or if staff can respond. How many units is this current property? I believe it’s 207, that’s just off the top of my head.

I’ll go to staff to— The existing property? The existing property, the existing building. How many homes are there existing on this property? I’ll go to staff on that.

Through the chair, the lands are currently developed with four existing single detached dwellings. Okay, and do we happen to know if they’re all occupied with residents and renters? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, I’ll defer that to the applicant.

I’ll go to the applicant. Can you let us know if all four of those homes on the property are occupied? Through the chair, I believe one of those homes is currently vacant, the other three are occupied, but I may be incorrect about that. (mumbles) Okay, thank you for that.

So I’m hearing the issues with like setbacks and step downs and transitions and the construction in the parking. I am in support of intensification and development in principle, but I do have concern with potential demolishing of the units. I understand this is a zoning by-law, but with this amendment, a demolition would be around the corner coming forward to council and I don’t know the age of these buildings but I’m assuming they’re rent controlled and I’m assuming that these would be considered affordable housing. I did hear one of the members who were living in one of the units speak about a relocation and replacement by-law, which we do not have.

And I would ask committee to work with the proponent to see if relocation or replacement can be discussed. This developer is a good one. This developer creates a lot of community housing that brings a lot of good to the area, but at the same time, I don’t wanna see anybody evicted through a demolition for a new build. I’d also point out that the most recent renters market report from the CMHC does show a 4% vacancy rate, which is the highest we’ve seen since 2010.

So we have a glut of housing right now that is not occupied. And I would say we need to take a reason and be measured on the way we develop right now. And I do think that we need to be hitting the brakes a little bit just because we have a vacancy rate that is quite high right now. So I would assume that a development like this would not be necessarily required at this time, especially considering that people are gonna be inevitably evicted for a demolition of the unit.

So with that, if I would like to see if this committee can put into this motion to work with the developer to see if we can find new units or replacement units for the current people that are living there. Thank you. I look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So this came up at the last PEC 2, and I just want to share this for committee members and council members knowledge, a 4% vacancy rate does not represent a glut. According to CMHC, a healthy vacancy rate in a large urban municipality should fluctuate between three and 5%. So it’s actually within the target range for CMHC for a healthy vacancy rate in the market in a large urban area of over, sorry.

And when I say larger urban, it’s cities over 100,000 people. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the chair? I’ll say this, it’s kind of along the same lines.

Yeah, the vacancy rate today is 4%. This project will be built two or three years from now, if then, maybe even longer. We are currently in the midst of multi-million dollar rapid transit project on Wellington. This project is two homes away from the commercial site at Wellington.

When council approved, prior councils approved Wellington Gateway, this type of intensive vacation along that corridor was not only anticipated, but encouraged to take the traffic concerns that we have with the growing city and moving traffic onto higher order transit. So a well vacancy rate of 4% is, you know, I wouldn’t say that that’s a high vacancy rate. Who knows what it’ll be next year? And I know development and people that are building are always looking for an eye at the vacancy rate, whether they get projects started or not.

So they will go where the market goes and the higher the vacancy rate, then projects will naturally be paused. This is what we anticipated when the Gateway was envisioned. It is right within walking steps. I’m glad to hear, though, that the developer is looking at a one-to-one, ‘cause again, I can share the concerns with the deputy mayor on that.

It’s one question I do have for staff, regarding, you know, light mitigation, that concern was raised not only from cars coming into the parking lot, but also overhead lights for the parking, and slight staff to comment on that, please. Through the chair, through the future site plan application, a photometric plan will be required, demonstrating that there will be no spillover of light onto adjacent properties. And what about privacy fencing along the rear of the property line? Through the chair, fencing as well would be addressed through the future site plan process.

Staff are recommending direction to the site plan approval authority to consider enhanced all season landscaping and fencing that goes beyond the minimum requirements of the site plan control by-law to assist in addressing that concern. Okay, thank you. Those are the end of my comments there. I’ll look for one last time.

Councillor Ferri, I see your hand is up. Please go ahead. Thank you. So I understand that maybe the vacancy rate can be interpreted differently, but I would request even though this application may be developed or this building may be developed in three to four years, that this committee look into potential relocation or replacement for individuals living in those units, because even though it’s a few years away, that doesn’t mean that they’re not gonna be there in a few years.

Thank you. Councillor Frank, I see your hand is up. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Yes, I just wanna share similar sentiments to Councillor Ferriara and to Councillor Plaza. I’m hopeful that at council, there’ll be some amendments. We’ve done it with 145 baseline, where we put some temporary placement agreements onto site plan. And I’m hopeful we can look into something similar to that, especially given the size and capacity of Southside to be able to provide other arrangements for tenants.

So I just wanted to share those thoughts. Thank you. Look for other comments, questions. Again, from the chair, based on those comments, yeah, I share those sentiments.

And I’m hoping between now and council that perhaps some things can be moved ahead to address those concerns and the concern of the one resident that addressed the committee today. Seeing no other comments or questions, we will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4.

This is regarding 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboing Crescent. I’ll look for, to open the vote, I’m opening the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant like to address the committee.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Olia Alchez and I’m a planner with SBM on behalf of Northbound Development Corporation, representing the application that you have before you at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and the rear portion of 679 Dunboing Crescent. The application that you have before you is a zoning amendment application that seeks to permit the development of an eight story, 77 unit apartment building with 57 parking spaces.

A future content application will be brought forward to convey the rear portion of 679 Dunboing Crescent with 767 Fanshawe Park Road East. We have read through the staff report and are in full support of the recommendation. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the provincial planning statement with which promote healthy, livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate infill development on full municipal services. The proposal also conforms to the general intent of the policies in the London plan, which include direction for intensification that recognizes the need for more residential intensity and housing options in appropriate and planned areas of growth.

Thank you for your consideration of this application and I am available to answer any questions, thank you. Thank you. So I will go to the public. I’ll just remind folks you have five minutes and when there’s 30 seconds to go, I’ll give you a nod to let you know to begin to wrap up.

So I’ll look for the first speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Erin Wilcox and I live in Northridge and nearby the post building will impact our community and I just wanted to say that Northridge is a well-established desirable community of predominantly single family homes and the neighbors are opposed to an eight-story building backing on to Dunboy and Crescent. The neighbors are not opposed to intensification but are opposed to an eight-story building in the backyard and they’re proposing a shorter building perhaps four stories and in reading the London plan and the London building policy, I read a few statements that talked about sensitivity to neighborhoods.

For example, intensification will be promoted in appropriate locations in a way that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods and represents a good fit and I am suggesting that this is not sensitive to the neighborhood and not a good fit. The building has fewer than one-to-one parking and it’s just too large for the location. It would be a detriment to the neighborhood and it’s a concern for other neighborhoods going forward. With the building boom in London, I think sensitivity to neighborhoods is very important and I feel like maybe that’s lacking.

We learned at the Zoom meeting that we had with the developer which was informative and with our community meeting that as long as the developer can check off all of the building requirements, the building will be approved. However, there’s no mention of sensitivity to the neighborhood, a good fit, consistency with the neighborhood and I think that’s vital, not just for Northridge but for all communities in London or our building boom will detract from our city as a whole. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Wood, couple of little cocks. I’ll look for that speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yep, good afternoon.

My name is Susan Berberich. The backyard of our property directly backs on to the property at 767 Fanshawe. The Fanshawe lot also directly abuts the backyards of six other residential properties that together surround the Fanshawe lot. Each of these surrounding properties are single family homes.

This property has other unique characteristics. It has an oil pipeline easement that limits the area that any permanent structure can be built. The property also has a steep downgrade which gives rise to drainage and stormwater management issues. I believe the height and scale of the proposed apartment building is much too large for this lot.

I understand the plan is to push the building as far forward toward Fanshawe Park Road as possible to help with the effects on the rear property owners. Even so, this will not effectively mitigate the adverse effects that it will have on the surrounding properties. A smaller building would allow for a more appropriate transition between an intensified build along Fanshawe and the abutting neighboring residential properties. At the same time, such a development would still achieve intensification objectives, albeit at a somewhat lower density, but still at a density in keeping with provincial objectives.

As with any development, you as counselors of the planning committee have the authority to amend this rezoning application. So we ask that you consider a smaller scale development and make an amendment. Having said that, whether the proposed development or a smaller development is ultimately approved, there will remain several very important issues and concerns that we would ask the address during the site planning approval stage. I would like to list these now to get them on the record.

Drainage, grading, and retaining walls. A solution should be found to the drainage issues that protects the neighboring properties from any runoff of the development. And any added retaining wall be of high quality, long lasting material, such as concrete. We also ask when site planning is considering the retaining wall that the abutting neighboring property owners be consulted like any other good neighbor.

Shadowing and sight lines minimize these issues by ensuring maximum possible setback distances are observed, and step backs and other design techniques are used to reduce the visual impacts to the neighboring properties. Noise and privacy. To mitigate concerns regarding these issues, the developer has advised that no balconies will be constructed. The site planning process should ensure that this commitment is honored and that no balconies or rooftop amenity are allowed.

So some privacy is achieved to the backyard living spaces of abutting residential properties. Buffer zone. A robust buffer zone should be restored along the perimeter of the property, including the planting of mature trees. Fencing.

We ask that board-on-board privacy fencing, at least to the maximum permitted height, should be installed along the perimeter of all parking areas to protect against headlight glaring shining into neighboring properties. Garbage storage and odor management. The plan for the location and the storage of garbage should be effective to ensure no garbage or odors bill over onto neighboring properties and that rodents are not attracted, such as using deep collection underground garbage containers. Lighting.

Lighting should be designed to reduce or eliminate nighttime light spillover, blow effect from the building writing, interior apartment lighting, parking lot lighting, and any other light sources. The intent of listing these issues is so that direction may be given to the site planner to ensure that they are addressed with effective mitigations to avoid adverse effects on the abutting properties. Thank you for listening. Thank you.

Going for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, I’m Malcolm Schantz and I’m a resident of Dunwood Crescent. I’m here to argue against the proposed setback reductions tied to the rezoning application.

For 767 Fanshawe and 679 Dunwood Crescent. I believe those reductions should not be approved. Setbacks are not just a small technical detail. They are an important planning tool.

Used to make sure new buildings fit well with their surroundings and support good design. In this case, the proposed reductions work against those goals. City planning staff say the proposals follow the London plan, but they don’t explain why reduced setbacks make sense for this site. This part of Fanshawe Park Road is known for having larger front and side setbacks.

Fanshawe Park Road East is already a road that is dominated by traffic with high speeds and heavy volumes. Front yard setbacks play an important role in helping soften those conditions. If the front setback is reduced, the proposed building will be pushed closer to the road. That leaves less room for meaningful landscaping and buffering, which makes the street feel harsher, increases noise and makes it less comfortable for people walking by.

It also raises safety concerns on a road where vehicles have already lost control and hit nearby concrete sound barriers. Putting a building this close to traffic does not make sense. Planning policies are clear that height and density need to be balanced with proper building placement. When setbacks are reduced, the result isn’t good design.

It’s too much building squeezed into a small site. The city shouldn’t relax basic design standards by allowing this oversized building on this site. The reduced west side yard setback is especially concerning. Side setbacks are important for keeping space between buildings, allowing light and air and providing room for landscaping and reducing privacy and shadow impacts on the neighboring homes.

Neither the applicant or city staff have given a real planning reason for this reduction, other than allowing a larger building with more units. That’s not a strong policy justification. Cutting the side yard setback this much would push a large amount of building very close to the lot line and create a very compressed form of development that doesn’t fit the character of this area. It would create compatibility issues for nearby properties now and in the future.

Approving these reductions would also set a concerning precedent. If very small side setbacks are allowed next to single family homes, it becomes harder to uphold standards elsewhere. Planning decisions should be consistent based on policy, not just because a developer wants to build bigger on a particular site. In closing, rejecting these setback reductions doesn’t mean rejecting redevelopment altogether.

With reasonable setbacks, development could still happen in a way that respects the surrounding area, improves the streets gate, and follows the city’s design standards. That could be done with a smaller building or a different design that fits within the proper setback limits. The proposed setbacks aren’t supported by good planning principles. Don’t improve the public space and don’t work well with the surrounding neighborhood.

There is no evidence that current setback requirements prevent reasonable development. I urge council to reject the proposed setback reductions and ask for a design that better balances development goals with established planning and urban design principles. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, go ahead. You have five minutes to give us your name, please. Good afternoon, committee meeting.

I’m Randy Wilson. We are in support of some sort of reasonable infill on this site. The keyword is reasonable. The PEC report says they have indicated that there is currently a significant drainage issue with the site with uncontrolled runoff going forward in the adjacent properties.

We think the current situation has been misunderstood. For clarity, that section of fan shell did not have curves and gutters until the road was widened in 2017. The runoff issue was solved when the curves and gutters were installed. Our current concern is around the development cutting into the curves and the gutters for the driveway, removing vegetation and increasing the hard surface.

In addition, fan shell now has twice as much asphalt with potential to increase runoff. Today, our top concerns are stormwater management, height, west side, setback, and density. During the last application process, we just described the elevation of the site of having an elevation difference of greater than five to six feet relative to the abutting properties. It is only 15 meters from the southwest corner of 767 fan shell to the foundation of abutting properties.

This puts that property at most at risk for flooding. Any breach of retaining wall or stormwater management system could flood our home. We believe the proposed project barely changes the grade in the property. There would also be an increase in the volume of rainwater and snow melt.

On February the 5th, 2025, there was a group of five people on the sidewalk at Fanshawe Park Road West along the West fence line. One of the fellas was questioned in the need to backfill six feet to put in the driveway. That currently illustrates that the property is not flat. There’s no mention in the report of backfillin, however, the legend in the site plan shows proposal retaining wall.

The legend is short in detail and indicates the retaining wall is to be designed by others. With a likely significant change in the grade, it appears that the retaining wall greater than six feet would require across the abut properties then at a fence on the top. Our backyards may feel like a prison courtyard. In the city of London document chapter nine, grading, design, specifications, recommendation requirements, manual estates, were never possible that designers shall take every opportunity to eliminate or reduce the size of existing retaining walls owned and maintained by the city.

This prompts three questions. Why is the city of London eliminating or reducing the retaining walls that they own to maintain? Question two, how can you ensure proper future maintenance of the retaining wall and no stormwater management failure? In question three, given the unique quality of the lot, should the retaining wall and the stormwater management be addressed before the zoning has changed?

Thank you. Thank you all. Look for the next speaker, ma’am. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, I’m Maureen Wilson. Our poem abuts the proposed development. I too would welcome reasonable intensification on this site. Due to the unique qualities and likely change of grade, we would like to a holding provision code added for stormwater management.

I would also like to briefly touch on an added agenda item C, which points out a comment in the staff report that is suggesting the consideration of balconies. This does not align with messaging the public received during the engagement phase, and we would like to ensure no balconies. Please also ensure no future rooftop amenity. Item C also includes a chart showing calculations for stories two through eight.

At the virtual meeting, there was great emphasis being put on eight stories being allowed. However, allowable height is not the only metric that decides appropriateness of a build. Other metrics include setbacks and density, both of which are affected by height. We have stress tested the special provisions requested.

Calculations were done for each story from two through eight. The proposal is for 207 units per hectare. The table maximum is 75 units per hectare, and the site is approximately 1/3 of a hectare. Please note that the London maximum of 75 units per hectare is already 1 1/2 times greater than what the provincial planning statement 2024 sets as an expectation for large, fast-growing communities.

Even at just one person per unit, the proposal is a multiplier of four times the provincial density expectation. Using the London’s higher density of 75 units per hectare and subtracting an estimated 10 units per story, it is not until the building is reduced to three stories that the maximum density is brought into compliance with the table maximum. The proposed east and west side yard setbacks are unbalanced and unfair and do not meet relevant setback policies. The requested west setback undermines the purpose of the existing minimum zoning regulations and will introduce shadowing and impair sight lines.

Step back minimums are determined by table 12.3. The higher the building, the larger the setback. Per the table formula, the required setback is 10.8 meters. The proposed setback is deficient by 4.3 meters, the equivalent of 14.1 feet.

It is not until the building height is reduced to four stories that the proposed west setback is in compliance with the table minimum setback. The proposed east and west setbacks are significantly unbalanced with the development retaining a setback that is almost three times the required setback on the east side, which incidentally is property owned or represented by the applicant. While on the west for property zone by neighbors, they want to reduce setback. Planning justification report says that if they don’t get the west setback, it will result in 16 fewer units.

The fact that impediments on the property owned by the developer such as building restrictions associated with the oil pipeline that runs through part of the proposed property do not permit the developer to build closer to the lot line on the east. Does not justify shrinking the setbacks for the properties located on the west. If the characteristics of the lot won’t allow as big a building without encroaching on the neighbors to the west, the developer should settle for a smaller building. It is also important to understand that of all the abutting properties, the property abutting on the west has the shallowest backyards and would feel the impacts of reduced setbacks the most.

We recently became aware of rethink zoning draft documents on the city website. While it is still in draft stage, it gives a glimpse of the direction the city currently thinks is reasonable for the future. In consulting that document regarding side yard setbacks, it too shows larger setbacks with higher height. Even a one story building under rethink zoning does not support the west setback.

The London plan, place type policy states, the development will be permitted only if it can be demonstrated in conformity with the policies of this plan. That it will be a good fit and will not undermine the character of the lower order street. From the site plan it appears, the building would be 7.12 meters, approximately 23 feet from the west fence line. And we have the shallowest backyard.

From our backyard windows and backyard, we will see the west side of the building as well as the west side. Dontingly large and looming over us at an estimated 45 degree angle, significantly impairing our sight lines. The reduced west setback should be rejected. And I have two questions.

One, how does the proposal provide reasonable transition to the abutting residential properties? And two, is it reasonable and a good fit for the applicant to reach for maximum height while requesting special provisions encroaching on the west setback and sight lines, while at the same time keeping three times the required setback on the east for themselves. Thank you for time and consideration. Thank you.

And we have a couple of people online. Mark Museo, can you hear us? Okay, we might come back to Mark. I see Martha, Martha, can you hear us?

Yes, I can, thank you. Okay, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Martha Reese. My husband and I have lived on Don Blank Crescent for 32 years and I’ve raised our family here.

This is a lovely community to raise a family with schools within walking distance. We are concerned that with all of the development happening in this community along Pancha Park Road, our schools will be over capacity and that the traffic situation will become busier, making leaving the subdivision more difficult and dangerous. What is the city doing about placing traffic lights at the corner of Lenora and Fancha? Since this is a very busy intersection, which is the main access for the two elementary schools.

We are also very concerned that the residents, visitors of this new apartment building are only going to be able to make a right hand turn going east to exit this property. And if they want to go west, they will likely make U-turns at Lenora and Fancha, causing issues for others in this intersection. What plans does the city have to address this issue? We are not against infill, we’re appropriate.

Stacked housing, as was proposed in the last rezoning application of this property, would be welcome, as it would blend in more with the single family homes in this community. The proposed eight-story building, abutting the homes on the north side of our crescent, which tower over the existing homes, causing shadowing of those homes of four to eight hours a day, which is not acceptable. Not to mention the disappropriate size of this building against our homes. Why is the city no longer ensuring that communities are protected from these types of developments?

There are certainly more appropriate areas for this type of development. With 77 units proposed and only 56 parking spaces, it is likely that visitors and even tenants of this building will be using our crescent to park their vehicles, because there will not be enough parking on the property nor parking allowed on Financial Park Road. How is this being addressed? We are disappointed that City Council and the Planning Department care more about the wishes of developers over the rights of the taxpayers in our communities.

This build will forever change the quaint community we love. We are opposed to the rezoning of this property to allow for an eight-story apartment building to be built on this site. We’re asking that Council reject this proposal as a stacked housing already approved. We’ll provide housing as the city wishes.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this application. Thank you. Ms. Seguin, can you hear me?

Thank you. Hi, I’m Diane Seguin. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Can you hear me?

We can, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Sure, I’m Diane Seguin. I live on Del Keith Avenue and I’m one of the houses that have but the proposed development. So I want to say first that I agree with all the points my neighbors have made before me.

And I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the trees. On the somewhat poorly named tree protection plan, all but one of the trees is slated to be removed. In the previously approved development proposal, a detailed plan was included on how neighboring trees would be spared from harm during the construction process. No protection plans had been described with this current proposal for the mature trees on boarding properties whose root systems and canopies cross into this proposed site.

With the necessary grade changes, potential retraining walls, parking lot paving, and new wall erection, these trees will face injury and death without intentional protections in place. These are mature 60 plus year old trees and will provide necessary screening from the proposed development. Currently, the proposed development checks every box for creating an urban heat island. The property will be mostly paved, the building front’s Fanshawe Park roadway, and the only suitable space for a small number of trees are on the east side of the property.

The miniscule 1.5 meter landscaping strip on the south and west boundaries cannot sustain medium-sized trees. Given that London has declared a climate emergency, the proposed building will be surrounded by heat reflecting surfaces, contributing to increased energy demands by the tenants and increased air pollution. As a part of our neighborhood and greater London community, any new development must demonstrate long-term climate resilience. Roots, branches, and canopies on trees and neighboring properties must be intentionally protected for the benefits they offer both existing homes and the proposed development.

A lower density building would allow for tree cover and soft surfaces to be effectively incorporated on the site, which were strategies suggested by the PEC staff. I urge the council to consider the short and long-term environmental impacts of the proposal and support a lower density build. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Great. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Ray Miller, I am a Northridge resident.

I share the concerns of all of the taxpayers in my neighbors. Martha pretty well has everything I was about to say. I wanna congratulate my neighbors for the hard work they have done in analyzing the situation and making the points they have made. We are terribly concerned about the traffic implications, the traffic safety, especially when you also consider the work that’s being done on hybrid and the high-rise apartments that are being built there, that in combination with the commercial complexes at the corner of Fanshawe and hybrid are already increasing traffic flow.

And it’s already pretty dangerous trying to get out of the Glenora onto Fanshawe on a quiet day. So more needs to be looked at around that issue. One of the speakers from the other projects also talked about the issue of the expectation of privacy and quality of life. My wife and I moved to London five years ago and picked this neighborhood because of the characteristics of the neighborhood, lots of mature trees, single family homes, friendly neighbors, a nice neighborhood with a great mix of all types of families.

Adding a high-rise to this area would have changed our decisions completely. We would not have moved here. We would have picked something else looking for the type of neighborhood we have now. Many of my neighbors in my direct on my street couldn’t come today because they have to go to work, but they asked me to share their concerns as well.

Many of us in the Northridge area really understand the need for info, but an eight-story apartment building on that location is just not reasonable. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something. And hopefully you’ll see after listening to all of the presenters today, the wisdom of not approving the zoning application as it stands, but making the changes that we’re asking for. Thank you, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you. Mark Museum, can you hear me, Mark? Yes, I think I can hear. Okay, we gotcha.

Can you just kinda in and out of work here? Yeah, no problem, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you for your time. I would just like to echo all of our neighbors that have spoken previously, and I strongly support their objections to the current proposal as it is.

Just to add to some additional pieces of information that maybe haven’t already been discussed or brought forward, I would just like to even raise the overall truthfulness or veracity of the proposal that’s been put forth to London Council. We’ll jump around a little bit here. Section 3.0 is financial impact and considerations. And there’s just a one-word sentence stating there are none.

I find that extremely hard to believe, again, with all of the objections that have been brought forth today, that there hasn’t been any considerations and risk mitigation for the city with respect to that topic. And just to add to the truthfulness of the report, it further describes in there, there was public engagement on a meeting on January 8th with the proponent to conduct community consultation. This meeting was booked for an hour and a half. It ended up lasting, I believe, shorter than 45 minutes.

There was no public consultation during that meeting. It was one-way communication highlighting and announcing what the intention of the proponent was. There was no additional dialogue to further understand and hear the considerations brought forth from the community. And again, just in conclusion, my wife and I both support the neighborhood in strongly objecting the current proposal as it stands.

Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name, you know, five minutes. My name is Paul Volak.

I live on Dunboy and Crescent. I raised my kids there, three of my kids actually live in the same neighborhood. The demographics that we talk about of a community area is a wonderful thing. That I am against this eight-story building, being built basically on a single-family home dwelling area.

And I say that because a lot of the properties in Northridge are about the same size as what that property is, which concerns me that down the road, if you buy the house next to it, oh, can we build another one? You also have to consider the value of these properties. The property right next to it, I don’t know what it actually sold for, but was up for sale for $1.1 million prior to all of this happening, which tells me that that person who bought the house, whatever the price that they actually paid for, is now probably gonna lose a lot of value in their property, not to mention all the other people in that neighborhood. The other thing we have to also consider is as you are planning the city is the traffic and whatnot.

You have approved two 18-story buildings on hybrid app. There’s already two more buildings, I believe, at eight stories high on hybrid app. You have one at Trusac that was just approved, I believe, for eight stories. And now you have another one at Stackhouse, I believe, is also being built there.

So the traffic that we’re looking at is gonna be immense. And that’s not to mention the plaza, and we know there’s gonna be in the phase two of that, an 80,000-square-foot property, which kinda tells me that that’s gonna be a Walmart, which means the traffic in that area is gonna be atrocious. Now these individuals now can only get out on the road by turning right and turning into our neighborhood. And U-turns are already happening on Fanshawe Park Road.

As we speak now, at least five or six a day, I watched driving down Fanshawe and people doing U-turns on that street. Accidents have been occurring quite often, and the infrastructure that you’ve developed or you’re thinking is not right. Basically right now, what I’ve heard from everybody, it’s Rackham-Stackman-Packham. You’re just trying to get everybody pushed in, pushed in, pushed in.

Yes, we had some growth that has to happen. I agree with that. But let’s consider all the options around us. It doesn’t all have to be forced into one property or two properties.

Thank you. Thank you. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon.

My name is Doug Burbrick. We live directly behind 767. Our backyard’s a butt one another. We’re aware that the city’s recently approved a number of other eight-story apartment buildings along other urban thoroughfares.

I guess the question is why is this one any different? In fact, our word counselor, Jerry Pribble, asked us to specifically address that question. And he gave us two recent examples to compare one on Jolna and the other on Sarnia Road. So we went out to visit those sites.

After doing so and doing some further research on what was approved, it’s pretty apparent there are indeed meaningful differences here that would support a different outcome. Here are some of them, lot size. This is a very small lot, less than a quarter of the size of the Jolna lot and slightly more than a half size of the Sarnia lot. Those much larger lots can accommodate better an eight-story build than this one.

Context, the Fanshawe site abuts the rear yards of residential properties on three sides. None of the other sites do this. None of them abut or overlook the rear yards of any residential properties. Siteline impairment and shadowing.

The Jolna and Sarnia Road setbacks both allow those buildings to be distanced further from any residential properties. Density, the proposed density on Fanshawe, 207 units per hectare, is much greater than what was approved for either of those other sites. Flooding and grading issues. Fanshawe is the only one of these developments that is proposing to backfill the site to levelize a six-foot-plus slope running from the front to the rear of the property and to erect a retaining wall of six or more feet directly between that property and the neighboring properties.

Constrained ingress and egress. Due to a median on Fanshawe Park Road, vehicles can’t turn left in or out of this site. The traffic study referenced in the planning report did not contain any analysis of the impacts of no left turns in or out, including U-turns on Fanshawe and cut-throughs on nearby residential streets. Oil pipeline.

Fanshawe site has an oil pipeline easement that has resulted in the shifting of the proposed building to the west, squeezing it in on the residential properties on that side. Stepbacks, despite being the only building that will directly overlook the backyards of its residential neighbors, the Fanshawe development is the only one that is not proposing to use building stepbacks above the lower floors to mitigate the visual impacts. To answer Jerry’s question about what’s different here, here you have an already small lot on which the buildable area is further constrained by an oil pipeline easement. It is located directly in the midst of single family residential properties.

It proposes to shrink side yard setbacks and increased density well beyond what has been approved for those other developments. And it proposes to build a six foot retaining wall, abutting the backyards of its neighbors. There are no stepbacks, there is no buffer, there is no transition of building heights, just an eight story apartment tower, directly overlooking the backyards of single family residential properties that abut it on three sides. The proposed development is simply too large for this lot and represents too extreme a transition from single family homes neighboring it.

Please consider the multiple submissions that were made from those who live in this community, none of whom are against intensification, but all of whom are very opposed to this particular development on this particular lot. And please ask yourself, are these concerns just nimby, ignore them, like everybody else, or are some of them valid enough that they should make a difference here? 30 seconds. Well, I’ll stop right here.

And I’ll thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes.

Okay, my name is Shannon Calvert. I am here on behalf of myself and my neighbors regarding this proposed zoning change. We recognize and support the city’s provincial goals of increasing housing supply. Our concern is not about intensification itself, but whether this proposal represents good planning in this location and whether the scale of development is appropriate for the site as it exists today.

I would like to know that the planning report does not equally emphasize that two very different properties are involved. One property fronts onto Fanshawe Park Road is zoned R5 and is located on a major arterial within a primary transit area. The other fronts on the Dunpoint Crescent is zoned R17, has an imperial oil pipeline easement, and is part of a stable local residential neighborhood. Despite this, the analysis provided by both the applicant and the city staff focuses almost entirely on the Fanshawe Park Road context.

It largely ignores the implication of rezoning the Dunpoint Crescent property from low intensity residential to high density R8 zoning. Under the Planning Act and the city’s zoning by-law amendment process, a rezoning applies to the entire subject land. Each parcel’s existing zoning and permissions constraints and neighborhood context must be evaluated. That has not occurred here.

Instead, the applicant proposes a sequential planning approach. A residential property is temporarily up-zoned to high density. Part of it is severed to support the apartment building, and the remaining portion is then down-zoned back to residential. This is piecemeal planning and lot manipulation designed to achieve an outcome that could not be supported if the lands were assessed holistically.

The fact that a separate residential property is required to meet the parking needs— I have to hold this up again— I just want to— so the fact that a separate residential property is required to meet the parking needs demonstrates that the apartment building does not function appropriately within its own site boundaries. This is a self-created deficiency. Ontario planning principles consistently discourage addressing self-created deficiencies through additional rezoning or severances, especially when they impact stable residential neighborhoods such as Northridge, which is approximately 60 years old. The London Official Plan requires the development to be appropriate for its context and to respect the function and character of adjacent residential streets.

The severed lands are not minor or incidental. They are essential to the scale and operation of the proposed eight-story apartment building. They are used for parking, fundamentally changes the function of residential land and undermines the existing residential lot pattern. In 2022, 267 Fanshawe Park Road was rezoned to permit 64 units per hectare.

When the severing of a residential lot, the current proposed seeks 207 units per hectare. That increase is achieved not through better design, but by expanding the site into the surrounding neighborhood. Provincial and municipal policies support intensification, but they do not support development that relies on staged approaches across multiple properties, to achieve density beyond what a primary site can support. The good planning requires consideration of the fundamental outcome, not technical compliance achieved step by step.

Finally, the number and scope of the requested variances, including height, density, and setbacks, further indicate that this proposal does not align with the zoning framework as intended. Taken together, these variations cannot reasonably be described as minor. If approved, this approach would set a troubling precedent, allowing residential properties to be terribly upzoned, severed, and partially downzoned to facilitate over intensification, gradually eroding stable residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the committee to deny the rezoning severance and related variances, or at a minimum, require the applicant to demonstrate that the apartment building can function entirely with its own site boundaries, including parking and access, without relying on the conversion of a residential lot.

I’m not asking about this site alone, and this is a question for you, but about the precedent that this would be establishing. If the city approves this application on what planning bases would staff deny the same staged upzoning and severance strategy on other residential streets in the city? And that’s a question for you, please. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. OK, hold it. OK, please give us your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Margaret Wilson.

I’d like to speak briefly about the balconies and how this connects to the larger concerns. My property backs on to 767 Fanshawe. Many of us concerns, many of us have with the proposed setback reductions of 767 Fanshawe Park Road, East, and 679 Dunboing Crescent. The applicant has said that balconies are not currently part of the plan.

However, the city staff report recommends that balconies be considered as project moves forward. That distinction is important, because zoning approvals don’t just apply to what’s shown today. They allow what could happen in the future. Once these reduced setbacks are approved, there would be nothing stopping balconies from being added later on.

And that’s why their potential impacts need to be considered now. With the building plan so close to Fanshawe Park Road, balconies along the front of the building create real safety concerns for people walking by. Fanshawe Park Road is a very busy, high-speed road. Having balconies so close to the sidewalk increases the risk of falling objects, debris, or snow and ice coming down onto the public spaces, which could easily be avoided with proper setbacks.

Balcanies would also make noise issues, even worse for neighboring homes and for people on the sidewalk, especially with the constant traffic. I think I’m nervous here along this road. The applicant has previously suggested that not having balconies would help reduce noise, but that protection disappears if balconies are later allowed under the zoning being requested. Even more concerning are balconies along the sides or the back of the building with the reduced setbacks.

Balcanies in these areas would create serious privacy issues for nearby low-density homes. Elevated outdoor spaces placed so closely to property lines would allow direct views into neighboring backyards and windows, changing the level of privacy people in the neighborhood currently have and value. These issues aren’t just a normal part of developing this property to any extent. They are the direct result of pushing a large building too close to the property lines by reducing setbacks.

With larger setbacks in a building that’s better scaled to the area, many of these concerns could be managed or avoided altogether. This really highlights why setback reductions shouldn’t be approved based on the idea that contains features will be included. Planning decisions need to be based on what’s allowed, not just what’s promised today. For all these reasons, I believe the potential addition of balconies further shows why the requested setback reductions are not appropriate and should be denied.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. I apologize for that stand and something’s stopped. That’s good.

  • Yeah, I apologize for that stand. That’s obviously going to have to be corrected. This will work. Please give us your name.

Good afternoon, my name is Nicholas Gilbert. I live at 691 Dunboing Crescent in the Northridge neighborhood. This proposal is seeking to rezone the subject properties to R84 with significant exemptions for height and density as well as reduced setbacks. I’m not against growth or intensification.

My concern is whether the proposed density of 207 units per hectare is appropriate on this site. The London Plan identifies this portion of Fanshawe Park Road as an urban through affair. The subject property is designated as a neighborhood place type and within a primary transit zone. In 2022, it was rezoned to R5 with a maximum density of 64 units per hectare appropriate for a mid density corridor.

Despite upcoming changes, the current zoning bylaws and the London Plan are in effect, are they not? The bylaw for R8 zoning states this zoning regulates medium density development in the form of low rise apartment buildings which will vary in form depending on adjacent land uses, but in no case shall exceed 16 meters in height. The regulations for R84 zoning specify a maximum density of 75 units per hectare, but up to recognize that up to 150 units per hectare have been approved under certain conditions. Let’s be clear, density over 200 units per hectare is considered a very high form of very high density development in London, typically associated with high rise apartment buildings in downtown or higher order transit oriented growth areas.

The London Plan is explicit that intense very high density forms of development be directed to urban corridors, transit villages, major nodes in downtown, places designed to absorb that level of scale and impact. This site is not located with any of those strategic growth areas. City planning staff and our council have repeatedly stated that the new provincial planning statement and zoning bylaw updates tie their hands. Eight stories are permitted so we can’t refuse this application.

This is not correct. The provincial planning statement and the London Plan do not require eight stories in an urban through affair. They clearly state that up to eight stories are permitted and that zoning be applied to ensure an intensity of development that is appropriate to the neighborhood context. It is intended to accommodate incremental and compatible forms of intensification.

It further states that the extent of intensity described will not necessarily be permitted on all sites. The London Plan places a clear burden on proposals to demonstrate that they are a good fit within the surrounding context. A proposal of this intensity represents a significant departure from what is envisioned for the neighborhood place types, both in scale and density. New developments recently completed are currently under construction facing on the Fanshawe Park Road between Richmond and Highbury.

All are three or four-story stacked townhouses or apartment buildings, all with lower densities. Transit access is often sighted to justify density. This site is not located on or near a rapid transit corridor within a transit village or at a major node. The London Plan consistently links high density to higher-order transit.

Approving D200+ density here would weaken the plan’s fundamental strategy of transit-oriented growth and risk setting a precedent for similar intensification in areas not intended to accommodate it. Compatibility is another critical policy test. Areas to the southeast and west consist of long, established, low-rise residential developments abutting the subject property. While there are some medium density forms to the north on the other side of Fanshawe Park Road, the scale massing and intensity proposed here represent a sharp and abrupt transition, not the sensitive incremental transitions the plan requires.

The London Plan emphasizes predictability and clarity. Approving a D200+ density in a neighborhood place type undermines that predictability and blurs the distinction between areas intended for moderate densities and those intended for high densities. This application asks Council to treat a neighborhood’s place site as though it were an urban corridor or a transit village without the policy frame of to support that intensity. This is not good planning.

It is not reasonable or appropriate. In closing, Council does not need to choose between housing supply and good planning. The London Plan already provides ample opportunity for high density development in appropriate locations. This site is not one of them.

The proposed zoning change in exemptions to high density do not align with the place type policies and do not meet the plan’s own tests for compatibility and good fit. The proposal is trying to fit too much onto too little. Please explain why this proposal should be approved when it clearly contradicts many provisions of the London Plan and zoning bylaws. I respectfully ask that the planning and environmental committee require a substantially reduced maximum density and height for this site.

A hundred units per hectare and a height of 16 meters might be appropriate. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers.

Please ma’am, you have, give us your name, you have five minutes. I just want to remind folks that we’ve got another microphone up at the top there if that one is not usable. I’m Peggy Rabard and I’m at 695 done going present and I would like to address the traffic issue. I know it has been talked about before but increased traffic flow means a greater chance of accidents.

More accidents mean the greater chance of injury sometimes even death. I think traffic is very important. Right now without a 77 unit apartment building on Fanshawe, those of us have problems trying to get out on to Fanshawe from Gornora, why? There’s a median that is filled with snow in the winter and vegetation in the summer, which makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic from the east.

School buses use Gornora to access Northridge Public School and St. Mark’s Elementary School at peak times of the day. Vehicles use Gornora to access a daycare center located between these two elementary schools. Students cross at Gornora to attend Lucas Secondary School.

We’re also very concerned that the proposed apartment has a right in right out only opening. Vehicles from the apartment who wish to go west will, I’m quite sure go to Gornora, simply make a U-turn. If they decide to go all the way down Gornora to Adelaide, they will simply be increasing the traffic on a residential street where we’ve already had to have speed bumps installed because of speeding vehicles. Because of the right in right out vehicles coming from the east, we’ll go to trussucks and also try to do a U-turn there, even though there is an even a turning lane there.

I predict a number of rear end collisions at that point. We can safely assume that any guests coming to the apartment will be told to park across the road on Stony Creek Crescent. This means the guests will then have to jaywalk across four lanes of traffic, not safe, not legal. We’ve not seen any information from an actual traffic study.

If a study was done, was it completed before the new stores at Highbury Fanshawe Open? Food Basic, shoppers, Dollar Ram, McDonald’s, another restaurant, many other smaller businesses, now open with more to come. Was the study done before all the new town homes were added to the area off Rob Panzer Drive? Was it done before the apartment buildings at the intersection of Fanshawe’s Stackhouse Drive with another big apartment proposed at the same intersection were built?

Was it done before townhouses or town homes between Stackhouse and Rob Panzer Drive were built? Some of the other concerns we have. Two vehicles have already crashed through the retaining wall put up behind 675 Dunwind property right beside the proposed building. Post its speed limit might be 60 kilometers an hour, but vehicles do not adhere to this.

Two light standards have been toppled after two separate accidents at Glenora and Fanshawe, as they pointed out earlier. This is not a safe intersection right now. Online delivery people will park on Fanshawe Park Road or block the bicycle lane’s pedestrian sidewalks. Emergency vehicles, for example, the 45 fire vehicles mandated to attend a fire alarm will have to park on Fanshawe.

Each of the counselors on the planning committee received a recent article from the Brantford newspaper and just to recap, in Brantford, an application for a 10-story apartment building was submitted to council. The proposal was asking for a zoning bylaw amendment to allow two homes on adjoining lots to be changed from their current residential zone. The application was consistent with Brantford’s official plan and provincial policies. Property was in an intensification corridor which allowed for higher density structures.

Proposal was approved by the city’s planning staff, but here’s what the Brantford counselors said and I’m quoting. Of particular concern is a planned right in, right out only access. It looks now that it does nothing to cater to modern day realities. Delivery and ride shared drivers would have to stop on the street.

It looks like it’s just too much on too little like we’re trying to jam something in there and I, one of the counselors speaking, just don’t think it fits very well. In the end, the counselors at Brantford felt there were too many major issues, not just traffic, but the other ones we’ve all mentioned today, to be worked out during an approval process and so rejected the zoning bylaw amendment application. 30 seconds. I sincerely hope that you as our counselors feel the same way about this proposed amendment and I don’t know if counselor Stevenson is able to hear this.

I see she’s not here or counselor or a healthier, but I am hoping that they’re able to hear everything that was said today. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Barb Mailer. I’d like to thank you for your time this afternoon. We’re all tax paying residents of a beautiful close-knit community that we call Northridge, located in Northeast London.

We vote for our city counselors and we expect them to listen to their constituents and to be a line of communication between the constituents and city hall. We are here to graciously ask the city planning and environment committee to consider the unique problematic issues that face 767 Fanshawe Park Road future development and take these issues into account before approving an eight-story apartment building to be built on this property. According to the 2023, 2027 strategic plan for the city of London, there is an expectation that the city counselors embody values of integrity, accountability, and compassion, aiming to improve the community well-being through inclusive, ethical, and transparent governance. We ask that you ensure to utilize these values when approving this future development.

We ask that you consider the core values of accounting and transparency, acting with integrity, upholding the law, and ensuring decisions are made in an open and accountable manner. The core value of compassion and public service, focusing on the well-being of the constituents rather than personal gain. The core value of proactive engagement, being available, listening to, and advocating for the residents. Residents of Northridge neighborhood have been very accommodating.

We are trying to work with city officials to come up with something reasonable for our neighborhood. However, the city officials are demonstrating a bullying attitude rather than demonstrating their core values and listening to and advocating for the residents. Is an eight-story apartment building really what Northridge needs? No.

Just because other eight-story apartment buildings have been approved in other areas around London, does that mean that it’s the right fit for Northridge? As my mom used to say, just because John Smith jumped off the bridge doesn’t mean you have to do it too. Mothers are wise. We should all listen to them.

Each application should be judged independently, and a lot of research should be done, including right fit. And I think you’ll all agree that the people who have spoken today have done a lot of work in that research, and we hope that the city will also look at that research and do some of their own as well. Common sense approach is necessary. There are no eight-story apartments currently on the Fanshawe corridor between Richmond and Clark Road.

Many of the smaller apartment buildings along Fanshawe have vacancies that have been there since they were built. Where are the people that are going to move into this eight-story apartment building? We ask that you consider the core values of the strategic 2023/2027 strategic plan for the city of London prior to making any hasty decisions that are going to change the Northridge subdivision drastically. Remember, we are not opposed to something being built at 767 Fanshawe Park Road, but please listen to our concerns and work with us in order to do what is right for everyone.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. So Clerk, if there’s anyone online, no one online, please ma’am, go ahead, you have five minutes.

Give us your name as well. Good afternoon, my name is Catherine Gilbert. I’m here today to speak about the final planning report for 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 769 Dunboy and Crescent, and specifically about how the Provincial Policy Statement and the London Plan have been misapplied to justify approval of a poorly designed proposal. I wanna begin with a fundamental point.

The PPS and the London Plan are not guidelines. They’re statutory planning documents. Under the Planning Act, city decisions must be consistent with the PPS and conform with the Official Plan. The policies are not optional and they can’t be set aside simply because a proposal advances intensification.

Both the PPS and the London Plan support intensification, but only when it is compatible, well designed, and appropriately scaled to its surroundings. Intensification does not override requirements for setbacks, massing, or transitions. In this case, the staff report treats those requirements as negotiable in order to accommodate the largest possible building on the site. A key example is the reduced west side setback.

We’re told this reduction is influenced by the oil pipeline setback required. That could be a reasonable planning justification if no building could be accommodated on the site without reducing those setbacks. But that’s not the case here. The developers report clearly states that complying with the west side setback would result in the loss of 16 units.

In other words, the setback reduction is not necessary to enable development, it’s only necessary to enable this scale of development to the detriment of neighboring properties. A slightly smaller building could fit within the site while respecting the required setbacks. The decision to reduce setbacks is therefore a choice driven by unit maximization, not physical constraints or policy necessity. Good planning does not ask whether a site can be pushed to its absolute maximum limits.

It asks whether the proposal represents an appropriate build form for its context. There are also clear reasonable design mitigations that could significantly reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, but they have not been meaningfully considered. Other recent eight-story building projects approved in the city incorporate step-backs above the fifth or sixth floor to reduce visual bulk, shadowing and a sense of a looming wall next to low rise homes in the street. Step-backs are a well-established tool for achieving compatible transitions.

Yet they’re absent here, not because they are unfeasible, but because they would reduce unit yield. Similarly, full-set-backs along sensitive edges would create space for better landscaping, usable green space and more effective buffering for adjacent residential properties. Instead, the site is compressed to maximize building footprint and parking, leaving little room for meaningful mitigation. Residents are not opposed to working with the developer, but what we’ve seen is not a willingness from the applicant to consider options like step-backs, appropriate set-backs, and usable green space.

The proposal before you prioritizes maximizing building size and unit count, and then asks the city to waive policy requirements to make it work. That approach reverses the intent of the London plan. Policy should shape development, not be bent to accommodate it. For these reasons, I submit that the final planning report does not demonstrate consistency with the provincial policy statement or conformity with the London plan.

I respectfully urge the committee to either reject the recommendation is currently framed or introduce amendments to require a revised proposal that reflects good design, reasonable mitigation, and genuine compliance with the city’s statutory planning policies. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Let’s check again with the clerk to see if there’s anyone online. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Celia McDonald and I live on Dunboin Crescent. You’ve heard of all the ways in which the current proposal is not good planning.

In fact, it is bad planning. It is an example of over-intensification, a textbook example, I might say. It also is what I term tech aboard planning or jigsaw puzzle planning more accurately, which means that if there’s a hole in the jigsaw puzzle, you just cut away the parts of the jigsaw puzzle and cram the jigsaw piece in. We have been told by the city planners that they have no discretion, but to accept the maximum allowable structure that can be squeezed into the franchise site.

And I do mean squeezed. And other people have commented on this. You have heard numerous ways the city has had to provide all sorts of accommodation to the developer in order to allow development to happen on this two small site. I want to note that the PPS, the Provincial Planning Statement, was developed, sorry, helped develop the London Plan and by association and adoption by the province, the directives in the London Plan are also part of the Provincial Directive.

I just wanted to briefly direct your attention to the directives in the London Plan. Number four, you’ll note that it says the heading is becoming one of the greenest cities in Canada. What you’ve just heard is just about the opposite of that. I ask you to look at specifically sub number five, sub number 11, sub number 16, and I won’t go over them, but basically they talk about increasing as much as possible plants in the environment.

You may note from some of the comments and the documents that you’ve been provided with that Northridge has some of the best urban farmers around. We have fruit trees, we have vegetable gardens, we have many flowers that increase pollution. All are important parts of what the province wants to do with respect to agricultural land. Are you willing to accept the developer’s bald assertion that the shade policy, which we’ve never really received, although I’ve asked for it, will protect urban gardens.

I’d like to see that. I think you should too, especially the members of the Environment Committee. What about direction number five? What talks about support aging in place?

We all want to age in our own modest homes in our neighborhood. We can because we chose to do so to have large, sorry, to do without large houses that cover most of the lot and instead have green space. Direction number five, or directive number seven, subsection three talks about a sense of place and character and sub five talks about protect what we cherish, i.e. neighborhood character.

It also says interestingly what we at Northridge already do, sub 11, support neighborhood scale food production. Number eight talks about what we’re trying to do in a nutshell, which is making wise planning decisions. The question is, is this project wise planning? If you look at sub number nine, it says ensure new development is a good fit.

That’s a provincial directive. Within repeated, or at least approved by the province in the London plan, within the context of the existing neighborhood. Remember, this was approved by the Ontario government. It also states that the planning process should genuinely engage stakeholders meaningfully and use that input in the planning process.

There hasn’t been much of that. 30 seconds. Remember what everyone here has said. No one is opposed to intensity development or infill.

What we are objecting to is the size and scale and trying to fit something that doesn’t fit onto a small lot. Thanks very much. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Back with a clerk one last time to see if there’s someone online. Bill Robard, 695 Dunboying Crescent. And I am just speaking, some people have already spoken a little bit about the landscaping problem. I look in terms, we’re not against intensification, of course, can’t hear me.

Sir, please go to the top. I apologize for that condition of that, Mike there. Can I start by five minutes now? Oh, that’s great.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Okay, Bill Robard, 695 Dunboying Crescent, again, as all are not against intensification, it’s just the style of that we’re worried about. Basically, I’m just speaking a little bit about the landscaping part. I realize that that usually comes at the end of the process, but we have to also look at it at the very beginning because of course it results in tree removals.

And right now they are looking at removing 32 trees on 767, possibly nine trees on 679 Dunboying Crescent. And those trees, big mature trees, you cannot plant a tree and have it turn into a big mature tree overnight. So once they’re gone, they’re gone. And I’m sure everyone has remembered some of their grade nine science that the trees and grass are the lungs of the earth.

They take out carbon dioxide, they put in oxygen and water vapor, which is a cooling effect. And that is important for the earth’s health. And we’re not supposed to be taking them out to pave over and put up concrete buildings and asphalt, which release gases, which are harmful to the environment. But that’s of course what a large building is doing.

That’s what parking lots do. So those are the things that we have to consider. Now there’s a pipeline. My house has a pipeline in back of it.

And we had a fence placed over 20 years ago. Then Imperial Oil came to say, okay, here locate the pipeline. And the person said, there’s the pipeline, there’s the edge, right, left. Okay, you can put your posts there, put it there.

This year we put another fence in because you’ll when it had disintegrated and Imperial Oil back again. Now the things have changed as far as the, where you can put anything. There’s the pipeline. You can only put something over there, 15 feet away.

Over there, 15 feet away. So it shows something about trees potentially being planted in the pipeline area. And I don’t think Imperial Oil is going to allow any planting of trees digging down that far to plant a tree over top of their pipeline. All of those setbacks at the back with a meter and a half between a fence and the parking lot will not allow any type of a tree to grow.

It might get a few little small bushes in there, but fence blocks the sun. We know that the sun is necessary for the plant growth. The asphalt dries out the area because it retains heat and emits it overnight. That little patch of grass will not support or a patch of soil will not support anything, but a few little shrubs, which may or may not survive because they don’t get enough sun or water.

So anyway, I just really feel that they have to look at the free removal and the landscaping in advance of this project because once those trees are gone, they’re not coming back and they’re not going to help out. It just kind of reminds me of the song, which I’m sure you’ve all heard of before, where they say that they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Isn’t that really what this is going to do too? Take away grass, take away trees, put up concrete and building for the asphalt parking lot and nothing to help the environment.

Thank you. Thank you for our other speakers. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon.

My name is Gail Kump. I am the original owner of a little 1,100 square foot brick branch style home on Dunboying Crescent in Northridge subdivision. Situated roughly Kitty Corner across the street from the property at 679 Dunboying Crescent. A large part of Northridge backs on to the south side of Fanshawe Park Road, including all of the north side of Dunboying Crescent.

I have resided here since moving in 60 years ago when the subdivision was being developed. Thrilled to think that as a young wife and mother of a toddler at the time, our little family was actually going to have our very own house with a backyard, space to put down roots, play, grow our family, get a pet. The fulfillment of a hope and dream, much the same I suspect for many young people of today who may aspire to eventually move from an apartment rental to home ownership. While Northridge was expertly designed with mainly moderate income young families in mind, I have found that it has served me well throughout each stage and circumstance of my life and is just a suitable for seniors of moderate means who choose to age in place.

Northridge has lower cost housing due to the smaller footprint of many of his homes and provides many of the desirable amenities at which are laid out in the London plan as high quality characteristics for neighborhoods to support affordability, aging in place, and walkable communities. Northridge supports the root goal of the London plan as an attractive, vibrant, and healthy community. Northridge’s lower than average costs for single detached homes makes them a more affordable and thus attainable option for young career professionals and/or young families of moderate means who are entering the home buyer market for the first time. As well, these smaller homes are suitable for retired persons, those downsizing seniors who wish to remain independent in their own place in a hospitable, safe, quiet, and supportive environment.

I support thoughtful intensification and in-built projects where they make sense, blend in aesthetically and preserve or increase neighborhood livability for all. By and large, the people who choose to live in Northridge are deeply appreciative of its many benefits, not only for those, not only for themselves, of course, but also feel a sense of being good stewards who desire to collectively support projects that will enhance the enjoyment of future residents as well. In the flurry to build more rental apartments quickly along the corridor, it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the existing populations need to be kept in mind, too. And these neighborhoods that already provide for their needs so well should be kept, enhanced in appropriate ways only where necessary, and their character not destroyed by inappropriate additions that could hinder some of the qualities that make them suitable options for many people.

The regular parade of walkers I see passing by on my quiet street Dunboy and Crescent over the years I had to this day shows the diversity of ages, abilities, et cetera, from kids and families to seniors, including a blind gentleman who was safely and confidently able to take his dog for a walk around the Crescent. Yes, it wasn’t a service dog, but a pat. And who could often be seen waiting at the bus stop down at the corner of McLean in Glenora, waiting to take a bus somewhere. People tend to stay here in Northridge for years, some a lifetime, and some kids who were born and raised here have come back to buy their own homes and to raise their families.

We have three generations of one family living on the same street Dunboy and Crescent. The point being, while supporting all the new increased density development, don’t forget that these older, quieter neighborhoods are still as valuable, vibrant, and needed today to offer another choice that especially meets the needs of many kinds of people of London and any infill intensification should be in harmony with their attributes. I’m not in favor of any zoning change that could risk having a developer for this or any other property in the subdivision in the future to be acquired and demolished or altered to such an extent that it would breach the integrity and continuity of the streetscape and alter the culture, character, and enjoyability of the neighborhood in general and Dunboy and Crescent in particular. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. My name’s Linda Smith. I also live on Dunboy and Crescent.

I have a prepared thing, but I’m not going to read it. Further to the blind man walking on the street, my son is deaf, and he walks my dog, and he steps in front of traffic all the time. He doesn’t hear the cars coming. I don’t know— I’ll be honest with you.

I haven’t really looked into this much. But if you demolish the house on Dunboy and Crescent and you make it a thoroughfare, which I know that that has been stated in our community chats and things like that, you’re going to increase the likelihood that my son get hit by a car. He’s 22 years old. I tell him all the time.

Matt, you’ve got to look for cars. He still doesn’t do it. You’re going to have Uber Eats drivers and Amazon delivery drivers. You’re going to have so many more cars on that street.

A street that I thought was safe for my son will no longer be safe. It will not be safe for the man that does walk around the Crescent who can’t see. There’s other people with disabilities that walk around that street. It’s not going to be safe.

So I don’t know if that’s part of the plan, but if it is, it’s crazy. Anyways. Thank you. Look for the next speaker.

Check one more time with the clerk to make sure we have covered off everyone online. We have OK. Thank you. I don’t see anyone else coming to the mic.

So I’ll look to the committee to vote on to close the VPF. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. OK, there are a couple of questions that were raised by the folks that addressed the committee. I just want to review with staff.

I just want to confirm that Unboying is not being used as a access point. Staff could confirm that. Pretty, Mr. Chair, that’s correct.

It will not be used as an access point. The proposal is to sever off a portion of Unboying. The rear portion of it, it will consolidate with the Fanshawe parcel in great one. And then the existing single family home will remain.

Thank you. There appears to be a planning of retaining wall regarding grading, et cetera. There was some questions regarding maintenance of that wall. Who is responsible for maintaining that wall?

Thank you through the chair. Because it’s on private property, it would be the responsibility of the owner to maintain that wall. But I would like to note that anything over a meter in height will require a building permit and would be required to be designed and certified by a structural engineer. Thank you.

There was a question about traffic studies. Was there a traffic study done this area? And if so, when was it done? There was not through the chair.

There was not a traffic study submitted for this application. Just due to the presence of the existing center median, both the accesses will be restricted. And they will not be able to make left-turn movements, which is the safest option for ingress and egress to the site. And based on my understanding, just due to the minor increase in peak hour vehicle trips and the fact that both accesses are restricted, transportation staff didn’t raise any concerns.

Thank you. Final question regarding trees, especially on the border. What’s the position of the city for tree removal? When a tree is right on the border, where root structure might go into neighboring properties?

Through the chair. Our tree protection by-law does regulate distinctive trees. So anything over 50 centimeter at breast height. And any damage to any of those trees, including to the root zone on an adjacent property, would require a permit.

So that would be required for damage to any trees that would be or any roots that are on an adjacent property. OK, thank you very much. I just wanted to cover off those. If other councilors have other questions that I’ve missed, I’m sure they won’t bring that up.

OK, so I’d like to put this on the floor for committee. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Councilor Pribble had provided an alternate motion to address a couple of issues of holding provision around storm water drainage management and restricting the balconies.

So I’m prepared to put the motion, Councillor Pribble brought forward amendments to an alternate motion to what the staff recommendation has, because it does have a change to it. So I’m prepared to put that on the floor for Councillor Pribble. And then if there’s a seconder, I’ll yield. And Councillor Pribble’s the word Councillor.

So I’ll let him speak first. And then I may come back with comments. But I’ll put Councillor Pribble’s motion on the floor. So you’ve got a motion that you’re going to put on the floor.

Do you have a seconder for that motion? Councillor Cuddy, and my understanding is that you’re okay to go to Councillor Pribble to speak to that. Okay, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I would like to state the alternative motion. And I just want to say the reasoning for it. So again, this motion that’s in front of us is already exactly how it states.

The requested amendment is consistent with the provincial planning statement. The requested amendment is in conformity with London Plan. It ensures compatible built form, orderly development of lands, and adequate provision of municipal services. And this part is added there, which is a provision under the age eight, and it includes age six, which is to ensure the orderly development of the lands.

And age eight symbol shall not be deleted until a stormwater servicing report has been repaired and confirmation that stormwater management systems are implemented to the satisfaction of the city engineer. So this is the reasoning for it. It is to address some, certainly, as we heard from 20-plus individuals who were stating their comments regarding this application. It certainly is not the only concerns there, but these concerns are one of the things that I would like to state.

Yes, it does stay there. I don’t know if you can see that I had a cross on the screen, but one of them specific ones about the balconies that they would be allowed only on the north side, not on the other side, and there are a few other points. So yes, I would like, I’m asking the committee to certainly support this. I know procedurally wise, but I do have a list of additional questions that were asked by the speakers.

So I don’t know, Chair, what you would like to go with. Please go ahead with your questions, Councillor. Is the questions? Yep.

Okay. So I’ll start from the beginning. I’m going to try not to duplicate the four questions asked by the Chair. The first one I heard, parking less than one-in-one.

If the Council passes in the future, this is a requirement. How will this application be affected? That’ll go south. Through the Chair, through this application, there was no request for a reduction in parking.

Moving forward, if new parking regulations were to come in force and effect, this application is relevant to the existing parking regulations now. Can I ask you to speak more into the mic? I’m having trouble hearing you. Okay, sorry, after you, Mr.

Chair, there was no request for parking reduction through this application. And the zoning by-law regulations, the parking requirements in that would reapply to this today. That makes sense. Yeah, I’m sorry.

Thank you for that answer. There were questions about step-down grade drainage issues, drainage grading retaining wall. And the question was, will the neighborhood neighbors be able to be involved in any consultation either with the city or with the applicant to discuss these issues I just mentioned? That’ll go south.

Through the Chair, the site plan process is not a public process. Materials are available to the public if they request them to review, but it’s not a process that requires public input. Councillor, once it’s made public, will there be any opportunity for the residents to comment on these issues address and potentially change anything? I’ll go to staff.

Through the Chair, there isn’t a specific public consultation opportunity through the site plan unless there was the direction for a public site plan meeting that would be a planning committee. Councillor? Thank you. There were comments about curb gutters, driveways, runoffs, flooding homes currently.

And their concern or the residents concern is that this actually will not be improved that potentially it’s actually gonna get worse. What are the protections in place currently or with the proposed motion and everything? How would protection will there be for the neighborhood? I’ll go staff.

Thank you through the Chair. In existing conditions, the storm water is uncontrolled flowing to the backyards which may be causing issues. As part of that site plan review, we have standards that we follow and we require the storm water flows to be controlled on site and directed to underground sewer systems and overland to Fanshawe Park Road. We also account for existing drainage routes and ensure that the neighboring properties will not be adversely impacted.

Our storm water standards also require the site to control up to the 100 year storm event with greater storm events being directed to the right of way. Hopefully that answers your question. Councilor? Sorry, thank you for that.

Rooftop Amenities, the question was, are they allowed that there’s speculation that potentially there could be a rooftop amenity? How is this treated again in terms of the protection of the neighborhood if the developer applicant would decide to have a rooftop amenity? I’ll go staff. Through you Mr.

Chair, rooftop amenity space is permitted, so we don’t really have anything that can prohibit it. Councilor? Okay, this could be, I imagine this wasn’t the question, there’s a question of me as a Councillor, this could be in any, it could be at this process, it could be later on, it could be any time when the building is standing correct to add on a rooftop amenity. I’ll go staff.

Through you Mr. Chair, if they want to add a rooftop amenity in the future, yes they can do so, but through the proper process. Councillor? Correct, I do realize that there was a question that in the table it stays very clearly 75 units per hectare and three story max based on what are we potentially allowing this increased number of units and stories.

I’ll go staff. Through you Mr. Chair, when looking at density of developments, we look at the London plan and density is regulated by the height in the London plan. In this neighborhood, place type along the urban thoroughfare, it’s eight stories that is permitted, and so that is the height max up to eight stories that is permitted through this zoning amendment.

Councillor? Okay, based on the provincial plan statement, how does this proposal fit the neighborhood transition part of our staff? Through you Mr. Chair, when we look at applications for zoning bylaw amendments, we look at compatibility, the sensitivity, the transition.

And we do look at the surroundings, however, we don’t look at development and try and make it similar to the existing area, like we don’t want to mimic it. In fact, we look at the impacts from a proposed development that could be mitigated through the process. So through this process and the PPS context and the London plan context, the policy context, we’ve looked at all of those measures to mitigate any of the impacts. And some of those could be like landscaping, buffering, storage, et cetera.

Councillor? Thank you. This was a specific exact question. Is it reasonable to reach maximum height and asking for reduction of setbacks?

How is this reasonable? I’ll go to staff. After you, Mr. Chair, one reviewing applications currently are zoning bylaw.

Doesn’t necessarily match up with our London plan policies. So, and those are what we’ve reviewed for policy context for applications. Councillor? The microphone goes off.

The buffer currently states one and a half meters. How can one and a half meters support a medium-sized tree? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, I believe you’re maybe speaking to a one and a half meter parking setback to provide buffering.

Through the site plan process, we will be looking at the appropriate areas for landscaping buffers and parking setbacks that make sense in the context of the site plan review. Councillor? Through you, Mr. Chair.

I’d also like to add that it’s three meters on the neighboring property outside of the development. Councillor? Thank you for the park. Section 3.0 financial impact consideration are none.

And the question by the resident asking, is it truly none that there are no financial impact considerations? I’ll go to staff. When looking at financial considerations, we look at things like residential DCs for like for this development re-residential development charges, property tax, et cetera. But there were no concerns brought out with that.

Councillor? So from the perspective of the city requested variants. How does it align as minor changes to the requested zoning to the requesting zoning? This was exactly the question requested variants.

How does it align as minor changes to the requesting zoning? So I think the resident was stressing the minor based on the statement policy. I’m assuming I’ll go to staff. Through the chair.

So the requested variances to the base zone, which would be the side yard setback and the front yard setback are better aligned with our policy framework in the London plan, trying to create street oriented development as opposed to having development set very far back. And this also provides a greater buffer to the south to the neighborhood. This reduced setback also to the side is more aligned with the idea of creating a continuous corridor along those higher order streets. So we do allow for a lesser setback than what was proposed in the 1989 zoning bylaw, which followed a different policy framework, which was looking for a more tower in the park type of development.

Councillor, thank you. Provincial planning statement states up to eight stories. Why can’t you allow less than eight? I’ll go to staff.

Through you Mr. Chair, after a review of the application with regards to the London plan policy context, as noted, the neighborhood place type along a and urban thoroughfare does allow up to eight stories and staff have reviewed this and they feel that it is an appropriate form of redevelopment. And it’s not an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands. Councillor, thank you last two.

Provincial statement states compatible while designed and scaled to the neighborhood. How this project aligned with this statement? Go to staff. Through the chair.

So when we’re implementing the provincial planning statement and the London plan, we’re looking at both the existing context and providing buffering and transition to existing context, but also looking at the plan context of the place type, which is high density along these major arterial corridors. Councillor. Thank you and the last one. Why should this be approved if this project doesn’t comply with London plan and it requests many amendments and special provisions?

Go staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, after a review of the proposed development, it does comply with the London plan. The neighborhood place type along an urban thoroughfare.

They’re requesting special provisions for zoning that are in the zoning bylaw, not the London plan. So those are the, like with regards to the west, west interior site here at setback. I believe it is, they’re asking for 6.8 and it’s the provision is for 10.3. But after a review of that, again, we feel that the proposed development is appropriate and compatible in the existing neighborhood with these proposed special provisions in the zoning bylaw.

Thank you and just to add and to echo what Ms. O’Hagan had mentioned already. Through the London plan, we’re working with an outdated zoning bylaw. We are going through the rethinking zoning.

There’s importance to bring that zoning bylaw into force and effect for it to deal with issues that we’re faced today. Councillor. Thank you for all the answers. I don’t have any more current data, I have any more questions.

So we are dealing with the motion that’s in for all of us. I hope I do get the support of the committee and I will leave the comments now to the committee and to the committee members. And I do want to speak to it afterwards when we come back, sorry, not to the motion, just to this application. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, I’ll go to committee members, Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you, and a question through staff. I’m just curious, we do not have to go to eight stories.

We could go to less. It was mentioned in the gallery that if we actually conform to the site lines, sorry, the setbacks, they would lose 16 units. Just a question through staff, how tall would that be built, that building be if that was, if we did comply with setbacks, the original? I’ll go to staff.

Through you, the Chair, that would be a question for the applicant. Okay, the applicant would like to weigh in here. Please go ahead. Thank you, and through the Chair, we would have to go through an exercise of building design and getting everybody back to the drawing board.

We spent, we came in with this application or this idea and this concept roughly a year ago. So we spent a lot, a lot of time consulting with our multidisciplinary team. So I think when we envision this, it’s not so much mathematics, take this out. We would have to go back to the drawing board and see if it would even work.

So if we take one item away, it would impact all these other items and it may not even be, it may not work. So I can’t answer that to a specific, how many units or how much would change. So thanks. Thank you, Councillor.

I’ll come back later, thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, not to engage and cross debate with fellow Councillors, but we don’t bring proposals forward. The applicants bring proposals forward. So when you ask, why can’t we bring forward a lower height? The applicant brings forward their proposal and we fit it, we compare it to the London plan.

And as we’ve heard staff say, under the London plan, eight is as of right here. This is an urban thoroughfare, a classified road, which is Fanshawe Park Road. I know we heard a lot of comments about Dunboyne and you’ve already confirmed with staff that there is in fact not entrance exit there, that the single family home actually remains, that there’s a lot severance happening as part of that. So there’s no traffic access there.

But I did want to take a moment to share a couple of things because I think it’s important to a couple of the comments that I heard, you know, I did hear a couple of people raise questions of shadowing. Last June, the province passed Bill 17. And Bill 17 actually restricts municipalities from requiring shadow studies and looking at shadowing as a grounds to refusal of a planning application. So not at the end of the day, any longer our call.

I know there are still some oregs, sorry, some Ontario regulations that are being brought forward by the ministry, but Bill passed and received Royal Assent in the provincial legislature. I did hear the reference to a Brantford refusal. Our refusal was last Thursday. Well, it’s not on file yet.

I have to respectfully share with residents that the applicant is 99.9% likely to appeal that because it came forward with a staff recommendation. When that happens and council refuses something, it almost always ends up in front of the Ontario Land Tribunal. And at that point, city staff can’t even defend council’s refusal because it’s against their recommendation. So while we make some changes, sometimes we approve and I’m going to suggest an approval later today on an application that staff are recommending refusal on.

When staff refuse, we could interpret things that are a bit more suited to an individual application. In this case, a cemetery versus a open space later on in the application. But when it’s coming forward with the planning from both sides, the applicant and the city staff are recommending it meets the planning framework at the Ontario Land Tribunal. A council decision has to be based in a very clear regulatory planning rationale.

And it’s got to be able to counter the staff and the professional planners rationale. So I suspect that before the end of the week, if you look at the OLT registry, although they can sometimes take a little bit of time to get things posted to their website, that that will be appealed. And I did review that application from Brantford. And I got to say, I think the city council there is going to lose when it goes to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

And that may be speculative, but having served on this committee for a few years now, I think that the council’s going to find itself spending some legal fees only to have the application approved, regardless. I’m always hesitant when staff bring forward a recommendation to approve, because there really are some legal barriers to us doing that. I’m happy to support Councillor Pribble’s amended motion because I heard from some folks. I want to particularly acknowledge Maureen Wilson for reaching out.

I shared a response back. I was honest with her that I know you’re not going to be happy with the response. But through that process, she did raise, can you please restrict the balconies? Can we please make sure that there’s a holding provision on the drainage?

And that’s what Councillor Pribble’s putting forward today, that that’s what I’m supporting him to put forward. Because I think that those are asks that we can. I think we are on stable rational planning grounds to honor those requests. And so I will support that.

I know the word Councillors has indicated there might be a couple of other things that he wants to look at ahead of council. And I’ll make myself available to him there as well. So if there is something that he feels he can do around rooftop amenities or something like that, I will similarly be open to support him on anything that we can do with regard to that. Because I think that’s a fair comment from residents to hear that they’re concerned what a rooftop amenity will do just as balconies on the south or the east or west side would do.

So I understand where that’s coming from. And I just want to share that I will leave my door open to talk further with Councillor Pribble in terms of perhaps addressing that so that that is one less thing that’s on your minds in terms of this moving forward. I also just want to say I hear your frustration about having gone through a rezoning already and the townhouses that were approved and then now there’s another rezoning coming forward. I mean, for whatever reason, and I don’t know what the reason was, but the previous owner of the property decided not to move ahead with the townhouse.

Otherwise we wouldn’t even be here today. They didn’t and the property came under new ownership and this is the application that the new owner is bringing forward. So we have to make our decision today based on that. But I hope in those comments, and I know just as I said to the Wilson’s, I’m not making anyone happy with this, but I hope you hear that I did hear and I’m willing to support your word, Councillor, on the things that I think we can reasonably do without going to an Ontario land tribunal appeal to deal with this application today.

So I’ll just conclude my comments there. Thank you. I’ll look for any other comments from committee. Councillor Pribble, you mentioned that you want to address us further.

Yes, so I’m going to start. But one thing is I did want to mention because there was a comment in terms of the comparison with the other two properties. I just want to clarify it. Yes, absolutely.

I did say that I did approve and supported other ones, including the eight stories, some even higher than city. Having said that, I did approve them on the policies, not based on, again, every property, every parcel is not identical to the other one. I just wanted to mention that part. I’ll be honest with you.

Going back, even though I’m not on this committee, on the council, I supported very much. And I believe truly, I believe all of them, all the infills because that is our policy vision and in terms of building infills, certainly preferred an urban scroll. And I do believe that our strategy, if I look at the big picture, it is working in terms of us creating more units and being more affordable housing. And we do see it already that it is coming down.

So I do believe the vision is correct. Having said that, I do have to say that I’m truly struggling with this one. I really am because there are, if I look at this property, if I look at the grading, so again, we are not looking only at eight, we are looking at kind of nine, nine and a half. So bottom line is this, I do have to, I don’t want to give this my talk here.

I don’t want to give anyone kind of hopes up, but as the Peter Mayor stated, and he did help me through this process. We talked about other options as well. So VR, we are not stopping now till the council and we will be having said that, I don’t want to give anyone any hopes up, but if we do come up with certain things and talk to the applicant, to the developer, we certainly, we certainly will. And that’s what I want to say.

I do understand our staff and thank you. I totally understand them supporting it, in terms of their urban thoroughfares. I wish we had, if I look at Fanshawe classification, I totally see the totally different between Richmond and Adelaide with the higher public transport closer to the transit village. And between Adelaide and Highbury, I do see the difference.

I do understand it’s one classification. Staff is going based on the policy. I do get that, but I do see a difference. I’m just trying to see if we can come up with certain things that will make kind of more sense again for the neighbourhood.

I totally understand the developer. The developer just like, if you invest any money, you are looking at it, maximizing your opportunities. And yes, if the policy allows it, I do understand that point as well. But I’m hoping we will come up with something.

I do think this, what’s in front of us, and I truly believe this committee will support it and Council will as well. So it will address the issues of the stormwater, of the these areas will be addressed. It will be more tight, more tight. The other ones will work on it, and we’ll see what’s going to come with the Council.

But thank you to the committee for the support. Thank you to all of you. And one thing is, do you want, and this might be totally off, but I heard something actually a couple of days ago, and I just want to mention it. I just want to mention it.

I’m not looking at this, what’s in front of us, because this year there is an election, and the people up there will be earning their votes. Even if I do end up running, this era would not be in my work. I know it’s kind of totally off, but I just want to say that that’s not the reason just people, what I heard a couple of days ago, that’s not the reason why I would be changing my mind, or being seeing this project, this application, in any different way. Thank you very much, Chair.

I’ll leave it with you. Thank you, I’ll look for other comments. See what I want. Okay, just a few comments from the chair.

I’m not going to go repeat what Deputy Mayor Lewis said. He made some very good points. For me, the biggest issue here is the story, the age story height. We have, as of right, age story along that urban thoroughfare.

It’s very little that we can do with that. With the setbacks, I’m fine with the setback being reduced at the front, fretting on the fan shot to provide a little bit more room at the back there. I’m happy to hear there’s no access point from Dunboyne. I, for sure, will support that the motion thereby.

Councilor Preble regarding balconies and privacy, especially on the rear and the sides. I think that that’s an important feature. Yeah, and finally, regarding the traffic light at Glenora and Fanshawe, that’s, you know, that is always something that can be worked with our Roads Department to constantly being looked at with change in traffic flow around there. So that being said, I’ll look one more time around, I’m on the horse, you’re here.

We have a motion, move in a second, and I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries three to one. Okay, we have a lot more on our agenda to get through. We’ve been at out for past three hours.

I’m looking to committee to look for a brief break, perhaps 10 minutes. So I get, I get thumbs up. Okay, Councillor Hillier has moved that, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, just a hand vote. Nope, maybe he did, sorry, I thought I saw the big non-serve cancel.

10 minute break, Councillor Hillier, seconded by, I’ll second it, so hand vote. All in favor? No. Okay.

Two to two motion fails. Okay, let’s plow on. (muffled speaking) Style, just remind staff that we’re not breaking. The motion failed, sorry, yep.

Councillor Layman, rather than ask for reconsideration, I’m just gonna move a 15 minute. Staff do need a quick break here. So as much as I’m willing to plow through, my experience is when we say 10, we end up being 15 anyway, people never— Thank you. Or back, so I’ll move 15.

Thank you, can I have a seconder? I’ll second it, hand vote, thank you. Motion carries. All right, thanks folks.

Much needed little break there, personally. Moving on, we are now at 3.5. This is regarding 3334 to 3354, Wonderland Road South. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting.

I’ll sing the vote, the motion carries, 4 to 0. Thank you, the applicant is here. I would like to address us, so we’ll go to you. Go to the applicant, see someone online.

Yes, sir, Mr. Allen, thank you, didn’t see you online. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you committee. MHBC planning is acting on behalf of the registered owner of the subject lands and the applicant. The applicant has provided the committee with a letter in response to the planning staff report, and that report recommends refusal of the requested official plan endsling bylaw amendments. At this time, we’d like to briefly touch on the content of the letter, and members of our project team are in attendance, Mr.

Chair, and available to answer questions. So at the outset, we’d like to advise the committee that the proposed development concept was carefully considered, and is intended to complement the range of existing and plan development within the Wonderland corridor. The project is also being advanced to help broaden local housing choice and increase housing supply within the city’s Wonderland Boulevard neighborhood. We fully acknowledge planning staff concerns regarding the overall height and intensity of this proposal, and in response, we’d like to draw attention to three key elements of the project intended to mitigate these concerns.

Firstly, the development has been designed as a master plan layout that is to incorporate multiple high-rise towers in a cohesive campus setting. It’s anticipated the overall scale and character of this development would contribute positively to the Wonderland corridor, and that the project would support the strategic growth area centered around the Wonderland Southdale Development node. Secondly, the cluster tower design concentrates the highest density and height along the Wonderland frontage. Building height and massing is then stepped down towards a pin-comb drain and existing residential development along Morgan Avenue.

The tower designs along Wonderland Road also incorporate podium and mid-rise components to step back building height to support a pedestrian streetscape and to mitigate shadowing and down draft effects. Thirdly, in relation to on-site amenities, a large centralized courtyard is planned to provide a common recreational area and community focal point. This core amenity area would be complimented by rooftop terraces, indoor common space and an interior or internal pathway network. In effect, the intensive compact design of the proposal would effectively utilize servicing infrastructure and support transit service.

Also with multiple high-rise towers accommodating an estimated 1900 residential units, this project would further diversify the mix of uses within the Wonderland corridor and support its overall long-term vitality. We’d also like to advise the committee that we’ve reviewed concerns set out in the staff report regarding the potential impact of the project on municipal servicing, ecological features and traffic movement. We recently met with city staff on a number of these issues and we anticipate that outstanding items can be effectively addressed as project planning advances. In the interim, Mr.

Chair, we are proposing that holding provisions be applied to the site zoning relating to each of these three concerns. To conclude, in light of these considerations and the merit set out of this proposal, set out in the applicant’s letter, we respectfully request that the committee endorse approval of these applications. We also request that the committee support an alternative recommendation to permit building heights of up to 20 stories or 70 meters and a residential density of up to 350 units per hectare within the project site. This recommendation and draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments implementing this request are included with the letter for the committee’s consideration.

Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions any members may have. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers to this item. Ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

The clerk is indicated there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone going to the mic. I’ll open the vote to close the BPM. So think about the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you. I intend to bring a motion forward. So I will ask the Vice Chair to take the chair. All right, Councilor Lehman, I will take the chair and I will recognize you to present your alternate motion.

Thank you. So I’ve submitted the alternative motion to the clerk. The clerk has the wording and should be up and e-scribe and as well to members of the committee. So I will move that and then request to address the reasons for the alternative motion.

And do you have a seconder for that? Councilor Cuddy, so that’s been moved and seconded. If you’d like to speak to it now, go ahead. Thank you.

So, you know, today we have an extensive public participation on a number of applications, opposition to heights of two stories, heights of eight stories. You know, when we do address our housing shortage, despite the comment that was made that our current vacancy rate is up a bit, we’re planning right now for the next 25 years with regards to the provincial target of 47,000 homes being built. So we recognize that the future of London will be growing and the housing needs to be available in order to keep vacancies at a reasonable level as they are now and address pricing with supply. Where does that happen?

Well, for sure, we’ve adhered to the London plan to promote, you know, higher order of transit as we did today, an example of that. However, what we’ve seen, we’ve seen a heavy density movement towards the north and northwest and even with our recent urban growth boundary decisions that is, again, primarily focused up in those areas. I believe we have to distribute growth evenly in this city. And I think this provides an opportunity to do just that.

These lands were originally designated to be for a future casino, but that those plans have changed. So I think when we’re looking at that density, which brings into obviously traffic concerns, population growth down there, I think those are mitigated quite frankly by the location of this particular development. This is on Wonderland Road and Warren Cliff, both higher order roads, but also I want to point out very close to the 401, which I think in the future will be used increasingly as a thoroughfare locally as well as those that are going through, you know, from the west to the east and vice versa on the highway. So I’m not as concerned about the density.

I think, in fact, kind of the opposite. If not here, where we have people constantly saying we recognize need for infill, but just not in neighborhoods. And I understand what was said to us today. It’s hard to sit on this side of the horseshoe and to he sympathize.

Here we have a location where we have not heard from anybody regarding height. The staff have indicated eight stories would be good here. Well, we just had eight stories that we spent two hour and a half hearing concerns about surrounding neighborhoods. There is not that concern here.

If not out, you want to stop urban sprawl. Why not up and why not here? So my alternate motion supports the height request and the density request by the applicant. There is some sewer capacity issues.

Those are covered off by holding provisions because the owner of the land, Kitty Corner, is willing to work at their cost to mitigate those concerns. And if they can’t, then this will go forward. Finally, the presiding chair, I encourage my fellow committee members to support this alternative motion to allow this density to be spread to the southern edge of the city close to the 401 and other major thoroughfares. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Layman. Look for others who want to speak to this. I see none in chambers. I see none online.

At the moment, Councillor Van Wrigen, you want to speak? Yes, thank you. Is it possible to have this motion read? Unfortunately, I don’t have it up on my screen.

Can we read the motion? The entirety of the motion might be rather lengthy, but we can certainly— Or can we at least highlight what’s different from the— I think that would be fair. And what I’m going to do is go to the mover because it is his motion. It’s not the staff’s motion.

So I’m going to go to the mover to just bring highlights to you as to what the changes are that he has put in his alternate motion versus the staff recommendation. So, Councillor Layman, you’re not on the clock because you’re responding to a question from a visiting Councillor, but if you’d like to respond as the mover? Yes, without Councillor Van Wrigen, without getting into the details of holding provisions, et cetera, et cetera, the crux of it is to permit what was requested by the applicant, which includes a maximum height of 20 stories and maximum residential density of 350 units per hectare. So basically higher heights and more of a population having residents there.

Councillor Van Wrigen. Yeah, presiding officer, I’m wondering, is it possible to, maybe this isn’t the right time, maybe it is, to have staff maybe give us an overview as to why they came to the conclusions they did in terms of refusals? That is outlined in the report already. I will go to Ms.

McNeely to see if she has anything or Ms. O’Hagan if they have any— Yeah, just a little bit of a recap. Thanks. Thank you and true to Chair.

Staff are recommending refusal of the requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a number of reasons, but I would summarize it as proposal represents over intensification of the site. It’s not appropriate for the existing and planned context in the neighborhood of, sorry, in the shopping area place type. There is insufficient servicing capacity and overall the proposal is considered premature. Councillor Van Wrigen.

Okay, thank you for that. So it really boils down to over intensification. I don’t wanna use the word extreme, but too high of a density for the, it seems to be for the existing infrastructure. We’ve seen this application before and perhaps a slightly different iteration.

And the concerns have been the sewage, the various infrastructure, including transportation pressures on an already congested wonderland road in that area. So it seems like we better listen to what we’re being told here clearly from a staff perspective. And they’ve looked at this in great detail on more than one occasion, there are problems. And so— So Councillor, I’m just gonna interrupt you for a minute ‘cause you’ve said this twice now.

And as the chair, I have to stop you as the presiding officer. I’ve gotta stop you for a minute. Staff have reviewed this application once. The previous application you’re referring to was with respect to a casino development.

It was considerably different than what’s before us today. So I just want to caution that saying that they’ve reviewed this twice is actually not accurate. This is a brand new application with a very different mix of uses than was proposed in the casino lands, like in the original application when we were looking at it for casino use. So I just want to caution that we’re gonna say two applications are the same.

They’re not. Staff evaluate each application individually. Okay. Well, thank you for presenting, Officer.

But I didn’t say they were the same. A very close cousin to this came forward, not, you know, whatever it was, a year and a half, a year ago. So yes, since the casino days, this is the second iteration of the same theme. So I have to disagree with what you’re saying here because it has been looked at in depth.

And there are serious concerns. So to actually even increase the density even higher, I think is the wrong direction on this. I mean, it’s great to have this development, but it has to be done correctly with the existing infrastructure. And we don’t want to box ourselves into a corner where this isn’t really gonna work out with the proposal as it is now.

So this particular motion, I certainly can’t support it if and when it comes to council. And I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Looking for other speakers. Councillor Layman. I just want to address the councilor’s concern about infrastructure. If he’s referring to sewer and wastewater, there are holding provisions recognizing the fact that the kitty corner property owner is willing to bring in extra capacity at their cost to hook up to this particular section of land.

So I just wanted to make that clear that that was part of the alternative motion. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Any other speakers? Councillor Hillier.

Yes, as Councillor Layman alluded to, we’re talking about the area and the capacity of the infrastructure in that area. And I’m curious, does the increase in the capacity infrastructure being brought by the tenant across the road increase the capacity for what we can put in that neighborhood like the amount of residents that could live in that neighborhood in the future? ‘Cause right now, if you’re looking at sitting at population max 22, 347, has this been increased if we increase this capacity for the infrastructure? I don’t think we can go to staff to answer what capacity issues the applicant might bring forward with an adjacent property owner.

That would be up for them to put together and then bring forward to staff. That’s the lack of capacity right now is what’s being addressed, I think, by the holding provision. I see Ms. Ramalu prepare to go to the mic, so I’ll go to Ms.

Ramalu if she’s got something to share. But I just caution colleagues, we can’t ask staff to speculate on what an applicant might bring forward between themselves and an adjacent landowner, Ms. Ramalu. Thank you, through the presiding officer.

We have capacity set out within the secondary plan for the various parcels. What was brought forward in this proposal exceeds the allocated capacity within that plan by about four times. So it is a significantly higher amount. They have proposed the potential for a swap with some capacity of another development.

However, without that development being later on in those stages, we have no way of making sure that it all fits together, really. So it would be, I would say, a dangerous road to go down to allocate this kind of capacity to this development that was not originally identified for it, and then hope for the best for other developments in the area, because really this will use up the entire existing remaining capacity for about, and sterilize another 22 hectares for development. Councilor Hill here. You’re good, leaving for other speakers.

Seeing none, then I’m just gonna offer a couple of quick comments from the chair. I do hear certainly the concerns, Ms. Ramalu, expresses with regard to the overall capacity, but when we do allocate to parcels, and we’ve seen this with some parcels of land that we have previously approved for development, even in the last term of council, that’s it vacant still today. We’re holding capacity for land that has had zoning approvals for five years ago where a shovel hasn’t even gone in the ground.

So I’m, with the holding provisions that Councilor Lehman is proposing, and the indication in writing from the applicant that there is a proposal that they’re going to bring forward within the adjacent land owner. I do feel like the holding provisions give staff still the authority to say no, when that plan comes forward, and then they will have to rethink their plan. But I’m hesitant to reserve capacity on other parcels of land if we may see them sit for the next five, 10, 20 years without being developed. I can think of a couple downtown that we’ve approved rezoning for that are still sterile today that we’re going to use up downtown capacity.

That we then went and allocated some builder faster funding to increase the downtown capacity by another 17,000 units of housing if I recall the number correctly, and I’m seeing some nods from staff. So I think that’s roughly the number that was, we were looking at with the building faster fund, but because we’ve got land sitting sterile, we haven’t actually used up the previous capacity, although there wasn’t a lot left, so I still think the building faster fund investment there was the right move. But there’s the challenge, and there’s where it comes to, frankly, I see this as a little bit of an incentive to people to move and get shovels in the ground, because those who can meet the requirements to get their holding provisions lifted sooner are the ones who are going to be able to build. So I actually, I’m supportive of using holding provisions in that sort of manner, because I actually think it’s an incentive to get shovels in the ground when we do it that way.

And looking for other speakers, seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Seeing the votes and the carries part to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Councillor Layman, I will return the chair to you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to 3.6, this is regarding 965 Adelaide Street, South, and I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries part to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant.

I’d like to address, oh, there you are, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Yeah, Mike Davis with civic planning and design here today on behalf of our client, God’s favorite house, Canada. I’ll be very brief with my comments. Our clients, they have acquired this vacant office building for the purposes of converting it to a place of worship for their congregation, more in support of the recommendations in the staff report. This property will be a good fit for them.

There’s ample parking, it’s a vacant office building that’s gonna be very easy and simple to convert for their needs. So with that, we’re asking for your support of the application today, and certainly, if there’s any members of the neighbourhood here, I want them to know that our clients are very keen to be good neighbours in a good part of the community here. So thank you very much, available for any questions. Thank you.

I’ll look for anyone from public, would like to address a committee on this item. Also, Clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone approaching the mic, so I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero.

Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councillor Cutty. Thank you, Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, I see a seconder, Councillor Hillier.

We have motion moved and seconded. Look for any questions or comments. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero.

Okay, moving on to 3.7. This is regarding 68 to 76 commissioners road east. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero.

Thank you, and I’ll look for the applicant to like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Eric Steele. I’m a planner with Monty’s Brown Planning and Salms.

Also joined here by James McGuffin from our firm. We have our client, the owner of the subject lands. Our client’s proposing to redevelop the site with a 42 unit stacked townhouse development. They have been working with collaboration with the adjacent owner at 80 commissioners road.

Also the opponent for the next item on the agenda to bring forward a coordinated development for both sites, including a shared vehicle access. We have opportunity review comments from the public and believe that they can be addressed through both these submissions, as well as future site plan control application processes. I feel sort of you’d staff recommendation bylaw and report and no concerns, and happy answer any questions from members of the committee. Thank you, I’ll look for members of the public that’d like to address the committee on this item.

Does that work? My own camera, I hope I’m, thanks for the looks of your name. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, Mark Hawthorne, 90 commissioners road east.

So I live between Warly and Warren Cliff, and I just want to bring everybody’s attention. There’s a road, so there’s a hill that comes down to where the development is. I live on that crescent. And when they did the road widening on commissioners, I asked for that road to actually be shaved down, because there’s quite a blind spot coming over the hill.

I personally have pulled three people out of car wrecks from people trying to turn past the hill and people smashing into the back of them. So I just wanted to bring that to everybody’s attention from a safety perspective. So I don’t know how they’re talking for 60 more parking spots or 60 more vehicles. I don’t know how safely they’re gonna be able to get onto that busy commissioner’s road for lane highway, right?

I personally can’t get out of my house at eight o’clock, 12 o’clock and five o’clock. I can’t even get out of my lane when there’s not much traffic going through that road. I’m not against development, but two houses in one tennis court to 58 townhouses, kind of seemed lopsided, kind of crazy to me. There’s an example right across the road, Highland Place, which is a beautiful development.

It’s gonna call the sack with five or six beautiful homes on it, right across the road as an example of how it should be developed. And it looks beautiful in our community. So I’m recommending a lower density build. Maybe we come to a happy medium, something that’s a little more, the meets that satisfy, satisfies everybody, you and the community.

I thought the city had passed some sort of by-law to stop this much development, coming on residential neighborhoods. Thought I saw that in the news one night. I’m not sure if that’s the case or not. For my neighbors in the back on Dundee Place, I know this doesn’t affect me ‘cause I’m on the hill, but in the back there’s a court that comes in the back of the development.

Drainage runoff, 90% of the property’s gonna be covered with roofs concrete asphalt. I’m just worried about overflow going in my neighbors backyards. They live on 86, 90, 94, 98 and 102 Dundee Place. That’s for my neighbors back there.

My wife said she’d like me to bring up the trees. We can’t, she made a good point. We can’t take down a tree without a permit, but it seems like the developers can take them all out. There is a row of pine trees on the one side of the property that we would love to be saved because that’s a big privacy thing for us on our side.

And so I’ve been up here watching this whole thing. I’ve never been through this process, but it seems like the neighbors are up here trying to save their neighborhoods. The developers are all trying to develop and they’re in business to make money to put as much as they can on their investments. And the city’s kinda caught in the middle.

So I just wanna say at the end, thank you for all your work. And I know it’s a hard position you’re all in, but hopefully we can do the right thing, all right? Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next another speaker. So clerk, if there’s anyone online or anymore, I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone. So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you. So I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councilor Cuddy? Here, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder of the motion. Councilor Hillier, I’ll open the, look for comments or questions on the motion. That’s been moved.

I see Councilor Frank has joined us online. Please go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, yes. Happy to be here and appreciate being recognized at committee for folks in the gallery who might not be aware.

I’m not on this committee, but this will come to council after it goes through planning. I did want to ask a question that actually the resident just highlighted right now in regards to the comment from one of the submissions about being counterintuitive that individual homeowners get permits to cut down trees but developers clear cut trees. And I kind of want to reference it to a matter we had just before the 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboying Crescent. The matters for site plan that the landscape architect included in that did recommend replacing a significant amount of trees.

So the comment was that the submitted TPP proposes a removal of 10 10 CM DBH in accordance with LP 399 101 replacement trees would be required. However, the city is actively working on creating a bylaws, a tool for implementing policy 399. So in the interim tree replacement rates similar to the tree protection by low will be applied. And then there’s a long list of all the requirements.

So I’m wondering through the chair to staff, can we put a similar site plan condition on this file given that they are going to be if this gets approved, cutting down a significant number of trees. So I’m just wondering if you can put a similar site plan condition on perhaps by council. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, I can note that staff is recommending a site plan approval be requested to provide enhanced all season landscaping with a minimum 50% native tree.

So there is already a reference to landscaping but it could be amended to specifically reference trees if that’s what you want to do. Councilor. Thanks yet. No, I think that’s definitely a good start in going in the right direction.

I guess the one that’s on the Fanshawe park road in Dunboyne, it looks like it’s tree replacement rates. So it’s, I am assuming that would come back as a financial benefit to the city because they’re requesting cutting down a significant number of trees at that location as well as this one. So perhaps then all between now and council have a discussion with staff in regards to that because it seems like a good approach as we await the long awaited implementation of policy 3.99 that we’re all, I’m sure very excited about it. I’m very excited about it.

But I’ll work with staff on that item. Okay, Councilor, I’m sure we all share your enthusiasm. Always do, we miss you here on fact. Okay, I’ll go to other committee members or visiting Councilors on this item being, I know, okay.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, again, I’m going to try and be really quick. I want to acknowledge the resident who talked about the car crashes. I know the slope, the hill, whatever we want to call it that you’re talking about.

I’ve seen an accident there myself. So I know it is one of those areas where from a transportation perspective, maybe our sight lines aren’t as great as they could have been when the road was designed, those kind of things fully acknowledge and hear you on that. But when it comes to a planning application like this, when they look at traffic impact things, they look at things like the road classification and the car volumes. And so when they’re looking at the size of this application versus the traffic volume on commissioners at this site, which has got the traffic map in front of me ‘cause I wanted to take a look and it’s about 35,000 vehicles a day.

So it is very significant traffic. And so when they look at it, they look at it from the perspective of, does this change the volume in a significant way? Does it change the flow in a significant way? And in this case, it wouldn’t.

I know Councillor Frank’s still online and listening. I don’t know when we next look at improvements to commissioners road, but I hear you about the fact that with the change in height and sight lines there, it can be a bit of a challenge and probably even more so in winter weather when things ice up a bit. Not having enough road salt right now doesn’t help. And that’s not unique to us.

That’s right across the province. But I didn’t want that to go untouched. I did want to share that I’ve seen an accident there myself. I know the area that you’re talking about.

I actually frequently travel that way ‘cause it’s from coming from the east end of the city, commissioners to Warren Cliff is a better way for me to get to Earl Nichols Arena. Then Southdale has been with the rapid transit construction. So I’ve been there this winter and seen an accident. So I didn’t want you to feel like that wasn’t heard, but when we’re looking at the rezoning, we’ve got to look at it from the bigger traffic volume perspective.

And so that’s not something we can address through this application. But I do appreciate you raising it because it is an issue there and something that should be looked at through our roads folks when it’s time for us to look at a renewal along Commissioner’s Road again. That might be a ways down the road. And I know Mr.

McCrae’s not here today, so I’m not gonna ask for a date on that. But I did want to share that it should be something that perhaps traffic engineering looks at in the future when they look at the next time we’re going to resurface and do things on Commissioner’s Road. So just wanted to acknowledge that. And I know Councillor Frank.

Oh, she’s not frozen. I was gonna say it looks like she might be frozen up there, but I’m sure she’s heard that too. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors.

Seeing none, we have a motion moved in second. Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.8.

This is regarding a joining property. 80 Commissioners Road East. So I’ll open the vote to open the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

I’ll look to the applicants again to address the committee. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, and my name is Eric Steele from Monteith Brown Planning and Solms. You’re behalf of the owner of 80 Commissioners Road.

In this case, it’s posing a 16 unit stack townhouse development. As previously noted, this film is proposed in coordination with the Jason property at 68 and Semidex Commissioners with shared access and servicing. And we’ve reviewed the staff report, recommendation of violin, have no concerns, and happy to answer any questions for today. Thank you.

I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address committee on this particular item. And I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online. There is nobody online. I don’t see one approaching the microphone, so I’ll open the vote to close the PPM.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Councillor Cuddy, thank you Chair. I’ll move staff recommendation.

Thank you, and Councillor Hill here is indicated. He will second it. I’ll look for any discussion on this topic. Seeing none, we have motion moved and seconded.

I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.9. This is regarding 610 Prince’s Avenue.

Open the vote to open the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I see the applicant up there. Please, sir, give us your name and 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. Here today representing our client, Iron Door Properties.

The application before you seeks a site-specific zoning by-law amendments to permit the adaptive reuse of the existing 2.5-story building for residential purposes. Specifically, this is the conversion from office uses to an apartment building use containing 10 units. No additions or exterior alterations to the existing building are proposed. We’d like to thank Melanie Vivian and the rest of Planning and Development team for their work on this file.

We’re in full agreement with the staff recommendation and I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thanks. Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address committee.

I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphones. So I’ll open the vote to close the PBM. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4-0.

Thank you. I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair.

I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. So I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members.

I see Councilor Ferra is here. So we will go to Councilor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. It’s looking like I’m going to be in full agreement with the staff recommendation too.

I do want to see this adaptive reuse for this office space into residential. I guess I, one question with respect to the heritage. I see that this is listed, I believe. I just wanted to go with heritage and just get any comments.

I do see the report does say no concerns. But if I could just go to heritage, just to see if they can have anything to say. And we’ll go to staff regarding any comments on the heritage features, sir, with this property. Thank you, through the chair.

Staff have no concerns. Councilor. Thank you. I do see that it’s meeting the minimum parking requirements.

Five spaces for 10 units. So it’s not an issue for me as well. I do believe our minimum parking standards are appropriate. So with that, I think I had one person comment on this.

They had concerns with the heritage, but then when I spoke with them, and discussed no concerns on the heritage and just how it’s listed in the outside, portions of the property would maintain that heritage aspect, their concerns went away. So this is one that I’ll support at council. Thank you. I’ll look to other members of committee or visiting councilors, comments or questions.

Seeing none, we have a motion. Move in second, and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Okay, moving on to 3.10.

This is regarding 732 Wellington and 282 Piccadilly Street. And I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Thank you.

I see the applicant up the top. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure. Good afternoon, committee members, city staff, public attendees.

My name is Danieli Cicalero, and I’m a planner with Celine Capriamo. And we are coordinating the ZBA application on behalf of the property owner. Firstly, I would like to thank staff, especially Melon Vivin for their work on the file. We also carefully revealed the staff report, and we welcome the approval recommendation.

We have also reviewed the special provisions recommended by staff, and we are happy with them. I would just like to emphasize some key points. So the ZBA application is requested to permit the conversion of the existing buildings at 732 Wellington Street to a 4plex, and at 282 Piccadilly Street to a triplex. And all these special provisions are to recognize the existing conditions.

As stated in the staff report, the proposed ZBA application is consistent with the PPS, confirms if the London plan and maintains the intent and purpose of the zoning bellow. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Thank you. - Thank you.

I’ll look for any members of the public like to address the committee on this item. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone. So I’ll ask if there’s anyone online. Nobody online, I don’t see anyone coming forward, so I’ll open the motion or the vote to close the PPM.

I was thinking about the motion carries part to zero. Thank you, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members, Councillor Cady. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to move staff recommendation.

Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hill here has indicated he will second. The motion, any conversation on this? Committee members are visiting Councillors.

Councillor Ferrell, please go ahead. Thanks, Chair. This one is a little bit different for me. I have been speaking to residents and businesses nearby and they have been raising concerns about just existing parking pressure in the area and in the lane way in the back there as it is.

I have to bring those concerns to committee and I do see the staff report confirmed this proposal is below the minimum parking standard on both properties. I know we rounded up, so from what I understand that minimum parking requirement should be four parking spaces with the two properties as it’s proposed, but we’re seeing one per each, so that’s two. So I just wanted to confirm, I guess, what is the minimum parking requirement versus what’s proposed for each property and if I can get an explanation on why this reduction is recommended. Also, if there’s anything or anything that staff can say on if they looked into any spillover parking and impacts to the neighbors and nearby businesses.

Okay, I’ll go to staff on those parking concerns. Through the Chair, the zoning by-law currently requires 0.5 spaces per unit for both the four-plex and triplex dwelling resulting in two parking spaces for each individual property. The applicant is proposing one parking space per property. Again, the intent here is to recognize the existing site conditions.

At 732 Wellington, the parking space we access via the rear lane way and the one along Piccadilly access via the existing driveway with front yard parking. Again, existing situations on site. In this situation, staff are supportive of this reduction given the proximity to public transit options being in central London and the proximity to Oxford Street as well. With respect to impacts on the abutting commercial uses and spillover in the neighborhood, we would have to rely on our by-law enforcement officers and the complaint basis on that point.

We believe that parking on site can be mitigated and through the tendency of the buildings that would be with the owner to advertise accordingly based on what’s available. Thank you. Councilor. Thanks for that.

I know Oxford Street is a designated under the mobility master plan for a rapid transit corridor, but I know that planning and approvals and funding and all that need to still come to council. I don’t know if anybody’s from traffic is there, but is there any timelines you could provide on when we would see that expansion of the rapid transit corridor on Oxford? I’ll go to staff to see if there’s anyone here that could comment on that question. Thank you for the question.

We are looking for clarification. If you’re talking about the place type or from a transit operations, if it’s about transit operations, we will need to get that information for you for council. Councilor, can you just provide a little more clarification what you’re looking for? Well, clarification, we’re looking for higher-order transit on Oxford, which is not necessarily abutting the property, but it’s very close within walking distance.

So I’m looking to see if you can provide the timeline of when we realistically see, and I know that there’s some things that still have to come through council, but if we could realistically know when we would see that higher-order transit for the rapid transit corridor specifically on Oxford. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the work would be done through the master mobility plan. However, they would be looking at the place type and the land use permissions along that corridor.

Right now it’s in an urban corridor place type, and that’s the plan vision for the next 30, 50 years. But as we know that over time, we have regular updates and review these policy framework, which then would help inform the master mobility plan. And so that’s where the planning and engineering work in tandem. And a lot of that would also be tied with frequency and volumes and as these areas get built out.

And so it’s all relative over time, but we can certainly check in with our transportation folks to get an idea of in terms of the high-order for the street itself, but from a place type perspective, there’s no planning in the immediate future. Councillor. So that I’m worried about what’s going to happen in the immediate when we see these sites get developed, which is why I would like to at least see if we can consider the minimum parking requirements, the two units or two spaces per unit there, or per the build as it is. I guess my next question would be, I do see the report notes that the bylaw typically requires a three meter setback for lane access parking to provide buffering and I see that this application is requesting a zero meter setback as a special provision.

So could staff comment on why the zero meter setback is appropriate here or why buffering or in what buffering mitigation is expected to address the impacts of the adjacent properties? I’ll go staff. Through the chair, with respect to the parking area setback when accessed by a lane, in this situation, the parking space that’s proposed is at the rear of the subject property at 732 Wellington and directly abutting the existing structure at 282 Piccadilly. So the impacts in this situation, there relatively will be none.

To the abutting parcel, given it’s directly abutting and existing building. Oh, sure. Okay, thank you for that. So just the concerns that I’m hearing from the neighbors and the businesses specifically with the parking situation as it is right now, there’s a big concern with that intensification amplifying those parking issues that they’re already going through at the moment.

So I would be, as it is, I wouldn’t necessarily be supportive of this one. If we were to require the proponent to at least meet the minimum parking standards, I know, I can understand just from the comments and from the report that the space is not necessarily there. Would that translate into what, I guess, would there be the ability to meet those minimum parking requirements the way the property is laid out? Or would you have to reduce the intensification of units there?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, if we were to require the minimum parking, we’re likely looking at a situation where new front yard parking would be requested by the applicant in this given context. And front yard parking for a new front yard parking isn’t something that’s contemplated within the policies and not something that we would likely support. It would be up to the applicant at that point to look at the viability of the number of units with respect to the required parking.

Councillor? Yeah, I appreciate that. I guess my request to the committee would be to refer this back or not support. It doesn’t meet the minimum standards.

The minimum standards, I believe, are appropriate for the area. There, I have quite a few people reach out on this one, both businesses and neighbors. And they’re already dealing with the impacts of the parking as it is. And there’s a big worry about the intensification here contributing to that.

Okay, thank you, Councillor. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members who are visiting Councillors. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

So just in follow up to the comments that I just heard from Councillor Ferreira. We still have 90 days to editorial deadlines, so I’m not ready to refer if the Councillor wants to propose an amendment that we could bring to council that would permit front yard parking. As he’s heard, I recognize where the restriction on front yard parking, what I call a bump out space, can be a barrier to accommodating this sort of gentle intensification. So I don’t have language to amend it today, but if he wants to work with staff to bring something forward to council, I’d be happy to second that forum.

‘Cause I hear the concern, I agree it’s a concern, but I don’t have language to move it today. And we do have to work within the 90-day statutory decision period, otherwise it’s a non-decision and appealable to the OLT. So I’ll share that I’m willing to support him on a modification, but we’re gonna need some assistance from staff to do that, and so today I’m prepared to support the staff recommendation, but are open to an amendment at council. Thank you, look for other comments or questions.

Councilor Ferrell. Thanks Chair, thanks for that. I would be, I don’t know of the appropriateness of the front yard parking, but I would explore, at least just the minimum requirements is what I’m looking for. So I will be, I guess, speaking with staff on that.

If it’s not appropriate for front yard parking, I wouldn’t go that route, but I need to get more details on it before I can confirm anything at this point. Okay, thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, thank you. Moving on to 3.11.

This is regarding 5150 Wellington Road South. I’ll call the vote to open the PPM. I’m closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, I’ll look to the applicant.

Oh, I see you up there. Please give us your name again and you have five minutes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon again. My name is Laura Jameson, a planner with the link of pre-ammo here representing our client, the Roman Catholic Diocese of London, regarding a proposed cemetery at 5150 Wellington Road South. We have reviewed the staff report and respectfully disagree with their recommendation. It is our professional opinion that the proposed cemetery is an appropriate use of these lands.

For context, the subject lands have an area of 15.6 hectares with 271 meters of frontage on Wellington Road. In the 1989 official plan, the subject lands were designated as community facility and were zoned accordingly as CF1 or community facility one. An open space five designation or zone was applicable towards the rear of the site where there is a provincially significant wetland feature. The intended use of the lands was for community facility uses.

However, when the London plan came into effect, these lands and adjacent uses, including the Regina Mundi Institute and the St. Leopold Manditch Church, were designated farmland. The intended use of the subject lands in the farmland place type is to accommodate agricultural uses and farm practices. The subject lands have not been farmed in over 60 years.

The subject lands, having an area of only 15 hectares, are not adequately sized to accommodate cash cropping operations. Additionally, livestock operations would not be suitable on the subject lands given that there are land use conflicts with existing residential uses in the broccoli neighborhood immediately to the west of Wellington Road. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed cemetery use would be more appropriate in an urban or rural settlement place type. In our professional opinion, urban lands are more efficiently used for uses that require direct access to municipal services.

And, notably, the expansion of the rural neighborhood’s place type is prohibited in the London plan. In our opinion, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 as the proposal will diversify the use of land in a rural area. The development is located within an existing rural cluster and will minimize the loss of agricultural lands. The proposed cemetery use meets minimum distance separation requirements and provides appropriate setbacks to the provincially significant wet land on the subject lands.

The proposed development conforms to the place type policies of the London plan by providing a non-agricultural use that is appropriate in a rural area and meets the criteria for evaluation of planning applications and criteria for evaluation of a new specific area policy. The requested community facility for CF4 zoning is a technical variation to the existing zone category to permit the proposed cemetery and accessory buildings. A site-specific open space five zone is requested to recognize the 30 meter buffer zone where no development will be permitted adjacent to the provincially significant wet land. No change to the OS5 zoning on the provincially significant wet land is proposed.

And H9 holding provision is requested to ensure an archaeological assessment is completed and that any artifacts if found will be appropriately dealt with prior to development of the subject lands. It is our opinion that the requested amendments represent good land use planning are in the public interest and will provide a necessary and desirable use for the community. Thank you very much for your time. I’m available to answer any additional questions.

Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public like to address the committee on this item. I’ll see anyone coming to the mic. Clerk, if there’s anyone online, there is nobody online.

So I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. I was thinking about the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, so I’ll put this item on the floor. Councillor Cutty.

Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Sorry, sorry, excuse me. I apologize, getting tired. Well, I think we have an alternate motion to put on the floor.

So Deputy Mayor Lewis, I think you had something in that regard. Yes, well, we’ve actually got two edits on the agenda because Planning Committee Quorum has to be respected and so Councillor Hill, you and I did not have an opportunity to talk to each other about this beforehand. They are two very, very similar motions. So through you, Chair, I just would like to go to staff and ask if they, I mean, one has some reasons.

Another one has a draft bylaw attached. So one has one piece, one has another piece. What’s the easiest way from a staff perspective to put an alternate motion to approve on the floor? Yeah, so, you know, observing quorum rules.

We have two Councillors or Councillor and Deputy Mayor, both members of committee putting forward alternative motions that you would have. So maybe some guidance here on how we, you’d like us to proceed. Thank you through the chair. I would suggest actually a blend of the two and suggest the motion from the Deputy Mayor and then the balance through Councillor Hillier and then the bylaw, of course.

Okay, so would the clerk have wording that could ease, so clerk, can you kind of craft something given what we’ve heard from staff? Through the chair, would you like us to draft something and send it to the clerk? That might be helpful. And while you’re doing that, I think both the Councillor and Deputy Mayor understand where we’re going on this and if we can proceed with conversation to that regard while you’re crafting that.

So who would like to go first? I can rock paper scissors for it, but I turned on my mic and Councillor Hillier has his hand up, so I’ll let Councillor Hillier go first. Councillor Hillier, go ahead. Just a question through staff.

I don’t believe we have a list of approved cemetery sites through the city, but if you could just confirm that with me, for future cemetery sites? I’ll go to staff on, do we have sites identified for cemeteries? Through the chair, none for that are under development currently, there is, of course, we have mapping of the cemeteries within the city, but nothing that’s a future cemetery use currently. Councillor.

So there’s no mapping for future cemeteries, excellent. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair, and so through you, I will say, I agree very much with what we heard from the applicant’s representative with regard to this being an appropriate use in a rural land setting.

I, you know, we just had a very extensive year of talking about the urban growth boundary, the need for intensification. You know, we’ve heard all kinds of discussion today about various infill and greenfield development and where and how the city can grow. This is outside the urban growth boundary. It’s adjacent to original Monday secondary school, so Catholic secondary school.

So within the same sort of ownership family of the Roman Catholic diocese, as was referenced, there’s some ecological, as well as compatibility barriers to agricultural use here. And so while I understand the staff’s reliance on the PPS for the protection of primary agricultural area, for me, what outweighs that is this land is already, well, it may be in a farm land’s place type, it’s already designated in a CF zone. And what we are doing is changing the CF design, CF-1 designation to a CF-4 designation, which allows a little bit different land use, but still is consistent with the existing zoning of use for a community facility. I also think when we look at a very low impact from a municipal services perspective, a very low impact development in terms of water, wastewater, et cetera, and the connections there.

And I mean, Regina Mundy secondary school is there, and I guarantee you there’s a higher service demand on the secondary school than there will be from what will be, you know, ultimately a couple of administrative sorts of buildings, some, I would assume, some mechanical storage of some equipment, and then, of course, plots for burial. So I think this is a very appropriate use, and I am more than willing to support it. Again, I understand the farmland place type rationale that staff have advanced, but I think this is a very low impact use, and the zoning is already there. You know, for me, it’s almost the equivalent of changing, you know, from an ASA to an ASA-3 sort of thing where we’re talking about an associated shopping area, and this business doesn’t quite fit the ASA-2, so we’re gonna apply an ASA-3 instead.

It’s a very similar use here to me. It’s designated for a community facility, not for farming, so the perspective of it ever becoming somehow sold off and developing as farm, it just doesn’t compute for me, particularly when you look at the ecological feature on the west end of the yard where we’ve got a water feature and we’ve got some OS zoning, and so that’s reflected in the motion that’s been brought forward by both Councilor Hillyer and I as well, that the OS-5 would be maintained, and so I think that this is an appropriate fit, and I hope that I have managed to not use up my whole five minutes but provide enough time and talking points to let staff get the two motions blended together, so I’ll stop talking there and see if staff are ready to go with a motion. Yep, so we do, so it’s up, take a look, see, now here’s the thing, Councilor Cuddy, the clerk has on record as moving ahead with this, so Councilor, do you want to move, continue on with the alternative motion here, what would be your tenor to move? Thank you Chair, I’ll move the alternative motion, okay, and then I’ll look for a seconder, Councilor Hillyer has seconded that move, okay, so we’ve got a motion on the floor, take a look, and I’ll look for any further comments on this.

Sorry, I’m just checking, is this E-Scribe vote for? Okay, just want to make sure I’m looking at the right one. Excuse me Chair. Yes.

I just want to mention that there is a reference to the holding community facility H1-CF1 zone, which isn’t reflective on the map, so we need that clarification if it’s intended, my understanding it’s just the H9-CF4 zone and the open space special provision zone for the buffer. Deputy Mayor. That’s consistent with my intent, yes. Okay, so any further comments or briefly from the Chair, I believe that Councilor Hillyer and Deputy Mayor Lewis covered off pretty well.

This is changing from a community facility zone one to a community ceiling zone four. I agree with the comments made by the applicant regarding appropriateness for potential future farmland, which is, I understand staff concern, ‘cause that goes with provincial policy statement regarding farming, however, in this case, I think this is a suitable place for a cemetery, so I will support this. Okay, any other comments or questions? Clerk is waving her finger.

Through the Chair, there has just been a slight change that staff noticed, they’re just mentioning there’s been a removal of this CF1 zone reference, so I’m just gonna update what’s in eScrab to reflect that. Okay, so if you refresh your screens, it’s just a small little escaping thing there, it doesn’t change the intent. Yeah, I’ve got thumbs up from both the mover in the second or so, we’re good there. Okay, so any other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors?

Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, so moving on to 3.12, this is regarding 36 AD Wonderland Road. I’ll open the vote to open the BPM.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant to address the committee. Please, sir, you have five minutes, give us your name and away you go. Good afternoon, Chairman Lehman, Councillors and city staff.

My name is Amir Shinuda, I’m the applicant. You’re gonna take a minute to introduce myself and introduce the company that’s applying for this application. I serve as the president of SCM Construction and the managing partner of Miami developments. I was born in Egypt and I’m a first generation Canadian citizen.

I graduated as a mechanical engineer from the University of Alexandria before immigrating to Canada in 2001. In 2008, I co-founded SCM Construction, a general contracting firm that initially focused on healthcare construction but soon expanded into institutional, commercial, multi-story residential, and recently industrial projects. In 2013, I founded our development arm, Miami developments, a name that humorously reflects our weight of coping with Canada’s frigid winters. Together, these two local London companies employ around 70 people and manage an annual construction value of $85 billion.

It also manages four apartment buildings. In addition, I volunteer with several community organizations. I serve on the executive committee of the London and District Construction Association and act as the board treasurer of San Joseph Healthcare Foundation. This project represents the culmination of five years of meticulous planning, engineering, funding, and overcoming various challenges inherent in the development process.

We began this journey in 2021 and today, you’ll see our vision brought to life in a brief presentation by Mike Davis of Civic Planning, I invite Mike to come in and walk you through the details. Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design and thank him here for the introduction. It’s been a pleasure to work with him and his team over the past four years to ultimately get this application to this milestone here and I know they’re very excited about that. This is a key gateway site at the southwest doorstep of the city and within the city’s southwest area, the secondary plan, this site in fact is noted as being part of a planned community focal area.

The southwest area secondary plan is very clear about the intention for this area. At the convergence of Wonderland, Warren Cliff and Exeter, that intersection, there is an intention to create a intensive transit support of mixed use focal area. We think the plan that’s being brought forward by Miami developments really does that and strikes the right balance. There’s 1,100 new housing units, 12,000 square feet of new commercial space and mixed use buildings.

There’s a mix of things happening with this plan. We have housing forms like Stacktown houses, mid-rise product, high-rise product with mixed use. It’s a rich diversity building heights ranging from three to 18 stories. So again, we think that the plan is really fulfilling the vision of the southwest area secondary plan.

There’s a few specific issues in the staff report I wanna touch on the first the sanitary servicing. I think that it’s acknowledged in the staff report that there is capacity for this development. I think the issue that’s been raised is more about the allocation of additional capacity to this development over time. I wanna remind this committee that this is a long-term, 10-year phased plan.

So issues around sanitary allocation can be very effectively dealt with through use of a holding provision. Initial phases of the development could proceed immediately. Subsequent phases held until area growth expectations are clarified as this area builds out. Secondly, there is concerns noted about the ash drain and associated drainage and natural heritage impacts.

The city of London has taken an active role in coordinating a drainage strategy for this area. We have already agreed to draft plan conditions with the draft plan of subdivision application that is being processed in parallel with this. So any issues related to the dash drain compensation or mitigation for realignment of the current drain on the property and any associated natural heritage features, that is all fully secured by already agreed upon draft plan conditions. So we truthfully believe that those are non-issue, those will be dealt with through next steps in the planning process as required by the city.

Lastly, building heights. Staff have put forward in the report a potential path to approval looking at a maximum height of eight stories. You know, we think that the plan is before you, really it’s dynamic and that will create an interesting gateway condition, which we believe is very important for this site. We find this to be a superior urban design outcome versus a more monolithic eight story form across the entirety of site.

This supports the mix. The other thing that’s very important to note is that other sites within that planned community focal area already have zoning and special policies in the swap to allow for taller heights. 14 stories immediately south of Exeter and 12 stories to the west. So in our view, it makes sense.

This site is right at the core of the community focal area. I think a modest step up from 14 to 18. It just makes more logical planning sense than the inverse, a step down from 14 to eight. This being the heart of the community focal area.

So appreciate the opportunity to share those thoughts on the staff report. And we’ve looked at committee respectfully to approve the official plan and zoning by-law amendment that we’ve put forward today. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to address a committee on this. I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online. There is nobody online. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphones.

So open the vote to close the PPM. So think about the motion carries four to zero. So as with the other development proposal north of here, I have an alternative motion to present to committee. So I’ll ask the vice chair to take the chair.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I will take the chair and recognize you so you can present your alternate motion. Thank you. So I have circulated the alternative motion to committee members.

I believe the clerk has it up in the ascribe. So I would like to move that. And I’ll look for a seconder and I would like the opportunity to speak to it. Can I see you have a seconder and Councillor Hillier?

So if you’d like to speak to it. Thank you. - Go ahead. So very similar remarks as I made to the prior one.

We have seen tremendous growth and density in the north and the northwest. We need to distribute that growth in the city. As was mentioned by the applicant, this is an ideal spot. We have Exer Road, Warren Cliff and Wonderland converging here.

Great access points. We’re looking to, this motion is looking to approve stories of 18 which I think is appropriate here. We’ve seen density up in my ward, for example, at Wonderland and Oxford. Because of it, it’s designated as a transit village.

This is not designated as a transit village but I believe at some point it will. I look at Wonderland Road and the flow of traffic that has changed just in the last 10 years. It used to be more east-west with the change of development, change in where commercial activity is going. I see traffic moving more northwest.

I mean, sorry, north-south as opposed to taking some of the pressures off of east-west. Again, we have a lot of employment opportunities down the south end of the city and south of the city, which I think will take the pressure off, quite frankly, of those in the north trying to get down to the 401 and other opportunities there. And we are, this particular location is down the road from the BRT parking garage. That could be another alternative to use higher order transit, which is coming online shortly.

There are a couple of concerns regarding infrastructure, the holding provisions in my alternative motion, I think, for give staff control over that to satisfy their concerns before approval is given further. There was one other item that was regarding, there’s two access points, one off of Wonderland and one off of Exeter, and both were right in right out and there was concerns, I think, by the applicant, and I share those with people trying to access doing U-turns on Exeter Road. So one of the items in my alternative motion has been to a ability to address that with staff, allowing full access into that development. So for those reasons, I hope you will support this alternative motion.

I’ve worked with a developer for a number of years here, I’ve been aware of his work here, which has been long time coming, and I think this is a suitable area to add density to our city. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Lehman, looking for other speakers. I guess, Councillor Lehman, as I’m the chair right now.

It’s looking, I’m gonna go to the clerk, go ahead. Through the chair, apologies, I just want to, we have to vote to go past 6 p.m. And since it’s 10-2, I figured we might as well do that right now. So if I could just get a mover and a seconder to proceed past 6 p.m.

Well, that was gonna be my suggestion to ever put their hand up to speak next, as if they would also be willing to move that. So I completely agree with you. We do need to do that. We still have another item on the agenda yet, plus our deferred matters, so process-wise, we’re not going to be out of here before six.

So look to see if we can get a motion to extend past 6 p.m. Councillor Hillier, and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. And I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that when it’s ready. Sign the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. So now we’ll look to other speakers to Councillor Lehman’s motion, which is in eScribe. And on this item, that is vote number four, if those, if colleagues need to refresh their screens. Clerk, while I’m just giving them a chance to do that, can you advise if there’s any Councillors left online, or are we down to just those of us in chambers?

Through the chair, Councillor Palosa is still online. Thank you for that. So I see no other speakers in chambers. So if colleagues will permit just a word from the presiding officer, certainly, for me, the step backs and the reductions in height versus an entire block that’s eight stories is something that I’m much more interested in seeing.

We’ve had a lot of discussion today where we’ve heard about the desire to have different heights phasing into neighborhoods. I think here where we have a green field, but we can plan for phasing into the neighborhoods right from day one does make a lot of sense, both from a planning perspective, but also I know staff will be shocked to hear me say this ‘cause often I talk about it from the other direction, but from an urban design plan as well, having that decrease from the biggest heights at the primary corner and intersection down to lower heights into the block rather than just everything being eight stories sort of thing to achieve the same density. I think that’s a very fair and reasonable trade off. I note even the Councillor who’s moving the motion is smiling at me ‘cause usually we disagree on that, but I see where they’re going with this and I can support that.

So that’s my only comment. So I’ll end there and see if there’s any other speakers. One more last call, seeing none, and then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. I’m seeing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So I will return the chair to Councillor Layman. Thank you, Vice Chair.

That concludes our scheduled items. So we move on now to items for a direction. Councillor Palosa has given some communication regarding Brownfield community improvement plan update request, and I believe Councillor Hill here is willing to put that on the floor. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi has seconded.

So Councillor Palosa, I will go to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And ever so briefly, as I tried to outline things articulately in the cover letter, staff have reported, we’re gonna come back later this year with a report back, but just some specific instructions at this time.

I’ve seen some of the Brownfield’s developments in my ward that have money earmarked, now back up for sale, and just looking for that report back that we can get started on of where they are at, if which ones are on hold, which ones are progressing, and in the type of funds that are, and the amount of funds that are connected with these staff that indicate behind the scenes that we’d likely be able to see this in April. So happy to have it at that time and have worked with staff in crafting of this motion and conversations behind the scenes, and it’s been clerked. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, I love for comments or questions from committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Yeah, I’ll just say it was eloquently aligned in the letter, and I hope Councillor Palosa can be as eloquent as I know she’s covering for me and giving some remarks soon as our Olympic and Para Olympian curlers depart for the Olympics. So thank you, I know it’s in your ward, and so it’s a little bit easier for you to get there, rather than it is for me to get here from City Hall when we’ve extended past six, but please extend the warm wishes from all of us. I know you will, but I fully agree with what you’ve said here. We can’t have brownfield money tied up forever, and the bringing this forward so we have an idea of what’s active and recommendations for inactive and unmoved applications.

It’s just as frustrating as the approvals for zoning that then don’t get shovels in the ground and hold up sewer capacity like we were talking about earlier. So I agree with you on this one as well. Thank you, I’ll look for other comments. Thank you, Councillor Palosa, for bringing this forward.

Thank you for sticking around to the end of this one. I know last night you were chairing your CAHPS Committee till 730, so it’s been a long couple of days for you. I appreciate that. There’s no further comments or questions.

We have motion, move in second, I’ll call the vote. I’m losing the vote, the motion carries, vote to zero. Thank you, so that just leaves the deferred matters list. I’ll look for a move around that.

Councillor Cudi is second. Is there any mayor Lewis? Seconds, and I’ll look for comments, Deputy Mayor. I just wanna ask a quick question.

Earlier tonight we passed a homeowner brochure, so will that be taking the queue? And if I’m mistaking this for another thing that’s on the deferred matters list, apologies. Does that address item one in the deferred matters list? The brochure that we talked about earlier today.

I’ll go staff. Thank you through the chair, yes it does, and we’re very happy that this item will come off the list. Deputy Mayor, I’m happy it’ll come off the list too, ‘cause that will bring us down to just three items left. And as was referenced by Councilor Pribble earlier, we are in an election year this year, and it would be nice to get a clean slate for the 2027 Council.

So thank you for just letting us know that that’s in fact what’s coming. Thank you, any other comments or questions from the many members of, Ms. McMillan. Thank you through the chair, to the chair.

Two more items will be coming off, hopefully at the next PEC meeting on February 18th, that will leave the one last remaining item being the Green Development Standards, and that’s as you appreciate that Council asked us to include consultation with the province, so that will take some time, but we’re hoping to have that one completed in Q2 this year. Thank you. Thank you, we’re so in sync. I read my thought balloon questions, it’s just so efficient.

(laughs) Any other comments or questions? And good work, by the way. Thank you for getting through that deferred matters, and hopefully we can clear that slate before the end of the term, that’d be terrific. Seeing no other speakers, I’ll call the vote.

I’m saying the vote, the motion carries 4-0. Thank you, so that leaves the German, I’ll look for a motion to adjourned. Councilor Cuddy, second by Deputy Mayor Lewis, hand vote. Motion carries.

Thank you, Moshe, or adjourned. Just before.