2026-03-10 - Planning and Environment Committee

Note: Official minutes for this meeting have not yet been published. This page currently shows the meeting transcript only. Once official minutes are available, this page will be updated with full meeting details including agenda items, motions, and votes.

📋 View on eScribe

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 13 minutes)

Good afternoon folks it’s 1 p.m. and I’ll call the fifth 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 the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwak and Adawanaran.

We honor and respect the history languages and the 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 alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425 at this time I’ll look for any disclosures of culinary interest. Seeing none I’ll move on to consent items. We have four I’ll look to committee for direction on this. I haven’t had heard any requests for any of these pulled so would someone like to make a motion to move it.

Councillor Hillier has moved the consent items with Councillor Cudi seconding it so I’ll look for questions or discussion. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had a question regarding 2.2 in the development at 455 Highbury Ave North.

I think in reading the report that the development proposal that we approved at planning is okay to go ahead even with this TPA in force. I just want to confirm that just to be 110% sure. Oh go staff. Through the chair the tree removal permit has expired and so the tree matter will be re-reviewed through the subsequent site plan so the tree protection area would not apply.

Councillor. No that’s good thank you. Further comments or questions? Councillor Pribble.

Thank you sir. Chair Tristaf on the on the building annual report 4.4 the year end deficits and mitigation. I know that it states there you know in terms of the downturn in terms of the deficit but what actions can be taken or what can actions can be taken to be more proactive thanks. Sorry Councillor I’ll go staff.

Through the chair to the Councillor the the review is an annual review that the budget numbers and so on are reviewed on a on a monthly by-month basis. If we see fluctuations or a downturn in the revenue or the expenses there would be the opportunity to re-examine the fee structure and obviously if we have vacancies that that would be something else that we could look at. Councillor so again thank you and then we done gradually through the year we wouldn’t be waiting for annual reports anything like this when we see it we address it we introduce the proactive actions correct. The staff.

Through the chair that is correct. Councillor. Okay thank you for that and thank you for the answers regarding the director and I will fill up on the on the other part of sorry inspections but thank you no more questions. Look further questions comments from committee and visiting Councillors.

Seeing none I’ll just from the chair just a quick question regarding 2.1. We operate on a pretty much a break even standpoint can you confirm that through the chair the the process in regards to our building permit fees are to cover the costs of the service and we don’t we tried to break even correct and so this past year we actually exceeded the break even point but my understanding is in the prior years we were kind of under the break break even point so this is kind of rounding rounding it out is that true that is correct we have a reserve fund that basically is is set up to cushion lean years let’s say that budget is set at 100% of our costs we’ve pulled from that revenue or that budget to cover revenue or you know pulled from that reserve account to cover costs for the last two years and basically we are at about a 30% coverage of our total cost so we we’re we’re under we we still have money to add to the reserve right thank you I always I bring that up I just want people to understand our building permit fees are not a way to just create extra revenue there are just as a break even point recovering the cost for processing those permits that’s it for me if there’s any other comments or questions from committee members or Councillors and I’ll call the vote thing the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to scheduled items we have 10 so as we’ve done in the past I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to open and close the public participation means that we can use at each event Councillor Cutty you will move that I’ll look for a seconder Councillor Stevenson so we will use the mover and seconder for opening closing of all the 10 10 items point one this is regarding 174 Wellington Road and I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you so with the city like to comment on this or I would you like me to directly go to the public to the chair please go to the public okay thank you all right so I’ll go to the public if anyone like to to comment on this particular item please go to the bike I’m here to talk about 174 Wellington please ma’am before you go please give us your name and you have five minutes my name is Annamaria Velastro I’m here to talk to about 174 Wellington that’s a beautiful beautiful house and even though there’s been just construction there now for a while as it comes to fruition I can’t help that think that that whole design was such a mistake there’s actually no reason why the city had to spend so much tax dollars aligning a bridge riding that section of Wellington Street when rapid transit works so well in the downtown with the older streets and narrow streets and this house was always admired every time I went by I don’t understand why you can’t modify your designs and and keep that house intact it’s really hard to understand as the as everything is coming finishing up and coming together why the city felt they had to do what they did just to put a few buses on Wellington Street and it’s not too late to reconfigure that area to preserve that house it’s a spectacular house complementary to the city and complementary to whatever gateway you guys are planning because right now the gateway is just a highway and I can’t imagine it being charming or any or how that house can contribute to a lovely gateway into the downtown core so the so the ask is to reconfigure your plans work that house into the gateway because it’s worth preserving and as this project moves forward it becomes clear every single day that this design didn’t have to happen it was kind of a big waste of tax dollars money and and the rapid transit works well in all parts of the city it wasn’t necessary and you can redeem yourself for wasting taxpayer dollars by preserving this beautiful house on one seventy four at Wellington I’ll look for other speakers quick to leave anyone online I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone so I’ll call the vote close the PPM so I’ll put this on the floor for community members Councillor Cuddy thank you chair I’ll move the staff recommendation I’ll look for a seconder Deputy Mayor Lewis motion movement seconded for any comments or questions seeing none I’ll call the vote using the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 3.2 this is regarding 788 to 790 Dundas Street we’ll open the vote to open the public participate the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll see if the applicant would like to address the committee please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes thank you good afternoon my name is Heather Garrett I’m with the link of preamo limited and I’m here on behalf of the property owner I first want to thank care to staff we worked always well with them and we’ve read their staff report and we agree so we’re here for any questions that you may have thank you thank you I look for other comments or questions or comments from the public it’s quick if there’s anyone online there’s nobody online I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone so we’ll call the vote to close the people using the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 535 to 537 Talbot Street and 105 Ken Street this is 3.3 we’ll open the vote for public participation meeting to open sure we didn’t vote on that lesson oh moving on too quickly you’re good thank you thanks counselor and I’ll move the staff recognition chair okay so counselor cut we’re back at 3.2 sorry folks back at 3.2 deputy mayor seconds conversation questions or comments on that property now I’ll call the vote on that losing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you now moving on to 3.3 as a regarding 535 537 Talbot Street 105 Ken Street and we’ll open I will call the vote on opening the PPM the vote the motion carries five to zero and please sir give us your name and you have five minutes thank you Mr. Chair John Fleming city planning solutions and I’m representing tri-car properties today I’m here for both 3.4 or sorry 3.3 and 3.4 and in both cases we’ve reviewed the report and we are in support of staff’s recommendation would like to thank both Mr. Ganyu and Mr.

Gregwald for helping us navigate through this process and professional work on this this file thank you thank you I’ll go to the public it’s in and we have a last second whoa whoa let me introduce you well I can introduce myself well no actually I’ll do that okay well so Ms. Velastro please go ahead you have five minutes I just find it outrageous that tri-car is building a building on this site and then all of a sudden the public has an opportunity to comment whether they want these houses demolished or not when this their building has already been approved it is just a sad state of affairs and a mockery of the public process when these buildings have a glorious history and they were part of the bankers row historical national historical site and yet this never came up when the city was rezoning this block for high-rises and now we’re like in the saddest pathetic way we’re giving five minutes to talk about buildings that are going to be demolished there’s no no way to stop it and if you read the report you’ll see them the heritage planners didn’t even do an assessment on that heritage value of these buildings because it’s already a done deal and the best they could do is salvage building materials to be used elsewhere I can’t think of a sadder pathetic planning proposal and the fact that it’s so insulting to members of the public who are given five minutes after this has already been approved it’s just a statement on this committee it’s all it’s a constant problem it’s a statement on this committee that they don’t show the public any respect and might yes you guys are here about a building in your neighborhood so get prepared chances are your voice will be completely silenced just people came in there’s notification to Fred there’s no applauding and no booing just so everyone has a chance to give their thoughts openly without pressure from anyone so please refrain from that as we move through the day I’ll look for other speakers is there anyone online no okay so I’ll call the vote to closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 okay we’ll put this item on the floor for committee Councillor Cudi yes chair I’ll move the staff recommendation okay I’ll look for a seconder Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds comments or questions seeing none we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you moving on to 3.4 this is regarding 5 13 to 5 31 Talbot Street and we’ll open the vote to open the PPM losing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you I’ll look for the applicant oh mr. Fleming you indicated before you that yeah so please go ahead thank you mr. Chair I’ll just say that I’m here for any questions you may have and just did over from my last comments thank you okay thank you this is the last row you have five minutes please go ahead so this is connected to the buildings that are going to be demolished those buildings were from the mid-1800s they had a glorious history a very famed people that live there including linked to University this is a done deal I’m just here to take my five minutes to show to tell this committee that it is the rudest and most pathetic public consultation imaginable we’re given five minutes we were never given an opportunity to discuss this or put in our comments when the decision was being made to rezone this area we were completely not consulted and now we have an opportunity to speak our mind because legally they have to give the public five minutes it doesn’t matter if the decision has already been made to demolish these buildings legally they have to give you five minutes but don’t get your hopes up they’re not going to listen to you look for other speakers ask if there’s anyone online I’ll open the boat to close the PPM think about the motion carries five to zero thank you I’ll put this on the floor for committee members Councilor Cuddy thank you chair I’ll move the staff recommendation thank you I’ll look for a seconder deputy mayor seconds a couple questions or comments I just from the chair I just want to ask a couple of questions our community advisory committee which looks at heritage they looked at these properties grading a report that was earlier in the consent items and my understanding is that they recommended not listening this as a heritage property because it’s not a heritage property and it was every time this is listed so we consider it and I just want the confirmation that our advisory committee did not recommend this for heritage designation is that true thank you through the chair that’s correct so the CACP was consulted on this in their last meeting in February and that’s correct that he agreed with the staff report and did not recommend this be listed or designated thanks thank you and then on top of that our heritage staff also look at this as with the other properties and I believe is there’s nine criteria met one of nine and the in the report or in the rest staff recommendation again it was not recommended by our heritage staff for consideration can you confirm that please thank you yes through the chair that’s that’s correct thank you very much thank you those are the only questions I had from the chair I’ll look for a councilor problem thank you sir to the staff I heard a relation that these properties were part of the bankers role but I know if anyone of you can respond to my question I believe bankers role was the one on ride-out between Dundas and Dufferin if you can please confirm that thank you our go staff I thank you through the chair yes bankers row is on right out street at the northwest corner of right out in Queens Avenue that is a national historic site it is part four designated and also in the downtown heritage conservation district thank you councilor thank you for this I will have a follow up so the currently the last two points that we were discussing at this committee down or part of the bankers row is that correct go staff I through the chair yes that’s correct they’re not related to bankers row we don’t have any historical information that suggests that they are bankers row the national historic site recognition does not extend to include these properties on Talbot Street thank you counselor okay thank you staff no more questions thank you check I look for other comments or questions from visiting counselors or committee members seeing I’m all called about losing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on to 325 Gray Street this is item 3.5 we’ll call the vote to open the public participation meeting losing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you look to the applicant of the applicant like the comment please ma’am give us your name you have five minutes thank you Sharon good afternoon everyone my name is Leah Richards I’m a planner with Selinka pream will limited representing the property owner and proponent of the zoning bylaw amendment application I’d like to extend my thanks to staff for processing this application we have reviewed the staff report in our in agreements with the recommendation as this this proposal is supported by all levels of current land use planning policies which encourage gentle intensification in areas such as this within an existing building in a well connected and built up area of the city as such we request that the committee endorse the staff recommendation for approval and I’m available to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you look for other members of the public like to address committee please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon my name is Kathy Milcharek I am direct neighbor of that 325 gray street new constructed building and I already contacted miss Haynes and my my word representative mr.

Ferrera to ask some questions and to have some comments so I was encouraged to come here today and speak up I don’t want to be confrontational I worked for so many years with housing department fighting for building more housing for people and I know that building used to be owned by a few people before it was developed last summer and last summer was built but my I have nothing against this to be built it’s just my concern is because my the entry for for that building is facing exactly my backyard and I have already experienced the hardship because my fence was destroyed during the plowing I know this is nothing to do with city to deal with but my concern was I couldn’t even find anybody’s contact it’s a privacy act so nobody gave me anything in order to have a discussion with the owner of the building to have some future steps in order to maybe build proper division so the cars will not be destroying my property and also I will be divided from that property in the sense that fumes from cars because this is the when it’s built this is the car parking lot so it lowers value of my house definitely I will not be able to sit in my backyard at the back where where I used to because of the fumes because of the noise noise pollution I check with the bylaws so again I don’t want to be confrontational I just want to have a discussion how how we can work together with this property owner in order to protect my rights because my property as I said value goes down when the value of the new building it goes it will go up and I know they applied for right now they are for plagues they applied for additional use of basement apartments and at this point they have 3 3.5 parking spots approved but there is already more cars parking than free so for me this doesn’t make sense maybe city can give them permission to park more cars but maybe in a different way so they destroy they don’t destroy my property we have winter in Canada heavy winters every year and even if I am to fix that fence right now I assume it will be the same problem in the future I see already six mailboxes I have not seen any notification before this building was built up I just heard people construction people being there and working the whole summer making noises I didn’t realize that this will cost me damage of my property I have a pictures I don’t know who to pass it on but I plea that the owner of this property contacts me and we can have a discussion how to fix that problem for future again I have nothing against people who want to allow other people to make a living okay thank you you represent maybe we can have a discussion after thank you thank you look for other speakers this velastro please go ahead to apply minutes I think this woman is asking that this application be sent back until they can work out a better arrangement with this property owner but my guess is you’re just going to rub her stamp it but I think that’s what she’s asking for she’s asking that it not be approved until there’s an opportunity for her and the property owner to work something out to protect her property once I want some resolution for me thank you ma’am do feel safe I’ll bring up your issue don’t worry I don’t want to give the picture thank you look for other speakers us clerk if there’s anyone online I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone so I’ll call the vote to close the PPM in the vote the motion carries five to zero before I go to committee I’m just gonna under some concerns raised there I want to go to staff snow plowing some privacy car fumes et cetera where are those issues dealt with there’s an opportunity for staff and the applicant to work for those concerns so through the chair because there’s only six units proposed it will not be going through site plan and it is a civil matter that will need to be generally worked out between the applicant and the member of the public and we did advise that they work with legal services or by law enforcement as well thank you I’ll go to committee now counselor cutting thank you chair I’ll move the staff recommendation on hook I’ll have some questions for the applicant okay thank you I’ll look for a seconder deputy mayor Lewis seconds for comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors counselor cutting thank you chair I have a question for the applicant am I I’m wondering is this the first time you’ve heard of this issue I’ll go to the applicant it is and I can certainly contact the property owner about these and and see if we can’t come to a resolution about some of the issues being experienced council thank you and chair and thank you chair I’m a little distressed after hearing from the resident as to the issues that she’s going to face with the construction so I’m going to support this but I’m going to I’m going to ask the applicant respectfully if you can really push this forward and think what I’ll thank you chair that’s all thank you thank you counsel Frank thank you yes I’ll echo councilor Cuddy’s remarks and encourage the consultant to ask applicant to submit something in writing to the council’s public agenda letting us know how they plan to address those concerns and additionally I just had one question through the chair to staff the mapping kind of looks like the bottom area this south end of the property I don’t know it’s green space and there’s like the green blob I’m not sure if that’s a tree protection area but I just wanted to go through the chair to staff to understand if that is a tree protection area or just a green blob on the map I’ll go staff through the chair I don’t believe it’s a tree protection area I do believe it’s acting as their amenity space for the property don’t sir thank you yes I was just curious because my understanding based on what the resident shared sounds like the snow is piling up against the fence but if the trees that are appearing to be on the map remain there I would be curious as to how the snow would be able to pile up given that it looks like there’s a buffering of trees so I’m just not sure if the trees have been taken down but perhaps be now in council I’ll all the chat with staff to just make sure that green space has been maintained and still there thank you my further comments or questions council approval thank you sir to chair I will go to the applicant but it has to actually was this was the speaker is the neighbor when the submission is done in writing and maybe I missed it maybe she mentioned it but I was just curious if she lives on the gray street or if she lives on the Waterloo and it’s backing to it so if you can please add I don’t need the answer now but when you do the submission if you can please include it I’ll be curious to look at a map and go to the premises thank you yeah certainly thank you look for other comments or questions we have a motion moved in second I’ll call the vote using the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 moving on the 3.6 this is regarding 6712 James Street and I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting using the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you I’m just wondering if the city would like to comment before I go to the public on this through the chair no we don’t have anything to add okay thank you so I’ll go to the public mr. Velastro please go ahead you have five minutes this housing develop development is literally sandwiched in an intersection it’s on a wedge a green a green space now that’s a wedge between two major streets the houses that are being built here have almost have a strip of green space and it is literally between two sandwiched between two intersections it is it is a design by somebody who is maximizing the land not really providing housing that would be beneficial to anyone that’s going to live there being sandwiched between two busy streets on a wedge between an intersection and it’s it’s just so obvious that they’re just trying to maximize a piece of land and cram in as much housing without giving in people really any breathing space between taking an exhaust from heavy traffic and not giving them any relief to escape that because there is a busy road in the front of the house and there’s a busy road immediately behind the house and I just see it as just poor quality housing and my hope is that it fails because anyone who buys this house is not going to get a return on their investments and I really hope I am sure that it will be rubber stamped at this committee but my hope is that no one falls victim to a housing that is going to be bad for them they’re not going to get a return on it because it’s just a terrible concept for a living space look for other speakers that’s clear because there’s anyone online nobody online I don’t see anybody else approaching the mic so call the vote to close the PPM think about the motion carries five to zero thank you so I’ll put this on the floor for committee members W. Mary Lewis so I’m prepared to move it chair I’m also prepared to move on amendment that Councillor Hopkins wants to make I’ll let her speak to it and then I’ll move it but if there’s a seconder for the main motion I’ll put the main motion on the floor then I’d like to ask that you go to the word Councillor so that we can hear from her and I’ll move the amendment she wants to make okay Councillor Cudi is indicating he’ll second it and Councillor Hopkins please go ahead thank you Mr. Chair for recognizing me I am the Ward Councillor for this development this development is to me a development that is the city of London owns this property it’s 11 units and it is designed for true affordable home ownership that’s something that I’m very supportive I do agree with Ms.

Velastro when it comes to the busy street this is a very busy street we are putting in in fact we’re upgrading the pedestrian crossing to be flashing lights there’s a school nearby as well so as we develop this area it will be a busy area so the pedestrian crossing is very important as well as the walkway which is going to go to the back of this property and connect to the next property which are townhouses that this committee or maybe the previous Council approved a number of years ago for development of townhouses and then there’s the Lambert School right next to it so that walkway is really important to allow for for students to enter the school as opposed to going down the street and then onto James and then up into the school so the pedestrian crossing the walkway things like that I think are very very important there were a couple concerns from the public and maybe through you I’ll just ask staff that the two concerns are around the storm water management this area is low lying there’s a lot of water so my first question through you to staff would be how is it going to be managed I know we had the townhouse complex a number of years ago it was a conversation but I think we need to have a further conversation on how those lands were managed and how this land will be managed I’ll go staff thank you through the chair so this particular site currently drains uncontrolled towards the South property line and then eventually James Street in proposed conditions the storm water will be directed to the South property line but we’re going to be installing a new storm water system which is a swale storms who are in multiple catch basins that will intercept those flows and direct them to Campbell Street the appropriate outlet we are aware of the ongoing flooding issues in the area but that is west of this site more directly related to the school and behind so the city storm water staff have been dealing with those issues with the school board and the private owner but what we can say today is the development of our subject site will not have any negative impacts on the ongoing flooding issues of that particular area thank you for that the clerk has just advised me like if you’re speaking you know maybe towards your amendment the memo that you wish the committee to put on the floor might be good if we do that first and then you can go ahead or you would you like some questions answered to set that up give me some guidance here I was going to get to the trees and the amendment that I would like the committee to deal with would be the trees that’s the second issue that I’ve heard from the community so with that I’d like to bring forward the amendment and do you do I need to read the amendment well I’ll go to the committee member is going to put the put the amendment on council or deputy Mayor Lewis I understand you wish put that amendment forward yes and so the amendment on behalf of Councilor Hopkins that I’m prepared to move is that the motion be amended to add a new clause to read as follows that civic administration be directed to use best efforts to offset the anticipated tree loss resulting from the development of six seven one to James Street by undertaking the hands tree planting initiatives on suitable city owned lands associated with municipal housing and industrial development projects thank you I look for a seconder for that councilor Cuddy has seconded and councilor we can go back to you yeah I want to thank the committee for bringing this forward it is important there are quite a few number of trees there’s no site plan process this will go to an RFP I think it’s really good that we sort of deal or provide opportunities in other parts of the city to do more tree planting so I am hoping the committee will support this I am supportive it’s true affordable housing it is also important that when we develop these lands we improve the the storm water management the flooding issues and I just want to make note that I always appreciate Chippewa the Thames for their comments on in these planning applications as well so thank you thank you okay so on the amendment I’ll look for further questions or comments from committee or visiting counselors counselor Cuddy just want to thank the counselor for bringing this forward I think it’s a good improvement and I’m very grateful to to you to do this and I’ll be supportive seeing no other comments or questions we’ll open the vote on the amendment think about the motion carries five to zero so I’ll need a new mover and seconder on the amended motion deputy Mayor Lewis seconded my counselor Cuddy so now to the main motion as amended comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors else or happens my thanks to the committee and also my thanks to city staff for the work that you’ve done on this thank you thank you seeing no other comments or questions we’ll call the vote those think about the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to three point seven this is regarding 724 York Street I’ll call the vote to open the PPM posting the vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll look for members of public I’d like to comment oh sorry the applicant sorry yeah please go ahead give us your name and you have five minutes thank you good afternoon my name is Olya Algitz and I’m a planner with SBM LTD and I’m here on behalf of the applicant and owner for the subject site we have reviewed the planners report and we are in full support of the recommendation happy to answer any questions that may arise thank you thank you I’ll look for other members of the public I’d like to address us ask clerk if there’s anyone online there’s nobody online I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone so we’ll call the vote to close the PPM vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll put this item on the floor for committee de-mairless I’ll move the staff recommendation and council the W. Mayor moves the staff recommendation council are cutting seconds comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors call the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to three point eight this is regarding nine to nine cheap side street I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting think about the motion carries five to zero thank you so I’ll look to the applicant please sir give us your name and you have five minutes through you mr. Chair I’m Adam McGrew I’m a planner here I’m on teeth brown planning consultants we’re here be on behalf of the applicant opponent we just wanted to say that we’ve worked with city staff we thank city staff for reviewing the application we’ve completed numerous technical studies involving a well-designed art architects landscape architects traffic engineers and civil engineers to come up with the proposed design we’re supportive of the motion as we have proposed which features an exterior side yard setback of 0.5 meters a lot coverage of 50% landscape open space of 20% and encroachments for balconies and architectural features of zero meters to exterior yard side yard lot line thank you for allowing us to speak on the application and we’ll be here to answer any questions that council over the public man thank you I’ll look for the public please sir give us your name and you have five minutes all right my name is John DeWilde so good afternoon we ever speak about the rezoning on 929 cheap side to clear from the sorry my sport housing sport infants intensification but our city needs homes clearly this proposal is inappropriate for this location I’m gonna go into a few reasons why I believe that why a bunch of people here believe that so in your own London plan policy 193 requires compatibility a six-story building next to one story single-family homes isn’t compatible not close the media areas exclusive one and two story homes policy 252 requires contextual fit this proposal doesn’t fit existing low-rise characteristics of the neighborhood policy 255 requires appropriate transitions so we’re jumping from one story to six stories even their claim of stepping down to four stories on the sides is not an appropriate transition four stories is still double the height of what an existing works in this area secondly there’s other building types that could work on this lot this neighborhood has multiple three-story walk up that exists in our neighborhood they would work well they provide housing they fit the context the applicant wants to build doubles the height but they never explained why a three-story wouldn’t work here three-story building could still provide 35 to 50 units substantially increasing supply while respecting the neighborhood scale parking is then quite inadequate they’re proposing 46 spots for 105 units that’s 0.44 ratio our bylaws shows 0.50 so that’s seven spaces short of minimum the applicant claims access justifies this but route 15’s basic bus route we’re not talking the rapid transit on Oxford Street their own traffic study acknowledges this is a car-dependent neighborhood those missing parking spots will spill on this their own street Barker Street and surrounding areas fourth being in a primary transit area doesn’t override compatibility requirements yes in the line and plan you could permit six stories in this place type but the maximum that’s the maximum so again policies 193 252 and 255 still apply when you’re directly adjacent to our one single homes their compatible buildings aren’t comparable they’d site different building apartments village park plays and other apartments to justify this height but none of those buildings are actually situated beside an R1 zoned single detached home finally our housing crisis doesn’t override good planning right we need housing absolutely but we also need context sensitive development three stories would work ads housing supply will still complying with compatibility contextual fit and transition in conclusion I just want this proposal we ask that this is you know that this violates three of the core London plan policies and provides inadequate parking that would impact residential streets I’m asking either to refuse this application or let’s require substantial revision thank you for your time thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name you five minutes my name is Catherine church I agree with everything that was just previously said I’d like to make a little correction from what I understand as March 1st it’s supposed to be one parking spot per unit in the city so it falls the parking falls way below what it should be in addition at a recent presentation by the developer it I was asked if an environmental assessment had been done on the property the answer was no it was not needed or required however historically there was a commercial building greenhouses where pesticides would have been used and according to some of the elderly lab neighbors the lot was used potentially as a mechanic shop at some point the land is potentially a brown fields for those who don’t know what a brown field is it’s a lot that due to commercial use or industrial use may be contaminated in the ground according to the government of Ontario documents when a property that was being used commercially or industrially is being rezoned for resident residential use which I believe in the zoning it had special provisions for a CC one zone as well as a residential zone that lot never actually had residential housing on it it was sorry so according to the government of Ontario documents when a property that was being used commercially well sorry already read that this was this way if construction is done on the property contaminants can be removed and precautions can be taken to protect the surrounding houses from contamination and dust even if the land is now designated R1 or and CC CC one it wasn’t used for residential purposes it was used for commercial purposes this is actually a public health issue and I would like to know if there has been any event actual environmental assessments done according to some of the community there were propositions for building on that property and they didn’t come to fruition because of the issues of contamination so at this point I would like to know why an environmental assessment assessment has not been done local residents will be negatively affected by the proposed construction environmentally emotionally physically and now their health is in question many are also being asked to take a financial hit in property values while also being charged ever increasing property taxes in the last few years our taxes have doubled we now pay close to the same amount as houses west of Adelaide Street which makes no sense this neighborhood is being squeezed on all fronts furthermore in recent years the property was fenced off the fences have been removed and the self-facing privacy fence has been allowed to fall into disrepair it doesn’t look like anybody’s caring about the property at the moment and that’s okay I don’t know I’m that’s yeah thank you for the thank you for the opportunity yeah and just just let folks know the questions you raise and others might raise I’ll ask them of staff once we’re finished the the public participation time all right thank you okay I’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name you have five minutes my name is Anita Akirchenko and before I say something I would like to ask the Carling Heights residents to raise their hands that we’re here to oppose the current proposal of 929 just to show that there are a lot of people that care about the current building my main objection to the building in its in its current form that it goes against the rules that the city put in place to balance the interests of the local residents and to meet the requirements of growth and intensification I’ve heard a number of planners mention the word gentle intensification and the six-story building with four times the density does not sound like a good fit for the neighborhood that has pretty much single-story houses that’s why I’m asking the city and the planning committee to go back and to if the building is about to be built please meet the requirements that you have set in place to not erode the public trust in the public process when it comes to new development the other point that is very concerning is the the parking London is not Copenhagen or any other European city where you can actually rely on public transit and if you ask anyone in our neighborhood everyone owns a car unless they just cannot drive and I’m just confident we’ll have the spillovers there’s a church nearby that people will park on or the streets our streets that people will park on and I just don’t think it’s fair to the local residents so again I’ll reiterate my main point is that the the framework the city planning framework is here to balance the interests of local residents and the goal of the city to grow so I hope you take it into the consideration you reject the six-story building to be built and we can go to four-story stacked townhouses with the parking that is adequate for the neighborhood thank you very much for a time thank you hello my name is Bello Cosoyan from beginning thank you everybody from beginning you told that city of London is bilingual so I’m going to address my questions in French are you okay just hold on a second yeah I will do in French yeah please just please hold on a second I have to consult with the curb I will do in French I speak Russian too so no I speak Armenian Georgian so unfortunately we do not have a translator here if you had given us a heads up to let us know then we would have arranged to have a translator hold that London is bilingual city so you had to make sure that people speak French and they understand too so it’s bilingual you have to speak two languages Canada is bilingual country and London is bilingual you’re opening was it yeah okay so it’s because you continue to say no if you want you have five minutes okay yes we are opposition they said construction to double in selectant a la vie preve de la preve de okay la valor de notre mise en von trombe okay don’t to double will fit to anchor shit oh she said a power proposition who’s I’ve been okay nobody understand so why I’m talking so I’m telling you so from beginning you had to distribute brochures traffic is main issue property values are going to down and I live on not the late 869 and we had fire at four in a morning fire adapted 2009 14 sorry so what kind buildings you are going to build there what kind people I would like to know also how much city is London of London is paying to developers and how much developers of city of London paying to you to push them you that’s not allowed I’ll look for that speaker name sir give us your name in five minutes okay my name is Steven ord the Canadian Institute of planners website has one constant theme and that’s the plan for healthy communities planners are there to help protect heritage and neighborhoods this proposed change in zoning does not protect our neighborhood at all it does however in an election year provide politicians with a declaration they have created large numbers of so-called affordable housing units rather than hold a developer to standards that weren’t just plucked out of the air but were developed over the years to protect property values they’re prepared to bend and create a special zoning that are nine - seven for anyone who wants to build these affordable housing units affordable to whom certainly not the neighborhood surrounding them and the dollars for two doors initiative further encourages developers to maximize unit numbers with grants of up to 45,000 per affordable unit we know from experience the crowding people into such accommodation will create problems and apartment slums for example one city affordable housing project currently has over 10% of the units uninhabitable due to the damage caused by bad tenants and good tenants are afraid to exit their homes to compound the problem landlords are virtually handcuffed and can’t get rid of bad tenants quickly and easily as the tribunal can take months or even years to evict somebody from the home telling a developer they must shrink the footprint of plan building and yet to keep the desired unit count will only exacerbate exacerbate the issue the R9 - 7 designation is not planning it’s appeasing appeasing politicians and developers so that they can claim that they’ve created massive numbers of housing units to rid our streets to the homeless basically out of sight out of mind with regards to the parking issue let’s face it Canada is a car in Canada a car is almost a necessity and council has recognized that in just last week requested a change in new construction parking requirements now zoning is required one parking space per unit yet this planning report ignores that question is why in a neighborhood already facing parking issues with homes designed in the aftermath of World War II it was never envisioned that a family could own two three or even four cars certainly we can find a designated single family property with as many as six to eight cars this property at 929 cheap side will have an overflow of cars and local neighbors and streets will suffer consequences and as a retired condominium property manager I had 1400 units under my portfolio I can tell you that there is inadequate space for snow removal and snow storage a number of parking spaces will suffer and will subsequent snowfalls further exacerbating the flow of vehicles onto the side streets and properties across the road why do we have setbacks setbacks are a buffer between the private zone and the public zone city of Toronto’s website states that zoning isn’t there to ruin your fun it’s there to keep neighbors livable when planning your building envelope it’s what’s left after the setbacks and other constraints are applied it is a part of the lot where the main building is allowed to exist if the envelope is too small you can’t build that size of plan and you must fit the envelope do not change the zoning to fit the developer but insist on existing zoning constraints and tell them to design what fits the envelope the developers and city hall are trying to pour two liters of water into a one-liter container the overflow will be damped in this case it’s the taxpayers who will pay the price of this overflow the site is too small to accommodate 105 units send the plan plan back to the developers and tell them to come back with one which fits the neighborhood and preserves property values that’s what zoning regulations are supposed to do thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes my name’s Ann wild I’ve lived on Sterling Street for more than 50 years the developer had a zoom meeting the zoom meeting there is people there that had the ability to speak or send a message through zoom call I want to reiterate the majority of us here are all against the building of your property your developer and his design whether you say it’s four stories on the side it’s a six-story building there is not a building from Clark Road all the way to St. George Street that has that demographic and it’s an eyesore we are a family neighborhood we have a school we have a church it’s a community the the mix it’s a mismatch of our units 77% of your units are one bedroom you’re gearing to Fanshawe or Western so it’ll be student housing this is a family neighborhood based on your drawings the context the neighborhood these are wartime homes Woolsey barracks was there we have somebody that’s a veteran her husband has lived there his whole tenure this is an opportunity to go back redesign redevelop or make it housing for people that are single families not a conglomerate your opportunity your one block from a school there’s speeding on Chief Side Street there’s speeding on Sterling Street and what are we going to deal with when there’s an overflow of cars in the neighborhood you’ve missed the mark of housing for mid-century homes or middle class people living in a neighborhood that they want to have an enjoyment sit on your front porch we want to look at that no would you want to look at that I’m sure not I think the proposal of 20.6 meters six stories is an abomination to what this committee sitting here today wants to develop I’m sure you wouldn’t want it in your neighborhood there’s been messages and emails to Susan she’s met people she’s heard our voices the current homes here are mostly one story it’s a small footprint they’re brick or sided homes and not a mass development and for me it’s it’s a quiet neighborhood this is not going to make our neighborhood quiet and notwithstanding that the the whole development I believe it’s it’s railroaded through I’ve seen what Corley has done in other neighborhoods and he builds the same they build the same footprint and that’s not for our area as my son alluded you have your planning policies 193 252 and 255 have all been addressed and it’s your civic duty as our leaders in our area to deny this building permit and the plans the way it is your our voice for developers you have the insight to make it change and make a difference whether it’s a three-story walk up whether it’s condos but these homes here won’t see the Sun with your building the way it is and having it but against somebody else’s property I just think it’s a travesty and your proposed zoning change for a bylaw should be removed thank you thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name you have five minutes hi there I’m new to this game I only found out about this a couple days ago my name is Abby Grobe and I’m new to the neighborhood we have lived there a year and three months and in that year and three months there’s been a lot of things that have happened so I I agree with everything that they’re saying because they’ve to have time and they’ve done their homework and like I said I’m new to the to this game but some of the problems that in the year that I have been on cheap side so I’m actually closer to Ross I’m at Ross and cheap side so I’m closer to Metro than I am to where this building is but here’s some of the things that I already know are problem on my property when it rains the great is wrong so instead of it going to the little storm sewer which is like five feet away from my driveway it just comes into my driveway we’re very sandy soil one of the things that I also have learned is that we were kind of a dump as well before they built all these things so I know my backyard is just full of glass but it’s sand in the soil and that’s where the water goes right and so we’ve done some improving and and some of the discussions that my daughter and I have had is you know I don’t want to put more cement because I want the groundwater to go somewhere but you’re building a building it’s going to be up against people’s houses there how’s the infrastructure for the storms water and sewage going going to to go how was that going to affect us so if there’s a repercussion down the road what I’ve learned since I’ve been sitting here for the last hour or two is that that’s my problem and I have to go through what my insurance or through legal cost but I’m a kind of a proactive kind of person and so you should kind of look and see what all these things are no one’s ever come to my house and asked about you know how are things going I know my income tax my property tax went up right and we just got cheap side paved last year right so people are already coming to my front door so if you’re if it if what what I’m hearing or what I think I’m taking in is that we might increase the width of cheap side which is already horrifically busy since I’ve lived there there’s already been three or four accidents one near miss yesterday including I bought this house from my son so that he would have a place to be outside and he just recently passed away but my nurse got creamed out in front of my house as well because the cars drive on the bike lane so if you’re trying to make it bigger and wider and faster and so when you go around so that you have some way of being able to get out of your driveway there’s already overflow parking so when you’re putting this huge building with not enough parking spots it’s just going to affect all the side streets that that are there as well right so that’s kind of some of the things that I I think of when I hear this and yeah if I if I was looking for a house I certainly wouldn’t have bought house that’s anywhere near a six-story or a seven-story or ten-story building because they’re looking in my backyard right and I want to have a little garden this year and I wouldn’t have any sun so it’s just not fair to these people and it’s and whatever’s happening out in front of cheap side is I already feel unsafe and so if the street whitens anymore people are going to be walking on our porches so is there going to be more police presence is this is all going to be students that they don’t they don’t they’re not homeowners they’re not family they’re they’re not committed to the neighborhoods that people that have been here forever so they’re not invested in behaving they’re just in and out and then someone actually just said it’s really hard to get rid of people when they damage your your house and and stuff so anyway that’s that’s just my take like I said I’m late to the game and my mind is really not in this but yeah I have concerns and I I pose this I think I should go back and and think about what are you gonna what are you gonna do there’s got to be some way of protecting the privacy of these people and and yeah I heard it was a nursery there too so I’m sure that the ground is contaminated thank you ma’am that’s your five minutes okay thank you thank you appreciate look for the next speaker please sir give us your name you have five minutes you’re going straight for 70 years I grew up in the neighborhood went to the public school and can know it that’s what we called it but I have seen a lot of development in the neighborhood where the church is no wood they just be a field owned by tellers flowers the building that was on this lot where the apartment building what apparently wants gold that was tellers flowers as well as down at Bellwood Plaza that was tellers flowers Burley Street when they built all the apartments townhouses that that was all field I’ve watched it build same as going down on the other side of here in Street this neighborhood has always been a quiet neighborhood if anything could go there it should be four houses or townhouses damaged street apartments are two-story walkups you have a basement and two floors look at the size of them they carry 60 units in each building I know that because I used to deliver newspaper there when I was a kid if anybody it’s a cash cow far as I’m concerned put a six-story apartment building there it’s going to be eight stories by the time you put the maintenance on the top floor if it’s a fourth story it’s still gonna be six it’s not a place for an apartment building put an apartment building down Natalie Street where good life used to be that would make more sense keep this area as single family dwelling instead of apartment buildings thank you thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name okay so I’m the guy who lives literally next door behind at property 147 Barker Street so can you tell me said you represent a client who is your client hedge fund mention fund rate who is it poorly developed okay tell me more about no sir you don’t need to know that so a lot of these a lot of these properties are single lane the dryways which means when you park if you have two or more vehicles they have to be parked one behind another the house next to my property is or the two house two-story house which is rented out to five six who knows how many college students when those students have vehicles for six vehicles they start to park on the road which is fine now when you have single lane single lane dryways if you have to move one vehicle that means you have to back up onto the road Barker Street is busy is a busy street because everybody drives down Quebec cut across Oxford Street drives down Barker drives across cheap side goes down the cemetery and who knows where so Barker Street is already busy so when I have to back up out of my driveway I already have enough to watch out for all kinds of people speeding down down pop Barker Street now they want to put how many 105 unit building where are you going to fit those vehicles especially when you have the visitors you have no you have no room for those vehicles we’re gonna put them especially in the winter time how are you gonna do it planning traffic planning and so on though I did it and they didn’t do any assessments that’s just a joke that’s just that to write something to write it off on the paper hey we did the assessment it can be done hundred five units forty extra parking spaces like the gentleman over there said this is most for four for four small buildings maybe like a two-story house for two story houses that’s it maybe a townhouse a hundred five unit hard pass it’s insane thank you I’ll look for the next speaker would you let me add something no you had your chance sorry I’ll look right next speaker oh sorry Sharon Riley Clifford Street it’s uh to my reckoning and to a lot of people here we have an understanding that developers tend to go high and if they come down even a little bit oh we’ll be happy well guess what we’re not going to be happy so if you just lower it one floor or think you can cut corners and that sort of thing we’re not going to be happy and we may be a quiet lovely neighborhood with fast cars that run up and down our streets but we don’t forget we’ve been this route back in the late night early 90s and we we didn’t have to settle so I’m just saying don’t think you’re going to fool us by just lowering small things it won’t happen thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please ma’am to give us your name you have five minutes and ball and what I don’t understand is why the developer has requested so many by-law amendments I think there’s like eight or nine already and I think council has already passed them which I don’t understand the front yard depth the exterior side yard the rear yard setback watt coverage landscape open space height the density the parking ratio even bicycle parking all of that has been amended from what the by-law dictates why and also I would like to add that there have been a couple of new fairly new within a year or two buildings up on Fanshawe Park Road west of Adelaide approaching north center road and they back on to subdivisions one is a three-story and one is a four-story Fanshawe Park Road is a four-lane busy road cheap side is a tooling busy road we cannot support a six-floor building probably can’t even support a three-floor building so I am curious why even six four was considered and I would also like to know why all these amendments were allowed thank you thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name you have five minutes good afternoon Brendan Samuels I live in Ward 4 actually this development is about a block and a half from my house so I pass it every day I want to point out that the staff report part B highlights most of the community’s concerns and I think it should be kept so I’d ask that you please do not delete part B of the staff recommendation I suggest that you refuse the special provisions because they don’t conform to the policies of the London plan including but not limited to the city building policies and the neighborhood place type policies I would also ask that as you explore what to do with this property along cheap side respective of the decision today I do think there’s an opportunity along cheap side here to provide for gentle density that’s consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character is there an opportunity to incorporate mixed uses this site is already zoned commercial and living in the area we have no coffee shops we have no sandwich shops like you would see and old north or old south or near downtown if you want to access any of those businesses you have to go to the commercial zones on Adelaide or Highbury is there an opportunity where this development includes something on the ground floor that actually provides an amenity for use by surrounding residents and want to just thank everybody for being here today and participating thank you thank you look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes bye my name is Liam hand I’m here as a as a neighbor of nine to nine cheap side I agree with everything so far and I just want to say there’s a a lot of other people who agree that could not be here today and I apologize for not being as well spoken as previous members of the public it’s my first time here’s my first time speaking front of this many people but as stated already a major concern is that the building is not going to have enough parking for every unit the expectation that most of the residents will not have a vehicle is quite absurd the question is where these cars going to be parking my wife and I are concerned that these cars will be parking on our street we’ll be adding extra foot traffic at all times of the night we already have a problem with litter that’s going to increase you’re gonna be taking the few parking spots we use in the summer having new people who cannot be trusted around our cars homes children most traffic that will not more traffic that will not respect the speed limit and will cause our one safe street to be more unsafe for our children to play on the other concern is that where these cars park in the winter they’re inevitably inevitably gonna have nowhere to go there’s no parking garage has been added to the planning and I’m not saying that’s what I’m asking for but just seems like it’s kind of put on residents to just accept what’s gonna happen how can you govern who’s gonna get the spot so will be available and what about the church we’re not allowed to park in the church behind my house are there’s gonna be tickets issued to those people like where is the enforcement gonna be it just again seems something that’s just gonna be put on the residents so thanks for your time thank you I’ll look for a next speaker I understand there’s someone online just bear with me I’m just sure okay please ma’am go ahead those that are online I’ll be going to you next please give us your name you five minutes my name is Mackenzie as a veto I live very close to 929 Cheap Side Street you have to forgive me I didn’t do a ton of research on this again I only learned about this couple of days ago and I have a lot on my plate so as a homeowner in the area and on the exact street that this is proposed on I have concerns environmental concerns the more you pave over arable soil I mean it’s it’s sandy soil out there it’s easy for the water in the area the rain water to go into the groundwater it’s easy for the water to dissipate right we already have problems with flooding on the sides of the streets so I don’t see why paving overall of that would be a good idea from an environmental standpoint there’s also a lot of wildlife in the area and giving even less green space to that wildlife probably not a good idea I also have concerns based on the fact that I do work with homeless youth literally all of the time I work with YOU youth opportunities unlimited I work at the shelter I work also at the hub and constantly these children are told find housing for $300 for what you get through OW and it’s impossible to find housing for $300 even just a room in a in a already existing house or in an or existing apartment it’s impossible to find housing for that amount housing costs at least $700 for a single room utilities not included and so these kids are not able to find housing what we need to do is stop building more buildings and just make the buildings that already exist more affordable we need affordable housing and I understand that this is a big thing with the Ontario government the provincial government but the thing is is that we have a dictator in place Ford who is not going to do anything about it so we need to take it into our own hands municipally to put in rent control to save the people from becoming homeless in the first place we don’t need more buildings in single-family home areas we don’t need skyscrapers in these areas there’s problems about privacy there’s problems that these people are not going to care long-term about the well-being of the community these are family homes you’re proposing to put ginormous buildings that are single single room apartments for supposedly students they are only going to be in and out while they’re doing their program they’re not going to care about the community we already have problems with litter that we already have problems with people walking along the sidewalks and being disruptive we already have people coming up to us and approaching us while we are just on our front lawns and being disruptive and so I just don’t see how adding this much extra population 105 units I don’t see how that’s going to help at all with the problem of we have tons of traffic already it takes sometimes five minutes to get out of my driveway because of the amount of traffic that already exists 105 units that’s 105 extra cars that are going to be on the road and are going to create even longer times for us to get out of our driveways making us have it to leave way earlier to get to places that we need to go and it’s unreasonable to think that all of these apartment buildings are not going to have their own cars this place is not transit safe it’s not transit friendly we have a bunch of buses that have to abide by constant traffic regulations as opposed to having subways that would definitely help get traffic off of the streets and underground faster ways of doing things I just think that as the next generation there are so many things that you guys could be doing differently and this is I’m I’m just so disappointed it’s just what I want to say I’m just so disappointed with the way things are going and the way that you are treating small neighborhoods like this it just goes to show that capitalism is winning and the little guy is not being listened to and it’s ridiculous that’s all I have to say thank you I’ll look we’ll go online a number of folks want to speak there Chris Hines if you can hear me yeah can you hear me yeah please go ahead you have five minutes thank you very much just want to express my concern I may resident on Sterling Street been here over 30 years the apartment proposal is absolutely does not fit with the neighborhood so I just want to make that my voice known that I oppose it as it as it as the as a request or submission stands 105 units six stories is way too big for this neighborhood yeah the the other concern with that many more people on the street would be the other residents have mentioned it already but the speeding down Sterling Street is is already bad and hoping that if this does go through that there’ll be some traffic calming measures or something like that put in place as well but hopefully we can get our voices heard and yeah so I oppose it and that’s all I need to say thank you thank you I’ll go next to why is why yeah I’m sorry if I printed miss Pernell’s true name yeah hi my name is Moisquagia I live on Barker Street I oppose this proposal as it currently stands the level in intensification bring several impacts that need to be addressed first there is a long-standing speeding issue on Barker Street I’ve documented this through a petition request I submitted almost two years ago in the spring of 2024 with no follow-up at the same time the traffic study for this developed this development assumes trap vehicles travel at 50 kilometers an hour that assumption does not reflect the resident experience or the speeding concerns that have been raised by other residents here if the baseline speed using this model doesn’t align with real world conditions the conclusions of the traffic study cannot be reliably cannot reliably predict future impacts an updated evidence based speed and traffic assessment is necessary before evaluating any sort of proposal of this kind second the Barker cheap side intersection is already strained many residents experience delays and challenging right and challenging right turns into cheap side east I’m also asking the city to clarify the current level of service what specific improvements are being planned to address this if this proposal moves forward third parking capacity as mentioned by many people here already is insufficient but more than twice as many units as parking spaces overflow onto Barker is inevitable the street already deals with congestion and driveway access issues and this will intensify without proactive mitigation fourth the building will significantly increase traffic activity there’s already issued with deliveries ride share vehicles waste pickup and general noise Barker is currently a quiet low volume street and this will materially change day-to-day conditions another concern is funeral processions regularly move through Barker Street increase congestion will create delays and operational challenges for those events which are all which an important part of the community’s rhythm and finally stormwater and flooding risks need to be considered I know there’s been a stormwater study but I know personally that there’s four homes at the bottom of Barker Street and near this development which have already experienced basement flooding during heavy rainfall adding more impermeable surface area will put additional pressure on storm and sewer waters that have already shown vulnerabilities these are measurable impacts these are concrete and measurable impacts traffic safety intersection performance parking pressure neighborhood disruption procession movement and stormwater capacity each requires clear solutions before this application is ever considered thank you for your time thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please give us your name and you have five minutes yeah good afternoon everyone my name is Janita D’Ormente element 236 Sterling Street in addition to everyone mentioned earlier lack of parking and lack of space for overflow of neighborhood streets that have seasonal parking restriction everybody are aware about that we have a restriction especially at night landlords do not discriminate against tenants with cars number of visitors with cars or numbers of vehicles with deliveries on top of that as of March 2026 the requirements of one space per unit the application is for 46 spaces for the whole building lack of green space to upset popular pollution and replenish soil moisture to combat hotspot and drought in the surrounding environment they plan to remove all all matured trees there haven’t been any environmental assessment traffic on top of that chip side is surrounding street are two lanes street there is high traffic and lines of cars I speak hours even in the poor way stop before you can go in it’s a lineup on top of that it will add to the already growing number of cars on chip side street water use on top of that this is very important to everyone we have a water a water use restriction the city is imposed water restriction between May and September why is the case is there is adequate infrastructure and water supply for high-density housing in creates an environmental burden and a privacy the current zoning is our one one story low-density buildings the area is primarily made up of single-family bungalows the proposal is for six floor high-density building it will tower it closed approximately over one story houses on all four sides this means the love of privacy for a large number of neighborhoods and their private property it sets a new president in the area I hope that you guys understand our concern thank you very much and have a good afternoon thank you I’ll go online to Karen Doncaster either Doncaster hello yes we can you have five minutes please go ahead longtime residents this neighborhood 23 years it’s a beautiful neighborhood it’s quiet it’s a family neighborhood and I feel this large building is going to ruin the neighborhood I feel like the building is just far out of proportion to our area I have great concerns but I guess that’s all I have to say okay thank you very much Ms.

Velastro please go ahead you have five minutes when planning applications come to this committee they’re here because they want to break the rules and very few planning applications almost all planning applications in the city end up here because they want to break the rules and that and that’s because this committee encourages breaking the rules point of order mister our counselor cutting thank you chair I have a problem with the the speaker making some accusations that people come here to break the rules and that we accept those rules to be broken yeah so the speaker I agree with the counselor so please don’t make accusations like that go ahead so I come here on a regular basis and I follow the planning applications and you can go back and you can look and actually research what planning applications are coming forward how many what sort of rules are trying to break and how many of them get approved or refused planning staff is trying to course correct on occasion when they see that the building is too big too fat too big for the land it sits on and it’s hard for them even to get that through because it’s cost effective for developers their their investment companies they’re not like a single homeowner their investment companies when they’re trying to maximize their return and that’s why they come to wherever they can buy a parcel land cheap and then build buildings that are too big to fit on the land and issues a drainage of very legitimate issues paving over land that normally would absorb water and alleviate pressure from our stormwater systems and replenish aquifers are just not part of the conversation they just don’t happen at this committee your counselor Susan Stevens sits on this committee in case people don’t know so that’s what the problem is it is encouraged by this city to break the rules the rules really have no force and effect anymore because the city gets money by that as long as they they keep producing units they’ll get federal money because it’s kind of a competition to see who can build more units faster so our concerns are very legitimate they’re shared by many people across the city about just the sheer size of the buildings that are going on parcels of land and and all the environmental the lack of green space it’s deteriorating our city and this idea that the city is moving in the wrong direction is shared by people across this city because of this committee and so this the planning department department is trying to course correct and we’ll just have to wait and see whether there’s a point of order deputy mayor chair the member of the public is absolutely entitled to share her personal opinion on a planning application she is not entitled to project motives on staff who have prepared their professional planning opinion who are certified planners who have put their opinions in writing to us she is not here and has the right to impugn staff’s work nor does she have the right to allege the motivations of counsel this speaker has been worn multiple times about her behavior in this chamber and I would request that if you cannot as chair keep her on her own opinion on a planning application that you ask her to leave well I see she’s taken her seat so I think I guess she’s finished speaking so we’ll leave it at that I’ll look for the next speaker sir you already had your time I say another I don’t believe I use all my five minutes doesn’t matter you get really shot please ma’am give us your name you have five minutes right there my name’s Nicole Shea I live at 243 Sterling Street directly across from this plan development I’m just gonna reiterate what I sent to Steven or sorry to Susan and to the city some time ago I’m just I was writing to formally object to the proposed zoning by-law amendment for a 929 cheap side street which seeks to rezone the lands from R15 to and convenience commercial to I think it was R8 for permit for a six story 105 unit apartment building while I do support the cities of London’s objectives related to housing and supply and intensification the London plan is clear that growth must be compatible contact sensitive and appropriately transitioned in this case the proposal does not conform with the London plan policies 193 252 and 255 which require that intensification respect existing neighborhood character provide appropriate scale and massing and achieve gradual height transitions that’s sorry the subject site is embedded within a low-rise residential neighborhood characterized by one and two two-story single detached dwellings although the broader area has successfully accommodated three-story walk up apartments those buildings represent context appropriate intensification that respects neighborhood scale a six-story mid-rise building introduces a fundamentally different build from that that is disproportionate to its immediate context and inconsistent with the established pattern of development right policy 255 requires that tall and mid-rise buildings provide an appropriate transition to adjacent low-rise residential areas a direct transition from one story to six stories cannot reasonably be considered gradual or appropriate the London plan anticipates that increased height and density be directed toward major corridors transit oriented areas and strategic nodes not interior residential sites abutting our one zoning the proposed density of approximately 310 units per hectare further reinforces this incompatibility this level of density exceeds what is typical or appropriate for low-rise neighborhoods and has not been justified in relation to site context surrounding land use or available infrastructure the proposal also raises significant resident focus concerns related to parking and neighborhood functionality the provision of only I had 46 I believe it was 44 vehicular parking spaces for 105 units does not reflect current transportation realities in this area as acknowledged by deputy Mayor Sean Lewis on January 16th 2025 reduced parking standards have resulted in persistent on-street parking pressures and have contributed to vacancy issues and higher density developments lacking sufficient parking this proposal effectively shifts parking demand onto surrounding residential streets occupied lots directly impacting existing residents quality of life compounding those concerns and the extent of zoning relief required the proposal seeks relief for multiple fundamental standards including height density setbacks lot coverage and parking when relief is required across numerous core metrics it indicates over development rather than a design that fits within contrary to the intent of both the zoning by-law and the London plan importantly this objection is not too intensive sorry I don’t know what I’m saying a three-story apartment building consists consistent with existing walk-up developments in the neighborhood would provide meaningful housing while maintaining compatibility respecting established transition patterns and minimizing adverse impacts on residents approval of this rezoning would establish a concerning precedent suggesting that high density R8 zoning is six-story buildings are appropriate within low-rise residential neighborhoods regardless of the context this would undermine planning predictability and the London plans artwork or framework for compatible incremental intensification for those reasons I respectfully request that council refuse or defer the proposed zoning by-law amendment and require a development that better aligns with the London Plan policy and the lived reality of the surrounding residents in the community thank you thank you for other speakers I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online no one nobody else is online I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphone okay so I’ll open the vote to close the motion carries five to zero okay there are a few questions that were raised by those who spoke that I’d like to have staff address start with the first one regarding brownfield staff of aware aware of previous commercial activity here and any comments regarding environmental assessment etc thank you and through the chair staff were aware of the previous commercial use on site we’re not aware of any potential pollution being on site additionally at the site is not listed on map five natural heritage so there are no natural heritage features presence that is why there was no environmental impact assessment required and the proposal has been reviewed by ecology staff and no issues or concerns or outlines I will also say that the building division as part of building permits may require an record of set condition that’s up to them but that’s not part of this application there is concerns about not enough space for snow removal when staff like to weigh in on those concerns thank you and through the chair staff to share some of the concerns with the site functionality including the increased lot coverage and reduced landscape open space there also some functionality concerns regarding the handicapped parking stall those matters will be addressed as part of a future site plan application but those are also the reasons that staff are recommending alternative special provisions another concern raised was for grading for stormwater on the site and where it would go so good staff comment on that yeah thank you through the chair it’s a requirement of the future site plan approval that the stormwater is to be contained on site and directed to the internal catch basins within the parking area and then eventually out to Chief Side Street one of our main goals in stormwater design is to ensure that there’s no impacts to the Jason properties thank you and the last one there were some comments regarding a number of parking spots per unit right now we have a minimum parking requirement of 0.5 per unit however there has been discussion at council about changing that I just want staff to confirm that that is the current guideline in place right now and although there has been discussions there’s been no change to that as of March 1st I heard that date or yeah that’s it’s just been discussion so I’ll just go first out to stop to comment on that thank you and through the chair that is correct currently the minimum parking standards are 0.5 spaces parking spaces per unit the applicant is a requesting a reduction to that so providing less parking at any minimum required and staff are not in support of that requested special provision thank you so those other questions I had so I’ll put this on the floor for committee to take action on Councillor Stevenson thank you I’d like to move the staff recommendation do I have a seconder for that Deputy Mayor Lewis to all look for comments on that Deputy Mayor first of all to the members of the public you’re concerned about parking and I heard Councillor Layman reference this to staff yes I’m a hundred percent in agreement that’s why I’m trying to change the by-law March 1st unfortunately was just the introduction to start the process it doesn’t mean that the rules are in force and effect right now but I’ve heard this multiple times and I’m going to continue to work to do that and hopefully with my colleague support but we do have to follow the rules that are in place right now but I think it’s important to recognize because I heard a member of the public say there’s so many of these things and I’m sorry I forget which individual commented but she said how are so many of these things already pre-approved they’re actually not clause B actually says refuse these things and so and one of those is the parking the lower parking so I’m supportive of reducing the lower parking I also heard a lot of concern about speeding and traffic in the neighborhood and I know we’ve got an all-way at cheap side in Barker right now this may actually be the tipping point that triggers the Councillor to ask for a traffic study to see if a traffic light is warranted or at like an upgrade but that building would have to happen first that’s not something we can tie into this on Sterling Street I was looking at the map like I see that your backyards are backing on to the schoolyard they’re not on the front of the schoolyard so there’s normally we’re able as a council and we’ve been working on this for the last five years where the school addresses traffic commings automatic we don’t need a neighborhood petition on the backside and I have this in my ward I can tell you at Prince Charles school I have the same problem there’s concern about the speeding on the other street not on the street where students are walking in the front door so I hear where you’re saying there happy to work with Councillor Stevenson on some traffic comming measures on Sterling because I think for the school kids that matters and there’s actually in addition to the traffic in addition to the parking something that we all supported Council ramen has actually brought forward a motion to simplify the traffic comming process for neighborhoods too so we don’t have to go through all of these petition neighborhood vote things all the time that we get a consistent process so that’s something that we expect to see back in just a couple months I appreciate it hearing mr. Samuels comments about keeping the special provision that’s what moving the the recommendation does keeps those limitations on things for now I will say when it comes to ground floor commercial space when you talk about a coffee shop or a sandwich shop unfortunately you know we also heard concerns about delivery drivers and things like that and in this day and age those businesses don’t survive because there’s just not enough patrons in the neighborhood who walk to them and use them throughout the day to to stay viable we see a lot of them I’ve got three in my ward that used to be little neighborhood variety stores or little neighborhood shops that are just closed and they’ve been closed for years because nobody wants to lease them anymore to do that so I wouldn’t push anybody to have that sort of thing in their development because I don’t think vacant space on the ground floor is really gonna be helpful so I wanted you to know that I heard about the parking and the traffic that’s why I’m not supporting the reduction in parking I think that that’s way too low I can’t force it to one-to-one today but we are gonna keep working on that but you know when I hear things like bringing rent control that’s not a thing that the city of London or the city of Hamilton or the city of Ottawa or any other municipality in the province can do that is provincial legislation and whether you support the current government or not whether you voted in the provincial election or not they’re the ones that make those calls not cities and that has to be the same across the province so when we talk about making housing more affordable the most important thing a municipal council can do is get housing inventory built in our city there’s a reason we saw rents decrease 4% in 2025 versus 2024 and that is in part because the new inventory that was brought online I get that you don’t like the height but it is the height that’s allowed on that neighborhood connector level street now without the parking ratios can they have the same number of units they’re gonna have to figure that out I would suggest probably not but whether that switches some to two bedrooms instead of one bedroom changes the the footprint in some way they’ll have to work within the restrictions of the things that they’re not getting when you have that clause be and when you say you can’t have the reduced parking and those other things so I wanted to share with you why what I heard that I take seriously and why I’ll be supporting the staff recommendation that’s where we are today I know you’re not gonna leave happy about that but I want to share you know in my neighborhood at 633 Clark and I I recognize the woman who said cheap size of two lane and Clark’s a four lane so I recognize there’s a difference but behind them and street behind them it’s single-family homes be behind a six story there on Hale Street at 632 Hale I’ve actually got an eight-story London housing apartment building besides single-family homes so it does happen and a number of eight six have been approved on Fanshawe Park Road in the last year construction starting on them some of those six stories I think are pretty close to being occupied at this point because those neighborhood connectors and those more arterial and urban corridors are where the density is trying to be located so sharing my reasons with you as to why I’m gonna be supporting it knowing full well you’re not gonna be happy with all those reasons but I want to acknowledge some of the things that I heard from you today and I do take seriously and I’ll be happy to work with Councillor Stevens and to address some of those that we can Councillor Stevenson well I just want to be clear and is we’ve been trying to do a few things behind the scenes so I apologize if I’ve confused things here but I’m not going to be supporting the staff recommendation I do really appreciate the developer and their willingness to invest in the city and build housing on a lot that the neighborhood I heard wants to see something there and six stories is allowed I wasn’t you know things have changed and we just recently and I supported it I changed to one-to-one parking for the very reasons that the neighborhood is saying that they’re concerned about and so I understand that the rules haven’t changed yet but the the concerns are real and we recognize them and that’s why we’re proposing to change things and so what what I might have supported before I just can’t support today because we we as a council I just voted saying yes we need to be one-to-one and and so it leaves me kind of in an awkward spot but I just can’t support the proposal or the development today we were working on a few other things that that didn’t work out today and so I get to be the voice of the people who are in the gallery here today and say no Councillor Cady thank you Chair and through you and Chair I generally support the Council over the ward because first of all I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues but also the Council knows the ward far better than I do and I’m grateful to hear Councillor Stevenson say that she’s going to refuse that she’s not going to support this because I’ll not support it either and I want to take a minute Chair to thank all of the residents that came and I’m very impressed by how everyone spoke today and as much as we all want to see intensification it just doesn’t work here the way we want it to so Chair without going into any further detail I want to again want to thank the residents want to thank staff for the work they’ve done and also want to thank Councillor Stevenson thank you a lot further comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors Councillor Stevenson yeah if you don’t mind I finished off a little quickly they’re just a little startled the way things are going here but I did want to thank the community sincerely they all sent in a lot of letters there was a petition they were willing to meet with me there was and I think the developer for doing the virtual presentation there were several people there and for coming out today it’s a big thing to come here to be in the gallery to speak to take time out of busy lives and it really does say something to have so many of you here it’s a new thing for me and a development in my ward I haven’t I haven’t seen this kind of a response and it does mean something so I hope you hear that Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you again for recognizing me and maybe through you I do have a quick question about the staff’s recommendation which in B is to refuse but it is to go forward and I would like to have a better understanding of the units per hectare of intensification will it still be 310 I’ll go staff thank you and true to chair based on the staff recommendation the proposed amount of units will likely not be met cannot give a specific answer to what the ultimate units per hectare would be but if they would have to comply with the minimum parking standards and increase their parking amounts the layout of the site will probably have to change Councillor so it would have to change and this is where I don’t think and just going to share my comments I think the committee I appreciate the conversation the committee I think this will go to council March 31st for a full vote of all of the recommendation coming out of the of this committee I think there’s a lot more information we need to do I do appreciate the word Councillor’s comments because I am a big supporter of gentle and intensification and I do have concerns about the extent of the intensification and really with this recommendation not really understanding what that looks like so I’d like to do a little bit more work for my understanding but I think it’s important when I think the community for being here but to follow this process it will go to council on March 31st as well you can make further comments to all of councils I just wanted to share that information with you as well Mr. Chair thank you for allowing me to speak thank you I look for other comments or questions Deputy Mayor Lewis thank you chair so I just wonder if staff through you can remind folks whether or not because we do have a 90 day statutory deadline where we have to make a decision on a completed application so approve or refuse this has to be decided on on March 31st at council as Councillor Hopkins mentioned given that the staff recommendation is an approval if council was to refuse this is staff able to defend council’s position at an OLT hearing or not given that the staff recommendation is an approval with the exception of the special holding provisions I’ll go to staff but it just you know for they’re not our legal department so for them to give up for the opinion they can I think respond whether they can defend the position but I think it’s important to know because usually we have a full yes or a full no right and what we have here is a yes to two clauses and a no to a different clause usually if we refuse a staff recommendation staff cannot defend our position and outside council has to be brought in but I’m wondering in this case because we have three clauses and two are yes and one is a no so in the event of an appeal how does civic administration approach that oh okay so I see we have a council here so that that I’m more comfortable going to staff with that question thank you through you mr chair we would typically call a witness that can support council’s decision in full deputy mayor so I just want to be clear that would mean you would not be calling city staff because it wouldn’t be able to support council’s decision in full if we are counter to two of the three staff recommendations I’ll go staff without through you mr chair without getting into legal strategy typically we we would need to ensure that our witness can support councils case fully W mayor thank you that’s that’s sufficient that help okay thank you yeah okay I’ll look for other speakers I’ll ask the W mayor to take the chair please go ahead councilor layman I’ll take the chair thank you I think it’s been acknowledged by a number of folks tonight or today the challenge the challenge before us in providing housing and many folks that come here acknowledge that by saying yeah we understand the need for housing but this particular spot is not appropriate for reasons given and I just want to follow up on councilor cutty’s remarks about the department and your behavior tonight was respectful you spoke clearly and spoke to the facts at hand and we appreciate that allows us to it helps us in our deliberations and because we understand this is a very emotional very emotional thing as it would be if it was beside my house which has has happened when we deal with infill as counselor Hopkins said I to support infill for those reasons it’s a way to prevent urban sprawl and to address our our housing situation by bringing extra stock on the market but as we’ve spoken here and at council coming from concerns that we’ve heard I think at this committee and then seeing the resulting actions when things are built the parking situation really resonates with me it did when I first read this application and then further reinforced by the comments made by the people who spoke today about it for example the church parking lot I see potential there for for that to be used and there’s no way to to divorce those things we’ve seen other areas where there’s townhouses beside a development and that townhouse parking gets gets used up cheap side is an interesting street and there’s a high volume and some point probably will be widened I don’t know when that is but you know whether it’s 10 years or 20 years I don’t know but it’s not widened yet it’s not a fan shop where we have approved age stories so in just looking in the area around it you’re right it’s it’s all low rise residential so for that reason I’m not gonna support this tonight it’s yeah it’s it’s hard for me to do because I’ve been pretty much supportive of most things that come before before planning but but this particular one for the reasons I’ve given I just can’t get there in this one so I just want to be able to give my opinions when I didn’t have the chair thank you thank you councilman I’ll return the chair to you we have no one else on the speaker’s list okay I’ll look around the horseshoe here to see if anyone else would like to weigh in you know I don’t so we have a motion moved and seconded and I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion failed hey Councillor Stevenson I’m sorry I could hear you I was just wondering if you could explain to the gallery what this vote means yeah so what this vote means is staff made a recommendation that they would go ahead with this but certain provisions would have to be met and what has just happened here is the committee has voted against that so that recommendation will go to council and if it’s you know whatever council will do they’ll take a recommendation for you know what it’s worth at that time and and then they have the final say but that’s that’s what transpired today if you have any questions please follow up with your local councilor she’d be happy to to explain further okay thank you okay moving on to 3.9 this is regarding 50 south bridge drive I’ll open the vote for public participation meeting closing the vote the five to zero thank you all look for the applicant please give us your name you have five minutes good afternoon mr. Chair members of the planning and environment committee and members of the public as they filter out my name is Laura Jameson I’m a planner whistling a preamo limited here on behalf of our client Pulse Communities Inc with regard for the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications before you for the lands at 50 south bridge drive I’d like to take a moment to thank staff for their work in reviewing and processing these applications we have had an opportunity to review staff’s report and our in agreement with the recommendation for approval we do however have concerns regarding staff’s additional recommended provisions as noted in our written correspondence to the committee staff are recommending that parking be prohibited within 13 or 16 meters of lot lines fronting public streets or multi-use pathways with this provision both parking within the base of the building and surface parking areas would be removed resulting in the loss of approximately 72 parking spaces for the proposed 160 unit development the site design as currently shown hides parking within the ground floor of the building and aligns with council’s current thinking with respect to providing appropriate parking at a rate of approximately one space per unit in our opinion our client has brought forward a creative building design that integrates and disguises parking within the building to reduce visual impacts to the public realm while balancing the need to provide parking should the provision restricting the location of parking be approved significant modifications to the site plan would be required likely resulting in a reduction of units modifications to the building elevations would also be considered as the proposed ground floor height of five meters as is currently shown is necessary to accommodate ground floor parking within the building should the restricted parking location provision be included we requested the removal of the minimum ground floor height of five meters for the proposed apartments this would allow for the proponent proponent to provide an appropriate ground floor height for efficient building design specific to residential units finally staff are recommending a provision to regulate the location of building entrances it is our preference to address the location of building entrances through a direction to the site plan approval authority as there’s no prescriptive policy basis to require entrances to be located towards the street I would like to highlight that there were no public comments or concerns regarding the proposed building design and the site layout it is our opinion that the proposed development with parking proposed on the ground floor is a creative and desirable approach to provide appropriate intensification on the subject lands while balancing an efficient site design that meets the needs of future residents thank you very much for listening to me this afternoon I’m available to answer any questions thanks thank you all look for speakers from the public that would like to address a committee as a clerk if there’s anyone online there is nobody online and I don’t see anyone going to the microphone so I’ll open the vote to close the PPM sir Stevenson closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll go to committee deputy mayor thank you chair so I’m gonna as I did with the earlier one for Councillor Hopkins I’m gonna put the staff recommendation on the floor Councillor Palosa I believe has joined us via zoom she does have an amendment that she wants to make I’m happy to move that for her as she’s not a voting member of the committee but I’d ask you to go to her to let her address her amendment okay so let’s let’s get the motion on the floor excuse me I’ll look for a seconder Councillor Cudi seconds now Councillor Palosa do you want to ask questions or serve up the tray or do you want to just I can just go back to the deputy mayor to to put yeah I could certainly frame it okay thank you mr.

chair and sorry for not being there in person today and thank you to the applicant for having met with me beforehand before the staff report and then after it and thank you for staff for clerk in the language it has been clerked staff is aware of it and I know it’s a little bit contrary to what they wanted we’re strictly speaking about is on page 417 and it was getting to the zoning by-law amendment and it was to remove the staff recommendation of no parking inside as you heard from the applicant that is where we’re gonna lose 40 to 70 spots that would diminish the one-to-one ratio that we’ve been pushing for and X was gonna be removed which is really just site plan and going to it’s already how they want the building allocated for an entrance just it belongs at site planned on in the zoning by-law so I’m looking for your support today for that I have a mover in deputy mayor Lewis in a seconder and counselor Hillier okay let’s go to confirm that deputy mayor are you moving that amendment and council Hillier I see a second okay so the amendment is on the floor now and I’ll look for comments or questions on the amendment deputy mayor thank you chair again happy to support my colleague on this amendment first of all I am very much in support of us creating parking situations where they’re not fully visible from the street where they’re hidden in that ground floor which often is not the most desirable space to have rental units either you know frankly people want some separation from the ground floor lobby and in many cases and so I’m okay with the ground floor appearing to be a ground floor while it’s actually working as a bit of a virtual parking garage and I’m supporting this because you know we to the applicant’s point the ground floor height of five meters it’s in the zoning by-law regulation is specifically there as an accommodation and in their design to accommodate parking so they submitted a design to accommodate that we’ve put that height into the zoning by-law independence be but then we’re gonna say they can’t have parking there I’m I can’t support that and I also support council blows as comments with regard to part 10 I have never been supportive of putting urban guideline requirements or spite site plans specifications directly into a zoning by-law I think they appropriately belong at site plan they don’t have a policy basis to be in the by-law they certainly have a policy basis to be discussed at site plan that is a hundred percent where that should happen but not to be written into the zoning by-law so I’m asking colleagues to support our Ward 12 colleague on this it’s her ward she’s looking for support on this and I think she’s being very reasonable in her approach and as we heard from the applicant as well there’s been no public comments opposing this development I look for other speakers from committee who are visiting counselors seeing none I’ll open the vote on the amendment seeing the motion carries five to zero thank you so I’ll look for to a mover and a seconder as amended deputy Mayor Lewis moves it and counselor Hillier seconds it so any discussion on the amendment or on the motion as amended seeing none we’ll open the vote about the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 3.10 this is regarding a modification of floodplain and two zone concept amendments to the London London plan and I’ll open or I’ll call the vote to open the PPM the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll look for speakers on this please John give us your name sure my name is John my name is John Spree I’m here on behalf of London Dairy and Paul Lombardi you can be here today she provided a letter asking for a deferment of this essentially the landowner of London Dairy would like to see the whole thing the floodplain modeling the study all that there’s a bit of controversy about stormwater management ponds aren’t included in it so we’re simply asking for a deferment thank you thank you for the next speaker please take example of the brevity no sorry speaker not on this one thanks thank you Mr. Mayor please give us your name and you have five minutes thank you Mr. Chair it’s Mike Wallace from LDI and just a reminder of to committee of I represent about 15 in the largest land developers in town and in this case bluestone properties upper developments through the holding sift and developments foxwood homes and so the elements are all out all our landowners in the vicinity that we are talking about we are also here to ask for deferral and we do appreciate that we have sent in a letter asking for the whole thing to be deferred and that staff responded that the changes the potential changes to the mapping map one and map six is in this report as deferred but there are two other items that are in here and we’re asking for the whole package to be deferred and here’s why first of all on the two zone or one zone process we as of the last year or longer have been working with staff city staff on the concept of the two zone approach which even in the report talks about is an appropriate approach for infill and warehousing already exist but for some reason they don’t think it may not exist and it might not be appropriate for in greenfield in addition to this there is now a proposal this is part of the today’s proposal of the SOPA is to change to add something which is called a cut and fill policies which do not exist yet and has did not exist in a London plan and listen we’re not saying the staff aren’t right but we have no idea and we haven’t really been in our view properly consulted on this and I’ll just give you sort of a little time now we didn’t we didn’t had no idea about this cut and fill policy change it was rep it was presented to us in January which is an eyelid in the report we didn’t see the actual wording of the cut and fill policy that was got on get involved I can show you an email from staff saying on February 10th a month ago today that it would be posted in a couple of days and by the 18th it was posted and I shared it with my group there was a customer service committee where staff presented it to us which is we thank them for that that’s great but there has been no real discussion consultation on this item and even if you look at your at the at the report today that’s in front of you on the section of 4.3 on comments received if you look in the second paragraph it says staff will be meeting with representatives to of the development community to discuss the shift in the approach well this is a shift that we actually haven’t had any discussion on other than it’s being presented to us which is fair but we don’t think it needs to be in this there needs to be an OPA on that without us having that discussion yet and so I don’t know how you say you know approve this OPA let it go to counsel for approval but in the same report with that this is a shift in report and we do need time to discuss it and if you look at the very final next steps consult with the development committee on the use of one zone plane the floodplain approach in Dingman and the balanced cut fill assessment guide well how why would you approve we’re fine with the discussion we want the discussion we want to understand but we we are we don’t want you to approve the OPA to implement those in the London plan prior to that discussion we are begging you for deferral on this OPA so that we cannot we can have the I will call the normal consultation process on this item as we’ve been working on it for years and years and years and this is a shift that we need to understand better with communications with the staff and where it will land and I think the whole package should come back together the mapping the changes to the OPA in terms of cut and fill and whether we can use one zone or two zone approach so I’ll be done once and this can’t be done tonight thank you very much thank you I’ll look for other speakers Ms. Velasco please go ahead you have five minutes I tend to agree that this should not go forward today but I disagree for the reasons that the developers brought up first of all there was no citywide notices given out to known organizations like sitting like neighborhood associations and other groups that were organized that just didn’t happen I’m on that list I know I didn’t get that notice I also think it can’t go forward without the public review of an environmental assessment because they are linked I actually disagree with the developers that don’t want I don’t I think that going forward with a a cad or a gentle you know encroachment on flood fringe is a day is dangerous there also has to be a biological and ecological inventory those areas along the river are very important as prior the riparian zone along the river so I agree this should not go forward today it’s an appropriate there the environmental assessment has not been completed it lacks people can’t make decisions without that environmental assessment and I think the public which I think would fight the developers because they don’t want which any more restrictions to build in dangerous zones because flood zones are dangerous and they’re illegal and provincially unless you get rid of the flood zones I think that their people would have would be able to contribute to the conversation because they come from a different perspective and that was all my opinion and that was all my perspective thank you I’ll go to you ma’am please convince your name in five minutes thank you good afternoon mr.

Chairman committee members city staff public attendees my name is Danieli Ciquelier and I’m a planner with Zalinka Priam unlimited we are the planning consultants for tri recycling regarding their lands located at three five four four Dingman Drive which located approximately 350 meters west of highway 401 and immediately west of the city’s sanitary pump station and the storm water management facilities we would like to provide comments on this proposed amendment first of all drive recycling is a highly regarded and essential construction and demolition recycling facility on the subject lands which plays a vital role in the city of the London waste diversion strategy the city’s primary landfill has restricted rules and does not accept most of construction and demolition materials and tri recycling fills this gap by receiving and processing these materials couldn’t lead the saltily portion of the subject lands south of the hydro corridor is fully developed while the reminder of the subject lands to the north is designated zoned and site plan approved for the planning expansion of the facility to the north which also includes a connection to a road as an outdoor storage facility being a fundamental part of the tri recycling introducing official plan policies that prohibit outdoor storage within flood fringe lands would negate the approval plans in place which underwent significant public participation these would prevent the future use of the lands for their intended purpose of expanding the recycling facility tri recycling supports the initiative to implement the two zone and cut few policies within the London plan however we respectfully request that priority adoption of any proposed policies both tri and the committee be formally advised on how how the approved site plan for tri recycling proposed expansion can be implemented in light of the proposed policies and anticipated mapping or whether this could be accomplished through a modifying planning policy wording that’s all thank you for your time thank you look for any other speakers please sir go ahead you go five minutes thank you Brendan Samuels just wanted to flag something reading this report and maybe pose a question as we all know when we have heavy storms a lot of precipitation debris pollutants things in floodplain areas often get swept up and wash downstream and as a result that has major implications for the good work the city’s doing to restore the health of the Thames River wondering in the course of this process when indigenous communities have been consulted about any concerns they might have I looked through the comments that were received and I wasn’t sure if any of the First Nations downriver have been asked for comment so I’ll leave that with you thank you thank you I’ll look for any other speakers let’s clerk if there’s anyone online I’ll open the vote the motion carries five to zero okay before we get into discussion this I’ll go to staff we just get a brief overview of how we’re discussing a day for our education and for the public listening in and I think we’re all familiar with floodplain and floodplain mapping if you’ve been paying attention to this committee however there’s some new you know cotton fill one zone two zone etc some new terminology so if you can kind of just give us a little synopsis of what we’re discussing today thank you through the chair so the proposed amendments would introduce changes to the London plan to allow for floodplain modifications subject to criteria and the application of cut and fill and to update the existing two zone floodplain management framework with regards to the addition of modifications and cut and fill policies this approach would enable certain properties to modify the floodplain on lands to allow for development it would essentially be cutting and filling essentially by moving earth on a property these proposed new policies do not change existing floodplain boundaries but rather establish a framework to allow for future proposals to be considered through the planning and conservation authority review process supported by technical studies that demonstrate no adverse impacts on public safety and the environment these policies if adopted would apply citywide but they were initiated in response to the Digman Creek environmental assessment process the publicly circulated amendment did include the policy changes as well as proposed mapping changes related to a revised floodplain for Digman Creek the map the mapping changes however are not being considered at this time and will be addressed at a later date I want to note as well that we also have if anyone has any technical questions we do have representatives from environment and infrastructure and the project leads here as well thank you great thank you thank you okay so I’ll put this on the floor now for committee members Deputy Mayor Lewis yeah thank you chair I’ve circulated some language to the clerk I am supportive of a referral I think this needs to go back for all the reasons we heard this is a fairly big OPA change with relatively little opportunity for us to absorb what it means and even with the realities that we are dealing with frankly with our provincial partners today the Minister of Natural Resources is having a briefing on an update to the conservation authorities that started at 1 p.m. I haven’t had time to look at that and neither of members of the committee I understand it’s not 36 to 7 now it’s 36 to 9 so already there’s mapping changes there so when we talk about subject to you you know future reviews by conservation authorities and stuff I think that directly impacts this item so my referral is that item 3.10 modification to floodplain and two zone concept amendments be referred back to civic administration for further engagement with the development sector with regard to the change in directional direction proposed for additional review with regard to changes being implemented by the province of Ontario with regard to the structure and mandate of conservation authorities and to complete work on the mapping changes referenced in the report and bring those forward with recommendations to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in the next term of council. Thank you and Councillor Stephen as indicated she’ll second it so I believe it’s in up in the east scribe now so I’ll look for comments or comments that committee members and visiting Councillor Stephen to hear this. Yeah so this is a pretty significant change to look at a cotton fill you know we heard earlier today in neighbourhood planning applications concerns about how grading changes impact backyards and basements and things as well and now we’re being asked to consider whether there’s some benefit to allowing some grading changes with cotton fill in a floodplain and there may be I’m not saying that there aren’t but this is a very significant change and I’m not comfortable moving forward to an OPA yet without more time spent on this I think Mr.

Samuels comment about some engagement with First Nations Community is something I wouldn’t mind hearing from staff if they have any response to that today in terms of any engagement that they’ve had with our neighbouring First Nations communities on this proposal as well through you. Yep so I’ll go to staff on that through the chair all as you know all applications are circulated to the indigenous groups that are surrounding London in particular we meet with representatives from the Chippewa of the First Nations on us about four to five about four times a year as well as we meet with representatives from some of the other local communities as well we’re actually going to be meeting with them tomorrow likely to discuss this further so just as an FYI however they did not provide comments through the formal circulation. Okay thank you I appreciate that and I do know that we often circulate and we certainly saw a couple of communications with reference to applications earlier in today’s meeting where we did get comment back that they didn’t have concerns about applications so I just wanted to make sure that that was happening in this case as well so I think I’m going to leave it there I mean we are kind of walking on a quick sand here because with and not with respect to staff for suggesting some changes but like I said there’s Ministry of Natural Resources briefing today on conservation authorities we don’t know exactly where that is I appreciate that there’s some mapping in the package for me I for an OPA I would like to see all the mapping come forward with it I need that visual I also recognize we made changes to the urban growth boundary which in some cases we’re going to see development where stormwater management will be required in new subdivisions and what does that mean for downwater stream in some of these floodplains where perhaps we may not see the same downflow as we had before because it’s managed further upstream in in plans of subdivision mitigation measures so I’m really hesitant to to go forward and I think we need with some more information back some more time to absorb this and and frankly we need to see what the province is doing around their changes to so I appreciate the staff works that has gone into this already I’m just not comfortable moving forward at this time and I need some more information Council Frank thank you I did have a couple questions and then I just have a question about the motion right now it reads just the development community but I’ve heard a desire for there to be more engagement with the community and with indigenous partners so I’m just wondering will staff interpret this as only development community or would this require an amendment to include other partners I’ll go to staff now through the chair this is all sort of part and parcel to the Dingman Creek EA as well the ongoing environmental assessment process we we have a get involved page for instance already established but we will continue to also meet with any groups that are interested in meaning as well whether they be neighborhood associations or ecological groups depending on their level of interest they we will also meet with them Council Frank thank you I do see the deputy mayor trying to get the deputy mayor yeah if it if it assists and if the committee if the committee is willing to consent because the promotions in the committee’s hands now it’s been seconded and and on the floor but I’m willing to change that to relevant stakeholders if I see some nods from Council Frank rather than the development sector we could just say engagement with the relevant stakeholders so the clerk is willing to entertain this as a friendly amendment if I can look around with the committee and see nods in the seconder then we’re okay so it has that will the emotion will be changed reflect that Council Frank thank you I appreciate that just want to make sure that other folks maybe can get their two cents in as well I did have one question through the chair to staff in regards to I know we were talking about mapping and this is coming before the mappings happening but I am wondering just given this approach it’s the first time I’ve heard of a cut fill approach and so I was wondering if staff could just comment on like impacts of climate projections and I know again we look at this mapping and we you know are putting projections on it I assume that they are looking at significant flooding events but I’m just wondering what role in the modeling in a cut fill approach does climate change have go stuff thank you and through the chair basically through the extensive modeling work done for the Digman Creek environmental assessment process we have modeled many different scenarios including a climate change scenario there’s no requirement to include it but we have done it as a sensitivity analysis and are quite satisfied with the line work we’re showing you today is conservative and reflective of what a regulatory line should be in consultation with the Upper Thames Conservation Authority that we’ve come together with one line and this has taken very long to get to one line and we’re here before you with that the cut fill specifically actually promotes development to occur now before the line work is even finalized in a sense and that may add some complication here but that was a spirit of bringing it forward was that these policies would facilitate if you are identified in a floodplain that you can do studies you can work to amend your property to allow for cut fill which we previously didn’t have in the OP so that was really a spirit of stop bringing it forward just to kind of clarify that point it isn’t the policies themselves not a departure from what we’ve spoken with the development community for the last few years although I do appreciate more conversation on this we have worked on this for a long time and open to those discussions but yes I think overall this is a very progressive policy just I’ll say overall but thank you Councillor thank you I appreciate that background and then the only other question I had and again I don’t know I think it’s perhaps towards legal but I’m just wondering in this cut fill scenario is there any liability on the city where we start approving things that potentially could still like again I heard that it’s a great line and it’s it’s been approved by a lot of folks but I’m just wondering what kind of city liability we have where if in the year you know 2027 we approve a development application and then five five years down the road it floods is the city at all liable for approving that given you know the sensitivity of these kinds of development areas near rippers I’ll go to staff so the Municipal Act does have a limitation that municipalities not normally liable in negligence for policy decisions the official plan is is the city policy so it would normally fall under that category anything further we’d have to you know address on a case-by-case basis I’m sorry thank you I appreciate that Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you I do have a question on the deferral through you to staff I would like to have a better understanding on how staff reads this deferral it does state that the province of Ontario is making changes to conservation authorities I know at the conservation authority we continue our work but would staff be looking at not working with the community until a decision has been made with CA’s I just like to have a better understanding how you view this deferral go staff through the chair I just be very clear we’re not going to be waiting for any kind of changes we’re going to continue to engage as we have been gauging and we’ll just try to ensure that we spend some more time sure that we are all on board or at least understand what’s being brought forward so that council consider that as per the resolution this before you Councillor thank you for that and one other question it is in the deferral it is suggesting that it goes to the next council I wonder if I can get some clarification why that is going staff or the mover you feel comfortable answering that sure I I will say for me this isn’t a rush we know that at some time this year the province is going to implement its changes to CA’s that may include some mandate changes I know we’ve had some information come out of them today but we I mean this is an OPA it’s a fairly significant change we will be going also into an election season and I think that at this point this is something we should give staff the time to work on and bring it back to the next term of council rather than rush through and make a decision in the time we have left Councillor thank you for that Deputy Mayor I’m just trying to have a better understanding of what difference would it make to the changes that may come out of the policy changes and or the mapping I’m just a little unclear what we’re waiting for and why a timeline is is put put on just like the both the referrals on the floor with the reasons given Councillor so unless the Deputy Mayor you want to weigh in further on that but I don’t want to get too much cross debate here yeah I don’t think I really have that much more before we you know wrap up here I mean to me we’ve heard that you know our own local development community only heard about this six to eight weeks ago fairly significant OPA change we have a shifting reality provincially we have lots of other projects that are on our staff’s plate so quite honestly I don’t see what the rush is we can take our time with this one there’s this one’s not subject any statutory deadlines doesn’t need to be brought back to us in a cycle or two we have time so let’s take the time to do more stakeholder consultations and I would assume that the deferral will come back with the changes with the mapping is the assumption with the deferral I just would like to have a this is committee I want to be able to ask some questions while I’m here is that the assumption of the deferral as well the Deputy Mayor yeah and that’s why the mapping changes pieces in the the referral to see the maps Councillor any other comments or questions from committee who are missing Councillors okay I’ll open the vote I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero and we have no items for direction we have a deferred matters list I’ll look for motion on that Councillor Cudi almost called you Deputy Mayor she’s almost got promotion and you’re going to move to accept that and I’ll look for a seconder Councillor Stevenson seeing no discussion we’ll call that motion the motion carries five to zero okay we have a confidential matter so I’ll look for a motion to move in camera Councillor Stevenson seconded by Councillor Cudi I’ll call that vote to ask the collector to prepare the room I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero okay we’re back in the session I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to report out thank you chair I’m happy to report out the progress was made on the item for which we went into closed session thank you so that completes all the matters at hand I’ll look for a motion to adjourn Councillor Cudi seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis all in favor Chair Kerry’s adjourned thank you