Good afternoon everyone. It's uh just past 1:00. I'd like to call the 12th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detailed information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Adnoshabek, Hodnos, Lenipewok, and Adawand. [snorts] 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 PACE atlondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension2425. I'll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we'll move on to consent items. I will be pulling two a month early. I just very much want to just take a short opportunity to to thank a few folks that contribute to this. Um firstly, our planning and development team have been exceptional to be able to get us to this point. Building services has really been focused on trying to get those permits out in a very timely basis and uh also our municipal housing development team as far as getting those affordable um units uh approved as well. So really want to thank them for that this achievement and of course anything like this it's very much a a corporate um a lot of the corporate areas provided a lot of assistance and support especially uh with it creating some of that new infrastructure to allow for this housing to happen and uh also would like just to thank the London uh development and home building communities. uh they're the ones that are building these homes and they're the ones with making these significant investments in London which is very important and is essential to be able to reach this target and finally very much want to thank this committee and city council for showing leadership and housing supply in London. I think it's been able to be very successful and uh been able to show that with these targets. So as of Monday we reached um uh a level of 11,966 housing units and that's sart surpassing the our goal which or the target for the housing accelerator which was 11,83. So we've now surpassed it and uh the funding that was related to this was uh London received an aotment of 81.4 4 uh million and uh that last uh quarter of the payment which is approximately $21 million is contingent on meeting uh these targets. So uh very important for us to be able to uh get that last component of the funding. So um just again this is a very important milestone but our work continues. We continue to work to continuously improve our systems, maintain this legacy of the housing accelerator and to ensure that we're building exciting, exceptional, and connected communities for the city of London. So, very much uh thanks for the opportunity to to mention this today. And uh back to the chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Um yeah, so this uh the tremendous work by your team um I think was recognized early on when we I believe were the first community in Canada to re receive um housing salary fund money uh 81 million this being the last installment 20 mill 21 million um and I remember back in the spring and we looked at the numbers that we had to achieve because it was a little slower start at the beginning of the year Um so kudos uh to your team uh for getting those permits because this one this this particular one is measured by permits. So it's either foundations or permits. This is permits um to to actually achieve this number and uh we talk a lot about the planning department and getting zoning done, applications done in 90 days um which uh tremendous work on that. This is a a chance to give a shout out to the the great work done by the team uh processing building permits. Um fantastic hustle uh to to achieve this target and and a shout out to the uh building community cuz I know they were aware of the money uh that the city would receive and there was some hustling done on their side uh to get projects up and running. Um because at the end of the day, we're all pushing to get uh housing out faster so people have roofs over their head. So, uh, from the chair, uh, great work. Thank you very much. So, I'll go to, uh, committee members and visiting counselors right now for any comments on our consent items. Councelor PBLO. Thank you. And the chair to the staff. Uh, by the way, congrats and thank you to the entire team. Uh, if I go to the appendix A, sorry, I'm going 2.2 building services report. And uh if if I can have a reasoning uh if I look at a construction value per unit, if I look at a single single properties, they we have a decrease there about 40,000 and last year was vice versa. If I go duplexes, triplexes, we actually have an increase of 50,000 this year. So both kind of increases and go both going opposite ways. I was just wondering what would be the reasoning behind it. If you can please let me know. I'll go staff. >> Thank you. And uh through the chair. Um the the main the movement appears to be mainly driven based on like the mix and the scale of the overall sizes. Um well, what this symbolizes to me is there's a chance that the the single families that are coming in are slightly smaller than they were in years past. However, that duplexes, triplexes, and quads also includes our apartment buildings. And I think we know based off of the previous conversation here in our half numbers, our apartment buildings have been firing on all cylinders. >> Councelor. >> Okay, thank you for that. And one last question. So, all inspections within the provincial guidelines, timelines. >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you. And through the chair again. Um, our inspection team have uh continued their wonderful work and are still meeting all of the uh provincial timelines. >> Counselor. >> Great. Thank you once again. I'll look for other comments or questions from committee. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded and we'll call a vote. [snorts] Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, our first uh scheduled item is 3.1. This is a delegation uh from the chair of the community advisory committee on planning, Mr. Matalier. Um please go ahead. You have five minutes. Hello. Uh thank you members of Pek and Council as always for uh giving me an opportunity to speak to our report. Um I wanted to speak to you today about an item in our report uh you may have seen which is about um a recommendation respecting uh potential financial [snorts] incentives or supports for owners of heritage properties in the city of London. Um and I wanted to give you some context of the discussion we had and where that recommendation came from. Um, as as you all know, we've been looking at some recommendations for Part 4 heritage designations. There's going to be more coming up. And through that process, we've had an opportunity to speak to property owners um who have who've come to committee. Uh some of them have raised some concerns about the the cost of owning heritage properties, um things like insurance, repairs, uh and and we as a committee think those concerns are legitimate. Um we've certainly listened to those property owners and we felt as a committee it was um a good idea for the city to start looking at um ways that the city could recognize the public benefit of preservation and kind of um also recognize the cost and expense that comes to the individual property owners um as a result of that preservation. And so there is a recommendation in there um somewhat open-ended to ask uh council to ask staff to look into some options. Um and I did appreciate councelor Lewis and councelor Hopkins uh it seems for picking up that item and putting forward some potential action items. Um if I can offer just my personal perspective if there's going to be a debate about specific versus general. Um my feeling and again this is just my personal view uh is that this problem seems to be most acute really with the part 4 designations um I've always seen a bit of a distinction between uh the the many districts we have in London um where in that case if you're a property owner in a heritage district you've got some obligations but you've also got the benefit of living in a beautiful heritage district um you know if you upkeep your property your neighbors are going to be upkeeping their property. The costs are in a way shared and the benefit is also shared. The the issue that we've encountered with the part 4 designations is really that while there is a big public benefit to a designation in a lot of these cases, the the costs are borne almost entirely on the individual. Um, so they're they're incurring that cost for a public benefit and they're not quite getting as much out of it as someone say in a district would. Um, so if there's a prioritization or what I would say is kind of the most acute thing we're thinking about, especially in the context of thinking about new part 4 designations, I would say that the part 4 um relief for part 4ers really is is [snorts] a focus. Uh, at least from my perspective, but that of course is is something for council to discuss and debate. Um, in either way, I appreciate again Councelor Lewis and Councelor Hopkins for um bringing bringing that up. So, thanks so much. Thank you, sir. Okay, I'll go to committee and I'm going to go to uh the deputy mayor. Thank you, chair. And through you, uh I'm prepared to uh move the committee's report, but uh part uh 5B uh would be amended. Um that language was circulated uh through uh the added agenda as well as to members of the committee. Um and that motion 5.2b uh would be amended to read that civic administration be requested to report back to a future PEC with recommendations for implementation of a heritage property tax relief program including associated budget impacts for part four designated heritage properties. noting the program would need to be considered as part of the 2027 to 2031 strategic plan and 2028 to 2031 multi-year budget process. >> Okay. Ask the clerk if she has that uh wording. >> Okay. The clerk has a question. >> Um through the chair uh there were uh there was another um request out of the committee. So, if you want to check in escribe because you're not just moving the request for the incentive program, it's also um uh there's a part B and then as well part C to re to move the remainder of the report. So, if I could just get clarification on that. >> Deputy mayor. >> Uh yeah, just give me a second. I'm just uh reading it through here what the clerk has in escribe. uh >> just yeah so right now we have two votes. We have the um the vote that would have come out of uh the committee report and then the amended piece that I had just read out. Um I'm happy to move the whole thing with um the uh section. So, in in the main motion, you have the civic administration be requested to explore and report back on the financial incentives for heritage designated properties. Um, that would be the piece that's being replaced. Uh, so I'm prepared to move the balance of the report as well. Um, so moving the whole thing with the the amended language rather than the original language coming out of the advisory committee. >> Okay. Yeah. So, we just need a second. >> Okay. And councelor Cuddi will second. >> So, that should be up in Eastcribe right now. And I'll go back to uh Deputy Mayor. Uh thank you, Chair. So, through you to colleagues and and to our staff and to uh those advisory committee members. Uh happy to investigate uh how we can bring forward a specific program on part 4. Uh like Mr. Mateier, I I do not believe this should apply to just general heritage conservation districts. I think it should be very specific to part 4 designations. Uh and I don't want to get into quite honestly um other things like DC uh changes and things like that. Uh I've looked around at what other municipalities uh do. Uh Mr. Metier also provided some examples uh to me as well. Um the property tax relief credit that is applicable under the Ontario Municipal Act uh seems to be uh what the majority of municipalities who have such a program use. They also have caps on it. Some are at 30% of the property tax, some are at 40% of the property tax. Uh a number have uh capped dollar amounts as well. So 30% of the property tax or $5,000, whichever is lesser, uh those sorts of of standards. But I'd like staff to really focus in on uh what the Ontario Municipal Act already allows us to consider um through a property tax credit. Uh and that would be something that uh owners would have to apply for. Um in most municipalities, they have to enter into a maintenance agreement with the municipality to agree to maintain certain standards on their heritage property. That gives us some leverage to say, "Well, you haven't met the conditions, so you're not eligible for the credit." Um, so I'm willing to investigate that because certainly we have heard a number of times uh from property owners the significant change that a part 4 designation means to them uh you know one owner cited just on a regular residential home. an increase of insurance values of over $3,000 a year because of the way insurers do not want to insure heritage properties because they know that if something does go wrong, there will be an extra cost to restore the property uh because of the requirements uh to restore it to uh something like its original form. So, uh, for that reason, uh, I'm willing to have staff investigate, but I want this tightly scoped around the property tax credit relief, uh, and the tools, both the checks and the balances that we would have as a council to say yes or no to those things. Bring it back to PEC, uh, let the next PC, cuz I'm sure this will take a month or two. It won't be something quick, but bring it back to us. let the PE committee uh decide then whether they want to make any changes and then it can be forwarded to the multi-year budget process because there will be a budget impact and we need to know what that is before we go forward. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions from um committee members or uh go ahead councelor Stevenson. Uh just following up on that, I just wanted through you to staff to confirm that we don't need to make any changes to this to narrow that scope as the deputy mayor just said because I it seems quite open-ended here and so I just wondered if clarification from committee would be helpful. >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you. And through the chair, I think the the wording as proposed in the amended motion uh is fairly scoped to just be the the tax relief kind of lens. So, uh, I don't think any further narrowing is is required in order for us to to investigate these options. >> Counselor. >> Perfect. That's all I wanted to hear. >> I look for other comments or questions. Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. I'm not part of the, uh, committee. Uh, but I, um, uh, did bring forward my support for the advisory group. Thank you for uh, uh, bringing it forward. I I do think it it should be broad. This is a report back. So um but uh if the committee is going to support the amended or the new motion going forward uh for heritage property tax relief program, uh I would have preferred seeing options come back to us, but um when you look at other municipalities that have this tax relief program, it's always usually associated with a grant program and it's not as if uh um owners can pick both programs. They would either app uh apply for one or the other. And I I just would like to bring this to the committee's um attention that if you were going to look at a tax relief program only that you would also add a grant program. uh it will give more opportunities uh for owners to take advantage of that um of these programs. Like I said, you can't do one or you can't do both. You would either apply as a resident or you would either apply as a commercial or institutional. So, I would like uh to see if uh the committee would be uh open to an amendment to add a grant program along with a tax relief program. I do think we need to give owners more opportunities and see what that looks like uh within the report coming back. Uh I I would also like to know a little bit more about the budget implications because I [snorts] would assume that only applications and if they are allowed or approved would go through a budget process as well. So I'm not exactly sure how that would all work out and and then that's why a report back is really important. Uh within that report back I would like to understand that process going forward with these programs as well. So if I am able to uh ask the committee if they would be amendable to adding another program along with the tax relief program that usually other municipalities have associated with the tax relief program. Um if not I will be um asking council. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh well, I'll go to the mover to see if uh be willing to entertain that uh request. >> Uh respectfully, chair, no, I don't. I want to keep this tightly scoped to a property tax credit. Um [clears throat] I do not feel that it's realistic to start including a grant program, heritage conservation districts, all of those other [clears throat] things with the budget pressures we know we already have. Uh so I want a tightly scoped uh option to provide some relief. Um, but I don't need 13 options coming back with things telling me, you know, this one's going to be half a million, this one's going to be a million. Um, we've got some great examples in other municipalities where they're capped at $50,000 a year, first come, first serve, $100,000 a year, first come, first serve. Uh, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for in the property tax credit program. uh not a wide and broad scope which will honestly only take longer for staff to produce I think um the more different options they have to look at and bring forward. Uh I'd like to get this matter dealt with in a relatively expeditious manner. >> Okay, I'll look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors. >> Councelor Purple. >> Thank you. And I actually do have a what the P mayor just said when he said first come first serve. So if I understand it correctly, if the staff comes back with the first come first serve amount 50 100,000 is that does that mean that uh if there are 30 heritage properties and if if the person is 30th and it goes over 50 they don't get anything >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you through the chair. Uh that would probably be the types of details that we'd need to confirm through either this investigation to look at how other municipalities are uh applying a program like this uh or in the program design itself and how that could uh potentially operate. So uh we'd have to do a little bit of further digging in order to to find those details out. >> Counselor, thank you. >> Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved in a second and we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, moving on. Um, >> my apologies, a little quick there. We have to now move the motion as amended. I'll look for a mover and second on that. Uh, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councelor Cuddy, any discussions on that? We'll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. The next uh item is um uh regarding an official plan amendment uh to street classifications and the map for activity mobility network uh specifically for 1887 20005 and 2065 Kelly Road. So, I will open uh I'll look for a motion to open the PPM. Uh councelor Stevenson, second by Councelor Cuddy. We'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. I'll look for speakers uh on this item. I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online. There is nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Uh, Councelor Cuddy, second by Councelor Stevenson. And we'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, I'll put this out. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move the staff recommendation. >> Okay, I'll look for a seconder. Uh, councelor Stevenson, we have a motion moved and second. I'll look for questions or comments. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair and through you. And um, yeah, Kle is in the heart of Ward 3, so I'd like to speak to it. And this is this is something that's very close to my heart. Um, something I've been working on. And, uh, you know, I I certainly appreciate the the work and the effort that staff have put into this. I' I'd like to point out um the work that Daniel Hall put into this uh for our um active um mobility plans. And you know, if anybody questions um if anybody were to question chair the integrity of this council's determination to build an active mobility plan, you only have to look at at this plan. Look at what's going on at Kalle and how we're tying it into the other routes. This is something that's been a work in progress for years. And the genesis of this chair came from unfortunately a tragedy that happened on this road a number of years ago and where a cyclist was injured. And you know I remember going to one of the schools to Chipawad explaining to the parents and to the teachers that we were going to improve the cycle paths and the pedestrian walkways on calle and here we're doing it. And I want to thank everybody who's involved including Julo and all the staff as I mentioned for dedicating time. I want to thank council uh for a couple years ago when we put together this master mobility plan which included this by the way and I think this is just such a strong commitment chair to bringing our master mobility plan full full cycle and Kle is a perfect example where we're rebuilding right now and if you haven't had a chance to get out to Klay and see what they're doing it's under construction but when it's done it's it's it's going to be a really amazing uh transit way that connects so many different areas of Ward 3. And um I just want to thank everyone who's involved and uh I think this is a very exciting project. I look forward to uh to it opening. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions from committee and visiting counselors. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call a vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Thank you. Moving on. [clears throat] Um, this is regarding 3080 and 3514 Boswick Road, 1875 Warcliffe Road South and 3341 Wonderland Road South. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Stevenson, and we will call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to Z. >> Okay, so I'll look to the applicant. I see a gentleman up there. Please, sir, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and visiting counselors. My name is Scott Allen. I'm with MHPC Planning. We are acting on behalf of the applicant and with me this afternoon are several members of our project team who are available to answer questions. At this time, Mr. Chair, we'd like to briefly express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report. In particular, uh we agree with staff conclusion that the recommended official plan and zoning bylaw amendments will facilitate a mix of residential forms that are appropriate and compatible with the local development context and which offer considerable housing supply and housing choice. We also agree with staff's conclusion that the proposed housing options support efficient land use and sustainable growth and that the overall subdivision design contributes to complete communities. Additionally, Mr. Chair, we wanted to advise the committee that with approval of these applications or amendments and with the subsequent draft plan of subdivision approval, the applicant intends to move forward with the design studies component or phase of project planning expeditiously. And to conclude, we'd like to thank staff for their attention to this rather substantial and complicated application. We're available to answer any questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for any other speakers uh on this item. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Uh my name is Matt Campbell. I'm a partner with Zelinka Pamo. I'm here on behalf of Omni Developments. Uh they own the lands at 1891 Warcliffe Road South that abuts the uh York development just to the south. and uh we were highly supportive of York's application. We've been working with York and city staff uh and trying to figure out some access issues for our clients property. Uh they've been excellent to work with and uh we look forward to working together in the future. I just wanted to take this opportunity uh this my comments are not directly related to the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment that's before you but rather more so the subdivision aspect and in particular regard to the access uh for the future development of 1891 Worm Cliff Road South uh in particular we're concerned about uh the proposed accesses that the city is advising us limiting that site to right in right out only as the committee may be aware uh their Boswick Road is going to be realigned and reconstructed and that's posing some access constraints to this particular site. Um what we're looking for is a continued dialogue with city staff to evaluate how we may be able to achieve a full turns access for that property. Uh in the letter we provided there's uh a couple of examples of where full turns access may be achievable. uh and we're looking forward to evaluating those through the future development process. Uh and to just to be clear, York is aware of that. Uh and we've been working well with them so far. Uh one thing I'd just like to uh point out here is block 37 on York's plan that's identified as a culdeac. Uh that may be an area that we could consider a full turns access out to Warren Cliff Road South. Um, but we're not asking city staff uh to endorse any particular uh access arrangement at this time. Uh, rather just to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a full turns access that would facilitate access to 1891 Warren Cliff Road South uh through excuse me through a future traffic analysis. Be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have and thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Kimmel. I'll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name. You have 5 minutes. >> Good afternoon, chair and members of planning committee. My name is Casey Colchiki. I'm a senior associate with Linka Prima Limited. Uh I'm here on behalf of Southside Construction Management Limited, who owns several uh land holdings surrounding the subject lands. Generally, we are supportive of the applications before planning committee this afternoon uh and the continued growth in the southwest quadrant. Our concern stems from the Bradley Avenue extension which is included within the proposed plan to subdivision. This extension was recently deferred through the GMIS to 2035 and given the existing strain on the traffic infrastructure of the surrounding area. Uh it's uh Southside's opinion that we should explore uh avenues to expedate the construction of Bradley Avenue through any means possible uh ahead of the 2035 uh timeline. There's been several or the city has applied to the city's uh DC reduction program for several road improvements in the surrounding area. uh and the leaving Bradley Avenue out of that application leaves a significant gap in the uh the traffic infrastructure system of this area. Uh we think that uh or we request that council request staff to look at ways to expedite the Bradley Avenue extension through uh additional possible means prior to that 2035 GMIS timeline. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. >> We have Miam, but um I believe she's just here to answer questions, so I think we're >> okay. I think we're I don't see anyone online and I don't see anyone approaching the microphones, so I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Uh councelor Stevenson, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. We'll call that vote. Closing [snorts] the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. We had a couple of items mentioned by um uh speakers. I just want to go to staff for some general comments. Uh let's start with the um uh the concern of the right in right out. Uh block 37. would uh the speaker was just wanted to hear some willingness to maybe keep the door open to you know continuing discussions on a feasibility of uh uh of addressing that. So I just want to go to staff for comment on that. >> Thank you through or thank you chair. Um yes, we have met with the applicant a few times on this on this topic and um we are leave we are leaving the door open to future discussions. We said that a a wholesome planning application would assist us in better assessing uh access points, access locations. Uh however, we do maintain that the internal subdivision road network is the most appropriate spot for a full access movement intersection or full access for this site. Uh just due to it pro proximity to the inter intersection of Boswick Road and War Cliff Road South. It's uh there's a lot of tight space there and to ensure the safest uh intersection operations, we would prefer to have a right in right out of that location. >> Thank you. And the other concern was the Bradley a expansion plans of 2035. This project um is looking at over 5,000 units and I'm getting an indication um that um it's not one that's they're going to sit on. Uh they want to get going on it. So from a staff's point of view where you know where is that discussion to be held on maybe is it now or is it um in a year or two down the road we see how progressions go. Where do we where do we discuss uh that timeline? Thanks again chair. Um so the 2035 timeline was just established by the GMIS updates that went through council uh last cycle. Uh so it's relatively new. We did see a similar correspondence from the applicant uh reiter reiterating this message in the preference to expedite Bradley A. Uh what's within our control we are planning to include draft plan conditions that require the uh dedication of Bradley A in an expeditious timeline so that we can uh have car and control over when Bradley A gets constructed. Um, further discussion on that is really a part of future DC background updates, bylaw updates, and uh, GMIS discussions. Okay. So, my understanding is these things we're not missing an opportunity to uh, shut the door on bringing that expansion work sooner rather than keeping to that date. I just want to make sure that we weren't told, "Well, you should have addressed this when we were talking about this." >> Yeah, I'd say quite the opposite. We're we're opening an opportunity to expedite that with with approval of the subdivision. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll go to uh to committee members now for motions, questions, etc. Councelor Cuy, >> chair, I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Thank you. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Stevens seconded. Okay. So, I'll look for conversations. Uh, councelor Vamir Bergen. >> Thank you, Chair. I have to uh concur with the view that Bradley has to be uh expanded sooner rather than later. I mean, you see the the vast amount of development going on in the southwest. Um, it it clearly has to be done uh and sooner than u the better part of 10 years from now. So, uh, that that has to remain in the, uh, in the queue as being a priority. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. Deputy mayor. >> Uh, thank you, chair. Uh, I believe that uh this is the application that councelor Hopkins wanted to add a new uh part to. I've agreed to move that for her. Um, but with your uh consent, I'll let her speak to her motion and then you can count me as the mover. >> Okay, that sounds good. Councelor Hopkins. >> Uh yes, if I uh I'll speak to the amendment that I'm asking the committee to add to the recommendation. And just like the many applications that have been before the committee, uh with um large units, 3,000 unit application, a 4,000 unit application, we're now looking at a 5,000 unit application. A lot of growth in this area. And uh as we have done in the past, I am asking that the committee add a section uh uh requesting civic administration be directed to consider the provisions of enhanced transit service in this area as part of the next future update of the master mobility plan. I think the number of units and population growth in this area explains why we we need to look at transit in this area. I would like to make other comments to uh the recommendation but uh if >> Sure after the amendment. >> Yeah, why don't we get the amendment on the floor? Um Deputy Mayor, you're willing to move that as we'll get um the clerk to clerk it up and I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Stevens and seconds it. Um so if it's okay, I'll come back to you, Councelor Hopkins. We've got that motion on the floor now. >> Yeah, I want to thank the committee for considering it. There's um uh 5,000 units, 9,800 people living in this one subdivision, not counting the other subdivisions that have already approved. Uh and there's a lot of people a lot of changes going on and I know it's going to be decades most likely before any that that the subdivision is going to be completed. I want to thank the applicant by the way. Um I think the heights is the appropriate um place for Heights. Thank you for coming down a little bit as well. Uh but we are going to see heights in this area which I do >> counselor. Yeah, >> I was willing to let you go a bit, but um the clerk has uh advised me if you could just speak to the amendment and then we'll come back to you after once we get the amendment on the floor. So, uh on the amendment um I'll look for any conversation and it's regarding um higher orders of transit to be considered. We have that uh Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I'll just say uh this is consistent with a couple of other uh amendments that have been added to previous applications uh in this area. So, I'm I'm perfectly happy to be consistent uh with this and support councelor Hopkins amendment. >> Okay. Uh so, any conversation on the amendment? Seeing none, we'll call the vote on the amendment. Then we can get to the main motion. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, counselor. Um, I am now allowed to have you uh continue. >> Thank you for allowing me to continue. And again, thank you to the committee. I'll just speak on the main motion. I want to thank the applicant. I think adjusting the heights coming down. I know this has been a long process uh coming forward here. I do appreciate the work, the cut and fill that has been going on. Uh extensive work has already been done. a lot more uh to happen uh removing the unevaluated wetlands and vegetation patches to allow this development. Uh um that can happen maybe through um you Mr. Chair. I just want to confirm with staff that the vegetation patches will be fully lo relocated in this subdivision. I just I'm not sure but I want to just confirm that. >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. Yes. All of the uh environmental features that are proposed to be modified or removed in this application are being compensated for on site. Uh there's no wetland features or potential wetland features being removed. It's just they're being classified as significant within the corridor in this case. Uh sorry, there is one small wetland at the south end that's being moved adjacent to the corridor, but everything's within the subdivision. >> Counselor. Yeah, thank you for the for that because um there's going to be enough parkland and space uh and amenity space which is really important when you look at the population of the subdivision. So wanted to make sure uh of that regarding the requests um that were before us from um other um developers in the area. I want to make sure that uh as much as um my colleague uh supports uh the um Bradley Avenue extension that it does go through a GMIS process. And the reason I think that is extremely important and I would encourage um civic administration and staff to continue um those conversations. I do not want to see other uh infrastructure projects like the roundabout and pack road and Boswick like Southdale uh be deferred or be pushed back. I think uh I I want to see these projects still continue and go forward uh as well as the um extension um uh Bradley Avenue extension. And for that uh those are my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments from committee. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on the Bradley Road uh concerns that were mentioned. So, um through you to staff, was the Bradley Road extension considered as part of the DC reduction projects? And is there, you know, is there anything you can share in terms of why it didn't make it to the list? >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. We don't have anyone from the team that was here in development finance to be able to answer that question. But um I can say that part of the decision-m from whenever you move a project for GMIS is that um you look at whether there's applications that have been submitted and approved by council to support that infrastructure. So what's great about what we have before you today is that this would be one of those aspects that would be very important to be able to justify the construction of one of those projects. So when we bring forward the next UMIS, there'll be the opportunity to consider that there's a there's a already approved development in the area that's going to be moving forward and that this road project could support it. So um again, I don't have all the details on the DC piece of it, but um I think it is very important what you're doing today and it is going to provide you with that uh justification in the future. >> Councelor, >> thank you. And seeing as the members of the team aren't here, I won't ask my second question, which was uh you know, does council have the option to make some changes before that gets finalized? Cuz uh we still will get the final approval. Um I'll do that via email. But I do want to just confirm publicly for those, you know, we had submissions and the comment there that even if we were to do that, this would not be the committee like it would be done uh at another committee. So I just want to confirm that we it's not that we're not addressing it here, it's that this would not be the proper committee. >> So all go staff >> uh through the chair. Absolutely. So the actual that developing the timing and the capital plan that's for the infrastructure and corporate services committee to determine but uh of course GMIS would be something that's commi that's considered at SPC as well that uh um all council will be able to participate in. >> Counselor. >> Yeah. Thank you. So I just wanted to uh be sure that that those comments were heard and uh they can be explored in another way. >> And I just go to you Mr. Mathers. When is the next GMS scheduled for >> through the chair. So the GMIS report uh comes forward in June of every year. So, okay. >> Um, we'd be starting to ramp up in the, uh, at the end of this year to be able to start that work and meeting with the community and bringing forward a report in June of next year. >> So, from your comments, um, what we're uh, looking at today, assuming that this is uh, the motion is approved, will impact consideration in the next GMIS. Okay. Thank you. I'll look for other further comments, questions. Seeing none, uh, we'll call the vote. >> Oh, sorry. >> Um, I'll just go to the mover in a second or are you good with motion as amended? Councelor Cy and Yes, they are. Yeah. So, then we'll we'll open that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, >> chair. I'm just going to let you know uh I'll be right back. I left my eye drops upstairs and I Okay. >> Just going to run and get them. >> Okay. Thank you. Um we are now moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 150 to 152 Kent Street. So I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Stevenson. We will call the vote. >> Excuse me. H hold on, please. We We'll wait. We'll we'll call on you when it's your turn to speak. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries for to zero. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll look for the applicant. Uh like to address the committee. Please ma'am, give us your name and you have five minutes. [clears throat] >> Uh good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Sandra Condan. I am here on behalf of strick Baldinelli Monz representing Farre Holding. Uh as outlined uh in the planning staff report that you have reviewed uh the de redevelopment of 150 and 152 King Street involves two new buildings to contain a total of 28 stacked townhouse units units that will be serviced by a total of 14 parking spaces. Over the last few months, we've worked closely with staff uh to refine the proposed development and achieve the vision of the site that is being presented before you. The development is located within the Talbot mixeduse specialty policy area and is subject to the residential highdensity overlay. We feel that the proposed three-story development is not only compatible with the surrounding land uses, but represents a wise use of available resources within the core of the city and uh is in line with the policies of the London plan for this mixeduse special policy area. Uh the proposed development is planned to contain a variety of unit sizes including one, two, and threebedroom units and will contribute to the diversity of housing within the core. Uh and through diversity through both built, form, and unit type. Uh I'd like to thank staff for working closely with us on this project and am available for questions if required. >> Thank you. So I'll look for the next speaker. Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. Uh >> my name is Anamaria Elastro. This is an infill project. Um but unfortunately, it's a poor quality development. Um this every every building, every development needs to be a home and that's not what's being offered here. It's it's being brought in front of this committee because it's too big for the land it sits on. It doesn't provide people with private outdoor space. And for women who have children who may want to watch over their children while they're in home, spend out quality time with their children, they need outdoor space. They need private outdoor space. And this building is here today because it's too fat for the land that it sits on. And it's just becoming frustrating for people in this war because we have people bringing uh companies bringing these developments forward. They're faceless. They're insensitive to the neighborhood. This sits right next to to three heritage buildings. They're completely oblivious to that. There's no quality compared to those uh those buildings that are existing. There's no sensitivity to women and children. It's just cramming people into a lot. And I recognize it's an infill uh project, which is a positive thing, but it's a poor quality building, insensitive to who's going to live there. There's no outdoor green space, and staff are even recommending less green space than the developers are proposing. Again, there's a lack of sensitivity. And I think this all goes back to the housing accelerator fund which had a single goal which squashed people's voices and just uh develop poor quality buildings that you can see all over the city. >> Um >> so um I already said I already said what I was going to say. I understand. Okay. So I'm going to continue cuz I have five minutes. >> Okay. Just hold on a second. I've got a point of order I have to deal with first and we'll go back to you. Okay. And go ahead councelor Cuddy. >> Chair. With all due respect, I think the um speaker has moved away from her original conversation and argument talking and now she's discussing poor quality buildings. The fact that doesn't fit. So, I'm not sure that this is relevant to the argument she was trying to make. >> Okay. So, >> so hold on a second please. Yeah. >> Um I I do agree when you started moving into speaking about the housing accelerator fund. Let's just stick with this particular application. Okay. Please go ahead. So the the the my opinion and opinion of many is the reason we have these poor quality buildings is a result of the fund and we got to now that we reached our goal we need to look at good quality housing that's good for people that are going to live there not how many people you can cram into a lot. So this this needs to be sent back and if it doesn't comply with the London plan and if it isn't isn't a home like it doesn't work as an actual home for people including children it the housing accelerator fund is done now. Now we need to focus on good development and that's not what this is. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Uh, my name is Dean Kerb. Uh, I'm the agent for uh the property owner at uh 142 Kent Street. Uh, I don't think we had our notice in time, so I'll just give a personal view. Um, [clears throat] just to give you a little bit of my history, I've I'm a lifelong uh London resident. I grew up uh in the neighborhood which is now occupied by Learner's Law Firm. I did go to St. Peter's Elementary School which uh has just been [clears throat] removed. Uh I think that uh the development on here done in the proper way uh I think will be beneficial. But uh next door uh as a previous person was speaking the there it's a historic building which uh my client uh uh owns at the present time. Uh next door to that there is uh another historic building that has a major expansion for student housing. [snorts] So the the uses uh in the neighborhood have changed quite a bit. uh it's not family oriented. Uh if the city's looking to a direction for uh major development, uh I think then they should uh also address the historic buildings to say whether they're going to stay or they're going to go or they're going to uh take that use away from them. [clears throat] So, uh I think that uh it could be supported or uh denied by the uh owners in the neighborhood, but uh I think there has to be more consultation here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. >> Yeah. Hi. >> Please, sir, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Craig Deans. to live at 150 Kent Street and nobody in the building was notified as the lofty claims of all the residents were notified through a flyer that this was going on. So, nobody knew until the sign went up, the sign of death. Uh I agree with everything both people said it's not proper for the area. My concern is I'm right on the tree line where it says uh this would be page nine. Okay, they're going to the architectural perspective and the applicant is made aware that there's an expectation to maintain the existing mature trees along the east lot line. Well, expectation and far don't mix. Okay, the expectations was a lot of things should have been done that that company hasn't been done. So, I'm quite against it. It just doesn't make sense. Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. There's enough problems. Um, I do believe that the construction would upset everybody for years. So, a lot of people in that building, they can only do about 50 ft out to sit outside. You're not going to be able to sit outside in a construction lot. So, I know nobody really cares much about that building, but there's some good folks there. They should have been notified. And anything with Far's name involved with it, I'm sorry. It just never turns out the way it is. These are going to be ugly box pieces. So, there you go. I got a lot of other things to say, but pretty sure they might be liable. Adios. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. [snorts] >> Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> My name is Muhammad Musa. Um, respectfully to the neighbors, I I don't live in that area, but my curiosity is why isn't there higher density on this property? You're about 100 meters away from Richmond Street, which is a transit route. Um, buildings around there are 12 to 14 stories, built between the early 90s and the early 2000s. Um when across London your your height restriction was 22 stories back in the day um anywhere in London and you guys just approved 30story building just down the road. We want density downtown and a threetory is being proposed. I I'm surprised that we haven't pushed for higher density where we want the density and I if I'm not mistaken now not 100% certain on you know what the zoning is now and what the special area provisions are but if I'm not mistaken 16 stories is a is a as of right I could be wrong haven't gone deep enough into it uh and staff can correct me if I'm if I'm not. So, I'll make that a question. Is as of right 16 stories. We need the density downtown and we've been approving the density downtown. Why is this one? And and you can't tell an applicant what the applicant must build in terms of density. You can tell them what they can build up to. Why have we not pushed for a higher density on this on this uh development or this application? Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. >> I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online. >> I have the owner representative, but I'm not sure if they're wanting to speak. Um they didn't raise their hand, so >> Okay. I don't see anyone online. I don't see anyone else approaching the microphones, so I'll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Stevenson, and we will call the vote. >> Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to zero. >> So, there is one question. What is the um as of right uh zoning uh allowed at that uh particular location? um through the chair. Um the as of right permitted height is 24 meters which is approximately seven stories. >> Thank you. Okay, I'll I'll put this on the floor for committee. Councelor Cuddi. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Thank you. Look for a seconder. Councelor Stevens seconded. Um any conversation, questions, comments? Councelor Stevenson, >> just wanted to confirm uh publicly we've got 0.5 parking and I know there was a lot of uh coverage about moving to one uh one for one parking. So I just wanted to confirm here that this is uh based on the previous policy and that's why we're seeing a half parking spaces. >> I'll go staff >> um through the chair. That's correct. Uh the development has been designed to maintain compliance with the current requirement of 0.5 parking spaces. Um, but given the site's location within a core area, uh, with access to both existing and planned transit services, uh, staff are satisfied with the requested parking rate. >> Counselor, >> thank you. >> Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 725 Notre Dame Drive. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Stevenson, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. We'll call that vote. Councelor Hillier. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, I'll go to the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name. You have 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Julian Noi from Westell Builders. Uh I just want to thank everyone uh on staff team in getting to this point today. Um this was an application we made uh under the half funding program to just accelerate housing development and with some under underutilized land that we had. Um and we're looking forward to seeing this through. We've had some conversation with counselors about potential further public consultation and we're open to the direction of the committee with respect to that. >> Thank you. I'll look for other uh speakers. >> [clears throat and snorts] >> Please ma'am give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Hello my name is Benetix with Monteth Brown Planning Consultants and we have read the planning report and agree and are here for any questions. >> Thank you. Look for other speakers. >> Please ma'am give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Hi I'm Lois Ward. Um, thank you for the chance to speak with you today regarding the proposed reszoning of mixed commercial and residential use at the corner of Viccount in Notradam. I'm a candidate running for the next Ward City Ward 10 city councelor. I saw a heated conversation on a West Mount neighborhood Facebook group at the end of July and most of the discussion opposed the proposal. I live down the street so I went to check out the site on July 31st. This is a very busy corner in the heart of West Mount. The plaza forming an informal community center with a variety of family centric services running from early in the morning to late at night and with low and modest income housing all around and two schools immediately east of the intersection. I'm very familiar with the many activities at this site from living just blocks away for over 17 years. In July 31st, on my own Facebook p page, I posted a discussion with the photos of the proposed site which attracted 800 views. One concerned neighbor Dean Vandenbrink sent me his thorough critique of the proposed resoning which he is presenting today. I then went door knockocking on Notradam Viccount and Enson August 6th, 7th and 9th to better understand the impact of the local to the local neighborhood. What I heard from over 20 residents who came to their doors and wanted long conversations was a general fear for safety due to re reduced green verge between building and street which increases mental and physical health strains by living so close to traffic. No on-site green space allotted for residents. The removal of 15 mature trees replaced by 37 saplings. A wall of brick near the street looking like a fortress that will increase the heat island effect. Not enough parking left for the businesses in the plaza, for example, nine stylists at the hair salon and only 2.8 spaces allotted. And potential customers who will not be able to see that there are businesses there. Big health and safety concerns for the children attending the daycare and Montasauri school with proposed parking all around their play area and increased traffic in a school zone with doubts that the road and intersections will be redesigned for better safety. This proposal does not align with London's master mobility plan and approved which is approved just one year ago nor boosts overall quality of life that underpins the entirety of the London plan. Neighbors did say we need more truly affordable housing, but not at the expense of safety and health. Road and pedestrian safety for the most vulnerable is top of mind. There's been a mobility planning gap in W 10 for at least 10 years. We need to fix it. We ask three things. That the developer do a proper traffic study. That they redesign this proposal to decrease density and add more lowincome units, not just replace the 47 being destroyed in the project. And finally, to be included in a site plan approval process. Thank you for listening to our needs. We expect you to address our lived concerns. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. >> [clears throat] >> Please sir give us your name and your five minutes. >> Yes. My name is Dean Vandenbrink and I live on a street adjacent to this project. Um I want to thank first of all council and and this committee for the work they've done on homelessness which has had a a direct and somewhat positive effect on my own family. Thank you. Um, I would like to ask you to reconsider this application for 725 NRAAM drive. Uh, it's a luxury project. I want that to be very clear. This this project won't affect vacancy rates in any important way. It's just a little thing up there at the top. It's not going to affect rents in any way. It's not going to bring down rents. Uh, it's not uh it's not going to have any effect on homelessness. So it has none of those none of those benefits and you know it's not going to produce much employment except maybe a few months employment for a couple dozen people over one or two years. It has none of those none of those attributes that you can count as benefits. And on the other hand, this project is is 20% of what we understand is a much larger project that London and Middle Sex uh housing is going to put three apartment buildings across the street from this project. And it's going to put perhaps 200 cars in our neighborhood, perhaps 300, perhaps 350 cars in our neighborhood over the next three years. And we've had we've heard nothing about plans to actually cope with that when in fact this neighborhood is already overburdened with traffic congestion and with health concerns. This neighborhood is bounded by four five lane major highways. And as you as you can see in my voluminous comments to this committee uh that is directly related to poor health in seniors uh increased incidence of Alzheimer and certainly asthma in children. Okay. So I will ask you to reconsider and I would like to bring up one specific point that in the London plan it says in paragraph 202 28 that neighborhoods have to be part of the process. There has to be meaningful participation and there has to be ownership. It says specifically here, neighborhoods must have a sense of ownership of the plan and participate in its implementation. Well, what that amounted to in this case [clears throat] is this received by a very select group of neighbors and in this thing it says it gives the impression that we have recourse to the Ontario land tribunal. I received this. I received two copies. One, I suppose uh unressed because I occupy a property uh adjacent to this property and another because I'm a property owner. It had my name on it along with my partners. And yet, this paper suggests that coming to this meeting today or submitting remarks to this committee would open up an avenue to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And we all know that that's not true and we've known it for a long time. So this document contains misinformation and as such I offer this up to suggest to you that there has not been any meaningful uh uh involvement of the neighborhood in this project. So please consider that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll look for the next speaker. [cough] Okay. >> Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Uh, my name is Dagmar Steaggleman. Um, I live on Enen, too. Um, I think that the plan is uh the plan to put homes in a parking lot is not well thought through. that using Notre Dame center for infill is shortsighted and possibly negligent. This project exposes contradictions and commitment to the London plan which might lead to expensive mitigation and community harm. What I'm talking about is bringing in infill increases density and moves neighborhoods toward urban from suburban. London needs to adapt. This means to start to shift from drivable suburban to walkable urban. Urban area density without amenities means more traffic pollution and safety issues. Notre Dame Center is the only amenity and retail space within the area of Commissioners to Southdale and Wonderland to Warcliffe. The plaza is an important space for the health and well-being of the community. It is currently underappreciated and underused as an asset for community health and security. Part of the city plan to alter communities with increased density means they need to be involved in helping the Notre Dame center be a point of balance and relief of problems caused by their infill. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. [clears throat] So I'm >> um just a second until I recognize you. Mr. Vastro, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Uh >> my name is Anamaria Velastro. I'm speaking on this because this is exactly the same infill project that's happening on Kent Street. It's housing in a parking lot. They're not homes. Uh there's no place for families to be together in this housing um development. They're removing a very large boulevard that can act as an open space so they can cram people into a parking lot. Again, this is just a headache, a leftover of what developers have been doing for the last few years under the housing accelerator fund. This has to be rejected so that we can move forward and build housing that's for people, that's for children, and that this the community can support. That's not what's happening here. It's literally housing in a parking lot and it's bad develop bad development and that needs to be uh rejected um by this committee and hopefully by council. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. >> We have Derek. >> Um Derek Barkman, can you hear me? >> Yes. Please sir, go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Yes. Um, my main concern that I've seen is uh the lack of information that we have received. Um, I live on Willow Lane very close to the Bradley construction and plan that is supposed to be going through and no one in this neighborhood has been alerted to this uh meeting. Even I have spoken with many people and uh it took quite a effort to get anything here. Get any uh >> this is supposed to be for the 3.6 agenda item. >> Oh, then I'm not sure why he called on me. >> My apologies, sir. Um the clerk indicated that you wanted to speak here online to speak to this item. You're right. This is regarding 3.5 at regarding 725 Notre Dame Drive. So, um you you're welcome to stay on and speak to the next item. I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone else that uh it's online like to speak to this item. >> Melanie Melanie >> Melanie um would you like to speak to 3.5 regarding 725 Notre Dame Drive? Melanie, can you hear me? One last call out for Melanie. >> Okay. Um Nicole. Nicole, can you hear me? Hi, I'm here to speak on the next agend agenda item 3.6. >> Okay. Uh I see Melany's hands up. So Melanie, if you'd like to speak to this item, which is 725 Notre Dame Drive, um please go ahead. You have 5 minutes. I only we saw your hand was up and now your hand is not up anymore. I don't want to uh close this off without giving you a chance to speak if you'd like to. We'll just uh we'll give you a few more seconds here and then we have to move on though. Okay, we're going to have to move on. I'll look for any speakers here in chambers. I don't see anyone else approaching the microphones. So, I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Stevenson. We will call the vote. >> Sorry. >> Oh, okay. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, I'll put this item on the floor for committee members or councelor councelor Hillier, please go ahead. >> Yes. Um, after listening to the public and seeing that the applicant is amunable to having a meeting to speak with the neighborhood, I would like to move a referral so that they can have a public participation meeting. And I would like to thank councelor Van Mirburg for actually giving me the information from the neighborhood and uh stating that uh Dance Extreme would like to host the PPM and we would like to have the referral move to September 9th. >> Okay. Just just a second, please, counselor. Councelor, the clerk would like uh some clarification on your motion. you what you mean is that the um uh the applicant would host a a a meeting for the public to participate in. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, the clerk is just drafting that right now. >> Chair, I'll second that. And councelor Cuddy has indicated he will second. >> Okay. >> If they could if he could verify what's in East. >> Yeah. Councelor, can you just check on Eastcribe? We've have it now up to make sure that that's uh that's good for you to second. >> Perfect. So the mover and seconder are comfortable with that language. Click. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we've got a a motion to defer a mo moved and second. I'll defer um questions or comments on that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> The first question is question we get uh we ask staff all the time on this. Uh where are we on the 90-day statutory decision clock? >> I'll go to staff. >> The impact of moving this to September 9th >> through Mr. Chair. Um if this application were to be deferred, it would have to come back December 1st. I'll go ahead, Deputy Mayor. >> December 1st. >> I'm sorry. What was that date? >> It was December the 1st. >> I'll go staff again. Uh to clarify um if the application is referred back to staff to uh allow the applica applicant some additional time for some further discussion with the community um staff would be able to bring back a report to essentially recommend the same development. But if any changes are brought forward, we would have to reissue notice uh and recirculate the application. Uh and the soonest we could do that would be December 1st. councelor or deputy mayor, sorry. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing is the community engagement by the developer can come back September 9th, but if there's any changes, then recirculation is required. December 1st would be the earliest that it could return to a planning committee. Um but in terms of our 90-day clock on this application as submitted uh when do we fall out of uh into uh non-decision category? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh thank you through the chair. being able to run some numbers here and if it were deferred to the September 9th uh would take it to September 22nd council which would put us at 104 days which exceeds the 90-day timeline under the planning act. >> Deputy mayor. >> Okay. Through you chair. Um, I've been very consistent on not supporting uh referrals where we don't have uh something in writing on the agenda from the applicant uh stating that they would not exercise their non-decision appeal rights. Uh, so through you um would the applicant commit to uh submitting something for the council agenda from this meeting? So as an added uh confirming that they would not exercise uh their non-decision appeal rights if this came forward on September the 9th. >> I will go to the applicant. >> Mr. Chair, we would be supportive of that. Um not exercising our rights prior to September 22nd. >> Deputy Mayor. >> Okay. Um so I will ask Mr. Novik to please put that in writing for the council agenda. Uh because if it's not in writing at the council agenda, then I will not support the referral. Um I'm I'm not super happy about a referral in the first place. Um and I heard a lot of things today. Uh you know, traffic. We were talking about a 1.4% change. I heard reference to uh London Middle Sex Community Housing. I'm on the London Middle Sex Community Housing Board. While Ladybrook has been identified as a potential site for redevelopment, there is no project design. There is no funding in place. Nothing is coming in the next 2 or 3 years as was indicated by members of the public, that's actually misinformation. Um, that project may come forward at some point, but until funding and design happen, and we have not even started construction on Southdale phase 3, uh, let alone completed Southdale phase 2. Uh so you are talking about many many years down the road before LMCH is even looking at its next property for redevelopment. Uh so I want to be really clear on that. There's no LMCH project coming in the next 2 or 3 years. That's just false. Um so I'm not uh I appreciate the ward counselor would like a referral. Uh, I appreciate the applicant is willing to uh host a meeting. Um, I appreciate you clarifying that it's not a PPM. It is a community information session that the developer would host. It's not hosted by council. Um, so if I get that communication on the council agenda, uh, then I will support the referral. I'll support the referral today just because the applicant has verbally indicated. Um, but I I've said this before to counselors many times. Um, if there's a request for a deferral and there's not a legitimate planning reason, there there needs to be a letter from the applicant stating that they're not going to exercise their non-appeal or their non-decision appeal rights. Uh, because I don't want us to say, "Oh, we're going to refer and then as soon as council passes the referral, have an OLT appeal filed." That is not a good use of anyone's resources. And so I just encourage everybody to uh get their ducks in a row before council to make sure that we can support this referral. Um I support the application as it stands. And when I hear about things like uh community amenities and things like that, uh Arthur Ford Park is 8 houses down from this property. Uh St. Jude Catholic Elementary School is two houses down from this property. Uh there is lots of green space. Uh this is a private commercial property. It is not a public community center space and the applicant does have uh absolutely the right to come in and request some resoning and that's what they've done. Um I would support this application today but I'm willing to entertain a referral if given the applicant has indicated they're prepared to do another community engagement before they come back to us. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments from committee members or visiting counselors. Councelor Vanir Bergen. >> Thank you chair. Um yeah, this this area uh known as Norton Estates uh is well established. Uh it's an older area. Uh very familyoriented area. for a development like this uh to come into the middle of their neighborhood commercial center right in the parking lot is a is a shock. I mean there's no other way to describe it. Um, so therefore there's there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of uh confusion and I've been contacted as a result by [clears throat] many of the neighbors uh directly and it it struck me that as as the ward counselor, it it really begs to have further dialogue, further communication and make sure that we're uh discussing the actual facts of what's happening here. And so I'm I'm very pleased that Westell uh Homes has uh agreed uh to host a community communication meeting and discussion meeting. Um to further uh get into the details of what's actually being proposed here. Um, we should also keep in mind that this this uh commercial plaza that exists there now uh their their largest tenant uh is a company known as Dance Extreme. Well known been there for many years have almost 700 students. So there's obviously some consternation and concern about you know the the students coming when they start the class leaving when they end the class all that traffic moving around. how does this uh react with uh what's being proposed? So, I think this is just positive on all sides. I want to thank the uh the the neighborhood, the neighbors for for getting in touch with me again, Westell Homes um and this committee and in particular uh councelor Hillier, councelor Cuddy uh for putting this motion of referral on the floor. So, uh thank you again and I completely support this. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions from visiting counselors or committee members deputy mayor. >> Sorry, chair. I just um I wanted to add one other comment and I I say this respectfully, but at the same time I think it's important. [snorts] Um we had a a speaker and I I didn't call a point of order. Maybe I should have, but uh we had a speaker in the gallery refer to themselves as a candidate in the ward in the election. Um and while I I don't doubt that there was no uh ill intent uh meant by that, uh I do think it's important to underscore that when you're here, you're a member of the public. You're not a candidate, just as we're here as counselors, not as candidates. Uh the council chambers is not a place to be campaigning and referring to one's social media page for their campaign and things like that. So, uh, I just I want to flag that now. I know three of our four committee chairs are here anyway. Um, but I think we need to be mindful of that and I think members of the public need to be mindful of that, too. Uh, we're not here to talk about the campaign uh, when we're in council chambers. >> Thank you. I'll look further comments or questions on the motion that's been moved and seconded. Seeing none, we will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 1047 to 1055 Derness Drive. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddi, seconded by Councelor Stevenson. We will call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. I'll look for the applicant for the like to address us. I see you sir. Please uh give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Good afternoon chair and committee members. My name is Jersey. I'm partner at Civic Planning and Design and today I'm here representing our client CSM Developments uh who are the owners of 1047 1055 Dearness Drive which is the subject property. First off, I wanted to thank uh Lauren Sulie who's a planner from our office who was handling the file. Unfortunately, she couldn't be here today. Uh so you have me instead. Um I wanted to give you a little bit of site history on this particular site. Uh it some of you may remember the site had come forward with a zoning bal amendment application which was approved back in 2021 to allow for a six-story apartment building. Since that time [clears throat] there's been a number of policy and regulation changes that have occurred including uh the London plan being in full force in effect since that time. There was a rec more recently there was a heights review that took a city-wide approach uh looking at uh increasing heights for uh properties in this type of situation. So neighborhoods place type along a civic boulevard or urban thoroughfare going up from 6 to 8 stories and also the transit village place type which went up to 35 stories. Uh so those are some of the most significant changes that kind of have come into place since the time that uh that application was approved. If we look at the immediate context surrounding the site, so what's been approved and some of the planned contexts to the east, uh so the lands that are along Bradley Avenue, uh those are designated up to eight stories and could come in for a reasonzoning application to go up to eight uh can go up to eight eight stories to the north of the site. Uh all the properties along Deerness are actually designated uh to allow for up to four stories and could allow for stacked town houses as it's a neighborhood connector within a neighborhood uh place type. The properties to the west and the properties to the south are in a slightly different situation. Those are uh properties that are in the transit village place type which have zoning already uh for 15 to 35 stories of height and could come in for a site plan application tomorrow. Understanding that we undertook an understanding all of this context, we took undertook an analysis uh to understand what could be appropriate for this particular site acting as a transition between the single family homes along Deerness to the north and the 35 stories approved to the south and to the west. What we landed upon was a 12story building and that is what's in front of you today in the proposal. Uh it's a 12-story building with 210 units with 105 parking spaces which is 0.5 parking spaces per unit. There may be a question as to why the 0.5. We had brought this forward and formulated the application while 0.5 was still the actual standard at the time, the regulation at the time. But also we're looking at 0.5 considering the fact that directly to the west, the property immediately to the west and the properties immediately to the south actually are parking exempt because they're in the transit village. So we do feel that because we are so close to a transit station, that should be something that is uh considered. Apologies. In terms of what's being proposed, we worked closely with staff to ensure that we didn't just present a 12-story building that was an L-shape that went all the way up uh and and kind of created negative impacts onto the neighbors. We have carefully crafted a zone that essentially allows for only the 12story portion to be along the Bradley Avenue frontage and it steps down along Deerness down to six stories and then ultimately to four stories. Um there's uh active frontages along both Bradley and Deerness that are being proposed with individual unit entrances and the main unit uh main building entrance as well as our access for vehicles has been located as far away from the intersection of uh Bradley and Deerness as possible uh on the north end of the site. Lastly, we'd like to thank staff uh planning staff in particular for their work on this application. We are in full agreement with the recommendation. Additionally, we'd like to thank the committee for their time and consideration of the application, and I'm here and ready to answer any questions as they arise. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. I'll look for speakers to this item. Please, sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes. >> Yes. [clears throat] Thank you. My name is Brian Lorch. I live at 1052 during this drive. [clears throat] My wife and I have lived there for over 31 years. uh this new project that's supposed to be going up there, it certainly doesn't fit the neighborhood at all. Um I don't know why the need to go 12 stories uh six stories few years ago didn't go through and um we just feel it's a bad idea. Thanks a lot. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for next speaker on this item. I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online. I think there was a few that wanted to speak uh to the previous item. >> Um I assume we have Derek. >> Uh Derek Barkman. Can you hear me, Derek? >> Yes, I can. Thank you. >> Please go ahead. You have minutes. >> Thank you very much. My name is Derek Barkman. I live on Willow Drive, which is rather close to that. And I'm mainly concerned about the schooling. We're adding 210 families into this uh dwelling. And yet the public school that's closest, Nicholas Wilson, already is using a portable uh classroom because there is not enough space. Where are all of these children supposed to be going? And with all of this traffic, I appreciate that we will be having a Bradley expansion, but you also have Southdale to the north. And Southdale, anytime that there is slightly [snorts] elevated traffic, it is very hard to get onto that road. If we are adding another 210 families, that would be even assuming one car per family, an extra 200 vehicles trying to get on at that intersection. It will make traffic a lot harder, a lot more difficult to get in, and a lot less safe. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'll look online for the next speaker. Um, Nicole B. Nicole >> uh Nicole B, if you can hear me, please go ahead. You have 5 minutes. >> Hi there. My name is Nicole Burke and I'm the owner of and resident of 1039 Dearness Drive. Uh I'm I live in the residential property immediately neighboring this proposed development. Um thank you to the committee and the chair for hearing my concerns today. I'm asking the committee to refuse the requested official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for this proposed building at 1047 and 1055 Dearness Drive. Uh while I support the creation of additional housing in London and recognize the need for responsible intensification, my objection is not to housing. It is to placing a development of this height density and massing immediately beside an existing residential home and the established lowdensity Westminster neighborhood. Please keep in mind that the applicant mentions proposed buildings in another neighborhood which is White Oaks which is south of our neighborhood and was built to be a highdensity neighborhood from inception. For me, this proposal is not an abstract planning exercise. I will live directly beside its parking area and four story fourstory podium. My home, yard, privacy, and daily enjoyment of my property will experience the impacts of this development more directly than almost any other property. The applicant themselves acknowledges in their amendment that the shadow survey implic uh the shadow survey implications for my property. This neighborhood has already accepted substantial intensification when the previous six-story development was proposed. More than 200 people in our small neighborhood signed a petition opposing it. Despite the significant opposition, council approved development on the property. The city's report confirms that the previous application proposed a six-story 55 unit apartment building. Residents are now asked to accept double that height and nearly four times the number of units. I find it deeply disrespectful and offensive to the residents of this neighborhood that the concerns raised during the previous planning process appeared to carry so little weight only a few years later. More than 200 residents took the time to participate in the democratic planning process and sign a petition opposing even the six-story development. Council nevertheless approved significant intensification of the property. To now consider doubling the height of 12 stories gives residents the understandable impression that their previous participation and concerns were effectively ignored. Public consultation should be meaningful. Residents should be able to participate in good faith and have some reasonable confidence that planning decisions represent more than a temporary starting point for progressively larger applications. The proposed 12story height also exceeds what is currently identified by the London plan for the site. The city's report acknowledges that the proposed intensity is not contemplated in in the London plan and requires a sightsp specific official plan amendment. An eight-story alternative would still provide substantial additional housing without granting the exceptional 12-story height being requested while potentially leaving Bradley Available for an exit only driveway for the proposed property as is seen in other properties and hightra intersections in the city. The impact on my home will be direct and permanent. The proposed parking area and four-story portion of the building would be immediately beside my residential property, creating concerns regarding noise, vehicle activity, headlights, overlooking, parking lot lighting, loss of privacy, shadowing, and the visual impact of a multi-story building beside a home. The city's own review recognizes these impacts. Staff recommends an allseason landscape buffer along the north property line specifically to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent single detached lots. Urban design also acknowledges that the development will cast shadows onto portions of adjacent properties and calls for measures to minimize shadowing and loss of privacy. Landscaping alone is not sufficient. If development proceeds on this site, I request that a substantial solid privacy fence be required along the shared residential property line. It should be specifically designed to provide both a visual screen and an effective sound barrier similar to the solid privacy and no noise barrier fencing used throughout the city to separate commercial plazas and other intensive uses from neighboring residential homes. This should be provided in addition to a substantial allseason landscaped buffer. The scale of the requesting zoning changes is also significant. The proposal seeks appro approximately 515 units per hectar where the report identifies 150 units per hectare as the standard along with the rear yard setback of approximately 15 m where 40.3 would otherwise be required. These are substantial departures when the reduced setback directly affects existing residential properties. Parking is another concern. The development proposes 210 residential units but only 105 vehicle parking spaces. Even if this satifi this satisfies the applicable parking ratio, it does not guarantee that additional parking demand will not spill onto surrounding residential streets. >> Currently only offers twohour parking. By the way, I also ask council to consider this proposal with London's broader housing strategy. I support additional housing, but council has already approved substantial apartment and condominium development throughout London, particularly in areas specifically intended for highdensity growth. Before granting exceptional increases in height and density immediately beside established homes, council should also examine how effectively existing and already approved housing stock is being utilized, including completed units that remain vacant or unoccupied. >> Thank you very much. >> I had more to say, but I'm Thank you. I'll go to the next speaker. Uh let's see here online. Melanie get her microphone. Uh >> Melanie, uh can you hear me? Okay. Um, let's go to the next person online. Do we have another person online? Melanie, last last chance. Okay, that that exhausts our online speakers. I'll just look I don't see anyone approaching the microphone, so I'll look for a motion to close the PPM. Um, councelor Kui, seconded by councelor Stevenson. We will call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Hillier. >> Yes. Thank you for recognizing me. Colleagues, I'd like to do a little bit of a history lesson on here because I was the council of note and now that I'm leaving council, I would like to make sure I go out with a little bit of a bang. >> Councelor chair, I'm just going to interrupt you a bit. >> Um, the clerk has advised me that she'd like to see a motion on the floor first before you >> speak. So, >> I'm sorry. I I'm actually looking to defeat the motion on the floor. >> Well, there is no motion. Yes, [clears throat] >> there there is no motion. Hold on a second. Council, >> I'm miss I'm missaring what's going on here. >> Yeah, I understand. But we're going to get a motion on the on the floor and then we we can go to you. >> Turn off my earbuds. Sorry. >> We're going to get a motion on the floor and then and then you can speak to that. Okay. So, um Deputy Mayor Lewis, did you did you have your hand up? >> I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder on that. Councelor Cuddy. Um, so we have a motion moved and seconded to uh the staff recommendation. Councelor Hillier, I'll go back to you now. You can go ahead. >> Thank you. I'm trying to get my earbuds turned off. They're driving me crazy. >> Are you there? >> We're here. We can hear you. >> Okay, good. Thank you. Okay. Uh, yes. Looking at the history of this, the reason we're asked being asked for a special amendment to the London plan is because the land isn't quite large enough for this. cuz I remember this application when it came forth the last time and yes, we had 200 people sign a petition and one of the big issues concerning the neighborhood was the fact that we had very little parking and I give the the previous applicant all the credit. They came back with 73 parking spaces for 55 units, which worked out quite well. But now the neighborhood is being asked to take 210 units with 105 parking spaces. And my vision of what's going to happen in the surrounding streets is kind of frightening. It's going to turn into a parking lot. And the safety concerns for this as well. Now, when I'm looking at these units, we're looking at twice the height and four and a half times the density. But if I look at the applicants, where is it? the applicant's own thing. It says this project is located immediately adjacent to a transit village, but it is not in the transit village. This area should be up to eight stories and no greater. So, I'm asking colleagues to defeat this and send it back so that they can actually go with what the neighborhood was originally agreeing to and protect the neighborhood for the parking issue. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for another next speaker, committee members or visiting counselors, deputy mayor. >> Uh, thank you, chair. You know, similar to what I said on the Notre Dame application. Um, a a >> Can you turn off your mic, please? >> Thank you. A refusal has to be based on a planning matter and and I would have supported the Notre Dame uh application today because staff recommended it and I did not hear any objections that were based on a planning matter. Staff are recommending this today with special provision because of its proximity uh to the rapid transit corridor is part of my understanding from the report. Um, we also have to keep in mind while we have changed parking provisions, this application was received under the old regulations. We cannot require higher than.5 spaces per unit on this application. Given that was the regulation in place at the time that this was submitted and deemed a complete submission by our staff. Uh so they have done their review. Uh we do have uh other means of transportation uh coming online here with the Wellington Gateway being finished. Uh yes, the the applicant will have to appropriately market the units to let residents know that they aren't going to have a parking space. Um but nonetheless, uh it meets the requirements. Staff have laid out the reasons why. Um, I think that we could uh certainly uh put in a request uh and I've moved it so I'll see if somebody else wants to add it. Part C under the site plan approval authority. Uh there is a piece for the adequate allseason landscape buffers. Uh I did hear a request for a privacy fence. Uh and I think that that could be added uh to the site plan uh part C. we could add a new part three um to request an appropriate privacy fence be constructed on the north boundary to ensure some additional privacy for the neighbors. Um but otherwise this application meets the tests under the planning act and under the London plan that staff have put it through. So I'm going to be supportive. Um I've moved the application so I I hope that maybe someone might want to add to the site plan. Uh and I'll leave my comments at that. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'm happy to move that amendment for the site planning and the privacy fence. Right. >> So the clerk uh please draft up an amendment. Chair, do you need do you need a seconder for that amendment? Once we have uh this up on um escribe, we will. Yes. Okay, it's up on Eastcribe if you want to look at councelor Cuddy and then you can go ahead and second it >> number four and we got the thumbs up. So councelor will councelor Stevenson's okay with the reading >> and councelor Stevenson you're moving the the amendment. Okay so we've got a motion or amendment moved and second I'll look for conversation on the amendment. Seeing none we will call vote on the amendment. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. I'll go back to the original uh movers of the original motion to see if they're comfortable moving uh and seconding. Councelor, Deputy Mayor Lewis is okay with uh moving the amended motion and councelor Cuddy I believe is the secondary. He's okay with uh moving the amended motion. Any conversation on the amended motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to two. >> Okay, moving on to items for direction. Um, we do have a request for a delegation. So, I'll look for um a motion to accept uh the delegate. Councelor Stevenson, I'll look for a seconder on that. Councelor Cuddy. Uh so, we will open the open that motion to approve the delegate. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, I'll look for the delegate. >> Christiey's just online. >> Might be online. I don't see anyone at the microphones. >> Oh, there we are. >> Uh Christie, are you online? Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. I'm just trying to get my video to work here. >> Okay. >> Or maybe they have to let me Oh, there we go. >> Oh, we see you and hear you. So, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um I'm here today uh just to summarize, most of what I'm going to talk about is really contained in my letter which is um attached and been submitted dated July 22nd. We represent the remaining tenants. Um I'm Christy Pagnelloo from Neighborhood Legal Services. I'm the director and a lawyer here. We represent the remaining tenants of uh 145 Baseline Road West. um has become a bit of a notorious case because due with the approved renovation um the tenants will be losing half of their square footage and all of that. Um, basically we're at the point here where um I come to you um out of the concern that what we have here is that the developer landlord has reneged on their promise of alternate temporary housing um while the renovations um occur. Um you have my detailed submission again dated July 22nd, 2026. I give you the history of the case. I give our opinion on enforcability and uh and all of that. Um but basically um this is a case where the developer landlord acknowledged and agreed to a commitment. Um which I understand the city is um caught up with um it not being enforceable under the planning act per se. Um but we've taken the position that that it's enforceable otherwise. Um there's other ways to encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior. Um this in this case um the landlord um promised to council who then approved um and wanted as a condition of his site plan um this commitment of temporary housing while the tenants had uh while the tenants were um displaced um for during the course of the ren renovation. um recently that let the developer has pulled that offer basically taking the position that he's paid the compensation instead. Uh the residential tenencies act actually doesn't contemplate that that that um that one can be exchanged for the other. And notwithstanding all of that, uh he made this commitment to the city. Um and we're asking that that be that be enforced some way somehow. Um the we we feel that he he's been encouraged in this behavior. He's he's he's gotten a second renov he's gotten a sec second renoviction um uh license and I know the city takes the position that they have to give it to him because he pays the fee and there's so little in it. We made pretty deep detailed submissions about how that bylaw could be beefed up so that um so that it could be better used in these cases, but we weren't taken up on any of our suggestions. the review that was done of the repair and licensing bylaw really made very few changes. So, we're left with a situation where we have these remaining tenants who were promised temporary accommodation, which by the way, they'd be paying rent while they had it. Um, while the rent evictions take place, we're down to uh the three units who have stood their ground. They're not yet evicted because um we're still before the res we're still before the landlord and tenant board, but they will be evicted and they will need that temporary housing. And we're asking that the city look at ways that they can um support these tenants by by first of all encouraging and pushing the issue of having the landlord developer follow through on their commitment. Um or by assisting the tenants um otherwise directly from the city. Um again, I give way more detail in my letter which I really would encourage you to read. It's that's filed with um councelor um uh um with the city councelor's letter which which also has gone to you. Um and we support any kind of motion that can try to help these tenants in this situation and try to get the landlord to um do good on his voluntary commitment to provide this in exchange for various approvals he got from the city. Um those are all my submissions subject to any questions you have. Thank you, Miss Pagnow. Um then we'll go to uh committee where um motions, comments. I know Skyler or sorry, Councelor Frank is uh is online, but um the clerk would probably prefer some sort of action to be discussed. >> Deputy Mayor Lewis. So, I'm prepared to put Councelor Frank's motion on the floor for her. I'll let her introduce it and then we can have our discussion from there. Okay. So, the clerk um we'll get the clerk to the clerk has is it available on Okay, the clerk has said it's available on Eastcribe. [clears throat] Excuse me. I see a seconder and councelor Cuddy. So, now we have it on the floor. So, we can go to councelor Frank. >> Thank you. And I appreciate it given I'm not a member of Pek. Uh but I just wanted to come and discuss this as I was made aware that there are three remaining tenants that are facing evictions and not um getting the the promise and the commitment of being shuffled into the existing units. And so today I was hoping to ask for staff direction to look into the commitments that were made. I think that they influence the conversation about this redevelopment process. And to remind folks, uh, the landlord developer submitted a letter and verbally agreed to shuffling tenants into available units within the complex as the redevelopment progressed. And unfortunately, as we've heard, we're hearing that there are three remaining tenants um, who are now being evicted and not being allowed to be shuffled and the owner is not following through on the commitments that they represented at council. And I'm wondering um using the motion that if we can figure out if there is a way for us to um hold those commitments firmly. I understand from staff that site plan is not the method because the tenant um matters are not considered developable and within site plan. But I do think that uh the commitments made about this development did influence the decision made at council. And so I'm wondering if there is some sort of process we can take. Um, and it does also remind me that I'm very excited for the report back on the tenant relocation and assistant program that we um directed staff to report back on in the early next year. I think that would address many of these issues. But in this specific case, we move forward with this application in good faith with the developer. So, I'm asking colleagues to support the request to staff to get clarity to make sure that we're not leaving any stone unturned in making sure that these tenants remained housed as was committed. Um, and additionally, I do have two questions to staff that I was hoping to ask if possible. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Great. [snorts] Um, one being, what kind of recourse would the city have if we are given false information from the applicant since they're not honoring their commitment as part of the project submission? So in the same way, for example, I know we have a list of businesses that we won't procure from because they violate contracts. I'm just wondering if we have something similar uh for developers if they don't mean verbal and written commitments. >> I will go to staff on that question. Also, sorry if someone's speaking. I can't hear anything. >> Oh, we're just waiting. Staff are are referring amongst themselves. We will get they will get back to you when they give me the >> Great. You look like you're listening. So, >> yeah. We're just conferring with our our legal folks here as well. So if if the quest is to um provide an an answer to whether there is some type of uh of legal recourse then I would suggest that that would be an inc camera conversation and we do have legal support here to be able to answer some of those questions but we can't provide advice on what uh what we could undertake in this situation. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Yeah, I'm not sure um if this committee wants to go on camera. I guess maybe a follow-up to that being um would we be able to get that kind of information um from this report that I'm asking for that then could be provided in camera. So essentially having that um report as part three of my of the motion. >> Oh go staff >> uh through the chair. Um absolutely we would ensure that if there was information be brought forward in public that we would do that in a public report and if there was anything that wasn't to be in public then we can there would be a corresponding in camera report. councelor. >> Great. And then my subsequent question was in regards to enforcability, which I think might also be an inc camera legal item. Um, so perhaps I won't push on that cuz again, I don't know if this committee wants to go on camera. If they do, then please feel free uh for a member to make that motion. Um, that said, again, I just want to reiterate that this is a report back from staff to make sure that we aren't missing anything in this process. I do believe that we I want to make sure we're doing our due diligence to make sure that these three tenants don't become unhoused in this process um given the commitments made by by the landlord and um it would be a report back making sure that we've evaluated all possible options. So appreciate committee's consideration of the motion. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so I'll go to committee now to um, we've heard the counselor's comments and staff, so I'll go to the committee's uh, um, chance to weigh in on their thoughts. Councelor Stevenson. >> Um I guess through you. Can staff give their comments to this? >> That'll go to staff. >> Uh through the chair. Absolutely. If you'd like to a little bit of background on this, I'm happy to be able to provide that. Is that uh fair? I can >> Okay. >> Happy to do that. So um just uh as a refresher for everybody. So 145 Baseline Road West, uh it was subject to a 2024 zoning decision by council just uh to allow for more units on the site. So uh part of that direction that came back to staff was to consider um a a temporary rental accommodation arrangement um with with the owner of the property. And uh we did uh meet with the owner and we did discuss this temporary arrangement. And at the time there was a voluntary um confirmation that would be offered. Um and uh we also then of course worked with our legal uh team to understand whether we could actually apply that and include that in as part of a site plan approval and put an actual requirement in our site plan approval agreements and that um we was deemed that we aren't able to do that as part of this process. So, um, the city doesn't have the authority to be able to through a site plan approval process to put a requirement for temporary accommodations. Um, of course, subsequently, as mentioned by councelor Frank, um, there is direction to take a look at a different process that may allow for that, but at at the time that wasn't something that we're able to do through our our planning process. So, um, uh, I will just also note because there's been a bit of discussion about making decisions about planning matters and I'll just just put as a as a reminder to everyone that, uh, um, when you're looking at planning applications, uh, we do really need to be focused on considerations under the planning act and the the provincial policy statement and the official plan. Those are the the basises for making uh, sound decisions from a planning perspective. So, I just want to sure that that's that's clear for everyone as well. So, if you have any other specific questions, uh we are here to be able to answer it. And I've got folks here from from legal from our planning development and our um municipal housing development area as well. >> Okay. Counselor. Okay. Other comments or questions? >> If the committee will permit me, just from the chair. Um there's there's some legalities involved here and um so what I'm looking for personally I won't speak for the committee is uh in the report if we could be educated I guess as far as where the Ontario landlord tenant act kind of would move into here and also you touched on Mr. I mean there's um you know our restrictions when we're considering planning matters um by provincial legislation um you know how far can we go to um either consider this or enforce it etc. So there's there's a couple of nuances that I would hope to see in that report that would help us uh you know in future not only with this particular thing but in future um other applications that come before us. I look for any other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors. We have a motion moved and seconded. We will call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. Uh we do have uh additional uh business deferred matters and that was from our one of the items on the consent agenda that was item 2.1. So we will discuss that. I'll put that in the floor now. I understand there might be a motion regarding that. >> Deputy mayor. Uh thank you chair. uh through you. Uh we've received a number of communications. They didn't all make the added agenda uh on this cycle. Um but we did receive them from London Development Institute, from London Homebuilders Association, uh from three different developers who have projects actively on the go right now. uh and and all were asking the same thing and I'm prepared to do that which is to refer this back to civic administration to align the dollars to door programs definition of affordable housing to the federal government CMHC definition of affordable housing and I'd like to move that I'm not putting a date on it whatever the time the staff requires to get that done and bring it back to us uh that is fine uh but I'd like to move that referral I'll >> look for a seconder Uh, councelor Stevenson and seconds. Um, clerk, >> sorry. Uh, through the chair, do you have that wording in writing that you don't mind sending to me and I can get it loaded in ecribe? >> Uh, I do have it somewhere in my folder. So, if you give me just a second to get it, uh, then I'll send it to you. >> Okay. So, we'll just, uh, pause here for a second while we get that up in ecribe. >> [snorts] >> Okay, that should be coming your way now, clerk. I have the wording in escribe if deputy mayor wants to take a look. >> Okay, so it's up in escribe. Please take a look and see if it's uh okay. Uh I think that's fine. Although uh we had the 990 in there. I don't think we need to include that cuz the rates change as stats. It it's based more on the median renter income. So uh sorry I should have struck that uh just because the the number may change based on CHC. And perhaps if we could just check because I did not have time to given we were receiving communications throughout the morning on this. um if we could check with staff um that that would be clear direction. Any comments they want to have uh of course they can make too. Um but I would also ask if aligning with the federal program if they would take that under adisement that that would include studio units and whether they could comment on that. >> So I'll go to staff for comment on uh the direction. >> Uh thank you and through you Mr. Chair. Um, one of the things that we'd like to make sure that we include in this referral, no objection to the referral. Uh, we are working on our Build Canada Homes application right now and one of the provisions they have in their requirements is an incomebased test on uh, measuring affordability as well. So, I wouldn't want to lock it into just CHC or BCH because we could be bringing forward some or we will be bringing forward policy changes to how we assess the affordability uh, benchmark based on what Build Canada Homes requires. Uh we're also undertaking uh an economic analysis of the road map right now and looking to bring something forward to council early in the new year to talk about where we might be going with the road map overall. Uh this is absolutely something we can support as far as using income as a measure um to to define affordability. It does make a lot of sense. AMR is very specific uh benchmark which was uh through some of the CMHC programs uh at the time when the road map was approved. So, no issues with that. Just look for a little bit more general language in the recommendation or the the referral so that we can uh base what we come back with based on what's going on at the time when uh when we get those approvals. >> Deputy Mayor, >> sorry, I see we need a seconder first. So, perhaps we should get a second before we >> I guess councelor second. >> Sorry, councelor Stevenson indicated she seconded and just got it just didn't get into the system. So, Yeah. >> Uh so, uh again, without trying to delve too deeply into the weeds, um and I know staff may not have that answer, um but hearing that the Build Canada Homes program may have a different threshold, do we have [snorts] any indication of when they might finalize thresholds? cuz I would rather come back and amend this later to incorporate both than wait for them to come up with a number. >> I'll go to staff. >> Uh thank you and through you Mr. Chair. Uh so at this point we uh we had the direction from council to go work with Build Canada Homes. I think it was May or June of this year. Uh we've been working diligently with uh our partners in the development community and the nonprofit uh community as well. Uh we have some meetings planned in the next couple weeks with BCH to talk through our initial list of what we talked about back at those meetings uh at community and protective services. Uh so as far as the definition goes, I believe it's 30% uh median income as well uh is one of their measures. Uh I do agree it would be nice to change it once. Um what's nice about the recommendation in front of you today is that it does have a sunset on it of March uh 31st of next year. So the risk um to council and the city on a program at this point it will close at a certain point. So we could enact it today as opposed to referring it back. Enact it today uh use it for the next little while and then as we get some of those that economic analysis we confirm uh any funding from the federal government then we can come back with policy changes that are more more wholesomely considered and uh kind of wrapped up in a nice bill for council. >> Deputy mayor. >> Okay. So hearing that um I'm of the same mind. I would rather leave it as is today and when we get the Build Canada homes situation sorted out uh then I am more than happy to even make time to sit down with staff and bring forward another motion to align with Build Canada Homes too uh because we want to take advantage of both programs. But I do think that uh in the meantime, particularly given that we had three builders indicating their projects were in jeopardy, I'd like to get this fixed for the moment. We can use this in the interim and then uh move forward with the Build Canada homes when the information gets finalized. >> Okay. I'll look for other comments or questions. Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. I appreciate that cuz I I don't want to wait either. I just want to ask through you to staff when can we expect to see this come back? I know they said there's not going to be a timeline put on it, but I'm I'd just like to know when we could expect to see it. >> They'll go staff. >> Uh thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. Um we we'd have to think a little bit about that. Uh I think September would be very fast for us to be able to turn it around. Uh what I was thinking on the referral is that we would wrap it up into that other analysis that we're undertaking and that economic analysis. Um, but if it's if it needs to be back before uh by September 28th, we can work very diligently with the LDI and LHBA members to try and bring that back uh in time uh in time for council to hear before uh before October. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thanks. I I I think that's the intention. >> Other comments or questions? the committee won't uh indulge me here just from the chair. Um I'm I'm very happy that the deputy mayor and councelor Stevenson brought this forward. Um the affordability is a it's a moving target um even within here. Um programs are announced uh for our federal counterparts and provincial counterparts as much as we can. Uh I think it helps to align with those. It gives clear direction uh to uh our developing community and what they're building. Uh I think it helps us. Um I don't know if I'm under the illusion that we'll ever get complete um you nail it down because I think both the province and the federal government are moving as we might. Um so that's why I'm glad to hear we do you know we indicate that we might have to come back to this. Um, but at least this is a start and we can get things going with uh, you know, with our own uh, dollar dollars to doors program, which uh, I think was the the intention uh, to get things moving on the affordability um, issue. So, I appreciate staff um, working with us on on that uh, as as we try and nail this down. I'll look for any other comments or questions on this uh, item. We have a motion moved and seconded. I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, we do have uh one uh confidential matter to uh to discuss. So I will look for a motion to move in camera. Councelor Cuddi, second by Deputy Mayor. We'll call that vote. Closing [snorts] the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. recording stopped. Okay, we're back in open session. I'll ask the uh deputy mayor to report out. >> Thank you, chair. I'm happy to report out the progress was made for the item for [clears throat] which we went into close session. >> Thank you. So I think that concludes the business of the 12th meeting of planning environment committee. I'll look for a motion to adjourn. Uh councelor Stevenson, second by councelor Cuddy and hand vote on that one. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you everyone. >> Good job chair. were done before 400 p.m. Thank you staff for the great reports so we didn't have to spend too long on them.