June 9, 2026

Original link

Official minutes have not been published yet. A meeting transcript is available below.

Meeting Transcript

Duration: 6 hours, 35 minutes

Source: Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive

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 (6 hours, 35 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1 p.m. I’m gonna call the ninth 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 Anishinaabe, Khod Noshne, Anapewak and Ad awanderan. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today. as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request. Specific to this meeting, please contact packatl ondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. I’ll just say first folks, I’m sorry about the dark up there. We’re having some technical challenges.

Hopefully, I was hoping we get that resolved by today, but it looks obviously that we haven’t. So I apologize because, you know, obviously for maybe reading your notes while you speak, might be a little challenging. Okay, just look around for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we have no consent items.

We have quite a few scheduled items. And so I’m just going to remind people that are speaking with us today. You have five minutes and I’ll let you know when your time is up at 30 seconds and to members of committee and visiting counselors, we have five minutes as well. And I’m gonna be pretty tight on the timing just because we have such a pretty big agenda.

Okay, first item is 3.1 and this is regarding 39 2442 M4050 Colonel Talbot Road. I’m gonna look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, the seconder, and would you be comfortable doing the same for all opening and closing as we go along? So we’ll be moving things a little quicker. Thank you.

So we’ve got a motion moved in second to opening the PPM. We’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

So I will look to the applicant. So there sir, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Micah, I can’t hear you. know turn on off switch up there I’ll ask for got some assistance up we got someone coming we’re just looking at opening our auxiliary room because we have been a overflow so hello okay there we go okay all right good afternoon members of committee visiting counselors my name is Alex van der sluze I am the development manager for Auburn developments we are the applicant for 3924 4012 and 4050 Colonel Talbot Road also known as our Heathwood subdivision in Lambeth.

We have a zoning bylaw amendment, city initiated official plan amendment as well as a red line revision to the approved draft plan of subdivision. Essentially, what we’re looking to do is to update the planning permissions, modernize the regulatory framework for the unregistered portions of the approved subdivision. The subdivision is approximately 50, 60% built out at this point. We also have some external parcels, 4012 and 4050 , Colonel Talbot Road, which we’ve acquired since the initial draft plan approval for the overall subdivision, which through the red line we’re proposing to bring into the development to be developed comprehensively with the rest of the community.

I want to thank staff for the collaboration, obviously the city initiated OPA was needed due to the some of the inconsistency between the more dated Southwest Area Secondary Plan and then the London Plan, which has a more up-to- date planning framework. Staff are currently working to repeal the secondary plan and instead implement the London Plan in this area. However, that hasn’t happened yet. And so to do some of the things that we’re looking for, which are in alignment with the London plan staff initiated this official plan amendment to essentially line up the two documents.

We are generally in alignment with staff on what they’re proposing. We did submit a small requested alternate motion related to specifically garage and driveway widths on smaller lots. As land becomes more valuable we need to use the land resource more efficiently and so we see our housing product transitioning to smaller forms compared to what we’ve been developing maybe in the last 10 years, moving towards some of those smaller lot singles, semis, duplexes, forms which we haven’t really seen as much of in London when land was perhaps more plentiful or at least less expensive. So in acknowledgment of that market reality, we ‘re also looking for an acknowledgment of the market reality that folks are looking for two car garages and double driveways.

And so the regulation that we’ve proposed in addition to all of what staff has proposed and supported is a permission for lots, which are less than 12 meters, which is a 40 foot lot. So down into those 30 and 36 foot lots to still have the ability to build a two car garage. And so that was the slight tweak that we submitted for your consideration and hopefully your endorsement on adjusting what staff have recommended. I don’t really have much more to say other than that.

I know we have a long meeting, but certainly if there are any questions about what we’ve proposed or the overall application, be more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that’d like to address the committee on this issue.

I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. And do we have the auxiliary room in operation? Are there other people I have to check? No.

Okay. Okay. I understand that, yeah, just second phase. So we do have an overflow room because the number of people here today, it’s gonna take about 10 minutes before they can are able to communicate with us.

So we’re just checking to see if anyone that room wants to speak to this particular item. We’ve got someone going there, Counselor, thank you. So bear with us. Okay, we checked the room and no one wanted to speak to this issue.

So I don’t see anyone approaching any microphones up there. No one online, so I’ll look for, While we have a motion moved and seconded to close with PPM, so I will call that. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll put this out for committee.

Councilor Cuddy, thank you Chair. I’ll move the motion. I don’t have a seconder at the moment. I’ll look for a seconder.

Councilor Stevenson seconds. So we have motion moved and seconded. Any discussion? Chair, I’d like to open discussion by speaking to this.

Yeah, please go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Auburn Group for bringing this forward to us. I really appreciate it. So I’ll be supporting this request to amend the application before us today.

So the application represents an important next step in the continued development of Heathwood’s community in Lambeth, bringing forward a mix of low and medium density housing while making efficient use of service land within our urban boundary. The applicant is seeking a modest adjustment that would allow a double car garage garages in driveways on select lots under 12 meters in width. As housing affordability changes, challenges continue, builders are increasingly delivering homes on narrow lots to keep costs more attainable for families. At the same time, many home buyers still require space for two vehicles.

The proposed change recognizes these market realities while maintaining the overall vision of the London plan. It supports housing choices, provides flexibility and design, and helps ensure these neighborhoods remain active and functional for future residents. This is a practical amendment that balances efficient land use with the needs of today’s home buyers. And for those reasons, I will be supporting the applicant’s request.

Thank you, Chair. So, Councillor, there is a bit of confusion ‘cause at the beginning, you said you were moving staff’s recommendation, but the clerk has indicated that you had another I apologize, that was my modification, sorry, thank you. Okay, so I’m gonna have the clerk read out the modified motion. Thank you.

And then I’ll go to the seconder to make sure that she is okay to second it. Okay, apparently it’s pretty lengthy, so we’re just gonna post it up there and also on our computer screens as well, so I’ll just have you read it. If you look in E-Scribe under 3.1, number four, you’ll find it. Yeah, that’s fine, and I’ll move the amendment to that.

Okay, so you’re moving that motion that we see. Councillor Stevenson, are you okay to second that ? Okay, so that’s the motion that we are dealing with. I’ll look for any other, for other speakers.

I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis hand up. Deputy Mayor, do you want to speak to this? Yes, just briefly Chair. I support the Councilor’s amendment.

That’s absolutely fine, no objection to that. We did have a request from Councilor Hopkins, and I’m not sure if she’s in chambers or not. The Councilor is in chambers and she notified me that she was going to look for an amendment here. I’m just going to be members first here.

Yeah, so to that note, the request is for a revised transportation impact assessment to be considered as part of the future draft plan of subdivision. I’m happy to move that forward or as an amendment . I don’t think it’s contrary to what Councillor C udi has put on the floor, I think it’s just an addition. I’ll look to the clerks to see if they can occur with that, but if that’s the case, if it’s not contrary, then I’m prepared to move that for Councillor Hopkins and let her speak to it.

Okay, I’ll just confer with the current. Okay, so Deputy Mayor, you’re putting forth that amendment. for a seconder on that, Councillor Stevenson has seconded. I’ll just go right to Councillor Hopkins as well.

And have you speak to that, Councillor? Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not part of this committee.

I do appreciate the committee members bringing forward another amendment. I do think for the public’s sake, I would like to read the amendment that I’m proposing. And it’s based on a lot of development that’s going on in the Lambeth area and as we develop and as we’ve already approved many, many applications, the importance of how we move around our community becomes even more important. I do want to acknowledge the community.

There isn’t a letter, an added attachment to the agenda expressing a number of concerns. One is the transportation. So with the amendment, it would be added to clause D and it would be an I, which says any issues raised at the public meeting? Well, I should start at the beginning.

With respect to the proposed red line revisions to the draft plan of subdivision of Youth Woods Subdivision, as submitted by Auburn, the Planning and Environment Committee report to the authority on the following. Any issues raised at the public meeting and request a revised transportation impact assessment to be considered as part of the future draft plan subdivision, detailed design and site plant design processes. So that is my added amendment and I thank the committee for adding it to the recommendation. I do have other comments.

I will speak to the main motion or is this the main motion? Well we’re dealing with the amendment right now so if it’s amendment related go ahead but if you want to hold off on the main motion go that. Okay. So any further comments just on the amendment that the deputy put forth on behalf of Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead, Councillor Peruzza.

Thank you, sir. To the staff, I see the letter on the two pages from the Auburn, but then there’s the amendment, then there’s the alternate motion, et cetera. And I just want to make sure that if we either clerk or our staff have gone through it or if this is approved by this committee, if I just want to make sure that it’s aligned. If the committee approves it and it goes to the council, I just want to make sure that there are no discrepancy in terms of the two letters and in terms of the additional work done by Auburn.

Okay, we’re going to stop through the chair. Thanks for the question. So, Respect to the driveway widths and garages. It’s exactly exactly identical to what Auburn has requested in addition within their letter Staff noted they did request some changes.

I Believe to interior side yard First the R5 and six zones Because that was not detailed in their letter staff maintained those provisions that were in staff’s original by-law, so those are the only differences. And it’s a setback from the interior property line if there’s habitable windows with a 3-meter setback. Councillor. Thank you for that.

And I will support this at the Council. But as I said, I just want to make sure that the letter or the requests from Auburn which I will support at the Council. Councillor, I just want to remind you that we’re in the amendment right now. So we’re We’re just talking about traffic study that if you’re referring to that portion of it as opposed to the whole motion that Councilor Cutty put on the floor fine to just just caution you to don’t get too much off track here into the into the main motion Okay Do what I believe it is now I’ll just clarify one more thing when it comes to the amendment to the main motion Okay, any other comments or questions on the on the amendment we have amendment moved in second and I’ll call that vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll go back to the original moverner. Seconder, are you okay to move the amended, as amended motion? Yes, Chair.

Councillor Stevenson, okay, second. Okay. So now we have the motion as amended. And I’ll look for comments.

I can go back to you Councillor Hopkins ‘cause you had indicated that you wanted to speak to that. Yeah. Thank you for recognizing me again. So on the main motion.

First of all, I want to thank the consultant. I think you did a great overview of what the zoning and the official plan amendments that are in front of us right now. I know it seems a little complicated. I’ve had a hard time myself trying to align everything and then of course the added properties.

But from my understanding what we’re doing here is bringing all these plans in alignment and we’re creating more or less policies in particular as well policies to align with the London plan. I want to thank the community again for asking a number of questions. I know this is a subdivision agreement. There’s going to be a draft plan and site plan process is going forward.

The community can often reach out to the planning department to find out where this process is at, as well as reaching out to our website and monitoring the application as well. It will probably take a while for this development to come about, but I think it’s important to the community to understand where this process is. I also understand that the we’ll be looking forward into the future on improving some of our IT enhancements as well, so making it easier for the community to find out what is going on. On the amendment, thank you again, committee.

I am not quite sure how I’m gonna support the added two car garage. I know we have parking standards coming forward. to the next planning committee. I’d like to see those standards a little bit more , understand the amendment that’s being proposed.

I haven’t read it completely, so I have time until council to understand it. But I do have concerns sometimes when we build new homes, we create these garages that sort of overtake a house and the way it looks in the neighborhood. So I have a few concerns, but like I said, So I’ll follow up on the applicant’s amendment as this goes to council. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councilor Pervault. Thank you, Chair.

So just to follow up on my last question. So I’ll try to be specific on the edit agenda page 47 to 49. Is the letter from Auburn? Then it’s from 49 to 57.

Is the additional amendment and appendix AB? And my question is, is it aligned? Has the stop gone straight than either planning or the legal? Is it aligned with the two pages of the letter, besides what I already heard, the difference?

Are there any other differences or is it aligned? Go staff. Through the chair, the only pieces of the bylaw that are not aligned are section three and four of the bylaw under II of first section three, for rear and interior side yard depth, where staff still included the three meters where no windows or habitable room face for interior inside, or sorry, interior side setback and rear setback. And we felt the need to still include those provisions as Auburn’s letter didn’t speak specifically to any removal of those items.

It just spoke specifically to widen driveway and widen garage width. Councillor. So thank you for that. So what will be done then if the committee approves it, now what’s in front of us?

Where is the point where it’s actually going to get either aligned? Is this going to be done before the council? Or I just want— I’m just a little bit on this one. As I said, normally we get the letter and we don’t get the additional six, seven pages from the developer.

So I just want to make sure how it’s going to be aligned and how we are going to be through the planning and then council, if you can kind of clarify it for me. staff through the chair we are aligned with the the bylaw that’s in front of committee right now with respect to the the driveway width and garage width what’s not aligned is section 3 in section 4 specifically for rear interior side yard setback depth as those provisions still are within the bylaw in front of committee as they weren’t specifically called out in Auburn’s report I might on a deferred to Auburn to see if they have any concerns with that inclusion as it may have been missed in there or it was intentional it just wasn’t called out specifically as I mentioned in their letter to committee. I’ll go to the applicant. Okay thank you Peter.

I truthfully I thought what was in the the staff by-law was an oversight because it was permitting a setback which we had requested of 1.2 meters which we just requested a setback of 1.2 meters which is a typical interior side yard setback for single-family homes and it’s for street town homes and the revised by-law as well so we had requested that for cluster town homes essentially but staff had included in their by-law where there are no windows that the by that the setback would be larger so where you have windows it could be 1.2 meters but where there are no windows it would three meters so I know truthfully we didn’t speak about it I thought it was just an oversight I had deleted it in the draft file that I had proposed we expect to have windows on those side yards in which case that three meters wouldn’t come into play so I it doesn’t concern me if that’s I know that’s what’s on the floor if you want to proceed with that I don’t have concerns but I thought that the I thought it was just a mistake initially that I corrected but As Peter said, I didn’t point it out in my letter because I didn’t think it was of substance. Hopefully that helps. Thank you. Councillor.

And just a full-up sort of chair to our staff after hearing this, can you provide us feedback on those comments? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, based on what Auburn was highlighting there in their speaking notes, it sounds like they’re okay with this special provision, but if committee wants the by-law to be amended we can remove the provision as I noted it’s within section 3 which is for the R5 zone as well as section 4 of the by-law specifically within the R6 zone but based on what we heard from Auburn it seems like they’re okay with the provision. Okay thank you.

Mr. Mathers do you want to Mr. Mathers do you want to add to that? Yeah through the chair just to make it very clear that there is no staff concern with what’s before you so if you choose to move forward with With that, we don’t have a concern with that.

What’s before you today when you’re by law? Thank you, Councillor. So thank you for answering all my questions. I will leave it as I’m not a member of this committee.

I will leave it as the committee, but thank you for all your answers. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members or staff or visiting Coun cillors. Okay, we’ve got a motion, a motion moved and seconded and we’ll call the vote.

I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.2. This is regarding employment area, policy review, industrial land review.

We have a motion to open the public participation meeting moved in second already, so we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Hi, I see you at the microphone. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members of the Committee and City Councilors. My name is Alia Richards and I’m a planner with Zilinka-P ramo Limited representing Focal Point Development Corporation. I’m here to speak to item 3.2 to request consideration for a special policy area encomp assing the commercial industrial lands located in the Hyde Park District to allow for a broader range of commercial and office uses.

This request is based on both recent provincial policy changes which no longer class ifies these lands as an as an employment area and the unique characteristics of the specific area which does not function as a typical commercial industrial area as envisioned in the London Plan. These lands are not located near active industrial or employment uses and are not positioned as a transition between industrial and sensitive land uses. Instead they are embedded in a mixed use context surrounded by neighborhoods, main street areas, shopping areas, and open space uses. As a result, this area presents a unique circumstance that warrants reconsideration of how the policies are applied.

Under the current policy framework, many commercial and service uses are either prohibited or severely restricted as the vast majority of the commercial industrial lands at this location are not adjacent to a civic boulevard and are not located near any industrial or employment lands with a workforce to serve. As currently written, the policies do not provide meaningful opportunities for landowners to optimize their lands, and they limit the ability for the area to evolve in a logical way. The London Plan needs to acknowledge the unique circumstances of this area, which strongly deviates from the commercial industrial areas in London, which are positioned next to active industrial lands throughout the city. With rethink zoning underway, This is the appropriate time to consider the how the existing policy framework impacts and constrains these lands.

If no changes are made, this area will likely remain stagnant and under utilized because it does not have the appropriate planning purpose under the existing framework. It does not have an appropriate planning purpose under the existing framework, considering the context of the surrounding area. Notably, many service and office-oriented uses are already present in the area. However, those uses require significant time, effort, and cost to establish under the existing policies governing the commercial industrial place type.

Importantly, we are not seeking a full re-design ation of these lands, but rather a targeted and practical solution, which would remove unnecessary restrictions on commercial uses, broaden the range of permitted commercial service in office uses, acknowledge the existing industrial uses in the area, and better align the policies with both provincial direction and the existing context. In closing, we respectfully ask the committee to recognize the unique context of these lands and support a site-specific policy approach that would allow for more appropriate and functional use moving forward. As such, we would request that this matter be referred back to staff to consider expanding the range of permitted uses within the Hyde Park District. Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Richards. I’ll look for other speakers. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Ross Raines, owner of Focal Point Group, a small family run office rental business serving tenants across London. For context, we’re talking about here a 14,000 square foot office structure that was built originally about 35, 40 years ago as an industrial support office for the barcode industry.

The site has 90 parking spaces on two and a half acres. We have owned the property for 20 years. It’s our first building. We pay currently 60,000 per year in city taxes.

And in October 2025, we lost our anchor tenant due to bankruptcy as a result of the 100% tariffs from the US on the aluminum product industry. Right now, we simply cannot fill the space. There is virtually no demand for light industrial in this quickly transitioning area we know as Hyde Park. We face the real option of needing to sell to someone who may turn it into a step down use such as mini storage or whatever.

Our experience over the years with our two properties in Hyde Park is that there’s a huge demand for general office space for professionals, doctors, personal services, counselors, and others. And yet there’s virtually no demand for occupancy by anything in the existing LI, or light industrial zoning category that we’re in . We have a private K to 12 school that would take over the property tomorrow, but the city has said no. We qualify for a commercial school that fits the zoning, but not private school.

We have two large proven caregiving counselor groups that have been circling like airplanes needing to land the past six months on any possibility that zoning would be upgraded to reflect the needs of this growing suburban market, but they too do not comply with existing zoning. We showed the space again this morning to one of these groups and they’re very eager. They specialize in services for autistic children . I don’t think our situation is unique.

The area as a whole has emerged into a mature suburban setting, but the zoning flexibility of this light industrial area has not kept pace with the true demands of the market. I can’t speak to retail or other commercial uses, but the office segment is very limited in this area. We simply ask that the council consider significantly expanding uses under the current light industrial zoning. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sort of give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Eric Steele from Monteith Brown Planning Insoles.

We’re here on behalf of our own clients, the owners and developers of the lands known as 2448 Dundas, so shown on schedule 5, Appendix B of staff’s report. These lands are split designated between a neighborhood’s place type and a light industrial place type. And so in consultation with staff, we have submitted a request that these lands be re-designated to be entirely neighborhood’s place type as part of the city’s review of unsuitable and ineligible industrial lands. These lands were designated or identified as being unsuitable through the city’s industrial land use assessment process due to proximity to more sensitive residential uses to the east, west, and south.

And so given that context, we are the position that these lands be more appropriate to augment residential uses through that redesign ation. Additionally, I would note that since these lands were deemed unsuitable, there’d be no removal of employment lands, or as any impact to the city’s supply of employment lands through this redesignation. And so in summary, we are supportive of staff’s recommendation to re-designate these lands and to happy answering questions as it relates to that. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online like to address the committee. I don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone, so I’ll open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Councillor cutting. Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Stevenson seconds. I’ll look for questions or comments on the motion . I don’t see anyone wishing to speak. Councilor Trassel.

Thank you through the chair. I’m not a member of the committee. I’m just making comments as a guest. I’ll keep them very brief.

Would this allow additional office, this would allow additional office space in the area? I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair. So the policy changes do recognize existing and silvery uses in light industrial areas.

And continuing in light industrial areas, You can have, based on size requirements, certain office uses. The purpose is to recognize primarily existing make-ups of industrial areas because provincial policy changes have identified non-industrial uses as not being permitted unless they are ancillary to an industrial area. The commercial industrial question that came up separately is not the same type of instance. they are primarily commercial areas, but not mainstream types of commercials.

We have met with that applicant, but they did not make an application for an official plan amendment. So it wasn’t considered as part of the scope of this, which was intended to recognize changes to provincial policy. Counselor. Thank you through the chair.

With the type of ancillary uses here, the uses that would be competing with commercial office space providers in the court. I’ll go stop. Through the chair. There are size limitations on office uses.

And the purpose is to target office uses to those main course notes and corridors. And that is the purpose of maintaining especially service types of office being in other sorts of locations. And these are being primarily for the kinds of commercial and small scale office that may be ancillary to industrial uses or of a scale that does not compete with with those other primary downtown types areas. Councilor.

through the chair more directly than is their attention between allowing these additional uses and our policy of trying to grapple with the very serious problem of downtown vacancies. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, those are the purposes of maintaining size limitations and types of offices. So some are more, you know, traveling public generating as opposed to ones that are tied to the types of uses within those areas.

Councilor is finally my last question is through the chair is there is there anything in these guidelines that would require some showing that there be something particular about this part of town of the suburban area of town or this this part of Northwest London that that would cut down on on trips or could could anybody be renting these places I’ll go stop through the chair so as currently zone they’re not permitted the size and scale of them and the the uses are limited to what is permitted by the zoning by-law through rethink zoning, they are being re-evaluated, but the general character of type of office is intended to do that and recognize those that are more in keeping with the industrial and quasi-industrial versus those that are more public facing on main streets. And there are policy requirements about those within commercial industrial areas being located on arterial roads for those purposes. Councillor? Thank you.

Nothing else. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanna, through you, give my thanks to staff. I know staff did a lot of intensive conversations with the community prior to the PPM. I’m glad the public is out today expressing their comments as well, but as we align our policies and update them, I just wanna pass on my thanks to staff. Thank you, other comments or questions?

Councilor Allen. Thank you and through you. Yep, I wanted to start with the thank you to staff as well for the work they’re doing on addressing the employment area policy review. Specific to the Hyde Park area, I wanna thank Alia Richardson, Richard, sorry.

And Mr. Raines, Ross Raines, for coming today to speak to this issue. I know it’s something that we’ve had previous discussions about as well. This is a very unique part of the city with this unique light industrial zoning that continues to be part of the area, which is kind of going through a regeneration as well.

We’re seeing a lot of change, some to residential in the area. We’re seeing some desirability for more of this office commercial. Is the rethinking zoning process the best place for these discussions to happen? Or is a site specific policy the best way to address it?

and wondering if staff can provide more input on that. I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. My suggestion would be the applicant make an application for an official plan amendment.

And we could look at it in a more comprehensive manner and what the range of uses could entail in this area. And then certainly the zoning would match the policy framework subject to council approval. Councilor. Thank you and through you.

So for the applicant to do so, one, it’s quite a lengthy process, but it also engages in having to find a tenant that’s willing to kind of stay with you while you go through that process to re-imagine what it could be and how it could be used. And that’s part of the challenge, I think, is that you have tenants maybe that are interested, but to take them through that process while they wait to see whether or not that approval happens, It requires quite a bit of commitment and long- term planning. Is there another way that staff might be able to look at this, or is that the only way, and is this something we’re thinking about with rethinking zoning? Oh, good staff.

Thank you through the chair. To review an official plan amendment, it’s 120 days. So that’s not a very lengthy process, as we’ve heard. And certainly we would like to entertain what the applicant’s looking for and what those range of uses are.

Councilor. - Thank you. Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded, we’ll call the vote.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 1837, Churchill Avenue. We will open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Wasn’t the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

I see someone at the microphone already. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you through you, Chair. My name is Jamie Robertson.

I’m from Strict Baldwin only Moniz SPM here in London as a planner representing Al Taco for this file. I’d like to thank you for your time today as well as the PEC members and the visiting counselors. For this application, there is a site plan application that is in process to increase the existing use at the site 1837 Churchill Avenue. For that, it was determined that a private school use is not currently permitted on the site and as such a minor zoning by-law would be necessary.

So we’ve also added into that as a private school for a permitted additional use. We have a front yard depth allowance of 3.5 meters and that Merlin Crescent be recognized as the front yard lot line as opposed to the Edmonton Street frontage that would otherwise be the front lot line. The entire property including the access at Edmonton Street would also be rezoned to the same NF zone, removing the previous residential zone on that small strip of land, that otherwise would not be able to accommodate a single detached home. A couple of notes with this application is we know historically there have been traffic issues, especially on Maryland Crescent and a lot of the local streets surrounding.

The idea and intent of this site plan is to provide much larger on-site parking areas that would help reduce that impact, take these cars off of Merlin Crescent, accessing through Edmonton Street. There would no longer be any regular vehicle access to Merlin Crescent. The only remaining vehicle association would be dedicated bus parking along Merlin Crescent, and then access towards the back for garbage collection, which wouldn’t happen on a consistent basis. The new Edmonton Street access through the site plan process is seen as meeting all of the safety requirements for site lines and distances.

It would include a stop sign to control the access and make the Edmonton Street along with Churchill Avenue, a full regulated intersection, ensuring that there is specific safety addresses for vehicles to access and leave the site as well as pedestrian safety. And finally, the operational hours of the school are generally Monday to Friday, 730 to 330. Traffic impact study was done with the site visit during the peak hours to notice the impacts on Merlin Crescent at the current time in local streets. And it was determined that the access being provided through Edmonton Street is the main north-south connection between Will well and Dundas and would greatly reduce the impacts that are currently being felt on Merlin Crescent.

again, that’s going through the site plan process . So specifically before us are the permitted uses for the additional permitted use for private school, the front yard setback reduction, and the entire site rezoning with Merlin Crescent being the front lot line. Should there be any questions? I’d love to do my best to address them.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers this item. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you. My name’s Linda Davis and I live one house away from El Talkway. I, currently, the traffic that was noted on Merlin is a nightmare. It is really, really difficult.

Now, I know that that might change with the school being coming off of Edmonton Street. But the continue to have bus access off of Merlin , I think, is still a problem. Merlin is never, I don’t think was ever an actual street, it is like a laneway, it’s, I don’t know the width of it, but it’s not, it doesn’t seem wide enough. There are no curbs, grass is quite long on the sides of the road and it makes it really difficult as a pedestrian dog walker and person in the neighborhood to get around.

Last night I was coming home from an event at 10. 20 And the school bus was parked in the parking area where they’re saying it’s still going to be happening. And there were so many cars waiting to pick up the students that I couldn’t get through. I was stuck.

They were parked three across the street in both directions. And I’m just shocked that somebody hasn’t been hurt. I think that far more traffic studies need to be done. and I would speak against this expansion of the school.

Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. Last click, if there’s anyone online, there’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphones, so we’ll call the vote to close the PPM. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for our committee. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, staff all. Thank you Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Thank you, look for a seconder. Councilor Stevenson, we have a motion moved second, I’ll look for any comments or questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis, please go ahead. Thank you chair.

So I’m gonna state first as people generally know that I live on way valve. Although that’s true, I am not with the notification zone for this application, so I don’t have any conflict as a homeowner. I will say as a word counselor though, I cannot support this application. While I appreciate Al Paco wanting to move away from Portables and get students into a building proper.

I have tremendous concern about the traffic assessment. The Edmonton Street access is approximately 8.1 meters. If you allow 3 lanes or 3 meters per lane, that’s 6 meters right there. A 1.6 meter walkway gets you to 7.6.

That leaves 0.4 meters for fencing, retaining walls, anything there. And immediately on the other side of the property line, you have a residential driveway. So I’m concerned about the access there. I also share Ms.

Davis concern and I’ve heard from a number of residents in that Park Ave, Merlin Crescent area, the same concerns. Since Altauqua has taken possession of this property, the traffic has been an absolute nightmare. The school bus service, as was mentioned, buses are parked on the property overnight. So I think that this is actually being run as a private service, not a yellow bus service.

I’m not sure that the maintaining the buses on our land is going to address the residents’ traffic concerns, especially when we hear examples from the neighbors of buses coming home from wherever the students were on presuming some sort of field trip and still blocking the roadways for pickup at 9, 10 o’clock at night at times. I think this is an over-intensification of the site. I am concerned as well about the private access on Edmonton and how that interacts with East Lions Community Center, which is at Edmonton and Churchill. We have seen an increase in traffic of course on Edmonton since the Community Center opened.

That’s great news because the Community Center is well used and well loved. But to start putting all of that school traffic through on Edmonton through an eight meter access , I have serious concerns about and I have concerns about the plan in general and what’s happening to the neighborhood. I want to confirm as well the comments that we heard from Miss Davis. Merlin Crescent has no curves and gutters.

If it weren’t for the good neighbors, cleaning some of the catch basins in the spring, and sometimes even after they’ve cleaned them, there’s so much leaf fall from the mature trees, which are lovely to have, but we have flooding issues there. Requests have to go into service London to get those catch basins cleared. As much as the neighbors try their best to keep them there, they can’t always keep up. People have lives and it’s not really up to them beyond being a good neighbor to clear those catch basins.

So for those reasons, I just think that this is an over-intensification of the site and we’re also talking about a site that’s not just focusing on being a school. It also offers prayer services throughout the week and on the weekends. So that traffic doesn’t stop at 3.30 and it doesn’t stop on Friday afternoon. It’s a seven-day a week site where people are coming and going and the dual use the increased traffic and the plan as is to keep the buses on Marlin is something that I just as the word counselor I’ve heard from my residents I will not support it.

Thank you. I look for other comments or questions. Seeing none we have a motion moved and second I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote the motion fails two to three moving on to three point four this is regarding two four nine six Dundas Street I’ll open the vote to open the PPM closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you all look for the applicant if the applicant would like to address the committee please sir give us your name you have five minutes my name is Eric Steele I’m planning with Monty Brown planning consultants here path for a client Rosewood Grove Limited who is the owner and developer of the subject lands.

These lands were re-designated last year through OPA 116 from Light Industrial to Neighborhoods Place type . And so the purpose of this application is to really align the current zoning of the property with that re-designation. And so let’s facilitate the development of 73 townhouse units on the property. We believe that this re-zoning would be appropriate works and property development for these lands and provide opportunities to issues housing options within this area of the city.

I also like to note that there’s a concurrent site plan control application that has been submitted as currently in third submission. So many of the technical elements and concerns with staff have already been addressed through those processes. And so in summary, we have reviewed staff’s report and by-law and are supportive of staff’s recommendation to approve the application. We thank staff for the work in processing this file and happy answering any questions and members of the committee.

Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers, like to address this item. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s nobody online.

They don’t see anyone approaching the microphone. So I’ll open the vote to close the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item out for committee.

I’d be prepared to move that chair. Deputy Mayor Lewis moves it. But for a seconder, Councilor Cuddy is seconding it. I’ll look for discussion.

Councilor or Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’m gonna be brief. This is another one in ward two.

Very supportive of this application. I think there’s a good plan, the applicants work with staff to sort out some of the technical details. And I think this would be a good use and a good opportunity for some residential infill in the East End. Thank you, my further speakers.

Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded, we’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 221 Queens Avenue.

I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to you, sir. Please give us your name, you have five minutes.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee, Jay McGuffin, Principal Planner, Montyth Brown Planning Consultants. Here this afternoon on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited, the owner of 221 Queens Ave. Our client is requesting approval to extend temporary zoning permissions for surface parking at 221 Queens Ave for an additional three years.

We’ve had an opportunity to review, just recently the staff report. The staff report is recommending refusal. We are requesting the committee grant, the requested application. Siften has lawfully operated this site as surface parking since 1995.

The lot itself provides 67 parking spaces, 65 of which are tied to active leasing contracts supporting their nearby office buildings. 39 of those spaces are at 171 Queens Avenue, which is at Richmond Street intersection. And 26 of those spaces are at 200 Queens Avenue at Colburn Street. So for clarity, these are not surplus or speculative spaces.

They are contractually committed and essential to existing tendencies that SIPTIN has been working very diligently on. No need to provide a reminder on current market conditions, but the downtown office market remains under significant stress. As a result, CBC’s article back in December of 2025 identified that the city of London the largest office vacancy rate in Canada. In this challenging environment, Siften has made substantial investments in their building upgrades.

They’ve undertaken actively three negotiations to retain tenants, and they’re working diligently to stabilize the occupancy in 171 Queen Street in particular. These efforts depend in part on reliable, accessible parking for their tenants and their employees. The importance of this parking lot, the subject lands are functionally integrated with the surrounding office uses. In the removal of this parking, jeopardizes the existing lease agreements, undermines tenant retention efforts, creates operational instability for both of these buildings, and further weakens the downtown economic vitality.

This is especially critical, given that Siften is actively investing in downtown revitalization, and has recently converted office space to residential space to adapt to changing market realities in the downtown. In response to the staff recommendation, staff have suggested refusal for the purposes of incentivizing redevelopment of the property. Respectfully, this approach is misaligned with the current market conditions. This is not a viable redevelopment window.

Office demand is currently very weak. Financing conditions remain difficult. Vacancy rates are persistently high. Enforcing the removal of a productive improved parking asset would not trigger immediate redevelopment.

Instead, it will result in a vacant or underutil ized site downtown and it will harm not help the downtown overall. In conclusion on behalf of our client we respectfully request that the committee approve the extension of the temporary service parking permission for another three years. I thank you. I’m available to respond to any questions.

Thank you. I look for other speakers this item. I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s nobody online and I don’t see anyone approaching the microphones so we will call the vote to close the PPM.

Closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0. I’ll go Go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Through the clerk, I circulated a motion earlier notwithstanding the staff recommendation that the extension be approved.

I believe if you want to confirm that I have a seconder in Councilor Hillyer, once that’s on the floor, I’ll speak to it. Thank you. I have confirmed confirmation of Councilor Hill yer’s seconding. I’m just going to make sure the clerk has the wording that she can put into e-scribe.

Okay, should be up. Go ahead, please, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So in moving the extension on this one, I think it’s really important to share.

I reached out to the applicant, received some information from them. Vacancy rate at 171 Queens right now, 48%. At 200 Queens, vacancy rate is 22%. At one London place, it’s 27%.

Tenants at all three of those locations, Canadian Mental Health Association, Bank of Nova Scotia, architects, Tillman, Ruth Robinson, Joan and Grant Thornton LLP. These folks are using the parking lot as the representative for the app communicated. These are not speculative. These are leased spaces attached to existing leases to keep our commercial vacancy rate from getting worse.

This law is not sitting vacant. It is being utilized by folks who are coming to work in our commercial office spaces in the downtown. We also know we’re working with the genuine partner here in Siften, who just completed with the Anglican Diocese, the first office to residential conversion with homes unlimited running a new 94 unit affordable housing project, a block away up on Duffer Nav. If they had an opportunity for redevelopment right now, they’d be moving on it.

They’re moving on properties that they have in the downtown and with partners that they have in the downtown. But this is not a market where we can be removing parking at this point. we have actually municipal parking at 185 Queens Ave that we put out an RFP for redevelopment as a municipality and we did not get any qualifying offers back. The opportunity to redevelop these surface parking lots on Queens Ave is just not there right now.

And to jeopardize commercial leases that could be terminated because parking was part of the lease and we removed the parking, then the folks on the lease may have grounds to terminate and create more office vacancy. I just think that that would be a really bad move right now. I also think that this actually conforms to the temporary use evaluations given the circumstances that we have in the downtown. So for those reasons, I’m moving that notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director of Planning that we approve a three-year extension on this site.

Thank you. I look for other speakers. Many members are Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’ll just say that I’m happy to see this come forward. It’s an obvious path for us, I think. given the conditions of our downtown and the need for parking, just to appreciate all of the businesses that are downtown still and happy to support this . Thank you, other comments?

Councillor Trussell. Thank you, to the chair. Is there a definition in the Planning Act of the word, quote, temporary? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, I don’t believe there’s a specific definition, but I will note that the temporary use provisions section 39 of the Planning Act limit temporary use by-laws to a maximum of three years. Councillor. And what year was this first adopted for three year that the three year reference? What was the first year?

I’ll go and stop. Through the chair the parking lot has existed since 1995. Councillor. Okay so I believe and I believe it’s a recognized rule very simple rule of statutory construction that says when there’s not a specific definition in a measure like the Planning Act we would then resort to the common everyday plane meeting usage and I’ve gone through some of the diction aries and I could sit here and read all of the definitions in dictionaries but it’s pretty much along the lines of lasting for just a second Councilor.

Councilor Cuddy thank you chair and through you. We have a long docket and I appreciate the fact that Councillor Trossa was going to give us a dictionary explanation of the word temporary but I don’t think at this stage we need it. I think we just have to make a decision on this. Thank you.

Well, Councillor, I’m going to let Councillor Trossa go ahead with all due respect. I think this is part of the discussion because it has been renewed a number of times so I’m going to allow him to continue. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you very much to the chair.

We do have to have this discussion and we do have to talk about what we mean by the word temporary this is not a temporary use this is a permanent use it’s just it’s just over it’s too long this is not a temporary use we have people come to these chambers every meeting every planning committee meeting begging us to take a little bit off some of the applications that have come forward and we’re told persistently time and time again we have to do this we have to we We have to increase the density. We have to increase the height. We’re going to hear it a couple of times tonight because we need housing. We cannot continue to use prime, developable space downtown right on a transit corridor where you don’t have an adjacent residential neighborhood that’s going to raise some of the things that adjacent residential neighborhoods often raise.

We need to build housing here and we are never going to build housing here if we persistently, If we persistently, time after time, can you with this temporary use fiction? This is not a temporary use. This is a permanent use, and there is a huge opportunity cost for allowing surface parking here. So I will be supporting the staff recommendation at council, and I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments for questions. Council approval.

Thank you. We can discuss, I’m just going to make some comments. We can discuss dictionary, permanent. We can discuss temporary.

But I think that one important thing is the most important one, which is the reality. If you talk to anyone who wants to open up a business or offices downtown, number two issues are safety together with security and parking. Safety and security, as we know, even though we have introduced certain initiatives, we are far from being perfect. we need this parking lot, as we heard before, from the applicant.

It’s already from the existing tenants, which is supporting the lease and potential releases, and potentially we would be even higher, over 30% of our vacancy. So again, even though it does say temporary use, even though there’s a certain limit, we heard three years, but I think really we have to realize the facts of life and the reality and the reality is that we need it. We cannot jeopardize any other businesses or office space or whatever it is to move downtown. And as we heard, if I look at actually at our applications where we approve during the last three and a half years, certainly downtown in terms of the units is a very high number.

So it’s not that we are not pushing downtown. It’s not like the individuals that are coming in the gallery are speaking only in terms of the downtown. No, it’s from the old ERS of London, but I want to say what’s in front of us. At the council, I will 100 % support it.

I want to jeopardize downtown. I want downtown to become sky is the limit and this is part of it. Be absolutely needed in this case. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Sorry to have to come back on this, but I think There’s a couple comments that were made that need to be addressed here as as staff indicated we can only renew on a temporary basis for three years. That doesn’t dictate the overall number of years that a property can be used for that purpose. It just means that every three years they have to come back and ask us again.

There is an if being noted in my motion that indicates that could be noted the applicant is not looking for an OPA an official plan amendment right now to make this permanent, which they could do because they may look for a redevelopment proposal in the future here, but for now they need this as parking. And when I hear comments, and I was going to call a point of order, but I decided not to, I decided to just wait and address the committee again, when I hear we need to make people build housing here, we cannot make people build anything on their private property. We have zoning that can restrict what’s on a property, We have height limits that can restrict what it looks like, but we cannot make people take their private money and build housing on land that they own. And as I indicated in my first round of comments, this applicant has actually just worked with the Anglican Diocese on Dufferinav to convert some commercial to residential.

They’re helping bring housing to the core, but they need this parking to retain their commercial tendencies. And as much as we need housing in the park, we also need a vibrant commercial district in the car. We need people coming to work, we need people coming to shop in the car, and those people are going to require partnering. So here we have an instance where parking is being utilized by existing tenants and the applicant is asking for another three-year extension.

So I want to emphasize that on any of these properties, on any of the items on our dock today, whether you support or oppose them, we cannot make private land owners build anything. If their money, they choose whether to invest or not and how to invest it moving forward. So I just think that that had to be underlying because when I hear we have to make 30 seconds here, that is not within our pur view. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, siftans have been one of our best corporate citizens for the past 80 years. They build when they can, they build when they can lease, they’re creative, they’re they have great ingenuity when they build . As Deputy Mayor Lewis just pointed out, they they worked cooperatively with the Anglican Diocese for affordable housing projects. This is the company that has moved this city forward for the past 80 years.

If they could build this and lease it out chair, they would. If there was if there was a need for it, they would build. So with all due respect, I will be supporting this the amendment that Deputy Mayor Lewis put forward. Thank you.

I look for other comments or questions. Councillor ramen. thank you and through you so appreciate the discussion here and I’ll be honest I’m a bit torn on this one I appreciate sifton’s position the need for additional parking for their current tenants and for other downtown office and commercial uses or spaces but at the same time I also understand that we have looked at this property for future development and that staff have shared their thoughts that this hinders and delays the long-term redevelopment. I’m wondering just actually a question with respect to the motion itself.

Under the it being noted, the it being noted has been changed to be, has taken the wording that was in the original motion and it’s changed that wording to correspond with the notwithstanding and I’m just wondering if if that is correct. I don’t know whether I should go to staff or the clerk on that one. I’ll try the staff first, but if you want to defer to the clerk, I’m fine with that too. Through the chair, as this is not withstanding, it is up to yourselves to decide whether you want to remove some of those pieces.

I think that it being noted probably doesn’t necessarily apply unless the mover did intend that language. So it completely up to yourselves to be able to decide whether that wording is appropriate. Councilor thank you so just further to that the it being noted says that the request conforms the established policies of the London plan so I guess I just want to be clear that staff said one thing in the motion that was put forward in draft form with this application this is now contrary so I believe the it being noted has to come out well again I’ll go to staff but if you want to go to the clerk I understand. Thank you through the chair I’ll qualify this as notwithstanding the staff recommendation and and the mover the motion would have to provide rational reasons for the notwithstanding and the the direction forward so that’s why whether it being noted is in or out there still needs to be a rationale and with the reasons for that which could be contrary to the staff position.

I’ll go to the m over if he would like to weigh in here. Yes, chair. So as Miss McNeely just indicated, you have to put those things in. Under part one of the first it being noted.

Yes, it’s my opinion that it does conform with the evaluation criteria for temporary use bylaws. So staff and I have a different opinion on that. And so I think where we got hung up perhaps is the language with the it being noted. I think that the council’s point is accurate so after the planning act no further notice be given semicolon I think that the it being noted that should come out and it should just say the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons which are my reasons not steps.

Okay thank you councilor. Thank you, that addresses my concern. Okay, thank you. So if there’s the consent from the committee, Mr.

Chair, if we can just have the clerk make that minor language tweak. Okay, I’ll also clerk to do that. Okay, it should be refreshed on your screen. Please check that that you’re comfortable as a m over.

Thumbs up and Councillor Hill here as a seconder. Thumbs up too. Okay, so that’s been changed. Look for any further discussion on this item.

We have a motion moved and seconded. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, moving ahead to item 3.6.

This is regarding 1057 to 1061 Richmond Street. We will call the vote to open the— Mayor Morgan, closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant’s here, please give us your name.

You have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee . Mike Davis with civic here on behalf of our client, Roar Premier Homes.

Roar Premier Homes has acquired this property Richmond Street, it’s the former Robinson Memorial United Church prominent heritage building in and around the Western campus. This project has had a lengthy planning history. It’s currently sitting in an unfinished state, so Robert Merholm’s is very excited to be able to bring this project to a completion, bring it to fruition, and these amendments are important to help them enable that. A couple of points that I want to make, we do, we are in full agreement with the staff recommendation report.

Of course, I appreciate their help in bringing these amendments forward quickly. At the outset of this project, we did deliver notice to all properties within 120 meters of the site. We did set up a project website to share the information about the project and invite neighbors to contact us if there was questions. I do appreciate that as I alluded to there’s been a lengthy planning history with this project and I appreciate that in 2013 there was a very significant investment by the neighbors financial and time- wise towards previous amendments and Terry Land Tribunal or OMB hearings so we do respect that but one thing I do want to make very certain is I do want to kind of dispel any notion that there has not been any changes to the planning framework since that time there have been very significant changes to the planning framework which directly underpin and enable these amendments.

A few examples would be firstly the London plant coming into force and effect which saw these lands redesignated from low density residential in the 1989 official plan to urban corridor. There have been two new versions of the provincial planning statement both of which in my opinion further support, residential intensification, housing, adaptive reuse of commercial and institutional properties in areas well served by transit. And then lastly, and potentially most impactfully , in 2022, the city made significant changes to parking rates for residential uses. All of those things, as I mentioned, underpin and support these amendments.

And that’s why they are able to be brought forward and recommended for approval by staff at this time. If there’s any questions for members of committee , our team is here to help answer those. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look to members of public, would like to address the committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. I will. Okay.

Hi, I’m Mary Ann Kolihan. I am one of the neighbors to Robinson Memorial Church, and I have, unfortunately or unfortunately as a neighbor, been two council on two previous occasions to have a discussion about activities on that property and as well, I was part of one of the parties at the OMB in 2013. It’s a great, beautiful property. It is on one of the key arterial roads that lead from downtown to the university gates.

So much planning, so many planning documents around the Old North community, with its emphasis on heritage, have been a part of understanding what is wanted for our neighborhood. As well, we know that we are part of a near- campus neighborhood. And there is that town and gown struggle. And we live it on our street.

We have student homes on our street, but our street is very small, exceptionally awkward. It is a dead end, very narrow, set up. You know, a lot of the number of the homes are from the 19th century, whether it was farms. There’s a lane way that goes behind the church.

There have been an unusual number of city trucks, buses, and other large vehicles that have gotten stuck on our street over the years. In 2013, we made a movie about it. I have slide shows. There’s no room.

There is simply no room to negotiate on our street. So now, we have this large church with a very large parking lot. And apparently, the consultants will, I think, back this up, more parking than is probably required for the number of units. We chose to go to the OMB, not because it was easy.

And in fact, the OMB was not thought to be all that friendly to neighborhoods like ours who had a heritage building that they wanted to, they wanted to save and have reused. We understood that this was a give and take process. We entered into that process via the OMB with the developer who wanted as many, or almost as many units as the current, that Royal Premier Homes is asking for. We knew that was too much.

It was too dense. It was going to overwhelm the street. And so we entered up, went to the OMB, and had this argument. One of the things that we wanted was to preserve the heritage of the building.

That was one of our big asks. They were asking for a lot of units. We met in the middle of what we wanted, which was far less. And we were hoping, at one point, the developer was talking about high-end condos, senior citizens, mixed use in the back, like a lot of different things.

And we understood, given the dynamics in our neighborhood, that likely it was going to be student housing, and it continues to be student housing. But we went to the OMB, and we got this worked out. And we were happy because we thought the negotiation between us and the developer was a— it was law, that we had an agreement, and it was reasonable for both parties, and both parties could live with that. I can’t speak to the development that’s gone on or hasn’t gone on in the last decade, plus it has been a Bob’s Your Uncle series of people and organizations, and it hasn’t been great.

And having a building sit for a while is not a good thing, but it still needs to be right-sized. This is an important heritage structure. It is on an arterial road of great historic importance to London, and we are trying to protect it while looking for an adaptive reuse. We thought we had all of that settled in 2013, and then all of a sudden the OMB disappears in 2025.

And it seems like this agreement that we hammered out in good faith. 30 seconds. Threatened. So, what do I want?

I want one thing. I want this committee and members of council and the staff to understand how much work has gone into making this a safe development for our street. And I just want you to follow the rules that we hammered out in good faith. Thank you all very much for your time.

Thank you. I’ll go to the next speaker. So you have the top mic there. Please ma’am, go share your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Diane Lejwa, and I live at 192 Sher wood Ave. But I’m speaking on behalf of a neighbor who had to leave. Is that allowed? Yeah, please go ahead.

OK. My name is Steve Harris. I live at Sherwood Ave., two doors west of the church site. My family supports the use of the church as a residence.

The standing OMB decision permits that development to take place in a reasonable way. I would request that the planning committee support the former decision, not the current application. Viability seems to be one of the key points supporting the application for an increase in the number of residents. It appears that the numbers are about financial benefit, not density.

YOMB decision of 2013 allows for a reasonable number of people to live at the church site along with the viable development. Couple of additional observations. I do not believe that the available space for this project could accommodate additional residents without a significant number of people having to live in the basement. Have you visited the basement of 100-year-old church in London, Ontario?

These are at best dark and damp places. You can improve the public spaces in an old church above grade, but the basement simply can’t be made fit for long-term habitation. And so it follows. If people are meant to live in the basement of this development, we should all be very concerned.

It would simply not be safe for them. And this is on behalf of Steve Harris. I’m sure it would happen. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Good afternoon. Give him a name of five minutes. Michael Bax, I live on shore would have just down and across the street from the proposed amendment change.

And while I support the re-adaptive use of heritage buildings, this proposal is just going too far. I mean, we’re basically doubling the density here . And this kind of goes contrary to the London Plan because the London Plan also incorporates the near-campus neighborhood, which has a purpose . And the purpose of that near-campus neighborhood is to protect the area of being close to the university.

The London Plan speaks extensively about creating vibrant, diverse, and inclusive communities. Near-campus neighborhood policies were developed in London and many other university cities to protect long-term viability diversity and character of neighborhoods near large institutions. These policies recognize the pressures created by large transient student populations, including parking shortages, increased traffic and activity, noise and the risk of an unbalanced demographic that can erode the stable residential areas and reduce housing options for families and long-term residents. Approving 17 units in this building will create an unbalanced demographic, heavily skewed towards student housing.

This will upset the adjacent low density neighborhood area and dwellings and converted buildings that are currently used for people to live. Why are the near campus neighborhood restrictions not being meaningfully applied to this site? The site is clearly within the near campus in North Richmond Preservation segment. And these policies direct intensification to appropriate locations while protecting stable residential character.

Staff’s recommendation appears to prioritize general corridor intensification over specific protective policies of the London plan in the near campus neighborhood. In my view, the city planning staff to be aired in recommending the approval of this application. The staff report does not sufficiently demonstrate how nearly doubling the intensity to 94 units per hectare aligns with the clear direction of the London Plan for the protection, character, conservation of mature landscapes, and low density housing. Another part of the London Plan under 962 says, under the near campus neighborhood definition, says clearly do not allow incremental changes in use, density, intensity, and lot size through zoning amendments, minor variances that add, add, add, add.

And it goes on. And this is totally contrary to what’s in their plans, and they’ve ignored it. How can they be reasonable and when they ignore their own directives? Anyway , so the other issue that they bring up is that, Okay, the church is a heritage designation and they’re going to protect it and now they’re going to protect it by increasing the density.

The heritage designation is also already conserved, doubling the number of units, provides no additional heritage benefit. And on the site itself, there’s 11 parking spots and a lot is covered in just 30-percent open space. There’s no additional amenity space for the increased number of residents just to create significant pressures on the neighborhood, including parking shortages and spillover, increased traffic and visitor activity, reduced privacy and amenity for the residents and the neighbors alike. These policies directly undermine the policies of the near-campus neighborhood that are designed to protect and conserve the area and ignore the fact that the city’s own planning and directives that the near-campus neighborhood policies shall prevail where there is a conflict and 30 seconds.

So these policies are supposed to prevail. The near-campus neighborhood policy overrides all the other policies but they’re being ignored. The 2013 OMB settlement clearly balanced density, heritage, traffic, parking, etc. etc.

And I respectfully request that Council reject the staff recommendations to approve it to approve 17 units and maintain instead the existing nine established by the OMB. Thank you. Thank you. I look for the next speaker.

Could I talk again for myself? No ma’am. You had your time. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. Thank you very much.

My name is Greg Barrett and with my wife Jennifer Smout, we are residents at 197 Sherwood Ave where we’ve lived for 30 years, our house is about 30 meters away from the West property line of this site. You’ve heard that the neighbors actually are pretty happy and that there’s some interest in completing the redevelopment of this property. As a matter of fact, you’ve got two letters in support of the proposal in front of you. What I’m standing here in front of you is to say that I don’t agree with the recommendation.

In fact, I’m here embarrassed, saddened, and angry. I’m embarrassed because I’m standing here fighting a recommendation based on policies that I actually had something to help develop, and I have a recommendation now that is ignoring previous decisions that have been made by council with the very same policy basis. Mr. Davis identified three things that have changed, and I’ll address those as I go forward.

But in fact, the previous decisions of council and the decision of the OMB are not only important relevant, but they’re determinant of this instance. I know that councils are not bound by the previous decisions of other councils, but you are bound when the facts in front of you are the same, the policy basis is the same. I don’t understand how you can review the same policies and come up with a different answer. In the same way an OLT hearing would be a de novo hearing, which unfortunately the neighbors don’t have a right to, which would mean that it’s based on its merits and the new information that would be provided.

Well, the new information that would be provided is, in fact, a project that is more intense than what the board had refused or that the board actually accepted as part of a settlement in 2013, and the policy basis is the same as it was in the past. So in fact, what has changed is 13 years, but what hasn’t changed are the policies that you would be using. Just a little bit more on the history on this, because I think, again, it helps understand why the neighbors are concerned. The 2013 application was for 14 units and 34 bedrooms, and that was a 76 unit per hectare development.

That was recommended by staff, but as a result of concerns that were raised, it was referred back. In the time that it was being considered the referral, the applicant appealed to the then-OMB because of a lack of non-decision. There was a subsequent report that came back to council in October of 2013 that recommended the nine units, 27 bedrooms that was actually the basis of the settlement hearing in front of the board. So this is what’s happened.

With respect to the policy basis that has gone on , the one thing that Mr. Davis did note was that the lands were LDR and now are urban corridor. That is correct. However, the urban corridor policies that are in place are preservation policies which mirror the policies in the ‘89 plan that were in force and effect when this application was reviewed.

So your policy basis is the same. The other thing within the 89 quarter review or the quarter policies and the preservation policies of the current plan is that they have been looked at actually more contemporary as part of your heights framework review and as part of the transit village and transit quarters review and no policy change was made. Again, also within the context of changes from the provincial government as it’s relating to focus on providing more opportunities for housing. Intensification is already provided for on this site.

It is already pre-zoned to provide for this development. There are 110 properties within the preservation quarter from Oxford Street to Huron Street. And within those 110 properties, a number of them are taken by the institutional users of St. Joe’s and Mount Hope, and then the Manor Village.

The remaining properties except for the office conversions that are permitted, the Southerly and Closer to Oxford Street are residential. And they are limited in zoning quite frankly right now with an R2 zone that provides for single semi dup lex and converted dwellings with four properties that actually have an R3 to allow for four units because they were purpose built for that. This property is actually already zoned to provide for the nine units. So the intensification has already been provided for on the site.

The other thing that Mr. Davis mentioned was the change of provincial policy statement. That in fact is true. And what it says, it’s identified this as a strategic growth area because it aligns with the city policies for increasing development along the transit quarters.

This had already done that, that was a policy context, that was a quarter, it was already intended for redevelopment and intensification, and the appropriate level of intensification has been decided. Lastly, or one of the other agencies of the parking requirements is fine. The last thing I just wanted to say is that the notion of providing the intensity with respect to form deals with the visual impact , the notion of providing for the intensity with the units, the density, or the number of bedroom count, which is permitted under policy 970, the London Plan. Thank you, that’s your time, Mr.

Mayor. The intensity of development. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I am Paul Adams. I live at 191 Sherwood Avenue. This is a encore performance for me since I was here in 2013 as part of the core group defending our street and our neighborhood for a very similar project.

And it concerns me greatly. I am very much against the decision that has been made by the city council. And I just want to remind you that we got the same kind of decision the last time from the city council, and we returned down by the planning committee. So we were told that was the kiss of death.

But we went to the OMB on our own. They just laughed and said, good luck. We’re quite a team on our street, and we won. And that decision is still standing.

And whatever these people say, oh, we can get rid of it. It’s a new plan now and so on. That is incorrect. I’d like to start off by saying that I have received a letter from Jackie Farquhar, who is the head of one of the other neighborhood associations.

She’s very well known in the Old North area. Can I read her one-page letter? It’s your five minutes. Thank you.

I am a representative of the St. George Grovener Neighborhood Association. I only just heard about this decision by the city . This intensification is far too high for such a small property and absolutely overkill for student residences.

New and existing accommodations for students is enormous and not necessarily due to the limits on international students. As well as Western’s new 200-based student residences and the 20-story building proposed across from university gates, there’s also an approved 35-story, 500-unit student apartment building at the corner of Oxford and Richmond owned by fibro-rovis real estate. Surely planning committee must realize that the need for intensification of the aforementioned old church property is definitely not necessary. Moving on, just a final comment on what I started off by saying.

The two things that we won the last time from the OMB were that we had the OMB statement from a provincial judge, it’s published, it’s out there, it hasn’t changed. The other thing we got was the heritage destination, which is another type of protection and very important. If you don’t know about how to undo some of these things, I’m just going to give you two quotes that should make you shiver. Cities in Ontario do not have the power to directly overturn or veto decisions made by the Ontario Municipal Board, OMB, or its successor, the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Because the tribunal acts as an independent binding adjudicator, the rulings are legally final and generally binding on the municipality. If a city council simply ignores or passes a by- law to contradict a final tribunal order, developers of affected residents can take the city to court to enforce the tribunal’s decision. I rest my case. This one’s for the children.

Thank you, sir. I’ll look for the next speaker. Sir give us your name in five minutes. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon committee members. My name is Jeff Garde. My property is actually 14 .9 feet from this property. So today I will be the closest property owner speaking.

Another property owners tried to zoom online but missed or was the clerk’s office was having the issues getting them. I support and you know which is unusual for me, I support staff on this application. I was involved also in 2023. I was not one of the neighbors that took it to the OMB for my own personal reasons.

The property itself, the application, there’s no mention that it’s going to be for students. For all we know it could be luxury condos. Like everyone’s making an assumption. The property sitting empty has been since 2013, we have, as neighbors, in my opinion, lost good opportunities at one time.

Kennedy Fowler was wanting to go in there as medical dental. The neighbors did not like that. So what I’m trying to say is everyone has a different opinion. Everyone has their own assumptions, but that’s not necessarily actual or truth.

My biggest concern, and I think all the neighbors will agree with this is is the city lane way. It ‘s been problematic. I’ve had documentation from 1943 that it’s been a problem. So one of the suggestions when I spoke to staff is that this committee pack could give clear direction as part of the site plan approval process that 1057 1061 Richmond Street will not utilize the city own lane way to the west for vehicle access.

I have spoken with representatives of Royal Premier Home. I was given assurances that they have no intention of using the lane way. So I hope that direction can be given to ensure that that lane way is not used for whatever, even if it’s only nine units on the property at Richmond Street. But I reiterate, I’m totally in favor of the 17 units And I really, really do not think it’s appropriate just to automatically assume it’s students.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Amy, we see your hand up.

I’m not too sure if this is what you want to speak to or another item later in the agenda. Yes, I want to talk about something here. Okay, please go ahead. Give us your full name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, chairs and members of committee . My name is Amy C. I’m a resident of London. I’m representing one of the closest neighbors of this building.

I understand that applicant is seeking approval for 17 residential units with only 11 parking spaces, which represents approximately 0.64 parking spaces per unit. My primary concern is parking and traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. This area is located near Western University and has historically experienced high demand for on-street parking in practice. Many households own more than one vehicle and the student-oriented housing often generates additional parking demand.

If the development proceeds with only 11 parking spaces for 17 units, there is a significant possibility that overflow parking will spill onto nearby residential streets. I would respectfully ask the committee to carefully consider whether 11 parking spaces are sufficient for the proposed density, the potential impact on neighboring properties and existing residents. The cumulative effect on traffic, visitor parking, waste collection, and the neighborhood safety, whether additional parking solutions should be explored before are approving the requested zoning amendment. I support responsible redevelopment and the investment in our city.

However, I believe it is important that the parking supply and infrastructure are adequate to support the proposed intensity of development. Thank you. Thank you. A lot for other speakers.

So clear one more time if there’s anyone else online. don’t be online. I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphone, so we’ll open the vote to close the APM. Mayor Morgan closing the vote the motion carries six to zero.

Thank you, so I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Councillor Cutty. Thank you chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Stevenson has seconded. The motion moved and seconded.

I’ll look for comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors. Coun cillor Cutty. Thank you chair. A question to staff and this would be the heritage is carrying heritage has any issues with this motion.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through the chair as you know the property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act as there’s no alterations proposed to the exterior of the property which are which includes all the heritage attributes of the property there ‘s no there’s no heritage impact assessment required for this application. If there are alterations is that may impact the heritage attributes that would be handled through the heritage alteration permit approval process. And that’s required prior to the issuance of the building permit.

So at this time, given that this is all interior, we don’t have any concerns with the proposal. Councillor, thank you Chair, that’s great. And thank you staff. I make a circle back later for questions.

Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I was wondering if I could get assistance from staff in moving the amendment that was recommended by Jeff Garde regarding the laneway at site plan processing. Yeah, I could staff comment on that proposed amendment suggested by the member of the public. Thank you, and through the chair, we’d have to look into the status of the laneway to determine if that’s possible. Counselor.

Thank you, so I’ll deal with that between now and council then. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councillor Troso.

My first question to the chair is I would like to understand better what the site review is going to be on this. There is a normal site review, but I don’t see requests to the site review authority in your step report that’s usually there. Why are they absent from this step recommendation ? So I’ll go to staff on that.

Thank you. And through the chair, there was no recommendations for a site plan in this instance. There is a registered DA on file based on a 2015 site plan approval application. The other instance here is with the fact that all the works are internal to the existing building and there’s no exterior changes proposed .

Councillor, on the basis that you’re not going to do a site plan alone, I would have a very difficult time supporting this because I think many of the concerns that have been raised by residents, and the biggest one for me is putting the OMB aside. I’ll get to that. The biggest one for me is what’s happening on Sherwood. That street cannot take any more traffic.

In fact, that street cannot take the traffic that it has. And I think the residents have been very good in terms of submitting evidence showing the difficulty that larger vehicles have negotiating that street even if there’s not snow. It’s really a very dangerous situation. I’m concerned about that.

I’m concerned about that there is not a robust list of site plan conditions including perhaps looking at whether or not the residents on Sherwood could have preferential parking. I know that’s a separate process. But I want to go back to the OMB. I’m not satisfied that the OMB decision isn’t the determinative in this case because while OMB cases can always be, you can always say they’re not binding because of changed conditions, when you actually look at the street there are no changed conditions.

The conditions on Sherwood as they exist now pretty much as they were, pretty much as they were for a long time. I think that if the staff report wanted to ignore the OMB decision, it would be incumbent in this council making findings that these are the changed conditions that would allow us to depart from the OMB. So could I hear more from perhaps legal as to why the OMB decision is not, and I don’t want to use the term binding, but more determin ative in this situation. I’ll go to staff.

Thank you through you, Chair. So with respect to what I would say in public session, applicants, our landowners are always permitted to apply for land use changes. And its staff and council’s role to accept the application and evaluate it on the basis of the current policy framework. So while there may not have been physical changes on the street, there have been three new provincial policy statements and a new official plan.

So I would suggest the policy framework may have changed, but in any event staff can’t prevent land owners from applying for changes. Councillor. True, true. They can’t stop owners from applying for changes, but they don’t have to recommend them and this council does not have to accept them.

So I would like a little bit more information as to why we should not follow the existing OMB decision. And if you can’t do that in public session, I would like to have that in closed session. I’ll go to staff if they have any comments on that, or, nope, okay, it is what it is. Second, please.

So, Councilor, a member of this committee would have to make that motion and be seconded. So, I’ll look to committee, if Councilor Stevenson. I’ll make that motion that we go into closed. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

I’ll second that motion. So, let’s just deal with that. We have a motion moved and seconded to our voting camera to discuss questions raised by the counselor and vice given. So there’s no discussion on that.

So we will just go to a vote. Okay, that vote process should be up in front of you right now. Mayor Morgan, closing the vote. The motion carries five to one.

Okay, I’ll ask the clerk and the staff to prepare for voting in the camera. And unfortunately, folks, you’re gonna have to clear the gallery because this is in camera. I also wanna remind folks to take your signs and personal belongings with you as well, thank you. All right, folks, thanks for taking that break and opportunity to stretch your legs.

We are back in open session. I’m gonna ask Councilor Stevenson to report out. Yes, progress was made for the item for which we went into closed session. Thank you, Councilor and Councilor Trussow, you were in the speaker at the time.

So I’ll go back to you. You have two minutes and 20 seconds remaining. May I just defer to some other Councillors and maybe wrap up after other people get to speak ? Sure, yep.

I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ram an. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not part of this committee, but I’ve been listening very intently here.

I have also met with a developer. I’ve also heard from the consultant loud and clear that planning framework has changed. I heard that loud and clear, and I also heard from Mr. Barrett that we’ve had those plans, intensification already exists.

So we have an application that is twice the intensification that was allowed at the OMB hearing. I think OMB decisions matter greatly to the public. I’ve heard that loud and clear here. think they should matter to us.

And right or wrong, I really, really do think we should respect the process that’s been taken to date. The community spoke about meeting in the middle. So I kind of wonder when you meet in the middle, you’ve had to make some compromises along the way. If this was an intensification of a couple more units to what it already is there.

I would be okay with it. But this is twice the amount. It is going to make a difference in the community. I think it’s important that we understand that the community followed these rules.

That should matter. It matters to me. I would encourage the committee not to support staff’s recommendation. Thank you.

Councillor Row an. Thank you and through you. So I’d like to use some of my time to ask some questions about this application. The first has to do with bedroom count.

I’m just wondering if staff might be able to clarify what the anticipated bedroom count is for this development. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, based on the near campus neighborhood specific policy area, the definition of a dwelling unit means it can contain no more than five bedrooms. The applicant may be able to better speak to the number of bedrooms that are proposed.

I’ll go to the applicant. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the question of bedrooms. So there is a large number of the units within this building that are complete as three bedroom units.

The remaining space that’s really going to be the platform for the new units, as one of the residents alluded to, will be in the lower level, which right now is kind of a blank canvas. It does have high ceilings. about 8,000 square feet of space down there. So, you know, while I don’t have the exact floor plans or know the exact number of bedrooms, they will be smaller units.

They will not, you would not be able to fit an additional that amount of three bedroom units within that space, just it will be constrained. So, I likelihood that in that lower level, this will be a much higher proportion of one bedroom and door studio style units. Council or? Thank you, through you.

So, does that get sorted out a site plan in terms of what the configuration of the basement is, how many units, what the makeup is. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, at the site plan stage, I just previously noted there is a development agreement registered on title here, which means that pending the outcome of this application, they could proceed to building permit where the internal configurations, including bedrooms, is reviewed. Zoning review would be undertaken at that time to ensure conformity with the zoning by-law as well.

Thank you. So just to clarify that means that because it was approved at nine units Before that there isn’t a site plan. Is that what I’m going to understand? I’ll go stop through the chair It’s because the your the modifications are all internal to the existing building if there was any external Modification staff would review and determine the appropriate path forward in terms of a site plan application But given the current application is all internal there is a registered DA on title They are more welcome to just proceed to building permits.

Should there be any changes to the building permit stage, staff would be notified. And then we would review further from there. Councillor. Thank you.

But the internal impacts the external. So for instance, if there’s more bedrooms now, per say, in the basement of this building, doesn’t that then mean more open space? Doesn’t that mean there’s more potentially need for parking, et cetera, that had to be considered . And therefore, the internal affects the external and a site plan, I think, would be helpful.

Oh, good stuff. That’s through the chair. So we did review the proposal. And in terms of zoning, the development and the existing site plan meets all the zoning requirements, we don’t control bedroom numbers through site plan approval.

It’s based on the number of units and the density . And again, that all meets the zoning. So there would be no physical changes required if they came in for a site plan approval. Councillor.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I’m just wondering also, why are the bedroom units not additional residential units instead are considered a new application in this context? I’ll go stop. Through the chair, the additional residential units are to be kind of within a primary dwelling unit related to a single detached dwelling, some ED touch dwelling and I think a triplex as well, whatever kind of limits that four units per lot.

In this case, we’re dealing with an existing converted building previously approved at nine units. So it does exceed that additional residential unit capability. Councillor. Thank you.

And with the parking on this site, how many spaces have to be accessible? How many spaces have to be designated for anything other than one unit per unit in the building. I’ll go stop. Thank you.

Through the chair for parking on site, they are requesting a special provision for 0.5 spaces per unit. They are actually providing 0.64 spaces per unit. In terms of other parking requirements, given that there are less than 12 spaces, it only requires one type A barrier-free parking space, which would have also been required through that subsequent site plan. Visitor parking is typically only required once you exceed the 10 units.

That’s included in the overall required parking, so it’s not a separate requirement. So by way of that, they would also meet that parking requirement as well. Councillor. Thank you, I really appreciate the answers and I’m sure that I’ll have more between now and council.

Just looking at this, it is a very complex development being that we’re just considering changes on the interior of this building. I understand the policy change. I understand why staff have come forward with this recommendation. However, I do see the points the neighborhoods making that this does feel more intense and a doubling of the occupancy and intensification with this application.

So like I said, I’ll have more questions between now and Council. Thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis . Thank you, Chair.

So I’m going to be supportive of the staff recommendation here. And while I heard the neighbors speak to the 2013 OMB decision, lots has changed since 2013, including the fact that the properties changed hands. This isn’t the same owner or same applicant that brought forward an application in 2013 and that maps. This owner actually acquired the property in the spring of last year.

So they haven’t had it that long. They’re running forward an application that they feel that they can develop. The parking ratio was sufficient. It’s not impacting the heritage attributes of the building.

I do appreciate Councillor Stevenson asking staff about Mr. Garde ‘s question about the laneway and I look forward to to whatever answer she can get from staff, ‘cause I don’t think that’s an unreasonable consideration. I know the applicants indicated that they don’t intend to use it anyway. So it seems like there’s no point of dispute there.

So if something like that comes forward at council, I’m amenable to discussing what that looks like. But we don’t have a static situation here from 2013. We do have the, I mean, it was referenced that the previous decision was made under the 1989 plan, which is not in force and effect and hasn’t been for a while. We are under force and effect of the London Plan now, including the Heights Plan Review and the urban corridor classifications that have been referenced already through the discussions today.

This is a good adaptive redevelopment. We’ve heard how the property sat vacant since 2013. Do we really want it to sit vacant for another 13 years? I don’t.

I want to see this move ahead and I think that this is actually a reasonable proposal, otherwise staff wouldn’t be supporting it. You know, I am personally and frequently criticized by why aren’t you supporting a staff recommendation. I support 95% of the staff recommendations that come forward, and this is another one I’m going to support. And I know that other Councillors may not agree, that’s their prerogative, but nonetheless, any of us can see where there’s a variance from or an acceptance of a staff recommendation.

In this case, I think staff have got it right under the new planning frameworks that are in place and I’m going to be supportive. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Councilor Trussa, two minutes and 20. Thank you.

I’ll just close by saying the more things change, the more things stay the same. And with respect to life on that block, the fact that we were under a different planning framework doesn’t really change the physical reality of the day-to-day lives of the residents on those streets. And if anything, it’s gotten worse. If anything, it’s gotten worse.

And so basically, there’s no site plan. At the very least, we’d be able to have a robust site plan process that could maybe ameliorate some of these concerns about the condition on Sherwood, which is dire right now. It’s just terrible right now. We don’t know the number of bedrooms, and we’re told we can go straight to building permit.

Well, I can’t, I really wanted to find a path for something here, but I can’t. And the more I hear, the more I hear about the details, the more I’m convinced that I am going to be voting no on this, something is going to have to change in order to change my mind on that . I very badly want more affordable housing for students. This is going to be for students.

let’s not make any mistakes about it. We can’t talk about who’s going to live there. So I can’t make an amendment saying, “Well, if it was seniors, it would be okay. We can’t people zone.

I’m not going to purport to do that.” But this is not a good application. Now that all of these details are unraveling as much as I want to see improvement on this property, because believe me, I’ve been hearing from neighbors about the dilapidated conditions that the previous owner has allowed this the 40 seconds and that’s going to be enforced and that’s going to continue to be enforced but we can’t say there was a problem with the maintenance of the property so we have to go we we have to say no no no site plan no no we don’t know the number of units there there there are a lot of questions about the omb decision so this this application is going to need more work i would encourage the applicant to thank you counselor withdraw this and we need to spend more time with this. Thank you. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, and through you. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with the applicants, Councill or Trosto, and also some residents from the street . And I appreciate Councillor Trosto giving me the time to speak about this yesterday. And one of the things that came up in my discussion with the applicants was that people had broken in, some vagrants had broken in, and it set a fire to the part of the building.

They built a fire, there was drug paraphernalia left and and I have no doubt that in fact this happened they wouldn’t have told me chair if it hadn’t happened they don’t think they they created this but someone had bes et a fire and chair the applicants have moved ahead and have secured the entire building the perimeter they actually have a security guard that I believe is on on duty 24 hours a dad could be corrected but they are making every effort to salvage that building a building that has been vacant for many years and I can speak from experience chair of a building on Talbot Street that I lived next door to and I I apologize I’m not going to get off topic but it burned to the ground it was Locosmont 651 Talbot Street and it burnt to the ground chair because because the owners deliberately left it vacant and it was it was inhabited by people who just chose to destroy it and to set fire to it and a part of the ground well my family and I lived next door and I don’t want to see that happen to this property and it could very well happen chair so we could break in there they don’t have to break in, they could have walked in , set another fire, and the building would be gone. A historic building would be demolished forever. The second point I want to make, and then I’m going to conclude, is Councillor Trosto said to me yesterday, “Peter, I wish they’d put seniors in there.” Well, Councillor Trosto, I wish they would make it for seniors as well, but that’s not our decision. And Deputy Mayor Lewis made this point earlier.

Our decision is not to tell people what they can, builders and developers, who they can put into their building. So we don’t have that choice. That’s not our prerogative, but they have developed what I think is a very, very fine development that I think, well, at the end of the day, Chair, will be proud of. And I think the residents, I’m sure we’ll be proud of.

And that’s all I have to say. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I want for any other speakers.

We have a motion moved and seconded. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Moving on to 3.7. this is regarding 36 weathered street. We’ll call the vote on opening the PPM.

I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and if the applicant would like to address, please sir, give us your name, you’ll five minutes. Through the chair, my name’s Adam Lagrou. I’m a planner at Montyth Brown Planning Consult ants, and we’re here on behalf of the property owner of 36 Weathered.

We just like to thank staff for their work on this application with the bylaw they’ve presented. We believe that it will help City of London get to its goal of 47,000 new homes by 2031. Just want to note that the development, we have 12 parking spaces for the 9 units proposed. Thank you again for staff and we’re hoping that committee can endorse the staff recommendation.

We’re here to answer any questions that the committee or public may have. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers from the public. Please ma’am, give us your name.

You have five minutes. Hi, my name is Haley McKinnis and I live at 38 Weather Street directly beside 36 Weather Street. My husband and I bought our home eight years ago and were drawn to the quiet street with big yards, lots of trees and privacy. That will all change if you accept the proposal.

It appears to me that the property owners, developers and deputy city manager of housing and community growth who had recommended approval have not considered the impact to the neighborhood or adjacent properties. There is a lot of context , analysis and consideration missing from the application. The proposal has been compared in isolation to the London Plan and that analysis has been deemed sufficient. I hope that you declined the proposal today.

After living next door to the property, it is evident that the property owners do not care about the impact this development will have on the neighbourhood. I’m sure you’ve all cut your grass two, three times so far this year. The property owners have not cut their grass yet this year and that is not unique to this year or this season. They have also offered to purchase our property to rent it back to us so that they can then evict us from our home when they are ready to develop the two properties.

If that does not tell you that their motivation is purely monetary and not for the betterment of the community, I don’t know what else will. As for the proposal itself, there are many elements and features that don’t make sense. The Deputy City Manager is recommending approval of a plan that inaccurately shows the property line through our house. that gives a false sense of space to build their fire row and landscaping.

Does that not make you question what else may be inaccurate? The proposal also left out key features of our property, namely a deck and patio along the south side of our property. These along with our bedrooms being along our south wall will make our daily life significantly impacted by this development from the increased noise and light as well as reduced privacy. None of this was seriously considered and the only mitigating factor proposed was a six foot fence.

As you’ll see, my husband is taller than that. We also do not consent to the removal of the trees. This will significantly hinder the design of their proposal. And what about the increased drainage into our yard due to the proposed paving and, again, lack of mitigation?

Should they not have taken those into consideration or discussed it with us first? Again, this all points to a lack of consideration and analysis as to the impact it will have on our property. The proposal also references 16 Weather Street many times, but as residents of Weather Street, We are very aware of parking and garbage removal issues and lack of enforcement. That property has eight units with two dedicated parking spots per unit.

Yet we are to believe that less parking per unit with only 12 for, as they said, eight, but I believe it’s, they said nine, I believe it’s only eight units, is supposed to be sufficient as well. How is it intensification of the property deemed acceptable when 16 Weather Street’s law is 24% bigger and they had to reduce their intensification from 10 units to eight? Finally, I feel there is no true analysis done as to the need to rezone the property. 16 Weathered Street, along with the new development at Oxford and Highbury, provide ample housing opportunities.

Within the vicinity to these developments and the reduced enrollment at Fanshawe and Western, I’m not convinced rezoning is necessary or that the amount of infill is needed on one street alone. The proposal significantly lacks any consideration for the impact it will have on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. If this rezoning is approved, Councillors, you’re setting a precedent that any property on Weather Street can be rez oned just because another one was. I ask you all to consider, what if this was your neighbor proposing to do this to you?

Would you be comfortable and content with the level of analysis conducted and mitigation proposed and then be understanding when city staff approve it because it checks some boxes on a city plan? Thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Zachary McInnes. I live directly north of the subject property. To reiterate the representative from Monty Brown said it was nine units, it’s actually eight.

So that’s incorrect on his part, I just want to clarify that. To begin, basically, I just want to thank everybody here and everybody online. I’ve lived at the property with my wife for the past eight years. Basically, we live there with our newborn baby girl.

This is in our second home, our third home. This is our only home. This is where we live. This is where we call home.

This is where we go and relax at the end of the day. Basically, I would just kind of really want you guys to read the report that we submitted and that our neighbors submitted. The application submitted is very aggressive and it’s the most dense housing structure complex on the street. They make reference, again, to 16 weathered several times.

That property is actually much larger. It’s actually 24% larger when you review the application they submitted versus the application that was submitted and approved for 16 weather. So it’s significantly larger. Another key point is I just want to mention the inadequate parking that has been proposed.

I don’t want it to much but basically the proposed application has 12 parking spots for eight units and if you break down that parking it is actually one visitor parking, one accessible parking which basically just leaves 10 spots for eight residential units. Again, when I go back and I listen to all the different scheduled items like 3.7 and especially earlier with Mr. Cuddy, he mentioned specifically, oh like with Auburn developments, you may have made a comment that most of the parking spaces or most of the residents within the city, it’s pretty common they have two cars. Realistically, that doesn’t actually fit here if we have less than two cars for parking so I’m not really sure how that is going to work.

Additionally there’s currently inadequate snow storage and removal based on the submitted concept plan. On the concept plan submitted by Monteith Brown there’s only indicating a six foot by roughly two feet spot placed between buildings A and building B for snow removal. So realistically a six foot spot between a building for a complex. Just think of your driveway.

Your driveway would have more snow than that. They’re going to have essentially two lanes of traffic, one with the fire lane and one with the entrance lane into the property. And they’re going to somehow manage to maneuver all of that snow somehow within two buildings. To me, that doesn’t seem realistic.

Additionally, it also increases the flooding risk to my property. And on the top of the fire route, the fire route is directly outside the bedroom window of all three of my bedroom windows. So again, we live in a very modest house. It’s the only house we have.

There’s all three of the bedrooms are directly within two meters of the property line. Basically, there hasn’t been any consideration into how that affects my daily life, the life of my wife, or the life of my children. Additionally, it’s not even just the fact that there’s eight units. It’s not just eight units, it’s eight units, it’s their, there’s eight units, it’s their guests, it’s their Uber Eats, it’s their Amazon, it’s their FedEx, it’s not just eight units.

Additionally, the planning and advisory, sorry, the planning and environmental committee has not addressed how they will mitigate these factors. There’s also a few key things that we touched on today. Mr. Trossa who’s not here at the moment, but he kind of mentioned before.

We need more infill. We need more thoughtful infill is what he was saying. I totally agree that infill is a good thing in certain circumstances, so long as it’s thoughtful. I do not believe this is thought out well.

I do not believe it’s thought out intentionally and ultimately it will fall on me and my family. 30 seconds. Some final things I want to mention is basically, Councilor Raman made a very good point. Well, why haven’t we considered, why isn’t the applicant considered the ADU?

What’s wrong with building an ADU? That increases density, makes a more vibrant community. It also addresses many of the key concerns. Basically, that would be my question to the planning and environmental committee as well.

Thank you very much, that’s your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Okay, thank you. My name is Stephen McGinnis. I wanted to thank the planning committee for the opportunity to speak. I’m a professional engineer by profession And I reviewed, along with my son, the planning application.

And I just wanted to highlight that there’s a few things in there that are a little bit suspect and should be really looked at closely. One being the discussion about parking. While it’s acknowledged there’s 12 parking spots for the eight units, that’s in itself a little bit misleading. Of the 12 parking spots, one’s accessible, one’s dedicated for visitors.

that’s leaving 10 spots. Of those 10 spots, it’s all predicated on the four units at the back of the property of the proposal, having one unit or one parking space in the garage and one parking space in front of the garage. So effectively, you have two parking spaces dedicated to each of those units and for eight leaving two parking spots for the remaining four units. Inevitably, that’s gonna lead to parking in the fire lane, which it becomes an enforcement issue, or parking in the winter time where no overnight parking’s permitted on the road itself.

The second thing is the drainage, the site drainage. I looked at the site drainage, and from what I can tell, it’s wrong. It’s the report itself as conflicting information within the planning proposal with respect to drainage area and runoff coefficient. So that’s something that was not really adequately discussed in the staff report, as far as I’m concerned.

I also want to suggest that the London plan, which has been talked about many times, talks about the type of rezoning and considerations in rezoning. And one of the key points is potential impacts on adjacent and nearby properties in the area and the degree to which such impacts can be mit igated or managed and mitigated. That is something that is simply mentioned, but there’s no actual indication of how there’s any mitigation. So with those points being made, I would just like to suggest that if the planning committee is going to consider the proposal to redevelop or to rezone, it should be without the further five amendments that’s being proposed within the rezoning.

So limit the rezoning to just the R5 designation, not the other five amendments that’s being requested. By not agreeing to the other five amendments, it may create sufficient space on site to mitigate some of the impacts that are anticipated with this development. So with that, I’d like to thank you and look forward to the outcome. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There is nobody online. I don’t see anyone also approaching the microphones, so I’ll open the vote to close PPM.

I’ll bring the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councillor Cutty. Thank you Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hillier, seconds. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for comments or questions.

Is that Councillor? I just know sometimes you address some of the questions that were asked in the gallery. There were no, there was comments and before, but there was no specific questions that I heard, but committee and visiting counselors are well, are perfectly capable of asking their questions. Okay, sounds good.

I do have a few questions. In this case, there were the town homes at 16 we athered, which went through, it was just approved in this term of council. This is now, you know, there’s a stretch of single family homes north of that. And this is one lot on this string of single family homes that is now being proposed to be eight.

And it does raise the issue of, you know, can this just happen on any street with a single family homes? So I wanted to just raise on page 208 where it talks about policy 969. It says that the London Plan further discourage forms of intensification within nearby campus neighborhoods that. And one of the things that says is continue an ad hoc and incremental trend towards residential intens ification within a given street, block or neighborhood rather than a proactive coordinated and planned approach towards residential intensification.

So I just wondered if staff could help us understand, like I think that the neighborhood understood the townhomes right near the commercial property near Oxford, But this does seem ad hoc, and it does seem out of line with what’s currently there. I’ll go to staff, through the chair, and thank you for the question. With regards to the near campus neighborhoods, which was the policy that you’re referring to, there are a number of criteria that need to be met in order for residential intensification within that NCN or the near campus neighborhood to be appropriate . And a couple of them are conformity with table 10 , 11, 12 of the Lomond Plan, which is the use and intensity that is permitted, and this proposed development meets those criteria.

Up to three stories is permitted here. This proposed development is two stories and then or seven meters. And a number of other criteria which you referenced as well is whether this is an incremental change or ad hoc development. And in our opinion, this is actually the opposite because it’s a specific zoning by-law amendment to this application instead of what we could consider ad hoc development, for example, additional residential units being added onto a single-det ached dwelling, which is also occurring on the street.

So by this certain bylaw amendment, this is going through the appropriate process to allow for review and ultimately also public engagement. And so it’s not an incremental change, but it’s a site-specific zoning bylaw amendment. Councillor. I guess the question would be, this is a street of single family homes.

And now one is being rezoned for eight. So like, so then are we gonna be doing that all the way along, or are there’s gonna, at what point does it become too intense for the area? I’ll go to stuff. True to Chair, and thank you for the question.

Every development or proposed development will be looked at based on its own merits and reviewed. In this instance, it’s quite a modest development . Like I said, it’s seven meters higher, two stories, and landscape open space on lot coverage requirements are all met, overall lot coverage is 25%, which is not as much as we typically see for these types of infill development, but it is possible that more development comes forward, and that will, again, be reviewed based on its own merits. Councilor.

Okay, well, again, it says that the London Plan discourages forms of intensification that do not reasonably accommodate the relationship to adjacent residential properties and not consistent with the prevailing neighborhood form of character. And I think the neighborhood would feel that this is out of that space. And also, there’s several, as the one resident mentioned, five special provisions being asked to intensify it even further. But I will just ask around the drainage.

There was concerns around some of the conflicting information in the site drainage report. And there’s also a hold back here that staff seem to have some concerns as well. So if we could hear more about that. I’ll go to staff.

Thank you and through to Charles. I’ll start with this answer. So as part of the recommendation, we are recommending a holding provision, H6 holding provision, to address some of these stormwater concerns. Hoping that my colleague, Brandon Lambert can further speak to that.

Thank you, through the chair. Yes, like I was like mentioned, we request a holding provision due to the conveyance of overland flows from external drainage areas. The report that was submitted as part of the application didn’t address those external areas. So we still have concerns with the design that’s proposed to date.

So essentially a revised swim brief will have to be resubmitted to city staff. We’ll have to accept it and then building permits can be issued. Councilor. Thank you.

Can I ask what our option is regarding referring this back until that type of information comes forward? Go staff. Thank you through the chair. It’s up to committee.

Should you want to refer the matter back? As the staff have mentioned that through detailed design, we would be looking at the more of the servicing aspect and that would be through the site plan process. At this stage of the zoning, we’re satisfied enough that we have the information we need to proceed with a recommended recommendation of approval and the holding provision will allow for that to happen and the additional information at the time of site plan. Councilor.

Thank you the um can staff comment on the this is a small lot beside with that where the house as they said three bedrooms just a few meters from the property line was that factored in at all in terms of approving the intensification on this lot. I’ll go of staff. Thank you and true to chair. Absolutely that does weigh in.

There are criteria in the R2 section of the London plan that really speak to that compatibility and fit. And that is also the reason why staff is recommending additional special provisions for an increased interior side track setback for the townhouses. Councillor. I’d also like to ask regarding the snow removal, there was concerns around a six foot spot.

Go to staff. Thank you and true to chair. As this application is not going through the set plan application stage. It is challenging to determine where the snow storage will be located.

As mentioned, there is a small space for some snow storage. Ultimately, it will be up to the applicant to ensure that snow storage is addressed appropriately. Councilor. Okay, that sounds a little concerning, especially given the last winter we just had.

The other thing is garbage. What happens with that? I’m assuming it has to all go out to the curb. Good staff.

Thank you and to the chair at this moment, I don’t think that the applicant has decided on their garbage system or, but typically for a relatively small development like this, the residents would be responsible for bringing the garbage to the streets in blue bins and garbage bags. Councillor. Yeah, is there any concern about the footage even at the front of that building to be able to put eight units worth of garbage out at the street? Public health staff.

Through the chair, these questions should be directed to the applicant. I’ll go to the applicant. Through the chair. We have considered some garbage mollusks on site in the preliminary concept.

However, this is subject to refinement through the detailed design stage of development. Councilor, go back to you and you have 30 seconds. Yeah, maybe the applicant could answer the question around the snow removal as well. You respond to concerns of snow removal.

Again, with the detailed design of the development, we would look at where that could be. Notably, the holding provision with the storm water report, the stormwater management concerns will be addressed, and that would include runoff from snow storage. Counselor? Yeah, I don’t think I’m gonna be able to support this proposal, and it’s in my ward.

Okay, I’ll look for other comments or questions in committee or visiting staff or visiting counselors. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded, and we’ll call them. The clerk just notified me that Deputy Mayor Lewis, had your hand up are you and then it went down just want to make sure we didn’t miss you. No why my hands down.

Okay thank you. That was just flaking the wrong button. Okay all right we got motion moving second we’ll call the vote. Sing the vote the motion carries four to one.

Okay moving on to 3.8 this is regarding 929 Cheap Side Street. I’ll open the vote on opening the PPM. Sir Hillier closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0. Okay if the applicant is here.

I would like to address Mitty, please forgive us your name again in your five minutes. Through the chair, my name is Adam LeGrew. I’m from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’m also here with Jay McGuffin, Principal Plan ner for Monteith Brown, and we’re both here on behalf of the owner of the 929 Cheap Side Street.

We would just like to thank, extend our thanks to the committee and to council for allowing the referral of the Zoning By-law Amendment back to staff during the March 31st Council meeting. This allowed our our client the opportunity to work with staff on addressing concerns raised by the community. Since that time we’ve made considerable changes to our proposed design considering the feedback we received during the March 10th PEC meeting. Some considerable changes in the design since the original submission include reduction in total units from 105 to 79 and this increased our parking ratio from 0.4 spaces to unit to above the minimum standard in the by-law.

We’ve also increased setbacks from cheap side, we’ve reduced lock coverage, and we’ve increased the amount of landscape open space throughout the site. So we hope the committee will endorse the staff recommendation and are available to answer any questions the committee or public may have regarding the revised application. Thank you. I look for members of the public like to address committee.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, Sharon Riley on Clifford Street in that area. I wondered , did you receive the Zoom from Stephen Ord? He’s not able to be here today.

He’s overseas, but he thought he could maybe get his report through. Did you get a chance to read that yet? I’ll ask a clerk if we receive the video. Well, then I’ve got the report here I can read.

He was online. You read it? I’m just saying that the gentleman was online. I assume.

Okay. But did anyone read it? I am online. Is that Stephen?

Yes. Oh, so has he, would he like to read it now then? Well, you’re, it’s your turn. I can go to him in another time, but it’s your turn when you have five minutes.

Well, I’m just reading his words. Is that all right? You can do please. Number one, incompatibility with the neighborhood context.

You are pushing the all the limits and primarily asking us to ignore a unit density 60% over the limit. This is over development and overcrowding but not in any way compatible with our established community. Number two, the height of six stories being too tall. yes the city plans or city allows a story six- story building but just because you and having a hard time reading this just because you can does not mean you should just like you can buy a case of 30 well i’ll leave that part out um over development of the site your own figures uh found on zone provision highlights and port and point to the plan as just plain overdevelopment.

From the yard depth of 64% of zoning requirements , the interior side of the yard is 60%. And the exterior side yard is a mere 10% of the zoning requirements. Your reference and argument that existing buildings on cheap side violate current setbacks and those should you be allowed to be entirely backwards. Those properties, setbacks are considered grandf athered.

I’m going to skip along here. The proposal has open space as just over half 56% of current requirements, and lot coverage is 33% greater than allowed. The very definition of overdevelopment. Contents of the reduced parking, well, you mentioned that.

but I’m just going to read what he said. Although your parking ratio is within the current bylaws of the city, this committee has already realized they are inadequate, and I was waiting the drafting of new units, or unit limits. Let me see here. To increase gin traffic within the area, by the way, the developers seems to think that it was 50 miles per hour on Cheap Side Street hasn’t been that for some time.

is 40% from St. Joseph’s fan or on Richmond, all the way down to Fanshawe College. So when you’re talking about speed and increased traffic, that’s where it really hits. To the city, zoning regulations set out the rules for the development, but they are useless if every time a developer waltzes into town and asks you to change them, you do.

So I have paid taxes in this city for over 45 years, yet I have to abide by zoning regulations. I tried to get permission to build a carport and on my property, but zoning refused, went on a busy street. I asked to have a circular drive for safety, but was refused. I had to live with that in social developers.

The bylaws are there to protect everyone, primarily the neighbors. do you or do the bylaws only apply to the little guy, but if you have enough money, does that mean you have to just ignore them? Land owners have the rights under federal, provincial and municipal laws, but this development developer knows the rules when they purchase the property. And I’m gonna just sum up here at the end.

As our city representatives, you have an obligation to enforce our bylaws and protect local residential neighborhoods. Stand up and protect the London neighborhoods and citizens you are supposed to represent. And pardon? Hold on a second, please.

Who’s online? Could you please mute yourself? ‘Cause we’re hearing chatter. Please go ahead, you have 30 seconds.

Let’s be clear. We are not opposed to a development on the site, but let’s find a more suitable solution that fits the neighborhood, the community, and allows the developer to make a reasonable profit. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to gentlemen over here. Please forgive us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, I’m Paul Strong. I live on Sterling Street of 40 years now.

Pretty much what was just said is pretty much what I would say. You’ve been asking for our approval, but six stories is far too high for our area. Every other building is three story walkups. If you must put in an apartment, at least keeping continuity with the neighborhood would be appreciated.

It should be self-contained. We shouldn’t have to have permanent parking on the street at any time. I’d hear the numbers for parking is adequate, but really for functionality, it’s not. In the winter, we would never be able to navigate our street with permanent parking.

It’s brutal at the best of times. Our homes are one to two stories. That’s what we would like to see at the end of our street. It was formerly retail when it was a garden center.

I would love to see something that actually serves our community where we can buy things or donate in a value village, anything. But what you’re asking us is to just shoulder a burden with absolutely no benefits to the neighborhood at all. It just seems like a horrible advancement for us. I just, that’s about it for me.

I just don’t see a benefit and only see a burden to a community that’s been there since the 1940s. Thank you. We’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes.

Hi, my name’s Anne Wild. I was here on March 10th when we had another round of this. So I’m going to start with the continued opposition in your revised development proposal of 929 Sterling Street. While the developer has made minor adjustments and a close analysis of the architectural and landscape plans, reveals that the changes are just appeasements on a piece of paper that fails to address the fundamental and the lack of compatibility in our neighborhood .

The proposal continues to prioritize the developers’ profit over safety and the experience of an existing neighborhood and the future residents in the new development, excessive density and misplaced intensity. The 25% reduction in the units from 105 to 79 is just a tactical distraction. At 235 units per hectare, the density remains significantly higher than the standard R8 or R9 zoning, typically found in the London area. and nearly 10 fold increase in the density over the established 15 to 30 units per hectare.

The level of intensity belongs on a major arterial growth channel, such as Oxford, Dundas Street. Cheap side street was never included in rapid transit for a reason. Forcing the level of info into a residential pocket is an overreach. The disregard for local housing needs, despite your clear community feedback that we had , developers failed to include any three bedroom facility units.

CMHC data in 2025 shows one bedroom apartments in London have reached a 15-year high vacancy rate at 4% while three plus bedroom units remain in high demand. The parking and safety is deficient while the developer has increased the parking account from 46 to 55. The ratio remains functionality insufficient at 0.69 spaces per unit. The developer has also increased bicycle parking to 80 spots as a tactical trade-off to justify the vehicle deficiencies that there are.

While sustainable transit is a goal, it cannot be used to ignore a reality. Stat scan data for the city of London shows approximately 84% of households own at least one vehicle. With an average of 1.47 cars per household. London’s zoning Z1 bylaw requires 1 to 1.25 spaces per unit for a reason.

Since this is not a primary transit area, residents in visitor parking will inevitably roll onto the street of Sterling and Barker, creating congestion and a direct safety problem. The facade, the step back, the visual privacy crisis, the developer’s use of setbacks is a structural maneuver that fails to solve the privacy crisis for the neighbors and the school. The new fourth floor terrace, the fifth and sixth floor windows continue to provide an unobstructed view over rooftops directly into the school’s playground and into the private backyards. That violates the London plan, requirements for visual privacy, and creates a permanent fishbowl effect.

For our children, the residents, the simple architectural shifts do not mitigate that. The environmental, degradation, and the snow management as discussed , the landscape is perhaps the most prime example of profit over neighborhood character. The developer intends to remove 37 mature trees, including several city boulevard trees with high value native species like black walnuts and maples. 30 seconds.

And replace those with 22 decorative trees. We require the city to reject this plan in its current form. We advocate to develop that respects the zone and you are our voices. You are our counselors, you’re us.

Thank you. Thank you. for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Goodness, sorry. Hi there, my name is Nicole Shea. I live on Sterling directly across from this proposed building. I’m here not only on my own behalf, but also on the behalf of many residents who have expressed concerns about this proposal throughout the public consultation process.

Over the past several months, residents have participated in meetings, submitted comments, raised concerns about the scale and the impact of this development. While the proposal has been revised since it was first introduced, the fundamental issues remain unresolved. The current proposal is for a six-story apartment building containing 79 residential units with only 55 vehicle parking spaces. In a neighborhood made up primarily of one-story homes, a six-story building is simply not compatible while with the existing character of our community.

Residents have repeatedly stated that there are no six-story buildings along Che apside Street between Clark Road and St. George. the development would be dramatically larger than anything that currently exists in our area and would significantly alter the streetscape that residents have invested in and called home for many years. The concern is not simply the number of units.

Reducing the unit count does not address the larger issue of scale. The height, density and massing of the building remain out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Another major concern is parking. The proposal provides only 55 parking spaces for 79 units.

This community is not served by a major transit corridor, and many residents rely on personal vehicles for work, family responsibilities, and daily activities. Residents are concerned that overflow parking will spill onto nearby streets, such as Barker and Sterling, creating additional challenges for existing homeowners and visitors. Traffic and safety concerns also remain unresolved. Residents regularly experience congestion along eastbound, cheap side street, particularly during the afternoon rush between four and six.

There’s also been many accidents at the Barker Street and Cheap Side Street intersection. Many of us feel that the traffic studies presented do not accurately reflect the realities experienced by people who live in this neighborhood every day . I would also ask that Council consider the broader planning implications of this application. The developer is requesting multiple variances because of the proposal does not fit within the existing zoning framework.

The London Plan emphasizes compatibility an appropriate transition between developments. A six-story building immediately adjacent to one-story homes does not represent an appropriate transition. Approving this application would send a message that mid-rise developments can be inserted into established low-rise neighborhoods regardless of context. That would create a precedent that many residents across the city would find concerning.

Carling Heights is a strong, established community made up of seniors, veterans, young families, and long-term residents. We are not opposed to this development. We understand that growth is important. However, growth must be appropriate, compatible and respectable to the neighborhood in which it occurs.

Today, I respectfully ask council to listen to the residents who live here who understand this neighborhood and who will live with the consequences of the decision long after the developer has moved on. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. I look for the next speaker.

All right. Please give us your name, you have five minutes . Yeah, my name is Catherine Church. I’ve read the proposal and have many concerns and objections with regards to the rezoning and amendments for this and other proposed buildings and long-term effects to their neighborhoods and to the environment.

The number of requested amendments alone are a red flag. The application revision has gone from 10 amendments to eight. And while I appreciate the developer has reduced the units and increased the parking, other amendments have stayed the same or have become more extreme and concerning. Developers and municipalities need to work with existing tax paying communities and respect zoning and bylaws.

Bylaws are in place to protect citizens, property, animals, and the environment. The developer is requesting a zone change from commercial one and R1 to an R9-7, special provision to allow for six stories with multiple zoning bylaw amendments. They’re looking for by-law amendments on all the yard debt, the height, the density, the lot coverage, landscaped open space, and yard encroachment. Simply put, a construction that requires a long list of amendments is not the right project for the lot size and the neighborhood where it is being proposed.

In addition, it conflicts with the London Plan policies 193, 252, and 255. The sudden jump from R1 to R9 from one to six stories is not a gradual or appropriate transition. Overall, in my opinion, it shows a lack of concern for the negative impact on neighbors and the community. The proposal is a big change from what has existed historically and what tax paying homeowners in the neighborhood have come to expect.

In addition, I’d like to mention the parking, the proposed parking at 0.9 spaces per unit, It’s still not enough. This is a concern for London and is prompting a public consultation on June 22 nd and a council vote proposing a return to parking ratios of one parking spot per unit. The proposed parking still does not take into account that there will be parking overflow from deliveries, visitors and tenants with multiple vehicles. My next concern is the green space.

When you look at the lot and you take away the building and the parking, it means that there is 17% landscaped open space spread around the building. This means no meaningful green space. It means 83% of the lot will be concreted in asphalt. London’s commitment towards the environment must be maintained.

It is a fundamental part of the city of London’s identity and character. This is not a downtown core area. trees and greenery provide privacy for neighbors, offset pollution, and replenish the water table and moisture to combat hotspots, drought conditions, which is an increasing problem across Canada, and helps drain areas prone to flooding. The next issue is paradigm transportation solutions limited prepared and impact assessment.

However, it is questionable and contains errors. The numbers of cars reported at peak hours in the traffic studies seem to be lower than what is experienced. Traffic volumes fluctuate depending on the season , day of the week and local events, example, school hours. Peak traffic fluctuates throughout the day.

A single sample of one day out of the whole year is not a good reflection of what happens daily, nor does it reflect the daily experience. these can all lead to faulty trip generation forecasts out of context historical data and failure to evaluate multimodal impact. More importantly, there is an error, as was mentioned before, there is an error where they mentioned that cheap side, Barker and Sterling Street are all 40 kilometer an hour streets. They are, sorry, they’re all 50 kilometer an hour streets in the report when in fact they are 40 kilometer an hour and there is a community safety zone on sheep’s side.

30 seconds. Vera issues with water, tight density, Brownsfield, I could go on and on in conclusion. It is well understood that during an artificial creation of a housing shortage started in 2020, the government introduced incentives for developers. I get it, there’s something there to be gained.

Thank you very much, that’s your time. We’ll look for the next speaker good afternoon. Mr. Chair, please start give us your name.

We have five minutes Jay MacGuffin principal planner Monteith Brown planning its owns also acting on behalf of the applicant I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments that I’ve just heard For clarity in terms of suggesting that a professional engineer has made an error in the report that they have stamped with their professional seal I think it’s important to identify that when a Design speed is referred to in a reported design speed is typically 10 kilometers greater than what the posted speed limit is So I don’t want the committee thinking that our traffic engineer was making errors in his report There is a difference between a design speed and a posted speed limit on a road further, I want to identify there’s a lot of Reaction to the drawing that was provided in our revised submission and I would like to make it very clear to committee that the staff proposal for the zoning bylaw amendment is not reflective of the drawing that was submitted in the revised application. The staff have chosen to require additional setbacks and to require additional open space and to require additional landscape provisions on the property from what is shown on the drawing. So with respect to matters of things like snow storage there’ll be significantly more area as a result of the additional landscape open space that is going to be required and the reduced coverages that are being proposed through the staff amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good day.

I’m Maureen Wilson. I do not live in the immediate area of 929 cheap side. However, my own neighborhood recently went through a second round of rezoning changes for the property abutting our yard. So why am I here?

I’ve been following some other developments in the city including this one. I would like to share with you some overall comments and suggestions for your consideration. I will be including some examples of pain points we experienced to help illustrate my points. While the development abutting us past and will move forward, I continue to have a deep sense of angst regarding the overall process and the current direction of infill development in the city.

The application before you now and like many others in recent years is full of special provisions. My issue with this is special provisions are no longer special when they have become and something that developers routinely attempt to exploit. In particular, I’ve used setback requirements as being abused and ignored. In my opinion, the planning and environment committee should not even be seeing the volume of special provisions that pass through here.

Current rules and policies should be enforced at the initial application stage. I believe requesting a small reduced setback of say half a meter in order to build something that could not otherwise be built in a slightly smaller format would represent a truly special scenario where it might be reasonable to entertain a reduced setback. I question whether those that review, recommend, and approve setbacks have a true understanding of why they exist. A quick consult with Google regarding the purposes of building development setbacks returns many important reasons— safety, light and air, noise and pollution buffering, privacy, stormwater management, future expansion of roads and sidewalks, neighborhood character, density control and open green space?

Are you aware that the city policies for setbacks indicate the setback becomes larger with higher heights? Do these reduced setbacks cumulatively create a situation where the city will have less ability to handle extreme melts and/or rainfalls? Are we swapping our forest city for a heat island and creating future stormwater management challenges? The staff report that PEC receives does include some detail in the form of a couple of numbers, required and proposed.

And to the planning department’s credit, this development also includes a third number, recommended. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the recommendations, but it does appear as though some attention and thought was given to setbacks, which is an improvement. However, I believe the level of detail while short and sweet does not do a very good job of illustrating the differences between the required and proposed setbacks. I would like to suggest PAC requests that reports submitted to them include a chart that illustrates the required setback, story by story, so you as a decision maker can more easily identify when proposed setback is grossly deficient.

Perhaps even expand this to have a sliding scale of flexible setback approvals based on the required calculations, story by story, if later in the process something changes and the number of stories were reduced, not likely, they could have a smaller setback. If they build the planning tall, a tall building, it uses the required larger setback. Make it clear, story by story. In my neighborhood, the setback was passed for an eight story, aligns more with the four story.

And shockingly, under the rethink zoning document , which gives us a glimpse into potential future state, the setback that passed does not even align with the one story. Even more shocking is that the developer retains more than three times the required setback on the east, while at the same time getting a special provision to reduce the West setback, mind boggling. In addition, I would like to suggest that a city staff member should do a site visit when an application innocent progress to fact check. Are the applicant’s descriptions of the property truthful?

Are there glaring omissions? If so, why is that? In my neighborhood, the initial application described the property with a description that was dece iving at best. The property was flipped and the second round was more truthful, although in my opinion, it did omit details for the west side as they were not as glowing as the write up for the other directions.

So what can you do? You have the tools to push back on special provisions by simply returning them to their intended special state. 30 seconds. Ask why it’s required.

Ask if it’s reasonable. How is it reasonable? Ask for specifics. Ask what could be built if a special provision is not approved.

The answers should not simply be driven by higher profits. To the planning staff in PEC, I believe enforcing current rules and policies initial stages would create less friction and save to valuable time. I encourage you to ask questions, flush out the whys. Thank you for your time and consideration and to those of you speaking up for your neighborhoods today, I thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Clerk, if there’s anyone online? Stephen Ward?

Excuse me. Please go ahead, you have five minutes . Okay, thank you. I’m talking to you from Tuscany in Italy, so I hope the quality’s there.

I know that Sharon just had read some of my comments earlier. I do want to just comment on one thing about the traffic study to the gentleman who represents the applicant. I’m reading right from the study right now. It says the speed limit is 50 kilometers per hour.

It doesn’t say that anything else just straight speed limit is 50 kilometers per hour and it states that on all three streets it is actually 40 and if actually somebody had attended the site and looked there are three signs right opposite the the property school safety zone community safety zone and a 40 kilometer per hour speed limits to sign so I question the study and I think somebody needs to take that on and take another look at the traffic The space allocated for snow storage is vastly inadequate. London receives an annual snowfall about 76 and a half inches with 17 snowfalls over two inches each. The space allocated for snow storage is vastly inadequate and I’m sure that snow will be piled up against the back of the parking lot and will drain into the properties, single family properties behind it. possibly with salt and that salt damage to their properties, the liability is there.

I think that this could be done. This whole property could be developed in something a much smaller size and still be profitable for the applicant, but this is not it. Sorry, they’re way over on everything and I think the city just needs to put a stop to it. We don’t need more 500 600 square foot units.

We need single family homes for families. So I just hope that our counselors who are voted in to represent us will represent us and vote this down. Thank you. Thank you.

I look for the next speaker. Let’s clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s a second sir. Okay, there’s no one online.

Please sir, go ahead. Please give us your name in five minutes. Sure, Leo Weister, live on Barker. Wanted to reiterate again that the traffic study has some questionable pieces of information in it , as the prior person said, the report does talk about posted speed limits as 50 kilometers an hour, and they are indeed posted at 40.

I am an engineer, like to collect data, and to say that you can collect data for one day and use that to make judgment on traffic requirements going forward all the way out into 2033, just seems a little bizarre. It should have been at least a one week study every day, And as somebody had mentioned, the traffic is often seasonal in that area and should have been spread over a long period. The one thing that the report doesn’t talk about either is Barker tends to be a corridor specifically for traffic going north into the cemetery up on Huron and Barker. Often we have funeral possessions down the street and they can be anywhere from a couple of cars up to 30 cars and that is something that’s not even considered within the report.

I think I just wanna reiterate the same concerns that everybody has that the building is just not appropriate for the neighborhood. It’s a neighborhood of one story homes, primarily built in the ’50s, small lots, and a lot of the homeowners do have two cars, and people are parking on the street today. There’s no parking on cheap side, not talked about. Overflow parking on Barker and Sterling is limited to one side of the street, so to put a building of that size with potentially that many residents in there, is just gonna totally overwhelm the neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I don’t see anyone approaching the microphones, so I’ll call the vote to close the PPM.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. Councillor Cutty. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, sorry, motion moved and seconded. Look for questions or comments from committee or visiting counselors deputy mayor. Thank you chair and for you I think it’s really important because we heard a number of speakers reference the special provisions This recommendation from staff actually Refuses the special provisions in part B.

It approves the blanket zoning the r9 But in part a but in part B. It says to refuse those special provisions, which means that the applicant’s going to have to find a way to work with this building that doesn’t require all of those reductions, the encroachment reductions, the lot coverage reductions. They’re going to have to revise the plan again, but what it does say is yes, it can go from a commercial special provision to a residential special provision. To say plan of approval in part C, also asks for opportunities to relocate prepared transit lay by a landscape buffer on cheap side and sterling work with London Transit Commission to integrate bus stop at Cheap Side Barker as part of the proposed development.

So, you know, I have to respectfully disagree with the folks who said the developer really hasn’t done anything except return a couple minor changes on paper. We’ve seen a reduction in units and density. We ‘ve seen the parking and listen, I’m the one who to introduce the motion to revisit one-to-one parking. But I have to operate under the firm by-law, which is 0.5, which means that they have met the required parking ratio.

So much as I may not personally like that, I have to accept it as within the planning rules we have to work within, it meets the criteria. Likewise, the six stories meets the criteria in terms of what is allowed here on cheap side. And we’ve heard that from our staff in the last go around and it’s consistent here. Yes, there’s gonna have to be some changes still because they’re not getting the special provisions.

But the blanket zoning or the base zoning, I should say not blanket zoning, the base zoning is in conformity. And so I’m gonna support this this time around. I think it’s also important to say, and I heard at least one resident, maybe there was two as I was making my notes here . You know, they’d like to see a store or something this, well, there was a commercial space there, it was no longer viable.

And the reality is, and this is not specific to this property, this is happening across the community, these neighborhood commercial spaces are disappearing, because there’s just not enough people using them to make them commercially viable, whether it’s a garden center or a variety store, I’ve got a couple of closed vacant variety stores I wore it. Nobody wants to touch them because they can’t make go of it anymore because people just order their stuff online, have it delivered to their home, and that doesn’t keep a corner store functional. So while I appreciate the sentiment, and I do because I’ve got a closed convenience store just around the corner from me, that’s a bit of an eyesore, but I know that nobody’s going to turn that into another variety store because it’s just not going to work. So that’s the reality here is we’re not going to see another commercial development come to this site.

It is being looked at for repurposing for residential. I said this at the last meeting and I’m going to reiterate it today. Yes, it’s good that we have a high vacancy rate for the highest in 15 years because we’re actually just getting into the healthy zone. CMHC recommends a vacancy rate that should be between 3% and 5% and we’re now hovering around the 4% mark.

we talk about housing affordability, that’s what brings rents down. And we’ve seen that in the year-to-date information comparing 2025 to 2026, and you can say the same thing about 2024 to 2025. Today, we are seeing rents that are more than 6% lower than they were a year ago. And that’s a good thing for housing affordability.

And that’s not reflective of too much inventory on the market. That is historically where municipalities should be. It wasn’t an artificially created housing crisis in 2020. We had vacancy rates that were below 2%.

There really was a housing crisis. Now, there were some multiple reasons for that. I’m not going to suggest by any means that it was just about housing inventory. There were other factors, particularly some of the federal government policy factors that played into that.

But nonetheless, there was not enough inventory. And we are finally today starting to see enough inventory on the market, that we are seeing decreasing housing prices. We are seeing housing become more accessible to people. But the housing crisis isn’t over.

And this application, while I’ve heard and I understand why residents feel that six stories is too high, it is what’s allowed here. And so I’m going to be supportive of the base zoning. But I do support staff’s refusal of special provisions. I think that that is quite reasonable to say, you know, you still have too much lock coverage.

You still have some exterior side yard and especially the yard encroachments at 0.2 meters. You’re going to have to make some changes before you are approved to go ahead. And that’s why sending it to site plan with the base zoning, but telling them they can’t have the special provisions is what I’m supporting today. Thank you.

Oh, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I am going to ask that AB called separate from B&C. I’m not going to be able to the support this and as was said by several of the residents here, I am their voice and they’re speaking pretty clearly about what it is that they don’t want to see in their neighborhood.

And the concern that I have is, you know, we talk about six stories is allowed, which I can’t argue. But maybe through you to staff, when was that when did that come to pass? Like six stories has been allowed since when I’ll go staff. Thank you.

And through the chair, those changes were made just part of the heights review. I believe it came forward in 2024. It was ultimately approved by the province in 2025. Councilor.

Yeah, so my point is that this is less than a year old where six stories is allowed and we passed it as a council as part of the frame, the Heights framework review. It was done in August of 2024 and approved a council I believe on September 10 th. At a time when the public really isn’t paying attention, everybody’s on in vacation mode, it wasn’t explicit. So we knew about 45 stories downtown and that kind of thing, but we didn’t go out and transparently say to the public, hey, due to the housing crisis and wanting to meet the needs, we’re gonna be raising the heights from four stories to six stories on these corners .

This is what we’re planning to do and let the public speak. So that’s, I have a real problem with that, that it just kind of went through really quickly, not explicitly shared, and something that really impacts neighborhoods, and not just this one, but several across our city. The other concern that I have is, we have another development that’s coming up on Geary, and when I look at them, we’ve got a density here that is, assuming the zoning goes through, it’s 75 units per hectare, and recommended 235. So it’s three times the required amount.

With Geary, it’s went from 150 to 358, which is two times the density. Parking is about the same. Land coverage is about the same. Landscaping is about the same.

So one, we’ve got an approval by staff and one, we’ve got a refusal by staff. So I’m just wondering through you, if staff can help the public and council understand how one is coming through as an approval and one as a refusal. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, generally speaking, the sites are a little bit different in terms of the type of development that’s proposed and staff have concerns with the intensity proposed at Fanshawe and Gearia as well as the form.

This one staff are generally satisfied with the intensity, with some refinements to the form that we feel can be accomplished at the site plan stage, subject to the staff recommended zoning. Councilor. Thank you, and while I understand that, six stories is allowed on cheap side, eight stories is allowed on Fanshawe. The density is three times on cheap side, and it’s only two times on Fanshawe.

So, and Fanshawe is a main street and cheap side, although it is, it really isn’t. It’s hard to compare, the neighborhoods are the same. These are single-family, you know, low-density residential neighborhoods where we’re talking about putting something that’s three times the required density. And you know, while I understand that the provincial policy statement asks us to look at unused commercial spaces and switch them to residential, how many times have neighborhoods have we got rid of schools and then realized that we, you know, a little while later maybe be regretted that decision.

So we’re making 50 year decisions here when we put up apartment buildings. And although commercial is not a viable option at the moment, this is a midway between Adelaide and Highbury. It’s a great little spot to have walkable commercial spaces that may be very viable five to 10 years from now and won’t be an option anymore if this goes through. So I’m not going to be supporting the zoning change to from commercial to residential and I really think that we need to listen to the public if you watch what’s happening Calgary in their municipal election they did repealing a blanket zoning there’s other cities in sofasan Ontario that point of order mr chair hold on to second councilor point of order go ahead the councilor is way off base in talking about calgary municipal elections out there that has nothing to do with this application and not only is it a completely different municipalities it’s under completely different provincial jurisdiction.

I’d ask the councilor keep her comments to this file. Yeah I have to agree there councilor just please keep it to this item. Okay no problem my my point is really just about public like when I talked to the public in 2022 the housing issue was a very big issue as we implemented for as of right and ARUs and and heights review changes and as these things are unfolding in in our city, there’s been a change of heart and ask for us to reevaluate, to look at things, to listen to them, to ensure that we’re making decisions. They’re gonna create a better city in general for all of us and for the next generation.

So my point is that we’ve seen, even in Southwest Ontario, cities make changes. Just like the .5 parking, through you two staff, when did the .5 parking go through? I’ll go staff. Thank you and true to Chair.

That was in 2022, Councilor. So again, 2022, I don’t know if it was this term, a Councilor just the previous one, but we made this change to 0.5 parking. And now we’ve realized it’s not a good idea. Now we’re looking at going back to one.

But in the meantime, we’re having to approve projects that we know or we believe to be going to cause parking problems in our neighborhoods because we did these fast changes and we course corrected. We have the ability to make other course corrections And I think we need to listen to the public. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions.

Councillor Trussell. I’m gonna, thank you very much again. I’m not a member of this committee. I won’t be voting.

I wanna thank Councillor Stevenson for her very thorough research on this. And I think that some of your insights were very astute. Looking at comparing the numbers from different parts of the city, It’s just very curious. I don’t see the consistency.

Now I’m going to be, I guess one way of fixing that is to just approve both of them, but I’m not asking you to do that. But I just wanted to say that what bothers me about this is I don’t understand the difference between cheap side and fan shore park road in terms of the treatment. I’m troubled. Cheap side gets to Adelaide really quickly, and then it comes through my ward.

I don’t want to see a six story building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And I have to, I’ve asked this before at this council. Where is the missing middle? Where is the missing middle?

There’s no missing middle. Because whenever an applicant has the opportunity to go beyond what would be a reasonable missing middle, we get something much bigger. Let me get something that’s inappropriate. I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk about the traffic study.

At many of these council meetings, I talk about the traffic study. Once again, I think the traffic study was flawed. I won’t repeat all the reasons. I think that the members of the audience did a good job critiquing the traffic study.

I wish there was some way that we could look at the traffic study before it gets to this stage . because for me to say, this traffic study was flawed, I’d like to send it back, I’ll be told, well you can’t do that because we’re under a time limitation. So we basically, time after time, we are sort of forced to accept unacceptable traffic studies that are flawed and their conclusion and their methodology and the way they look at things, and it’s the same thing. These traffic studies that we get, they’re just hand, they’re just the same, And we need to develop a better process for looking at the traffic studies earlier in the procedure.

And I know I’m getting off the application. So I won’t go, I won’t talk about the need for that. But this traffic study was inadequate. And I think the way this neighborhood is being treated, assumption should not be made about your purchasing habits.

Assumption should not be made about what the demographic here is in terms of what kind of shopping opportunities you’d like to have. I don’t know if you were allowed to make a point of personal privilege on behalf of another neighborhood that you don’t live in, but I almost had my hand up there for a while. I think it would be very reasonable not to put up a huge shopping center there, but mixed use. We’re not talking about the missing middle.

We’re not talking about mixed use. We’re not talking about a variety of different options of housing types. We’re just getting the same persistent over development requests, prime after time. And I think that you go across the different neighborhoods in this city, and people are tired of it.

People are tired of it today, and they’re tired of it at other meetings, and we’re gonna keep hearing that. One final thing, in terms of the September 2024 adoption of a lot of different changes to the official plan, I said it at the time, we took on too much that night. And a lot of those, I think we’re having some regrets about some of the things that we rushed through without adequate public consultation and understanding of what the implications were gonna be. And I think the next council, we can’t do it, but the next council is gonna have to go back and look at that, and make some corrections.

But for tonight, to get back to this project, I stand with the Ward Councilor, and I will not be supporting this. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.

I’m not part of this committee, but I do appreciate making a couple of comments. And I would like to encourage the committee to support staff’s recommendation. You already have done a very similar recommendation in my ward, a number, maybe almost a year ago. And I’d just like to point out, on the refusal part of the B, the special provisions, there’s a lot more work that needs to be done.

I appreciate the work that the applicant has done today, reducing it. But this application still has a lot more work to be had. I think we have to be careful if we get too much into the weeds, and it’s very difficult for the community to understand this process. I have challenges, and I’ve been here a long time, But it’s important that we try to share this information, explain it to the community what this refusal even means, and try to understand it.

You may not want this development. But I said, like I said, there’s a lot more work to be done, so I would encourage the committee to support the recommendation. Councilor Omen. Thank you, and through you, I just had a couple questions before I state my position on things.

I wanted to ask staff if they can explain what the next step, if this was approved, would be with respect to be and how the community would be informed or what kind of communication they would receive about any future submissions. Go to staff. Thank you and through the chair. After this application goes to council, all members of the public that have commented on this application will receive notice of decision, notice of council decision.

Additionally, if a new application would come in, we would do the same circulation process as previously. So within 120 meters of the subject lands, planning application sign, a webpage, and everybody who has previously provided communications would again be notified as well. Councillor. Thank you.

So just to clarify where it says, let’s say, Council supports A and B as it’s written. what can the community expect if Council supports A and supports B with the refusal in terms of what the building form might look like, what it could be because of the change in the special provisions that are listed here. I’ll go start. Thank you and true to Chair.

What it means is that a base R9-7 zone with a maximum height of 21 meters has been approved, that basically all other special provisions would need to revert back to the base regulations in the R9 zone. So the requested reductions, for example, for landscape open space or increase in coverage, if B would be approved, those would be refused and we would go back to the base of zone regulations in the R9 zone. Councillor. Thank you.

So would the public see any revisions based on what’s here? What happens next in the process? for the staff. Thank you and through the chair.

No, if this would be approved, this would move further to the stipend approval stage where those changes would have to be made, the general public would generally not see those changes. Councillor? Thank you. And if there was an open site plan process, would they?

Good staff. Thank you and through the chair. If council decides to add a holding provision or a direction to site plan for an open site plan consultation process, then that would occur, Councillor. Thank you, that’s helpful to know.

One of the challenges I have with what’s in front of us besides the height, besides the ongoing conversation about some of the changes that we made through the height framework, as well as the parking regulation changes, which I support going back to one to one, is just where we’re left with the recommendation at this point and what that communicates to the community. What it says to me is that throughout the process , we had drawings, we had submissions, we had things that people could look at, that gave them a sense of the building in the form. And then when we approved part of, if it were to be approved the height part in part A, they wouldn’t get a sense of what happens next with part B because of the refusal. And I think that that creates some underlying tensions that continue on because there’s a lot of unknown s as to what could end up being built there.

So I’m not sure how we resolve some of those tensions if this were to be approved. As I said, I’m not supportive of the proposal, but I do think that it’s important to contemplate all scenarios. And it might be something where we need to consider things like open site plans or something that allows the public to continue to have some ability to lend some opinion into what comes out of this project. Is that a question, Councillor, or is that a statement?

A little bit of both, it was a question, sure. Okay, staff, wanted to respond to that. Thank you, and through the chair. I just want to clarify earlier, misspoke.

The holding provision for public site plan has been removed that is no longer in place, but you can make a direction for an open site plan process. And so that is one way to go about it. Councillor. Thank you, yes, I’m aware.

I’m just not a member of the committee, so I’m just sharing my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go for any other comments or questions. Councillor Stevenson.

Well, just second please. Councillor, you’re already have five minutes. We’re in committee, if you can be brief, go ahead . I was just wondering if we could make that amendment to for the open site plan process, given that there hasn’t been a design that the public can see.

Yep, if you want to, yep. If I have a seconder. Okay, well, the clerk is typing that up. The deputy mayor doesn’t indicate he will second that.

So it’s, we’ll wait until we get up and be sc ribed. Just been informed by the clerk and procedure ‘cause it’s your second time speaking, you can’t make an amendment. So, Councilor Cuddy is going to make that amendment. I’ll make the amendment for Councilor Stevenson .

Okay, and I’ll go back to the Deputy Mayor. Oh yeah, you could, you know. Yeah, I’m still fine in a second. Okay, so we got motion moved by Councilor Cuddy and seconded by the Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Okay, on the amendment, I’ll look for any conversation. Oh, just second, please. Oh, staff wants to wait in here. Please go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. Just wanted to clarify. Open site plan doesn’t mean anything to us. We would need clear direction that it’s a public site plan meeting.

So that that’s the language that we would need to use to give clear directions— Can you suggest, can you give some wording to the clerk of what you need to see? Staff have provided to the clerk already. the clerk has that wording. Okay, thank you for that.

I’m going to wait until that’s up on e-scribes so the mover and the seconder can see exactly what what’s going on. Okay, so the clerk has advised me that that wording is now an e-scribe to the mover and the seconder want to review it and let me know that that is okay to proceed. The mover and the seconder are okay with that wording. So just on the amendment, any discussion?

Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll go to the mover and the seconder of the main motion to see if they’re okay to do it. As amended, Councillor Cudi has indicated.

Yes. And the deputy mayor is okay too. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, do you still request separate votes on A and B? Yes, I do, I’ll be voting against A.

Thank you. Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded as amended. Look for any conversation before I call that vote . Seeing none, let’s call that vote.

Just to be clear, this is A, we’re doing first. So you’re voting on the motion as amended, so part C as amended currently, and then you’ll vote on A separately, A and B separately. Council, I just wanna make sure you voted the way you intended on that particular vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Now we’re voting on part A, call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to two. now or open the vote on Part B. So Stevenson, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Chair. Yes. Just wondering if, when this is done, if you could just explain the results to the gallery. I’ll have the clerk do that.

Through the chair. So as per the votes for this motion, Part A, past three to two, Part B, past five, nothing, and the amended Part C, which included the public site plan meeting passed four to one. And I’ll just give further clarification. Part A is the meat of it with the general idea of the rezoning.

Part B was the special provisions that was upheld and then part C was the site plan approval which we amended to make a public thing. So, does that satisfy your councilor? it is just to clarify that the refusal of the special provisions was upheld. Correct, yeah, the refusal, that’s right.

Okay, okay, thank you. Okay, we’ve been at this for over four hours. I’d like to look to committee to consider taking, you know, a 10-minute break. If I could say, I guess— I’ll move a 10-minute break.

Okay, can I get a seconder, please? Councilor Hillier has indicated second. Okay, we’ll call that vote. Okay, whoops.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, folks, we’ll be back at 5.30. (laughing) Okay, thank you for indulging us in that break. Call this meeting back to order and we’ll deal with 3.9.

This is regarding 1945 High Park Road. So I’ll call the vote on opening the public participation meeting. Let’s think about the motion carries 4-0. Thank you, so I’ll go to the applicant.

The applicant would like to address the committee . Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Daniel Orlana, Senior Development Manager at Smart Center’s REIT , representing the property owners at 1945 Park Road. We are pleased to bring forward this proposal and excited about the opportunity to redevelop the site as it has remained vacant for a considerable period of time. We believe this new retail represents an appropriate and positive addition to Hyde Park community.

The proposed development anchored by a shop for drug mart and complimented by additional high quality retail will provide convenient services, food and other for the local residents while enhancing the existing commercial area. We appreciate staff’s recommendation for approval and I believe the proposal is consistent with the city’s planning framework and surrounding commercial context. Thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, I’ll look for any members of the public would like to address the committee on this item.

I’ll ask to clerk if there’s anyone online. There is nobody online. I don’t see anyone coming to the microphones. So I’ll call a vote to close the PPM.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Councillor Stevenson, will you be willing to move the staff recommendation? Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Cudi, vote for conversation on this. Councillor ramen. Very briefly, just wanted to say I’m supportive of what’s proposed with the Shop Restartments Commercial Plaza. I understand that they will be using the sanitary on site so that there’s no issue with the concern around lack of sanitary in the area and the storm water management upgrades that are being made in the area.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? We have a motion moved in second.

I’ll call the vote. I’m saying the vote. The motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.10.

This is regarding 517 and 525 Fanshop Road East and 1536 Geary Avenue. I’ll call the vote. I don’t think the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. Please give us your name, you have five minutes. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design here on behalf of our client, Royal Premier Homes.

I’ll start off by saying, Royal Premier Homes is a London company. They’re a family business and they are extremely proud of the work they do here, helping to build the city. They have a growing pipeline of infill, multi-residential projects. This block being one of them.

And I think with each project that they bring forward, they understand that these projects are going to leave a lasting, hopefully, positive impact in the community. They take that responsibility seriously. At the same time, we understand there’s been significant public interest in this file, in particular, in terms of our work with planning staff. Obviously, as committee is aware, they are mandated to bring these applications forward to you quite quickly in 90 days.

We’re on a boat day 71 right now. Within that timeframe, they have circulation timelines and deadlines, they have report deadlines. And so the actual time available for collaboration and dialogue with staff is limited through that process. We did, the applicant did submit a revised plan upon hearing from staff through the process, which we believe contains significant revisions, but in terms of further revisions, we essentially kind of ran out of time, which is where we stand here today.

What I do want to point out is that Royal Premier Holmes has made a written submission which they’ve included on the agenda. They’re given the amount of comments and dialogue in the application. There were some points that they felt proper just to clarify for the committee’s benefit of committee’s consideration this evening. Lastly, I think we want to kind of emphasize that we respect all the time that’s been put in by neighbors, by members of the committee into the review of this application.

We know it’s been a challenge and we respect the efforts of staff to get this brought forward before this committee . Primarily we’re here this evening to listen to the perspectives that are being shared and so we can better understand those for moving forward with the project. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to members of the public, like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good evening, thank you for your time. I know this has been a long day and we appreciate your attention to this matter currently on deck.

Sorry, I’m not that loud. My name is Kate Kaconan, and I’m a founding member of Stony Brook for Community First Development. I’m here today to support the staff recommendation to refuse the zoning bylaw amendment before you for 517 to 525 Fanshawe Park Road East and 1536 Geary App. Originally, I intended to begin by recognizing the remarkable efforts of our community, thanking Councilors for their engagement and summarizing the concerns you will hear today regarding height, density, traffic, tree loss, neighborhood compatibility, and many other significant impacts.

Instead, I feel compelled to begin with a concern about the integrity of this process. Late yesterday afternoon, I was informed by Ward Councilor Pribble that Royal Premier Holmes had submitted an additional letter for inclusion in today’s agenda. Residents were not notified, our community group was not informed, and the public was given no meaningful opportunity to review or respond to its contents. This is particularly troubling, giving the extraordinary level of public engagement surrounding this application.

Residents have participated in good faith for months. From our group, this proposal has been the subject of two London Progress articles, an interview with CBC, two segments on 980 CFPL. Our community has built two Facebook platforms with a combined following of more than 500 residents and supporters, generating thousands of views and interactions. We have gathered more than 700 petition signatures and generated over 240 e-mails to city staff and elected officials.

Anything less than this level of public participation is a blanket attempt to circumnavigate the public involvement. Row Premier Holmes states in their letter, and I quote, “The revised proposal reflects substantial changes made in direct response to staff and community feedback. If the changes are indeed substantial, then they warrant a new zoning by-law amended application, complete with updated supporting studies and a renewed public consultation process. The public should have the same opportunity to review and comment on a substantially revised proposal as it did on the original application.

I therefore respectfully ask that members of council give no weight to any new arguments or information contained in this late submission. Residents came here today prepared to address the application that was publicly presented to them. Not material introduced at the 11th hour without any opportunity for meaningful public reviewer response. I also respectfully request that no time today is spent debating the contents of this letter beyond acknowledging its existence, which I have now done.

Instead, I ask that council focus on the application before them and on the thoughtful and formed and evidence- based concerns that residents have spent months preparing to present. Council’s decision today extends beyond a single application, especially when it comes to the zoning amendments and the zoning request being submitted. In conclusion, while I understand that the recommendation by staff is for refusal and we trust that council will agree, we are still taking the time today to share our comments and our concerns. As we know, development will take place along Fanshawe Park Road.

That is not up for debate. Development will happen and at no point in this process has this community group said we don’t want development. We have just said we want development that works for the neighborhood. So we would like this opportunity to still engage with council in the hopes of guiding future development proposals and we thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name in five minutes. Hello, my name is Tammy Pollinik and I am a resident of Stony Brook. I am the other founding member of Stony Brook for community first development and have been working to challenge this development since January 15th, 2026.

I’m speaking to you today with the expectation that the committee members will follow staff’s recommendation and refuse the proposed development by rural premier homes. I want to start by thanking the mayor and all the councillors who came out to Stony Brook to see how the true scale of this proposed development would actually affect our neighborhood. Our community pushed hard to understand the proposal at 517 to 525 Fanshawe Park Road and 1536 Geary Avenue. We spent many months reviewing zoning bylaws, the London Plan, the Provincial Planning Statement and the Planning Application Submitted by Civic.

All of the concerns were raised. All of the concerns we raised about the over-int ensification of this project were validated by city staff in the report to the Planning and Environment Committee. One major concern I have, which is a direct result of the exemplary community engagement of our group has demonstrated, is the backlash that we are getting for pushing back against this over-intensified development. The residents pushing back are not the problem.

It’s the developers like Royal Premier Homes and design firms like Civic who should be getting reprimanded. They are the ones who are blatantly ignoring zoning limits, abusing special provision requests , and who have no sliver of respect for established neighborhoods, they are trying to push through developments that are incomplete, not thought through, are poorly designed and have adverse and irreversible impacts on neighborhoods. Every section of the staff report verifies this, and I’ll now read direct quotes from it as they relate to this application. And I quote, “The proposed scale and intensity of the development are considered to exceed what is appropriate for the site and represents over intensification.

The proposal does not represent a well-designed built form that is a good fit within and compatible with its surrounding context, nor does it support a positive pedestrian environment. The built form and site layout do not effectively respond to the surrounding context or existing neighborhood character, nor has it been appropriately designed to minimize and mitigate potential adverse impacts on the abut ting nearby properties. The The building has not been sufficiently oriented towards the higher order street to minimize impacts on the lower order street and the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed intensification is sensitive to compatible with or appropriately integrated within the existing and planned neighborhood context. The scale and intensity of the proposed development is excessive and represents over intensification of the subject lands.

Development also represents a substantial departure from the intended scale and approach to modest height increases envisioned across the city, including within established neighbourhoods . The application has not adequately demonstrated that the subject lands can appropriately accommodate the proposed scale and intensity of development while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and protecting the abutting low density residential uses. The proposed intensity of development is not appropriate for the size and configuration of the site. And lastly, The proposal is not in the public interest and does not represent good planning,” end of quotes.

And I want to reiterate, those are all verbatim taken straight from the City Planning Report. Once again, staff have recommended refusal, not referral, and not another redesign, refusal. We all understand that development is going to happen at the site, but a developer’s economic viability is not a justification for maximization and over-intens ification. So I want to end by asking you this, is it really the residents pushing back who are the ones stalling import development in the city.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name.

You have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Tarik Khan. I think I should say good evening, right?

So I’m a resident of Stony Brook Press. Chair, can I say thanks to my neighbors, my friends, who have been submitting over 200 petitions so far. And there is a collective petition we submitted. It was it carried over 700 signatures.

And I also want to say my special thanks to our core team. Frankly, they were working very hard during last over 100 days. Whether it was a cold or it was a warm, it was sun or it was rain. They were out knocking at the doors, talking with people, raising awareness, sending emails, engaging media , talking to the radio, and inviting counselors.

And thank you very much. And PC members, let me tell you, your job is not easy. You know what? It is something like a walking on a tightrope without any balance.

Most of the time, it is so difficult to come up to the expectations of the residents because of many reasons. During my service life, I was in the staff shoes. post retirement, I got the opportunity privilege to sit on the other side of the table. So I can fully understand the complexities, the challenges , the problem when you deal with such a proposal.

I have examined the proposal and from my background in local government systems and the town planning, I can very easily say that this proposal has so much technical flaws that even if I start writing it will take me like two days. This proposal or this application is a typical example of misinterpretation, misreading and miscoting of London’s official plan. We call London plan and the provincial policy statement 2024. If I go further into details and I don’t want to because my other speakers will speak on those.

I have my fellow residents, my fellow friends, they have already submitted over 200 petitions and the points and the objections or the recommendations or the concern, they have mentioned in their proposals, I am 100% in agreement with them. And then I’m also 100% agree with our staff, who have very clearly mentioned in their five recommendations that this proposal supposed to be refused. All right, go side track because there is a time limit. I’ve wasted 10 seconds, right?

So PC members, I’m coming directly to you now. Being elected members, you are the custodians of the city. You are the city fathers. Whatever the scene you take today, It is going to impact London forever and our future generation forever.

Please stand by, stand behind the staff and your taxpayers. 30 seconds. Finally, I would like to thank Councillors Purine Raman, Councillor Sam, Councillor Jerry, Councillor Stephen, Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Steve Lehman and finally Mayor Josh Morgan for spending his time, visiting us, listening us and giving us our hope. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Before I go to the next speaker, just hold on. Okay, it looks like we’re going to extend past six o’clock. That’s why I need someone to move.

Councillor Cutty, you’re moving that we go past six. I’ll move. And Councillor Stevenson, you’re seconding, so we’ll call that vote. Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. Okay. Thank you. Now we can go to you.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Okay. Well, good evening, good afternoon. My name is Julie Peters.

And in 2017, while serving as 3M Canada’s Director of Transportation Safety, I was proud to see the City of London join the Global Vision Zero Movement. I was equally proud to attend the Transportation Association of Canada Conference the following year, where London received national recognition for its leadership in advancing roadway safety. Today, London stands alongside more than 1,200 municipalities worldwide who have adopted Vision Zero, a strategy that is built on a straightforward but powerful principle that no loss of life and no serious injury on our roadways is acceptable. Vision Zero was not nearly just a traffic safety program.

It is a commitment by everyone in this room to ensure that transportation planning, roadway design, land use decisions, and public policy work together to protect human life. A particular focus of vision zero for those that are not acquainted with it is the protection of what is referred to as vulnerable road users. Those are children, pedestrians, cyclists, older adults, and persons with disabilities. Safety is achieved not solely through driver behavior but through planning and design that reduces risk, manages traffic volumes particularly around school zones, and prioritizes people and the places where they walk, learn, play and gather.

So committee it is through this lens of safety that I ask you to evaluate the proposal that this applicant has. The proposed development density combined with a veh icular access point along Geary Avenue will introduce significant track volumes on to Stony Brook Crescent as drivers aim to utilize the traffic signal at Fanshawe and Stony Brook when when trying to turn left. As council is aware, Stony Brook Crescent serves an elementary school and presents existed documented challenges. There are multiple blind curves.

There are roadway pinch points. There are limited sight lines and significant seasonal visibility obstructions from winter snow banks. These concerns have been raised repeatedly by school administrators, by parent councils, by residents and by former members of this council. I will also note that the traffic study that was commissioned by Royal Premier Holmes was flawed.

It did not take into consideration any of these issues raised by the community, and it was not conducted over a statistically significant point in time, and it failed to incorporate the safety of the complete thoroughfare and this school zone . I therefore urge the committee to accept staff’s application to refuse it in its current form and to support only future applications that provide a singular vehicle access along Fanshawe Park Road. I’m gonna repeat that. There should be no access along Gary Avenue.

Above all, I urge this committee and council to honor your principles division zero and to place the safety of our children and of all vulnerable road users at the forefront of every decision you make. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll go up top.

Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Jim McKee. My family has resided on Geary Avenue for more than 55 years. I’m here to respectfully urge the committee to uphold the recommendations of Planner Michelle Hines and refuse the application submitted by Royal Premier Homes.

At its core, the application raises a simple but important question. Does this proposal represent good planning and is it in the public interest? The London Plan calls for the development that is an appropriate fit within the surrounding neighborhood and does not undermine the character of lower order residential streets. It’s difficult for me to see how a ninth story apartment building containing almost 300 single bedroom units with a limited green space and insufficient parking can be considered an appropriate fit adjacent long-established family bungalows situated on large lots with massive trees.

Beyond the issue of compatibility, the proposal raises significant concerns about traffic and parking. The development proposes 216 parking spaces for almost 300 residential units, which leaves a shortfall of more than 80 vehicles, before accounting for visitors, service vehicles, and deliveries that will also be there. Where would those vehicles park, particularly during the winter months, when snow removal operations already limit available street parking. Geary Street is not a long street.

Rlying on Geary for overflow parking will result in increased congestion and potential safety concerns. This is not a theoretical concern. It’s a predictable outcome of approving a development with parking that does not match the building scale. Traffic circulation presents another serious concern.

The proposal should result in hundreds of vehicle movements each day entering exiting onto Geary Avenue, a lower order residential street. During peak morning and afternoon periods, this traffic will intersect with interact, with pedestrians, school bus loading zones, and crosswalks carrying students and families in our neighborhood, which raises an obvious question. Why is traffic being directed at all onto Geary? Nearby apartment complexes at 370 and 420 Fanshaw e Park Road access directly onto Fanshawe.

If direct access onto a higher-order road was appropriate for those developments, why was a similar approach not pursued here instead of routing the traffic through a lower-order residential street? The city staff have concluded that this proposal is not in the public interest and does not represent good planning. This committee has the opportunity to uphold the principles of the London Plan and ensure that growth occurs in the manner that is compatible, responsible, and respectful of long-established communities. I respectfully ask the committee to support the staff’s recommendation and refuse this application.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, I’ll go to the gentleman here, am I right? Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Thank you, my name is Robert Thorin, I live on Stony Brook.

Members of the Planning Environment Committee, I stand before you today not to oppose the, excuse me, the development entirely, but to advocate for the livability and the character of our established neighborhood. We are here to address the proposed eight-story apartment building, and specifically the severe impact of introducing a high-volume service and residence traffic into a quiet residential street . Furthermore, while the main corridor street has been upgraded to accommodate for eight floors, the London Plan limits development with a residential street access to a maximum of four stores. With no extra parking for guests, visitors will have to compete for limited parking spaces on- site and on the adjacent residential streets creating significant strain on the surrounding infrastructure.

Adding to these concerns, the only off-street access will likely result in delivery vehicles turning left onto the neighborhood streets, avoiding the difficult left onto Fanshawe Park road during peak traffic, channeling heavy commercial vehicles through the neighborhood and past the public school. Finally, the only entrance will be situated immediately adjacent to homes where that driveway will be used for service vehicles, garbage, recycling, deliveries i.e. Amazon, Skip, Prescriptions, Uber, and Access to Underground Parking, further disrupting the quality of life for those residents. While I understand the city’s goal for intensification along primary corridors, this eight-story proposal with its high density, limited parking, service accessing into quiet residential streets presents a risk that far outweighs the potential benefit of the local neighborhood.

I ask the committee to respect the established urban design guidelines and deny this application. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. Good afternoon or good evening I guess now. My name is Rob Ashton and I live in the Stonybrook neighborhood immediately adjacent to this proposal.

I would like to begin with thanking planning staff for their careful analysis of this application. In my respectful submission, staff has correctly identified the central issues before this committee. This is not about whether London should intensify. It should.

This case is about whether this particular proposal represents the type of desirable intensification contemplated by the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, and the London Plan. I submit that it does not. In my respectful submission, one of the most significant flaws in this application is that it takes height, density, and massing, justified by frontage on Fanshawe Park Road, and extends those impacts onto Geary Avenue, a local residential street where the required transition simply does not occur. The applicant seeks approval for an eight-story, almost 300-unit apartment building on a site directly abutting one of London’s most established low-density neighborhoods.

This proposal therefore represents a level of intensity that far exceeds what can be reasonably considered compatible with surrounding neighborhood context. The issue is not the number of stories alone though. It’s the overall scale, massing, intensity, and lack of transition between this proposal and the surrounding community. Good planning requires more than blind compliance with maximum height permission.

The Planning Act speaks of promoting well-designed built form and creating a sense of place. The Provincial Planning Statement speaks of development that is compatible with insensitive to surrounding land uses. The London Plan repeatedly requires development to fit within its context provide appropriate transition and contribute positively to neighborhood character. Those principles are not optional.

That is the framework through which intensification is evaluated. In this case, the proposal attempts to take density that may in isolation be appropriate along the less residential section of Fanshawe Park Road and extend it into Geary Avenue, a local neighborhood street. That distinction is critically important. Fanshawe Park Road is a major urban corridor.

Geary Ave is not. Good planning requires a meaningful transition between significantly different built forms, which this proposal fails to provide. Further, Geary functions as the entrance to a stable residential neighborhood comprised predominantly of detached homes and mature landscape features. The applicant’s approach does not merely intensify a major corridor.

It internalizes corridor scale intensity under a local residential street that was never planned, designed, or intended to accommodate that form of development, and all without providing the transition required by the London Plan in provincial planning policy. That is not an example of appropriate transition, that is the absence of transition. It’s more accurately described as expansion. Approval of this policy would signal that corridor scale intensity may be extended onto local residential streets without achieving the transition required by policy.

It would effectively permit lands fronting major corridors to be assembled and used to justify increasingly intensive development extending deeper into established neighborhoods. That interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the compatibility, transition, and fit objectives embedded throughout the London plan. The outcome would undermine one of the most fundamental principles of land use planning. Growth must be directed in a manner that respects context and achieves compatibility.

I respectfully submit that staff are correct in concluding that the proposal fails to achieve this transition fit an integration required by policy. Importantly, refusing this application would not be a rejection of intensification. It’s a recognition that intensification must still be respectful of planning principles. There are forms of redevelopment that could succeed on this site.

A low to mid-rise development with reduced height, reduced massing, along gear, greater setbacks, stronger landscape buff ering, improved transition, vehicular access off of Fanshawe, they could all achieve housing objectives while remaining compatible with the surrounding community. Those are not competing objectives. They are exactly what good planning requires. For those reasons, I respectfully submit the staff have reached the correct planning conclusion and I ask the committee to support staff’s recommendation and refuse the application in its current form.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Today, I’m wearing— Oh, hi, I’m sorry, I was looking over here.

Look over here. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Maureen Wilson. I do not live in the immediate area of Stony Creek, Fanshawe, and Geary Development.

However, my own neighborhood recently went through a second round of rezoning changes for the property abutting our yard. Earlier today, I spoke regarding 929 Chief’s side . So why am I still here? The proposed infill development for Stony Creek, Fanshawe, and Geary also contains numerous special provision requests .

Please recall my comments from earlier. They also apply here. Please review the special provisions and ask questions. Are they truly special or are they do overzealous ?

Push for the whys. In addition to my earlier suggestion that submission should include a chart depicting required and proposed setbacks, story by story, I would like to make additional suggestions based on my own recent experience. I would like to suggest that staff reports to PEC include five new sections. Okay, I’m going to just interrupt you there.

I allowed you some leeway when you first addressed the committee. I just asked that you keep your comments specific to the item that we’re discussing right now. There are other avenues where you can make your suggestions as far as generalities, as far as staff or committees. So please keep your comments to the Fanshawe and Geary development.

Well, I think this is because visual inspection would require an in-person visit to the property by the planning department when an in-fill application is in its early stages. And I’m certain that many of you in this room took the tour of the neighborhood for the application currently before you. Sadly, this does not happen for all applications. And I suspect you would agree that the view from the street is more impactful than for behind a desk and a computer.

I too attended one of the tours for the application currently before you. It was interesting to hear many of the resident’s comments. Grading, fit, and compatibility, it sounded very familiar from my own round. Fact check and actively look for omissions.

Are the descriptions and facts truthful? Are there obvious omissions and if so why? Mockups of the development would look like from abutting streets. Currently mockups only depict appearances from the fronting street along with other views from within the development.

Grading, this is currently left for the site plan stage. Gary also mentioned grading, so in my instance, so I think that when they’re submitted, they should have to include the high and low spots. Developers should have to show anticipated grain changes. Diagrams show zero degrees at all corners and is not transparent and does not illustrate zero degree, how the zero degree is achieved, is backfill required?

Would it require a retaining wall? Is it reasonable? Does it fit the character of the neighborhood? I will admit, this is a personal irritant as we believe we will look at a six foot wall.

The setback chart, including calculations for every story to more readily gauge whether a setback request is reasonable or grossly deficient and overz ealous. In addition, the city needs to find ways to measure things that are subjective, fit and compatibility immediately come to mind. These are supposed to be taken into consideration for infill developments in existing neighborhoods and unfortunately both are very subjective. Developers should have to demonstrate how their development fits and how it is compatible.

Simply stating that it fits and it’s compatible fails the SNF test. To me, it is about, you don’t wanna hear that’s mine, it is not a sufficient explanation demonstrating fit and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. It is refreshing to see that the staff report before you today has not let the developer off the hook with generic comments and staff are indicating the proposal is not compatible and does not preserve the character of the lower order street. Please take the steps to ingrain a balanced judgment of fit and compatibility for future developments and ensure the current wave of judgment does not simply vanish in six months.

To planning, staff and PEC, I believe the addition of my earlier suggestions to enforce current rules and policies at the initial stages and the creation of five suggested sections would create more transparency, less friction and save valuable time. I encourage everyone to ask questions and flush out the whys. Thank you for your time and consideration of these items that I see as pain points and related suggestions that may make situations better for future info applications. And a huge thank you to all of those here speaking up for your neighborhoods today.

Go to our next speaker. Please give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Mary McKee and I live at 1522 Geary Ave. I’m here today to strongly urge you to uphold city staff’s recommendation and refuse the zoning amendment application.

I wanna use my time specifically on the critical issue of traffic and pedestrian safety. And I’m going to use honest driving. I have lived on Geary Ave for the last 10 years. In that decade, I have watched the volume of traffic on Fanshawe Park Road explode.

We already know the intersection of Fanshawe and Adelaide is operating at a failing level of service. As a resident there, I am no longer willing to risk a left-hand turn onto Fanshawe Gary during peak hours. It is simply too dangerous. Instead, I frequently choose to travel south on Gary, turn right on Stony Brook Crescent, drive directly past the elementary school, and make my turn at the safe signalized traffic light of Filbert Drive.

I explicitly advise visitors to my house to do the exact same thing during peak hours. Today, this is the only viable safe alternative to a blind left hand turn onto Fanshot in peak time. And I am not the only resident of the street that does that. My behavior is based on the current traffic situation, long before adding the proposed development.

The developers proposed 299 unit plan, keeps the primary full access driveway on Gary Avenue. This design guarantees cars will be backed up at the corner, making it certain that hundreds of new hurried commuters will choose the exact same path that I do, turning south into the neighborhood and cutting directly past Stony Brook School. Gary should not have to handle this volume. In fact, just this past April, we received an official letter from the city outlining an upcoming traffic calming project on Gary F.

It’s going on right now. And it was in this direct response to, and I quote, increasing traffic concerns on the street. The city is actively spending taxpayers’ money to fix Gary as a safe local residential road, approving a massive complex that dumps its operational traffic load onto Gary, immediately nullifies the city’s own infrastructure investments and safety goals going on now. The volume fundamentally are incompatible with the lower-order street.

So my objectives are grounded directly in the state’s mandates of the London Plan. I don’t want to, and I want to highlight four specific failures of the design. One, violation of policy 920, lower order compatibility. The London Plan explicitly mandates that developments at intersections must protect the character of lower order streets .

By keeping its primary access point on Gary Avenue, the developers treating a quiet residential street as a commercial thoroughfare. The main entry and exit must be on Fanshawe Park Road. Two, the predictable shortcut. The developers traffic assessment assumes drivers will patiently exit north onto Fanshawe.

In reality, morning commuters wanting to go west will not wait indefinitely for a gap in the road traffic. They will take the path of least resistance and head past school. Three, severe risk to the school zone. This route forces an unsafe surge of commuter traffic directly past the front gates of Stony Brook Public School.

The building’s morning peak traffic overlaps precisely with school drop-off hours, directly violating the city’s obligation to prioritize active transportation for vulnerable children. And four, street narrowing being park overflow. With 299 units, the project relies on a sub-1-to- 1 parking ratio. visitors parking will spill onto Geary app narrowing the roadway and dangerously blocking sight lines of school buses, emergency vehicles, and crossing students.

Finally, this layout directly violates London’s own Vision Zero Road Safety Strategies. Vision Zero explicitly states that our transportation network must be engineered to anticipate human air and designed for reality. Reality dictates that forcing hundreds of daily commuters onto Geary app will cause dangerous, short cutting through a school zone. 30 seconds.

If the council stands by the Vision Zero promise to prioritize the safety of school children and over development density, it must refuse this application. Thank you. I’ll wait for the next speaker. Please give us your name, you have five minutes.

Hi, hello, my name is Kate Drum and I’m a resident of Stony Brook neighborhood. I am speaking to you today with the expectation that committee members will follow staff’s recommendation and refuse the proposed development by Royal Premier Homes. To begin, I will quote the following from the City of London website regarding the Tree Canopy Conservation Program. The City of London’s urban forest strategy sets out a target of 34% tree canopy cover by the year 2065.

To achieve this goal, trees within city limits must be planted and existing trees must be managed in a way that extends their life. As a large proportion of London’s trees are on private property, homeowners play a crucial role in achieving this target,” end quote. Now, keeping this in mind, let’s review the Arbor ist Report for Zoning by Law Amendment, provided by Ron Caut us Landscape Architects Inc. on behalf of the developer.

The recommendations of the Arborist Report regarding the 81 individual trees and eight vegetation units are as follows. One, based on the proposed site plan, the majority of the trees would need to be removed due to direct conflict with construction. Two, recommended preservation of four trees and three vegetation units located beyond the subject site. Let me state that again, four trees of the 81 And these four are not even within the boundaries of the subject site.

Royal Premier Homes is clear cutting the forest city and this is very concerning. Not only are they removing all the vegetation within the boundary of the four lots, they are yet again going beyond and are requesting to clear cut 13 additional trees located either on the property boundary or on the private property of 1531 Stony Brook Crescent. Consent from the landowner of 1531 Stony Brook Crescent is required, and please note that consent has not been granted. I ask staff and council to think about how this proposal can in any way be permitted to proceed when it blatantly disregards the city’s own tree canopy conservation goals.

To add to the devastation, they are requesting to remove 12 trees that are 50 centimeters or more in diameter, including one that is 95 centimeters. We will never get that back. And let’s recall that again, according to the city under the by-law, any tree with a trunk diameter of 50 centimeters or greater measured 1.4 meters from the ground is legally classified as a distinctive tree. and the unpermitted removal of a tree over 50 centimeters can result in fines of tens of thousands of dollars.

I ask you, how can such preservation contradictions be allowed to proceed? No amount of landscaping will replace the trees and habitat being lost. Lastly, as per the staff report, there is stated to be no ecological concerns, but then they note the following. 1.

Avoid tree removal within the act of bat roost ing period, which is April 30th to September 1st. To reduce potential interactions with endangered bat species, to avoid contravention of the End angered Species Act. 2. Avoid vegetation removal within the act of breeding bird period, which is April 1 st to August 30th to avoid disturbing nesting birds and contravening the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

So when the damage is done and it cannot be undone, what happens to the local ecology? I ask the committee to uphold their own city-wide objectives and to not allow a third party to impose detrimental environmental impacts on our forest city. stop the excess demand for special provisions and uphold the integrity of our city. 30 seconds.

Our neighborhoods and our environmental standards refuse the development at 517 to 525 Fanshawe Park Road and 1536 Geary Ave. Thank you for your time. Next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

Angela, can you hear me? Angela? Sorry, I was just trying to switch to my microphone. Okay, great.

You give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, thank you, and thank you Rose for waiting . Hi, my name is Angela Dillon, and I am speaking today as one of the many Stony Brook residents who has come together to inform our neighbors about this proposal. I was part of a small outreach group of residents whose goal was to raise awareness, connect with our community, help people understand what this proposal would mean, and what they could do if they wanted their voices heard.

Over a six-week period, our small group went to approximately 1,000 doors. We spent countless evenings and weekends walking street after street, talking to neighbors face-to-face. We listened, we answered questions, we explained the proposal, and we directed people to the city’s materials and encouraged them to review the application for themselves. What struck me most was not a response of anger, but of disbelief.

People could not understand how a proposal of this scale was being contemplated in this location. And after countless conversations, I can tell you this, not one person told us they wanted this proposal approved, not one. Now, does that mean people are opposed to development? Absolutely not.

Our neighbors understand that London is growing, they understand we need more housing, they understand intensification has a role to play. What they do not support is this proposal. They do not support a development effectively reaches nine stories when city staff have determined that enclosed rooftop amenity area constitutes an additional story beyond what is permitted. They do not support a proposal that extends an eight-story built form along Geary Avenue and places six-story massing directly beside existing low-rise homes.

They do not support a proposal that city staff have repeatedly described as over-intensification . Our community’s concerns are not emotional. They are the same concerns identified by your professional planning staff. Staff concluded that this proposal does not significantly demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

It does not adequately mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby properties. Represents an over-intens ification rather than the compact form of development contemplated by the London Plan. Fails to provide appropriate transitions to neighborhood homes is not appropriately oriented toward the higher order street and instead extends substantial massing along Geary Avenue and raises unresolved concerns regarding traffic, access, parking, site functionality, and landsc aping. Most importantly, staff concluded that the proposal is not in the public interest and does not represent good planning.

Our community did more than talk. We organized three weekend signature collection events. Hundreds of residents came out. Both online and in-person, we collected 717 signatures From people who took the time to stand up and say , this proposal is not appropriate for this location.

In addition, more than 240 emails were submitted to the city by concerned residents who wanted their voices heard. Those numbers matter, not because planning should be decided by popularity, but because they demonstrate something important. Residents paid attention. They read the materials, they attended meetings, they asked questions, engaged in the process exactly as they were intended to do.

And when they did, they reached the same conclusion as City Planning Staff. Today I ask that you listen not only to the hundreds of residents who signed petitions, attended community events, and who wrote to the city, but to your own professional planning staff. Staff have recommended refusal, not referral, not more studies, not another redesign, refusal. After reviewing the application, the planning framework, and the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood staff concluded that this proposal is inconsistent with good planning and should not proceed.

Members of the committee, our community has done its part. We knocked on doors. We informed our neighbors. We participated respectfully.

We trusted the planning process and today we are asking you to do the same. Please uphold the principles of the London Plan. Please support your planning staff and please refuse this application. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Or do we have another person online? Megan, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you.

Are you able to hear me? Yeah, yes, I can. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

My name is Megan Tancredi. I want to start by thanking the chair, the PEC members of council and Mayor Morgan for your time, your consideration, and all of your care during the proposed Donnie Brook development process. So I live in the neighborhood of this proposal that’s proposed at eight stories, 299 units at Fanshawe Park Road and Geary. I’ve lived in this neighborhood since 2018 with my husband and our two children.

Our kids are 10 years old and 7 years old and we love this neighborhood for many reasons that have been mentioned by some of my neighbors such as the school district, the spacious and older properties with the mature trees and the privacy that our homes and yards have. So this building would would significantly impact the life of myself and my family. So for context, a handful of you have actually been in my backyard during your tours of the neighborhood in the proposed development site. I live adjacent to the site at 1537 Stony Brook Crescent.

So the property where Royal Premier Homes has proposed this new building would be, our backyard is perpendicular to that of 525 Fanshawe Park Road. So that means our family would lose all privacy both in our backyard, as well as to the bedrooms, our living areas, and our bathrooms at the back of our house. I worry about the sound and the light that would pollute our yard in our house. Ultimately, this would disrupt our daily living.

We moved to this house because of the privacy that it affords us. Currently, we have no windows and no homes behind us facing into our yard. I’m sure as you can understand going from privacy to having hundreds of new residents with the birds eye view into our yard and house feels devastating and it feels like a big invasion into our privacy in our personal lives. During the initial zoom meeting a few months ago with the developers I did raise my hand and ask what their plans were for privacy and the response indicated potentially more trees.

However as my neighbor Kate just talked about the development plan actually shows the opposite it’s going to remove dozens of trees . I also have done some reading on trees and I don ‘t know that there are any large enough to give us privacy that would fit in a couple of meters between our fence and the building and the parking lot and just like have been mentioned by other neighbors the London Plan itself speaks about privacy and the fishbowl effect in our family would be in a fishbowl to this proposed development so as a resident neighboring this development site there’s other concerns that I have for my family such as other people have mentioned the snowy winters where would the snow go when the parking lot is being plowed would it go against our fence where when the snow melts in the spring would that run into our backyard and into our basement so those are all things that are of concern to myself and my husband. Also, when the news recently has been talks about increased rodents in London, so thoughts of rats and mice going in our property doesn’t sit well with us either. Of course, removing our personal situation of living directly beside the property, I have the same concerns that have been mentioned by neighbors, such as the parking, environmental impacts, the zoning not being respected, and the misrepresentation of height of the building.

My two children walk to and from school each day and to get there they have to walk down Stony Brook Crescent and navigate a blind corner which already has no sidewalks. Then they would have to cross or they do cross Geary Ave where traffic would significantly increase with such a large development as one of my neighbors already touched on. And then finally my kids have to cross the already busy school zone. So again with an added 299 units I worry about their safety as well as the safety as other children and pedestrians of all types in the neighborhood.

So in summary, I want to thank you. These are some of the reasons that I do not support the proposed development in its current state. An eight plus story building does not fit this neighborhood and maybe for developers we’re just another family but for us this is life-changing. So I thank you for your time and I respectfully hope that you consider my points as well as the points that have been brought forward by our neighbors.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please go ahead.

Give us your name. You’ll five minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Environment Committee, members of Council and staff.

I do thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding this proposed development at Fanshawe and Geary. My name is Rose Klein-Stiver and I am a resident of the Stony Brook neighborhood. I’m on Stony Brook Crescent on that straight away to that one set of traffic lights. The question that is before us is whether this proposal represents good planning and a livable form of intensification.

I am here today asking committee to uphold staff ‘s recommendation of refusal. Residents are not opposed to growth and appropriate density. I agree with the principal building up and out. My grandma’s on our 100 acre family farm that my dad grew up on, so I see the value of curbing urban sprawl.

But building up does not mean building as high or as dense as possible possible on every site. It means building thoughtfully. What we want to refuse is the over-intens ification that exceeds the scale, density, and character of established neighborhoods, while leaving the residents to absorb the consequences. When a development requires numerous special provisions and pushes density beyond what a site can reasonably accommodate, the livability suffers.

This is precisely why staff have recommended refusal. Our concerns are not theoretical. They are practical issues that residents to live with long after construction is complete. I have three main topics to speak of.

First, as Megan touched on, was snow storage and site functionality. With the reduced setbacks and numerous special provisions being requested, where will this snow go? And as Councillor Stevenson alluded to, the longest winter known to man just passed. So we can all acknowledge and appreciate that snow management is not a minor detail.

Will it be piled against neighborhood fences? will it eliminate the already limited parking spaces? Will it spill onto the adjacent properties? And as a gentleman in Italy alluded to as well was the drain off and the salt content of that snow.

These questions remain unanswered and yet residents will be expected to live with the consequences. Secondly is waste management. The staff report specifically notes that the site layout does not demonstrate sufficient space to accommodate waste collection operations. This proposal seeks approval despite failing to show how waste generated by hundreds of residents will be managed.

Of particular concern is the location of waste facilities directly adjacent to existing homes on Geary Ave, particularly a living room window. Again, residents are left asking how exactly are neighboring properties being protected. Staff’s concern about waste management supports the broader conclusion that the site is being over intensified and lacks sufficient space for the practical needs of nearly 300 units. These are not issues that should be deferred to site plan approval.

These two issues above must be addressed in any future proposal for the site and not be left for vague consideration during site plan. They should be resolved before any zoning approval is granted. Lastly is the traffic and safety which we have already talked about but particularly the cut through traffic. School zone should be among the safest places in our city and residents of Stony Brook as we’ve alluded to have no firsthand of how the vehicles move through the neighborhood where we cut through the residential streets, where the children walk, bike, and cross those roads every day, some of which don’t have those sidewalks including my four-year-old and six-year-old daughters.

Any development that increases cut-through traffic must be carefully scrutinized and child safety must take precedence over a developer’s interest. As Deputy Mayor Lewis also spoke to in his previous item in his neighborhood, the time doesn’t stop after 330 for children’s safety. a dual purpose of Stony Brook at Stony Brook Public School is used for organized sports that happens on evenings and weekends and Hastings Park that is also in the background there. I am a pediatric registered nurse here at Children’s Hospital at Vic and we need to not have a critical incident to make us realize that this is a problem.

We wanna be proactive about this and not reactive . So I would urge committee members to consider whether the traffic impact assessment truly reflects neighborhood realities and whether children’s safety and all of our vulnerable road users have been given the weight it deserves. I’m almost there. Beyond these concerns, residents will also face increased noise like pollution.

Remember, no trees to mitigate this impact. Overflow parking, loss of privacy, litter, and individually these may seem like minor items, but together they fundamentally change the experience of living in our community. For two seconds. Oh gosh, contributing to the degradation of the community’s livability.

This is not compatible growth. It is over intensification. It is not the right fit for this site, and I respectfully ask committee to support staff’s recommendation to protect the livability of Stony Brook and refuse this application. Thank you so much for your time, your attention, and your consideration.

Thank you, go to the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Clark Kufniggles, and I’m a Stony Brook resident. I wanna start with a bit of personal context, because I think it’s relevant here.

I lived in New York City in a 25 story building before moving to London. I’m not someone who is opposed to density intensification. I understand what it looks like. I understand what it requires, and I understand the trade-offs.

So when I stand here asking for a refusal, I want to be clear that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to change. I deliberately chose Stony Brook neighborhood as the place I wanted to raise my kids. We moved during COVID. My wife and I had the ability to move anywhere in the US and Canada, and we chose London.

And not anywhere in London. We chose Stony Brook. It’s the only neighborhood that we looked at. Not because of a school ranking or commute time.

We chose it because it was a place where my three kids could learn to ride their bikes outside where they could walk to a friend’s house on their own and could play in the front yard safely. Those things sound small but they’re not. They’re the things that are disappearing in a lot of our cities and they ‘re worth protecting. These are the kinds of neighborhoods where families come to raise their kids and people state for as long as they can.

These neighborhoods deserve to be preserved, not because they’re historic, not because they have some special designation, but because they work, and once you lose it, you don ‘t get it back. Now to the proposal itself. Good news, and I mean this generally, I ‘ve been inspired by this process, is that the city’s own planning process is working. City staff are recommending a full refusal of the proposal.

Our bylaws exist for a reason and the planners are applying them correctly. That’s not a failure, this is the system doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. And all that’s left is for the committee to respect that work. The part of the proposal that I’m most concerned about is the Geary lot that is zoned as an R1 residential property.

The Geary lot has nothing to do with Fanshawe Transportation Corridor. Geary lot is moving from a one unit, which it has right now per hectare, to 395 units. This is a clear case of development creep into a residential neighborhood. Just because an R1 property is adjacent to another property with a different zone does not mean that R1 properties should be changed.

And there’s more good news here. Council has already acknowledged this concern when they ruled on the Dunboin proposal. When a development tried to creep into a residential neighborhood, the planner said no, the planning committee said no, council said no. That precedent matters because that’s what we’re looking at here on Gary .

The system is working. The planners have done their job. The Dunboyne president is there. All that’s left is for committee to follow that recommendation and vote for a full refusal.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, I’ll go look to the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name, you’ll five minutes. Thank you everyone.

My name’s Julian Hathaway and I’m a resident of the Stonebrook community. I wanna begin by saying clearly that I’m not opposed to the development in our neighborhood. I understand London needs more housing, I understand infill is important, and I understand the other city has to grow. My concern is not that we want something built on the site.

My concern is the proposal is too large for the location and mainly the traffic that it will create. My son is seven years old. I have the privilege of walking him to school every day. We live on the other side of Hastings.

We cut onto Hastings Gate and we make a right onto Stony Brook. If you visited the school between 8.30 and 9, I believe, Council Raymond, you saw the traffic conditions in the morning. It’s a zoo and that’s just with the school’s traffic. that’s the parents dropping them off.

My son next year wants to start walking himself to school. I don’t think we’re gonna let him walk to school if we’re gonna have additional 200 cars, potentially coming down Stony Brook, ‘cause like everyone’s mentioned, if you try to make a left onto Fanshawe, you’re gonna make a right, or you’re gonna turn around, just like we do. We go to Haysin’ Gates, we go on the Stony Brook, and then we make a left on that light if you have to get to Fanshawe. The proposed development would add a significant number of units and vehicles to the site that connect directly to the residential neighborhoods and towards Stony Brook.

Even with the provider’s proposal, the main access is still tied to Gary with only a secondary access on Fanshawe. That means traffic will still be drawn into neighborhood, and many drivers will logically use Gary and Stony Brook Crescent to move through the neighborhood. That is especially concerning to my son, his friends who live on Stony Brook. They all walk drop off times and pick up times, and neighborhood are already busy, then you’re gonna add Uber drivers, you’re gonna add Amazon deliveries.

Those guys are very quick, they zip through the neighborhood, adding that level of traffic increases the number of potential conflicts between vehicles and children. We’ve heard that if the problems arise, traffic calming measures can be considered at a later point. Respectfully, I think that is backwards approach when children’s safety is involved. prudent city planning should anticipate foreseeable risks and require changes before those risks are placed on families walking to school.

The right development for the site should have direct access on and off of Fanshawe and not through Gary towards the school route. It should include proper planning for deliveries, drop off, visitor parking, service vehicles. It should also be scaled in a way that fits the neighborhood and encourages long-term residents to become part of the community. We’ve already seen examples of buildings with access onto Fanshawe, 420 Fanshawe.

The bill has direct access onto Fanshawe and not to Donnie Brook, which is directly behind it. Density can strengthen the community when it’s done thoughtfully, but density without sufficient parking, without proper access, without safe traffic planning, and without adequate outdoor space does not build community. It creates turnover pressure and risk. I respectfully ask the council to refuse the current proposal and send a clear message that the development in Stony Brook must be responsible appropriately scaled and designed around the safety of our children and family who live there.

Thank you. Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please give us your name.

You have five minutes. I’m Beth Ton kin. I live in Stony Brook. World Premier Homes proposed development doesn’t just push the limits of our planning regulations.

It completely shatters them. This project crams so many units onto the site that it will have 189 more units in the R9 density they’re applying for actually allows. It cuts into the neighborhood by including the interior single-family gerry lot. It adds another 200 cars to a street that leads to a school zone with known safety concerns.

Traffic calming road work is literally being installed today. It exceeds setback limits so much that will end up with a nine-story building only eight meters away from a family home obliterating their view, privacy, and sunlight. It’s only one meter from Fanshawe severely limiting bike paths and future road expansion. It disrespects the planning process by submitting it as an eight-story building when it has a ninth floor, maybe and a half.

It doesn’t match the neighborhood character. It looks like the big box stores down the street rather than the beautiful neighborhood that it would be surrounded by. It proposes clear cutting 100% of the trees on the site completely ignoring the city’s urban forest strategy and also doesn’t meet minimum landscaped area requirements. It’s being built by a developer that can’t even handle proper waste management for a neighboring 42-unit complex they already own, but they say they’re going to do it for another 299 units and ultimately it will make Stony Brook, a worse place to live.

The excuses for justifying it are not grounded in reality. It won’t stop urban sprawl. Projects that eat up farmland are still being approved despite the new construction that’s happening. The narrative is that we need housing supply, but the plan submitted show it will be mainly one bedroom, 600 square foot luxury units representing the unit type and price point with the highest vacancy levels London has seen in the last 15 years.

I’m sick of trickle down economic style arguments to defend this sort of development. The most direct and meaningful way to meet housing needs is by building what is actually needed, not flooding the market with what isn’t and hoping things eventually shake out and lower rents. And while we’re on the topic of supply, intensification is not an excuse for over development. You don’t need to go from four units to 299 to achieve intensification.

There are a whole lot of numbers in between. On top of that, our city isn’t so full that we have to carve up neighborhoods that we rely on to attract people to and keep people in London, people like Clark, people like myself. There are many info locations including vacant and boarded up high density buildings that would benefit from this kind of investment. You’d think with everything I just listed, this would be an easy no.

But we’ve had to organize against this project four months including trudging door to door through the winter snow, more door knocking through the spring, 242 emails sent by community members to the city opposing it, 717 signatures on petitions, launching and managing social media channels and groups, designing, printing and installing street signs, giving up our privacy to speak to the media, attending community meetings, hosting Council for individual neighborhood tours , and enduring the design firm calling us uninformed and uneducated in London Free Press and CTV news. This is why public trust is broken. We need to be able to rely on our city to stop this sort of nonsense in its tracks without donating countless hours of community time and taxpayer dollars. To be clear, we aren’t asking you to block all development.

While countries around the world are trying to figure out how to raise birth rates and attract people to live there, we have the gift of population growth. Let’s stop treating it as a disaster to be managed and start recognizing it for what it really is, an opportunity to be harnessed. Growth should be used to enrich our city and make it a better place to live for everyone. It is not an excuse to let developers build over our neighborhoods.

Councillor ramen is answering the call to action and I believe later, we’ll be sharing her request for a letter to the province, bravely fighting to return or to add community voices to the OLT. She’s doing it knowing she has colleagues who will work to undermine this. To the rest of council, including those of you not present today, many of you have offered your time and support and we genuinely thank you. 30 seconds.

not we are here for you too. Don’t let developers push you. Don’t let planners mislead you or the province take away your power. We are here to stand with you if you stand with London in our neighborhoods.

I ask you to refuse this application and any applications that don’t conform to the planning standards our city has in place. Thank you. You’ll look for the next speaker. As for clerk there’s anyone in line.

There’s nobody online. I don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone, so we’ll call the vote to close the PPM. Councillor Hillier, second call for Councillor Hillier, making him absent. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero .

Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Stevenson, my motion moved and second ed. Look for comments from committee members. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Peruzza. To a point of order, and I don’t want to go, I had to committee members.

I want to leave my five minutes after, but there were three specific questions that came from the gallery. And I was just wondering, even though there was a refusal from the staff, I just wanted to ask these three questions staff. Well, committee members go first. And once they’re done, they can maybe have the same questions you have, and then we can go to you.

So, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I did just have a couple questions. I mean, I’m gonna support the refusal.

But I am still trying to understand the recommendation from staff for refusal. When, you know, in this term of council, I supported two 10-story buildings on Oxford Street, which were right beside tiny little single family homes, had all the same concerns. Schools nearby, traffic, parking. There was a 26-story on Mornington overlooking small single-family homes, supported it.

Now things were changing, as I said, and I haven ‘t supported a few recently. But I thought what the staff recommendations were based on a set of rules that they came forward a certain way, and then the leeway was to counsel to make the decision. So when cheap side comes as approval, and then this one comes as a refusal, which honestly makes it easy for committee and council, I’m just really struggling with the consistency here. So, again, supporting the refusal, but I’d like to understand how staff is recommending refusal on this one.

When in the urban design in March of 2026, it was supportive of the eight story. Keepside came as an approval of the rez oning with refusal of the special provisions. Why not on this one? Why not an approval of an eight story?

Because the eight’s allowed, just like the six was allowed and maybe a refusal of some of the extras. Can you just explain to me how a refusal like how how is it incompatible here and compatible in other neighborhoods. I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

Every application is reviewed on its own merits based on the policy framework that applies to that site as well as the neighborhood context surrounding that site. In the case of the cheap side application, staff were of the opinion that the changes needed to the form were relatively minor and relying on the base zone regulations could be addressed through the site plan process. In the case of this application the changes that staff would need to see are much more significant and require much more discussion with the applicant probably additional special provisions to control the form. So in this case it’s both an issue of intensity and form.

Staff are not necessarily adverse to an eight-story building. In this case, what’s proposed is actually nine, but it’s the form of that building that’s rather imposing on the neighborhood, and we don’t feel the mitigation measures have been included in the design that would mitigate any impacts of the additional intensity. Tell us, sir. Again, I don’t want to belabor it, and this might not be the place, but there is a feeling, Well, I’ll ask this.

Does the number of 717 signatures have any impact in terms of staffs gathering an opinion of whether it’s compatible or not? Go ahead, staff. We received the petition, but at the end of the day, staff make their recommendation based on land use planning policy. Tell us, sir.

Okay, thank you, ‘cause again, if I’m representing the residents that talk to me , they feel there’s an equity issue. They feel that, because they’re not able to mobilize, they’re for whatever reason, or that just because of the area of the city that they live in, that they’re treated differently. And I don’t like to see that, and I defend against that. This is making this harder for me.

I also wanted to ask about the transportation, ‘cause I know this comes up as well, but here the transportation study said everything was fine, and then there was a change made that apparently was something that’s not usually done on Tofanza, so maybe if staff could just explain more on that one. I’ll go to staff on comments on their transportation study. Thank you, through the chair, we actually have the traffic engineer online as Saad Yousani, he’ll speak now. Thanks to the chair.

In order to minimize any traffic impacts on Gaili Avenue, so we were looking for our options. and we thought that having a right out on Fanshaw e will mitigate some of the traffic impacts. So there will still be some traffic, of course, using Gary Avenue and trying to make unsafe left run on Fanshawe, but the safest way is to circle around and make a left at Stony Brook. But back to the point, yes, having a restricted access on Fanshawe will mitigate some of the traffic issues.

Thank you. Councillor. And is it unusual to make a change outside of what’s happened on this traffic study without maybe needing to reevaluate it? I’ll go staff.

No, through the chair we directed the consultant who came to meet us a couple of weeks ago. So he was directed to look at several options, multiple options with some strong technical evaluation. Not based on the convenience or inconvenience, but based on the evaluation. So it was determined that only write out should be appropriate rather than punching and write in write out or write in write out and left into the site.

So because to avoid any impacts on these existing site list users along the front end of the property. So we determined that from the technical perspective, write out will be more appropriate. Thank you. Councilor.

Thank you. And we were just at a housing event last night. and the minister was saying that it takes too long and it’s too expensive. These are the big problems with housing.

And one of the things I hear from the residents and I hear their concerns, I also hear from the developers and I hear their concerns about the process that they go through about how they feel that things change along the way, they only have a certain amount of time and sometimes they’re surprised to see a refusal, especially when they’re proposing something and it’s eight stories in an eight story area. So I just wondered if there was any comment there too as to, or maybe you could help the public understand to the process that goes through when the developer comes with the application. Are they given a pathway to success over the 90 days to get an approval? And what happens if there’s changes that are made through that process?

How’s that dealt with with the developer? I’ll go to staff, I just want to remind the council for you up 30 seconds left, I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair. Generally speaking, we encourage all applicants to begin with a pre-application consultation process, although it’s no longer required under the Planning Act and can’t be required of applicants.

But that is the initial starting point for preliminary conversations with staff before the 90-day timeline officially begins upon receipt of a complete application. I will make comment that the London plan, although does contemplate heights up to eight stories, doesn’t or also includes policies that say the maximum height will not be appropriate on all sites. So that is something that staff take into consideration through the review when reviewing the appropriat eness of the proposed building height and whether the mitigation measures incorporated into the design effectively mitigate impacts of that intensity. I’ll serve back to you with 30 seconds.

Yeah, well, I need to understand that more because sometimes we get told we can’t refuse something that falls within the regulation or we’ll lose that OLT. I just wanted one other question around the compatibility grounds for the height. Is there any concern here about OLT? We ask it with other things, so I’ll just ask if there’s any concerns there.

Okay, and that’ll be the end of your time. I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, as with any application, the applicant does have the opportunity to appeal the decision of council. Okay, I’m gonna go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, first, I want to take the opportunity to say thank you to Kate and our first speaker, I think tonight on this file for the excellent conversation we had with the health issues I’ve had, I wasn’t able to make it out, but good phone conversation with Kate next. I thank her for talking to me the community concerns on this one. I want to start with saying I’m going to support the refusal as well and there are a few reasons that I am supportive of the refusal but I’m going to focus right now on one in particular and I know Councillor Stevenson started to ask it but I need to follow up on it because for four plus years now I’ve seen on planning application after planning application after planning application.

The comments from staff that we do not do arterial road access points where we have a building that abuts an intersection. Yes, there are some that are mid walk and there’s no other option, but where there are options to have traffic flow out onto the side street and then onto the arterial road that has generally been the recommendation we’ve always gotten. So I need to go back to staff and understand better because Frankly, if I thought that this was an option on some previous applications, I would have looked for it and now I’m being told it’s an option on this application after many, many years of being told if it’s at a corner, we direct the traffic out to the side and then onto the arterial road. So what’s like, where’s the threshold cut off here?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m supportive if a new application comes forward and there’s a write-in right out on Fanshawe, I’m going to be supportive of that based on what I’ve seen in today’s report. But I still, like Councillor Stevenson. I’m struggling to understand where the tipping point is. We’ve seen a couple of those on Colonel Talbot Road and Councillor Hopkins board.

We’ve seen others in boards around the city, the Colonel Talbot one’s just one that occurs to me right off the top of my head. So I’m looking for a little more clarity on where the tipping point is. I’ll go to staff. Yeah, through the chair.

We always look at applications depending on the spacing of the intersections from existing unsign alised and signalised intersections. And also if there are any active transportation paths like in this case the cycling facilities fronting the street. So, and also we try to minimize the direct access on higher-class ification roads like Fanshawe or any other arterial road ways. But as I said that if there is an option available to the lower classification road for the access, we try to go in that direction and try to minimize the erm, direct access on arterial roadways.

So to minimize the conflicts with all modes of users , all modes of traffic. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Okay. Well, I’m not going to belabor the points here at committee.

I will do some more follow up discussion with staff on that, but I did find that comment in the report a little bit inconsistent with what we’ve seen in previous reports. And so that that may be somewhat questioning why it was in there. But like I said, I won’t belabor that point today. I do hear the resident concerns particularly about the density and the impact that that has on traffic and the scaling massing because of the density.

You know, I was honest with Kate and I will say this again, something bigger is going to be built there. It probably will be eight stories, but I think that something with less density and a little more alignment towards Fanshawe Park Road and less massing towards Gary, something where we do have an access point on Fanshawe Park Road as well would be more appropriate. And I think the residents who spoke about the lack of clarity around the waste management also raised an excellent point and I know that was in the staff report as well. Yes, we don’t get into the details and into the leads at planning committee that the details are left to site plan.

but when we don’t have any real good indication even in the general application that does become a bit of a concern. So I will say as well on the eight versus nine stories. I know we’re talking about stories here. I think we’ve got some some work to do as a committee moving forward and and whether it’s this committee before the end of the term or whether it’s the next committee on Council because I know we do have rooftop amenity spaces in the city that have been proved just as part of the development agreement requiring them to not be eligible for conversion to residential.

I think rooftop amenity spaces are great but they ‘re not very useful in January in Canadian climates and so if we’re going to count them as we sometimes do we say well we’ve got rooftop amenity so that’s landscape open space we count that towards that but if it’s not available seven and rate months of the year. I think that’s an item we’re gonna have to tackle and this application has kind of highlighted that for me. So I just wanted to share that, but I will be supporting the refusal on this one. I think staff’s done a very thorough report and outline the reasons why they’re suggesting the refusal at this point in time.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to all the residents who came up. Thank you for inviting me and the other committee members out to visit.

I don’t know if you know this, but I spent an hour and a half with you. And there were almost 40 of you actually lost count, an hour and a half and very quickly, Chair, we don’t often get that invitation. And we do appreciate it because it means so much to us. And in four years, I’ve never seen engagement like I’ve seen with your group.

So thank you very much. Thank you, I’ll go to Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So first, I’ll be supporting the staff recommendation for our refusal.

I just want to say to our staff, I appreciate the thoroughness of the recommendations and the analysis that you did in the report. I think it’s good work and you’ve articulated a very good case here to the community members, of course, through the chair. I appreciate the engagement as well. It was, I appreciated going around the neighborhood, having a chance to talk with many individuals.

But what I actually appreciate quite a bit is we hear at this committee often, I don’t wanna see anything there. I want it to be status quo and nothing can change . It has to be exactly as it is. I felt like it was a very thoughtful engagement with a community that says we recognize that there is a role for density along a major thoroughfare like Fanshawe Park Road.

But here are the challenges we have with this development and almost all of it rooted in planning rationale , which I would say is rare for us to see sometimes , but I just wanted to commend the community in doing a very thoughtful job of making points that are very relevant to the planning, decision-making process and recognizing that there is a role for density along this corridor in our city. So I’ll be supporting the recommendation, and thanks again to our staff and the community for their feedback. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, and through the chair, there were out of the 16 speakers, there were three specific questions, and I don’t want this to count to my time, because it’s a question from the gallery that came, just in case I need the time.

And I do realize that it was a refusal of recommendation from the staff, but these three specific questions were asked. How can we consider allowing removal of so many trees with the city’s canopy goals and targets? A good staff. Thank you through the chair.

As part of the complete application, the applicant provided a tree preservation plan for consideration through this process. However, I’ll note that the technical review and approval of said plan takes place through the site plan process. So should council approve this? That’s where the review and approval of that plan would occur.

Councilor. Thank you, second question. How was waste and excuse me, and snow management considered and evaluated? of staff through the chair again snow removal and storage and garbage collection and storage are our matters considered through the site plan approval process again we consider those issues through the zoning to some degree when evaluating intensity and whether the proposed intensity is appropriate but the actual strategy for those matters is reviewed in detail and and approved through the subsequent site plan process Councill or.

Thank you. And the third one which was already answered but I want to make sure that it’s answered directly. Why would the vehicular access be allowed on the lower order of the street? I’ll go to staff.

According to excess management guidelines, if the property has boundaries on two roads, two types of roads, one is higher classification road where the purpose of the higher classification road is too far through traffic with minimum interruption minimum traffic conflicts so and if the second road is lower classification road or say local street or neighborhood connector in this case Gary is designated as a local street but Stony Brook is designated as a neighborhood connector so we always try to provide the access on a lower classification road but that doesn’t mean that we shift all the problems or the existing residential houses, those who are living there. But like in this case, Gary Avenue is being reconstructed with some traffic calming measures and a storybook is classified as a classified as a neighborhood connector. It has a traffic signal at Fanshawe. So as I said that, of course, there will be some issues for sure, but in order to mitigate some of the issues.

We had a conversation with the applicant and then we reached out an agreement for a right out access on Fensha. So basically in order to minimize traffic conflicts for all more sub-transportation on high classification draw. Thank you. Councilor, thank you for that.

So that’s those are the three questions I called from the 16 speakers. So I’m going to start with my own now. Thank you everyone for your continuous feedback over the month. it has been greatly appreciated by everyone as you have all they heard.

I want to clarify a couple of things and I’ll start with the submission that came to our staff. The first one and it’s actually the only official one. That’s the one that our staff gave us feedback on. They went to other departments and received back from.

So that ‘s the only one we are evaluating here. I do know there were certain other versions circulated among potentially a few or many bottom line is we are not dealing with that here at all. It’s just the first one. On the planning committee added agenda yesterday I do take the feedback from RPH or the additional document as clarification only and again it should not be evaluated by any one of us as part of the submission or consideration.

So we are really doing only what’s truly in front of us. I do want to say that I will be to my colleagues as well. I will be certainly supporting what’s in front of us from the staff. And even though I cannot do it here, I just want to let you know I’m not planning to do at a council any referral either.

I do have a couple of questions in terms of this application. And again, if it’s accepted or if it’s confirmed by the PAC and by council in a couple of weeks. But in terms of modification to this, when the either the planner, the developer comes back, what modifications would our staff consider to potentially approve and recommend? Because I don’t believe you are looking at smaller items, we are really looking at something bigger.

Is there something you could potentially clarify? I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair. It’s difficult to provide that evaluation off the cuff without a plan or a revised concept before us.

Generally speaking, some of the things we’re looking for is a better transition in height and a breaking up of the mass. So a particular concern to staff is the transition in height as well as the sheer bulk of the building. And so at minimum, our expectation would be to see an enhanced transition in height, particularly along Geary as the development transitions into the neighborhood, as well as the actual bulk and mass of the building being broken up. No, I’m sorry.

Okay, thank you for that. Not sufficiently oriented to the higher order street. Can you please clarify this or we’ll be more seeking from our staff, go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

So in instances where we have corner properties at the intersection of a higher order street and the lower order street, the expectation in the London plan is that the greater intensity be oriented to that higher order street and the height transition down as it transitions rather into the neighborhood. So again, speaking to my last point, we would wanna see the greater heights oriented to Fanshawe and then heights transition down along Geary to maintain that low rise residential character along Geary. Councilor thank you rooftop amenity we did consider or even approve before in this one we are not We are basing it on height or what other considerations are we basing it not for the rooftop amenity as I know I’ll go staff Through the chair, it’s not necessarily the use of rooftop amenity of course staff are highly supportive of a variety of amenities being provided in redevelopment projects such as this. However, the way it is proposed does constitute a ninth story, which conflicts with the London Plan.

We’ve mentioned that a maximum of eight stories is contemplated here, and what’s proposed is reflective of a ninth story and contributes to the massing of the building substantially. Counselor. Okay, thank you. I have no more questions.

I’m just gonna make a comment again. As a word counselor, I’m supporting what’s in front of us, the refusal, and I’m just reiterating once again, at the council, I will not be putting forward any referral, I will be moving as is, thank you. Councilor Raman. Thank you Chair.

You’ve done a great job today, chairing this meeting, so thank you for that. I wanna start by saying I appreciate the work that planning staff, especially Ms. Hines, has put into this application. I know she’s been extremely responsive, so I wanna say thank you for that.

I wanna take a moment to thank the community who has done a fantastic job engaging, not just on behalf of your neighborhood, but on behalf of the city of London. You’ve reached out to projects in other wards. You’ve had thorough discussions about planning contexts with them. You’ve looked at this not just as how it affects your neighborhood, but how it affects the whole city.

And I think that’s relevant and it’s important and we need to be discussing it. This proposal represents significant intens ification that is not compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area. The adjacent neighborhoods, as you’ve heard, consist primarily of low density residential uses , and this development introduces a scale and form that is out of context. Transition and height density in built form are insufficient.

The proposal would over intensify, with excessive density, limited setbacks, a built form that maximizes masses at the expense of livability. Good planning is not simply about achieving density targets. It’s about ensuring appropriate fit and function within the local context. Page 320 of this report, the current proposal does not demonstrate sufficient compatibility with the surrounding context, nor does it incorporate adequate mitigation measures to address potential impacts.

Furthermore, and this is important for the consideration of a revised version at a later date or in the future, while an increase of up to two additional stories could be reasonably anticipated relative to the application approved in 2022. The current application represents a substantial departure from the intended scale and approach to modest height increases across the city, including within established neighborhoods. Page 322, each application is viewed on a site-specific basis and zoning. Therefore, may limit building heights and that the development will not undermine the character of the lower-order street.

You heard repeatedly about traffic and infrastructure concerns. I won’t belabor the point. The proposal raises legitimate concerns around traffic and cumulative impact. We have heard consistent and strong concerns from this community.

Residents are not opposed to development. They are asking for appropriate scale, respect for neighborhood character, thoughtful integration. In its current form, the application does not adequately address these concerns. The revised version, since it’s there, I’ll just share my thoughts.

It’s still nine stories and two tall. It’s still overdeveloped and not oriented to the higher road or higher order street. It’s still inadequately set back to the point where you can’t plant a tree to buffer. Still a lack of green space.

Still no plan for how to remove garbage. Still overly intense and under parked. To members of the committee, I just heard some general questions as well about traffic and about height. And when we were talking about similar things that cheap side, there seemed to be agreement that the height review was rushed.

And now in this application, we’re arguing that the height should be permitted . So just to conclude, I believe this proposal as presented does not represent good planning. Therefore, I will be supporting the refusal. Thank you.

I look for other speakers. Councillor Trussell. Yes, thank you very much. And I’m going to limit my comments to things that haven’t been said.

some of my colleagues have said some very compelling things. She just said, Councillor Ramen, I think was a very good summary of the reasons not to support this. Councillor Stevenson, you raised some very poignant and compelling and troublesome issues about our overall process and equity that I plan on following up, not tonight. But what I do wanna follow up with tonight because I think it might come up again if this application is resubmitted.

And guess what I’m gonna talk about. I’m going to talk about the traffic and the transportation study, because that’s sort of what I do when I’m visiting here and I’m looking at things in detail. If I could ask the traffic engineer to come back, I’d really appreciate it. Hello, thank you for being with us this late.

And I understand the challenges that are involved when you have an application being reviewed by staff, it cuts across different divisions and departments. I’ve been raising a lot of concern about the level of scrutiny that the transportation and the traffic study get at the initial level. The way I see it is there are three levels here. The first level is stuff that comes in at the beginning and you have to certify that there’s a complete application.

It doesn’t even get to the public period unless there’s a complete application. One of the requirements for a complete application is a certified transportation analysis, unless you decide to waive that, which you didn’t do here. Second step is very familiar to the public. It ends at city council.

And then the third step is after the fact site review. I’m hearing a lot of things that I think should be dealt with early on that are being relegated to site review. That’s not the main point I want to make with my limited time, but I want to point that out. When traffic has a discussion with the applicant at the beginning, before you decide to deem the application complete, which of course starts at the time period running, could you just walk me through what happens at that pre-consultation meeting before you accept the transportation study and before the time starts to run, What is your department actually do?

I’ll go stop. Yeah, thanks through the chair. The application stage is really a good stage where we can communicate with the applicant on the requirements, from the traffic perspective . And we discuss the traffic impact assessment guidelines.

And if there are any questions, we can answer those questions. We always ask the applicant and their consultant to send us the scope of work for our review and providing feedback so that minimum revisions to be done in the future. So having said that, so pre-application stage is very a big stage where we communicate the applicant, what we are looking for, what impacts we will review and so on. And also in terms of the access, for example, in this case, the applicant was when applicants shared with us the concept plan.

It was showing only the one axis on Gary Avenue, but we also communicated to them to provide a restricted axis on Fensha to minimize the impacts on the local street network. As I mentioned earlier that, that doesn’t mean that we always try to put more problems and remove the problems from higher classification rule like Fensha and dump on the local network street. But in this case, specifically, given the fact that Stony Brook is designated as a neighborhood connector, it means it should have more capacity for traffic to handle. Moreover, it is also intersecting at Fenshaw College— sorry, Fenshaw Park Roadway at a signalized intersection.

So it was safer to make a left or right run lane over there. Now back to the point, once we received the TIE, we look at the report if the report was completed based on our TIA guidelines. But we normally accept the report if something is missing, but not major. For example, if our direction was not followed, but it means we have the opportunity to review and provide comments accordingly.

This is what we did in this case, at the site plan consultation stage. Then once we move on to the next level and then our comments either are reiterated or more consolidated in such a way that we go to the highest level. So I understand that there are, I mean, only a vacant piece of land is considered as zero traffic impact. Once the lands are developed, there are always impacts of minimum to maximum, but we always try to minimize the impacts as I mentioned that.

But there are impacts and there is no denying to the fact no traffic engineer will say there will be zero impact. No, based on my past experience, I can say that this draft, this development proposal will have impacts on Gary Avenue, will have impacts on Fanshawe, will have impacts on Stony Brook. But as once we review the report, we try to come up with some ideas. Brainstorms are engineering judgment and come up with, and discuss with the applicants so that the impacts are minimized.

Thank you. Okay, I threw the chair. Councilor, just a second, please. I’ll call on you, Ms.

McNeely, please go ahead. Thank you through the chair. I also just like to clarify, as early as possible, you try to encourage applicants to consult with us. And it’s not just on the zoning application, it’s also on the site plan, because we wanna understand how the site can function, because often we hear, you know, the chicken and the egg, and we get the questions of the site plan matters .

Well, we wanna make sure that the zoning box that we’re creating works with the site functionality from a very high level. So that’s that consultation. So we’re also learning at the very early stages about the access arrangement. So I just wanted to give that context so that you understand that that’s what we try to encourage.

Not all applicants come to the consultation process, but we do encourage site plan consultation even before we get to the zoning stage. Councilor. Okay, back to the traffic and transportation study. Please, when you have this initial consultation with the developer, do you ever say this is just not adequate.

And before the time starts running, we want you to fix this now. Good stuff. Thanks. Yeah, through the chair, it has happened once when our direction was completely ignored, what we what we said in the meeting in the in the in the beginning, when we looked at the concept plan, then we said, okay, we need the we need the missing information before we start of a review.

Yeah, it happens sometimes. But if there are some minor things which we think, which we think we should review and provide as part of our comments to the applicant, then we go accordingly. Thank you. Okay.

Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. That’s helpful.

And I’m glad that there’s at least the possibility for that. I guess what I’m saying is I’d like to see that more exacting and happening more often. The reason I raised that is did you have any Any discussion since this is a Fanshawe Park Road and there are a lot of developments in that area anticipated, recent and upcoming, did you have any discussion with this applicant about the other projects along that strip in the near facility or was this focused merely on this one property? I’ll go to staff.

Thanks to the chair. I don’t recall at this point but maybe when we go into the meeting or when we have a chance to discuss the proposal at hand. We try to look at the bigger picture. We try to look at what is happening on the on each side of the road or something like that.

Maybe we may have taken into account, but I just wanted to make sure that I’m covering this part that we we have always we always look case to case. I mean some of the I know someone said that why was the access allowed on Fenshaap Park Roadway for development A or B. Maybe at that time when we evaluated the situation, when we looked at the road network or when we evaluated the access options, that was a better option. So as I said, I don’t remember at this point, but definitely we look at the bigger picture.

Thank you. Okay, well, I’m sorry you don’t remember that, but I think it’s important. do you when you have this conversation to the chair do you um talk about overall city goals and policies like our vision zero um policy thank you yeah through the truth of course oh just a second folks uh we’re not going to get into back and forth here i’m going to take a control back here i ask each of you to hold on until i recognize you so please go ahead staff thank you um yes of Of course, this is the direction through the chair, this is the direction in the mobility master plan, vision zero, and in all our decisions of development approvals, development review of any traffic reports, vision zero sits at the heart. So vision zero encompasses the safety for all modes of transportation.

as I mentioned earlier in response to a question that why did we choose on the right out the most restricted access on Fensha in this case because we wanted to minimize the impacts conflicts with the bicycle users along Fensha Street. Yes, we do keep in our mind, of course. Thank you. Councilor.

Well, thank you to the chair. My concern about that is having read through this report and all the other reports. In fact, when I get these new applications, It’s the traffic study that’s the first thing I go to. I don’t think there was any discussion about vision zero, and it wasn’t reflected.

And we had a number of people here tonight talking about how when they were thinking about whether they feel safe having their children walk around the neighborhood, it is the vision zero issue that comes to mind. And I guess what I’m trying to do here is, and I’m really glad that the staff has come to the recommendation. I commend you for that. I think it’s wonderful.

I should be very happy tonight and I should just go home. But I’m sorry, I just do not feel, I think the weak link in this whole process is the transportation and traffic study. And I’m gonna ask about this, every time this comes to the table, I’m gonna ask about how you really dealt with Vision Zero, I’m gonna ask about how is this related to other issues that are happening in the neighborhood with respect to traffic safety and mitigation. Have you gotten petitions?

I just don’t think there’s enough integration of traffic policy issues into this process. And it’s just something that comes up time and time again. And if it wasn’t for the importance of traffic safety in residential neighborhoods like this, maybe we could let it go. But this is what I’m hearing from the community that you care about.

So I guess my— Thank you, Councilor. That’s your time. Thank you. Oh, okay, I’ll pick this up next time.

Okay, I’ll look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. It is 7.30. We’ve been here for a while.

I think these folks would like to get on with it. We still have this to go to council, which you can save your comments for that or do some offline research with those questions of staff. So, just one more look before I call the vote. I don’t see anything, so let’s closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, thanks folks for sticking around to this late hour, appreciate your input. That concludes our scheduled items. We will move now to items for a direction.

The first action for committee, we have a request for a delegation. And I’m gonna look to committee to see if we would entertain that. Councillor Stevenson, are you moving that? Look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi has second ed, so we will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, so if the delegate would like to address the committee, you have five minutes. Good evening, I’m Mohammad Musa. Thank you for that us.

I just wanted to start out by saying, totally agree that third party deal rights should exist. My problem with this coming up at this point in time is the timing of it. June 4th, 2024, is when Bill 185 got assent and went into law. And if we wanted to move something like this forward at that point, we should have done it then.

Little suspect that it’s an election year. And on top of that, it would be very toothless. I thank you through the chair. Thank you to the Ward 7 counselor, bringing this forward.

But I think time would be better spent with actually lobbying fellow counselors to vote for with the London Plan, provincial planning statements, the Planning Act, recommendations of committee, sorry, recommendations of staff. What we have here is hopefully I’m keeping this tight, not going to, but we need to have this broad discussion over Bill 185 and it’s lack of appeal. As I said, I agree that third party appeal rights should exist. I just don’t think this is the way to go about it.

As I said, it’s toothless to have one municipality go to the province and lobby for that. I got to go down this route. Red Bill 185, front to back. Nowhere in that bill does it suspend planning act?

Does it suspend our London plan? Does it suspend any provincial guidelines or the provincial planning statement? This committee, this Council needs to abide by the legislation, by the plans, by all the above that I just mentioned. The frustration that a lot of people have is that appeal rights have been taken away by the province, but don’t kid yourselves.

Frustration is how that’s been used by this council. The frustration of going above and beyond what is legislatively allowed, what our own London plan is about, and people blame it on nimbyism when people come here and and say, you know, I don’t like this, but over the last two years you’ve had a lot of people coming here with with legislation with with policies of the London plan. I can’t count how many times we’ve heard notwithstanding the recommendations of staff that is so frustrating. Why do we have staff tell you things that come from good planning principles from sound planning principles?

principles only to ignore them. The frustration with not having appeal rights is around the horseshoe with the exception of the clerk, of course. The decisions that are made are not, they’re incongru ent with a lot of things that we have. And what’s happened over this time is, I’m not aligned by saying this, but counsel has used, and I’m not painting the entire counsel with the same broad brush, but I will use, when I say counsel, the majority of counsel, has as used bill 185 as to hide behind.

It’s not appealable. 30 seconds. Not only use it as a shield, but use it as a sword. And that’s a frustration for a lot of people, whether it’s Pac Road, whether it is minimum distance separations, whether it is 30 stories rather than the 16, it takes away the checks and balances on you, on council.

I thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, so I will go to committee. or go to the mayor.

Talk about this, I don’t think about it. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I’ve read Councilor Raman’s letter carefully and I’m prepared as a committee member to put a variation of the motion on the floor, which is a little bit different than what Councilor Raman proposes. So I’m happy to read it out.

And then if there’s a seconder, I can provide more rationale, but I’ve asked the clerk to load it into East grad. It’d be that municipal council endorse the following actions with respect to third party appeal mechanisms during the Ontario Land Tribunal process. A, the mayor be requested to write to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario requesting that I consider advocating for the restoration of a limited third party appeal mechanisms to the Ontario Land Tribunal. That one applies to individuals residing in the statutory notice area who have demonstrated prior participation in the municipal planning process.

Two incorporates appropriate safeguards to discourage frivolous, vexatious, or delay-driven appeals. And three, supports the province’s objective of facilitating timely and efficient housing development, and then B, the communication with Councilor Rahman, B, received, and then a note of all the communications. So I’m happy to put that on the floor. It’s slightly different than what Councilor Rahman suggested, but I think provides a path forward for engaging with the wider network of municipalities on it.

Okay, thank you. I’ll look for a seconder for that. I’m not seeing a seconder for your motion, Mayor. That’s fine.

Okay. So we will go from there. I need a motion of some sort to deal with this. Motion to receive.

I will move the motion to receive. Okay, Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis has a motion to receive and seconded by Councill or Stevenson. And then we’ll have discussion on that. So I’ll go to committee first and then to visiting Councillors after that.

John, it’s for Deputy Mayor Lewis. Chair, I’ll start off, Chair. I’m gonna try not to use all my time ‘cause you still wanna come back, but I’m not supporting this request. First of all, I think what our delegate said about one municipality saying something to the provinces, it really is not going to go anywhere.

Whatever label you wanna put on it, I don’t think that it’s of any value at all. And I didn’t support the mayor’s motion either because I think we have more than enough things we are advocating for the province with including at AMO and through AMO and I don’t think that this is quite honestly something that should be seen as a priority in any way shape or form when we are trying to advocate for relief on homelessness when we are trying to advocate for infrastructure dollars even for support for things like the cost of leasing we need to save our ammunition and keep it dry so that when we ask AMO to take positions on issues they’re are really substantive issues that are going to move the needle on things. You know, when we talk about public engagement, transparency, I think we’ve just been through six plus hours of public engagement. No other level of government is as transparent and accountable as the municipal government.

You can’t go to Queens Park or the House of Commons and get five minutes in the gallery to talk to your MPPs or your MPs. That’s not a thing. You can’t even go to a committee unless you have been sponsored by one of the parties to go to a committee to testify, and then approved by the committee chair in Parliament to actually come and be a witness. People don’t even have to register to come and participate in a public participation meeting.

And we saw a great number of people who came out today, as well as folks who wrote us, because for one reason or another, they weren’t able to come today, or they felt their writing was a more comfortable thing for them, ‘cause not everybody’s comfortable standing up in front of Council or an audience and making their speech about why they are taking position on something and all of that’s okay. But if we start advocating to add a third layer of approval bureaucracy and that’s what an OLT appeal is. These aren’t elected officials. They’re appointees of the government.

It’s a bureaucratic process done through the Planning Act. I looked back over my time on Council prior to the appeal being removed. I couldn’t find a single example where the OLT sided with a third party on an appeal of a decision made by the city council in London. These are not also equitable processes because they’re not cost free.

If you will on a seriously challenging application at the OLT, you’re gonna need professional planners and lawyers to go over your submission, get that ready. You know, I’ve asked around, an OLT appeal roughly has a $50,000 bill. That might not be a big barrier to an affluent neighborhood, it certainly would be to a less affluent neighborhood. So it’s not an equitable process either.

I don’t think we should be championing this. And frankly, it passes the BOC to the province and to a third and to a tribunal. I think that the decisions the BOC should stop with us. We should be keeping decisions local.

We should be listening to the community as well as to our planners and as well as to the planners on the other side of the application. But when it’s kept local, there’s accountability. When it goes to the OLT, there’s no accountability. It is not something that I think we should be using our limited advocacy debit card or bank account or ammunition, whatever you want to call it.

The mayor can only go and ask for so many things. Able can only go and ask for so many things. And the province has been really clear on this. They’re not interested in having long delays and frivolous appeals.

You know, frankly, to my mind, I heard somebody today who came and said that they weren’t a member of the community, but they were they were gonna speak to something anyway. That’s the type of frivolous appeals that we used to see. We’ve got a London resident who used to appeal everything, the council approved. Now, a number of them would get thrown out, but we’ve got a resident in downtown London or who used to regularly appeal things— Point of, well, I can’t make it, but he’s getting very close to— Thank you.

Just to me, this is what we have to do. Hold on a second, Deputy Mayor. Okay, just Deputy Mayor, I just wanna let you know that we’ve got, we’re at four minutes and 30 seconds. So I just wanted to give you that time up there.

Please go ahead. Yeah, so that’s, I was actually getting to the point of who defines frivolous? I don’t think this is where we should be spending our time and energy. Let’s keep the decisions local.

Okay, thank you. I’ll go to other committee members first before I go to other Councilors, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I’ll just say I’m not supportive.

I wasn’t in support of anything to do with this. either to tell the province what they should do or not to do what they just did. It’s very clear the direction that they’re moving . So it really is toothless, as was said.

I also would prefer to focus on what we can do. So there were opportunities for us to involve the public more in our Heights framework review and give them the opportunity to have a say early before we’re fighting over developments that neighborhoods don’t want. We as a council could have involved them early so that there were no surprises. They knew what was approved in their neighborhoods.

And we also, it says in the letter, the limited ability of residents to seek independent review of planning decisions that directly affect them, well, were the elected representatives? So if even if our policies say that you can build an eight story in an area and staff do recommend it, council can say no. And then it can go to OLT, but we will be the representatives of the residents and make the decision early. And to me, that’s where our power is, is to be that voice and to make the decisions and let the issues at OLT be fought there.

So I prefer to focus around the power that we have around this horseshoe. It’s a lot more than I think we have utilized and I think we get to make the changes ourselves to look after our residents. Okay, I’ll look for other comments from Council Robin. Thank you Chair.

So I’ll start with, my request was for council to support advocacy to the province regarding recent changes to the Ontario land tribunal process. On this issue of timing, to me, this is no different than any letter I’ve written or co-signed on things like ARUs, one-to-one parking, in the Heights review, when I brought a motion to refer it. Specifically, I’m asking that the mayor send a letter to the province requesting reconsideration of the removal of third party appeal rights under bill 185. This aligns with similar advocacy already undertaken by Windsor, and this is an opportunity for London to show leadership and solidarity.

I wanna be clear, I support the province’s goals of looking at increasing housing supply and improving planning efficiency, but these objectives are not mutually exclusive. The removal of third party appeal rights has significantly reduced opportunities for meaningful public participation in planning decisions. Previously, residents who engaged in good faith through written or oral submissions could seek an independent review at the OLT. That layer of accountability has now been removed .

Residents now have fewer avenues to raise legitimate concerns, but local impacts such as infrastructure, compatibility, and neighborhood context. And this has led to frustration and decline in public trust in both municipal and provincial decision-making processes. I’m not asking for a return to an open-ended system. I’m asking the province to consider a balanced approach, such as allowing appeals only from individuals or organizations who have demonstrated prior engagement including safeguards to prevent frivolous or delayed-driven appeals, and that public confidence is a critical path to success for a planning system overall.

When residents feel heard and have access to fair review mechanisms, outcomes are stronger and more widely supported. I’m asking my colleagues, I know you’re just receiving this at this point, to consider a council to support this request for advocacy. This is about striking the right balance between building homes quickly and maintaining transparency, accountability and meaningful public engagement. Thank you.

Thank you. I look for other speakers, Councilor Trussoff. Thank you very much. As somebody who has represented community organizations at the OMB, such as it used to be called, gratis, I can tell you that if there is a will to prepare your case and go to the OMB or the LPAT or the OLT, as it’s now called, you can do it.

Taking away third party appeals, it’s an access to justice issue. It’s closing the courthouse door. It’s telling citizens, it’s telling residents that you can come in to the courthouse, not really a courthouse, it’s not judicial, but it’s quasi judicial. So I’m gonna use the courthouse metaphor here.

You can’t come on into the courthouse. You’re not the right person. Somebody who’s got a different position than you can come. And it’s used as a club, boy, you said it.

It’s used as a club. So many times we’re said, well, we better not really oppose this, because if you do, the applicant can go to the OL T or and we’ll lose, maybe we won’t, but to tell citizens, residents, that they cannot have access to a fundamental part of our judicial, what is our judicial system, it’s an abomination. And we have an obligation as a city who’s representing our residents to act on their behalf. And we don’t always act on their behalf ‘cause sometimes we take a contrary position to our planning decisions, to what people in the community want.

And that’s okay, that’s part of the quasi- judicial process. That’s part of how courts and administrative agencies work under the rule of law. But to say that certain people, based on their status, cannot participate in that process. That is just as somebody who’s spent my adult life studying or practicing or teaching or just these days just talking about law, I just find it very, very difficult.

I am gonna fight very hard to restore the rights of our residents to go to this administrative agency. And I think the city should be supporting them. And to hear my colleagues say, “Well, this is contrary to the need to build housing.” We’re, that’s not right. That’s not what we’re balancing here.

We’re balancing the different stakeholders. And we are privileging. We are privileging a particular class of stakeholders. And believe me, if this went to a court on due process grounds, there’d be a very, very shaky justification for abolishing third party appeals.

So I’m glad this came up. Now I do wanna say that there recently has been an Auditor General’s report on this agency. And it’s not pretty. This Auditor General’s report, and I don’t know how much attention it will get, talks about a lot of reforms that are needed at the OLT.

This is one of them. So we need to take a broad look at how is the process of the OLT in terms of how it’s been defined by this provincial government? How is this skewing not only the land use decisions we make, but the willingness of our residents to come and talk to us? Because I think what it results in is this view that the system is not for me.

The system is for paid lobbyists. They know what they’re doing. They have the funding, but it’s not for me. We have to make our justice system all parts of it, not just the courts, but the administrative agencies accessible to all of our residents, and we owe them that as a city.

Thank you. Okay, any other councilor Provost? Thank you. So when I go through my notes when I was preparing them, I’m not gonna repeat what the Pierre Mayor Lewis and what Council Stevenson said.

I would say you have exactly the same words, like pass the back, et cetera. But I do want to say this, that we have the one housing policy, provincial policy building policy, which our staff is evaluating according to such policies. OLT in my, not sorry, in my information when I look into it, they evaluate it exactly to the same policy. If I go back three and a half years ago, How many great projects we have approved?

How many times do we have a gallery full and they were against it? They were against it. So all these projects, they would be stuck at loyalty for eight, 12, 14, 16 months. Where is our economy?

Where are the jobs? Where is the cost for housing? All those are gone. And we need it.

I hope we stay on this track. We need to do involvement of locally. Absolutely, do we need to do more? Whatever we can, within our power, absolutely.

Should we pass the back to someone else and to just say to the residents, hey, we did our job, no, we didn’t. To the right, I’ll let it to lobby, that’s not a job. It’s the job to get it done right here. We need it, look at this.

We need the housing, we need affordability. When we have it in place, we can go back to the federal government. Guess what? We need more international students.

Guess what? All those instructors that have been put on leaf laid off, we need them back. This, we are under, I believe we are on the right path as long as we get, again, look at today, perfect example of today’s session of the pack. I know it wasn’t like that every day, every pack session, but again, look at back.

We approved some great things, which again, we had gallery full, and guess what? 12, 18, 19 months ago, we wouldn’t have a result yet. And we don’t have, as I said, I said it once, but I’m gonna say it again, where’s the affordability housing? Where is the, where is our economy?

Where are the jobs? No, we need that. Look at our economic indicators. They certainly are not stellar.

So I will certainly not support this at the council. Do I want us to look into other options? Absolutely. Can we be better?

We can always be better. But let’s focus on ourselves instead of passing the buck and just sending a letter or asking our mayor to lobby. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look for any other speakers.

Everyone’s been heard. We have a motion moved and seconded and we will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Thank you.

That leaves, what do we have? Okay, deferred matters. Just, I’ll just look for someone to accept the deferred matters motion. We don’t have any deferred matters.

Not on this. Not on this, okay. So we don’t have to do that. Perfect.

Good, that leaves a German. Councilor Stephen, are you moving to adjourn? Seconded by Councilor Cuddy, hand vote. Thanks everyone that Councillors for a rather long session.

Thank you.