Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to call the 15th 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 Anesnamic Odinos Lenipewok and Adawandon. 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, Matei, 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 pactpec@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension245. Uh at this time, I'd like to look I'd look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we'll move on to consent items. I'll be pulling 2.2 uh 2.4 and 2.5. And as with practice, uh those consent items will be dealt with additional business at the end of uh at the meeting once we finish scheduled items. So I'll look to committee now uh for uh action on 2.1 and 2.3. Uh councelor Cuddy. >> Chair, I'll move the remaining motions. Thank you. >> Okay. So you're moving 2.1 and 2.3. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier. U so we have 2.1 and 2.3 moved and seconded. I'll look for uh any conversation on that. Okay, councelor PL. Thank you sir chair to the staff on the 2.1. I have one question and that has to do with by the way that's great securing the provincial pledge funding. That's great. But my question is those seven projects that are listed there, uh, were they originally listed in our multi-year budget? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh, thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. Um, yes, they were. Um, the the Elmwood project specifically came through uh community and protective services, I think, in 2024, and the other ones were identified uh as part of our overall capital program. council. >> So thank you for that. So now if we look at the capital budget, there's going to be additional this amount there. What happens? Uh how does it come back? Does it come back to the council on the decision on the allocation of these funds? Is it going to be moved to the next multi-year budget or the annual update? >> I'll go st. >> Thank you. And uh through you, Mr. Chair. So I assume you mean what are we doing with the property tax or the DC rate fund or the water and sewer rate funding uh that was originally allocated for the BFF projects. Is that kind of what you're referring to? What are we doing with those funds? Those will then go back into the pot and uh our colleagues in engineering will work through the capital budgets and then those will come back to council in future for approval. >> Councelor, thank you for those answers. No more questions. No further questions or comments. There's a question from the chair uh to staff regarding the same um item Ontario building faster fund. Um last time we spoke about this uh it was at the province provincial level looking for approval. I just wonder if staff can comment on that progress. Uh certainly and uh Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to identify that province has approved the investment plan. So uh the funds that we see in the report, those will be coming to the city uh for use on these projects. Uh, terrific news and I want to thank staff for uh, being successful in that application to the the province and appreciate the province for their green light on those important items. One last look around. We have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to zero. >> Thank you. Moving on to scheduled items. Just one note. Um I just want to acknowledge Scott Collier is here representing LDI. Um welcome Scott. He is taking over from Mike Wallace. Mike I know is uh online and I just again we we mentioned him at the last pack but I just want to say thanks to Mike for uh his years of service uh and working with staff and and council uh on um getting um this city moving forward. Thank you. Okay. 3.1. Uh this is regarding um 100 Stanley Street. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddi, seconded by uh Councelor Hillier, and we'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. >> Okay, I'll look to the public if the public would like to address the committee on this item. I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online. There's nobody online. I don't see anybody approaching the microphone. >> Oh, >> please ma'am give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Sure. Hi, I'm Brenda McQuade. Um, I am involved in the heritage sector. um chair the London Heritage Awards and on the acco board and I've been the past chair of Heritage London Foundation. So my involvement with this house goes back quite a while and I am really anxious that we find new ways to think about things. As far as I could tell and in my letter, I cannot see the destruction of this house is really going to serve any purpose at this point in time. And I don't understand why we cannot think of new ways of dealing with uh this potential house. Either leave it as it is uh create a barrier with it with a new road widening. No one is saying that that whole intersection doesn't need to be developed. That's clear. But if there are other options, I really urge this committee to go back and insist that the department kind find new solutions. It could be after you've paid half a million dollars for it that you want to sell it to somebody who would move it as a last resort. I'd prefer it stay in place, but in fact, it's a an important jewel and we forget our history when we move a building like that. That is a corner that was essential to early London to when when the York Street Bridge was the only way into downtown London. So you really need to think about this and I urge you to find any new way you can be flexible work with work with the community and find a way other than just destroying it because it is very special. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. >> Oh, there's Susan. Oops. Oh dear. >> Please, ma'am, give us your name. You have five minutes. I'm just going to fight with this for a minute. Thank you. Uh my name is Susan Bentley. Um and I just want to echo my colleagues uh comments and I did write you a letter, but um thinking about this, one of the things I think could be a potential is the house could be used as a home. We don't need to knock it down. It's not essential anymore. I think in the previous iteration of this whole debate, it looked as if it was absolutely essential that the house go in order to make space for equipment and the widening of the road. If that's no longer essential, I do urge you to consider retaining the building as a home. We need housing. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please, ma'am. Thanks. >> Oh god. This is really a very >> Please give us your name and you have five minutes. >> My name is Dan Finley and yes, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Sorry. >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak of something that is so dear to my heart. For more than a decade, I have been standing and I'm still standing steadfast in my belief that the house at 100 Stanley Street should not be demolished. I had lived in that house for more than 30 years with my family, my children, as well as two of my grandchildren. And all we all appreciated and enjoyed the many heritage assets there. The windows, the doors, the floors, the fireplace, the stairway, the the intricate woodwork. And I please refer to the f the photographs and descriptions that are contained in the information that you would have received. Over 130 years ago, one of our forefathers very carefully built that house, our home, and featured. And by the way, I want to tell you that 100 Stanley Street has been featured two times during London's annual geranium walk. I do so hope that our citizens will continue to have many more opportunities to appreciate and cherish this truly very important London heritage asset. I feel certain that the creative minds at London City Hall can find a resolution to the traffic woes. a resolution that will not include 100 Stanley Street, but will spare the house at 100 Stanley Street. And thank you, Mr. Ganu, for all of your work and effort. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Ask clerk again if there's anyone online. There isn't anybody online. >> Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Hi, my name is Susan Jagmis. I'm new to London and I know a little bit I've read a little bit about the story um of the house on Stanley Street and I um went online and looked at some old Google images of the house and it was like an oasis that that that nan had that house. It was an oasis of native plants and and what it is today is shocking and I'm so disappointed in council for what has happened to that house and I think you owe it to Nan to keep that house after what you've put her through. And I also think it's a shame that you're making seniors come upstairs and navigate all these stairs when there's this floor down here that could easily be way more accommodating. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. I have no one online. I don't see anyone else going to the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. And we'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. >> Okay. I'll go to committee uh for uh Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, chair. Um, I'm going to move an alternate motion that on the recommendation of uh sorry, that the uh report be or the demolition permit be approved. Um, I know that's not on the recommendation of the director of planning. Uh, however, I'm going to move that the uh demolition permit be approved and then once it's seconded, I'll speak to it. >> Okay. Uh, while the clerk is working that wording up, I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Cuddy. Um if you're okay to speak to it uh before the clerk has it up on each scribe. Please go ahead. Deputy mayor. So chair, I was here in the last term of council. I've been part of this debate. Nothing in this report to me has changed since the last decision that was made by council. Um I will say frankly I'm a little frustrated that this is even here before us. It's that simple. I don't think that another heritage uh report should have even been coming before us. I think this should be just coming through engineering uh to move the project forward. And to me, it comes in the uh note from Mr. McCrae um and the uh engineering department that says this does not eliminate the need for construction equipment on the 100 Stanley Street property and does not reduce the excavation and grading impacts to the property. We can talk about retaining walls. We can talk about removing the porch and then whether or not it can be restored later. There's no guarantee that this house can even maintain its integrity uh through a construction project like this. We have spent taxpayer dollars to purchase the home. Miss Finley has been happily relocated to a new home and I'm not prepared to spend more taxpayer dollars to put in retaining walls and remove the porch and put the porch back later. See if somebody wants to move it. We already got a report in the last term of council that said it was going to be close to $2 million to move this house, which was one of the reasons we did not move forward uh with even the consideration of relocation. Uh so the idea that somebody's going to be interested in buying it and then adding uh millions to their cost to then move it, I I think is uh highly speculative at best. Um and it is time that we move forward with this. There's now an agreement in place with CN to move forward with the project. There has been some design changes, but nothing in the design changes changes the fact that this property is needed for this project. So to me, uh quite frankly, I'm tired of discussing this. Nothing that's before us today is significantly different from what was before us in 2021 uh in the last term of council. And I think it's time we get moving on getting the bottleneck at Warren Cliff Road addressed. Uh and so that's why I'm supporting the demolition. It's time. And I will add chair, this property is not a unique architectural uh heritage property. There are other Queen Anne style uh properties in the city of London that are designated as part four heritage designations as well. So this does not represent any unique attributes from an architectural uh perspective on the heritage file. So I do not agree with the findings of the heritage staff. Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. Councelor F. >> Thanks, Chair, and thanks for recognizing me as a non- voting member of the committee as a visiting member. Um, so I, you know, going through the report, like I do see that there has been some changes. I would disagree with uh the last speaker, respectfully. Um I do see that uh we've had this conversation a few times with staff in the last few years and I from what I understood the um construction methods required the erection of a crane on the property and that's why we were uh looking for a demolition. So I just want to go to staff and just confirm that that that my memory is correct on that one and uh see what the construction meth methods were previously when council made this decision um in the previous uh iteration of council. Go >> staff. Thank you through the chair. Um, yes, there have been some changes to the project since the original assessment, including the changes to the CMbridge construction methodology. Those changes have reduced some of the impacts um associated with the original construction approach. However, the required Warren cliff road improvements still remain. Those include road widening, lowering, and the associated excavation, grading, and retaining wall construction. The excavation and grading itself will actually affect nearly 50% of the property with construction occurring immediately adjacent to the west side of the dwelling. These works will also require removal of the driveway, the garage or shed, um porch, and several mature trees and other vegetation. Um the location of the retaining wall itself is constrained by the sight lines required for drivers. Uh meaning that it can't be removed moved closer to the roadway to increase separation from the house. So the retaining wall would actually be directly adjacent to the house foundation and requires removal of the porch. This creates significant engineering challenges because of the proximity of the excavation retaining wall construction um adjacent to the house foundation. A review of the updated project conditions um was completed by our consultant specifically to look at if the house could be retained giving the the changes. The assessment identified substantial engineering and heritage risks um associated with it including settlement loss um settlement loss of lateral support undermining and uh vibration damage. Um ultimately our consultant concluded that these risks could not be eliminated and that the structural integrity of the dwelling um could not be reliably maintained during construction. Um on that basis the assessment concluded that the house could not be safely and reliably retained while construction of the required improvements. >> Counselor, >> thank you for that. Um so I guess uh a follow-up would be when was that consultant report um done and with the retaining wall um I do see that in the report that is before us that retaining wall is right along the sight line as per provincial requirements. So I do see that it doesn't necessarily block the sight lines there and if the retaining wall were to be a little bit lower considering that the Warren cliff road is going to be lowered as well that could also uh still work as far as I can see with the report. Um, I did see that the recommendation here is supporting that the supported information provided is insufficient to establish that that demolition is warranted because of uh reasonable alternatives has not necessarily been um looked into specifically with um the foundation depth, the structural capacity um and just we haven't actually looked into um just exactly what could be impacted there. We haven't actually had a thorough look into this. And then I do see that in my own uh experience we did have the uh for example the out Adelaide street underpass work. We had the cat hospital there that was very close with more significant work especially with the pile drivingings that happened close to that property and that property was able to be retained and not affected. Um and then I did see the report also uh made mention to the Philip Aiz property where we did have the same type of work going on there. So, I just wanted to know um you know, do we really have uh enough uh information today to conclude these risks um can't be reasonably mitigated and does that report really get into the details here? >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. Uh the report from our consultant was finalized this year. So, it was based on the the most current and up-to-date information. Um they did look at various types of retaining walls and shoring alternatives. Um some of which actually would physically require removal of a portion of the house foundation for them to even be constructed. And all the other options I looked at all had their individual um significant risks noted whether it was, you know, the vibration damage or or settlement risks and things like that. And there were not uh reasonable mitigation measures that that could be um suggested to to mitigate or eliminate those risks. Um, with respect to some of the examples of other situations, yes, there are great examples of situations where we've been able to retain um, heritage dwellings, but we have to look at them all individually. Um, considering proximity, um, soil conditions, um, structural integrity of the house and the foundation. Um, and in this case in particular, it's that proximity of the retaining wall to the the house foundation, which is one of the really critical factors here. Um and our our consultant made, you know, all reasonable efforts to look at potential solutions to um mitigate um impacts to the the dwelling um but ultimately concluded um there was no safe and reliable way to do so. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. So if it's the most recent report, I believe that report also said um that mitigation is technically feasible as well in the report. Um like including like the retaining wall like we discussed um but the costs and the effectiveness um haven't been comprehensively evaluated as far as I saw. Um, so I I just wanted to know um we haven't fully evaluated the costs associated with those options for demolition. So I just wanted to know um there I I do see with that report specifically that there is some more information that we can derive and maybe it would be more um reasonable to look into that uh just to see if it can be retained because that report does say that it is technically feasible still. I'm sorry councelor is there a question there >> I guess uh the cost would be like have we compared the net cost of demolition versus retention or have we compared the potential revenue if we retain the property for resale so let's say if we had to give extra costs uh to retain the structure remove the porch build the retaining wall but then we put it back on the market is there the ability that we could actually have some surplus in this revenue um like that's kind of what I'm wondering because no matter what whether it's demolition or retaining we're going to paying for something. So, I just wanted to know, are we able to retain the house and also maybe potentially have a resale of the house pay for the extra costs that may be associated with that retention? >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. The um report um dated June of this year notes that retention of aspects or or um aspects or for sorry um portions of foundation elements might be um able to be retained for um interpretive p purposes um and for heritage uh commemoration but it is noted that retention of the drawing itself is not. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Do we have uh any indication or idea of how much that property would be worth right now if it were to be put on the market? >> I'll go with staff. >> No, we don't have a a value available at this time. >> Counselor. >> So, I think we should be looking into that because there's a potential we could save this house and put it back on the market keep housing that we've already had built and maybe even potentially pay for uh the extra cost associated with salvaging. I think that there's more work that needs to be done. I agree with the deputy mayor that this shouldn't be coming now. But I would say um to council like you know things change we the direction that this council took in in the past there has been conditions that change specifically with respect to the construction methods that have changed and I think you know as governance should adapt with the changing times and I think that this is one of those examples we could look into. We have past examples that we've already been able to show with the Philip Aiz property or with the Adelaide underpass property. other ones too that were able to uh retain certain structures. >> 30 seconds. >> Um but I think this is something we should be looking into. So I I don't want to support this. I think we should support the staff recommendation that this should be refused and maybe we should just get a little bit more information on that. So I'm hoping that the committee will hear me on this and take another approach. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. Deputy mayor. >> Thank you chair. Just briefly um I don't need a report from realy services. I can look at active listings on Stanley Street, 599,459,000. Uh we are talking about uh costs in the millions on engineering technical retention pieces. We are talking about 600,000 in a resale value on a property that'll be smaller, located right next to a wall with a foundation that's been compromised. Uh so I disagree that there's a financial uh viability where we actually uh make our money back and retain a surplus. Um quick look at real real estate rates in the city of London uh shows me that very clearly. I I don't need a staff report on that. So uh I will continue to support the demolition permit. >> Thank you. All of comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors? >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. chair for recognizing me. I'm not on the committee. I just want to um thank the community for coming out and for standing up for heritage. I know this has been a longstanding conversation. I've been on numerous councils where we have tried to save it. We've tried to move it, try to get rid of it. And here we are now uh at a point where we have an opportunity to stand up for heritage. for me sometimes it does cost it's it can be costly but how important is it I'm not sure the will of this committee is that heritage is important and I just want to thank the community for standing up for heritage >> thank you I'll look for other comments >> I could get the vice >> sorry I'm just going to call a point of personal privilege >> sure um it's quite inappropriate for councelor Hopkins to determine what the will of this committee is around heritage. We have approved and not approved heritage designations. Um and to insinuate that the committee uh doesn't consider uh or doesn't support heritage is actually not accurate. Um people are entitled to make their own subjective opinions on heritage. Uh we discussed that last committee how heritage is subjective. We heard that from the community advisory committee on heritage who by the way voted on this uh at their meeting and they did have a couple members absent but it was a split vote. The advisory committee didn't unanimously support uh the staff's recommendation on this. So I think it's rather inappropriate for the council to project what our um decisions are or what our um uh reasons are for supporting or not supporting a designation. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you for for that point went perfect. Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh if I can respond. Uh and I would like >> I'll hold on a second please. Counselor Okay. So, um I I'm told I have to make a a ruling of some sort. So, I I'm going to uphold the ruling because I I tend to agree with the comments made and I I felt a bit of a when you said that. Um but I'll go back to you to uh to make comments. >> Thank you. And I would like to apologize to the committee. I did not mean to say it was an overall extending um comment when it comes to heritage. I am talking about this application. >> Okay. Thank you. I app I appreciate the clarification. Uh Council Ramen. >> Uh thank you. Uh I want to start by saying I'm not a member of the committee. Um but I wanted to one express my thanks to the community for coming out today and sharing their thoughts uh on the application that's in front of us. Um this is a really tough one and I understand the challenging situation that we are in uh as a community and I wanted to ask a question about the commemoration plan and see whether or not staff would be able to comment a little bit more. There's an aspect I truly just need a little bit more clarification on, which is the reinstating of the foundation footprint at grade and uh what what why that's part of the commemoration plan and what would be considered in in that. >> I'll go st available >> through the chair. Um, making the original footprint of the house and and retaining or salvaging um, foundation materials was a recommendation of the heritage specialist um, working for the consultant that we were uh, was looking on this project for us and it was a part of the u to recognize and and communicate the heritage significance of the property um, and the house. >> Counselor. >> Uh, thank you and through you. So, I'm still a bit confused about what that commemoration plan would look like just in terms of I understand the salvaging perspective. Um but what what's the value of reinstating the footprint and then what are the value I guess in retaining um the property on like I just don't understand what in the commemoration plan from the foundational perspective is something that that we're looking to salvage. I'm just trying to understand that a little bit better. Is there any other input you can give because it's not very clear. It's just like one line in the report. >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. There's um a variety of different things that were recommended as part of the commemorative commemorative plan. So, it's documenting the house and its history for archival purposes. um interpreting two main themes being the historical land uses of the property and the queen ant architectural style of the 1893 house. Um the plan also includes salvaging her heritage materials where feasible um regrading and landscaping um installing interpretive signage explaining the history and significance of the property um and retaining the uh foundation um as noted as well as providing a sidewalk extension and bench as part of the the recommendation. So I think just as a whole package it's you know retaining the information the history of the house um and maintaining aspects of that are feasible to kind of help um commemorate it. >> Counselor. >> Thank you. Um and maybe I'll seek some more clarification offline on this. So my understanding is what what we're what's being proposed and what's in the memo uh communicated from Mr. McCrae and Miss Grady um is that they think that the highest and best use of the land right now uh if the house is not retained is solely for the purpose of commemoration and that's solely what we're outlining here. There's no possible highest and best use for any other purpose that's been considered at this point. I'll >> go staff. Yeah, thank you through the chair. Uh yes, the the available uh property after the construction of the project is uh limited. It's a small space within the rightway and uh the final design details will be worked out as we finish the project design. Um but it's uh it's limited to uh excess rightway width and uh you know the the commemoration plan uh aims to make use of uh property that uh really has limited value as uh being on the edge of a road right away. >> Council, >> thank you. My final comment is just around the commemoration plan. What kind of consultation will happen at that design stage for what will happen to the remaining property if demol demolition moves forward? >> Oh, go staff. >> Yeah, the the consultation on the project will continue. There'll be a uh public meeting towards uh uh the end of the uh design phase with uh uh more information available to the public and uh more information on this aspect in particular and at which point you would would be possible to get some more public input on on those details and uh and incorporate as as available. >> Counselor, >> thank you. So I look forward to having offline conversations about this because I think there is more to learn. Um I think it would be very helpful to have a separate process for uh engagement with the public uh should we move forward with the demolition and should the commemoration plan move forward. Um I think that that needs to be considered separate from the rest of the project and needs to be standalone so that we have better input from the community on what kind of um commemoration is is acceptable there. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. Councelor Farah, you've already used up your time. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. >> I just want to verify that. >> Deputy mayor, can you look at Eastcribe to make sure that your motion is uh >> Yes. >> I have and that's fine. >> Okay. Seconder. Okay. Um we have a motion moved and seconded. and I'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 3680 and 3700 Colonel Talbert Road. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by De Councelor Hillier. We'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. >> I'll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the I see you sir up there. Please give us your name. You have five minutes. >> Good. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen. I'm with MHBC Planning. We are acting on behalf of the registered owner and the uh applicant York Developments. York has provided the committee with a letter addressing comments and recommendations detailed in the planning staff report. Uh as set out in the letter, we'd like to first acknowledge support for the city staff recommendations pertaining to official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments for residential and open space uh blocks within both the Sunset Creek and Royal Magnolia subdivisions. Secondly, as noted in the letter, we are currently not supportive of the stack recommendation to retain the existing commercial space permissions for block 20 of Sunset Creek. York has requested to increase this permission to accommodate a community oriented shopping plaza um while also removing commercial permissions um from other subdivision blocks to effectively offset the requested increase in commercial space. In light of the staff recommendation and upon further consideration, we respectfully request that the committee defer its decision on this planning application to allow sufficient time for our project team to review the plaza proposal in more detail with city staff. We anticipate that by reviewing this uh referring this application back to staff, we would uh be able to effectively explore options uh to address outstanding concerns associated with block 20 in the context of larger commercial permissions for the subdivisions. Thank you. Glad to answer any questions. >> Thank you. I'll look for uh members of the public to address the uh committee on this item. I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. There's nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphones. So, I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Councelor Cuddy. Seconded by Deputy Mayor. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries to zero. >> Okay. I'll go to committee. Councelor Cuddi. >> Chair. Thank you. And uh thank you to the applicant and um I would support a referral on this chair as long as we had a letter from the applicant for the referral and I think if we have one in file then I'd be happy to move that. >> Okay. Do you want me to I'll go to the applicant. Would you be willing to you know put that in writing? >> We certainly would Mr. Chair. >> Okay. >> I will have that for the um council meeting. >> Okay. Thank you very much councelor Cuddi. >> Yes chair. Thank you and thank you to the applicant. As long as that's here before council I'd be willing to move that motion. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder. Uh, councelor Hillier. So, we have a motion moved and seconded on referral. I'll look for comments or questions. Councelor Ramen. >> Uh, thank you. And through you, sorry. Could I just get clarification? What's the purpose of the letter? >> What's the purpose of the letter? >> Yeah. What would the letter state? What? >> Oh, the letter would state that the uh applicant is asking for a referral. And I don't want to take words out of the counselor's uh mouth, but I think in the past when we've looked for a referral, we're we're concerned about uh the timelines, the 90 days. Um if it was appealed for no action, um we want to make sure that um the applicant is on record as asking for this referral. >> Thank you. And is it possible to hear that directly from the applicant in their own words for the record? Um, yes, I can go to the applicant and I believe the applicant has said that this uh would be available for for council and if if that letter is not um you know um to what you would want to as a voting member of council then you make your decision as you see but I'll go to the applicant too. >> Certainly through Mr. chair. Uh on behalf of York Developments, MHBC um will prepare a letter requesting deferral and that letter will be available for the October council meeting prior to >> Do Do you have any other questions for the applicant? >> Thank you. And just to clarify, they're waving their right to appeal the decision for appeal for non-decision at that point. Is that what >> Yes, we certainly uh present that we would not appeal this uh non-decision a non-decision relating to these applications uh with respect to the 90-day um nonresponse period or no decision period of council. Sorry. >> Thank you. I'm satisfied. >> Yeah. And from the chair, um I would look for that type of wording in any for my personal decision and my sense of well-being that I don't want to risk that. So, but I think that's what you're saying. So, >> yeah. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Do you have any? >> That's good. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll look for further comments or questions. Uh, councelor Frank, >> thank you. And I just wanted to remind us uh even if we have a letter, that still means they could take us to OLT regardless. >> Thank you, Councelor Hopkins. >> Oh, sorry. Did you have a >> What was your question, counselor? I just wanted to confirm with staff that they could take us still to oil letter. >> Yeah, I'll confirm that with staff. >> Thank you. Through the chair. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Councelor Hopkins, did you have >> Yeah, thank you. Um, this uh application is in W 9 and I appreciate the previous comments from uh other counselors. Uh the deferral again uh is is there any way through you um Mr. chair, maybe to the applicant to just have a better understanding uh of of what are we deferring? Um I I I just want a little bit more clarification. I know uh I didn't really hear everything in your uh statement. If you could just repeat it again. Thank you. Um >> just hold on a second, please. A clerical Y the applicant would like to respond to that >> through you Mr. Chair. The intent of the deferral uh is to evaluate the commercial component of the application in more detail. Uh, as I mentioned in my brief uh, summary that the application had requested that block 20 of Sunset Creek have an increased gross floor area uh, permission and effectively that that increase was to be offset by um, the removal of commercial permissions from other blocks in Magnolia Fields. The intent of the deferral is to have further discussions with city staff to evaluate a strategy for potentially consolidating um the commercial space within block 20 as generally proposed in our application and to look at matters such as site layout, access, uh building size, that type of thing as part of that review. councelor >> and maybe just as a followup I is it assumed through you Mr. chair that it would the commercial space would be decreased because when I read the uh report it is about the increase of commercial. So I just want to understand a little bit more of the deferral when it comes to decreasing the commercial space in the block. >> I'll go to the applicant >> through you Mr. Chair to clarify first the staff recommendation is to retain the existing commercial permissions on the site which is 1,000 square meters of gross floor area. The request is to increase that um to 2500 square meters of gross floor area and as part of the discussions through referral the potential um ultimate intensity of that development would be evaluated further. I can't necessarily speak for our client on a specific uh reduction that they would consider, but it certainly would be part of the discussions we would have with city staff. >> Councelor, Deputy Mayor, >> thank you, Chair. So through you, um I I will say that it's uh a little frustrating uh frankly to get a communication from the applicant at 4:18 on a Friday um prior to a planning committee meeting. Um I know that folks have uh busy schedules, but it would have been nice to have had this uh further in advance uh from the applicant. That said, uh I do think that there is wisdom in uh having discussion about where the commercial space is going to be located. Um and my understanding is this is about concentrating it in block 20 rather than having it spread out over multiple blocks. I tend to think that that is a logical request and a logical discussion to have. Um because at the end of the day, um that is a functional reality of how commercial developments work. Um when you have a a commercial area that is sort of, you know, air quotes one-stop shopping, um that tends to draw more clientele in um than spreading commercial out over multiple blocks of a neighborhood of a subdivision. So, uh I'm immunable to support the referral. Um in this case, I am going to uh through you though uh ask our staff. Um you know, you've been asked this question multiple times where council has granted a deferral and an applicant has placed a letter uh on the agenda indicating that they would wave their uh right to a non-decision appeal. Uh, has any applicant actually still taken us to the OOLT when they've put a letter forward saying they're not going to appeal for a non-decision? >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you through the chair. We're not aware of any. Um, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that they um after that timeline that they could still appeal for other we'll say planning matters um conditions and things like that. >> Deputy Mayor. >> Yeah. And and I think that's really what I wanted to drive home. Yes, they can still appeal over conditions that are imposed when staff come back. Um but none of the local actors have ever acted in bad faith when they have presented us a letter saying they're not going to pursue an OOLT appeal for non-decision. So, uh we're all aware that they still could. Uh but we have not one single example of that happening where council has done that at the developer request. So, uh, for me, that is not a reason to deny a referral, uh, back to a future meeting. Uh, so long as we continue to see this pattern, I'm comfortable trusting, uh, that the applicants are acting in good faith when they say they just want more time to talk to staff. So, uh, I'm willing to support the referral on this application. >> Thank you. I'll look for further comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call Sorry. Excuse me. Yeah, my apologies. Um, could the mover and seconder please look at the um actual wording on escribe to make sure that it's uh what you intended. Okay, I've gotten the nods of approval, so we're good to go. Okay, so let's open the boat. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to zero. >> Okay. Next item is 3.3. This is regarding 1944 Bradley Avenue. I'll look for a motion to open the ppm. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier, and we'll call that. Councelor Hillier. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries. Four to zero. >> I'll look for the applicant. The applicant like to address uh committee. >> They're online. >> They're online. Oh, Mr. Grazia, can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. >> Uh, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Great. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and the members of the public. My name is Emilio Garcia. I'm a planner with Western Consulting, and I'm here today on behalf of the owners of 1944 Bradley Avenue. Present the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments submitted on July 28th, 2026. The proposed amendments are required to facilitate the development of the property in accordance with the conditionally approved draft plan of subdivision and the previously approved official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. The current official plan and zoning bylaw amendments being sought are minor and technical amendments to the boundary of the green space designation and the open space zone along the periphery of the development area. As a heads up, throughout the presentation, I'll be referring to page numbers and the associated figures in the staff report to better clarify certain points. As a quick description of the subject property, the site's located along Bradley Avenue east of Hibbury Avenue South and has an approximated area of 72 hectares with approximately 412 m of frontage along Bradley Avenue. Please see the location map on page four of the staff report for the corresponding aerial. The subject property is bisected east to west by a hydro corridor with agricultural lands and associated structures located to the south and a mixture of agricultural lands and natural heritage features to the north. As a note, the conditionally approved draft plan of subdivision is limited only to the lands north of this corridor. As a quick background, the draft plan of subdivision was initially submitted in July of 2023 to facilitate the residential development. In January 2024, an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application was submitted to facilitate a new public road and establish sight specific permissions for the development. The draft plan of subdivision received notice of draft approval in May 2024 and the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments were subsequently approved in June of 2024. Since then, the applicant has continued to work with staff through the detailed engineering and design process. As part of this work, city pl city planning staff identified the need to refine the boundary between the residential lots and the adjacent open area along the northern border of the development area. The current applications are therefore intended to implement this refinement and ensure that land use designations and zoning accurately reflect the conditionally approved draft plan of subdivision. Staff have indicated that they have no significant planning concerns with the proposed amendments which are primarily required to address procedural and conformity matters. So turning to figure one on page five of the staff report, you can see the proposed changes to the official plan designations. The land shown in green would be redesated from neighborhoods to green space while the land shown in yellow would be redesated from green space to neighborhoods. These changes establish a linear boundary between the rear lots along the north portion of the property and the open space area ab budding them. This allows a variable buffer between the residential lots and the open space as determined through the detailed design process with staff. Turning to figure two on page six of the staff report, you can see the corresponding changes to the zoning. The land shown in green would be reszoned from the R1 zone to the o the open space 5 zone, while the land shown in yellow would be reszoned from the open space 5 zone to the residential one zone. These changes implement the same boundary refinement discussed under the official plan amendment and ensure that the zoning align uh aligns with the proposed official plans designations and the intended uses of the zone. So overall staff have determined that the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments are consistent with the provincial planning statement and conform with the general intent and purpose of the London plan and the applicant is in agreement with staff's assessment and recommendation. We've also reviewed staff's comments on the application with the majority to be addressed through the ongoing detailed design and engineering submissions for the draft plan of subdivision. The applicant will continue to work with city staff to address these comments and through subsequent submissions and revisions. Thank you. And I'd be happy to hear any comments from the committee or the public regarding the application. >> Thank you. I'll look for members of the public like to address committee on this item. I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online. There's nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphones. So, I'll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councelor Cuddy, second by Councelor Hillier, and we will call that. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. >> Okay, I'll committee. Councelor Hillier. Yes, colleagues, this is a natural continuation of the Jackson development in my ward, and I hope you'll vote for it because we need it. Thank you. >> For what? He didn't put >> uh councelor Cuddi. >> I'll second councelor Hillier's motion. >> So, sorry, Councelor Hillier. We're moving the staff recommendation. Thank you. And we have councelor Cuddy second. Okay, we have a motion moved in second. I'll look for any questions or comments. Seeing none, we will call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to zero. >> Okay. Moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 954 Gainesboro Road. I'll look for a motion to open the PPM. >> Chair just uh point of personal privilege. Yeah. >> Uh it is 157 as you're aware. Uh I have an uh eye specialist appointment at an IVI clinic at 2:15. So, I'm going to be taking my leave now. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Clerk is aware of that. So, I'll just remind the remaining committee members um if you need to uh take a break, we will have to um pause the uh the meeting for quorum. Okay. Okay. Um I need a I need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. We'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, I'll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address uh the committee. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon committee members and members of the public. My name is Caitlyn Crowley, planner with Celinka Pereo and the agent on behalf of this application. Um, so on behalf of Royal Premier Homes, the owner of 954 Gainesboro, um, we would request consideration, um, that this application actually be referred to the next December 1st, 2026 PE meeting, um, so that we can have more time to work with staff on some of the sight specific zoning provisions in our proposed draft bylaw um, that was circulated to PEC prior to this meeting. Um, we did meet with staff this morning and do believe that we can sort out some of the more technical matters of the proposal. um lot coverage being one of those issues. Um we do believe that we can come to a compromise with them. So would uh request the referral to have those further discussions. Um in our discussions with staff this morning, uh they did seem supportive of the referral as well. Uh the applicant does consent to referral and undertakes not to file an appeal under subsection 3411 of the planning act on the grounds of a non-decision. We ask that this undertaking be recorded in the minutes and that correspondence was sent to the clerk prior to this meeting as well. Um, as previously noted, this does not wave the applicant's right to appeal a subsequent refusal or other decision. Um, but as per previous discussions uh with subdivision planning staff, we are hopeful um that we can can sort out some of the uh the remaining matters. So, I would request that staff consider the deferral and that uh the committee would consider that as well. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks. >> Thank you. I'll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this. Please ma'am come to the microphone and give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Yes. Uh I am Manel Risk the owner of 457 Jessica Way Street. It is in this area and just behind us there is a natural space or small forest with mature trees and the amount of this zone will demolish all things and uh in in their uh appeal or something for the applicants they want to amendation for to build less than the minimum allowed green space. So it will be horrible because right now the area is very crowded and uh I find I find difficulty to exit to the main streets and there is no space uh in any school around us. There is no space in any bus school. So uh changing the zone to put all uh these uh town houses or all these uh buildings it will not be a good thing. So we will as um as as people uh live there we will suffer with with all those buildings. So uh I I appeal to consider uh the crowd uh school school buses and parking and safety and noise uh all uh all these things are matter to us. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. I don't see anyone else approaching the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councelor Cuddi, second by Councelor Hillier, and we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, I'll put this up for committee. and councelor Cuddi >> chair. Uh I'll be moving the staff recommendation, but before I do, I'd like to hear from the uh ward counselor. >> Okay, I'll go to the uh counselor. >> Uh thank you and through you. So um I appreciate uh councelor Cuddy for um giving me the opportunity to speak to this matter. Um, I understand that the applicant is here or the representative for the applicant is here asking for a referral to the December meeting, but I'm not clear as to what there is to refer in this matter. Um, to me, this is pretty cut and dry. The report states quite clearly that the request uh creates a lot of challenges on the site. Um, I really appreciate the resident who's come out and the communication that's been provided. You really have to take this in the context of the rest of the neighborhood. But in this case, uh, you know, it says cannot be accommodated on the site while maintaining appropriate site function, servicing, landscape opportunity, buffering, tree retention, replacement opportunity, compatibility with adjacent developments. It's not one thing, it's many in this case. Uh I know we're talking about 22 town homes um when we're we're talking about these these two blocks, but at the same time it's the lack of open space or sorry the the lot coverage and the lack of of space for greenery and things that are left if we were to move forward at this. And I believe that's the intention of the refusal. Uh I still see that on the red this being a redline um application notice at this point. Uh I think there's opportunity for um the the developer to meet with staff. There are other and sorry one other thing I will mention is that for residents in this area they're aware that the developer also wants to come back for more height on the apartment or on the building that's also included in this parcel of land. So considering one, it's difficult not to think of the other, but this will be very intense in this location and as the resident spoke to, there's already issues around intensification in this area and on this site. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I'm going to go back to councelor Carter. You want to hear from the the ward counselor first? >> Yes. Thank you, chair. You know, I appreciate the applicant coming forward with their referral. Um and I will support a referral um providing again we have a letter um that comes to us before council although I have heard the words of >> Hold on a second council I just have to check >> councelor before um councelor Roman spoke you said you were going to move the staff recommendation And the clerk wants to be clear now. >> Um, did you misspeak or are you changing cuz there was no seconder, so the motion was not on the floor. >> May they have a bit of leniency here. >> Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, after after hearing what the counselor uh word counselor has had to say about this um I I I will support a referral. Um, again, providing that all the provisions are in place. So, there is a letter uh that comes to us before council. Um, but I I I really do struggle with this because I'm very supportive of the board counselor's position on this. Um, but I will move I will move a referral at this one. Thank you. >> Okay, I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier has seconded. So, we have a motion for a referral. Um, do you want to put a specific date in this motion? I believe the applicant asked for come back to December meeting of PAC. Do you want to include that in your I don't want to speak for you, counselor, but I just >> No, that's fine. December. Thank you. >> Is that okay? >> All right. Okay. So, we have a motion uh for a referral. I'll look for uh comments or questions uh from committee or visiting counselors. Um if the committee will allow me to speak from the chair because we're kind of down to a few people here. Um there's another one. Um, I don't mind supporting referral with the caveats that councelor Cuddy uh mentioned it earlier as long as I see a realistic chance that we're going to instead of delaying we have a opportunity to come to some sort of agreement with staff so we can get um you know some sort of cooperation here. I don't want to just do it for delay's sake and again it is kind of last second which I don't appreciate either. Um but it is what it is. Uh you know to to go back and start at square one. It it's very timeconuming and very costly for for all parties including our staff uh to start back at the beginning of this process. So if we can for there and we think we have a realistic chance and I'm I'm hearing uh from the applicant that there is uh then I'm willing to support a referral. So I'll look for uh councelor Robin. Please go ahead. >> How much time do I have? two minute or three minutes. >> Three minutes. >> Thank you. And through you and I appreciate the committee giving me uh some leniency on time on this matter. Let me just say this. Uh in the letter that's provided by the developer or the the uh applicant's representative um it says that the reason for uh asking for an alternative bylaw is to discuss the proposal for larger 3 to fourbedroom town homes as was proposed in the application. Now we're talking about a referral of the matter so that it seems like the same conversation can happen. But the challenge is nothing changes unless we are changing to say we are okay with the fact that three to four bedroomedroom town houses that are set out in their own words for as familyfriendly should have less amenity space, less trees, less green space. If that's what we're looking to do, then yes, the referral going to council and for further discussion makes sense. But if the purpose is we support what staff are saying and that what's here in front of us is not what we want to see in this neighborhood, then we wouldn't support the referral. We would refuse it. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. >> Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Chair. And and uh just not to um to to repeat what councelor Ramen said so well, but you know, if I say see this come back without any significant changes, I will certainly um be be re refusing this and voting against it at council. But thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. We'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay. Moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 204 Hamilton Road. I'll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councelor Cuddy. Seconded by Councelor Hillier. We'll call that vote. Councelor Haleier. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay. I'll look to the applicant. Uh like to address the committee. Please. Ma'am, give us your name. You have 5 minutes. >> Uh hello everyone. My name is Jennifer Goddet. I'm an associate planner with MHBC. I'm here representing the registered owner of 2004 Hamilton Road. Um I don't want to be the third in a row. Uh but I assume everyone has read our letter. We are requesting uh referral to the next planning committee meeting. Uh we've been we've been working with staff on a few of the uh remaining issues that they've identified in their staff report and we're looking to continue working with them. We actually have a meeting this week to continue to discuss the zoning. Uh, and the reason for our request is that we can look at staff's emerging direction uh, for rethink zoning and align our application with the employment lands review. Uh, there were a few issues regarding um the layout of the subdivision. So, we've addressed that through our uh updated draft plan, which I appreciate staff hasn't seen and uh therefore your committee hasn't seen, but essentially we've taken their direction to turn street B into a municipal right ofway. And then block three, which was that remnant parcel uh to the east, that will be consolidated with the natural heritage areas on the east side. Uh the sanitary services will be extended at the applicant's cost. Uh that's understood. We were working with staff to try to align that with the reconstruction of Hamilton Road, but we understand the timing is unlikely to align on that aspect. So, we're respectfully requesting additional time to continue to work on these matters. We believe that they can be addressed uh prior to the December PEC meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for members of the public to address the committee on this. Ask clerk if there's anyone online. No. There's nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphone. I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. We'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay. I'll go to committee. Councelor Hillier. Uh, I would be happy to move a referral on this because this is a very large employment area at the corner of Veterans and Hamilton Road. I'd like to see it come back for the next council that they can get involved in this as well. >> Okay, I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Cuddy, I'll look for comments or questions on this. Okay, I'm going to speak again from the chair um if the committee allows. Um, I see a pattern here. I don't like it. Um, we're into it now. Um, but, uh, I will say this for future applications. Um, the time to get these things done is before you get here. Um, staff put a lot of work into their uh, recommendations to to uh, committee. Um, committee members and counselors put a lot of work into um, going reviewing. Um, if you have as an applicant uh see where staff is going, then I would suggest that you try to work out your differences before getting to this point. Um, I'll support the referral uh today. Um, but I just want to uh express my frustration um for the benefit of future uh future applications uh and for staff as well and for you know uh future council and pack um just to I guess from our experiences here uh kind of live an ind give an indication of where we kind of left things uh before going to the next term. Okay, I'll look for any other comments or questions. Councelor Mc Mallister. >> Uh, thank you. And through the Jerry, I am just a visitor, but um I just wanted to take this opportunity because, uh, I always get correspondence when anything with Hamilton Road comes up, but just as a reminder that west of Adelaide is ward 13 and south of the river is Ward 14. Does say it in the report, but uh, just as a friendly reminder to the public because I always get inquiries whenever Hamilton Road pops up and this one's not mine. So, appreciate council Hillier speaking to it today. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay, I'll call the vote. >> Sorry again. Just want to clarify. >> Hold on a second. Okay. Um, votes open. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 57 to 75 Wellington Road and 68 High Street. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddi, second by all the vote. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries three to zero. Okay, I'll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, uh we had some discussions before this meeting with clerks and the idea was that we thought it would be best to do a uh deputation for both uh development applications at the same time. Um since it's you know essentially a coordinated development and uh how we went about doing that is uh I would provide a uh initial 5 minutes worth of comments and then uh Jeff Wybo would provide a further five. >> Can you just hold on a second? I just want to confirm with the Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um, for people who might not realize, there's two items, but they're tied together. There's 3.6, which we're talking about now, and then there is 3.7, which is related uh to the same thing. So, uh, I understand what you're saying. Please, please go ahead. You have 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you for providing the project team with an opportunity to present our development applications to this committee. Uh, we value your time. Uh, my name is Michael Nemanich. I'm the development manager who's managed the day-to-day application process. I'll be splitting my time, as I mentioned, with Jeff Wibo. Um way to think about that is I'll be getting into some of the nuts and bolts uh what we'd like to do here and uh Jeff Wbo will be speaking to the the why uh why we got involved and what we hope to accomplish in the future. So Foundation Development Fund 1 is the applicant for 5775 Bington Road. Uh that's the first building. A uh zoning bylaw amendment application was filed to permit a 21-story building. Uh we call it Wellington Tower. Foundation Development Fund 2 is the applicant of 60 to 68 High Street. Uh that needs an official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment to permit a 31-story apartment building known as High Street. The the project team for both development applications is the same, but the reason why they've been structured as they are is because the ownership of them um allocated between different investment groups is different. And so we we want to be fair to uh keep that separation in mind while understanding that what we're trying to do here is a coordinated development that uses certain shared amenity and pedestrian and vehicular areas. So the design of Wellington Tower and High Street Tower have gone undergone iterative revisions. We've made revisions in response to questions and comments regarding architectural, land use planning, urban design, and transportation matters. Um, everyone here knows that municipal staff have not recommended approval of the development applications. We thank staff for their recommendation. However, the project team believes that reasonable compromises have been made that strike a balance between the form and function of the post apartment buildings. What we have here are apartment buildings meant to provide deeply affordable housing rented at 80% of average market rent to 98 households in need. And we believe based on that trade-off, these development applications warrant approval. As of 2026, the projected rents for the 98 deeply affordable apartment units that we're proposing to provide across both properties would be $850 for a studio unit and $1,100 for a one-bedroom unit. These rents are meant to allow a student working a part-time job, an adult on Ontario Works for a temporary period of time, and an adult on ODSP to spend less on rent and more on household needs. Um, everyone should know that currently the ODSP housing supplement and benefit amount is about $1,400. And so that meaningful gap between 850 and,400 is meant to provide some of the most vulnerable people in our society with the ability to afford groceries for a lack of a better term. Now these units are confirmed. We're able to provide them through a cost-effective design that attempts again to strike a balance between providing a sense of place and helping those most in need. Um they're being provided on the assumption that the project team won't receive any government grants or subsidies for them. So these units are entirely self funded by the applicants. Um, should there be an opportunity for government grants and loans to be provided in the future, the applicant team has stated that we would be looking to increase the overall provision of affordable housing. A key uh design consideration for this uh for these proposals before the committee is that we're intending to use a modular pre-cast system. Essentially, pre-cast concrete concrete blocks would be manufactured offsite and shipped onto the property. This is approximately 15% cheaper than using conventional cast inplace construction methods for concrete. We've also saved additional costs on not including underground or structured parking which the province is in its wisdom has said is not required and in our case we don't expect much if any of our tenants will own vehicles. Um that's not the target target demographic we're going after. and also uh by reducing the number of balconies per units. That's allowed us to save tens of thousands of dollars per unit. So, we understand, however, that cost isn't the only consideration. A sense of place matters, and we've tried to listen to stakeholder concerns about that. From June, >> from June to August, the project team spent hundreds of hours evaluating how the architectural appearance could be refined and improved. We think we've landed on a classic uh design that will create that very sense of place. Um we acknowledge certain concerns have been raised in the staff report regarding sideyard setbacks, transition, and intensity. However, compared to recent approvals of a comparable scale in the city of London, we're more modest in all of them. In particular, a development approval uh at 359 Wellington Road was 25% to wrap it up >> was 25% more dense than what we're proposing here. Thank you for your time. I'll look for the next speaker. Please sir give us your name. You have five minutes. >> Mr. Chair, counselors, thank you for having me. My name is Jeff Wyel. I'm one of the visionaries behind the proposal in front of you today. I'm from here. I was born in London. I grew up in London. I joined the army at 16. I did two tours in Afghanistan as a close protection operator, notably guarding Canada's chief of defense staff. Ta. Standing close enough to watch the country's top generals operate taught me a thing or two about execution. I didn't just talk about getting into real estate. I did it. I used my deployment money to buy an investment property right here in London, Ontario. And I did something most landlords never do. I moved into it. I learned how to be a landlord from the inside out. From there, I kept going. And that brings me to where we are today. We originally owned 57 and 63 Wellington and we've now bought 75 Wellington and 60 to 68 High Street. All these sites are right on the bus rapid transit corridor. And that matters because this proposal fits the very parameters the city set for itself. Transit oriented, environmentally responsible, and the big one, affordable housing. Our lawyers covered the what. I just wanted to cover the why. The world needs affordable housing. Canada needs affordable housing. This is bigger than London, but this city, this council can be the first to actually do this. We can put London on the map for solving a problem the whole country is struggling with. Jobs are evolving. People are living through uncertain times. Automation, AI, whole industries are changing under their feet. But one thing hasn't changed. People need a place to live. And they can't keep overpaying for rent. High rents are crushing young workers, seniors on fixed incomes, and anyone just trying to get onto their feet. This project is a solution for that, not a theory. Actual apartments at rent people can afford on the transit corridor built with Canadian pre-cast construction that keeps cost down and gets people moved in faster. The city spent a half a billion dollars on the BRT with federal support, and it exists for what's in front of you today. The city wanted developers building apartments on its corridor. That's what changed the zoning on Wellington and that's what spurred this entire idea. Our sites sit in the city's own parking exempt framework. So our tenants won't be just potential customers to the BRT. They'll be inevitable customers of it. Some say this is too much affordable housing in one area. But try telling that to the people who need it. We need to build affordable apartments at volume. And this is what it looks like. These aren't family units. They're compact by design. They're organically affordable because the apartments themselves are built to cost less. Now, true inclusivity means leaving no one behind. And that is why the rent of 98 of these units will be subsidized out of our own pocket and rented at 80% average market rent and why a further 98 units will be customuilt to be fully accessible. This means hundreds of Londoners who need a hand up, not a hand down, will be provided with the opportunity to live independently with dignity and in the proximity of the downtown Victoria Hospital in White Oaks Mall. My fellow veterans who need a home, adults living with developmental disabilities, working-class tenants, these are the Londoners that don't always make the time down to council meetings, but they've earned an affordable apartment to call home. So, here's a choice I want to leave with you today. We can add beautifification or we can have affordable housing. Every time we ask the developer to add more, more underground parking, more glass that adds cost but not value. Every ass has a price tag and that price tag lands on rent. We can build bigger affordable apartments. Bigger costs more to build and more expensive isn't affordable. There's a version of this project that's prettier and more photogenic. And there's a version that 980 people can actually afford to live in. We choose a second one. We lowered the heights. We slimmed the towers. And within the city's own parking exempt framework, we're delivering a transit first buildings with 600 bike spaces because that's what keeps the rents down. This is affordable by design. Years from now, nobody will remember any of the opposing arguments, but 980 Londoners will remember the address where they got their first start, their first apartment after graduation, the home they could afford on a pension. This council did the hard part. You changed the zoning. You built the transit. You set the parameters. All that's left is say yes. >> 30 seconds. >> Let the apartments get built. London can be that city that figured this out first. Let's be that city. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers to this item. >> Please sir, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Hello, I'm Proo Cucadia. I own a property right across the street from this development and we're okay with the development. We're just not liking the parking provision of seven shared parking spots between 980 units. Obviously all the people living here at some point will have visitors, family members, etc. Where will they park? In our prop parking lots, in the property next door, on the street had to be some further provision for parking. Other than that, we don't have any problem with the development. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Good afternoon. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak at today's meeting. My name is Patrick Clancy. My family and I are residents of Old South and reside on High Street. I wanted to speak today and express our concerns regarding the proposed developments on Wellington and High Street. We support the staff's recommendation of refusal and would like to speak for would like to speak on further points. We would like you to consider the character and identity of Old South before considering such a development. Design of the building matters. It affects not only the people who live inside it, but the character, identity, and the long-term appeal of the surrounding neighborhood. We feel the proposed towers are extremely stark and out of character with the old south neighborhood. We believe new develop should contribute positively to that character rather than meet the minimum requirements necessary to get built. We are concerned about the lack of adequate parking associated with these developments. Seven parking spots only allows room for maintenance and other tenant support vehicles to have the convenience of short-term parking. Nearly 1,000 households will generate visitors, deliveries, ride shares, taxis, moving trucks, etc. It is also very unrealistic to what the man was saying before to assume that all tenants would not have vehicles of their own. The side streets in Old South were not designed to accommodate several hundred additional vehicles. Overlow park overflow parking on residential streets would place additional pressure on an entirely an already sorry limited parking supply and could create safety concerns for families, pedestrians, and children in the area. Hundreds of children attend Dumpsy Public School and South Secondary School. many who walk along High Street to go to and from school. Adding hundreds of additional residents and vehicles to an already busy corridor without permanent and appropriate traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures could significantly increase the risk for these children. Looking at the long-term impact on Old South and London, we are also concerned about the precedent that developments like this can set. Decisions made today will shape this neighborhood for decades and potentially generations to come. Developments should contribute positively to the London plan rather than creating lasting challenges for surrounding residents. We recognize the need for infill and intensific intensification in certain areas where fit. However, the population density for this area and its proposed building heights is a massive overreach. We believe foundation development has an opportunity and a responsibility to meet the policies of the London plan. Providing housing is important, but affordability and density should not come at the expense of thoughtful design, livability, community character, or responsible planning. Lastly, as city planners, you have an important role in shaping London's future. We hope you'll advocate for development that allows Old South of London to grow in a thoughtful and positive way. One that balances the need for housing with pedestrian safety, adequate infrastructure, neighborhood character, and the quality of life of existing and future residents. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Look for the next speaker. >> Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Shouldn't I get 10? and they got 10. >> They were speaking to both items, so that's why I gave some leeway there. >> My name is Susan Jacus. I spoke earlier. I'm here. I'm new here in London. I'm a little bit nervous and I didn't take notes, so there might be a few gaps in my uh speaking because I have to try to think these things through. Um, but I I know that when I first read the rep, not the report, but I read about it and I saw seven parking spots, I kind of thought that that was a typo. Like, we're not in Denmark. We don't have It's great. I rode my bike here today. I'm all for bicycle parking, but not in February. So, the fact that there are se like why even have seven parking spots, I guess, would I don't even know. I'd be interested where that number came from, the seven parking spots. So, I guess I guess I would be concerned that my tax dollars are going to go to parking enforcement because there's no way you're renting out to a,000 people and not going to cause parking problems in the neighborhood. I don't live in in the neighborhood affected by it, but um I'm still concerned about the direction that council might take by um going ahead with this. Thankfully staff in their wisdom um have just have said not to uh support this. And my feeling is like the it sounds like the applicant has has a real interest in uh lowcost housing, but then why not just support um all the community organizations that are out there that are really actually trying to help the homeless? 80% is not a deep cut to me. um 80% is still very expensive. So $800 out of the 1,400 if if that's going towards your rent, that doesn't sound that still sounds like that's not a lot of money. It's not something I would want to live in in my retirement. So um how much time do I have? >> 3 minutes. >> Oh, cool. Lots of time. Um, yeah. I just I just don't really understand how someone I just don't it's hard to even take this seriously. And I don't mean to be disrespectful. I'm not. I I I see the homeless downtown and I I see the problems that we have, but the building more like this dug forward changing the planning act build doesn't really solve the problem because he doesn't care about homeless people or lowincome people. Like come on, Doug Ford does not care about those people. >> Point of order. >> Uh yes. Uh just hold on a second please. Councelor Cuddy, thank you chair. Um, I appreciate the comments by the um, uh, by the speaker, but we're really off topic at the moment. >> Yeah, you know, I understand what the council is saying, so I'll just >> just let me finish. Let me finish. I'll just ask that you just keep your comments directly to the specific application. Okay. Please, please go ahead. You have about two and a half minutes left. I I guess I don't really have a whole lot else to say except for I I think that that this sounds like an experiment to me. And if we're going to experiment with housing that doesn't have a whole lot of parking spaces because we're trying to get people to use transit and bikes and all that, we should start on a much smaller scale. Maybe like a a a building with like six units or eight units, not a thousand units. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Hi, I didn't prepare any notes either. My name is Renee Borg. I live on Grand A and I've been there for 26 years and I just took a few notes throughout this meeting. And when we were talking about the issue on Stanley Street, I believe councelor Robin mentioned public engagement being involved. Well, there's been no public engagement to my knowledge of the erection of these huge Legolike buildings that are going to go on the corner of my neighborhood. Um, this is more than just a single house. This is a whole neighborhood. And these twin towers, that's what everyone in the neighborhood's calling them now, the twin towers. Uh there's a lot of trepidation and worry and speculation about how it's going to affect our neighborhood. Um there, you know, in the neighborhood, we know it's a given something's going to go up there, those lots. We do need affordable housing. We welcome all that. It is the design and the size and the sheer height of these buildings that everybody is mostly against. Besides the issue of the parking which has already been thoroughly discussed um but you know is there no alternative designs is there only these two behemoths that are going to go up and as the report I read a report Skyler had sent out to all of us a very thorough report they're so close together the wind shear the shadow affecting all the houses including my own I mean some of the houses on the other side of Grand other side of Wellington are going to be in shadow for most of the here. Do they have to be so tall, so big, and such warren where you're going to you're going to slot people who are have lower uh income, less means? Uh he mentioned people who have on disability, you're going to slot them into these little warren with no balconies. You know, it just it sounds horrible. It sounds very futuristic and it doesn't sound like um compatible with with the neighborhood. I mentioned in my letter to SK Skyler, when you walk into Wartley Village or a long ride out, you see much nicer buildings with a lot of thought given to the design. Why can't our Soho neighborhood have the same consideration and have designs and engagement with the public where we're all brought in and we can see maybe a choice of several designs to look at rather than these two legolite buildings that are just going to be plunked down on the corner of my neighborhood. So that's all I have to say I guess. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. >> I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. >> There is nobody online. I don't see anyone else going to the microphone. So I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Councelor Cuddy. Second by councelor Hillier. I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, I'll put this out for committee. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll move the staff recommendation. >> I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier. So, we have a motion moved in second. I'll look for comments or questions from committee and visiting counselors. Councelor Frank. Thank you and appreciate uh the opportunity to speak to this as I'm not a committee member. I just want to start off by thanking the residents who submitted their emails and who also came today to attend to speak and be part of the community engagement process for the application. I got a lot of emails and we got a lot of letters on the application itself as well as on the agenda. So appreciate the time it took uh as well as to staff for going through the the application and writing the report that I circulated that I did not write it. They did all of the hard work. Um and I want to start off by saying something. I'm a very strong supporter of Infill, which I think everyone probably knows. Um, I love Infill so much because I really do believe that we need to have more homes and housing units in London for people. And I believe that areas along major transit corridors like Wellington are very appropriate places for growth. And so my concerns with these applications are not about building more housing uh or about having more affordable housing units. I think we can all agree we need more affordable units. Uh it's more about how the site has been designed and whether or not the site can actually accommodate what's being proposed. Um a quick summary of the concerns I've heard from residents, scale and density of the buildings, limited parking, lack of outdoor amenity space, smaller size of the units, and then the overall relationship that the buildings would have with the existing surrounding neighborhood. And I think you'll notice that most residents said over and over in their letters, they accept that there will be infill here. They understand it will probably be substantial, but they want something that adds to the neighborhood, not feels like it's taking away from it. And it appears to me that reading the staff report, uh, similar conclusions have been met by staff in regards to again overall site organization, the scale and massing, the limited setbacks, um, the ability or lack thereof to provide landscaping, uh, the lack of sufficient bike parking. Uh, in many ways to me I tried to put myself in the shoes of someone who'd live in these buildings. Um, and as somebody who bikes and if I only had, you know, a 300 foot room and not enough bike lockup, uh, then I'd have my bike in my living room and it just, again, it wouldn't necessarily be the most enjoyable experience. Um, so when you look at these two applications together, we're talking about two very large towers on a very constrained site. Uh, and so I think it's more about a question of good infill versus maximizing the number of units we can fit on a property. And I think we heard from residents they would love to support some uh some sort of infill project that meets some design standards, uh, some meaningful amenity space, some setbacks, some landscaping. Um, and I think that's important that we try to bring something to the community that they can get on board with. I want to see these lands developed. I want to see housing here and I want to see some great intensification. I'm hopeful the applicant can come back. I think that the community understands again that there's going to be something here. So, I will be supporting staff's recommendation for refusal, but again, I really do want to see something here. I just again for all the reasons that have been outlined um can't support the two applications as they stand right now. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. Well, I'll go from the chair again because we're a little late on committee. Um, I met with the applicant uh and I'll have to say this. I got I I give them credit for trying to kind of go at it a different way. Um, recognizing affordable house housing challenges, trying to build to a number. Um but unfortunately uh despite best efforts um I I kind of agree with what I've heard today. Um I agree about the form especially about the parking. Um but also uh I'll read from the staff report that wasn't brought up. Um the requested amendment does not account for the future required road widening um dedication along Wellington Road thereby affecting staff's ability to sufficiently evaluate the functionality of the proposed development and its potential impacts on adjacent properties. Wellington Gateway is a is one of the more major uh roadwork projects that uh London has done um in decades. and I don't want to impact that. Uh just like earlier in the afternoon, uh I didn't want to um get in the way of a Warren cliff road u project which is equally um you know is another major uh and important project to move our traffic north south. Um, so I echo what I've heard today um from the folks that spoke and the ward counselor who put it in a very good way because I share her uh her aspect of supporting infill um and we need housing. Um but unfortunately this doesn't uh there's a lot of concerns here with this one that I can't I I can't get there. So I will be supporting uh the motion and the staff uh recommendation. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you, chair. And I just want to go back to what the board counselor had to say and and um she said councelor uh Frank said it very well. You know, I also believe in infill, strong advocate of infill, but it has to be responsible. It has to be sustainable. And I had the same issue and I think we all remember this last year on hybrid f where we had two 14story towers and we rejected it overwhelmingly 15 to nothing at council. And that's the one thing that I appreciate with this council around this horseshoe that we all understand that everything we build in this city has to be responsible and has to be sustainable long-term. And I also met with the applicants and I appreciate the fact that that they took the time to meet with me to discuss this. It's a it's a great opportunity to build something there. This just isn't what the residents or the community need. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. Okay, moving on. Uh, this is in the same regard. This is 3.7 um 6068 High Street. It's the same project. Um, but it is scheduled for PPM the way it's uh uh the way it's um set up. So, I'll look for a motion to open that. Councelor Cuddy seconded by I'll second it. So, we've got a motion moved and seconded. We'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> So, I won't go to the applicant again because as requested, they spoke to this uh in the previous uh ppm. Um and I'll just ask folks, we've heard from you. If you want to speak again, you're you're welcome to it. Um but I think the committees kind of understand what you're saying. If there's something that was missed, by all means, please uh uh please go ahead. Okay, I don't see anyone uh approaching the mic. Anyone online? There's nobody online. Okay, I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Councelor Cuddi, seconded by Councelor Hillier. We'll call that. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Councelor Cuddi. >> Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation. Look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier, we have a motion moved and seconded. any conversation. >> Okay, I'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding 649 Coburn Street. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Hillier, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. We'll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> Okay. I'll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Chris Kerwin. I'm the owner of 649 Cobburn Street. Just wanted to say thank you for the city staff for their assistance and their support of this application and I'm here today if anyone has any questions. >> Thank you. >> I'll look for any other speakers to this. Ask the clerk if there's anyone online. There's nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphones. So I'll look for a motion to close the PBM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. We'll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> I'll put this to committee. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, chair. I'll move staff recommendation. Thank you. Look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier. Any questions or comments? We have a motion moved in second. We'll call a vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.9. This is regarding 602 Piccadilli Street. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, second by Councelor Hillier. And we will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> The applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Is there anyone online? >> We have a Nick. I believe he's the owner. >> If if the applicant is online, now is your opportunity to address the committee. You have to push your where your thing your this >> is label. >> I don't I'm not hearing from the applicant. >> Can you hear me now? >> Oh, please uh yeah, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Okay, that's great. Uh thanks for hearing us today. I work with Exclusive Property Management. Uh we work on behalf of the owner at 602 Piccadilly. Um 6022 Piccadilly is right on Adelaide Street which is a extremely busy street. Uh I've been working with the house for about two and a half years now and there has been a constant influx of uh homeless people and drug users using the backyard as uh uh somewhere to do their drugs and we have done everything we can to keep them out and they've spent thousands of dollars trying to clean up the drug paraphernalia. Uh we don't have parking in the front and so we do have to keep that backyard open. It is extremely treacherous to try to pull out uh from the backyard onto Adelaide Street. Um and at the same time we want to keep the backyard closed up to protect the tenants. We've had um a few breakins now. We have a young lady that lives on the lower level who was approached by two men that broke into the apartment at 1:30 in the morning while she was sleeping. Um, in order to protect our tenants, we have gone ahead and built a fence. We do have a gate so that um people can get in and out through the side door uh through through the side off the Adelaide Street, but preferably we would like to be able to have our tenants park at the front of the house, which is much more safe if they pull on to Piccadilly into the front of the house. The way the property lines um are on Piccadilly Street, the parking for unit 600, I believe, is taking up the majority of the driveway and there's no space left for anyone else to park on that side. So, we would really like to have parking at the front. Uh it would be uh safer for our tenants, uh protect our tenants. We have taken all the security measures. >> Oh Jesus. >> To >> uh excuse me. Um you you've got time left, but one of our committee members has uh left the meeting and we're going to have to pause the meeting until he returns there. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Please, he's back. Please go ahead. >> Okay. So, um yeah. So, as far as the parking in the backyard, we have built an 8ft fence now since the breakin to to uh protect our tenants uh from further breakins. Uh we would like to close that off entirely and keep um the backyard closed off to any potential trespassers and just have parking at the front. And that's it. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, I'll look for any speakers to this item. >> I don't see anyone. I have uh Nick. Uh, can you hear me? >> Uh, yes, I can hear you. >> Um, Nick, can you give us your your full name? Nick, hold on a second. Nick, hold on a second. >> Can you give us your full name? And you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Yeah, my name is Nick McKinnus. I'm the owner of 602 Piccadilli Street and I can second everything that Karen has said. We've tried uh quite a bit to secure the back of the uh the property and uh the reason I started looking at parking at the front is because actually the the house adjacent to us, 600 Piccadilli, their driveway is partially on my property line actually. So there's uh maybe two and a half, three feet of their driveway that's on my property line. So then I thought, okay, maybe we could just extend that a bit so that I could have my parking spot next to next to theirs. >> Can you please repeat that just for a second, please? I was confirming the clerk. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just saying that the um the reason I started looking and considering parking, well, among the other reasons that have been mentioned to move the parking to the front is that the property line goes through the middle of the driveway of 600. I know the site plan doesn't really illustrate where the property lines are, >> okay? >> But there's about a couple feet there on my side, maybe two, three feet, enough for a walkway. that is actually goes along the driveway there. So, I thought, okay, if I can just extend the driveway a little bit onto my property, then there's enough space there for for both of us to park there, both the tenants of 600 and the tenants of of my property. >> Okay. Do you still have time left if you want to keep going? >> No, I I think there's a tree there that has to be remediated. I'm I'm happy to pay to move that uh instead of just destroying it. So, if that's a concern, I'm also happy to to pave the you know, make a nice driveway there even with the the adjacent driveway. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. >> Yep. >> I'll look for any other speakers. Ask clerk if there's anyone else online. There's nobody else online. I don't see anyone coming to the mic. So, I'll look for a motion to close. BPM by councelor Cuddi, second by councelor Hillier, and we'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> Thank you. I'll put this on the floor for committee. Councelor >> Hilly look for a seconder. Councelor Cuddy. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. Uh, councelor Hillier, would you like a five or 10 minute recess? Are you okay? Okay. All right. So, moving on uh to 310. This is regarding 2206 Bradley Avenue. I'll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. recall the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Thank you. So, I'll look for the applicant. Please go ahead, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design. Uh, here today on behalf of our client, uh, Country Pause. And and then with me today I have Michelle Crook who is uh one of the founders of Country Paws and one of the visionaries behind this really exciting project in South London which they have branded as the Dog Plex. Um I'll start off with the uh the more boring part of this application which is the kind of planning nuts and bolts. Uh I want to say we're in full agreement with the staff report. appreciate the the work of staff and the open-mindedness to work with us on a planning framework which will enable um this really exciting project. Country Pause is uh is an exceptional uh business in London. Um they've served over 10,000 uh families here in London uh across their various ventures uh employ uh Londoners. specifically uh phase one of this complex which involved the relocation of their uh dog boarding um daycare uh and adventure park uh facility to this property that opened earlier this year. These amendments are related to what we're kind of calling phase 2 which is um bringing in a range of complimentary uses to create uh a truly integrated uh facility where uh owners and their pets can come and spend time and enjoy. So phase two is going to involve opening of a uh of a cafe and restaurant space. Um it's going to involve uh a uh a boardwalk with pet related uh uh retail and merchandise sales and also uh a pet care veterinarian uh facility right on site. Um once again uh I want to thank staff uh for their work on this. Um we're in full support uh of the staff report. Uh appreciate committee's time. I know many of you took the time to actually visit the site. Uh Michelle and Jamie uh appreciate that. Uh we ask for your support for these uh amendments today and if there's any questions uh we're both here to uh to answer those. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers on this item. As clerk, if there's anybody online, I don't see anyone approaching the microphone. So I'll look for a motion to Cuddy, second by Councelor Hillier, and we will call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries through. >> I'll go to committee. Councelor Hillier. >> I will move the staff recommendation. >> Look for a seconder. Councelor Cuddy. I'll look for uh speakers. Please go ahead. Counselor. >> Colleagues, I hope you have a chance to go visit Dogplex Country Paws out there. I don't know if you had a I've been there. I walked around. I don't know how many of you travel. This place is nicer than half of the resorts in the Caribbean. Truthfully, the pool is beyond reproach. It's amazing. I'm asking all my colleagues to please vote for this. And please, if you're a dog lover, go visit. You will love it there. Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions from Committee of Visiting Counselors. Councelor Frank. >> Thank you. Yes. I also had the opportunity to tour and while I'm more of a cat person, I'm sorry. It was a beautiful facility. Um, and I also will say that the owners have excellent taste in names because their daughter's also named Skyler and that is a big plus. So, I'll be supporting this at council. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions uh from the chair. Yeah, I think we all were were out there. um uh terrific uh vision by the applicant and um I think it's a I love to see that entrepreneurship uh being brought to London. But I want to thank staff cuz I know sometimes when things get a little unique, it's a challenge. Um, but I appreciate working with this applicant because I think it's um, uh, I think it's this type of business that makes London a better place, not only for our residents, but for people, uh, outside the area coming in, spending their dollars here. And, um, yeah, I agree with councelor Hillier. It makes me want to be a dog and go there for my vacation. Um, yeah. So, thank you and fully supportive of the motion. So, I don't see any other hands in the air. So, uh we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 320 to 0. >> Okay. Uh moving to 3.11. This is regarding 444 and 330 Burwell Street. I'll look for a motion to open the ppm. Councelor Cuddy. Seconded by Councelor Hillier. And we'll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> Thank you. I'll look for the applicant. Oh, you're back at again. Please give us your name again. You have 5 minutes. >> Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design here. I'm speaking on behalf of our client. Um, obviously not quite as exciting as the dog plex, but um, uh, still important nonetheless. Um this project will see the conversion of uh uh two two buildings which have uh struggled to find a user in recent memory to a 10 unit residential uh complex. So uh we're in full agreement with the recommendations from staff. We uh we noted some comments in there about uh implementation of measures from the uh from the noise study. Uh those will be implemented by our client uh as the project move forward and construction uh proceeds. So, uh, if there are any questions, certainly available to to answer those. >> Thank you. I'll look for comments or questions from the public. Clerk, if there's anyone online. Nobody. I don't see anyone approaching the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Councelor Cuddy. Seconded by Councelor Hillier. You want to open the book? Then we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, I'll look to committee for direction. Councelor Cuddi. >> Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Thank you. Seconded by councelor Hillier. I'll look for comments or questions from committee members or staff or visiting counselors rather. Seeing none, I'll just uh weigh in again from the chair. Um great to see uh office to residential conversion here. Um it's uh as you mentioned might not seem as uh glamorous as the previous item but uh nonetheless just as important uh as we deal with office vacancy and then as well provide more housing. So thank you. It's all fully supportive. Final look around. We got a motion move in second. We'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. Okay. We had a few consent items that were moved down to additional business. So, we will go to consent item 2.2. We have a a delegation request. So, I'll look to committee uh to um allow that to happen. Uh councelor Cuddi moves that. Councelor Hillier seconds and we will call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Called to the delegate. Um, please give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Hi, my name is Sarah Adio, my husband, Neil Audio. Uh, thank you for giving us the time to speak today, we're here to respectfully ask for you to reject the recommendation to designate our property at 415 Baseline Road East under the Heritage Act. While we fully agree that our home is a wonderful example of mid-century modern architecture designed by my husband's lateg grandandfather, Mel Baker in 1952, we do not believe that the heritage planners for the city of London have met the required number of criteria dictated by the Ontario Heritage Act. Specifically, as outlined uh further in our letter provided, we do not believe they have adequately met criteria 5. While this home's of course a wonderful example of an architectural style, uh we believe this is a misuse of community or culture criteria which feel is more appropriate for structures which are physical symbols of a collective identity. Elden house is a good example of that. Mid-century modern is not a culture nor community but rather an aesthetic movement. Um, criteria six. While local draftsman Mel Baker was very much beloved by his family, he was simply an employee of a local architecture firm. Um, certainly not widely known or recognized in London or elsewhere. Uh, they might disown me for saying that, though. Uh, criteria 7, Old South, um, as stated in the board's own report, is a widely varied neighborhood. Um, there are many dwellings in the immediate surrounding, including homes on both sides that were built in the last 20 years. This neighborhood is not notably mid-century. So, we feel that stating um that the neighborhood is defined by various periods of architecture is contradictory to the idea that this home needs to be designated to support that definition. We take no issue with the remaining one criteria. Um but the threshold being two. Furthermore, uh we do not believe it is fair for private homeowners to bear the financial burden of a heritage designation that we do not consent to. We're coming up on 75 years of family ownership of this beautiful house. As third generation owners, we love this house exactly as it is. We're not looking to add or take away. Our goals are the same as the heritage committee to preserve and maintain this property just as it is now. We have original blueprints, drawings, detailed notebooks, paint codes, original stock, um replacement tiles for the bathrooms, rolls of matching wallpaper, archival photos, and 16mm films dating back to the 50s. um every available reference that we would need for this house. Since we purchased the house in 2023, um we've replaced leaking roof to match the original spec, which was tar and gravel. We've completely restored the screen porch to its original state, including concrete frame and door repairs. We've restored one-of-a-kind lamp posts near the driveway. We've replaced carpeting in two rooms and all the lenolium flooring in both bathrooms. We spent countless hours on exterior sanding and painting along with general upkeep. Yet, we still have much to do. Uh when we obtained a quote to determine how heritage designation may impact insurance on our home, the insurance broker uh broker contacted 12 providers. Of those 12 insurance companies, only three were interested and each of those three came at a substantial increase versus our current rate. At the CACP meeting, we learned that there is currently no property tax relief program in place for heritage homeowners, only consideration for future plans. While there may be some financial programs in place to help heritage homeowners, they're minimal compared to the real world costs, and they are discretionary. This means there is simply no guaranteed financial relief to help offset the burdens imposed by the heritage designation. The costs to keep this house going are increasing each year, and we've uh invested a great deal of time and money already. The heritage designation impedes our ability to care for and maintain this home by adding significant financial burden without any reliable financial support. We kindly ask you to reject the re recommendation to designate our home as a heritage property so we may continue to direct as much of our available resources into restoration and maintenance efforts rather than unnecessarily diverting more into insurance and other imposed expenses. Please keep us uh help keep us sorry I'm nervous. Please help us keep this house beautiful for the next 75 years. Thank you to everyone especially the people here who helped me understand how to navigate uh to be here today. So thank you. Thank you. All right. I'll go to committee. Councelor Cuddi. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, I'd like to move that we receive and take no further action. >> Thank you. I'll look for a seconder, Councelor Hillier. I'll look for comments or questions. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, and thank you to um to our guests today and to our speakers. Um, thank you for your coming forward like this. And we you weren't privy to this, but we saw it last week. um many times over homeowners that take great care of their properties and have great pride in their properties and have lived there for a long time and want to live there for the rest of their lives. And I can see that's what you're doing with your property and I commend you for that and um I think I think I can speak for planning committee and for the for the chair when I say thank you for the work that you're doing in your home and um and we hope you enjoy it. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions uh from the chair. Um um yeah, you know, it's interesting we're hearing from owners and about, you know, obviously the increased cost, but um what's becoming evident is the cost of insurance. So, what really struck me about your remarks is that nine out of 12 insurers didn't even want to insure your home. So, you're almost getting a point of where you're self-insuring your own property. Uh so, I find that very concerning. Um and for the you know the reasons that uh councelor Cuddi uh said um the onus for me is too much on the the private owner. Um I know we have talked that uh uh at this committee about perhaps looking at ways to mitigate some of those costs in the future but who knows what that that will be. Um so uh I will be supporting the motion uh at hand. Uh if there's any look for any other comments or questions, we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to 2.4. We have a delegation request. So, I'll look uh to for a motion to approve that. Councelor Cuddy, second by Councelor Hillier, and we will call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> Thank you. So, oh, the delegates there. Uh, please give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Uh, good afternoon members of the committee, council, members, and visitors. My name is Dr. Dr. Zane and uh I'm speaking on behalf of 2457 Main Street in Lambeath and I have a fairly similar argument except our property is used for clinical workspace uh and healthcare. Uh I know I was put on a list October 14th, 2025. At that point I was not informed, consulted, asked. There was no correspondent sent to me and I quite pride myself on being very approachable. uh received a package in July of 2026 and I responded by a practicing chiropractor in Lambeath for 26 years and I own Lambeath Chiropractic and Wellness Center. Presently I own uh 2457 and 2453 Main Street and in the past I've owned 2437 as well as 7223 Longwoods Road. Uh I will be stating subjectively why my property does not meet uh the state criteria listed in my 33page report. Number one states, "It's a Gothic Revival Ontario farmhouse." Yes, it is. And Thomas Hall, the builder and mason, created it. There isn't anything specific to the style feature of it that he hasn't used on other properties. So, there's no rarity in the 2457 location that couldn't be subject to designation somewhere else. Number two, I disagree because it hasn't lasted through the test of time. We've done our best to take care of it, but um definitely what was available to the craftsman at that time were used and it is something that is already present in other areas and buildings that he has, which means there's nothing so specific or rare to 2457. Number six, I disagree because that it was one of the many buildings that Thomas Hall did. There's nothing so specific to it again that stands out that requires designation of any sort. Number seven, I disagree because many of Thomas Hall's signature works had nothing specific or rare. 2457 um has existed and other properties that have also been done by by him on this plan and template are of very similar stature and should be included if designation is required but nothing specific for the criteria that were there. Number eight, uh disagree on the site that it blends in with what's around it. In fact, it doesn't because so many things that have been approved by the city to the growth of Lambbeath like the plaza in front of me, very modern new three-story modern uh apartment buildings across the street, the flower shop that's been completely renovated, the village pantry which is modernized, and all tearowns that have taken place on Main Street have been set back to accommodate for future development and growth. So essentially all areas of the criteria that were focused on have been sort of scripted by me and said they obviously there's many features that are there but nothing so specific to the building itself. The truth is 2457 Main Street is not in the league of the 12 other buildings that are on the criteria that have substantially more yeses. and being there for the past 20 years, I have maintained it to the best of my ability and respected and honored Thomas Hall's architecture. With all the new migration from the bigger cities, there is future expansion and development of the city of London. This means an influx of more people, more traffic, more cars, and essentially more use of the main street. Repairs, upgrades, and lane expansions should be expected. heritage designation to 2457 Main Street would be unfair to the livelihood and businesses to all of Lambeath. As we can observe, anything on Main Street that has been reconstructed or torn down has been set back to accommodate for future development. 2457 Main Street only is 28.2 ft from the curb from the front porch. And so, prior to considering designation, potential Main Street upgrades such as bus lanes, extra lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk expansion, etc. must be taken into consideration. Beside this building is our chiropractic office. It's been around for 52 years and essentially 17 practitioners are there and over 400 people frequent our space on a weekly basis. Our focus is health. I am requesting that 2457 not be designated heritage because I want to move forward with the city and community to grow. It doesn't mean that the integral changes won't take place in the office, but it means that as we grow, we grow with the times. I'm a healthcare provider and I care about the community and its welfare. I'm also a taxpayer and as was said earlier, insurance premiums are hiked up a lot more with heritage stamping as well as heritage renovations are very costly. The time to do work is also delayed and my clinic is open from Monday at 8:00 a.m. to Saturday at 12:00 p.m. which means all my has done outside of that. >> We're in healthcare. We have we honor privacy, client care, discrimination, informed consent, integrity to service. And so all I ask is that you consider we're there for a reason. We love our patients. We want to take care of them. My track record has shown the commitment that I have to Lambbeath. So I would ask you to please take us off the list for heritage at this time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll go to committee chair. I'd like to um uh receive this and um take no further action. Thank you. >> I'll look for a second. >> Oh, I got to close the PPM. No, I don't. No, I don't. It's not PPM. Counselor. >> Yep. So, I've got a motion moved. I'll look for a second. Councelor Hillier seconds. I'll look for any comments or questions on that. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you chair and thank you to uh the presenter and um we understand your comments and um from the previous presenters and also the comments that uh our chair made earlier that you know you have there are some um costs that uh that are it's a real cost burden for you. We appreciate that and uh we don't want to put any more of a burden on you running or operating your business as we do the homeowner. So thank you. >> Thank you. Any further comments or questions? I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to zero. >> Thank you. Moving on to 2.5. This is uh another dele delegation request. So I'll look for Oh, excuse me. My apologies. There was a uh added added to that. So um there is no delegation request. Um, I'll just look for uh a motion uh from council uh councelor Cuddy. >> I'll move that. I'll move it. Chair, >> what? >> Sorry. Are you moving to accept >> accept? Yes. Thank you. >> The um the staff recommendation. >> Staff recommendation. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier, any conversation? Okay, I'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 2 to one. >> Okay, that concludes the consent items. That leaves um we don't have no deferred matters. Um we have do have a confidential item in camera. So I'll look for a motion to move in camera. Councelor Hillier seconded by councelor Cuddy who will call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. >> All right. I'll ask the clerk to prepare the room. Once that up. >> Okay, I'll go to councelor Cuddy to report out. >> Thank you, chair. We went into close session from 3:15 to 3:28. Progress was made on matters discussed. Thank you. >> Thank you. That leaves um a motion to adjurnn. Councelor Hillier, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. All in favor? >> Motion carries. >> Thanks everyone.