February 18, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.1   Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding

2026-02-18 (2.1) Staff Report -Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerated Funding: 

a)      the matter of the Pack Road Sewer Extension, as identified in the above-noted staff report, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake further consultation with the affected landowner and their technical consultants and report back to the April 14, 2026, meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with the results of that consultation and appropriate next steps;

it being noted that the intent of the proposed project is to increase the existing supply of multi-unit housing; 

b)      the remainder of the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2026, from C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the matter of the Pack Road Sewer Extension, as identified in the staff report titled Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake further consultation with the affected landowner and their technical consultants and report back to the April 14, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with the results of that consultation and appropriate next steps;

IT BEING NOTED that the intent of the proposed project is to increase the existing supply of multi-unit housing.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

that the remainder of the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding, BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2026, from C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.1   Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review - Update Report 

2026-02-18 (3.1) Staff Report UTRCA Service Level Review_Update Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the  Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review – Update Report:

a)    the above-noted report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to collaborate with UTRCA on the implementation of the key recommendations from the Service Level Review;

it being noted that the Presentation as appended to the added agenda from I. Shelley and J. Connolly, Black Line Consulting related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   Supplementary Guidelines for Heritage Conservation Districts

2026-02-18 (3.3) Staff Report - Supplementary Guidelines for Heritage Conservation Districts

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Supplementary Guidelines for Heritage Conservation Districts, BE RECEIVED; 

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

-    A.M. Valastro;

it being note that the above-noted 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; 

it being further noted that the visual presentation as appended to the added agenda was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   1225 Westdel Bourne - Z-25163 

2026-02-18 (3.4) Staff Report 1225 Westdel Bourne

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Cristina Ferro (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1225 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 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 (R1-16) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-11) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-14) 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.; and, 

-   J. Tysman;

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 Key Directions and Rural Neighbourhoods Place Type; and, 

  •     the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential infill development with consideration for the long-term protection of agricultural resources and land use compatibility; 

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 S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road East - O-25156 and Z-25157

2026-02-18 (3.4) Staff Report - 770 Base Line Rd E - O-25156 - Z-25157

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the Corporation of the City of London relating to the properties located at 746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road East (O-25156) and Mark Semenowicz & Lidia Semenowicz (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.) relating to the property located at 770 Base Line Road East (Z-25157):

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by AMENDING policy 1101_ for Specific Policies in the Institutional Place Type for the Baseline Office Area;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of 770 Base Line Road East FROM an Office (OF2) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision/Office Special Provision (R8-4()/OF2()) Zone; and,

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

i) orient the build forms to the public street with front façade and principle entrances fronting Base Line Road East; and

ii) provide a high proportion of transparent glazing along the front façade to promote an active frontage and passive surveillance; 

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

-    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.; 

-    D. D’Haene; and, 

-    K. Card;

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 Institutional Place Type policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street - OZ-25152

2026-02-18 (3.5) Staff Report - 550 Ridout Street and 82-90 Kent Street

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Ridout and Kent Block Inc. relating to the property located at 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street:

a)    the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type, permitting a 30 storey apartment building, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R-10/Office Conversion (R10-3*H24/OC7) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-5(_)D1350H100) Zone, permitting the development as proposed;

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:

-    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture; 

-    J. Tysman;

-    M. Blake Rose; 

-    A.M. Valastro; 

-    M.A. Hodge; 

-    R. Summerville; 

-    O. Juwah; and, 

-    J. Gasior;

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

  •    a communication dated February 7, 2026, from R. Keene; 

  •    a communication dated February 3, 2026, from S. Agranove; 

  •    a communication dated February 4, 2026, from B. Benedict; 

  •    a communication dated February 18, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments; 

  •    a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Sovorov; 

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2026, from H. Elmsie; 

  •    a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Hajimirzakhani; 

  •    a communication dated February 8, 2026, from S. Tyson; and, 

  •    a communication dated February 11, 2026, from The Woodfield Community Association Executive; 

it being further noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

  •    downtown revitalization depends on increasing residential and employment density to support economic vitality and municipal initiatives;

  •    the site is within close proximity to existing 40- and 29-storey buildings, establishing an appropriate tall-building context;

  •    Richmond Street (primary transit corridor) is approximately one block away; Dundas Street is approximately three blocks away;

  •    downtown Height Guidelines permit significantly greater building heights on the opposite side of Kent Street, immediately adjacent to the subject lands; and, 

  •    the proposed 30-storey height is appropriate within the existing and planned context and supports downtown intensification, walkability, and access to services; 

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 S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   Additional Residential Unit Permissions - Z-25159

2026-02-18 (3.7) Staff Report - Additional Residential Unit New Provisions

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, further to the direction of the Municipal Council, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to additional residential unit permissions, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 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:

a)    limit additional residential unit(s) to a maximum of two bedrooms;

b)    limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three in all additional residential units located within or attached to the main building;

c)    limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three in all additional residential units located within an accessory building; and,

d)    limit any additional residential unit to not exceed 80% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas; 

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; 

-    M. Moussa; and, 

-    M.A. Hodge;

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

  •    the recommended amendments would be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment will allow for intensification in neighbourhoods, consistent with Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability; 

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 S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.7   Amendments to The London Plan

2026-02-18 (3.8) Staff Report - Amendments to the London Plan

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The London Plan, to ensure alignment with the Provincial Planning Statement and recent legislative changes, including Bill 23, Bill 17, and Bill 185, resolve any inconsistencies with previous amendments, and mapping associated with these changes;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

-    M. Moussa;

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

  •    to revise any policies which are impacted by changes to the Planning Act due to various Provincial legislation, including Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, the Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185), Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17); 

  •    to make updates certain policies and maps of The London Plan to reflect

Council’s decisions; 

  •    to update the title of Provincial Planning Statement from Provincial Policy Statement, as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has changed the title of this document; 

  •    to correct errors and omissions identified throughout The London Plan, including typographical, grammatical, formatting and mapping errors and old terminologies to reflect changes to federal and provincial documents and ministries; and, 

  •    to correct an inadvertent implication to the Notice Requirements official plan amendment (OPA 141). The recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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 S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.1   Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

2026-02-18 (4.1) Submission - S. Lewis, P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Parking Changes

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment that includes the following:

a)    make all necessary zoning by-law changes to establish an updated minimum parking requirement for all residential developments to a minimum of 1 parking space for each residential unit, while providing exemptions for those developments that have an affordable housing agreement with the City of London, or those developments located in Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and recommendations for other potential exemptions;

b)    amend section 4.19.6) h) I) to allow a maximum driveway width of 6m on lots with a lot width of up to 12m and to allow a maximum driveway width of 9m on lots greater than 12m;

c)       amend section 4.19.4) c) to permit parking in the front or exterior side yard on a driveway that may not lead to another parking area within the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R11 Zones; and,

d)    amend section 4.37.8 to remove the prohibition on a new additional driveway in association with an additional residential unit;

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

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

  •    a communication dated February 15, 2026, from A.M. Valastro; 

  •    a communication dated February 13, 2026, from C. Butler; 

  •    a communication dated February 13, 2026, from D. Hyland; and, 

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2026, from M. Horak.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, as appended to the added agenda, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That a delegation from M.A. Hodge, be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.2   Budget Chair E. Peloza - Notice Distribution - South of Highway 401

2026-02-18 (4.2) Submission - Notice Distribution - E. Peloza

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to expand public notice circulation south of Highway 401, including but not limited to, construction notices, applications pursuant to the Planning Act, or studies pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, to include the three residential hamlets, located at Avenue Road, Shaver Subdivision, and Glanworth;

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

  •    a communication dated February 11, 2026, from C. Ivanitz.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2026-02-18 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Committee rise and go into Committee, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality at Oxford Street West; a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

That Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 5:02 PM to 5:06 PM.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOUNRNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:09 PM.

Votes

10 substantive votes at this meeting (1 contested, 9 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

2.1. Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding

That the matter of the Pack Road Sewer Extension, as identified in the staff report titled Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake further consultation with the affected landowner an…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.3. 1225 Westdel Bourne - Z-25163

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Cristina Ferro (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1225 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated Febr…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.4. 746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road East - O-25156 and Z-25157

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the Corporation of the City of London relating to the properties located at 746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road Ea…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.5. 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street - OZ-25152

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Ridout and Kent Block Inc. relating to the property located at 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street: a)    the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at th…

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 1) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Shawn Lewis, Susan Stevenson, Steve Lehman

Nay (1): Steve Hillier

Absent (1): Peter Cuddy

3.6. Additional Residential Unit Permissions - Z-25159

That, further to the direction of the Municipal Council, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to additional residential unit permissions, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTROD…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

3.7. Amendments to The London Plan

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The London Plan, to ensure alignment with the Pr…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

4.1. Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment that includes the following: a)    make all necessary zoning by-law changes to establish an updated minimum parking requirement for all residential developments to a minimum of 1 parking space for each residentia…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

4.1. Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, as appended to the added agenda, to be heard at this time.

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

4.1. Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

That a delegation from M.A. Hodge, be heard at this time.

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Unanimous (4-0)

4.2. Budget Chair E. Peloza - Notice Distribution - South of Highway 401

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to expand public notice circulation south of Highway 401, including but not limited to, construction notices, applications pursuant to the Planning Act, or studies pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, to include the three residential hamlets, loc…

✅ 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 (4 hours, 19 minutes)

Okay, everyone, I’ve delayed as long as possible, but we gotta get going with hockey games so on. The clerk said I’m not allowed to show it, but if it goes in overtime, we’re taken in a German. I’d like to call the fourth meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaumik, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Wach, and Adawan Ram. 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 PEC at London.ca or 516-661-2489 extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures at the beginning of your address. Seeing none, okay, moving on to consent items.

I’ll be pulling 2.1, so we will deal with that at the end of the meeting and additional business. So I’d like to put the rest of the consent items on the floor for committee members. Councillor Hill here. Put the remainder of the consent agenda on the floor.

Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors? Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. I know I’m not part of this committee, but I wanna go through you to staff on 2.3, which is the 2025 Annual Heritage Report. Really appreciate all the information, all the work that is going on in the Heritage Department.

In particular, taking care of our city on properties. I know there’s a development, not a development that a renovation going at the Spring Bay Pump House. It’s coming along, it’s really exciting to see it transform into the beauty that it is. So very much thankful for the work, thank you.

Thank you, I’ve intended to go to staff actually on 2.2. This is our Annual Development Report. It covers the whole year, and there’s so many good things in here, and that I’d like to go to Mr. Mater’s to highlight those, please.

Through the Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the Annual Development Report. So we’ve got the Annual Development Port on the agenda here and also that Year-End Building Services Report. So together these reports, the focus is to provide a comprehensive overview, development activity, or building permit performance, and also the continuous improvement effort work that we’ve participated in in the last year. And all this is to support faster approvals and housing delivery across the city.

Overall 2025 was a record year for housing and overall construction activity in London. Building permits were issued for over 5,400 new housing units, that’s a 48% increase over 2024, very incredible. And it’s the highest annual total in the city’s history. As well, the total construction value reached $2.71 billion, which is also another all time.

Council approvals continue to support that long-term supply that was very much needed with more than 51,000 housing units approved since 2022. This is exceeding the provincial pledge for 47,000. And we’ve since the pledge also made over 15,000 units that are already been created towards the target. Progress on the affordability also is continued since 2021.

Over 2,500 city-funded affordable housing units have been tracked at this point. And when you include our other partners that are providing affordable housing in the community, we have over 3,300 affordable units that are either constructors or on their way to be delivered to the community. Additional residential units also continue to contribute to that gentle intensification that we’re looking for with over 480 approved in 2025. This is also year over year growth in that in the ARU category as well.

Finally, I just want to say how proud I am to the housing and community growth team for the fine work that they’ve delivered this year and for those positive outcomes, those housing outcomes that have been achieved for Council and for the community. So through the Chair, just thank you very much for the opportunity to celebrate this excellent work. Thank you. And if the community would permit me just a couple of comments from the Chair.

We’ve this Council, along with this prayer planning staff, have worked very hard on getting properties rezoned so that building could happen. But this is the second piece of that puzzle. So I can’t tell you how pleased I am to see a record number of building permits issued in 2025. At a time when other communities are facing challenges, as with London and concerns with economic pressures, especially with the tariffs from the South, I think this just speaks to the confidence investors have in our community in investing billions of dollars here in achieving a 35% growth over our last highest ever, incredible growth in our actual building permits, which means shovels in the ground.

While your staff had to work hard with many zoning, rezoning applications, et cetera, now it’s the side of the building permit staff that I know have worked extra hard to keep up with this high volume to process them in a timely manner that we can get necessary housing for Londoners. So through me and committee, I just want to say thank you and to your staff for a job well done last year, just terrific and I look forward to another record year in 2026, thank you. Thanks, committee members and visiting counselors for letting me spout off like that. Councilor Pribble, please, oh, yeah, I’m sorry, I’ve got Councilor Stevenson, I saw on mine first.

Well, Councilor Stevenson, as a committee member, please go ahead and then we’ll go to your council. Thank you, just a quick question on 2.5. I know there’s been a lot of back and forth on this Hyde Park BIA expansion at a time when I know the old East Village was looking to do an expansion and there may have been another. So I’m just wondering if we could get an update from staff on how this might free up availability to be working on other expansions or maybe some best practices that we’ll go into play next time ‘cause it feels as though we may have lost a year in none of our BIA’s moving forward as a result of this.

Oh, go staff. Through the chair, so there is always a lot of work that goes behind the scenes in trying to bring forward a change like this. So this is definitely gonna free up that capacity to start being able to use that towards some of the other BIA that add that back into our work plan to be able to move that forward quickly. So very as much as it’s unfortunate that there will be looking at any kind of expansion at this time, this will free up capacity to be able to work on other important BIA projects.

Councillor. Thank you for that. Just to follow up though, like going forward, are there maybe some changes, different changes that are gonna happen as a result of this to make sure that as we move forward on the next one, we’re gonna have success. Like it just seems like we’ve gone a long time to find out we’re not moving forward and we’ve lost valuable time in terms of the other.

So just wondering if there’s gonna be something different happening, maybe processes in place to ensure that the next one that gets chosen is ready to go? Go staff. Through the chair, so absolutely, I think from any occurrence that you have that there can be some lessons learned. I think one of the things in this is always a challenge in everything we do is just making sure that there’s clear communication on all sides.

So I think that’s definitely something we can improve on and ensure that when we bring something back to council on a different, on any of the different BIA’s that we’re looking at and moving forward with next, that there’ll be an opportunity to do that. So absolutely we’d like to try to learn from the experiences we have and then also ensure that the BIA’s that we’re working with, that they’re very well supported in any kind of, anything that bringing back to community council. Councillor. Okay, thanks, I appreciate that.

And of course, congratulations on the 2025 annual development report. It is good news for our city. So thanks for all the work that’s been done there. Do council approval?

Thank you, excuse me. I would like to also add a great overview, great report and kudos to the entire staff in planning and building because if I look at the timelines and all our provincial guidelines, we are really right on. And I believe we are on the right track even moving forward. Thanks for keeping the same format, makes it much more simpler and easier.

And compared to last year’s, you are just making the addition which makes it even more deeper. But the format is the same, which is great. Thank you for this. Also, I saw the continuous improvements initiatives, which is more than last time.

And I believe there are even more effective and efficient that will bring even better results. So thank you for that. In terms of these results, what we see again, and I asked the same question yesterday, in terms of the strategic plan, in terms of the annual update that we receive on the implementation plan. With the targets, is this report going to, is aligned with the other report and the targets on track, which we’ll be seeing probably in May, June of this year, if you can please comment on that.

I’ll go to staff. Yeah, through the chair. We’ve absolutely, Matt Felberg and his team has worked very closely. We’re all part of the St.

Mappy family here. So we’re ensuring that everything that we are working with, including the annual report that was provided at CAPS yesterday, that we’re very much consistent, and that we’re working to move things ahead. And we are, of course, very happy to hear about some of the changes and moving forward, especially with the federal funding programs for a affordable housing, for example. So we are cautiously optimistic that that’s going to be something that’s going to be helping us move forward.

And if there is any change or differentiation from that, we’ll be sure to bring that back to committee and council so that you’re informed it can make those important decisions. Councilor? Thank you for that. And last comment, I believe when we started at the strategy, we selected as a council, together with the staff, in terms of, I always say, the economics 101 supply and demand that the positive effects are out there, are for Londoners.

In terms of, we look at the demand is lower supplies higher. And what we wanted to do is bring down the costs of housing, and we are on the right track. As for the developers, I do message for them. We do have, I totally understand them, and we see them report high density developments.

We do have a lot of opportunities in London, and I hope the developers will always look for the ones that are more suitable, more fitting to the neighborhoods than the one that’s our last. That would help it for all of us in this room, as well as for half a million of Londoners better and easier. But thank you once again for the report. Great work.

Look for other Councillors, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to take a moment to speak about the Hyde Park BIA boundary expansion withdrawal that’s included in our package today. So first I wanted to say, and if I may, on behalf of Councillor Lehman and I, thank you to the Hyde Park BIA Board, to city staff, and to management at the BIA for all the work that went into looking at this boundary expansion.

I know it was a considerable effort by the BIA. They did multiple rounds of engagement, and they continued to try to get those involved more supportive around the idea of the expansion. And it’s, of course, by no fault of their own that we’re not moving forward or the BIA is not moving forward at this time. Councillor Lehman and I had a chance to participate in a conversation with the BIA board to get a sense of where everybody was.

And I think with something like this, timing is really important. So I accept the communication that’s in front of us today. I see that there’s an opportunity to take this good work and use it in the future to inform the way the BIA may expand going forward. And so I think it’s definitely not efforts lost.

I think that the BIA will continue to look to build relationships in new parts of the city and look for opportunity when and if in the future there’s a possibility to look at a future expansion at that time. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions regarding the consent items. Okay, we have a motion to accept them moved in seconds, I’ll call that move.

Absolutely. Closing the motion carries four to zero. Okay, before moving on to scheduled items, I understand the deputy mayor has a very important announcement. Okay, thanks for the mayor who is sending the updates by text in overtime, Canada for three winners, Mitch Marner with the goal.

All right, and all’s right with the world. (laughing) Thank you for that update. Okay, moving on to 3.1. This is regarding presentation by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority service level review by Black Line Consulting.

So I’ll just look to maybe I’ll go through staff to introduce a black line. Please go ahead. Through the chair, thank you. So Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the city were working collaboratively on the service level review.

That was initiated in black line consultant was the consultant that was completing this review for the planning and regulations department. And they’re just here to present their findings following the first phase of the project being complete as well as talk through some of the implementation paths. So I’ll pass it to Ian, I see him there on the screen. Mr.

Shelley, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you. I believe we have a presentation that should be shared as well. We can see it.

Yeah, we can move on to slide two. So as introduced, Black Line Consulting was looking at the permitting and planning processes at Upper Thames. We do that in two phases. The first phase was to look at the current situation to see if we can identify areas that could present improvement opportunities.

The second phase is then to look at the recommendations on how to achieve those improvement opportunities. Let me move on to the next slide, please. In the first phase looking at the current situation, we addressed three questions. The first question is, is the unit efficient and how it completes its work?

And in looking at the processes, there were many, many processes that we refer to as manually intensive work that we believe can be more automated and less involved staff time, leaving them the opportunity to apply their professional judgment. The second observation was that work was largely determined based on the size of the application, not necessarily the risk that the application posed. And then the final observation we made around efficiency was that there have been progress around technology, but there are still more suitable technologies available for the type of work that the conservation authority does. The focus is much more on the idea of case and application.

And that would offer those technologies but often substantial opportunity to address many of the manually intensive processes. The second question beyond efficiency is effective, are they doing the right things? And we felt that, yes, they are. We know that legislation has changed in recent years, their mandate has changed, but the work that they do fits firmly in what they expected to do within a conservation authority.

We do know that there are larger conservation authority and they have the opportunity to fulfill the mandate, whereas some of the smaller conservation authorities potentially don’t have the capacity to fulfill the mandate completely. So we saw no deviation between the mandate and the work that the unit is doing. In terms of performance, the stat there you see, they meet the legislative timelines at 80% of the time based on the records that they have available. So they’re largely meeting just doing the right things but doing them within the legislative requirements.

The area that we focused in on that seemed to be the one that was creating most difficulty was where applications needed to go to a detailed technical review. And that’s where timelines tended to be missed because of the complexity of the technical reviews. Some of the question we entered into was does the unit provide adequate service to its customers, to the men with municipalities? And generally the feedback was no.

And there’s a difference in alignment. The perception was the unit is slow compared to other units in providing comments back. What we found as we looked into is it’s not necessarily a slowness but we felt it was often a misalignment between expectations that the municipalities might be expecting something to be returned in a certain timeframe. That’s not the expectation that’s set within the unit.

As we refer to the technical reviews were particularly problematic in meeting those timelines. So the satisfaction between customer and service provider definitely a problem. We’ve called here a disagreement on the efficacy but really what that related to was the ability of the unit to track and manage the applications that they have some tools that they record, expectations around deadlines and times and responses. They’re not necessarily as effective as we’d like to see them being in terms of managing the workload.

So one tool available to them that could increase their ability to meet the needs of customers. I have with me my colleague John Connolly who’s gonna go through the next slide which provides the outline of the recommendations we’ve made to address those findings. Thanks Ian. Yeah, so based on that analysis we developed a set of recommendations split out into three separate goals.

The first being create an efficient and responsive organization which is really about evolving the ETRCA’s approach to elements of permitting and plans review namely by expanding on working relationships with member municipalities, triaging files based on risk so that potentially high risk or highly complex files are prioritized so that they don’t create bottlenecks down the road. And then finally creating protocols to guide staff and customers alike when it comes to major changes such as floodplain map updates. Enabling our team is about implementing tools and technology that support the other recommendations and findings in the report. At the moment the unit manages permitting and planning cases across spreadsheets, different local file storage systems as such case information, payment details there are in disparate systems requiring staff to move back and forth between different applications to do their work.

There has been some progress in this regard with the rollout of Office 365 recently. And finally measure our performance. This is about helping the ETRCA build out its relationship with other groups by demonstrating that it effectively needs goals essentially expanding on existing key performance indicators and reporting tools to just communicate success, communicate progress effectively. We’ve laid out these recommendations on this timeline here over the next three years.

As you might imagine, recommendations that are dependent on other initiatives are sequenced afterwards. And with that said, I’ll pass it back to Ian to talk about change management. When we worked with staff, clearly people who work in a conservation authority are passionate about conservation. As we work through the various few items that we observe that don’t relate directly to our scope, but they give us pause at the end that staff with strong convictions we’re asking them to work differently and with a strong conviction that can be more difficult for people to recognize the benefits of the change.

They’ve had some changes to IT systems, but at the same time we’d saw people falling back on some old ways of working. And the final one is that this is not the first change that the team’s been presented with. This is the next and long line of changes that started with legislative changes and internal changes that relate to IT. And so there’s a certain sense of, understandably people wanting a degree of stability in their work life.

So these factors we’ve highlighted back to the conservation authorities there in trying to implement what we’ve put in the report, a strong focus needs to be placed on the people and the team and helping them navigate what could be a really, really substantial change to how they work day to day. I think that concludes our presentation for today. Thank you, Mr. Shelley.

So I’ll put that report on the floor for committee. I’ll look for, we can either receive it or we can ask questions or take other action. I’ll throw it out there now. I’ll put it on the floor and then I’ve got a couple of questions.

Okay, I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Hillier seconds it. Go ahead. So this report actually highlights a lot of the concerns that I’ve had with how Upper Thames has been operating. I think it reflects some of the reasons that we’re seeing some changes provincially around conservation authorities.

I’m wondering through you, Chair, to staff, we’ve got a three year improvement timeline laid out. We have some sort of provincial legislative change coming this year. And we’re not quite sure with the details on that will be yet other than we know Minister Flack has indicated that he’s bringing that forward. So what does that do with the timeline that we have laid out?

And what can be done with respect to perhaps some, I’m gonna call them quick win earlier improvements three years is a long time to have this process roll out across, especially when we’ve got all of these provincial changes. So while I appreciate the sort of timelines and the complexity, it’s too long for me. And I’m wondering if staff can comment on what some focus on some quick wins might be on this as we move forward. Oh, go staff.

Through the Chair, thanks for the question. Just the first part regarding the amalgamation of conservation authorities. I think there’s still value in doing this work, especially to create that culture of continuous improvement and collaboration with the city in Upper Thames. So, you know, whether there is this change that’s endorsed through the province, and we don’t fully understand this change right now, there still is this value in creating this culture.

We’ve definitely created some early quick wins with the Conservation Authority. We have monthly upper management meetings to work through collaboration and any of those pain points that we have on applications or bigger issues. Further to that, there is a technical working group with our stormwater colleagues, as well as their floodplain, the Upper Thames floodplain staff, just to work through their Thames River mapping update, which is really good. So the experts working in a room, working through the nitty gritty details, very important.

And then we’re also looking at figuring out ways to streamline the application process. So we’re still reviewing that with Upper Thames now. One of the quick wins we’ve looked at is just adjusting our circulation requirements to Upper Thames. Currently, we’re sending everything to Upper Thames, where some municipalities are pre-screening what goes to them based on the regulated area.

So we are considering that as a quick process improvement. But yeah, always looking for quick wins through this. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Okay, and I really like the idea of not sending them things that are outside their regulatory boundaries. I think we all live in a world where our own inboxes get filled enough with things that actually aren’t immediately relevant to us in our work. And it just takes time to clear those things out as well. Review them when, in fact, you read through and then you find out it’s not applicable to you.

So I can understand why that would create some delays on the conservation authority side. So I think from the city side, that’s a really good step forward. I also, I would say, I concur with Mr. Kavic in terms of pushing the culture shift is still going to be really important.

Whatever the results of the provincial amalgamations are, it, obviously there is a need to shift the culture there somewhat. You can be passionate about your work, but you still have to be focused on getting the job done and doing so in an expedient way. And so, like I said, this report to me highlights a number of the concerns that I’ve expressed about Upper Thames over the last few years. But I do appreciate having a map forward where we can start to see some of these changes happen.

And I appreciate hearing from staff some of the early steps you’re taking with the meetings monthly, with the leadership team there. Is there anything, and I know our consultant referenced the Microsoft 365 rollout, but old technology and old manual processes were definitely a repeating theme in this report. Is there anything that we can do in collaboration, maybe through our own IT department or something else? Are we looking at some quick wins around IT fixes, software updates, so that we’re working, so that everybody’s working with the same software and working through the same sort of process, so that we’re not running into some of these out of date?

And again, I know, Mr. Kavic, you’re not with IT. So I’m not expecting you to have all of the IT answers for us, but are we looking at some of the, perhaps there’s some capital costs that we can assist with through their budget that says, hey, this gets the software in their hands a little bit sooner, or there’s some support that IT services here can offer to help them advance some of these changes. So I’m just wondering if that’s part of the focus of some of our early opportunities to make some quick wins.

That’ll go stuff. Through the chair, we can definitely have the conversation internally with ITS to see what permissions we can enable that are external to the corporation, but maybe I’ll pass it to General Elaine, the manager of, it’s your title there, manager at upper times, sorry, Jenna. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you, through the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

The consolidation proposal from the provincial government spoke to a province-wide permitting database software to be rolled out across the province as part of those consolidations of conservation authorities. So one of the key recommendations was implementing suitable technology to the tune of $250,000 in budget. We’re reluctant to move forward on researching options for that solution, knowing that the province is potentially proposing this province-wide software system, but we are new to the MS 365 environment. So that was a change made in 2025 by the conservation authority.

We do have some site visits planned to neighboring conservation authorities that are already relying on Microsoft 365 and the SharePoint environment as a data management system to see if we can piggyback on some of their ideas and try and incorporate some efficiencies in our technology as an interim solution while we wait for more direction from the province. And as Peter says, we’re happy to keep working with the city to see if there’s any solutions between our organizations that would help improve things as well. Thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor.

No, I appreciate that answer. And certainly if the province is gonna pay for it, then let the province pay for it. That’s always a good thing. So hopefully they will deliver on that.

And luckily, we know the minister that we can ask is right down the road from us. So I’m sure our upper Thames board members will be happy to make that ask of Minister Flack as well to show us the money in terms of the software upgrades. So I appreciate those answers. Like I said, I think this highlights some of the concerns and challenges I’ve heard.

I also think that it lays out a path forward for improvement and so looking forward to see where we land as this rolls out. I’ll look for other college, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair again, for recognizing me.

I do wanna start off by thanking upper Thames on doing the service review. I know we’ve been talking about it for a number of years and it’s taken a while and here we are. And again, Mr. Shelley, thank you for your presentation as well.

I do appreciate the reminder of the many, many changes. The conservation authorities have experienced throughout the years. I’ve been on the board a number of years and there have been constant changes. And as we know, again, we’re going to have a recent, with the recent provincial announcement of changes to our CAs.

Again, we’re going through more changes. So lots of things going on. I do appreciate the suggestions, objectives. I know they’re gonna be presented at the board.

Really pleased to hear from staff. The timelines do work that have been set out here for the next number of years. That regardless of all the changes, the, I think the relationship between the city and upper Thames in particular is very important to continue that communication. I know we do the monthly meetings, but there are 17 municipalities that belong to this Conservation Authority Board.

They do also meet with the technical part of things as well. And that’s really important to continue, I think, communication, understanding. I found it quite interesting on the nine recommendations. Number two, in particular, was something that I learned about the risk-based decision framework, having a better opportunity to make it better.

I think that can exist as well. So many thanks to everyone and the importance of continuing that communication. I think that’s really important, that alignment as well. I think Mr.

Shelley spoke to that too, which is very important. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor, Council approval. Thank you.

First, I do wanna thank Black Line for their review. There are reviews that are done and there are sometimes very, very strong analytical side, but not use the friendly in terms of incorporating into the operational steps, and I do think that this one has both. So really thank you for that part. I do have one specific question, though.

There is one point that says, for example, create a protocol for floodplain mapping. When you create a protocol, there are two, and you are addressing one era in terms of the processes. But there are also methods. And methods actually come before the processes, because potentially there are different methods to arrive and to resolve that problem situation.

And I just wanna ask you, because these are processes, but for example, for this floodplain, there are certainly more than one methods. In this perspective, how this would be addressed by the organization like Upper Thames? Is this being addressed with them, or how would it be, I don’t know if it’s a question for Black Line or for our staff? Thank you.

Well, I’ll start with the staff. We’ll go there. Through the chairs, so I think we’re talking about phase two of the service level review, which is to look at value for money audit of the flood mapping and the floodplain and regulations for the team there. So right now, they’re working quite heavily on the Thames River update.

And once that update’s complete, then we’ll look at scoping that project in more detail. At Upper Thames, they are relying heavily on in-house staff experts to do a lot of their mapping, where some other conservation authorities might rely on outside consultants. So as part of that review, we’d look at how internally that process is looking, and that would be completed through that value for money audit. Councillor?

Thank you. So if I look at the deadlines, currently Upper Thames is considering to pose this soon for a 30-day review for public to review the proposal. But right now, in this review, which is in front of us, there’s created protocol. So I just want to see, so do you believe that Upper Thames is going to wait?

Or are they going to go ahead with it without creating the protocol based on the suggestion of Black Line? I’ll go have staff through the chair. I’ll pass that question to General Lane, the manager of environmental planning and regulations at Upper Thames. Please go ahead.

Sure, through the chair to Councillor Pribble. I think the conservation authorities have been undertaking the floodplain modeling updates for the Thames River, and we went out last fall with a mapping update for the Thames River through the city of London. So we started consultation in September of 2024, and that consultation has continued. We posted mapping updates multiple times.

We’ve held public meetings. We’ve dealt with a lot of correspondence and communication about the mapping. We’ve been providing that modeling to interested parties to external consultants for their review. The city’s engineering staff have received our modeling files and reviewed it as well.

So it’s gone through a fairly extensive process. We really are hoping to update the mapping. And so the intention is to move forward this spring with an approval of that mapping. It’s been a long time coming.

Our floodplain mapping is really dated. So our existing mapping is based on really old information using really old technology. So we have much better data and information and much better technology now to better estimate where that floodplain is going to be. So there’s been considerable amount of work done over the last several years.

There’s been a lot of review. So that work was done internally by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority engineering staff. But we had three external engineers review that modeling and mapping city engineering staff have reviewed it and a number of external consultants have also been reviewing that mapping. So it’s gone through extensive review.

We have made some changes to it based on the review of external engineers and made some modifications and refinements to that mapping. I think floodplain modeling and mapping can always be improved. So it’s based on an estimation through models which can always be kind of tinkered with and changes made. But I think at the end of the day, we have a much better product, a much better estimation of where the floodplain is along the Thames River throughout the Upper Thames watershed.

And we really are hoping to move forward with those mapping updates. So our intention is to post again based on kind of the most recent comments and refinements that have been made. So we’ll do another 30 day notification period which will begin in March with the hopes of bringing it to our board for approval at their April board meeting on April 28th. Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you very much. No more questions? I look for other comments from the committee members who are visiting counselors. The committee will permit me just a few brief comments.

I too want to thank the consulting firm that prepared this report. It’s a very, very clear report and it hit a lot of things that I think that have been discussed. I think the deputy mayor touched on a few of them. What I particularly like to see was the acknowledgement of the conviction statement and acknowledging that the Upper Thames, people who work there have a strong belief in the value of their work as do we.

You know, it’s, they play an important role in how we progress and protect our natural resources and bring that study perspective to their part in the role that they play to the end goal. That being said, there’s always room for improvement in procedurally getting there faster, quicker. Without redundancy that I’ve seen sometimes happening with our own staff, with the development community, with Council. And I’m sure even with the Upper Thames, you know, they’re touched on expectations.

It sounds like there’s an expectation disconnected, I think that has to be addressed in this process. The last thing I want to touch on when I knew this was coming, I asked our staff, you know, in light of the provincial changes that are on the horizon should, you know, where should this stand? And I thought they made a great point. Let’s start now investigating changes that could be done, working with Upper Thames.

And we can get the low hang fruit as the deputy mayor said, but also I think we can hit the ground running when there is a new conservation authority that’s going to be a lot bigger than this one. And we’re going to share that with many other municipalities. I think we can come in prepared for what we need to address at the get-go to get that new authority up and running faster, quicker, and maybe engaging with the other municipalities that we will be sharing with that authority. So thank you to the consultant.

Thank you to our staff for presenting this to us today. So we have a motion to receive it. Moving to second, I’ll call the vote. We’ll sing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.2. And this is regarding supplementary guidelines for heritage, conservation districts. This is a public participation meeting.

So I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation. Council earlier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. And we’ll call that vote. Sing the vote.

The motion carries four to zero. So I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. So clerk, if there’s anyone online, I see a young gentleman coming to the mic, please, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m not sure I’m either young or a gentleman, but my name is Mike Wallace. And I’m actually here as a member of the Planning Committee, the Heritage Committee, whatever we call it, C-A-C-P these days.

And I just want, this is an opportunity for me to say that based on my being on that committee for a number of years, I want to thank the staff, your heritage staff for the work they have done on this issue. They were open to discussion from members of committee and really worked hard with us on finding some updates to the supplementary guidelines for the district. They have excellent staff. I just wanted to, probably don’t get too much credit too often in public.

So I thought I’d do that today since it was a public meeting. So I want to thank you for that. And on another item, I didn’t realize the first item was not a public participation meeting. I’m sending everybody a note.

Thank you, all of our other speakers. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. It’s Ann and Maria Milastro. I’m actually not familiar with the details, but I just want to say that I feel like if the, I feel there’s a chipping away, okay, on everything.

There’s a chipping away on the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority that we just heard from Councillor Lewis. There’s a chipping away on even upholding small repairs to heritage houses. There’s a chipping away on even small things like whether a railing to a staircase should be wood or that cheap aluminum, whether the roof of a house can be tar versus the replicate of the original shingles. And all that makes a difference.

So I’m hoping that heritage conservation of the districts are expanded because it’s not enough to just have a one house stuck in the middle of, you know, a house has a development. What attracts people to neighborhoods is having, walking in and having a feel to that neighborhood. So I know that Councillor Steve Lehman has said in the past that the Heritage Act only protects old buildings and that’s true. And that’s the whole point of the legislation.

And this council is obligated to respect provincial legislation. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments from the gallery. So quick, there’s anyone online.

I don’t see anyone approaching the mic. So I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hillier. I’m hosting the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Okay, before we go to committee, I ask staff to just provide us a brief presentation of what’s being looked at today. Please go ahead. Through the chair, thank you. Just bringing up a brief presentation here.

Through the chair, good afternoon. And thank you for the opportunity to provide this update on the supplementary guidelines for heritage conservation districts. For some background, council directed staff to prepare guidelines that offer greater flexibility in material choices for property owners within London’s HCDs while remaining consistent with existing HCD plan policies. To support this work, staff reviewed available building materials engaged with heritage professionals and other municipalities, visited local suppliers and trade shows and consulted industry experts as well as the community advisory committee on planning and customer service and process improvement reference group.

Each heritage conservation district has its own plan and guidelines used to evaluate heritage alteration permit applications under delegated authority. Since 2015, staff have implemented the delegated authority by-law, which allows administrative approval or approval with terms and conditions for applications that are consistent with HCD plans and guidelines. As shown on page 306 of the printed agenda and up on this slide, more than 93% of heritage alteration permit applications in 2025 were processed under delegated authority. Of the 10 applications that required a council decision, only one proactive application was recommended for refusal by staff.

This is to say that most applications align well with existing HCD plans and instances requiring committee and council review do remain quite uncommon. Council directed the creation of supplementary guidelines that align with the existing HCD policies. This alignment is essential because the Ontario Heritage Act requires that municipal bylaws and public works be consistent with HCD plans and in any conflict, the HCD plan prevails. Staff consulted with the CCP in summer 2025, followed by additional input from a CCP working group.

While complete consensus was not achieved on all matters, this feedback informed several improvements to the draft that we’re seeing here today. The supplementary guidelines address topics not covered in existing HCD plans, including solar installations, storefront security, and accessibility upgrades, as well as common alterations such as windows, doors, roofing, cladding, and portrait pairs. It’s important to note here that, and I’m using quotes here, composite and synthetic materials are broad categories and cannot be universally pre-approved for use on all heritage designated properties. Heritage staff also cannot endorse or recommend specific products or brand names.

So applications for heritage alteration permit approval, proposing these types of materials are reviewed case by case to determine compatibility with the style and character of the individual cultural heritage resource. The new supplementary guidelines are intended as a practical resource for staff and as a support for heritage homeowners in the stewardship of their properties. Notice of today’s public participation meeting and access to the draft guidelines were posted on the city’s website and circulated on January 27th to local community, sorry, local neighborhood associations. The guidelines include illustrations to help heritage homeowners understand what types of work are recommended, what may be appropriate depending on context, and what would not be recommended.

In the window section on page 308 of this printed agenda, the guidelines emphasize retention and repair of original windows while also illustrating compatible replacement options that appropriately fill the window opening in various alternative materials. They also show examples of inappropriate replacements such as incompatible sizes or styles and discuss cost-effective alternatives like simulated divided lights. Another example is porch skirting shown on page 309 of the agenda. Retaining or replicating traditional wood skirting is preferred but acceptable alternatives are identified where increased durability is needed such as closed cell PVC sheets that can be cut and painted to resemble wood.

Unpainted pressure treated wood is identified as not recommended. However, the guidelines explain how painting or staining that material could improve the compatibility. Across all topics, photographs are paired with plain language examples, explanations, to keep the guidelines accessible and practical. So we’ve already been applying the intended direction of the supplementary guidelines, offering enhanced flexibility where appropriate.

And moving forward, staff intend to post the finalized supplementary guidelines for HCDs on the city’s heritage webpage. On a closing note, the postcard on page 310 of the agenda and also shown here reflects our annual Heritage Week outreach and education efforts, thanking heritage property owners for their stewardship, reminding them of the heritage alteration permit process and celebrating London’s bicentennial this year. So to close, most heritage homeowners want to be good stewards of their properties. And we hope that these supplementary guidelines will support them in completing high quality projects in London’s heritage conservation districts.

Thank you. Thank you. And I’ve supported the new bicentennial sweatshirt in my family day skate. So looking very sharp.

Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for comments or questions from committee members or visiting councilors. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m happy to move it. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

Councilor here a second. Any comments, Deputy Mayor? Yeah, I’m just gonna say overall pretty satisfied with where we’re landing here. I think that staff has done some good work.

They took the spirit of the direction of council and have implemented it in a way that I think will make the process much easier and take a reasonable approach to where homeowners need to look at alternatives in a heritage district. So very supportive of this report. Thank you. I’d rather a comments or questions.

It’s just from the chair briefly. Thank you for this. Really good to hear that 93% of the applications are resolved at the staffing level. So great work.

I think it requires some pragmatic decisions with staff. And yeah, we haven’t had too many that have come up to to hear at council. So thank you for doing all the good work that you do, really appreciate it. And still maintaining the integrity of the Heritage Act as well as what you know what we’re looking for there.

So I don’t see any other questions or comments. We’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Moving on to 3.3.

This is regarding one, two, two, five West L. Borne. I’ll look for a motion to open the PBM. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hill here.

We’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll look for any members of the public. It would like to speak.

Oh, I guess I’ll go to the applicant, sorry. I’ll go to the applicant first on this. Sorry, moving ahead of you. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Sure. Good afternoon, committee members, city staff, public attendees. My name is Danielle Ycicalero. I am a planner with Zalyn Capriam limited.

We are coordinating the ZBIA application and representing the land owner of the subject lands. Firstly, I would like to thank staff, especially Chloe for preparing the staff report. We have carefully reviewed the report and we welcome the approval recommendation. I would just like to emphasize some key points.

So firstly, the subject lands have been conditionally approved for a lot of severance and that’s to create one additional lot, a residential lot and to facilitate the construction of a new residential dwelling on the sever lands. And a ZBIA application has been submitted as part of one of the consent conditions that requires us to make this submission to bring both the sever and retain the lots into conformity with the zoning by law. In terms of the proposed dwelling, that’s in conformity with the London plan and it’s a just soft development that is permitted on the subject lands. As outlining the staff report, the proposed application confirms with the London plan is in conformity and with the zoning by law amendment.

And we thank again the staff for the work and we hope we can get approval on this. Thank you and if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them. Thank you. I’ll look for any other speakers on this item.

Please ma’am, give us your name in your own five minutes. Julia Tysman, it’s come to my attention that there are some areas within our district where corporations are buying up some of these houses which could potentially be heritage and they’re just keeping them until they can demolish it to build something new, which a lot of the times can destroy the atmosphere in the neighborhood. So I do have some concerns about this. Yeah, that’s great.

Folks, on the way in, there’s a sign there saying we refrain from clapping or booing or any vocal outburst. And the reason for that is it’s hard to speak, whether you’re in favor of it or against it, it’s tough for folks to speak and we don’t want any extra undue pressure. So I ask you to refrain from that going forward. I’ll look for any other speakers on this matter.

I’ll ask quick, if there’s anyone online, there’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone else coming in the mic so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll open the vote.

The vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yep, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Look for a seconder, Councillor Hilliard. We have motion moved and seconded. Any comments? Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you for recognizing me. This is an application that is my ward. First of all, thank you to the consultant for your explanation. I always appreciate knowing a little bit more about these applications.

We have the recommendation in front of us. I am supportive of that. It does allow for the residential development on the separate land that has already been approved. It’s a rural neighborhood zoning on it already.

It’s gonna be part of the expanded urban growth boundary, which is already, I think in front of the minister right now for approval, so we’ll see what happens there. Coming back, there’ll be services available. I do wanna just say that there’s a number of trees on the city boulevard there. I’d really encourage the owner to work with forestry to get the permits that would be part of that process.

So thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Moving on to 3.4, this is regarding 746 to 774, baseline road east, and 339 to 345 Westminster Avenue, and 770 baseline road east. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

And Deputy, or Councilor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant would like to address us.

Please sir, give us your name, you know, five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Director from SBM, Senior Planner there.

Unfortunately, our final planner has been unable to attend today on a short notice, but I’m here today to extend our support for the application for you. It includes an official plan amendment for the site, and as well as the adjacent lands, which I think is the right step forward and staff has taken that on to provide some clarity on the transitional land uses between the hospital lands and the neighborhoods. So we are definitely supportive of that. We’re also supportive of the draft by-law that’s the 4-8 today to allow for the intended development for a three-story mixed use building with ground floor office commercial and six units above with parking behind.

We think this is absolutely sound menu’s planning and recommend your support. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll load for other speakers.

I would like to address committee. Let’s clerk if there’s anyone online. Donald, can you hear us? Yes.

Please sir, give us your full name and you have five minutes. Okay, Donald Dehaney and co-owner Richard Martin is the same as me. Okay, so first of all, go Canada go, that’s what I’m saying. But now I’m gonna be a Debbie Downer.

So we have owned 766 Baseline Road for 21 years. It would have been nice to have been asked for our opinion before the current project was a done deal, but alas, here we are. My question, one of my questions is, will the construction two doors down from our house at 766 Baseline Road East include widening the road? Will this affect our driveway?

We have a four car driveway, which we use and we need. If you are, are you able to do this to our property? Are you able to remove space from our lane way? Are we supposed to sell two of our cars to make room for someone else’s property deal?

Another question, how does the corner zone change affect our zoning status at 766 and our property value? And a last point is where we’ve lived for all these years. There’s been an internet issue, there’s been a fiber issue. So with the upgrade at the corner, improve the internet on this block.

Thank you. Thank you. And I’ll ask the questions after the PPM to our staff. I’ll look for the next speaker and I believe we have Mr.

Card. Can you hear us? One second. Yeah, yes I can.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. I’m the property owner of 768 Baseline Road, which is just next door to 770, where the three story building is proposed. My concern is with a significant increase of noise from the traffic entry next to exiting the building. You know, currently there’s a single family home and it’s gonna be replaced with a three-story building of which the first floor will be commercial.

I’m concerned with the shadow being cast by the three-story building and I’m concerned with the large windows on the second and third floor of the west side of the building and the privacy issues. Those are my concerns. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other comments.

It’s quick if there’s anyone else on the online. There’s nobody else online. I don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone. So I look for motion to close the PPM.

Councilor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, part to zero. So I’ll go to staff just on a couple of questions that were raised and might have to go to the applicant. Please direct me if so.

Just asking if the road’s gonna be widened. Staff could comment on that. Through the chair, road widening dedication will be taken through the site plan process for the parcel at 770 Baseline Road East only. All other parcels along that stretch as part of the OPA will be left as is until a future development application where we could take it under the Planning Act.

The zoning on the abutting parcel will not be impacted by this application. The zoning will only pertain to the lands at 770 Baseline Road East. The questions regarding the noise study that will be looked at through site plan approval as well. And then there was comments about the West Interior side yard setback.

Staff are satisfied that there’s sufficient buffering to mitigate any impacts. Thank you. And just the impact on the neighbor’s driveway. You can comment on that.

Through the chair, there’ll be no changes to that driveway on the basis of this proposal. And there is concerns about effect on the internet. I don’t think you could comment on that. I’m seeing Shaheem has, that’s a tele-common issue.

So, okay. So I’ll move this, I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis moves it. I get a seconder.

Councillor Hillier, comments or questions from Councillors or visiting or the committee. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. We’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries far to zero.

Thank you, moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 550 Rideout Street North and 82 to 90 Kent Street. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

And we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries far to zero. So I’ll go to the applicant. I would like to address the committee.

Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, everyone. My name is Jennifer Gaudet and I’m an associate planner with MHPC. Here today representing the registered owner and the applicant.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that there’s been a lot of public comments that we’ve received on the applications. So I’ll keep my comments brief and noting that the applicant has submitted a letter to committee. As you’re aware, the applications would facilitate redevelopment of the subject lands into a high-rise residential building with 286 dwelling units and 321 parking spaces. And the parking would be provided in a mix of underground parking and within the podium.

The applications were supported by a servicing report, transportation impact assessment, heritage assessment, planning justification and design report and tree management plan. The technical studies concluded that the proposed development can proceed without negative impacts, provided the recommendations of the reports are implemented and an open house was held in October of last year. With regard to the design of the development of four-story podium is proposed to provide active pedestrian-oriented street frontage. We’ve reviewed comments provided by staff and members of the public and believe that the majority of the issues can be addressed through site plan approval, which would be the next stage in the planning process should these applications be approved.

The merits of the proposal include the provision of additional housing choice in central London, which promotes transit use and the local businesses while providing future residents with convenient access to the amenities of downtown. Projects has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood through podium and active street frontage. Technical studies support their requested applications. The subject lands are appropriate for the proposed development.

They have no natural or human-main hazards, no natural heritage features, no cultural heritage features, and are within the city’s primary transit area, Talbot mixed use area, high density residential overlay, and are adjacent to the city’s downtown place type. In summary, the proposed applications would facilitate high-rise residential use on a site adjacent to downtown, providing additional housing choice within walking distance of transit, commercial use and community amenities. You respectfully request that committee support the applications and endorse the alternative recommendation provided by the applicant. Thank you for your time.

Thank you staff for your time and members of the public for your comments. I’m here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

And I’ll look for members of the public would like to address committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Julia Tiseman, I currently live in 550 right up street. Aside from the risk of having my own group don’t come under me again.

Apologies, I do have some concerns about the neighborhood for one. The traffic in the areas, the streets are two lanes. It already gets super congested, especially when there’s an event going on. Apologies.

So I’m wondering how they’re going to adjust for the increase in traffic having such a big building but into such a tight work. So that has to do with the amount of increase in traffic for such a small area. Like there’s a one-way bridge, I don’t know in a way, all the other streets around the area are two lanes. I don’t know if traffic is going to be able to handle the increased residents have a lot of other concerns.

Most of them I’ve already sent via email. So I’m hoping to get some sort of feedback on those. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Mary Blake Rose. I am a London resident living in Ward 7 and I’m here to speak about the proposal to demolish the existing over 30 apartments at Rideout and Kent and construct a 30-story tower.

At this time, I’m not speaking for or against the proposal at hand. Among other things, I’m not sure I could tell you the exact perfect height for an apartment building on Rideout Street north or south of Kent Street. But what I am going to talk about follows actually directly from what we heard from the previous speaker. My concern is what will happen to the existing tenants.

If this or a subsequent application is approved. Between 2016 and 2019, I lived in one of the apartments at 550 Rideout Street. I believe that I was what they call a good tenant. I paid my rent in full and on time.

I didn’t create disturbances and I kept my unit in good condition. But if a development application like the one we’re discussing today had been approved during my time at 550 Rideout, I guess I would have had to leave. Tenants facing demolition have certain rights under the Residential Tenancies Act. They are entitled to notice in minimum compensation.

But the Act establishes minimum standards. It does not prevent this committee from considering whether additional mitigation is appropriate to address the planning impacts of displacement. And there are planning impacts. So I do believe that this committee is an appropriate forum to discuss the matter.

The loss of over 30 rental units is not just a private matter between landlord and tenant. It is a housing supply issue. It is an affordability issue. And it is a neighborhood continuity issue.

If redevelopment proceeds, I respectfully ask that council require the applicant to submit and implement a comprehensive tenant relocation and assistance plan as part of the approval process. Such a plan could include financial assistance beyond the statutory minimum reflecting the realities of London’s current rental market, clear relocation timelines and moving support, a right of first refusal for existing tenants to return to comparable units in the new development, and measures to make that return financially feasible. These kinds of measures would not conflict with provincial tenancy law, but would operate through the planning approval process consistent with this council’s role in ensuring good planning and conformity with the official plan. These measures would mitigate the adverse planning impacts associated with the loss of existing rental housing and align the project with the city’s stated goals of supporting housing affordability and housing more Londoners.

Older rental apartments like those at Rideout and Kent represent some of the last remaining housing stock that people at lower or middle income levels can actually afford. When those units disappear, they are rarely replaced at comparable affordability. Increasing supply is one tool in the toolbox, yes, but the net impact on affordability also matters. Approving additional height and density, while allowing the loss of existing rental housing without meaningful mitigation, risks undermining our broader housing objectives.

I would also ask members of the committee to remember that the over 30 housing units I’m talking about today are not just abstract units. They are homes. When I lived at 550 Rideout, I was part of the North Talbot community and part of the central London community more broadly. I attended local events and I spent money at local businesses.

I was there when the Black Friars Bridge was taken away and I was there when it came back. And the moments of my life were lived out in my apartment on Rideout Street. My now husband got the call with the offer for his first job after university in that apartment. We got engaged in that apartment and when we came here to London City Hall to get our marriage license, we took it back with us to that apartment.

And I suppose it’s easy to say that those little pieces of my life don’t really matter ‘cause I suppose they don’t. But I tell you these anecdotes to remind you that apartments are housing units, yes, but they are also where people live their lives and I don’t think that’s insignificant. I know that neighborhoods change and I know that sometimes we need to tear down first so we can build up. But if redevelopment at Rideout and Kent moves forward now or at a later date, I urge you to ensure that it does so in a way that recognizes and mitigates the real impacts on our city’s planning objectives and on the people who currently call that site home.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Ms.

Velastra, will you have five minutes? Please go ahead. I’m a little, okay, I think it’s okay here. I support the refusal recommendation put forward by planning staff.

I was impressed by comments submitted by partner agencies which raised similar concerns by residents but stated with more expertise. Protecting the existing affordable housing is paramount for the community of North Talbot as it remains a diverse neighborhood, both in people and housing. It boasts not-for-profit housing, city-run housing, co-op housing, housing for brain injury residents, student housing and luxury housing. It is unique for this city.

We also have Londoners from across the city visit and walk our streets and the Thames Valley Parkway just for these reasons. I personally resent when planners and decision makers not familiar with the quality of a neighborhood because revitalizing and investments. They don’t seem to understand that this language and attitude is really about a sense of money aesthetics and not about creating vibrant and vital communities. People walk our streets because they are interesting.

The buildings are interesting and the people that live in them are diverse and common all shapes, something you don’t see in new subdivisions. They are utilitarian, lacking in craftsmanship and no open space for personal expression. I have heard Mayor Morgan use the same language to describe the sole whole neighborhood when in fact that neighborhood shares a strong identity. A part of that identity is a low-rise cottage motif that speaks affordability.

Others would see it as drab, hence the sense of money aesthetics. There are opportunities to reconstruct and renew in these neighborhoods but to have private investment firms outbid people that would like to live in the core and existing single-family homes or purchase entire blocks of neighborhoods is de-vitalizing, not revitalizing because it deprives the strength and vigor of a neighborhood. The perfect example of this is Hyde Park. This council did not have the imagination or the resolve to direct growth around the quaint village of Hyde Park, a village that was worth a visit and just linger and walk.

While I support the recommendation on refusal, I do not support the planning department pre-approving. Even if it’s on principle, the idea of a shorter tower with setbacks because it fails to address the bigger issue of housing diversity and affordability and preserving the sight line to the river. Since when does a planning department pre-approve a planning application before a vetting process? And it’s a real betrayal of the public trust.

These buildings are empty right now. These luxury high rises are empty right now because there is no market for luxury high rises. It’s a very limited market. It may take a couple years for it to sink in with this council but the recent housing report told us that.

Since these right now because there’s no market, it is not about available parking. It’s about market demand. The York Tower, Aqueon King, is also struggling to rent its units. So why then were they the planning department pre-approve a tower that requires a demolition of housing that is in demand and needed?

These agency comments are articulated best on page 41. The comments are about embracing diversity. It’s about city and community building and maintaining or creating spaces that are affordable and can accommodate a wide social economic range of dwellers. Not just people in the middle and upper classes who can afford luxury apartment rentals or expensive condominiums.

Without low to middle income housing, who will work in the restaurants, in the shops, in the market, in the arena. People earning minimum wage will not be able to earn enough to remain in the core. If only luxury apartment developments are built or encouraged at this time. 30 seconds.

In both of these applications highlighted in these comments, the developers have proposed a tear down existing facility, single family dwellings as well as low rise apartments that so far have contributed to a diversity housing mix within a standard with a sustained degree of mid-level income housing that is affordable for many. There remains vast expansions of vacant lots, so I’m gonna read one last paragraph here. Permitting and encouraging the development of tall or very tall buildings along right out street north in this neighborhood will only serve to put a curtain on the airiness of the park. Wall off the view of the river from other locations within the city while potentially causing hazardous conditions for species at risk, living or mitigating in the area, or migrating in the area.

So again, I think that this whole idea that there’s a vacancy problem because of parking— Oh, I’ll have to ask you to look at that. It’s just in denial that there really isn’t a market and that’s why— - Thank you for your time. I look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Marianne Hodge. I have really three points to make today. One is that I’d really love to see that when the city creates rules like the rules around zoning and the rules around appropriate development, that they honor those rules. Because those are the things that you have committed to us the public that you support these rules.

And yet when we come to applications like these where the rule is that they would have eight stories and now we’re looking at approving 30 stories, where is the justification for following the rules. And so if we don’t follow the rules, why do we even have rules? So my point is that we’ve heard from the applicant that it sounds like, oh, we’ve got all these reports saying all is good, all is good. And we are adjacent to the downtown place type.

Well, adjacent doesn’t mean that you are in the downtown place type. So in the downtown core, we expect that there is going to be a lot of concrete and you’ve got buildings side by side to each other. And there’s no park space or anything, no room for trees. And that’s fine in the downtown core.

But this is the beginning of neighborhoods. And I live in the Woodfield neighborhood, which is right next to North Talbot. And there is a fear in Woodfield that we’re gonna be next, that the lovely historic atmosphere and the tree line streets that we have in Woodfield are going to be next on the developer’s talking blogs. And so where does it end?

So I’m asking that we stick to the rules. The planners have said that downtown should end a certain spot, I don’t know, it’s at Dufferin Street, but it’s not where this development is. And so let’s stick to the rules. The second is we are in a situation of multi-crisis and we’ve just heard two eloquent speakers talking about how this is going to take away affordable housing.

And we know that other levels of government are not stepping up to provide more affordable housing. And so we need to preserve as much housing as we can. And the architectural conservancy of Ontario has a new program talking about how preserving heritage can preserve housing. And so we need to be preserving our affordable housing stock in the city.

And my third point is that we know that nature is important for mental and physical health of Londoners. And we know that having green space on a property is something that benefits not just the tenants in that building or the owners of the building, but also the people walking along the streets. And we know that having trees along the street lowers the average temperature when it’s really hot in the summer. And that this is a benefit not just to the residents, but to the city as a whole.

And when we start putting in 30 story high rises in residential areas, it moves the amenity space to the rooftop so that tenants can enjoy the view, but that leaves nothing for the rest of the city. And so having changing, like not allowing them to build a downtown building in a residential area means that they have to set that building back. And so that there is room for green space. There is room for trees.

And there’s room for people who are residents of that building to come down to the ground level and enjoy some green space and connect with the neighborhood. And I just also just wanted to reiterate the fact that this is a very walkable neighborhood. And we know this because it was a walkable neighborhood when it was originally built. And so it is something that we need to think about the people in London who are going to be wandering around.

We know that Blackfyres Bridge there is a real attraction. And we actually, I think as a city, we need to be embracing that whole cultural aspect of the Blackfyres Bridge and really celebrating it and finding how can we encourage more historic preservation around the Blackfyres Bridge? Because we know in cities tourism is attracted to things like that. Like the tourism potential for Blackfyres Bridge is huge.

And if we start building high rises around it, it’s going to detract from that tourist potential. So if we are looking to increase the amenities around, Budweiser or sorry, Canada Life Place and some of the other attractions in the city, we need to be enhancing the space around it. And by reinforcing the neighborhood place types is one way that that can be supported. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, sure.

My name’s Robert Somerville. I’m frequently a visitor of my girlfriend’s place at 549 Rideout. And I look at it very much from her perspective. When she bought the condo 20 years ago, she had a full view right to Covent Gardens.

That’s not the case today. It’s, there’s a real issue with the skyline. And you know, this may seem trivial to you folks, but she actually owns a place at 549 Rideout. And her view has been blocked.

And this development is gonna further block it, really hem it in. The other thing is, you know what? I actually walk up Kent Street along Rideout, Dufferin and Talbot with my dog three times a day. And I do the park thing too.

And it seems to me that heritage is more than just buildings. It’s the atmosphere in the area. And there’s been so many great speakers here talking eloquently to that. And I can’t go any further on it.

But I will say that you’re gonna change that environment if you put up that building. And the traffic there is already a nightmare. So as someone walked their dog down there three times a day, is someone done a real traffic study to look what’s gonna be engaged if you put up that building? You’re gonna create a nightmare there.

You’re gonna create a wind tunnel. You’re gonna mess up the skyline. And frankly, you really are gonna change the atmosphere in that area. The other thing I’d like to say is, I can’t emphasize enough with this concept of who is going to men or woman, the Tim Hortons or the restaurants that you go to.

People that are maybe not in the middle or upper income brackets. And we have to think about those folks. And it seems to me that co-op housing had a real buzz at least 20 years ago. It’s kind of wane, but the government of the day, our federal government says they wanna support us with co-op housing and all these other initiatives.

So if you are gonna do something on Kent Rideout, make it smaller so you don’t mess up the skyline and you don’t create a wind tunnel. And how about allocating a number of apartments in that building to make those current residents whole? Let’s make ‘em whole. Let’s give ‘em some kind of a co-op option.

Or let’s give ‘em some kind of a guaranteed rent option because you’re just putting out people that need a place to stay. And I don’t think it’s right. I really, truly don’t. And so I think that pretty well wraps it up.

So that’s the input from a dark one. So maybe you folks can all get your dog down there or get your city planners out there and look at it. And you’re gonna see what I’m talking about. It’s just not gonna be pleasant if you put up that building.

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

Yes, hello. Obie, is that you? Yes, hi. Please go to your full name and you have five minutes.

Sure, thank you very much. Hi, my name is Obie Jua and I live in the area affected by this proposal. Now, I’m originally from Toronto and I worked as a financial advisory consultant as an NMSO, a charge financial analyst. So I’m gonna sort of take a perspective of someone who’s looking at it more in terms of the analytical aspects of this.

So as I look at London, what I liked about it is that it’s a, it has a pretty strong planning function, triple A rated, and we see this illustrated by the London plan. Essentially, that’s the cornerstone. That’s the key to how the city’s forced to unfold and develop. Now, we will assume, and from everything I’ve seen, the original constructors of this plan had a very strong vision, a very good idea as to how to then push the city forward.

Now, when proposals like this come up, they should conform and conform to that plan. However, as we’ve seen from all the comments, in terms of the character, in terms of the context of the neighbourhood, this plan doesn’t fit. Essentially, we’re essentially taking the neighbourhood with Blackfire Bridge, with Blackfire Bridge, with historical buildings, et cetera, and we’re taking something that could be from downtown Toronto and dropping it right in the middle of it. We have Elgin House down the street, and essentially we’re taking a building which would be the fourth-policed building in the city and putting it into that neighbourhood, so that doesn’t fit.

Now, the area that I really want to focus on is section 1733 of the London Plan, which says that the proposed use is sufficiently unique and distinctive, such that there’s no exception, or isn’t for similar exceptions to other properties in the area. Now, this plan completely violates that, because essentially, where we live right now, 550 right out, 536 right out, 549, et cetera, these are all residential place types. And so, if it’s downtown, the building can be 45 stories taught high. If it’s here where there’s a high-density overlay, we can go as high as 14 stories.

It strikes me that the applicant essentially took the 45 stories from downtown, the 14 stories from the overlay as the two together did some basic math and came up with 30 stories, and then called it a quote-unquote transition, though no such term exists in the London Plan, essentially they’re violating the plan. And then furthermore, this is self-serving, because essentially, if they can do it, anyone can use that logic of, oh, we’re adjacent to downtown, we’re adjacent to XYZ zoning. Therefore, we will create a transition to implement something that violates the zoning within the proposed area. And then on top of that, I also have some, I’m also requesting that Council look into how the and can’t block limited.

I did some research and I found out that Corporation 2506085, it’s on Ontario Corporation, was incorporated at the exact same time, probably within a month of writer and can’t block ink, in other words, the applicant. This Corporation has the same address, the same directors and the same management. So we’ll assume that there could be other projects and development in this area. And then if you go to page 5 and 46 of the planning design report, you notice that the discussion of proposed residential tower Z with an S, almost implied that this isn’t just that the, this proposed at 5.50 right off, isn’t the only thing that we’re looking at.

And then with the existence of Talbot and can’t block limited, I’d question that. I really, I’m requesting that Council actually contact the applicant and find out if there are further development plans for this area, either north south east or west, that is, they’re not being alluded to. Because essentially, if we allow someone like this in, on this basically, which I call it, it’s almost like this disingenuous logic, that their adjacent to an area and therefore can violate the rule, then it’s very possible that there could be other developments in the area, which can flow the exact same logic. And so to wrap it up, ladies and gentlemen, I am formally requesting that Council reject the applicant’s motion and deny them.

And further to also reject the request within the applicant’s comment today to push this to Council on 3 March to 5th, because this is a proposal that she’s going to work. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for their speaker.

Is there anyone online, Clerk? No. Please ma’am, go ahead, give us, you have five minutes. Please give us your name.

My name is Joanna Gazier. I own the unit at 549 Rideout Street, North, I live there since April, 2003. So that will be marking soon, 23 years of my livelihood. Not rental where I just got married and seen the bridge and moved away.

I plan on living there as provincial and federal government and municipal support for aging at home. There is a lot of people in this area that are seniors or mature professionals and on the properties that will have the building, creating the glaze or glides or whatever impact of the sun glare and the heat of it, attending our building, our structure. I bought my unit facing east side of the city to see my sunrise and to see my sunscape for stars at night. I have right side of Kent Street already obstructed with all developments along Talbot, Rideout, Dafran and all the high rises are blocking my right side of the view.

This building right in front of my face is completely destroying my livelihood. I have no way to go unless the developer is giving me the penthouse on the east side so I can have my purpose of purchasing my unit. I have a couple of points that I would like to make. There is regulation R10-5 for which building height maximum is 24 meters in this area.

The special provisions that have been proposed by the developer are for 100 meters, which is quadruple of the rules and laws which the committee is easily overriding because they don’t live there. Why don’t we take the sky rise to your property council and we put 100 meters in your face having the glare and the heat created, altering our envelope when the heat is expanding the structure and then winter time when the building is blocking the sun when we need to heat up the moisture and dry up the bricks after two or three days of prolonged rains. We don’t have this drying. This is something that 24 meters may be if the developer wants to go.

This is area of the buildings of six to eight floors. Exceptions are maybe a couple of 10 floors which adds up to 24 meters of law. The traffic study was made on September 4th, which is four days long weekend of the labor weekend where a lot of people take vacations because of these four days, they get full five days of the vacation. Another thing is it’s near campus area.

I don’t appreciate the noise pollution. Never mind construction for three years. The dice did my place. I don’t even know if I should be accommodated for living away from my space because I already have enough of all the construction and all the noises that are happening for 18, 15 minimum years that I lived there.

And this is blocking literally not only our building, it’s blocking the neighbors on the south side of Kent Street and 18 story proposed by the council or the committee, I don’t know where it’s coming from. For my map, if we take 24 meters divided by 18 floors, that’s 1.333333 meter. Maybe this is for these people that have the key the ears and their units with 1.3 meter of the height of their ceilings. I cannot have this council, this committee, this city hall accept the high rise at this corner, higher than six or eight floors.

The same as North London is having six or eight floors, high rises. If we have anything at all, if somebody wants to build this much of the height. Another thing is taking advantage of existing services. This is provincial, PPS or whatever compliance.

It says that if the services are there, we utilize them, here the city is ready to expand or make an expense for the sewage. The city already expanded the money before COVID, working for two summers in front of my nose, doing the water mains and doing other services, which are already hidden and masqueraded, that the city is not contributing and providing services. The hydro run were run or the other utilities were run before the application. And that was in preparation for this corner.

And aging in place and I don’t want the students, I don’t want a near campus and accommodation for university. Have the high rise developments nearer to university glance and I don’t support raw businesses making profit of my taxpayer money and my literary, taking my life away. Okay, thank you very much. I look for any other speakers.

I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone, so I’ll just click if there’s anyone else online. There’s nobody else online. Hello sir, you’ve had your time, thank you. So I’ll look for motion to close the PPM, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and we’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. So I’d like to hand the chair to the Deputy Mayor, Vice Chair of Planning. Okay, Councillor Layman, I will take the chair and please go ahead. Okay, so I have an alternative motion to introduce to the committee, and then I’d like to speak to it.

The clerk has the wording. And is it an e-scribe? It is, I should be, yep, it is an e-scribe. Sorry, I just don’t see it, but I might have to just refresh my screen.

Councillor, do you want to go ahead and introduce it, and then you can see if there’s a seconder. Okay, I’d like to introduce it, and I’ll look for a seconder. Okay, it wasn’t circulated, so can you just give us the quick, what you’re introducing? You want me to?

Yeah, just give us a synopsis. Don’t speak to it, just tell us what you’re introducing. Oh, so I’m introducing an alternative motion to essentially allow the 30-story build at this location. And I’m just going to confirm with the clerk, is that vote for an e-scribe now?

So we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder. Councillor Stevenson, seconds. Okay, Councillor Lehman, do you want to speak to it? Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

So I hear what everyone’s saying, and trust me, this is not a trivial matter, and we don’t take it as such. We are here a couple times a month hearing similar concerns. Whenever there’s a change in the neighborhood, it’s concerning. I’ve been through it, a lot of us have been through it.

It’s hard. London is faced with a lot of folks moving in that are looking for housing, and the London plan was referenced. And so I’m going to, I have to speak to that a bit. The biggest, one of the biggest components of London plan was encouraging high density in the downtown, and for a number of reasons.

One is if we’re going to turn this downtown around, having people live downtown is essential to that. All the reports that we do in studies have to have a base of population living and working downtown. The second reason the London plan supports high density downtown is to prevent urban sprawl. We went through urban growth renewal, and we heard from many folks concerned about how the city spreads out.

When you spread out, well, that creates a lot of use of cars and traffic, et cetera, pays over farmland. Again, identity in the core addresses that. And finally, traffic. When you live in the downtown, and that’s again why the London plan really supported this, is you can walk to work.

You can walk to entertainment and shops. You can walk to Victoria Park or Black Fire’s Bridge or all the fantastic things we have downtown. This is why we came up with the increased height review with the downtown area. Now, the challenge is that the downtown boundary doesn’t include this property.

It’s across the street. It’s a few steps away. So what do we do in that situation? Well, I look into surrounding areas.

This proposed development is 30 stories high. When block down the road, just south, is central, which is a 40-story unit. And the Azure, which is a 29-story buildings that are there. This proposed development is a block away from Richmond Street, which is a primary transit corridor.

And a three-block walk to Dundas Street. I can’t see why this would not be good to add some more stories here and bring more people in. OK, there are no comments from the gallery during the council debate. The chair previously spoke to this.

So this is the last warning. If there’s more outbursts from the gallery, then we will have to clear the gallery and proceed without members of the public in the gallery. There’s been a public participation meeting. Folks have had an opportunity to speak.

Its councils turned out to debate the merits of the motion before us. So please, you’re allowed to have your opinions, but you are not to be speaking out, having outbursts from the gallery. Councillor, go ahead, please. Thank you.

OK, we will pause the meeting. And I will ask corporate security to please clear the gallery, unfortunately. You are trying to defend the district. You have ignored all the city.

The buildings are not attracting people to the court. I hope this is— [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] Chair, it’s a point of order. Does everyone have to leave the gallery or any of those that were disrupting? Sir Raman, I’ve asked corporate security to clear the gallery.

Once the gallery is cleared, we will resume this item. Once this item is finished, we’ll re-open the public gallery unless that’s my understanding of the process. But I will ask the clerk to check with our clerks upstairs on the clarification of that for when the gallery is cleared. So if our committee clerk could just check with clerks upstairs— I don’t know which ones we have online with us right now— but if you can just check and confirm the appropriate process, please.

Through the chair, so we do need to keep the doors open. And it’s just whoever made the disturbance should leave the gallery. Thank you very much for getting that clarified. So security, if you can indicate to the folks who are setting up there quietly, they’re welcome to continue to attend.

It’s only those folks who are being disruptive. Councillor Trussell. Enough, Councillor, you’re out of order. Corporate security was watching.

You’re out of order, and you’re not a member of this committee. We are following process. The gallery was warned twice. On the third time, the disruptive members have been removed.

That is not a matter for debate. That is our policy. I’m just going to wait, because I know that we had security go to inform a couple members that they were actually welcome to stay. So I’m going to wait for him to come back, and then we’ll look to resume.

Mr. King, I’m just going to check the individuals who are not disruptive. They’ve been notified that they can return, getting the thumbs up. So IT, if you want to take the short breakdown off the stream, we will resume.

And Councillor Lehman, I have you at two minutes and 45. I will admit, I don’t know if I stopped the time exactly. I don’t know if the clerk was timing as well. They’re the chair.

I have 216, so close. OK, so we’re going to go with the 216, because I do know I let the timer run long. So Councillor Lehman, if you’d like to continue, please go ahead. Thank you for signing off, sir.

Yeah, you know what, as I said, the beginning. It’s hard. But London’s changing. London is approaching half a million people.

We’re a big city, big city, have tall buildings in the downtown. We’re going to be seeing a 50-plus story coming online, hopefully, this year. And there’s going to be higher buildings coming as well, which I think is, I think that’s important if we’re going to address a number of things. I won’t repeat myself that the London Plan touched on.

Something was going to be built here. It was going to be tall, whether it’s 18 stories or 30. It steps away from where it would be 40 stories, would be allowed 40-plus stories. I think this is an appropriate place.

It supports downtown intensification while building access to services. And at the end of the day, it provides 286 units of housing for folks in London. So I hope you support this. Thank you, Councillor Lehman.

That was five-ish. So I’m just going to get the clerk to give me the total time she has. Through the chair, I have three minutes and 25 seconds. OK.

Thank you very much, just in case there’s a second round. OK, looking for other speakers, and I’ve got Councillor Stevenson’s hand up on Zoom. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you very much, and thank you, Councillor Lehman, for moving this alternate motion.

I was not going to be supporting the refusal for the same reasons that you mentioned here. We’re talking about being a few steps from being allowed the 40 stories. We’ve got a developer willing to invest millions into our downtown and provide the much needed housing in that location. Through the chair to staff, I’m wondering if we could get an estimate on the DCs, the development charges that the city could receive for this development?

Well, let’s ask Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so there’s 286 units that are part of this development. So just to give a very high level of range could be between about 6.4 million to 8.7 million, there would be a deduction of conversion credits for existing units there, but that’s a pretty good high range.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. And it’s not all about money. And there is a need for development charge funds for our city.

And there’ll be ongoing property tax revenue that this is going to generate. And I know staff are willing to provide that number prior to council. So we’re talking about ongoing revenue to help with the city’s expenses, development charges, to help with our infrastructure. We’re talking about our economic development goals for the city and bringing more people to live in our downtown in a great location.

And like I said, when a developer’s willing to make an investment like this, and I do believe, although I understand the concerns of some of the people who spoke, it is a good decision for the long range vision of our city and where we’re headed and the fact that people do want to live in our city. So I am happily seconding this motion and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. We don’t have any other one else on the speakers list from committee, so I’ll look to visiting Councillors.

Councillor Ferrera. Thanks, presiding officer. So I find this amendment outrageous myself. I just wanted to ask staff, is this the exact opposite of what the staff recommendation was?

The staff recommendation was a request or for a recommendation for a refusal. This one is not, so I just wanted to confirm ‘cause I just quickly read through it. Is this the opposite, the exact opposite? Councillor, that would actually be a question, not for staff, that would be, that’s how planning applications are dealt with when there’s a refusal.

It’s an alternate motion that’s on the floor to grant an approval. Okay, so I see this as the exact opposite. I would point out that, I think it was Richmond Street is not approximately one block away, it’s further than that. It’s not just about where the location of the property is, it’s about what can fit on the site itself.

This proposal is 31 stories. It’s well beyond what the planning policies contemplate and even with the high density residential overlay, it’s simply too tall for the location and it doesn’t provide the appropriate transition between the downtown place type and the neighborhood’s place type when it comes to that. It’s, the property simply doesn’t fit as it is. If you look at page 361, that regulations table, it shows that landscape open space is reduced.

The lot coverage jumps from 40 to 80%. The density jumps from 350 units to 1,350 units per hectare. That’s roughly four times what the density is for that site. It just, it doesn’t fit on the site.

In the report, it clearly articulates several times again and again and again. This site, this development will not fit on that site. So I’m just, I’m a little taken back on seeing the motion that’s put forward here. You see there’s issues with heritage.

There’s issues with the intensification. As I was speaking to the public realm. Oh yeah, the design. The design doesn’t strengthen the streets edge.

Like when we talk about revitalizing downtown, it’s not just about residential. It’s about if the street is open for people to be able to walk through, if it’s available for people to enjoy. I do see that some of the key service functions shown within the municipal right of way, including the garbage, storage, bicycle parking and paratransit loading area is going to be pushed out on the municipal right of way. I guess can I go to staff with that and ask with this motion as it is?

Will we see those issues with the municipal right away? Go to staff, Mr. Corby. Through the chair, those are generally items we’ll deal with through site plan approval.

You’re correct, generally we don’t support those functions within our right of way, through development applications and we’ll have to accommodate them on the property. So for her era. So all articulated very well in the report, a very good report, which I might add by staff. The form and the site layout creates adverse impacts on nearby properties that are not being adequately mitigated as I see as spelled out in the report.

Again, to the fact that the lot is just not large enough. It leaves neighboring homes and apartments carrying the consequences as the staff report has articulated very well as well. There’s everyday impacts like a loss of privacy, increased shadowing wind, harsher streets environments. It’s just not appropriate for the space.

The lot is simply not big enough. I guess I’ll pose another question to staff. What would the top impacts be expected for the adjacent residents for the form of the proposal as it is in this motion? And what would the current mitigation, what would the mitigation approaches be for that given the reduced setbacks and compressed site design if this were to be approved here today?

Not sure which staff might want to. Ms. McNeely, Ms. O’Hagan.

Ms. O’Hagan. Through the chair. So if you were to approve the development as proposed today, we would still need to review through site plans.

So anything related to setbacks, stuff would be fairly locked in through the zoning, but we would be looking to make sure all of the site functionality is within the site. So there may be impacts on surrounding properties in terms of the built form and elements of shadowing and things like that. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you.

Again, there’s a lot of issues that are going to be arising from the way this is crafted right now. We should be refusing this application as it was as is in the staff recommendation. We have planning policy guidelines for a reason. We never follow those planning policy guidelines.

I have no idea why that is. I can see why members of the public are outraged ‘cause I am too. And it intrudes on the municipal right of way. The form and design intensity is too big for the site.

It doesn’t fit within the context. It’s going to have impacts on the neighboring heritage properties. And the precedent as is spelled out very specifically in the report is not a precedent that we should be following. The report does speak to precedent setting and maybe in exceptional circumstances, we can see some type of development that can go beyond the planning policy guidelines.

This one does not meet that. The report also talks about a blank wall, not very inviting to pedestrian traffic. It’s going to constrict the sidewalks. It’s going to constrict everything there.

It’s not something that will promote downtown vitality. Simply put, the staff report is very clear on that. I can see that we’re discussing about the money and the DCs and the tax revenue generation and the campaign donations that might come out of that too. But what I’m saying is this.

What I’m saying is this, this doesn’t make sense. This doesn’t make sense. Councilor Ferrera, your comment about this leading to campaign donations is out of order. And as chair, I’m going to ask you to retract it.

What I’ll say is we have a 5.8% vacancy rate in the downtown area right now. Councilor Trussell, you are welcome to speak when you have the mic. You do not get to shout at the chair or say at the chair, it is true, it is true. Well, debate is going on.

Please conduct yourself with more appropriate decorum. Councilor Ferrera, please resume. And sorry, I did not restart my timer or sorry, I didn’t stop it. So, Clerk, can you let us know?

Sorry, Councilor Ferrera. Through the chair, you’re currently at three minutes, 45 seconds. Okay, so you got a minute 15-ish left. There’s a 5.8% vacancy rate as the last market report in downtown.

Some may say that that is a healthy number, but if you look at the last reported vacancy rate and the jump between those two numbers, the acceleration is alarming. There is also a 1.2% vacancy rate when it comes to rent control, older units that are more affordable. That is a very low vacancy rate. So the market is extremely competitive when it comes to low income housing.

Our strategic plan goals are to maintain existing affordable units. This application will promote the 5.8% vacancy rate higher, will reduce the vacancy rate even lower when it comes to affordable housing. It goes against our strategic plan when we want to save affordable housing. And it just doesn’t make sense to me.

It doesn’t fit, it within the planning policy guidelines within the report itself, everything doesn’t make sense. It just doesn’t make sense, this type of motion. I’m not going to be supporting this. I can see why the public is outraged.

I hope that this committee doesn’t support this amendment. This is just not good planning. Thank you, Councilor Ferreira, looking for other speakers. Councilor Trussow and then Councilor Hopkins.

Through the presiding officer. Yes, and I should have held my comments to now. So I’ll say what he said was true, whether it goes to the planning application or not as another matter, but it was all true. I think that we have a very serious problem in the way that this Council conducts itself in terms of planning applications.

We went through a long process, a very tedious process that had a lot of public feedback and it set certain limits. And time and again, applicants come in here with no regard, not even close, not even close, way out of line in terms of what was approved. And it’s not like this is right across the street. One of the things that really strikes me with the public participation meeting today is when we make these planning decisions, there are human costs.

There are serious human costs to the decisions that we make. And we cannot continue along the lines of putting blinders on and not looking at those human costs. We have to take that into consideration. And yes, the planning act, but as Councillor Farrara pointed out, yes, the strategic plan.

And yes, yes, to many of our other housing policies. The fact of the matter is this decision is gonna cause the displacement, the displacement, not just inconvenience, not just some shadows, not just some noise, not a bit of a rimp up, but the displacement of a whole community that is not acceptable. And if that is within the scope of our laws, we need to change our laws. And what I’m going to be doing is, I’m gonna be coming forward, not with respect to this application, ‘cause I can see where this is going.

We need to look at stronger anti-displacement protections and we need to look at stronger demolition control protections like we used to have, which were taken away. So I share the Councillor’s sense that this is outrageous. And I understand why members of the public, this is their community that is being destroyed. I understand why they’re so outraged.

So I’ll be having a lot more to say about this at Council, but like shame on this committee for doing this. I think it’s very bad policy. I’m done, so you don’t even have to. Indeed, Councillor, again, I’m gonna caution Councillors about their language.

Councillors can reach their own decisions and it’s not up to another Councillor to pass judgment on why they are or are not reaching a decision or using language like shame. That’s inappropriate. We’re having a debate. People can have different points of view.

However, that needs to be respected. So you can respond, I’ll give you a brief moment to respond if you want to change that language. Well, I’ll rephrase that to be a little bit more technical. I think it’s very unfortunate, if not shameful, that we went through this long process at public expense to come up with these limits and we don’t follow them.

I can’t think of a nice way to sugarcoat what we’re doing here because we are flying in the face, not only of the staff recommendation, which was very well thought out, but the policies that we adopted over a period of time that have been approved by the province. And I just think this sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Why should any applicant respect our planning rules? Why?

And I’ll leave it at that and I’ll have more to say about this at council. Thank you, Councillor Truss. I appreciate you reframing that. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. President. Chair, a quick question through you. Maybe to staff on the timelines with this application.

Are we at a decision point right now for this application? Is there an opportunity to maybe refer it back? Ms. Martin.

Through the chair, when this gets to council, it would be within 98 days of the 120 days we’re given for an official plan amendment. So there’s a bit of an opportunity to have a conversation with the applicant given. We’ve got, oh, we would pass it to the next planning committee. Okay, so we don’t have enough time then.

Sorry, Ms. Martin. Thank you through the chair. Just to add to my previous answer, if this were to be referred to the next council meeting, it would push us beyond the 120 days to 126 days.

Thank you for doing the math for me. I appreciate it. So on the motion that’s in front of us, I wouldn’t encourage the committee not to support the motion. I know the committee is not in favor of the refusal, but there are suggestions in the recommendation to where the maximum of 14 stories is allowed to go up to 18 stories.

And I appreciate the award councilor’s comments. I won’t go into the detailed concerns that I know he’s heard, but I won’t repeat them, but I do fully agree with them. I wanted to thank the community for coming out. I know how emotional it can be.

We are making decisions here to change their community. And I know it takes a little bit more patience and understanding with all of us. But I do appreciate the comments. In particular, a comment coming forward, I didn’t realize that there would be over 30 tenants displaced in this neighborhood with this development.

And regardless if it’s 18 or 30, I would like to ask the developer to even consider some kind of supportive assistance program. I don’t think we can mandate that, but I would encourage the developer to do that. I also appreciated a comment around rules and the London plan and the extent, and I’m finding myself as a counselor, I’m not on this committee, really understanding the decisions or the implications to my decision when I say yes over here and no over there. And that’s where I rely on our policies.

Of course, they can be flexible. I think we do a disservice sometimes to our policies when we don’t support them, because there’s good policies as well. And when we do not support them or create some flexibility, to me I think this is going a little bit beyond and we get stuck and we’re fair. And this is where I think we have to be very careful where we go forward when it comes to development charges.

I know it’s not about money. We’ll get them 18 stories, 30 stories. I think we have to be really, really careful and understand exactly the decisions we’re making here. And I would encourage the committee to not support this and to come forward with going up to 18 stories.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, looking for any other speakers. Councillor Stevenson, the clerk had indicated you had your hand up, but I’m not sure whether, okay, sorry, I couldn’t see you from where I was sitting, so please go ahead. Oh, Councillor, you’re muted. Thank you for that.

I just wanted to follow up. It is hard to hear the stories and I do appreciate people coming and speaking and sharing their views. This is about long-term decision-making and what’s best for this area. And we can talk about, you know, well, it could be 18 stories instead of 30.

You know, you can’t make somebody build the height that you want. They do their financing. They come up with a plan as to what would be best. We want affordable units.

Having, you know, extra stories in that building helps reduce rent prices long-term in our city, which I think is a good thing. And there was something mentioned by one of my colleagues around the heritage issues. And I just wanted to confirm with staff through you that there are no heritage issues with this development. I think there was a heritage adjacent mitigation concern, but I see Mr.

Ganyu has his hand up, he can respond. Thank you and through the chair there. Staff reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment that included evaluations of the on-site resources. One of the resources meant one of the criteria, but two, of course, is required to merit designation.

The other resources did not need any of the evaluation criteria. Staff have reviewed those evaluations and agree with the findings of the heritage consultant. But it is important to note that there are adjacent heritage properties where there are still outstanding concerns regarding compatibility. Thank you, Mr.

Ganyu. And sorry, you were hiding behind Mr. Hagan’s head there from my angle on the side of the room, but Ms. McNeely.

Thank you, and just to build on what Mr. Ganyu said, and just to respond to some questions or comments, the staff report is reflective of the concept that was submitted at the time of application. Through the site plan process, we’d be responding to any nature of changes in terms of building. Reference was made to blank wall.

Well, that was part of that proposal, but any new application through the site plan process, we would be looking at it in that context and mitigated measures as well. There was a reference to steps a way to Richmond Street. Well, actually the downtown boundary is literally at Kent Street on the opposite side of the street. So just wanted to put that in context as well in terms of that locational context for everybody.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McNeely. Returning to Councillor Stevenson.

Yeah, thank you. I do appreciate those additional comments because it really does matter. You know, when we talk about rules and breaking rules, we are following the process here and Council has the opportunity to, they were guidelines set and we have the opportunity development by development at a particular time to decide what is right and what is best going forward for the city. And so like I said, it’s not easy and I know change is always difficult, but I am appreciative of this alternate motion and I will be supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Ferriero, you’ve got about 10 seconds left. I can’t ask this in 10 seconds. Then it might be something that you want to take to staff prior to Council if it’s a complicated question or is there a way that you can quickly frame the question?

Can I get a motion for two minutes, rising? If you exhausted our speakers list, I will just say I’m gonna take a moment from the chair. I don’t have any questions for staff at this point. I will, oh, Councillor Ramen, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So again, I want to take a moment to thank those who came today to speak to us about this application and for the communication that was included in the agenda. I would recommend to anyone that’s interested in this proposal to please write to Council and to get in touch with us about the proposed amendment that’s on the floor right now. At this time, looking at what’s in front of us with this amendment, I would not support this amendment at Council.

Mainly, I think one I support where staff has created the pathway to approval, even though I do think that height is still going to be something that the community has to contend with and consider. And I do think that it’s difficult when you look at the neighborhood place type that’s currently in place in the HDR overlay and you look at that big transition. I understand there are other tall buildings nearby, but I do see a concern and I am sorry, I understand the concern that the neighbors have shared with that respect. The open space 80% doesn’t sit well with me for this application as well.

I agree with the Ward Councillor. I think that the intensification at that corner will take away from the intended use for not just those that were here talking about walking their dogs and enjoying the community, but for the rest of the city as well. I also think that the motion may need some clarification. The applicant asked for a 30 to 31 story building.

So I guess we’re just not approving the penthouse at this time if we’re sending it back at 30. So I guess we’ll, or is that just something that goes to site plan for consideration and to sort out? Ms. Martin.

Through the chair to clarify, the requested official plan amendment was to permit a 30 story building, but the elevation drawing submitted with the application actually reflect a 31 story building and would be permitted under the 100 meter height permission that’s being requested. Thank you. So with respect to the site plan, there’s been some conversation because this is an amendment on the floor and came in as a refusal. It sounds like staff would have to do some additional work with the applicant in order to sort out a number of matters during site plan.

I would think that if the mover is amenable to it in the seconder, I would suggest an open site plan process because the neighborhood is going to need more time to deal with these matters if this does pass. So it’s something that I think would be, it would be a good addition maybe at this time and not have to wait to council so that people can respond to council members and let us know whether or not that is something they would support moving forward with. I also think it would be really helpful if there was more information in the motion or in something subsequent about how the current residents in those buildings that will be impacted will be compensated or how they will be assisted. That could have come from the developer.

The developer knowing that an amendment was coming or knowing that something was going to potentially be introduced could have done that in the communication they submitted and they did not. So again, right now not supportive. I’m not sure that there’s much that would change my mind but if this is moving forward, I would suggest the developer also take some time to communicate with council on how you’re going to make this right for those that live in those buildings right now and make sure that they’re adequately able to get back into something in that area, potentially in your building in the future because as the residents in the area said, this is about where people live, where they plan their life, where they have their jobs, we want walkable neighborhoods, we want places where people can be able to go to work around where they live and this development doesn’t feel like that right now. Thank you, Councilor Robin.

I think that exhaust the speakers lists with everybody who’s in attendance at the meeting. So other than Councilor Pribble who hasn’t put his name on the speakers list. So I’m going to just share a couple comments briefly from the chair, which is to say one of the challenges I have with the parts of the staff recommendation for the refusal on things like the setback and such is the existing buildings don’t meet those setbacks. So when we look at some of those setbacks recommended in the chart, we’ve already got something there that doesn’t conform and when we talk about the heights, what I’ve seen in there is an urban design that I’ve heard staff encourage multiple times with more of a point tower on average.

The setback after the, I think it’s the sixth floor podium is an average of five meters. And once you get over that where your sight lines are and how buildings are built and I could be wrong about whether it’s the sixth or the eighth, but there’s a podium base and then there’s a step back. And so from the pedestrian scale after both the eighth story, once you’ve got a step back like that, the height doesn’t really visibly change the impact. I do like the fact that there’s enough parking provided.

I do recognize that to Councilor Ferrer’s questions, site plan, there’s gonna have to be some work around garbage storage, traffic flow, those sorts of things. That’s pretty standard. And I’ve heard a lot of comments about rules and following our policies. And I’ve been sitting on this committee for a few years, actually most of the applications that go through are in conformance supported by staff, recommended for approval and they go through.

There are Councillors who have argued to refuse applications that come forward with a staff recommendation to approve, including Councillors who spoke on this application today. We don’t, we have different opinions as we see applications come forward. The reason this committee exists is because the official plan, zoning bylaws, they are subject to change and they are subject to a decision of the Council body when staff has done their work and brought forward a recommendation to us. So, you know, I absolutely echo the comments that, yeah, it’s hard, neighborhoods don’t like change.

That’s just part and parcel of being a human being. We tend to be resistant to that. But we had items on the last planning committee agenda that were recommended for approval that were argued to be refused. So, for me, when it comes to looking at this, I do look at, as Miss McNeely said, like it is the south side of the street versus the north side of the street.

And that’s where I think we do get to make a decision on whether or not where you’ve got 40, whether 30 is a step down from that. And I mean, obviously, I think it is to some degree. We’ve got a variety of heights coming in this area. And I think that this one is just more of that in an upfill.

So, I’m gonna support it for now. I will say that I think there are a couple of things that I would be open to looking at as potential clarifications on this, but they are of a little bit of a technical nature. So, I’m not gonna try and wordsmith anything now. I’ll have a couple of conversations with staff and see if there’s a couple of things that can be adjusted there.

But I think in general, a higher density here is going to happen. It’s appropriate. And I think that we’ve heard that, you know, honestly, the community is not going to be happy with an 18 or a 30. So, we’re gonna have to make a decision based on the application that’s before us and the motion that’s before us.

So, I’ll support it today, but I do think that there might be a couple of technical pieces that might need amendments before council. And with a certain layman, you do have a little bit of time left, go ahead. Thank you, I was debating whether to speak, but I’m gonna wrap it up a bit. I’ve lived and worked in downtown as well as around London.

Very passionate about downtown. I’ve always believed in what I said earlier, the basis of success in any downtown is having people live in it. I see, I used to live in after school in downtown Toronto, along King Street. And at night it was a ghost town ‘cause nobody lived down there.

It wasn’t vibrant, at the end of the day everyone left. It’s a total different story now because of the residential development downtown. It’s a very lively, wonderful atmosphere to work. No, it’s not like a subdivision, no, but it is a downtown.

So, I’ve believed in that. I believed in the growth of London and what comes with that, which is high density, which is spoken by spoke to regarding the London plans, part of London plan, which I fully agree with on all those points that I mentioned. And with that comes taller buildings. We are constantly required to look at things with policy in mind.

They’re not bylaws, there’s a reason we’re here, or else planning staff would just by rope just make the decision. There’s policies and guidelines that involve sometimes gray area where we have to look at this— 30 seconds. How much? 30 seconds.

Thank you. In this case, it’s just on the other side of the street. So, in my opinion, I think this is appropriate. And I want to go to that, my opinion thing.

Of late, I’ve been hearing in debate, debate venturing into aspirations of character or on the personal side. Listen, I have an opinion. And in this place, I’m allowed to state my opinion without fear of someone attacking my character. And I think it’s been going on a bit too much.

Not only in this committee, other counties. Councillor, you are here time. Let’s stick to the facts, folks. Let’s have an honest update.

Councillor, we’re there. Thank you. Thank you. I have no one else on the speaker’s list.

I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries three to one. I will return the chair to Councillor Layman. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.6. So this is regarding additional residential unit permissions for a motion to open the public participation. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. And we’ll call the vote.

Losing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Mr. Wallace, I see you at the mic, you know, five minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councillor, members of the committee and those visiting. Just three things on the ADU permissions.

I did circulate the report to my group. No response, like no, no issues with what’s being proposed in this. One question came about the interim control by-law, which I don’t have the answer for, that maybe you could ask staff to get the answer during the, does the passing of this at council then and the interim by-law. The, on the additional residential units on a whole, we would just like to point out that from the presentation or the report that you had on the annual development report, talks about ADUs in there.

And as I predicted, there was a big uptake in ADUs over the last couple of years, and then it’s kind of leveled off a bit. I know it says 12%, well, that’s 50 units. I think what’s also important to remember and to look at is that most of these units are being built in backyards or in our in basements, mostly in basements, about 75% are maybe in higher, 90% in basements or within the dwelling and about 10% in other buildings outside the main dwelling. But most of it’s being built within the built area boundary where there are bas guards and basements to be had.

So it’s important and I think we’ll be at interesting next year’s report. I know whether there’s any impact on the change from going from where you were to where you are now, but we are in sense, we are in favor of what’s being proposed here, and we think it makes sense. And we look forward to continuing to work with the city, particularly on, I represent new development, basically not resale, and whether there are opportunities for our members when building their new homes to automatically build in an ARU opportunity. And we know that there is one organization for sure that it’s part of my group that’s doing there now and we’re seeing how that’s going.

And so we just wanted to be on the record and let you know what the LDI, the development committee feels about, the changes that are being proposed here. Thank you very much. Thank you. I don’t see anyone else coming to my class.

Clerk, if there’s anyone online. Oh, sorry sir. Please give us your name, you’ll five minutes. Muhammad Musa, thank you chair, members committee visiting members, staff and others.

I’d like to wish everybody a happy lunar new year. I’m just a little disappointed that I missed the fireworks about half an hour ago. I’m just curious about what the purpose of this bylaw is. We’ve, for one, I just have a question to staff.

Why was the data on page, sorry, I think it’s page eight, only for three months from July to September of 2025 where you had two requests for four bedrooms as fourth units and that was like 2%. If we go back to the previous quarters, does that 2% decrease to 0.2% or I mean, I feel like it’s cherry picking in order to move this forward. My other question is why are we restricting this to two units? I mean, we’re not dealing with near campus neighborhoods.

So that aside, are we just trying to increase the number of units to this high in the sky of 47,000 by 2031? Or are we actually wanting to build something where young families can rent a little bit more affordable? Why are we restricting the fourth unit to two bedrooms and why are we restricting many of the others to that? So I guess my question is, if you look at the data further back than July of 2025, which includes this outlier of two units being requested as four bedrooms in what ended up being two four plexus, does the data indicate that there really is a problem here?

So I guess what I’m saying is you’re trying to wash an entire, how shall I put it? You’re basically using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito because of one outlier application. Thank you. Thank you.

Please go ahead to your five minutes. Thanks, Marianne Hodge. Just a couple of quick comments in reading the report. It seemed that there are instances where we have a rule about how much of your front yard you can put towards parking because that’s a rule that’s kind of around the character of the neighborhood and what the neighbors expect of the neighborhood in terms of green space and the aesthetics.

And we just heard in the previous discussions that we have rules but we can change those rules on a case-by-case basis. So I’m not sure why we need to change the policy or the rule about the amount of parking you can do in front of your house. We’re not dealing with parking on this item. Isn’t this part of the ARU?

Oh, okay. This is additional residential units. There’s something coming later on the meeting regarding parking. But if you want to speak to this one, that’s fine.

You’re zoning it on parking, so I just want to make sure you’re clear on that. Okay, all right, then just on ARU’s, I am supportive of ARU’s obviously and do encourage making it easier for people to include ARU’s. So I’ll just leave it at that and I’ll come back for the next one. Okay, thank you.

Don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone. I’ll look as clear if there’s anyone online. There’s none. Look for a motion to close the BPM.

Councilor Hill, you’re seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4-0. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for Deputy Mayor.

I’ll move it. I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hill, you’re seconded. Do you want to speak to it, Deputy Mayor?

I’m happy to speak to it. I am supportive of what staff’s brought forward. I think it very much captures both the spirit as well as the technical pieces that I know Councilor Raman and I’m sure she’ll have some comments to you, but it addresses the concerns that we had with ARU’s, which I think is really, it’s right in the name. These are additional units.

They’re not meant to be the primary unit. They’re not meant to duplicate the entire footprint of the primary dwelling on a property. They are supposed to be smaller. They aren’t supposed to be a huge number of bedrooms to squeeze more people in, in particular, but not exclusively in near-campus neighborhoods.

We see the near-campus neighborhood maps. I think today are woefully out of date compared to the spread we’ve seen of that, but this is not just for me about, in fact, it’s really not at all about students who are looking for a place to rent. It’s about that young adult who wants to have some independence and is not yet into the home ownership market, but maybe can have an independent unit in mom and dad’s backyard or Uncle Sean’s backyard, maybe, if I can ever convince him to think about that, but instead of complaining about not being able to move out of mom and dad’s basement, but it’s also those situations where an elderly parent loses their spouse, needs to move back in with their adult child, but isn’t ready to give up their independence. And once that small unit, they’re in the backyard or they’re in the basement where their adult child can be a part-time caregiver when necessary, but still leave them the independence to live on their own.

Those are the kind of opportunities that I see for ARUs. It’s also the young professional who’s maybe just arriving in the city and hasn’t really set up their life yet and is looking for a place to call home. They’re not gonna be there for years and years and years and years, but it’s a great place for them to start and to get to the feel and vibe of a neighborhood and see if that’s where they wanna call home, if they need to be somewhere else in the city, but they’re not meant to replace the primary dwelling. They’re meant to be an additional residential unit on the same property as an existing primary unit.

So when we put a limit on the number of bedrooms, when we put a limit on the floor area size in relation to the primary dwelling, I think that is what captures the spirit of ARUs. There’s supposed to be a smaller unit on an existing residential property, not to accommodate the same number of people living in the primary house, but to accommodate a smaller number of people. So I’m very supportive of this. I appreciate the work staff has put into it.

I appreciate the comments that we’ve received back. I appreciate seeing some of these coming to fruition in my own neighborhood. There’s a woman on Manitoba Street who’s put in an ARU in the backyard, great. Honestly, I could see that being the kind of place in my retirement that I’d be happy to live in and let somebody else take care of the grass cutting in the snow shoveling and just have a little place in the back.

So I’ve seen it with my own eyes, how these smaller units can work. And I’m very supportive of putting in these so that we don’t have any further exploitation of some loopholes to try and make another primary unit on the same property, but actually create the additional units. Thank you, just a quick question to staff from Mr. Wallace.

Does the interim bylaw end with the passing of the second council? Through the chair. So no, the interim control bylaw will continue to apply. And that’s because the direction that we received from council in November included two parts.

So it was to adopt the interim control bylaw and direct staff to undertake a study, as well as to bring forward specific zoning bylaw amendments. So that’s what this report is. It’s those specific zoning bylaw amendments. The study is still coming and will be brought forward later this year.

And I’m just part of the sort of technical ways that interim control bylaws work. It would be removed after that study is presented. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other councilors.

I’d like to speak to this. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me again. And thank you to staff for that update.

I really do appreciate it. So there’s still the study. We’ll get further information coming back to us. But I am supportive of this.

Deputy Mayor spoke about the loopholes. I think that’s why we’re here trying to get it right. It does to me represent a balanced, you know, reasonable development as well as having regard for the existing neighborhood. So supportive of this coming forward for now.

Thank you. Look for anyone else that would like to. Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you.

And I’ll keep my comments sharp. But first, thanks to staff for the report that’s in front of us. And I do think that it captures the intent that was put into the initial letter from Deputy Mayor Lewis, myself, on this item. And I wanted to say thank you to the neighborhood associations that wrote in with their thoughts as well on the changes on regarding ARUs.

And the capturing of the bedroom limits within the new table and within this document. I’m just wondering though, and through you to staff, let’s say this goes through council and is supported. How will this be messaged to the public in terms of that bedroom limit component? And can we expect any changes on the ARU website around some of those limits?

I’ll go to staff through the chair. So we have an existing website dedicated to ARU. So that would be the primary vehicle to communicate some of these changes out. We also have staff who are manning that line and doing their best to ensure the information is clear.

So that would be the primary approach. Councilor. Thank you. And through you to staff, would we be able to provide some of similar to what’s on the ARU website right now?

We have a number of scenarios that are built into the website. Would we be able to really clearly define those scenarios which are shared in the table, but maybe in drawing formats similar to what’s already on the website around, here’s your main building, here’s your accessory building, here’s how many bedrooms that you could, you know, have in a maximum configuration. I do think what we heard from folks that were here to speak to us on this item was they wanted very crystal clear rules that they could understand in their neighborhoods, but also for those that were looking to put ARUs in place as well. So anything we can do to clarify that, I think would be very helpful.

I’ll go to staff who want to comment on that. Just very briefly through the chair, thank you for those comments. I’m glad to hear that the table is helpful. And we have an excellent graphic design team at the city who I’m sure can come up with something effective.

Ms. McDilly. Thank you. And just to build on Mr.

Adema’s comments, we also have staff that are dedicated to working on communication. What’s a resident focused? Not just the technical pieces that you see in our notices. And we’re certainly trying to work better with more counselors so that we can have information packages that then you can take as a toolkit when you have your award meetings.

Councilor. Thank you and through you. And I’m looking very forward to sharing that information as these changes are approved. Just with regard to the interim control by-law, we talked about the study component.

Let’s say the study comes to us. I assume at the time we receive it to be received. So that means at that time, the interim control by-law is then removed and then this is in force and effect. From that point forward is also meaning that in that interim period, while we await this study, someone couldn’t be in pre-consultation on an ARU discussion.

Just trying to get some clarity for industry. Okay, staff. Through the chair, so during this interim period, the interim control by-law will continue to be enforced. And it includes the same regulations that are in this zoning.

So there would be the option to move forward under the interim control by-law. When we bring forward the report, we’re working with other parts of the city and zoning and implementation to ensure that we haven’t missed anything. So it is possible that there’s additional zoning changes that are recommended as part of that study, but that would be brought forward later this year. Councilor.

Thank you and then through you, just to staff. So this study could, so I’m just trying to figure out how these two are linked. If one could be approved and then one isn’t, and then this is impacted or vice versa. So how are they decoupled, I guess, in the decision-making process?

All those staff. So through the chair, that would be the goal of the next report is to take everything that’s been done so far, ensure it’s all kind of wrapped up and need an easy to understand. And then that would be the enforce regulation moving forward, but it’ll take into consideration this change in front of you today, as well as the interim control by-law, Councilor. Thank you.

And I appreciate the answers and look forward to comments from others visiting counselors and the committee, thanks. Ms. McNeilly. Thank you, through the chair, just to add on the next item on the parking changes, like that would be something that would be built into that next by-law that Mr.

Adam, I mentioned. That’s good to know, thank you. Anything else, Councilor? Okay, I’ll let further comments.

Just quickly from the chair, thanks for this. I think we’re getting back to what was intended with the original action by Council. So now our good work, appreciate it. We have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll open the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Okay, moving on to 3.7, this is regarding, there’s some amendments to the London Plan, minor in nature, some housekeeping. So I’ll open the, I’ll look for a vote, a motion to open the PPM, Councilor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0.

Mr. Walz, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, it’s my call from LDI.

The title on the public agenda, members to the London Plan, doesn’t say that, doesn’t say housekeeping amendments, don’t think. So one recommendation is to make sure people understand that. Two, we got notice of this meeting, I think it was in late December, sometime along that lines. Some of my members questioned whether we had seen it before, like before today.

I sent it to them, the report out on Wednesday when it becomes public at Wednesday afternoon. Some of the response I got, I just want to be on the record for it, that it would have been nice to see this before. This isn’t, this is sort of an annual update in the sense this housekeeping. I don’t think, we don’t disagree that they’re not housekeeping.

I want to thank staff, or at least one of my members got back to staff directly on some questions directly, and they got answers back and they shared them with me. There’s not, we’re not really saying there’s anything wrong with the report. The only thing that I, from our industry perspective, on the London plan amendments, it would have been, it would be nice, and maybe I missed it. So I’ll take full responsibility for that.

That in advance of this public meeting, and it’s being approved here, that like you do with tons of other policies, you do a great job of communicating, and in consulting with our group. I don’t know if it comes through the customer service committee, something, just so that we see it in advance. It might have been my error that I missed it this time, and I won’t be missing the next time. And, but we do agree that these are mostly housekeeping pieces, and there was some questions that needed answers to why we were doing, you were making it, proposing the changes, and the answers were provided in a timely manner, and we want to thank staff for that.

Okay, thank you, and noted. Look for anyone else who would like to address the committee. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Good afternoon again, Muhammad Musa.

If I may just point one thing out, and please, no disrespect. When I do ask questions, they’re not rhetorical. If I may, just say that the two questions I had in the previous item were not addressed, and they were fairly straightforward questions. So if I can just point that out, and go forward with my questions and comments on this.

My first question is, comment. Some of these changes are not minor in nature. They’re not housekeeping. So my question to this is, if it is something where it is a change of policy, does this go to the minister for approval?

Because there are changes in policy, which I will address momentarily. So does this go to the minister, or is it just looked at as minor changes and air quotes? And now, dog with the bone. The non-miner change in the London Plan amendment is in respect to 1251-6.

And of course, as many of you know, farmland protection and minimum distance separations are excruciatingly important to me. MDS guideline number 36 does not require MDS-1 for proposed land use changes within approved settlement areas. That’s the reason why you are changing, or being asked to change that London Plan policy that’s been in effect since the London Plan, been in effect for quite some time. I have been here before saying to you that guideline 36 does not apply to rural settlements.

It applies to settlement areas, which is defined specifically in the PPS 2024. And I would ask, and I’m gonna put it on the record because the last time I asked this, only half of the definition was written, well, sorry, was read by staff. Settlement areas mean urban areas in rural settlement, areas within municipalities such as city towns, villages, and hamlets. Ontario’s settlement areas vary significantly in terms of size, density, population, economic activity, diversity, and intensity of land uses, service levels, and types of infrastructure available.

Settlement areas are, built up areas where development is concentrated, and which have a mix of land uses. And there is another part of the definition, and lands which have been designated in the Official Plan for Development over the long term. Calling rural settlement settlement areas is akin to calling every transit stop a transit village. So I would ask that you look at the definition within PPS 2024, which you are bound by as a municipality, the provincial legislation, and the definitions within.

It is a main change to this. Settlement area, and I’ve said this before, and I will say it again on the record, a settlement area are things that have been annexed, broccoli, Scottsville, land worth, areas such as that. Okay, that come into municipality, an urban municipality through annexation. It is not for somebody to get a development outside of the urban growth boundary, subject to MDS regulations, and then turn around and say a few years later, oh look, I’ve been a pro for residential development, therefore I am a settlement area.

It absolutely circumvents the entire legislation, the provincial legislation, by doing this. And that’s not a hypothetical. Many of you here know that that actually happened. So, my time?

John, you got about 45 seconds left. So I think this is, and I’m sorry, I think this is a complete willful blindness, or at best a reckless disregard for provincial legislation and definitions within that legislation. So, I leave you with, this is not minor in nature and needs to be addressed. These are not mixed use developments.

These are residential that you’re trying to pull in and say that provincial guidelines and provincial legislation doesn’t affect them. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers.

Ask if there’s anyone online? No, the clerk says no, I don’t see anyone else going to the microphone. I’ll look for a motion to close with PPM, Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Councillor Stevenson, closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll go to staff with one question. Would amendments like these go to the minister?

Through you, Mr. Chair, I’ll start with, oh, the first question, does this go to the ministry? No, it does not. This is an official plan amendment that can be dealt with by council.

It is not required to be said to the minister. The second question with respect to, remind, that’s it. I was looking at everybody else. Are you finished?

I thought you were going on to this. Okay. Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m done.

Okay, thank you. So it does not go to the required to go to the minister. Okay, so that’s an example of a question that we get from a PPM that, for general knowledge, that I will ask of staff. There’s other questions though, that for example, when it goes into process, the staff have a certain process they use, that I might, in my position as chair, might not go to staff on.

This doesn’t preclude other councilors from asking that question, or for you, sir, sending it an email to find out further, get further information. We listen to opinions from PPMs. We listen to questions, some questions on just general knowledge, the specifics get answered. But again, that’s just a judgment call from my position.

On that last point, you made, sir, from my perspective, fairly in depth, fairly in the weeds. If you want to send me that question in an email, I’d be happy to find the information out for you and respond to you that way. Okay, so I’ll put dial on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis, are you receiving that?

Second by Councilor Hillier, any discussion? We’ll call them both. Yeah, so I was, we’re moving the staff recommendation as opposed to receiving it. I would want to be clear with the mover and the seconder.

Okay, yeah, that’s the understanding. Okay, we’ll call the vote. Wasn’t the vote the motion carries 4-0. Okay, moving for items for direction.

We have two, first one is 4.1, and this is brought forward by Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Cuddy and Councillor ramen regarding parking changes. So Mr. Walz has requested a delegation status for this. So I’ll vote, I’ll put a vote out.

I’ll look for a mover to accept that delegation. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and we’ll call the vote. Seconded about the motion carries 4-0. Okay, Mr.

Walz, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I could have spoke to every item on the committee’s agenda today, but I refrained, it’s not nice to me.

We are in principle support. LDI is in support of the recommendations that are in the letter from Councillor Lewis, Cuddy and ramen. In particular, let me start with the first part that if you’re going to have ADUs, you need to change the driveway widths. You can’t expect a tremendous uptake on additional units if you’re not providing people parking.

It’s just the way it is in London, and so we agree with those pieces. We also agree with just a reminder back in ‘22 when the staff recommendation at the beginning, when they started to talk to us, but they were going to go to zero requirements everywhere, but downtown, and we said, well, that won’t work, we didn’t think, and so they came with a compromise, I would say, and I looked up my letter to staff that we were supportive of the compromise that was there for basically half unit for townhouses and so on, so you’re moving back a little bit after your experience, which I think shows great courage on behalf of Council in terms of saying, hey, this is where we thought we were going, this didn’t work, as well as we thought it would based on the input we got from the public, and we’re moving back. So we’re in principle supportive of that. The only thing that we would, our experience has been, since we’ve been at it for a few years now, is that the parking for high-rise, in particular, can be safe specific.

I know you’ve mentioned in here, you’ve got basically an exemption for the protected transit areas. Is there other transit areas that are site-specific that maybe the one-to-one isn’t necessarily required there? If you’re building housing that’s for students, you need the parking requirements that you would have in another neighborhood. So what we’re suggesting is that, instead of the by-law being passed, you have to develop it, but take some time to consult with the industry to see if there are any minor changes, and I’m considered to be minor, influences on different types of developments that may be captured in an exemption or a lower rate than what you’re proposing here.

But in principle, we believe that you’re building a townhouse, that they should have one parking spot for a townhouse, and so on and so forth. It’s really in the mid and high-rise piece, that there could be some flexibility that we would be looking for. We’re not sure what you’re doing with this tonight. The motion asked to bring forward the zoning amendment, so all we’re asking for is that, if there’s enough time for us to meet in this industry, see if there’s some additional options before the by-law actually comes back to council.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Earlier, Ms. Hodge was addressing us, and I kind of cut her off, ‘cause I thought she would be a delegate for this particular item, but I see you’re not.

However, because I did interrupt you, I’d be willing to ask the committee for an opportunity for you to address this on that, so do you wish that? Okay, so I’d like a motion. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Hillyer, and this to allow delegation for Mrs. Hodge to address.

And it’s in needs grant, okay. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you very much, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

So I was just pointing out that with the increase in need for parking by some residents, that when you buy a property, you know how many parking spaces it accommodates, and so you decide what you’re going to buy or rent based on what your needs are. And if your needs change, then that is something that is a special consideration. And so I don’t feel that it is something that should be laterally given that we can change the nature of neighborhoods because of special considerations that come up after the fact that a property is purchased. People buy into a neighborhood because they like, what the plans were for that neighborhood.

They like the atmosphere, they like the amount of green space, they like to be able to walk their dogs or their baby strollers around a community where it’s not just a bunch of cars parked on lawns. And so I encourage counselors to consider not making it a free-for-all that people can park two cars across the front of their house, but that most houses have garages. So people need to be encouraged to actually park their cars in their garage, and that would allow them to parking spots on their properties. And it also reminds me of the fact that we often think about things in isolation.

We talk about the pressures for parking. And so why do we have all these pressures for parking because our transit system is inadequate? So when we’re talking about parking, we also need to have those complimentary conversations. So how do we make these neighborhoods better, more affordable for the young people who are still living at home because they can’t afford to move out of the house?

How do we make it more affordable so that they don’t have to purchase a vehicle? And instead, they could save that $10,000 a year and start saving up for down payments on a house or a condo or something. So we can make life more affordable by looking at the big picture. We talk about how do we look at the long-term benefit for the city of London?

So we can’t just be looking at parking and isolation at a particular time in history where, right now, there might be some pressures on parking. But if we have a vision for a city where people have access to transportation that’s not just a single vehicle, then we won’t have those pressures on parking. So let’s have a bigger vision about London. We have approved that, or you have approved, that the mode chair targets have been increased, that acknowledging that there is a downward pressure on the number of car trips used in the city of London.

And so when we have these conversations, it would be nice to also be thinking in those broad strokes as well. So thanks very much. Thank you. Okay, I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So I am going to move most of what was in the communication. I’ve just sent the clerk a slight change to clause A. And it would read now, make all necessary zoning by-law changes to establish an updated minimum parking requirement for all residential developments.

Like we’ll get rid of the medium and high density for each residential unit while providing an exemption for those developments that have an affordable housing agreement with the city of London, or those developments located in a primary transit station area, and recommendations for other potential exemptions, which would allow staff to come back with, I know we have a lower ratio for long-term care homes, for example, the reference to some of the purpose-built student housing, that would allow staff to bring back, just to give them a little flexibility when they bring back a draft by-law for our consideration to propose a couple of other exemptions that they think might be prudent with some of the existing regulations we have. So the rest of the circulated notice remains the same. It’s just that slight change to clause A. So I’m prepared to put that on the floor.

Do we have a seconder, Councilor Hillier, second? Okay, go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I’ll start off and say that we tried something, and it didn’t quite work out as planned. And I think it’s okay to step back, and sometimes the way to address a problem is to go back to what we were doing before.

And I think that’s really what we’re proposing here for both components. The higher density residential as well as the driveway widths for accommodating ARUs and multi-generational family living, which we know, we all have that in our wards. It’s across the city. You’ve got a 26-year-old who has a car who’s living at home that when they were five, you figured they’d be gone by 18 or 20.

And now you’re told you can’t widen the driveway ‘cause it’d be front-yard parking, but you can’t park on the street in the winter when there’s a van on an overnight parking pass. And quite frankly, I’m personally not of the idea that we should be subsidizing increased density and houses by putting that parking demand on public space. I think it should be accommodated on private property. So this would allow accommodation of an additional parking spot.

I call it a bump-out spot, just ‘cause I’ve seen it in my own neighborhood. It’s that side spot that the extra person can park in. Whether there’s a lane way to the rear yard, whether there’s a garage, and then you can’t get through the garage to the other side. Like we can’t do backyard parking everywhere.

This front-yard parking was sort of almost an urban design guideline thing more than anything that was brought in years ago. But prior to that, we actually allowed for those wider driveways. And like I said, I see all kinds of examples of this in my neighborhood and other neighborhoods across the city. I think the driveway piece is really critically important for ARUs.

And we see a lot of complaints already about properties with rental unit licenses and the neighbors are complaining that everybody is parking on the street. Or they’re parking on the front yard on the grass and ruining the front yard or or or. So let’s put the onus back on the property owner to at their cost, not at the city’s cost. Why didn’t your driveway?

To accommodate that extra person who’s living there. With the higher density things, as I said, slight wording change ‘cause I do want to allow for staff to say, by the way, the ratio at the long-term care homes, which I think right now is 0.125. That’s still fine. And if I got that number wrong, I apologize.

But that’s still fine ‘cause we’re really accommodating staff. We’re not accommodating the residents who are in long-term care, fully supported living, not the folks who are doing the independent living. So we should have some considerations there. I am interested in how we perhaps accommodate some of the student builds because I agree that they’re not all students that are gonna have cars.

Many do, but not all will. And so I guess a question through you to staff, even though I’m putting a little bit more flexibility into the motion here, or I hope it’s flexible for them anyway, by establishing these parking, a new parking minimum. What that would essentially mean is that if an applicant wanted to come in with reduced parking, they would have to provide a planning justification report for that reduced parking, similar to how they used to do. So it wouldn’t preclude them from still coming in at 0.8 or 0.6, but they would in fact then, the onus would be on them to justify it rather than for us to just say it’s okay, people will park on the street or whatever.

Is that correct? All those stuff. Through the chair, that’s correct. A change to the parking requirement would require either a amendment or a minor variance.

Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and I think that’s where we do need to take that step back. Put the onus back on the applicant to justify why they can have reduced parking, instead of just saying reduced parking is fine for everyone. Certainly along the rapid transit corridors, we think we all agree we don’t need to have one-to-one parking.

The reason we have those rapid transit lines is because we do want some folks to rely on those once they’re up and running. But at the end of the day, and while I appreciate Ms. Hodges comments, transit is not going to work for everyone. Does our transit system need to get better?

Yes, and have we seen some improvements recently? I would again say yes. And there’s an item on SPPC next week that talks about an assessment growth case for transit. So that’s great too.

We are making some progress on those items, but for a lot of folks, for a lot of reasons, the car is still going to be a necessity, whether it’s electric or more autonomous in the future, that Costco trip is not going to be accomplished on transit. I’m wearing the jersey, I talk about hockey a lot ‘cause I coach, I’m not taking three 14-year-old boys with their stinky hockey bags on a transit bus to from our Galarina over to Bostwick for a game. It’s just not practical, it’s not happening. The car is going to continue to play an important role.

So how we ensure that we’re allowing for increased density without creating a very negative parking impact in our neighborhoods is really important. So I think in this case, it’s a little bit of stepping back to where we used to do it, and it worked just fine. And let’s use that as our starting point, and we can adjust again in the future if we need to. Thank you.

I look for other speakers. Councilor Robin, then I’ll go to the next. Thank you and through you, and I’ll keep my comments brief, but just wanted to say that I support the direction that we’re heading in and appreciate the request from our consultation as we make this change. However, I think what we’ve learned from this process when we brought this in place in 2022 is we heard concerns from, you know, surrounding residents and there was a feedback on the initial report that was provided as well that we were concerned about things like conflicts in neighborhoods over parking, that in the neighborhood place type that there was concerns around street parking and whether or not that would be available and readily available to folks that were looking to access it.

And what we’ve seen is that there have been challenges, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that those challenges do exist. One of the things I’ve noted from the area that I represent is oftentimes we’ve received these applications for reduced parking in areas where we do not have the transit frequency, that we need to be able to support the kind of density that we’re looking at putting there. And I think that’s a real problem. And then looking at the where we’re planning the urban growth boundary where we have the urban growth boundary expansion.

Again, when we’re not going to have transit there for some time, reducing the parking minimums is again, I think a challenge, and we’re seeing that conflict in a lot of new neighborhoods. So I appreciate the discussion here, appreciate any support from the committee on this. I do think it’s the right way to go forward. With respect to the ARU piece and the parking at ARUs and the multi-generational families, this is something that I’m seeing and to hear quite often from folks.

One of the questions I get often is can I park on my driveway apron? That’s another discussion for another day. But this is a way to address some of the driveway concerns that have come up and looking for options for people to be able to work within their existing footprint, to make some changes, to be able to accommodate their parking needs while we also look at potentially things like the streets bylaw and those other matters in the future. But I do think that this could help with some of the challenges.

And one of the things I hear about the driveway with is the process piece, is that people have to go through committee of adjustments and that takes a lot of effort and a lot of knowing how the system works, whereas this may be a more straightforward path for them. So I hope that the committee will support it and thanks for your time. Thank you, Councillor Dressa. Thank you, and just to remind everybody who’s listening, I’m not a member of this committee, I’m a guest.

So I will not be putting forward amendments at this point, I will at council and I’ll suggest some. Now, first of all, I think we really need to look at the first bullet part A, separately from parts B and C, they’re sort of two different things. And while I need a lot more thought to part A, I’m not gonna speak to that today. I’m gonna speak today to the driveway, to the driveway, I don’t know, pay vacation or a cementification or a hardification, I’m not sure what to call this process.

There’s a reason why we don’t permit lawn parking. The reason why we don’t permit lawn parking is we don’t want the fronts of homes that have lawns or whatever to look like parking lots. So rather than worry about citing people for lawn parking, let’s just say, don’t worry about the lawn parking anymore, we’re just gonna cement over and extend your driveway. So you have very little footage in front that’s green space.

That’s not the way to deal with this. We have to think of other alternatives. And then the other point I wanna make is there may be a differential effect throughout the city. I know, I’m sorry if I’m boring people, but I just wanna say my piece.

I know that like in the near campus neighborhood where I live, there is a huge problem with lawn parking, which I’d say in good part is not enforced. But there’s also a big problem with owners coming in and throwing some type of something over the lawn and turning their front yards into parking spaces. And I’ve complained to code for you, you know, I’m looking at Mr. Mathers, he knows I’ve raised this.

It just seems like it’s an endless struggle. I don’t want to regularize this. And I certainly don’t want to regularize it and normalize it and wipe out green space in front of homes, specifically if it has a disparate effect among different neighborhoods. So I guess my first question is would this whole matter have to come when staff comes back with this proposed bylaw, would that have to go to a public participation meeting?

Oh, good stuff. Through the chair, this would constitute as owning bylaw amendment, which would require a public participation meeting and notice, Councillor. Thank you. Is there a requirement that the same rule be applied throughout the city?

Or would it be the prerogative of council to say, either we’re not going to apply it to a particular area? I’d say, for example, the near campus neighborhood. There might be other neighborhoods that want to talk about having that. Or let’s do this as a pilot project in a particular, I’m sorry, in a particular neighborhood.

So can it be specific, or does it have to be all or nothing across the city? Oh, good stuff. Through the chair, that could be structured in the zoning bylaw to set up separate rates in different parts of the city. So that’s something we’ve done in the past.

And even today, our parking requirements apply differently in different parts of the areas where we exempt some place types from any parking requirement. Councillor. Thank you, through the chair. What kind of evidence would you need to justify applying this in some parts of the city, but not in, and I’ll say it, but not in the near campus neighborhood?

What would you need to see? I’ll go stop. Until we start looking into those types of issues, it’s difficult to say exactly what criteria we would apply. That would be probably, I think, the first part of that type of a review would be to identify the characteristics that learn different standards, Councillor.

Thank you. Short to the chair, short of waiting until the day of the public participation meeting. Is there a way to give members of the public, ‘cause we’ve already had a request for some pre-consultation, which I thought was reasonable? Is there a way to give other stakeholders in other groups the opportunity to have some pre-feedback on what that proposed bylaw is going to look like ahead of time?

I’ll go stop. Through the chair, yes, that could be set up. And again, just as an example, these parking rates were established in 2022. And as part of that review, there were two separate information reports that came to planning committee, and as well as separate public meetings that were held.

Councillor. My next question is if, I’m hearing people say going to the committee of adjustments for an adjustment is not feasible or practical. I’m wondering though, I mean, there’s something good about people having to go to the committee of adjustments. And that is you have to write up your proposal, you have to give notice to people in the surrounding area.

And then there’s what’s essentially a public hearing, a public participation meeting, and I like that. So I’m wondering if rather than saying, well, instead of using the committee of adjustments method of fixing this, could we improve the process at the committee of adjustments? So it’s more user friendly for people to seek these, I guess they would be, would it be a minor variance to try to get your driveway extended a bit, or would that not be a minor variance? I’ll go staff.

Through the chair, right now, as the by-law stands, it is a variance in order to widen your driveway beyond the requirements for the zoning by-law. Okay, Councillor, you have about 30 seconds. My question is, is it a minor variance within the committee of adjustments jurisdiction? I’ll go staff.

Through the chair, the minor variance is only done through the committee of adjustment. Councillor. I understand that. My question is, would the driveway widening be the sort of matter that would go to the committee of adjustments as a minor variance?

I’ll go staff. Through the chair, they are right now. So yes, they would continue to be. Councillor.

Thank you. So I’m hoping that the proponents of this measure will be conducive to some amendments at City Council. I’ll be putting forward quite a few. I’m absolutely opposed to this as the way it’s written.

That’s with respect to BC and D. I still have an open mind with respect to A, but I think you need to know that there’s really a lot of concern and absolute opposition to this in the areas I represent. And I’ve heard it loud and clear already. So just to let you know.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you and looking forward to amendments.

I don’t want to speak too much to this. I know this is going to go to council. I do appreciate the work council is coming forward with this, given the concerns that they’ve heard, I would like to speak to the concerns that I’ve heard in Ward 9. And I haven’t heard too many.

I do know one thing though. This will change, if we go forward with this, it will change the look of our neighbourhoods. And in particular, I have streets in certain neighbourhoods that have no parking, large driveways, very little lawn ‘cause there are lots of smaller, big homes. And I cannot find a parking spot on the street unless I’m interfering in people’s driveways.

So a few, there’s a lot of things here. I was at an open house for a developer last night building an infill development and the community came in very upset, thinking that our rules say we can only have have a parking spot to one unit. Well, that’s a minimum number. Any developer in developing in Ward 9 will say they will definitely do one and one.

I think it’s always up to the developers. I’m just trying to have a better understanding how this is going to improve our neighbourhoods. We have very few opportunities to move around in the ward that I represent. I think we should create those opportunities as well as creating places for people to park.

But sometimes it’s the no parking signs that people really want on the street that kind of gets in the way of things. But I’ll speak to this more, a council. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I just want to touch on a couple of things really quickly that I heard to Councillor Hopkins with respect to the available on street parking space. That’s actually why we didn’t include the street’s by-law in this.

So the widening would only be inside the sidewalk, not out on the road side so that you wouldn’t be losing on street parking. But certainly, some of the resistance to people not having a place to park is resulting in a number of petitions to change parking regulations because people want to take away the on street parking because there’s not enough parking being provided on some units. So that was actually one of the impotuses for bringing this forward, one of several, obviously. But I wanted to share that ‘cause I think it’s important to be clear that we’re talking about inside the sidewalk on private property.

I open this to all members of council. If you think it’s going to change neighborhoods, come meet me at East Lions and I’ll take you for a quick tour of my neighborhood where a number of these exist because they were in place before the driveway widths were minimized by a previous council and it doesn’t impact the neighborhoods in a significant visual way. Please take me up on it if you’d like because it’s not going to dramatically change the character of the neighborhoods as you might think. I can show you numerous streets of my ward where people are allowed a side spot.

It’s been there for 30, 40, 50 years. It doesn’t change the character of the neighborhood in significant ways. So please reach out if you’d like to do that. I will say, Councilor Trussau, if through you chair, if you have some amendments you’d like to bring forward, please feel free to reach out and chat about them.

I wouldn’t be opposed to including, I get involved and page and links to previous reports and things so the public can see that ahead of time. Happy to work with you on something like that if that’s of interest to you. So I would say please feel free to reach out ‘cause I’m open to discussions. But I will say, I’m probably not going to be too inclined to just support amendments that are being wordsmith on the floor.

If you’ve got some, I would encourage colleagues to circulate them in advance. But I mean, I say that about every circulation. So I just wanted to share that. So I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on some of what I heard ‘cause I think that there may be, there might have been a little bit of misperception that we’re gonna allow for wider driveways right at the curb or curb cuts, those kinds of things.

And that’s not the intent of this. It’s in fact, when Councilor Raman and I met with Ms. McNeely and Mr. Adam and Mr.

Salt and then we were very specific that we didn’t want to lose both of our trees and have more curb cuts and things like that. We wanted to keep that parking on the private realm land, not on the public realm land. So I just wanted to share that food for thought for folks. Thank you, other speakers.

Just from the chair, we need to allow, on A, definitely think this is something that should be explored, I’ve seen too often. Well, I hear it all the time, concerns from people. When we are addressing infill. And the big thing is that is concerning and it’s proving to come true in my opinion.

Lack of proper parking spaces for these infill projects are leading to parking on the street, parking in condominium parking lots that are just open and they don’t have people patrolling the parking lots to protect those parking spaces. So I think that concern is real and we should look at that. Yeah, on the B and C, I understand the reasoning. I’ve had complaints of people parking sideways on the city boulevard at the end of the driveway.

So they’re not on the street, but they’re just off the street, which is incredibly dangerous for opening car doors and et cetera. And talk about looking bad, that terrible. However, I will be interested in hearing from my constituents on those types of concerns on the look and feel of neighborhoods. So I share Councilor Trossa’s thoughts on that.

So maybe Councilor and I can look at ways to bring in some way to get feedback as we suggested by the Deputy Mayor, by my next Council with some some amendment action there. So those are my thoughts. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay, I’ll call the vote.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 4.2. And this is being brought forward by Councilor Ploza regarding notice distribution self on highway 401. I see Councilor has joined us.

So I’ll go to you, Councilor, to introduce this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a mover and Councilor Hillyer.

Do you want to go on the floor first? Councilor Hillyer, are you moving this? Yes, I am. Okay, and on Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconded.

So we’ve got the motion on the floor. So please go ahead as I know you are a better policy advocate than myself. I appreciate the direct. Thank you, Councilor Lame for your kind words.

Thank you to Ms. McNealy and Ms. Chambers. This has been in the works behind the scenes for a while, trying to get it quite right and trying to acknowledge the different issues we have in the south of the highway.

And in my area, I said you would have heard from the residents yourselves when they came forward in regards to the Biosala meetings, the W-12A staff, the London Emergency Services Campus, just that area when we do notices, there’s so much city owned land around it. Sometimes it’s basically all our lands. Also, as Councilor Hillyer has pointed out to in the past, higher rate of speeds out there, no sidewalks. And we post the applications on the side of the road, in which case, there’s a large ditch of ravine and you’re really not getting to them.

So just trying to do better at informing the public of what we’re up to, it was staff’s idea to include EAs and other notices out there as well. So I thank them for that. Also on your added agenda, you’ll see a communication from the chair of the Public Liaison Committee in favor of this as well as that committee has also been looking at how to be better connected with the city since they are such a rural area. So thank you for your addition today.

Thank you, Councillor. Look for comments from committee or visiting Councillors. I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

I’m just gonna say, I’ll be supportive of this and the primary reason is the specific request for it to be south of the 401 and for the lands that are outside the urban growth boundary. It’s gonna be a limited impact increase to notice of planning applications. It’s not the same as changing our notice distribution inside the urban growth boundary and inside the built area boundary where you’re creating an exponential increase in work and cost to exceed the provincial requirements. But in a very rural setting outside of the urban growth boundary, I recognize that the costs are going to have a minimum impact.

I did hear your residents certainly around the W-12 landfill piece when they were here last year and not getting notice even though it was going to have an impact on them. So I understand where you’re coming from, Councillor Closa and because of the limited impact on this one, I can be supportive. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I appreciate the work Councillor’s work on this.

I know it’s been a conversation for many, many years on how we can increase the notification in rural areas and we never get anywhere. With this motion, I appreciate that it’s only gonna be in a certain area that that leads other areas. I have areas in Ward 9, for instance, that are rural, don’t get the notifications that are happening in the area. And I’m just a little concerned that now, when we do these one-offs, does that make other one-offs happening or maybe through you, Mr.

Chair, to staff since I’m here at Planning Committee, maybe asking that question, what do we do in other areas that there’s development that’s gonna be occurring, but it’s in these rural areas. And I’ll speak to the West, Southwest portion, even continuing down further West on the South side. I’m just wondering, I appreciate the work that the Council has done, but where do we sort of have that balanced approach where we do it over here, but we don’t do it over there? Okay, I’ll stop through the chair.

We do have policy in the Official Plan right now that allows discretionary area, rather we can increase the area of circulation or any application, pretty much at any time, or it’s up to staff, essentially, to do that. With respect to directing us to review other areas, that would have to be something, I think, from a Council perspective, if we were to look at other areas to increase circulation as well. Otherwise, like I said, it is up to staff to, on a discretionary basis, sorry, make the circulation wider than just the standard 120 meters. Through the chair, I just wanted to expand on what Ms.

Posado was saying as well. An example would be through Plains of Subdivision, and where they, it doesn’t appear like it’s a leapfrog, but there may be intervening lands, and then the neighboring subdivision. And so it really is at the Planner’s discretion to include part of that neighboring subdivision that wouldn’t otherwise be in that 120 meters circulation area. And so that’s part of our practice to try and inform our staff, new staff in particular, to understand where those nuances are and where those discretion is applied.

That’s a common one, so it’s not necessary in rural areas, it’s actually in developing areas as well. Yeah, I appreciate the response there, so the discretionary powers the planners have. Obviously, they would look at other things like subdivisions. Do we use those powers though?

So I’ve got a lot of subdivisions that occur in Ward 9, but I’m constantly being told that they didn’t know about it. And it makes me wonder when I look at a green map, why we can’t do further notifications, like you say, we can, but do we? Please go ahead. Thank you through the chair, that’s the intent, and it’s probably better for us as mentors, and that’s why we have the management team to give that guidance to planners and new planners in particular.

That has been the practice, that was always the practice when I was a subdivision planner, but as time goes on, we could do better. Having said that, if they’re not powers, it is at the discretion of staff, and it depends on the nuance of the nature of the application as well. And certainly where we have active neighborhood associations, they would be circulated as well. The W12PLA group, they’re not on the association list, but we would certainly look to add them as part of that notification on our circulation.

Councillor, other comments on Councillor Trussa. Thank you through the chair. I’ve raised on several occasions my dissatisfaction with the current notification regime as it’s carried out. And there was one application in particular where this came to a head where I reported to the PEC, or maybe it was to the full council, that I had gone around and talked to merchants who had long-term leases, certainly an interest in the area, and they didn’t know anything about it.

They didn’t know anything about it because even though they had long-term leases, in one case it was an EMS service, in another case it was a, well, there were long-term leases there, they didn’t know about it. I found that was really unacceptable. And the thing about it is, it would go to the owner of Record, who was an interested party in the application. And they’re hearing about this because the board Councillor decided to print up a couple of extra leaflets, and walk around, that’s not okay.

I mean, I don’t mind doing that, and I’ll continue doing that. But I think we need to do, I think what Councillor Palosa has put forward is very, very good. Now, I will support what she’s doing, but it can’t stop there. We cannot take the position that we will do the absolute minimum that’s required under the Planning Act and other acts, if we really want to make the argument that we’re trying to involve our residents in the process.

And I don’t know if this means bringing up a amendment to Council, or whether this just means letting this go through, perhaps with a change to other rural areas, and bringing this up separate. But the current system where we do the absolute minimum is not working. And it’s not working for people who have major stakes in the area. Thank you, Ms.

McNeely. Thank you, through the chair. Just for clarification, you’re not incorrect in terms of the merchants. That would be commercial buildings, I believe that you’re speaking about our offices, and that would be to the landowner, but the property owner.

However, the Council has directed in the past, and which staff also undertake is for residential apartments where there’s rental. And so that’s something over and above what we do in terms of notification. Again, that was a Council direction. However, when we provide that mail notice, we get a lot of them returned.

So there’s quite a bit of cost involved with that when they’re returned back to staff. But having said that, part of that is having those consultation with the property managers, not the property owners, but the property managers to make sure that those mail notices are hand delivered, or whatever those mechanisms are too, in terms of getting that information to the rental tenants. Councilor, I’ll leave that for now. I have a lot to say about how landlords distribute information in large apartment buildings when there are issues that pertain to the landlord-tenant relationship.

But I won’t go into that right now. Other comments or questions? We got motion movements, second, I’ll call the vote. Councillor Stevenson votes yes.

Wasn’t the vote the motion carries four to zero? Just when you thought you could go back and see the replay of the overtime goal. We’re still at work here, folks. We got a few more things to do.

We have additional business, which is 2.1 from the consent item. That’s moved there, so we’re going to deal with that. I’m gonna go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Do you want to lead off on that, ‘cause I believe you have a motion?

Sure, I will put forward the motion. I did send it to the clerk, so I’m gonna get into the e-scribe yet. So on this one, this is allocation of half, potential from a direction from council for us to look at a couple of the projects. And the one that’s of concern to me, ‘cause there was the recommendation for the Hyde Park pumping station to go forward.

But there’s the piece that relates to the Pack Road expansion, and we had a communication as well, that I actually, ‘cause I’ve seen the Arcatus report. I’ve looked at this report, and to me, where we are is a situation where the recommendation to not go forward is actually not looking at the intent, which is the increased densification that we have here. And I recognize that the Housing Accelerator Fund is on a timeline. So I want to move a referral that the matter of the Pack Road sewer extension, as identified in the staff report, be referred back to civic administration to undertake further consultation with the affected landowner and their technical consultants, and report back to the April 14th, 2026 meeting of Pack with the results of that consultation, and appropriate next steps.

It being noted the intent of the proposed project is to increase the existing supply of multi-unit housing. Okay, and we got a seconder from Council earlier. Any comments or questions from, I’ll go back to Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I just don’t think that we can say no to this one without doing some more work.

I don’t think that the report we’ve got back actually reflects the intensification targets that we’re looking at there. I recognize that we don’t have necessarily all the completed planning applications in yet. And so we may need to be working from some preliminary pre-consult proposals and things like that. But I don’t think that we can just say this has to go down the road to some unknown date.

I think we need to revisit this, have some further consultation, and hopefully get to a point where we can start some work to move this forward. If there are timeline constraints, then obviously around the half, we need to think about alternate sources of funding. I mean, we still don’t know whether we qualify for the Building Faster funding yet or not this year, but a lot of work has been done there, so hopefully we will. But I don’t think we can just say on this one, it’s not recommended at this time.

And if that means, we also have to look at when the expansion of PAC from four to four lanes from two is done in terms of coordination, then that discussion needs to happen too. I know that was in the report. The widening is several years down the road. So maybe that needs to be sped up rather than the sewer expansion slowed down.

So that’s the reason for the referral. Through you, Chair, I did also wanna ask, and I’m sorry, I haven’t had a chance to really give anyone a chance to have the heads up on this ‘cause I only finished reading the full agenda last night. The report actually references as well the 735 Southdale Road location. And when that planning application was brought forward to us, we were told that actually this PAC Road service expansion was going to be needed to service that lot, that the Southdale Road servicing did not have sufficient capacity left in it.

And now in this report, it says 735 can be serviced by Southdale. So this report’s actually contradicting what we were told at a planning application stage on 735 Southdale, according to the notes that I have, ‘cause I looked back in my files ‘cause that one stuck out because that one was a little bit of a technical, where do we connect? So I know this is short notice, and if you need to get back to me before council, that’s fine too, or just get back to me even in an email. But I wanted to ask that question because to me from the notes that I have, and I went back through my planning agenda, and looked at the notes, the notes that I had reflected that we didn’t have servicing capacity on Southdale.

I’ll go to stuff. Through the chair regarding the 735 Southdale Road site, that the original limitation was based on the original outlet that, you know, from the original sanitary servicing plans. And since that original Arcatus report back in 2024, since that time, there has been additional work, additional submissions, and there is a different, it will be routed further to the west through the existing subdivision, and does not require any extension on Pack Road to facilitate that development. Dr.

Mayor. Okay, that’s helpful clarification, ‘cause that stuck out for me as, wait a minute, we were told it couldn’t go there, but if other work has happened, we’re now at can, that helps clarify that bit of information, and I see Ms. McNeely had something to add, so. Go ahead.

  • Thank you, through the chair. That’s correct, that property was one of the first of many that came in that area, and as our engineering folks have mentioned that that is now a difference, we’ll say a different divide. Dr. Mayor.

Well, that’s a fast-growing city with infrastructure money coming from other levels of government. We can actually move some things around sometimes, so, and that’s the point of the referral as well, is that we may have to move some things around to fit, but I think given some approvals, we’ve already done a long pack road, the larger area of vision for greater density down there than what was originally contemplated in the old Southwest area and the Bostwick area, secondary plan, if I’m identifying the right secondary plans there. I know there was a reference in the report to the amount of hectares, but there’s also the uplift that we’re now contemplating in terms of the density, so, I think that that’s, for me, why we need a little bit more time on this, see if we can’t move this forward, and perhaps it’s also, ‘cause I know this is a half-update report, that maybe we also need to identify a different source of funding, that’s a possibility too. I don’t wanna tie staff’s hands on that, but I do want there to be a little bit more back and forth before we make a decision.

Thank you. I look for other comments or questions from Committee or visiting Councilor. Okay, Committee, well, I see something. Oh, the clerk has a question here, so go ahead, Clerk.

Through the Chair, Apologies, Deputy Mayor, is the referral for the entire staff report or just for the Pack Road extension piece? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Sorry, just for the Pack Road extension, the rest is to be approved, like the staff recommendation to approve. Okay, so the clerk does that reflect in the motion?

For the referral, and then we can vote under the mercy of the remainder of the report. Okay, so what we’re gonna do, we’re going to vote on the motion, the referral, and then we’re gonna have another vote to receive the remainder of the report. Okay, okay, good, so on the referral from the Chair, I’ll say this, we spent a lot of time, both for sure staff and at this Committee and Council on getting the much needed density through for Pack Road. It seems to be a bit of a chicken and egg thing here, but we don’t want to do the infrastructure without the units there.

Landowner doesn’t want to do the units without the infrastructure. We have an opportunity with the housing accelerator funding to get some assistance from the federal government on much needed infrastructure. So I will support this, and I’d like to see a way forward with both the landowner and staff to kind of, as much as possible, see if we can work something out in tandem to take advantage of the housing accelerator funding, and also to make sure that the momentum is there to get shovels in the ground and to get moving on this, so I will support it. We’ve got motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Zing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I need a mover to move the remainder of, receive the remainder of the report, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any conversation on that? We’ll call the vote.

Zing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to defer matters list. Did we make some headway on that list today? We’ll go to staff.

Thank you through the chair, yes, that’s correct. We have now removed one more item off the list, which is the supplemental or supplementary guidelines for heritage properties. Fantastic, so I’ll look for a motion to receive that list. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

Any discussion? We’ll call the vote. Zing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. So we have a confidential matter, so I’ll look for a motion to move in camera.

Councillor Hillier, seconded by myself. To zero. Recording in progress. Good to go.

Okay, we are back in session as Deputy Mayor to report out. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m happy to report out the progress was made on the item for which we went into closed session. Thank you. I believe that concludes our business here today.

Thank you, everyone, for sticking around. And I look for a motion to adjourn. Be Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. All in favor?

Motion carries. Thanks everyone.