March 10, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items 2.1 to 2.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2025 Building Services, Annual Report 

2026-03-10 (2.1) Staff Report - 2025 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to the 2025 Building Services, Annual Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   455 Highbury Avenue North – Tree Protection Area

2026-03-10 (2.2) Staff Report - 445 Highbury Avenue Tree Protection Area

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to the 455 Highbury Avenue North Tree Protection Area, BE REVEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, Information Report 

2026-03-10 (2.3) Staff Report - Bill 60 2025 Information Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2026-02-19 CACP Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on February 19, 2026, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property - 174 Wellington Road

2026-03-10 (3.1) Staff Report - 174 Wellington Rd - Demolition Request

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to the demolition request, the property located at 174 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; 

it being noted that documentation including a detailed 3D model and elevation drawings of the exterior of the building will be completed prior to demolition of the building on the property at 174 Wellington Road; 

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

-    A.M. Valastro; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Request to Remove the Heritage Listed Properties at 788-790 Dundas Street from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2026-03-10 (3.2) Staff Report - 788-790 Dundas Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to the properties located at 788 Dundas Street and 790 Dundas Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; 

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

-    H. Garrett, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   Request to Remove the Heritage Listed Property at 535-537 Talbot Street/105 Kent Street from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2026-03-10 (3.3) Staff Report - 535-537 Talbot Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to the property located at 535-537 Talbot Street/105 Kent Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; 

it being noted that the property owner be encouraged to salvage building materials from the existing building for re-use elsewhere;

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

  •    a communication date March 9, 2026, from J. Reaney, President, London and Middlesex Historical Society;

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

-    J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions; and,

-    A.M. Valastro;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Amendment to Heritage Designating By-law - 513-531 Talbot Street

2026-03-10 (3.4) Staff Report - 513-531 Talbot Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, related to the heritage designated property at 513-531 Talbot Street, the following actions be taken:

a)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 30.1(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O.18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to pass a technical amendment to By-law No. L.S.P.-3318-193 with the amended Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D”; and,

b)    should no objection be received to the Municipal Council’s notice of proposed amendment, an amending by-law BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council immediately following the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to pass a technical amendment to By-law No. L.S.P.-3318-193 be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the amended by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal; 

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

-    J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions; and,

-    A.M. Valastro;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   325 Grey Street - Z-26010

2026-03-10 (3.5) Staff Report - 325 Grey Street - Z-26010

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Blue Cactus Holdings Inc. (Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 325 Grey Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-1) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-1(_)) Zone; 

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

-    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

-    K. Milczarek;

-    A.M. Valastro;

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

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

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

  •     the recommended amendment facilitates an appropriate use in a suitable location within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at a scale and intensity that can be suitably accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options in the area;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   6712 James Street - Z-26001

2026-03-10 (3.6) Staff Report - 6712 James Street - Z-26001

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of The Corporation of the City of London c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design relating to the property located at 6712 James Street:

a)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone, TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9()) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9(**)) Zone, and a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6()) Zone;

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to use best efforts to offset the anticipated tree loss resulting from the development of 6712 James Street by undertaking enhanced tree planting initiatives on suitable City owned lands associated with Municipal Housing and Industrial Development projects;

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

  •    a communication dated March 6, 2026, from L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

-    A.M. Valastro;

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of The Corporation of the City of London c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design relating to the property located at 6712 James Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone, TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9()) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9(**)) Zone, and a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6()) Zone;

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

  •    a communication dated March 6, 2026, from L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

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

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

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part that reads as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to use best efforts to offset the anticipated tree loss resulting from the development of 6712 James Street by undertaking enhanced tree planting initiatives on suitable City owned lands associated with Municipal Housing and Industrial Development projects.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   724 York Street - Z-26007

2026-03-10 (3.7) Staff Report - 724 York Street - Z-26007

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 724 York Street Inc. relating to the property located at 724 York Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC4) Zone TO a holding Residential R8 Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial (h- 4*R8-4(_)/RSC2/RSC4) Zone; and,

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

i) explore opportunities for common outdoor amenity areas, green spaces, and additional landscaping on site to support the addition of residential uses in this predominately commercial context; and

ii) implementation of the recommendations of the Noise Study, including the recommended mitigation measures; 

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

-    O. Alchits, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.; 

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   929 Cheapside Street - Z-26003

2026-03-10 (3.8) Staff Report - 929 Cheapside Street - Z-26003

That the application from 929 Cheapside Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 929 Cheapside Street BE REFUSED;

it being noted that Municipal Council’s rationale for supporting refusal of the application include the following reasons;

i) the requested special provisions do not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the City Building policies and Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

ii) the requested special provisions would facilitate a form of development that is too intense for the subject lands; and,

iii) the proposed number of vehicular and bicycle parking spaces is insufficient to accommodate the proposed number of units;

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

  •    a communication dated March 3, 2026, from S. Wild-Coles; and, 

  •    a communication dated March 5, 2026, from C. Butler; 

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

-    A. Lagrou, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 

-    J. Wild;

-    C. Curch; 

-    A. Kiricenko; 

-    B. Yosa; 

-    S. Ord; 

-    A. Wild; 

-    A. Robey; 

-    B. Burke

-    C. Jovic; 

-    S. Riley; 

-    A. Ball; 

-    B. Samuels; 

-    I. Hahn; 

-    M. Azaveto; 

-    C. Hinds; 

-    M. Khawaja; 

-    D. Deramante; 

-    K. Doncaster; 

-    A.M. Valastro; 

-    N. Shea;

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 929 Cheapside Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 929 Cheapside Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting March 31, 2026 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC1(2)) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H21) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provisions, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to permit a minimum exterior side yard depth of 0.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 50% whereas 30% is required, to permit a minimum landscaped open space of 20% whereas 30% is required, to permit a minimum of 46 vehicle parking spaces whereas 53 are required, to permit a minimum of 32 long-term bicycle parking spaces whereas 95 are required, and to permit yard encroachments up to 0.0m from the lot line for balconies, architectural features, terraces, patios, porches and canopies whereas 1.5 metres is permitted provided the projection is no closer than 3.0 metres to the lot line, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested special provisions do not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the City Building policies and Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

ii) the requested special provisions would facilitate a form of development that is too intense for the subject lands; and,

iii) the proposed number of vehicular and bicycle parking spaces is insufficient to accommodate the proposed number of units;

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

i) ensure the provision of an accessible paratransit lay-by in accordance with the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law;

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

  •    a communication dated March 3, 2026, from S. Wild-Coles; and, 

  •    a communication dated March 5, 2026, from C. Butler;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Failed (1 to 4)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   50 Southbridge Drive - OZ-26002

2026-03-10 (3.9) Staff Report - 50 Southbridge Drive - OZ-26002

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Pulse Communities (Rhythm II) Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 50 Southbridge Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a specific policy to the Central Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood;

b)    the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(22)) Zone and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6- 5(50)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone; and,

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

i) provide all-season landscaping including trees along the multi-use path and Southbridge Drive to visually enhance the development and enhance the pedestrian environment;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the proposed density is consistent with and implements the development proposal described in the Notice of Application and Public Meeting;

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

-    L. Jaimeson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Central Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Pulse Communities (Rhythm II) Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 50 Southbridge Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 10, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 31, 2026, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a specific policy to the Central Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 31, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(22)) Zone and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6- 5(50)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone; and,

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

i) provide all-season landscaping including trees along the multi-use path and Southbridge Drive to visually enhance the development and enhance the pedestrian environment;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the proposed density is consistent with and implements the development proposal described in the Notice of Application and Public Meeting;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Central Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to remove parts 2 a) ix) and x), Section Number 13.4 of the R9-7 Zone Special Provisions, from the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B”, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(22)) Zone and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6- 5(50)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone;

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   Modification to Flood Plain and Two Zone Concept - Amendments to The London Plan - OZ-25102

2026-03-10 (3.10) Staff Report - Modifications to the Flood Plain and Two-Zone Concept - OZ-25102

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the staff report dated March 10, 2026, with respect to Modification to Flood Plain and Two Zone Concept – Amendments to The London Plan, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further engagement with relevant stakeholders with regard to the change in 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 the work on the mapping changes referenced in the report and bring those forward with recommendations to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee in the next term of Council; 

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

  •    a communication dated March 6, 2026, from J. Lumsden, PenEquity Realty Corporation; 

  •    a communication dated Februay 26, 2026, from A. Vanderluis, Auburn Developments; and, 

  •    a communication March 9, 2026, from D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

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

-    J. Spreet; 

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; 

-    A.M. Valastro; and, 

  •    D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

-   B. Samuels; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2026-03-10 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal of a decision of the Chief Building Official, and an appeal of the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

That Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 3:05 PM to 4:09 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:11 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (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, Lenapei wak 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 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 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 Hybrid 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 wanna 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. That’s good, thank you.

Thank you for other comments or questions. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff on the building annual report, 4.4, the year end deficits and mitigation. Can you, 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 kind of actions can be taken to be more proactive, thanks.

Sorry, Councilor, how about the staff? Through the chair to the Councillor, The review is an annual review that the budget numbers and so on are reviewed 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 would be something else that we could look at. So again, thank you, and then we’ve done gradually through the year, we wouldn’t be 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 follow up on the other part of, sorry, inspections, but thank you, no more questions. Look for other 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 cost 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 even point and so this is kind of rounding it out, is that true? That is correct.

We have a reserve fund that basically 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 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 costs. So we’re under, we still have money to add to the reserve.

Right, thank you. And the other reason 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 costs for processing those permits . That’s it for me.

If there’s any other comments or questions from committee members or counselors, then I’ll call the vote. I think the vote, 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 meetings that we can use at each event.

Councillor Cudi, you will move that. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Stevenson. So we will use the mover and seconder for opening and closing of all the 10 items. Point one, this is regarding 174 Wellington Road, and I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting.

Closing the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So would the city like to comment on this or would you like me to directly go to the public ? Through the chair, please go to the public.

Okay, thank you. All right, so I’ll go to the public. If anyone would like to comment on this particular item, please go to the mic. 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 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 absolutely no reason why the city had to spend so much tax dollars aligning a bridge, grinding that section of Wellington Street when rapid transit worked 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 keep that house intact.

It’s really hard to understand 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, complimentary to the city, and complimentary to whatever gateway you guys are planning. ‘Cause right now, the gateway is just a highway.

And I can’t imagine it being charming, or how that house can contribute to a lovely gateway into the downtown core. So the ask is to reconfigure your plans, work that house into the gateway ‘cause 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 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 174 Wellington. I’ll look for other speakers.

Clerk, do we have anyone online? I don’t see anyone coming to the microphone. So I’ll call the vote to close the PPM. Zing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Councillor Cutty. Thank you Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis, a motion moved and seconded for any comments or questions.

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Zing 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 participation. Is it in the vote? 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’s Heather Garrett. I’m with the link of Parramo Limited and I’m here on behalf of the property owner.

I first want to thank Caratid 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’ll 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 in 105.

Ken Street, this is 3.3. We’ll open the vote for a public participation meeting to open. Move the vote in. Chair, we didn’t vote on that lesson.

Oh, we’re moving on too quickly. You’re good. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor.

And I’ll move the staff recognition chair. Okay, so Councillor Kiley, 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. We’ll sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. And now I’m moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 535, 537 Talbot Street, 105 Kent Street. We’ll call the vote on opening the PPM.

Sing 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, sorry, 3.3 and 3.4 in both cases. We’ve reviewed the report and we are in support of staff’s recommendation.

We’d like to thank both Mr. Ganyu and Mr. Greg wald for helping us navigate through this process and professional work on this file. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to the public, this is the last job. It’s in and we have a last one. Hold on a second.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let me introduce you. Well, I can introduce myself. I’ll know, actually, I’ll do that.

Okay, well. So Ms. Velastro, please go ahead, you have five minutes. I just find it outrageous that Charcot 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 the building has already been approved.

It is just a sad state of affairs and a mockery of the public process these buildings have a glorious history, and they were part of the Banker’s role, 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 way to stop it, and if you read the report you’ll seem, 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 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. Okay, just people came in, there’s notification to the front.

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 the house 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 Councill or Cudi yes chair I’ll move the staff recommendation okay I’ll look for a second er Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds comments or questions seeing none we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 513 to 531 Talbot Street. And we’ll open the vote to open the PPM.

I’m closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. 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 did it 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 gonna be demolished. Those buildings were from the mid-1800s.

They had a glorious history. A very famed people that lived there, including a link to Western University. This is a done deal. I’m just here to take my five minutes 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’s 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. I look for other speakers. Ask if there’s anyone online.

I’ll open the vote to close the PPM. Sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Councillor Cudi. 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 the report that was earlier in the consent items and my understanding is that they recommended not listing 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 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 there’s nine criteria at one of nine and in the report or in the rec 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 correct.

Thank you very much. Thank you. questions I had from the chair. I’ll look for Councillor Permeau.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I heard a relation that these properties were part of the Banker’s Road, but I know if anyone of you can respond to my question. I believe Banker’s Road was the one on Rideout between Dund as and Dufferin.

If you can please confirm that. Thank you. I’ll go, staff. I thank you through the chair.

Yes, Banker’s Road is on Rideout 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’ Road. Is that correct?

Good stuff. Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. They’re not related to Bank ers’ Road. We don’t have any historical information that suggests that they are Bankers’ Road.

The national historic site recognition does not extend to include these properties on Talbot Street. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, thank you, staff. No more questions?

Thank you, Chair. I look for other comments or questions from visiting Councillors or committee members. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. We’ll think about the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Moving on to 325 Grey Street. This is item 3.5. We’ll call the vote to open the public participation meeting.

We’ll think about the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. look to the applicant of the applicant like to comment. Please, ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Alia Richards. I’m a planner with Selinka Priemel Limited, representing the property owner and proponent of the Zoning By-law Amendment application.

I’d like to extend my thanks to staff for processing this application. We have reviewed the staff report in our in-agriance with the recommendation. As 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. Well, for other members of the public would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Cathy Milcharek. I am direct neighbor of that 325 grace tree. new constructed building and I already contacted Ms.

Haynes and my work representative Mr. Ferreira 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 is just my concern is because my the entry for for that building is facing exactly my backyard and I have already experienced 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 the value of my house definitely. I will not be able to sit in my backyard at the back 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 confront ational. I just want to have a discussion how we can work 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. I know they applied for, right now they are fore plex, they applied for additional use of basement apartments, and at this point, they have 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 picture, 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. I think you represent maybe we can have a discussion after.

Thank you. Thank you. I look for other speakers. is Velastro, please go ahead, you have five 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 rubber 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.

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 know who to give the pictures. Thank you. Look for other speakers.

Ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphone, so I’ll call the vote to close the PPM. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Before I go to committee, I’m just going to, there are some concerns raised there.

I want to go to staff. I’m snow plowing, some privacy, car fumes, etc. Where are those issues dealt but 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 applicants 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.

Councillor Cudi, thank you, Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation on the hook. I’ll have some questions for the applicant. Okay, thank you.

I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members who are visiting Councill ors. Councillor Cudi. 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? So I’ll go to the applicant. It is, and I can certainly contact the property owner about these and see if we can’t come to a resolution about some of the issues being experienced.

Councilor, 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 I think what I’ll, thank you, Chair, that’s all.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Frank. Thank you, I’ll echo Councillor Cudi’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. Oh, good stuff.

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 have a chat with staff to just make sure that that green space has been maintained and still there.

Thank you. I’d like for other comments or questions. Councilor Preble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I will go to the applicant, but it has to actually is 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 the 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 five to zero . Moving on to 3.6.

This is regarding 6712 James Street. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero . Thank you.

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.

Ms. Velastro, please go ahead, you have five minutes. This housing development is literally sandwic hed in an intersection. It’s on a wedge, a green space now that’s a wedge between two major streets.

The houses that are being built here have almost a strip of green space And it is literally between two, sandwiched between two intersections. It is a design by somebody who is maximizing the land, not really providing housing that would be beneficial to anyone that’s gonna live there, being sandwiched between two busy streets on a wedge between an intersection. And it’s just so obvious that they’re just trying maximize a piece of land and cram in as much housing without giving 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 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 to close the PPM. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

So I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor 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 ward councilor so that we can hear from her and I’ll move the amendment she wants to make. Okay, Councilor Cuddy is indicating he’ll second it and Councilor Hopkins, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I am the ward counselor 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 a 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, this committee, or maybe the previous council approved a number of years ago for development of town houses.

And then there’s the Lambert School right next to it. So that walkway is really important to allow 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 of concerns from the public, and maybe through you, I’ll just ask staff, 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 June Street. In proposed conditions, the storm water will be directed to the South property line, but we’re gonna be installing new stormwater system which is a swell storm sewer 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 stormwater staff have been dealing with those issues with the school board and in 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. Thank you for that. The clerk has just advised me, like if you’re speaking, you know, maybe towards your amendment or the amendment that you wish to commit to put on the floor, might be good if we do that first, and then you can go ahead, or would you like some questions answered to set that up, give me some guidance here.

I was gonna 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 I need to read the amendment? Well, I’ll go to the committee member who’s gonna put the amendment on. Councilor Deputy Mayor Lewis, I understand you wish to put that amendment forward.

Yes, and so the amendment on behalf of Council or 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 671 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’ll go for a seconder for that. Councillor Cardi seconded and Councillor, we can go back to you, you know. I’m gonna 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 storm water management, the flooding issues. And I just wanna make note that I always appreciate Chippewa of the Thames for their comments in these planning applications as well. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so on the amendment, I’ll look for their questions or comments from committee or visiting Councillors. Councillor Cudi. I just wanna thank the Councillor for bringing this forward.

I think it’s a good improvement and I’m very grateful to you to do this and I’ll be supportive. Seeing no other comments or questions, we’ll open the vote on the amendment. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll need a new mover and a seconder on the amended motion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cutty. So now to the main motion as amended, comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors, Councillor Hopkins. 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. Let’s think about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.7.

This is regarding 724 York Street. I’ll call the vote to open the PPM. Let’s think about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look for members of the public.

I’d like to comment. Oh, sorry, applicant, sorry, please go ahead. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, good afternoon.

My name is Olya Altez, 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 planner’s 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 that’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 with PPM.

Vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Do you mirror this? I’ll move the staff recommendation.

And Councillor, do you mirror moves the staff recommendation? Councillor Cudi seconds. Comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors? Call the vote.

Vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding 929 Cheap Side Street. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting.

Vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. to the applicant. Please sir, give us your name and you in five minutes.

Through you, Mr. Chair. I’m Adam Lagrou. I’m a planner here at Monteith Brown Planning Consult ants.

We’re here 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 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 percent, landscape open space of 20 percent, and encroach ments for balconies and architectural features of zero meters to the 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 may have. 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 have to speak about the rezoning on 929 cheap side. To clear from the start my sport housing, sport infants, intensification, but our city needs homes clearly. This proposal is inappropriate for this location. I’m going to go into a few reasons why I believe that and 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 immediate area is exclusive one in 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 in adequate, they’re proposing 46 spots for 105 units. That’s 0.44 ratio. Our bylaws shows 0.50. So that’s 7 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 onto Sterling Street, Barker Street, and surrounding areas. Fourth, being in a primary transit area doesn’t override compatibility requirements.

Yes, in 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 R1 single homes, Their compatible buildings aren’t comparable. They’d cite 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. We need housing, absolutely, but we also need context-sensitive development. Three stories would work.

Add housing supply while still complying with compatibility, contextual fit, and transition. In conclusion, I just want this proposal. We ask 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 have 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 of March 1st, it’s supposed to be one parking spot per unit in the city. So the parking falls way below what it should be.

In addition, at a recent presentation by the developer, it 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 neighbors, the lot was used potentially as a mechanic shop at some point. The land is potentially a brown field.

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 residential use, which I believe in the zoning. It had special provisions for a CC1 zone, as well as a residential zone. That lot never actually had residential housing on it.

It was, oh, sorry. So according to the government of Ontario documents, when a property that was being used commercially, well, sorry, I 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 CC, CC1, 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 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 House’s west of Adelaide Street, which makes no sense. This neighborhood is being squeezed on all fronts . Furthermore, in recent years, the property was f enced 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— OK. I don’t know. I mean, that’s— Well, that’s fine.

That’s fine. Thank you for the opportunity. Yeah, and just to let folks know, the questions you raise and others might raise, I’ll ask them of staff once we’re finished the public participation time . All right, thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Anita Akerchenko 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 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 intens ification.

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 developments. The other point that is very concerning is 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 is 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 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 stories that townhouses with the parking that is adequate for the neighborhood.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hello, my name is Belo Kosoyan. 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 hold on a second. Yeah, okay. I have to consult with the clerk.

I will do in French. I speak Russian too, so, no. I speak Armenian, Georgians, 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. Oh, the 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. Your opening was it, yeah? Okay, so (speaks in foreign language) If you want, you have five minutes. Okay, (speaks in foreign language) So I’m telling you, so from the beginning you had to distribute brochures.

Traffic is main issue, property values are going to down and I leave another light 869 and we had fire. at 4 in a morning fire erupted 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 l ondon paying to you to push this project that’s not allowed let’s all look for that speaker name please sir give us your name Okay. My name is Stephen Ord. The Canadian Institute of Planner’s 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 are prepared to bend and create a special zoning that are 9-7 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 that 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 their home. Telling a developer they must shrink the footprint of planned building and yet keep the desired unit count will only exacerbate the issue. The R9-7 designation is not planning, it’s appe asing, appeasing politicians and developers so that they can claim that they have 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 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. The 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. The 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 in 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 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 was 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 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. Willsley 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 Cheap 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.

Do we wanna 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 sighted homes and not a mass development.

And for me, it’s a quiet neighborhood. This is not going to make our neighborhood quiet and not withstanding that. The whole development, I believe 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 it’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. You’re our voice for developers. You have the insight to make a 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 by-law 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 um i’m new to this game i only found out about this a couple days ago um my name is abby roby and i’m new to the new bird we have lived there a year and three months um and in that year and three months um there’s been a lot of things that have happened so i i agree with everything that they’re saying because they’ve had time and they’ve done their homework and like i said i’m new to the to the to this game. But some of the problems 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 are some of the things that I already know are a problem on my property. When it rains, the grade 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 were 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 back here it is just full of glass but it’s sand and it’s soil and that’s where the water goes right and so we’ve done some improving 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 ground water to go somewhere. Well, you’re building a building.

It’s going to be up against people’s houses. There’s housing infrastructure for the storm’s water and sewage going to go. How is 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 cons, but I’m 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 what I’m hearing or what I think I’m taking in is that we might increased 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 car is driving 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 are there as well right so that’s kind of some of the things that I think of when I hear this and yeah if I if I was looking for a house I certainly wouldn’t have bought a 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 to these people and it’s and whatever’s happening out in front of Chief’s side is I already feel unsafe and so if the street widens 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 is really hard to get rid of people when they damage your your house 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 pose this I think you 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 it.

Look for that speaker. Please sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. You’re going straight for 70 years.

Um, I grew up in the neighborhood, went to the public school and can know it. That’s what we called it. Um, but I have seen a lot of development in the neighborhood where the church is no wood. That used to be a field owned by Taylor’s Flowers.

The building that was on this lot where the apartment building apparently wants gold, that was Taylor’s Flowers, as well as down at Bellwood Plaza. That was Taylor’s Flowers , Burley Street. When they built all the apartments of townhouses, that was all field. I’ve watched it built.

Same as going down on the other side of Heron Street. This neighborhood has always been a quiet neighborhood. If anything could go there, they should be four houses or townhouses. Damage street apartments are two-story walk-ups.

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 maintenance on the top floor. If it’s a four story, it’s still going to 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 wouldn’t 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 that property, 147 Barker Street. So can you tell me, you said you represent a client. Who is your client? Hedge fund, pension fund, rate, who is it?

Poorly developed. Okay, tell me more about the client. No, sir. You don’t need to know that.

Okay, so a lot of these properties are single lane and 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- storey 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 drive ways, if you have to move one vehicle, 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 on Port 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 room for those vehicles. Where are you gonna put them?

Especially in the winter time. How are you gonna do it? Planning, traffic planning, and so on? No, they didn’t do any assessments.

That’s just a joke. That’s just to write something, to write it off on the paper. Hey, we did the assessment, it can be done. 105 units, 40 extra parking spaces, like the gentleman over there said.

This is most for four small buildings, maybe like a two-story house, four two-story houses. That’s it. Maybe a townhouse. 105 units, 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 for the next speaker.

Sorry, Sharon Riley, Clifford Street, it’s 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 early 90s, and 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. I’m going to give us your name. You have five minutes. Anne Ball.

I 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, block coverage, landscaped open space, height, the density, the parking ratio, even bicycle parking. All of that has been amended from what the by-law dictates.

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 Centre 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. Cheapside is a two-lane busy road.

We cannot support a six-floor building. public can’t even support a three-floor building. So I am curious why even 6/4 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 day. We 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 do with this property along Cheapside, irrespective of the decision today. I do think there’s an opportunity along Cheapside 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 in 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 wanna just thank everybody for being here today and participating. Thank you. Thank you.

We’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Liam Hand. I’m here as a neighbor of nine to nine jeep side.

I agree with everything so far and I just want to say there’s 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 in 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 going to have nowhere to go. There’s no parking garage that’s been added to the planning and I’m not saying that’s what I’m asking for but it 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 it 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 going to be put on the residence. 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 okay. Please ma’am, go ahead. Those that are online, I’ll be going to you next. Please give us your name, you know, five minutes.

My name is Mackenzie Azavito. I live very close to 929 Che apside Street. You’ll 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 sandy soil out there. It’s easy for the water in the area, the rainwater, 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 over all 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 an already existing house or an already 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 gonna 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 gonna care long-term about the well-being of the community. These are family homes. You’re proposing to put ginormous buildings that are single room apartments for supposedly students.

They are only gonna be in and out while they’re doing their program. They’re not gonna care about the community. We already have problems with litter. 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 exist 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 just so disappointed is 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 guys 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. I just want to express my concern.

I’m a 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 the request or submission stands, 105 units, six stories is way too big for this neighborhood. Yeah, 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 Waze Kawaja. I’m sorry if I present Miss Purnell’s true name. Yeah, hi, my name is Mose Kawaja.

I live on Barker Street. I oppose this proposal as it currently stands. level intensification brings 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 development assumes 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 used in this model doesn’t align with real-world conditions, the conclusions of the traffic study 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-Cheaps ide intersection is already strained. Many residents experience delays in challenging right turns into Cheapside 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, rideshare 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.

Increased congestion will create delays and operational challenges for those events which are an important part of the community’s rhythm. And finally storm water and flooding risks need to be considered. I know there’s been a storm water study but I know personally that there’s four homes at the bottom of Barker Street and near this development which have already experience based on 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 Yoneela D’Armente. I live in 236 Sterling Street. In addition to everyone mentioned earlier, a lack of parking and lack of space for overflow of neighborhood streets that have seasonal parking restrictions. Everybody are aware about that.

We have a restriction especially at night. Land lords 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 population pollution and replenish soil moisture to combat hotspot and drought in the surrounding environment.

They plan to remove all mature trees. There haven’t been any environmental assessment, traffic on top of that. Cheap site is surrounding street. Our two lanes street.

There is high traffic and lines of cars that 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 cheap 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?

It creates an environmental burden and a privacy. The current zoning is R1. One On-story low-density buildings, the area is primarily made up of single-family bungalows. The proposal is for six-floor high-density buildings.

It will tower it close approximately over one- story houses on all four sides. This means the lack of privacy for a large number of neighborhoods and their private property. It sets a new precedent in the area. I hope that you guys understand our concern.

you very much and have a good afternoon. Thank you. I’ll go online to Karen Doncaster either. Doncaster.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. You have five minutes, please go ahead.

Long time resident, um, 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’s because this committee encourages breaking the rules. Point of order. Mr. Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair. I have a problem with 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 Councilor, 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 a building is There’s 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. They’re investment companies, they’re not like a single homeowner. They’re investment companies, and they’re trying to maximize their return, and that’s why they come to wherever they can buy a parcel of 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 storm water 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 Aya concerns a 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 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 the planning department is trying to course correct and we’ll just have to wait >> Chair, whether this, hold on a second, I’m going to go a point of order. >> Yeah.

Deputy Mayor? >> Yeah. >> 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.

is not here and how’s the right to impune staff’s work, nor does she have the right to allege the motivations of counsel. This speaker has been warned 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 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 used all of my five minutes though. Doesn’t matter, you get all your grief.

Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi there. My name’s Nicole Shea. I live at 243 Sterling Street, directly across from this planned development.

I’m just gonna reiterate what I sent 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 re zone the lands from R-1, 5 to, and convenience commercial to, I think it was R-84 permit for a six-story, 105-unit apartment building. While I do support the city’s of London’s objectives related to housing and supply and intensification, the London plan is clear that growth must be compatible, context sensitive 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.

Sorry, the subject site is embedded within a low rise residential neighborhood characterized by one and 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. 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 neighbourhood 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 16, 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 from multiple fundamental standards, including height, density, setbacks, lock coverage, and parking. When relief is required across numerous core metrics, it indicates overdevelopment rather than a design that fits within contrary to the intent of both the zoning by-law and the London Plan. Import antly, this objection is not too intensive. Sorry, I don’t know what I was saying that.

A three-story apartment building 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 and six-story buildings are appropriate within low will rise residential neighborhoods regardless of the context. This would undermine planning predictability and the London Plan’s 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. I’d love for other speakers. The last click 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. Let’s think about 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. There’s staff of aware, aware of previous commercial activity here and any comments regarding Environmental assessment, etc. Thank you and through the chair as 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 5 natural heritage.

So there are no natural heritage features presence That is why there was no environmental impact assessment required and this the Proposal has been reviewed by ecology staff and no issues or concerns were outlined I will also say that the building division as part of building permits may require a 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 do share some of the concerns with the site functionality, including the increased lot coverage and reduced landscape open space.

There are also some functionality concerns regarding the handicaps 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 storm water 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 Cheapside 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 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. heard that date or yeah that’s it’s just been discussion so I’ll just go for staff 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 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 are the questions I had so 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. So I have a seconder for that. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

So I’ll 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 bylaw. first 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 ‘s 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 are 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 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 Cheapside and Barker right now. This may actually be the tipping point that triggers the Councilor to ask for a traffic study to see if a traffic light is warranted or 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 address is traffic calming is automatic. We don’t need a neighborhood petition. On the backside, and I have this in my 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 calming 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, Councillor Ramen has actually brought forward a motion to simplify the traffic calming 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. Samuel’s comments about keeping the special provision. That’s what moving 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, But unfortunately, we also heard concerns about delivery drivers and things like that 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 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 ‘cause 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 bring in 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, there are 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 of 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 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 B.

And when you say you can’t have the reduced parking and those other things. So I wanted to share with you 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 wanna share in my neighborhood at 633 Clark .

And 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 the street behind them, it’s single-family homes 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 where the density is trying to be located so sharing my reasons with you as to why I’m going to be supporting it knowing full well you ‘re not going to 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 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 and 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 concerns are real and we recognize them and that’s why we’re proposing to change things. And so what I might have supported before, I just can’t support today because we as a council, I just voted saying yes, we need to be one to one . 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 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. I’ll start cutting. 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 to 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 intens ification, 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, I want to thank staff for the work they’ve done and also want to thank Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

A lot of further comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, if you don’t mind, I finished off a little quickly there, 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 thank 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 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 to staff. Thank you and true to chair. Based on the staff recommendation, the proposed amount of units will likely not be met, cannot give specific answer to what the ultimate units were hacked 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.

Councilor. 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 this committee. I think there’s a lot more information we need to do. I do appreciate the word counselor’s comments ‘cause I am a big supporter of gentle intens ification 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’ll 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 Councilor 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 just, you know, for, they’re not our legal department, so for them to give a— For the, 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, ‘cause we have three clauses and two RAS 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 Council here, so 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 to staff. Without through you, Mr. Chair, without getting into legal strategy, Typically, we would need to ensure that our witness can support councils case fully.

W. Mayor. Thank you. That’s sufficient.

That helped you. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll ask W.

Mayor to take the chair, please. Go ahead, Councilor Lehman, I’ll take the chair . Thank you. I think it’s been acknowledged by a number of folks tonight or today, 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 Cuddy’s remarks about the department and of your behavior tonight was respectful. You spoke clearly and spoke to the facts at hand and we appreciate that. It helps us in our deliberations because we understand. It’s a very emotional thing as it would be if it was beside my house, which has happened.

When we deal with infill, as Councillor Hopkins said, I too support infill for those reasons. It’s a way to prevent sprawl and to address 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 abused and there’s no way to to enforce those things. We’ve seen other areas where there’s townhouses beside a development and that townhouse parking gets gets used up.

Cheapside 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 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, you’re right. It’s all low-rise residential. So for that reason, I’m not going to support this tonight. It’s hard for me to do because I’ve been pretty much supportive of of most things that come before planning, 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, Councillor Lehman. 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. No, I don’t, so we have a motion moved and second ed, and I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion failed. Okay, 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 our recommendation for, you know, what it’s worth at that time. 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 explain further. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 3.9.

This is regarding 50 Southbridge Drive. I ‘ll open the vote for public participation Closing the vote, the fact is zero. Thank you all, look for the applicant. Please give us your name and 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 Jamison. I’m a planner with the Linger-Premo Limited here on behalf of our client, Pulse Communities, Inc.

with regard for the Official Plan and Zoning By- law amendment applications before you for the lands at 50 Southbridge 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 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. 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. and I’m available to answer any questions, thanks . Thank you. Look for speakers from the public that would like to address the committee.

So 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 Councilor Hopkins, I’m gonna put the staff recommendation on the floor. Councillor Ploza, 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 get the motion on the floor. It’s gonna be I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cutty seconds.

Now, Councillor Ploza, do you wanna ask questions or serve up the trade or do you want to just, I can just go back to the deputy mayor to put— Yeah, I can 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 clerking 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, uh, is on page four, 17, um, and it was getting to the zoning by law amendment. And it was to, uh, remove the staff recommendation of no parking inside. Um, as you heard from the applicants, um, that is where we ‘re going to lose 40 to 70 spots that would diminish the one to one ratio that we’ve been pushing for and X was going to be removed, which is really just, uh, site plan and going to, um, It’s already how they wanted the building allocated for an entrance just it belongs at site planned on the zoning bylaw.

So I’m looking for your support chain for that. I have a mover in Deputy Mayor Lewis in a second er and Councillor Hillier. Okay, let’s go to confirm that Deputy Mayor, are you moving that amendment? And Councillor 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 the ground floor lobby in 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 that’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 B, but then we’re going to say they can’t have parking there.

I can’t support that. And I also support Councillor Ploza’s comments with regard to part 10. I have never been supportive of putting urban guideline requirements or site plan 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 plant. That is 100% 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 comment opposing this development. I look for other speakers from committee who are visiting Councillors.

Seeing none, I’ll open the vote on the amendment. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll look for a mover and a second er as amended. Deputy Mayor Lewis moves it and Councillor Hill ier seconds it.

So any discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, we’ll open the vote. vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to three point one zero this is regarding 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 and sure 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. Nope, sorry, not on this one. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just give us your name in the five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. It’s Mike Wallace from LDI, and just a reminder to the committee of, I represent about 15 of the largest land- developed person town, and in this case, Bluestone Properties, Opera and Development, Scrula Holding, Sifton Development, Foxwood Homes, and South Development are all our land owners in the vicinity that we’re talking about. We are also here to ask for deferral, 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 an appropriate approach for infill and where housing already exists. For some reason, they 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 today’s proposal of the SOPA is to change to add something which is called a cut and show policies which do not exist yet and does 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 tonight. We didn’t, we didn’t have no idea about this cut and fill policy change. It was presented to us in January, which is highlighted 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 the report today that’s in front of you on the section of 4.3 on comments received, if you look on the second paragraph it says staff will be meeting with representatives 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 and let it go to Council 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 floodplain approach in Ding man and the balance cut fill assessment guide. Well, why would you approve, we’re fine with the discussion.

We want the discussion, we want to understand, but 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 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 OPE in terms of cut and fill and whether we can use one zone or two zone approach, so I should be done at 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 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 cod or a gentle, you know, encroachment on a flood fringe is dangerous. There also has to be a biological and ecological inventory.

Those areas along the river are very important as part of the riparian zone along the river. So I agree, this should not go forward today, it’s inappropriate, 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 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 be able to contribute to the conversation, ‘cause they come from a different perspective.

Oh, and that was all my opinion, and that was all my perspective. Thank you, I’ll go to you, ma’am. Please give us your name in five minutes. Thank you, good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, committee members, city staff, public attendees. My name is Danieli Cicaler, and I’m a planner with Zalinka Priamu Limited. We are the planning consultants for tri-recycling regarding their lands located at 3544 Dingman Drive, which is 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, dry 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 Diversiony Strategy. The city’s primary landfill has restricted roles and does not accept most of construction and demolition materials, and dry recycling fills this gap by receiving and processing these materials. Currently, the southerly 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 side plan approved for the planning expansion of the facility to the north, which also includes a connection to a road. As a now to door storage facility, being a fundamental part of the tri recycling, introducing official one policies that prohibit out-to-door 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. Try recycling supports the initiative to implement the two zone and cut few policies within the the London Plan. However, we respectfully requested that priority adoption of any proposed policies both try and the committee be formally advised on 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. I look for any other speakers. Please, sir.

Go ahead, Brendan. Okay, you go five minutes. Thank you. Brendan Sam uels 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 washed down stream and as a result that has major implications for the good work the city’s doing to restore the health of the Thomas 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. Clerk if there’s anyone online Tina, 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 what we’re view of 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 cut and fill one zone two zone, etc some new terminology.

So if you can kind of just give us a little, so no opposites 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. policies if adopted would apply citywide but they were initiated in response to the Dingman 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 Dingman Creek. The map the mapping changes however are not being considered at this time and will be addressed at a later date.

I wanted 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 in either 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 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 is in the case. She’ll second it. So I believe it’s in, up in the e-scribe now, so I’ll look for comments or comments from the committee members and visiting Councilor Estepp.

Do you want to hear those? Yeah, so this is a pretty significant change to look at a cotton fill. You know, we heard earlier today in neighborhood 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 cut and 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. Samuel’s 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 neighboring 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 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 too.

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. Councilor Frank. Thank you .

I did have a couple questions and then I just 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. Through the chair this is all sort of part and parcel to the Dingman Creek EA as well, the ongoing environmental assessment process.

We have a get involved page for instance already established but we will continue to also meet with any groups that are interested in meeting as well whether they be neighborhood associations or ecological groups depending on their level of interest we will also meet with them. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I do see the Deputy Mayor trying to get you.

Deputy Mayor. Yeah, if it assists and if the committee is willing to consent, ‘cause the motion’s in the committee ‘s hands now that it’s been seconded and on the floor, but I’m willing to change that to relevant stakeholders. If I see some nods from Councilor 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 as that will, the emotion will be changed to reflect that, Councillor Frank. Thank you and I appreciate that. Just wanna make sure that other folks, maybe you 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 mapping is 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? I’ll go to staff. 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 our 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 feels 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 the spirit of staff 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 opened 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 this city where we start approving things that potentially could still, again, I heard that it’s a great line and it’s been approved by a lot of folks, but I’m just wondering what kind of city liability we have where 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 rivers? I’ll go to staff. So the Municipal Act does have a limitation that used policies are not normally liable in negligence for policy decisions.

The official plan is the city policy so it would normally fall under that category. Anything further we’d have to address on a case-by-case basis. Councillor. 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 CAs? I’d just like to have a better understanding how you view this deferral. Good stuff.

through the chair, just to be very clear, we’re not gonna be waiting for any kind of changes, we’re gonna continue to engage as we have been engaging. 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 resolutionist before you. Councilor.

Thank you for that. And one other question, it is in the deferral, is suggesting that it goes to the next council. I wonder if I can get some clarification why that is. Go on staff.

Don’t move her if you feel comfortable answering that. Sure. 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 CAs.

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 put on.

Just a little bit more clarification. 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 wrap up here.

I mean, to me, we’ve heard that 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. This one’s not subject to any statutory deadlines . It 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.

Councillor. 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 wanna be able to ask some questions while I’m here.

Is that the assumption of the deferral as well? Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and that’s why the mapping changes pieces in 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. Okay, we have no items for direction.

We have a deferred matters list. I’ll look for a motion on that. Councilor Cuddy, I almost called you Deputy Mayor. Jeez, it’s almost got a promotion.

(laughing) And you’re going to move to accept that and I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Stevenson, seeing no discussion, we’ll call that vote. I’ll sing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we have a confidential matter.

So I’ll look for a motion to move in camera. Councilor Stevenson, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. I’ll call that vote. to prepare the room.

Closing the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’re back in the session and 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 Cutty, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. All in favor.

Motion carries. adjourned.