Good afternoon, everyone, just after one, so I'd
like to get the sixth meeting of the
Planning Environment Committee underway.
Please check the City website for additional
meeting detail information.
The City of London is situated on the traditional
lands of the Anishnabek Odenoshanhei, Lenapei
Wauk, and Adewanaran.
We honor and respect the history, languages, and
culture of the diverse, indigenous people
who call this territory home.
The City of London is currently home to many
First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today, as
representatives of the people of the City of
London, we are grateful to have the opportunity
to work and live in this territory. The City of
London is committed to making every effort
to provide alternative formats and communication
supports from meetings upon request to make
a request specific to this meeting. Please
contact pack@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension
two for two five. We are missing two members of
our committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis and
Councillor Hillier, due to personal matters. We
have the Mayor joining us and we have Councillor
Stevenson joining us online. At this point, I'd
like to look for any disclosures of
pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we'll move on to
consent items. I've had a request to pull 2.3,
And as practice, we will move that to the end of
our meeting down to deferred matters.
So I'll look for committee members to look for a
motion here.
Councillor Cutty. I'll move that here. So you're
going to move 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.5.
Thank you. I'll look for a seconder. Mayor
seconds. Any comments or questions from
committee members who are visiting Councillors on
this? Councillor Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
I'm not part of this committee,
but I do have a question regarding 2.5,
which is the Pack Road sewer extension,
read the recommendation.
I wonder if I can go through you to staff.
I know there's other opportunities,
and I'd just like to go to staff
to explore those opportunities for the developer.
- Okay, I'll go to staff on that question.
- Yes, thank you, through the chair.
We have been working with the proponent
this development and the densities that were
currently shown do have capacity in existing sew
ers
however they have expressed an interest in
additional density in which case we have
identified an
opportunity to install a sewer on Bostock Road as
part of our strategic links program and that
would
go with an upcoming transportation project so
that would be coordinated and use existing funds
rather than having to add it through the DC and
the GMIS. Oh sir. Yeah thank you for that
information and just as a follow-up would that
information eventually come
to council or what does that process look like
the transportation plan.
Thank you. Chair yes I believe that would be part
of the development
approvals and any funding requests subject to of
course our administrative
limits on contract awards etc. Councillor for
other comments or
questions. Seeing none we have a motion move in
second and we'll call the vote.
- Is there Stevenson closing the vote?
- Might just be slow.
- Yeah, we got you, sorry.
Closing the vote motion carries four to zero.
- Onward to scheduled items, 3.1.
This is a delegation from Mr. Metralier, the
chair
of our community advisory committee on planning.
Please, sir, go ahead and you have five minutes.
Hold on a second, just wanna make sure
your microphone's on and you turn on those folks.
We're gonna need that mic by the look of the
gallery.
So let's get it fixed up.
Yeah, I think we're good to go.
Let's see if that works better.
Sorry for the delay.
- Thanks, is that better?
- Yeah, sounds like it.
- Okay, my name is John Marc Metray.
I'm chair of the Community Advisory Committee on
Planning.
Thank you as always for your indulgence.
I did just wanna briefly speak to item 3.7
of the report that's before you.
This is regarding privately initiated
applications
to expand the urban growth boundary.
Committee was consulted on this item
and had a discussion and some thoughts.
as you know we are we are traditionally known as
the the city's heritage advisory committee
that's what you'd hear from us mostly on but
buried in our terms of reference are also more
general planning matters and also agriculture and
so while there are some I would say diverse views
within the committee on the urban growth boundary
we did have an interest in in the subject itself
And so the comment you'll see at 3.7, it's not so
much a feedback on the substance,
it's really just an offer, which is that the
committee felt that we wanted to offer ourselves
up as a consultative resource on these privately
initiated urban growth boundary expansions.
Should it be useful to PEC and Council to hear
from us on those applications,
we're happy to receive them much in the same way
as we receive
heritage matters and provide our feedback. So
with that we are we are certainly happy to
get council's views formally or informally as to
whether they would like our feedback on those
items. I just didn't want to get in loss in the
report. Thanks so much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks
for bringing out your attention because you're
right. We looked at that committee in law for
heritage but there is other functions there. The
urban growth boundary was passed by council
So analysis with the province for final approval
and my understanding is they're coming to
the end of that time where they're taking
feedback before they kind of give consent
on that.
But I think in the future there is for sure the
possibilities of those type of applications
coming forward in your committee would certainly
be of help.
Okay, I'll look for a motion to receive.
- Mr. Cuddy, I'll look for a seconder on that.
I'll second that.
So if there's a look for any comments or
questions
from committee or visiting counselors on this.
Okay, we have a motion moved in.
Seconded, I'll call the vote.
- If the motion carries four to zero.
- Okay, moving on to 3.2.
This is regarding property 371-373 Hamilton Road.
I'll look for a motion to go into public
participation meeting.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by, I'll second it.
I won't call that vote.
- I think the vote, the motion carries four to
zero.
- Okay, I'll look for the applicant,
the applicant would like to address the committee
.
Please ma'am, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Good afternoon, my name is Heather Garrett.
I'm with Salinka Pramo Limited.
I'm the agent for the Canadian Mental Health
Association.
I first wanna thank Heritage staff
for all their help with this.
We've read their staff report and we agree with
it.
So I'm here if you have any questions, thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other members of the public
that would like to address the committee on this
one.
Please Ben, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- My name's Annemarie Valastro.
I have a question that I'd like to have answered.
I'd like to know if the applicant,
when they build something there,
If they're going to comply with section 9.1, six
of the site plan control bylaw that encourages
new builds to include bird-friendly windows and
native plant plantings with a new development.
So can you answer that for me?
I'll take questions and I'll pose them after we
're finished.
That's the only question I have.
Thank you.
for other members of the public that like to
address committee. Seeing none, I'll look
for motion to close the PPN. Councilor Cuddy,
seconded by I'll second it. We'll call the
motion to vote. Councilor Stevenson, you're
discussing the vote motion carries 4 to 0.
So in the question from the gallery regarding
bird friendly windows, I'm going to go first
to staff to see if they can comment on the
application. If there's anything in there
regarding that,
and if not, I'll go to the applicant. Through the
chair, would you please go to the applicant?
- Okay, thank you.
- All right, Ms. Garrett, can you comment on that
, please?
- Through you, Mr. Chair.
Currently at this point,
there is no development applications that are
proposed.
There are actually two structures on the property
.
There's one that's right on the corner
that is currently in use and the other,
the second one is a house.
The house is in poor repair.
So the applicant is contemplating,
are they going to redevelop the entire site?
We don't know at this point.
So we haven't looked into planning,
But of course, any items which regards reuse of a
property
needs to go through planning approval.
So yes, obviously anything such as birds
and what materials going to be there would be
looked at as well.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
And I'll remind committee, and I probably should
have caught
this, this is just regarding removing this
property
from the heritage listing.
It doesn't get into things of that nature.
So I probably should have noticed that off the
bat.
- I'll look for committee members.
- Chair.
- Before you do that, I'll move the staff
recommendation.
- Thank you.
I'll look for a seconder.
The mayor seconds.
I'll look for any comments or questions on this.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Mr. Stevenson.
- Yes.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to
zero.
- Okay, moving on to 3.3.
This is regarding 127 fires away.
I'll look for motion to help public participation
meeting.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by the mayor.
I'll call that vote.
- Mr. Stevenson.
- I vote yes.
- Closing about the motion carries 4-0.
- Thank you, I'll look to the applicant.
The applicant would like to address committee.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- Through the chair, I'm Adam McGrew.
I'm here from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants
.
And we're here on behalf of the applicant,
the Cross Cultural Learner Center.
We've reviewed the staff report and the staff by-
law
and would like to thank staff for their time
on this application.
We're in support of staff's recommendation
and are available for any questions,
the public council or staff may have, thanks.
- Thank you.
Now look for members of the public
that would like to address.
This is for last row, please go ahead,
do you have five minutes?
- My name is Annamarie in the last row.
I do have a question for you.
My understanding is that it's up to the applicant
to install bird-friendly windows
and make sure their plantings are native,
regionally native to southern Ontario.
My understanding is the province
doesn't allow the city to mandate
that it has to come from the applicant.
And I'd like to know if the applicant
is willing to comply with that section
of the control site, control site by-law,
which is asking new bills to put in bird-friendly
windows
and native plants.
Do you know if your applicant is open to that?
- I'll look for other comments or questions
in the gallery.
Seeing done for motion to close PPM.
- Councilor Cuddy, seconder, mayor, second.
- Mr. Stevenson.
- I vote yes.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries four to
zero.
- Before I go to the applicant, I'm just going to
ask staff,
this is a two-story building.
It's not a rebuild, it's just reconfering the
interiors.
Are there any guidelines for bird-friendly
windows
on that type of project?
- Through the chair, that's correct,
that they are just using the existing building,
and there's no guidelines for existing buildings.
- Okay, thank you.
- I will go to the applicant, if you'd like to
comment,
do you have any plans for Berkeley,
Windows retroactively?
- Through the chair, I just was gonna also
reiterate
that it's not a new build.
We're keeping the existing dwelling,
the existing gardens, and they're very nice
gardens.
- That's all I got.
- Thank you.
So I'll look, I'll open this for committee
members.
- Chair, through you, I'll move the staff
recommendation.
- Thank you, I'll look for a seconder.
Mayor seconds, I'd look for any comments or
questions on this.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Motion carries far to zero.
- Thank you.
The next item is 3.4 and this is regarding 63
Greenfield
drive.
I'll look for a motion to open the public special
meeting.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by, I'll second it.
We'll call the vote.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries far to zero
.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the applicant.
Please, sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Good afternoon, Chair and members of committee.
My name is Dan Murphy.
I'm a planner with Civic Planning and Design.
I'm here today representing the applicant
magnificent homes for their project at 63 Green
field Drive.
This application proposes two three-story cluster
townhouse
blocks containing a total of nine units,
which represents a modest and appropriate form
of residential intensification on a neighborhood
street.
As part of this project, we undertook
our own community engagement program
to involve nearby residents early in the process.
Postcards were distributed to neighboring
properties,
inviting residents to a virtual community
information session
where we presented the proposal
and have received feedback directly from the
neighborhood.
This proposal conforms to the neighborhood's
place type
and which contemplates the scale
of residential intensification
and permits townhouse forms on a neighborhood
street.
This project is consistent with the PPS,
which supports compact transit supportive growth
and the efficient use of existing infrastructure.
This project delivers both as it's situated
within the primary transit area
and is located less than a five-minute walk
to existing LTC service and planned BRT.
like to thank Planning and Development staff
for their work on this project.
And we are in full support of the staff
recommendation today.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for members of the public
that would like to address committee on this item
.
Please sir, give us your name in five minutes.
- My name is Brian Kuto.
I'm the owner of the property next door.
I feel that this development does not work
with the current layout of the neighborhood.
there's no current townhouses, no current,
like anything around the areas is a major change.
Also, I am concerned about the two dozen mature
trees
that are right on the property line,
about the damage that would be caused to them,
possible death of the trees.
And I would like to know what, if it does go
through,
what kind of, what needs to be done in like,
as far as I know in London,
we take mature trees very seriously
and upending and destroying so many trees.
Also, the effect on our privacy
is quite, quite significant considering
these are planned to be three stories high.
I don't see how you could build a proper privacy
fence
going like looking right into our backyard.
So I just kind of want some answers on this
development.
- Thank you.
Yeah, I'll bring your questions forward
after you finish hearing from everyone.
- All right.
- I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- My name is Richard Lago.
And one of my concerns is number one garbage
pickup,
parking on the street, the location of this
development,
read opposites, two driveways, snow removal.
And again, the concern of the trees,
there's a tree line and the amount of trees
the property that are going to have to come down
to put this up. Also, too, on the street things
to the privacy. I guess that's about it. But the
main concern is the tree line. But I mean,
what do they intend to do to replace those trees?
I guess that's all I have to say. Have a good
afternoon. Okay. Thank you. I'll look for the
next speaker. Please go ahead. You have five
minutes.
My name is Anna. We have a last row trees that
sit on the boundary between two properties that
the government under provincial laws.
They cannot be cut down.
They cannot be cut down without permission
from both property owners.
So I also have a question for the applicant.
Are they aware that they're not permitted
to cut down those trees under provincial laws
until they get the approval by adjacent
homeowners?
And that's what the homeowners have to understand
and they need to exert their authority
because they're not allowed to cut down those
trees.
So you need to make sure they are aware of that.
And I'm asking whether the applicant is aware
that they're not permitted to cut those trees
down
without the approval of the neighbors.
This also has nine unit and 19 parking spaces.
That seems excessive to me in a neighborhood
that is a very low impact neighborhood.
I'm not sure if the applicant has,
if they're offering that because they think
It's a better selling feature, but realistically,
that is a real divide between the rest of
the neighborhood as far as conformity goes.
And I just want to clarify that there are no
guidelines anywhere regarding bird-friendly
windows in the heater plant species being put on
a landscape.
all consensual. The applicant has to and with
good will move forward with that. If you read,
if you're familiar with the bylaw, you would know
that there are no guidelines. That is just an
encouragement. And so I also am asking you
another question of the applicant, whether they
intend
to install bird friendly windows and use native
plants for the plantings around the townhouse.
So, I have two questions.
One is, do they understand that they cannot cut
those trees down into provincial jurisdiction
because they're boundary trees and they don't own
those trees.
And the second question is, do they intend to
install bird friendly windows and use
native plants for their landscaping?
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
I'll look to the next speaker.
>> Yes.
Richard Lago again.
If you look at the site plan on what they intend
on doing, where the road is placed, trees
and questions.
>> Sorry.
You've had your time.
- Sorry.
I got your point and we'll be asking those
questions.
- Yeah, but the point.
- Sir, you've had your time.
You get one shot.
I'll look for any other speakers
that would like to address the committee.
Seeing none, I'll look for a motion to close the
PPM.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Mayor.
We'll call the vote.
- Mr. Stevenson, closing the vote.
The motion carries four to zero.
- Thank you.
So I'll go to the staff.
There's a couple of items there.
Mature trees in general.
First general question, before any trees are
removed,
assuming that for our by-laws they would have to
get the okay from the city if they exceed the
diameter that's in the city by-law can you
confirm that please. Thank you and true that
chair that is correct since the application is
not going through sediment approval the city's
tree protection by-law and the city's boulevard
tree by-law are applicable here and are enforced
so basically any tree over 50 centimeters in
diameter requires a permit to be removed.
Additionally there are also the boundary trees
that are regulated under the Ontario Forestry Act
and written consent is required from co-owners of
the trees so from abutting properties
to remove any boundary trees and if written
consent is not provided then a tree protection
zone needs to be established for that tree. Thank
you. One are the do we have any remediation or
as practices to limit the amount of trees or
trees are cut down to to build this development.
Thank you and through the chair typically that
would be achieved through the site plan process
where it would be tried to minimize the amount of
trees that need to be removed and this instance
as this is not going through site plan it's it's
really urban forestry working together with the
applicants to ensure that all the rules are
followed and that as a little amount of trees are
removed
possible. Thank you. And although I know that in
site plan you review garbage pickup and snow
removal, I might go to the applicant. They like
to comment on what ideas they have on, you know,
where the garbage is going to be. How's that
going to be picked up, where snow is going to be
pushed
to, et cetera? Through the chair, the garbage
will be stored internally to the units. Each unit
has
a garage and it will be brought curbside for
pickup on a weekly basis. As for snow removal,
There's an internal turnaround located between
the two townhouse buildings. That's where snow
would be stored
Through a private service. Thank you. And while
you're there, I'm just gonna ask about bird
friendly windows
Do you have any plans regarding bird friendly
windows through the chair? We'll take that back
to the the the developer here
Thank you. All right, so I'll put this on those
the questions
I have unless I miss something which committee
members can bring forward a look for motion
Councilor Cuddy a movie staff recommendation.
Thank you. I look for a seconder the mayor
seconds, so I'll put that on the floor for
discussion with committee members or
Is in counselors counselor for thanks chair
I just wanted to follow up on I guess one of the
questions about the written consent between co-
owners
between the two properties for the trees if if
that written consent is not provided by
an owner of a property, I guess, immediately
beside this proposed property and that I did see
that
there would have to be a tree protection by-law
or something along those lines to be
drafted up. From, I guess, just from the setbacks
that I see at the building, would you have to see
,
I guess, the development change to be able to
accommodate those trees being protected there?
Oh, go ahead, staff. Sir, can you repeat that
last section on my apologies?
No words if the the co-owners of the trees did
not provide written consent to remove those trees
Because the property setbacks or I guess I guess
more narrow
Would the development have to go back and I guess
Replan the development to fit the trees that
would be preserved. Oh, well staff. Thank you and
true to chair
That's a good question. It really depends on the
situation
So it's a bit of a hypothetical situation, but it
is possible that development would need to be
redesigned
Councilor thank you and would you happen to know
and I don't know if you can answer this if
Ritten consent has been provided by the co-owners
of the trees. Oh go south to the chair
Thank you for the question. I'm not able to
answer that that's ultimately a private matter
Okay, thank you for that and just one more
question. I see in comment three
Part of that comment says the proposed site is a
newly completed renovated single family home with
a family of five
who are being displaced to make way for nine
units and then it says actually eight units as
you have displaced the family who
already there. Does that mean that that family of
five will get one of those
units? I'll go staff. Thank you and Trudy Chair I
would like to refer that
question to the applicant. I'm sorry could you
read that? Thank you and Trudy Chair I
would like to refer that question to the
applicant. Okay I'll go to the applicant.
Through the chair I'm not sure the exact
arrangement that they have with the
current property owner. It's my understanding
that there will be through
the tenant act certain steps to take at once
their lease is complete.
Councilor okay, thank you for that as not a
voting member
So I can't vote on this, but you know for I guess
for that point in that comment right there, you
know a framework or some type of
Program that would be able to protect
You know situations like this whether or not if
this family were to be able to have that new unit
or not would be good
I know we're gonna be discussing that on an item
coming up
But those are my comments there. Thank you look
further comments or questions from three members
or visiting counselors
Seeing done we got motion movements seconded. I
'll call the vote. I think the vote the motion
carries 4 to 0
Thank you moving on this
3.5 regarding
350 to 356 Windermere Road all of it for a motion
to open the PPM counselor cutty
Seconded by a second the motion and we'll call
the vote. I think the vote the motion carries 4
to 0
- Thank you, so I'll look for the applicant,
the applicant would like to address the committee
.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Thank you, my name is Kayne McAllister.
I'm here with my colleague Matt Campbell,
we're planners with Selenka Primo.
Here on behalf of distinctive homes
for the zoning application at 350 to 356,
Windham-Hert Road.
This zoning application looks to rezone the lands
to permit two, three-story back-to-back town
houses,
containing a total of 24 residential units.
As part of this application process,
we held an open house meeting on January 15th
and have also received some additional comments
from the public.
I'm just gonna provide a couple notes
that sort of goes over some of the concerns
regarding compatibility, traffic, trees,
those sorts of nature.
So a couple of notes I have on that is regarding
trees
has been brought to my attention.
There are a few that have been removed.
There were permits acquired for that
and I believe Councillor Pribble also has
recorded that.
It was brought to my attention that some of the
trees
on the sites where in rough condition
and we're posing safety concerns.
Also, if you refer to the site plan
as part of this development we are planning on,
providing ample landscaping around all of the
property
lines and on the site and amenity areas as such
to provide buffering of the development.
Regarding parking and traffic as part of this
development,
we've proposed surface parking areas
to the rear of the site behind the townhouses
to screen the viewing of the parking from Winderm
ere Road.
And the landscaping as well will help
to screen it from abutting properties.
As such, we have proposed 26 surface parking
spaces
providing parking at a rate slightly over one
space per unit
and effectively providing doubles.
That is required in the zoning by-law,
which requires 0.5 spaces per unit.
Regarding compatibility with this development,
We are proposing a modest form of development
considering the use is permitted
as part of a urban corridor's place type,
which permits a range of residential
and commercial uses up to 15 stories.
And we believe it's a development that can fit in
with the context of the area as this area,
London has lots of medium density uses
with townhouses along the Richmond corridor in
that area.
With that, I would like to thank staff for the
report
and recommendation for approval.
We are in agreement with the recommendation
to hear to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for other members
of the public would like to address the committee
.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- I am Keith Morrill, I live at 517 Canterbury
Road.
I've lived there since 2009 as a retirement home
and I've been a resident of London since '96.
There was a high level of engagement
by the property owners that reside in properties
on Windermere and Canterbury Road
and possibly Canterbury, Windermere and West
chester.
This dozen thoughtful letters were submitted.
There's a Coles notes version recap in the
package.
I'd like to also point out,
this is a student rental area.
This property will be occupied by students
predominantly second and third year.
Where I live, I am surrounded by students.
Three quarters of every student has a car.
These are gonna be three bedroom units times 26.
And the stated number of parking spaces in my
view
is woefully inadequate for the number of cars
that those student tenants are going to bring
to those apartments.
Additionally, Windermere Road, while not a major
corridor,
is between Richmond Street, Western Road, East
West,
and is jammed with cars at 3.30 or 4 o'clock
when the University Hospital and unloads its
staff
and should have a fifth lane.
And there's no place for a fifth lane
except we're on the north side of Windermere.
And that would, the frontage available
for this property to basically zero.
The tenants would come out the front door
and be on the street.
There is no bike lane on Windermere Road
between Western Road and Richmond Street.
There is no place to put it.
And by allowing this property to be developed,
which is entirely too tall for the neighborhood,
is really going to restrict the city's vision
to put proper bike lanes going east, west,
on Windermere Road.
Because the only other part is the south side.
In the university, there's a real severe grade
problem.
And the university is not going to give up any
land.
So my comments then concisely are inadequate
parking on the site based on 26 units considering
the number of cars that second through graduate
university students bring to them.
We have a number beside us across from us and
everybody's got a car and a poorly parked.
So the numbers of a problem and the closeness to
the street properly line just doesn't allow
the city any latitude at all to install a bike
lane if that is in their vision going
forward for a fifth lane that is badly needed in
that section of Windermere.
Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please ma'am, give us your name.
Yes, my name is Penn Kemp.
I have lived on Canterbury Road.
I moved there with my family January 6, 1950.
I still live in the house I grew up in.
And it was at that point,
we still called it the Triangle.
It was a farm country and north of the city.
The suburbs that are, it was the first suburb
in London as far as I know.
and it has maintained this kind of heritage point
,
lovely, quiet essence that I'd love to maintain
in my own older years.
And there are certain real concerns I have.
One is as my neighbor was talking about with
traffic,
but especially ambulance traffic trying to get
into
university hospital, really precarious because it
's not just busy at three or four, it's
busy all the time. And what about garbage pickup,
storm removal, all snow removal, all
that will impede traffic, which is already at a
crisis level. And Canterbury, my mum
have it, talked to City Council and had they put
an end to the end of Canterbury. So it's
not a closed street. It's it is, excuse me, a
closed street that is a pedestrian way for
students to come by. And that should be preserved
. I was wondering also about the trees and I'd
like
to ask the developer about bird-friendly windows
and natural non-invasive
planting. So my big concern would be to respect
the existing character of
re-forest London that we live in a city that is
not just re-forest by name but
as a reality because as my neighbor said many of
our Canterbury streets and
Westchester streets, trees, mature beautiful
trees, were cut down and
replaced about six years ago and so we lost a lot
of the arc of the that
beautiful arc of trees and it will take decades
to replace. Oh yeah our basement
was regularly flooded, Medway Creek is right
there and we know it, climate change is happening
,
climate change has given way to floods or heating
or whatever but we all through the 50s
till now I don't think the storm sewers were at
any way adequate even now. Our basements were
flooded
regularly even up till 2024 and I would think
that would be a real concern for the proposed
townhouses. So basically my point is not to
change the zoning because that would lead us
wide open to lots of change in that really
special heritage neighbourhood. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll look for next speaker. Please sir
, give us your name in your five minutes.
Good afternoon. My name is Harkindar Shahal. I am
living at 360 Windermere Road that is just
next to this proposed development. And these
people who spoke just before me have brought out
so many points and they already covered so many
points. But imagine how scared I am next to this
high rise coming up. When we bought the property
in 2006, we bought it because of the corrector
and the way this whole street is laid out.
Regarding traffic, as it is right now,
it's very hard for us to get out of our parking
space. We can never get out and make a left turn.
we have to always go right then make a return to
come back. So I and the amount of traffic
as they're saying it's congested and jammed
during the afternoons, I find this place will
be totally ruined if this development comes up
there. So I'm scared that I'm being forced
to move out of that place and at the same time if
I move out I'll have to sell my property at
lower it to get over because we purchased this
bill this house only because there was no high
rise
nearby so I totally I am totally against this
development I would request not to allow this
change thank you thank you a lot for that speaker
thank you counsel my name is George Latsko I live
at 57 Westchester just to add a little bit to my
neighbors by the way my neighbor here if you look
at how his property is right next to the new
development, it's going to be basically
overshadowing
his entire property. I'm right behind, I'm not
getting it as bad, but I'm right next to this
property as well. I think this kind of Pandora's
box of opening up this high density permitting is
going to lead to more development like this. I
like the way it was basically described. We're
almost like a triangle. It's really the entire
neighborhood is built like a small residential
family neighborhood and this is going to change
the character completely. I think at the very
least it should be from three floors to two
floors if the permitting is allowed. It should be
basically reduced. I just really am against this.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the
speaker please sir give us your name you have
five minutes yes good afternoon mr.
chair members of council and city staff my name
is Khaled Baroudi and I live
at 59 Westchester's Drive with my wife and four
children I am here today to
respectfully but firmly abose the proposed rez
oning at 350 to 356
windermi road. First and most importantly, this
proposal raises serious public safety concerns.
Windermi Road, as you know, is a crucial access
route to Western University and nearby hospital,
is used daily by ambulances, medical staff and
emergency responders. Adding 24 residential units
will significantly increase traffic and may delay
emergency vehicles. Even a small delay
in emergency response can have life-threatening
consequences. This is not just planning issue,
it's a matter of public safety. Secondly, this
deployment is incompatible with the existing
neighborhood. Our community is a quiet, low-
density, family-oriented area, made up primarily
of single
family homes. Introducing a high-density town
houses project represents a drastic and
inappropriate
change that does not respect the established
character of this neighborhood. Thirdly,
the project will directly affect the health and
daily life of our children. Our backyard
is not just a space. It is where our children
play, learn and grow in safe and healthy
environment.
I came from Syria from a war place to settle in
this great country. I searched for this house
for two years to find the appropriate location
where my kids can play and breathe clean air.
This is a business project for earning money,
neglecting the rights of our kids, the future of
Canada.
My kids never visit my country, Syria, they know
Canada.
They go to school every day, they sing the songs
of great Canada.
By approving this project, you are forcing many
families to leave this place.
for what, for money, for renting students,
neglecting many old people living in this area.
My next door, Professor spent his 60 years as a
professor in Western University, 90 years old.
If you approve his this project, he will wake up
on construction for almost one year.
you are destroying his life. You are destroying
by approving this my kids a dream. Please,
I recommend City of London, not only this
proposal, any project surrounding the hospital
should be prevented. Hospital patients need clean
air. We don't need more businesses around the
hospital. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'll look
for the next speaker. Hi there. My name is
the animal of elastral.
This should be refused as application.
It's a bad planning application.
Hopefully council will refuse it.
It won't be refused here.
I believe that developer for this site,
350, 356 Windamere is the same person
that developed a house in my neighborhood.
That developer re-nagged on the site plan
that they presented to council
and to the neighborhood.
They removed a portion of the very small existing
amenity
space that they had originally proposed.
They shrunk it down more to put in more parking.
And this idea, it's a reality.
When you rent two, three individuals in one space
,
they're all going to show up with three cars.
And that's just the way it is, whether this
planning committee acknowledges it or not, that's
just the truth. This also has surface parking lot
,
and which means that it's wasted space, as far as
I'm concerned, that should be amenity space,
that would preserve the trees that would offer
buffering, and the parking should be underneath
those buildings. And it also will limit, it will
constrain the parking to what it's intended to be
,
because it's a hard truth that there is over
parking, there is crowded parking when it's
surface parking and it's difficult to control how
many vehicles actually sit in the parking
lot and which it was intended. Anyone who is
familiar or cares about near-campus neighborhoods
,
they would know this. I don't have to stand here
and tell you, neither would you. You
don't have to tell them if they actually took an
interest and understood what's happening
in those neighborhoods because they're decision
makers, but that is what will happen. It's
predictable. It happens always. And this
developer, it was acted in bad faith in my
neighborhood.
And that goes unaccounted. He goes unaccounted
for what he did in our neighborhood. And so this
is
a bad plan. A two story with us with more amenity
space for buffering to contain and carry on the
a characteristic and integrity of the
neighborhood. He's not interested in that. He's
just interested
in packing them in. He charges in my neighborhood
. He charges $1,400 per room. And so it's, you
know, I can't get rid of these people fast enough
in my neighborhood. They destroy neighborhoods,
and your instinct is correct. Unfortunately, the
planning committee.
>> Point of order.
>> Yes.
>> Second.
>> Please go ahead, Council.
>> Thank you, Chair.
And through you, I think that the speaker is
going off the topic a little bit.
Maybe she could refocus.
Thank you.
>> Sure.
I will refocus.
>> I'll ask you, Ms. Lasko, to stick with the
item at hand and refer just to that,
please.
>> Sure.
>> I also would appreciate if the applicant was
actually present, because I also would
like to know if this applicant will comply with
the site control by-law that
encourages developers to install bird-friendly
windows especially when it's
near Medway Creek and plant native plant species
that are native to
southwestern Ontario again to enhance Medway
Creek and I'm asking the chair
that when he poses my questions to acknowledge I
'm asking both about
birth-friendly windows and about need of plant
ings on the new development and I
appreciated if the representative can answer that
. I would like to know if
someone could get back to me on that whether they
are committed to upholding
the site control bylaw. Thank you.
Good for the next speaker. I understand we have
someone online. Mr. Ferguson are you
online? Can you hear me? Yes I am. Can you hear
me? We got you. You have five
minutes. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you. My
name is Peter Ferguson. I'm a long-term resident
of Canterbury Road. I've been there for more than
20 years. I have a lot of concerns. I'm speaking
in opposition to the zoning application. I have
many concerns given the time. I'm going to focus
on traffic. There is, in fact, a triangle between
Windermere, Richmond, and Western roads,
where they can't vary intersex. Windermere Road
is already an overtaxed road. There's high
congestion,
especially in the morning and the end of the work
day. Coming west on Windermere in the morning,
the left turn into the hospital is backed up past
the road split so that when there is a left turn
lane and a right throughfare, the right through
fare is already blocked off. Adding more traffic
is
going to increase that problem. In the evening,
the traffic coming north on western road, turning
right on the winter mirror road is badly backed
up. The traffic from campus coming out of campus
on the winter mirror road is also badly backed up
. Adding additional traffic in the form of this
this zoning application is going to make all of
these problems worse. The assumption that it will
just be 26 cars is myopic I think or or dishonest
and I think you can't also just can't account
for those cars you have to also look at the
delivery drivers and the uber cars that come
there we all saw this with the development on
Richmond deluxe which is south of Windermere
and also the north of Windermere the masonville
yards which is across from the mall
And both of those developments had dedicated
lanes for drop-off pickup, Uber drivers,
you know, DoorDash, etc. And this is, that's just
leaving aside the impact of the traffic on
Western Enrichment Road. I think there's a very
important public safety issue that needs to be
considered. Windermare is a major transit point
for ambulances and people driving to emergencies,
Despite the fact that there's an entrance off a
western road, ambulances and people accessing
emergency, transit, Windermere Road, there's also
a lot of pedestrian traffic on Canterbury Road.
Students that are walking from housing north of
campus come down Windermere Road and cross at the
Windermere Canterbury intersection.
There's already a problem with inpatient drivers
at high traffic times.
I've been almost hit many times over the last two
decades.
I think that adding this amount of traffic
increases the chances of catastrophic events
both in terms of people accessing the hospital or
ambulances or pedestrian drivers.
There's also an issue of danger to the
neighborhood from traffic because what happens is
people
people want to bypass the existing traffic
problems by using Westchester Road and Canterbury
Road to bypass these intersections. They're
frustrated drivers. They drive very fast.
The city was very helpful for us probably 15
years ago putting a no through street sign
on. So we didn't have people speeding up
Canterbury only to find it blocked and then
speeding back down. But there's a lot of children
and elderly residents in the area
and when they use this bypass, right now it's
dangerous adding this traffic will make it worse.
There's a couple of horrific accidents at the
intersection of Windermere Enrichment every year
where inpatient people are trying to get across
Windermere, across Richmond on Windermere
and end up in the middle of the field where the
Westminster buildings used to be.
I would ask if there has been an existing, if
there has been a traffic assessment study,
If it exists, I was unable to find it in the
package of information and I was noted in the
document that it did not seem to exist. I don't
think that I think you should call for a traffic
assessment and if one is done, I think it cannot
be allowed to have overly-optimist assumptions,
overly-optimist assumptions about the number of
autos. This is high-end housing for wealthy
Western students that are going to bring their
cars. We know all up and down the
street that when the students are in houses which
we have no problem with the
students being in the houses but they all bring
cars. So saying you're going to
create 78 residential spaces and there's only
going to be 26 cars there is
dishonest. It may fit the zoning bylaw but it
does not reflect reality. We must
include also if they're doing the the the the
traffic assessment, it has to include other
approved
housing. They could also tax the intersection
like the mall area housing, which has already
been approved 30 seconds place during the fall
and winter terms when there's a lot of traffic.
Okay, so I don't think the risk of this must be
acknowledged. The road was not designed for
high density areas. There should be a traffic
study. We need the Windermere Road to be expanded
before this type of development, because this is
not a modest compared to the neighborhood. The
neighborhood are single houses, and this is a
massive expansion of the neighborhood. And I
think
this is a dangerous problem in terms of traffic.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. I look for
the next speaker. Please, sir. Give us your name.
You have five minutes. Hello. My name is Mike
and clear. I'm a little bit 51 Westchester Drive
so I'm probably the one of the
few here that it could be most impacted by this
project. Currently I enjoy park
like setting my neighbors behind me where this
proposal is supposed to be
beautiful yards pool. I've been there I could say
25 plus years and the reason I
bought that neighborhood was because it was a
beautiful neighborhood. Over the
last 20 years our neighborhood has already begun
to deteriorate. We have a
lot of student rentals in there. We have a lot of
people parking on grass, the
lawns, the streets. We have students have no
respect for the community or the
people that live in the community. We have
garbage issues constantly. We have
skunks, coyotes, now in our neighborhoods. I have
a dog, as many of our neighbors do.
and at night time it's becoming impossible to
walk your dog because the
last three or four months now with the amount of
garbage that's on the streets
being left out being torn apart I've had coyotes
on my driveway just just
walk in the neighborhood it's unbelievable now
they want to put it these three
stories units they caught you know they say they
're 12 units each 24 units most
these places minor state are going to be one, two
, three bedrooms with common areas, common
kitchens. So you're not talking about 26 students
. What you're talking about is 4550 students
going in there. We have, we will have no privacy.
As far as the integrity of the neighborhood,
it will be gone. We have to listen to the noise
from these students already. All the partying,
the parking. It's become a real problem. I've
called the city numerous times to deal with this
with no response. I've called the city police.
They tell me to call the city and they tell me to
call the university. So not all support for the
neighborhood from you people. Putting this up
is against everybody's wishes in the entire
neighborhood. It's a slippery slope. If you allow
this project to go, then what do you say to the
next person? Because the person beside me in the
corner, he's been trying for many years to knock
that house down and put up a couple more rental
places. So our fear is, once this begins, where
do you say no, and then where do you stop it?
On the back of my property, there's three
properties. And there's trees that are maybe
three, five feet on inside the fence line that
are mature trees. I would like to know those are
going to be left alone, which is nice because it
does give some buffer, it does give some privacy,
or they're going to be torn down as most
construction sites do, they go in and clear
everything out. Again, we've been living there
with a beautiful neighborhood. Now,
we're going to enjoy seeing parking lots, garbage
containers, noise, because now they're going to
be looking down at our houses. And we already
have problems with student noises, student
partying,
and I don't need to condemn students because a
lot of them are really, really good and they're
great.
a lot of them aren't. So putting another 40 45
students in there, parking is going to be a mess.
It's going to be a nightmare. Garbage is going to
be a nightmare. The noise is going to be a
nightmare.
And that's why we're all against this. It changes
the whole perspective of the neighborhood
and I don't see why it has to happen. Thank you.
Thank you. I understand there's someone
online that would like to speak. Chris, if you
can hear me. Can you hear me? We can. Please go
- Go ahead, you have five minutes.
- Excellent, thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you
Mayor Morgan
and Councillors for allowing me to speak to you
today.
I have lived at 522 Canterbury Road for 20 years
and I have the honor of serving as,
having served as it's the president
of the Triangle Community Association for 10
years.
Many members from my area,
in addition to the one speaking to you today,
contacted me to express concerns.
So many of the concerns I will lay out quickly
for you here are those.
I will say some residents were unable to
participate
in the public consultation processes so far
for a variety of reasons because they were held
in January and February because they're elderly
or because they were away from London.
So there are many more people than those
who are appearing before you today who are
concerned.
As has already been explained,
we have a very deep concern as a community
that the rezoning will initiate a serious
destabilization
of our area.
We're very proud of the fact that Canterbury Road
and Windumer Road have never had a giant
out of control student party that's required
thousands
and thousands of dollars of police and city
expenditure
to maintain precisely because we have the
privilege
of being a very stable cooperative community.
That's in large part because of the R1 zoning
allotment
and the presence of many long-term residents,
such as Penn Camp and Keith Morrow,
who have spoken already here today.
Changing the zoning really threatens
to destabilize the entire area.
We don't want another broftail.
Second, many people have already talked to you
about the issue around parking.
I totally agree that the parking allotment is
insufficient
in no small part because along with the fact
that many of the residents more than one
apartment
have a car, you have to remember and the staff
report did not know that parking near the
university
is public parking is non-existent. There's
enormous pressure and much illegal parking
simply because there is not enough existing
parking and adding more population will drive
this problem into an even further negative aspect
. It was quite sorry to see that the staff report
didn't include much actual discussion of the
environmental impacts of this development.
I did note 37 trees are proposed to be removed.
Penn camp already told you
counselors that our neighborhood has been quite
deforested owing to infrastructure
works that happened a few years ago. We are quite
concerned to lose even more forest
cap in the area. I also noticed the staff report
did not mention or treat carefully
the proposed new developments proximity to the
river basin and the river that is right across
the
street. We are quite a unique area because that
natural boundary is quite pristine as it stands,
and I'm quite sure additional population density
in that specific area will add more garbage,
more pollution and more stress on the natural
environment.
I have concerns about the reputation and track
record of the development and the city's capacity
if the counselors decide to proceed with this in
their capacity to regulate and police and
hold the developer to the plans laid out here.
I do agree that the proposed three-story
structures are incompatible with what currently
exists.
the plans are not compatible with the character
and the single family dominance of my
neighborhood.
I thank you sincerely for your time.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
I'll ask Clerk if there's anyone else online.
I don't see anyone coming to the microphones
and I don't have anyone online solid for motion
to close the PPM.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by the mayor.
We'll call them.
- Let's think about the motion carries four to
zero.
- A couple of questions that were raised
or concerns that I want to go to staff
before we put it on the floor.
Flood concerns, can you comment on flood
mitigation
and concerns or lack thereof for this particular
development?
- Thank you through the chair.
Detailed stormwater and grading design
is reviewed through the site plan process,
but what I can say is per city engineering
standards,
stormwater flows are to be self-contained on the
site,
directed internally to catch basins.
From there they'll be conveyed through private
sewers
to our municipal right-of-way underground and
then the major flows will be directed to Winderm
ere Road.
So we're not anticipating any negative impacts at
this point to adjacent properties. There's no
concerns with flooding and also I wanted to point
out that the existing topography is actually
sloped towards Windermere Road which helps with
the overall design. Thank you. Thank you.
Again, trees. There mentioned there's three
mature trees. Have those been identified or
those due to come down or is that something that
staff can comment on?
Thank you and through the chair. So both the
application was reviewed by
landscape architecture and ecology staff and no
issues were identified.
As part of the application and tree preservation
plan was also submitted
and that plan identified total 54 trees which 37
are proposed for removal.
Any replacement trees will be addressed through a
future site plan
application and then with regards to the ecology
there are no natural heritage
features on site. Ecology staff reviewed the
application and addressed no
concerns. Okay, thank you. A traffic study has a
traffic study been done for
this particular development. Thank you and
through the chair as part of the
complete application the TAA was not required as
it's a total of 24 units
which is relatively minor compared to the total
amount of traffic in the area.
Windinger Road is a civic boulevard with over 14,
000 vehicle movements a day.
Western Road has over 22,000 vehicle movements a
day and so the TIA was not required because
the impacts of the proposed developments will be
very minor on the total traffic in the
area.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other concerns that were raised?
I'll leave for committee or visiting councilors
to address on that one.
So I'll put that out on the floor for committee
right now.
Councilor.
Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation.
I'll look for a seconder.
I'll second the motion to get it going,
get the conversation going here.
So I'll look for comments from members of the
committee
or visiting Councilor Perma.
- Thank you, Chair.
And I would just like to add a few more questions
from the residents.
The city has considered the additional bike lanes
on Windermi Road.
If the proposed bike lane is approved,
the presence of the proposed units will create
an increased safety risk for pedestrians,
and drivers alike by having so many residents
traversing a very small
stretch of the road. How will the safety issues
be addressed?
Thank you for the question and through the chair.
There is an upcoming
transportation project on Windermere Road to
upgrade the four lanes of
traffic and introduce bike lanes on the north
side of the street. I believe
between Windermere and Boone Drive, this is
upcoming I believe it's
scheduled for 2028.
Further, as part of the application,
the applicant is providing approximately 8 meters
of road widening.
So there will be sufficient distance
between the ultimate right-of-way
and the front of the building.
OK, so just to be clear, I just want
to make sure I heard you correctly.
There's sufficient room for future world widening
with this development, is that correct?
Bruted jar, that is correct.
As part of the future site plan application,
the 7.9 meter road winding will be obtained by
the city councilor just to
follow up on this one and it is on the north side
correct go staff correct the
bike lanes are are scheduled or will be planned
for the for the north side of
the street okay thank you for that follow up as
there'll be loss of sunlight was
there a shadowing study done go staff thank you
and through the chair now
studies shadow study was not required as this is
a three-story development can I
- Yeah, again, just on that, the province not do
away
with the shadow study requirements, can you
comment on that?
- Through the chair, no regulations have been
introduced
yet by the province as of this time.
Typically as a city, we would like to see shadow
studies
from mid or high rise development.
So six to eight stories minimum is where we like
to see a shadow studies and as mentioned,
this is a proposal for tree study development.
So no shadow study was requested.
- Okay, thank you for that clarification, Council
or.
- Thank you, follow-up.
Even though it was already addressed
that the traffic study was not done,
but a follow-up question from a resident,
if our staff, even though the study wasn't
necessary,
if our staff consider the emergency vehicles
and ambulances entering exiting the hospital.
- No, go staff.
- Thank you, and through the chair,
as part of the transportation review,
emergency access was reviewed,
and no concerns were outlined.
- Councilor.
- Thank you, where will the cars be parked?
of the current proposal doesn't have sufficient
parking
for the tenants.
- How about staff?
- Through the chair, thank you for the question.
The proposal meets the minimum parking standards.
In fact, additional parking is provided
above the minimum standards.
There are also no parking signs existing
on the Windermere Road.
So any parking spillover onto the street
would be a by-law enforcement matter,
but from our perspective, sufficient parking is
provided.
- Councillor.
- Bob Garbage collection and snow removal.
- Go staff.
- Through the chair.
Those matters will be addressed through
the future site plan application.
- Councillor.
- Birdfriend live in those native plant species.
- Go staff.
- So for any new development, thank you and
through the chair.
For any new development as part of site plan,
Birdfriend the windows are encouraged
and that will be further addressed
through the site plan application.
- Councillor.
- I know we have talked about the trees already
and this was answered.
I just wanna confirm that I did receive emails,
phone calls,
concerns when the first trees came down,
and I do confirm it was already stated that I did
receive,
that our city staff did issue permit for that.
I do have, I think, last question.
How is this compatible fitting neighborhood?
And I believe that's my last question.
- How about staff?
- Thank you, and through the chair.
The Alonam plan contains evaluation criteria
for all planning applications,
including the degree to which proposal fits
in the existing and planned context.
As this is an urban corridor,
pretty significant intensification is
contemplated
as part of the vision for the urban corridor play
style
and staff reviews the application
based on the evaluation criteria
and are satisfied that the use,
intensity and form meets those criteria
and is compatible with the neighborhood.
- Councilor?
- Thank you, no more questions right now, thanks.
- Thank you.
for other Councillor Ferra, or what you're
pointing.
Oh, Councillor Cudi.
- Thank you, Chair and through.
And I want to thank all the residents
for coming today and speaking.
And you know, very briefly, you're not speaking
to deaf ears, we're listening to you
and we hear everything you've said.
And Madam, the second speaker,
I want to reference something you said,
that you remember that when that was a rural area
,
and I do as well.
I remember when they grew cattle up,
they raised cattle up on that road.
But you know, Western was 5,000 people then,
and now it's 45,000 or 40,000, and we've grown.
And I want to reference what the other gentleman
said earlier
about students, and that students are
disrespectful at times.
And they don't respect the community or their
neighbors.
And I have that in my neighborhood.
I have that in Ward 3.
I have Fanshawe.
Fanshawe College is my constituent.
But that's for your Ward counselor to look after.
And that's for our bylaw chief to look after.
And Ms. Pfeiffer will look after that.
And they will enforce by-law for parking and for
noise.
And it will not turn into another roughdale.
But we have to respect the fact that the city
continues
to grow at a rapid pace.
And it's unfortunate that it's going into an area
that you don't want it to go.
But respectfully, this looks like a nice growth.
My concern is the parking.
But I think that can be controlled by by-law.
And I think it will be enforced.
So I'll be supporting this.
- Thank you.
All in for other speakers, Councilor.
- Thank you chair for recognizing me as a
visiting member
and not a voting member of the committee.
So I won't take too much time.
I do have just one question on the traffic impact
study
that is not required in this.
I understand that it is a development with 24
units
and it doesn't meet the threshold for that.
But at the same time, I do understand that wind
and mirror
is one of those main, I guess, corridors
to the emergency department,
the emergency room at University Hospital.
I just wanted to know, is it possible to have a
traffic impact study considering that,
considering that this could lead to a little bit
more congestion and could potentially, I guess,
slow down any ambulances moving in or out of the
emergency department.
I'll go stuff.
Thank you through the chair. Yeah, if council
wishes to include that as part of the direction
or recommendation, that would be submitted as
part of that future site plan application and
reviewed as part of that.
- Thank you, Councillor.
- Thank you for that.
I'm not a member of the committee,
so I'm unable to do that,
but I would ask the committee to consider
a traffic impact study just because of that
circumstance.
- Thank you.
I want further speakers.
Councillor Trussa.
- Thank you very much.
When I first looked at this application,
my initial response, I was wrong,
but my initial response was,
this isn't so bad, to be worse.
And the more I delved into the reports,
or more particularly the reports that weren't
there
that needed to be there in my view,
the more I came to the conclusion
that this is not a sustainable development,
this is going to create a terrible impact
on this neighborhood.
But you know, beyond that, when I hear staff,
say this is minor, so it doesn't need a traffic
study,
I live in that area, and I go by that area all
the time,
and I worked at the University for 25 years.
I know what that stretch of Windermere is like.
And it's horrendous.
It's already overcharged.
It's already a dangerous situation.
Never mind the fact that there's a hospital there
.
And I went through the report.
I did not see anything about consulting
with the hospital or EMS services.
It just wasn't there.
This takes me back to the controversy
that we had with the Wonderland development
at Bieber Brook, where you had like a EMS right
in back,
where they consulted?
No, we gave out the notices to everybody.
This is not acceptable.
This is a public safety disaster waiting to
happen.
Now, let me ask something.
When you've got these people on the subject
property,
and they wanna make a left turn on to Windermere
during rush hour, how are they gonna do that?
Could you, could you help me with that?
Thought my time.
- Counselor, is that a question for us?
- Yes, it is a question.
- How are they gonna make a left turn?
- Yeah, how are they going to make a left turn
going back towards Richmond?
- I'll go to staff.
- Is there not?
- Major Microphone.
- Thank you through the chair.
Access locations and design will be reviewed
as part of that site plan application.
Thank you.
- Well, thank you through the chair.
I find that a totally unacceptable answer
because I think there should have been a traffic
study.
Now, what is the criteria that the traffic
division uses
to determine if there needs to be a traffic study
?
Is it simply the number of units
or our qualitative factors taken into account.
- I'll go to staff.
At what point is a traffic study initiated?
- Thank you through the chair.
Typically there's about six to seven criteria
that needs to happen, but essentially it's the
intensity
of the development, the location in proximity
to major intersections.
If there's turn lanes already within the cross
section
of the road, things of that nature.
because this was 24 units.
In the location it was, transportation didn't
feel
it was needed, and I did want to remind everyone
that we have a Ford Lane upgrade city project
that's tentatively scheduled in 2028
that will introduce more lanes,
more storage for turn lanes and also bike lanes.
Thank you.
- Is someone from transportation here
so they can more fully address my questions?
staff. Thank you through the chair. No, there's
no transportation staff here at the moment.
Thanks,
Councillor. I'll move on. I'll just, I'll just
move on to my next question. This is just not,
this is not a project that I'll be voting for. I
will be voting against this project,
but I really think that if we're going to try to
intensify the near, the near campus area,
which is an exercise in itself.
I should say this is not in my ward,
but it's like my ward in that this triangle
is very much like the other parcels
that are right around campus.
I always think of the triangle as sort of like my
ward.
I think I've mentioned that to some of the
residents,
and I feel I have this very close affinity
with the people in the triangle,
because it's very much like people in my ward
in terms of the kinds of challenges that they're
facing.
Now, if we approve this development,
given the scant record that we have, no, oh, I
should ask,
was there any consultation with the hospital or
EMS
about this project?
- Council, I believe that's been asked,
but I'll go to the staff anyway for a
conversation.
- Thank you, and through the chair,
as part of the circulation, Western University
was notified
and no response was received.
- So Western University, as the large university,
was notified, but not the individual entities
and not the hospital, is that correct?
- Go staff, through the chair,
the university hospital was within 120 meters
of the subject lens and were notified
and no response was received.
- Did the notice go to the hospital administrator
or did it go to the university at 1151 Western
Road
or 1151 Richmond?
- Go to the south address.
- Through the chair, it went to the London Health
Science Center.
- I think that we need to do better.
I think that we need to do better in terms of
triggering traffic studies when you could
talk to anybody that lives there or that anybody
who tries to leave the campus, not
just during rush hour, but pretty much all the
time.
And it's just not passable.
It's just not passable.
So as somebody who worked at the university and
who uses that area a lot, I'm just flabbergasted,
flabbergasted, that we did not do a traffic study
.
And I think that putting everything else aside,
is there time on the--I know the clock is running
on these applications.
Is there time to refer this back for a traffic
study or is that going to take us outside
the statutory period?
>> I'll go to staff.
Thank you and true to chair.
We can provide the information on when exactly
the 120 days' goods ends.
But this application is going to counsel in a few
weeks.
So I think we'll be challenging to get a traffic
study done
before that time.
Instead, a traffic study update could also
be provided as part of a future site plan
application.
Yes, I understand that there's a big difference
between doing one after the fact, after there's
been approval as part of a non-mandatory site
plan.
And on the other hand, doing it as a traffic
study
before the application is complete.
And I'm going to be asking, I can't make a motion
here.
I would ask someone on the committee to defer
this.
I'm sorry to refer it back to staff
for a targeted focused traffic study
that is limited to the area between Richmond
and the hospital.
I don't wanna area-wide traffic study,
but this needs to be looked at.
And my sense is if there's nobody on this
committee
that's going to do that,
I will certainly raise it at council.
So I think I've set out my objections.
I think that this is an accident waiting to
happen.
I know that people are in a critical situation
when they're in the last few minutes
before they get to University Hospital.
I've known too many people
who were in life and death situations
on their way to the University
and to hear that there's not been a traffic study
here,
even a very, very targeted one.
And to hear, well, we gave notice
that we normally give under the Planning Act.
It's just, it's so insensitive to the actual
reality
of what people who are using this area have to
deal with.
And it's just, I find it, I find it appalling.
I will be opposing this, and I hope I'll be able
to convince some of my other colleagues,
especially those who have some familiarity
with the university, particularly the northern
part
of the university, to show some sensitivity
to the people in this neighborhood
and the people that are using the hospital.
And I think I've said what I have to say,
so I'm just gonna stop it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Raman.
- Thank you and through you, Chair.
I just wanted first to thank the delegations
and those that wrote in and emailed in on this
matter.
I represent Ward 7, so I'm on the boundary
of this ward in the Triangle
and get a lot of communication,
have lots of friends in the area as well,
so I have heard quite a bit about this
development
as things have proceeded,
including when the trees came down on the
property.
So I'm glad to hear that that was resolved.
And I know Councilor Perble has worked very hard
to listen to the community and to hear the
feedback
and submit questions.
So I wanna thank Councilor for that as well.
This application I would concur.
I would like to see a traffic study
and if it could be done before the application is
approved
versus during the site plan process.
I do think it would be helpful for the community
to belay the concerns and the fears.
When I talk to residents in my ward,
they have particular concern of getting
to university hospital in time.
If they were to have a health matter
that needed them to get there fast.
And one of the challenges is that we do not have
adequate connection points into the hospital
from the northwest part of the city.
And so you're rerouting yourselves around,
sarn your road, or you're rerouting yourselves
down into where this traffic is already hectic.
And 30 minutes, as stated in some of these
letters,
I would say, is an undersell at times,
especially during the winter.
I've seen people in stopped traffic for 45
minutes
plus in this area.
I'm there all the time.
and I know how challenging it can be.
And I am concerned that even though when we are
engaging
with the hospital, that these matters are not
perhaps taken to the level that they should,
not saying by our staff, but also by the hospital
,
we used to have a process where the hospital
would actually give us timing to the community
around how long it anticipated ambulance times
to be in different segments of the city.
I'm not sure when that changed,
but we need that information and we need it
to be available when we are making these kinds of
decisions.
And I know that we can't necessarily hold up an
application
because of the fact that we don't have the time
associated
with getting from a particular address to the
hospital.
But I do think that as we think about a whole
community
approach, we have to think about these matters.
I heard it at people's doorsteps when they were
talking to me about their real fears
and concerns about being in a place in their
lives where they wanted to make sure that
they had the ability to get there safely.
So I do think that this is a matter worth raising
, and I hope that a member of the committee
will make the amendment here so that it can move
forward.
I'd also like to better understand the timing
of the road reconstruction in the area
and how that will be considered around the site
plan
and some of the considerations with the design.
And I understand that that's more of a traffic
question.
I really appreciate our planning staff
answering those questions that they have so far,
but I also think it speaks to the need for more
integration
and more discussion in these meetings
around how we're moving around the city.
Yes, we have the mobility master plan
and we know what's envisioned in the plan,
but aligning those thought processes around our
planning
and our traffic I think is important
and that's a whole other topic and I won't go off
topic.
To the residents that are here,
just wanted again to say thank you for the
feedback.
I hear you on the tree removal.
It is a lot of trees in an area that's lost.
A lot of tree canopy cover because of
construction,
because of road reconstruction in the area.
So absolutely a concern.
And again, thank you for bringing up the sensit
ivities
of the Medway Creek in this discussion as well.
Thank you.
- All right, Councilor Pribble.
- Thank you, sir, to check the staff.
When it was discussion about the hospital
that the LHSV forwarded, there was no objection.
Did we actually, was there any response from the
medall
or there was actually a response
since stating there's no objection, no good staff
?
- Thank you and through the chair,
no response was received, Councilor.
I'm sorry, I can hear that.
- No response was received from the hospital.
- Okay, thank you for that.
My issue is, again, we all know that
or I think most of us know this area.
And I have to state and I will just address it
with the transportation staff.
Actually our huge issue, already existing one,
is actually with the lights at Sunnyside and
Richmond.
Because what's happening now,
and I spent a lot of times in this triangle on
the traffic.
During the busy times, individuals driving on
Richmond,
they actually, there are two lights at Western
and Sunnyside.
And what happens is, Western actually has much
more time
to turn, and they flop that lane,
and therefore, Richmond keeps standing.
What happens is that Richmond, the drivers,
they already figured this out.
They cut through Windermere, and then turn right
on Western,
because actually, it's faster than stay at
Richmond.
And I know this would be--
I'm saying actually existing situation that we
have there,
and we really need to figure it out.
Doesn't matter if there's additional infills,
developments,
or not.
And if our transportation, if anyone stays there
and watches it, that's really honestly what's
happening,
and we have to figure it out.
It's very challenging.
It's a triangle, very busy, but there
could be an improvement already now.
And as I said, in this part, when
the individuals from this era are speaking,
If they spend the time, they'll see again
from Richmond turning left on to Windermere
and right on Western because it's fasted and
staying on.
I do think that the traffic study
is really truly needed here.
I know I will be meeting with the residents next
week
because potentially those are the things
or certain amendments that I can propose
at the Council, not at this committee,
but I really do think the traffic study is needed
here.
And again, traffic study including the timing
of the proposed widening of this road to four
lanes.
I really think you have to look at the full
picture here
and potentially if, again, it doesn't matter
if there is one or zero or more developments,
but to really have a clear vision on this area.
So we don't potentially do one thing
and then we realize it's not coming up together
and the timing is not coming together.
So I really think that I certainly
would support the traffic study in this case.
I do realize that if you look at the number of
units
or it was really stated about the density
that could be even higher, taller, I do
understand that.
But on the other hand, this is what's in front of
us
and I really wanna make sure we do our homework
and everything properly done.
So I'll leave it with this committee
but I don't have any more comments right now.
Thank you.
- I'll go in the mayor.
- Yeah, so I'll make a few comments.
First off, I appreciate the discussion.
And I'll first say, like, I support with my votes
,
a lot of density across the city
and in a lot of different areas.
I know this area pretty well as well,
and I appreciate some of the thoughtful comments
that have been given by community members.
You know, I tend to concur with the need
for a traffic study here.
Again, knowing this area well, you know,
I think there's a lot of,
There's gonna be a lot of car-based density
put into this particular development.
I recognize what, and I fully support
why our staff would land at the conclusion they
did,
given the Prandtl policy statements
and some of the components of that.
But student rentals are very different,
and looking at the type of units that the
developer produces,
these are going to be people who probably afford
and do have cars, and they're probably gonna try
to, it's very nice music.
they're probably going to try to navigate
three right turns, right, through the
neighborhood.
So they're not gonna turn left to the councilor's
comment
on wind and mirror, they're gonna turn on to
Canterbury,
they're gonna turn on to West Chester,
they're gonna turn on to Richmond,
they're gonna drive that traffic through the
neighborhood.
And although I do recognize that wind and mirror
is a street that likely will densify at some
point,
there are some impacts here that I think
we need to be conscious of.
So I'll be honest, I'm not supportive of the
application
in its current form at the time.
I hear colleagues saying,
I hope the committee members refer back for
traffic study.
I think having that traffic study before
we make a decision is appropriate in this case
and not at the site plan stage.
I know that will put us in a difficult spot
on timelines potentially,
but I think that that's a very reasonable ask
to see what this actually looks like,
because again, this is going to be a fairly
unique
piece of density in this.
If this is something that happens
is going to be replicated, you know, we actually
really have to understand the way the traffic
flows around this particular neighborhood because
this is the intersection of major streets
with, you know, over 10,000 cars each around the
triangle and then very low density within
it. And there is a great imbalance here between,
you know, the way the traffic moves around
and we could we could fairly potentially impact
that if we're not careful here. And so what
And what I don't want to see is, you know,
thousands of cars going through Canterbury
and Westchester Drive, you know, when we have
three major thoroughfarers that they should
be going on.
But I just -- I see that the people who are going
to try to turn out of this space during
significant portions of the day are going to be
making multiple right-hand turns to get
out of there, not the left-hand turn that is
allowable but probably not feasible.
So I'll support and I'll move a referral back to
staff to discuss or to conduct a traffic
study or ask for a traffic study to be conducted.
And I would invite any conversations on the
applicant lowering the density in this area
too.
I know it's not necessarily required but if you
're going to talk to them anyways, I think
what I hear from residents too is this is a lot
of density and a lot of cars in one spot.
This applicant, when I look at their portfolio,
builds all sorts of things of all sorts of
different densities.
Maybe there's another product they have that fits
here better.
So I would invite that conversation as well,
although it may not be necessary or under
the zoning permissions, I think it's worth the
conversation on that, but certainly the
traffic study.
So I'm sorry I didn't give you that language
ahead of time.
I'm doing it based on comments from the gallery
and our colleagues on the committee and not
on the committee, but I'm happy to move that
referral with those two reasons.
- Okay, so we've got a motion for a seconder.
Councillor, Councillor, you seconded.
- I'll second it.
- Okay, so we have the referral on the floor.
So I'll look for comments.
Mayor, do you want to speak again to that?
Are those on the floor?
- I think I'm going to ask for clarification
for the clerk on what I said.
So I don't have the language,
but I actually think it's worth a conversation
on the density too.
Again, they may not have an interest
in lowering the density,
but if we're going to talk about a traffic
setting,
have the time for that before we make a decision.
Again, it's a developer with multiple products.
there might be something else that works here
because we may get the traffic study back.
They may want to see that
and then make adjustments to the density as well.
I would roll that into the conversation.
Certainly we can't require that,
but I think it's worth the conversation with our
staff.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other comments or questions
from committee or visiting counselors.
Councilor Oman.
- Thank you and through you.
I'm just wondering if it's possible
to work into the referral conversation with the
hospital.
- I'm happy to add that.
- Okay, well a friendly moment there.
So we're just working up the motion on these sc
ribes
so we can all take a peek.
Okay, it should be up on these scribe.
We'll take a look.
How's that look?
- That's fine.
I would just ask our staff to have a conversation
about density too.
I know it's not actually in the motion,
but if they can commit to that.
- Yeah, I'll go to staff and is that clear for a
clear
direction?
- Yes, through the chair, we will consider
density as well
as traffic and consultation with other partners.
density as well, okay.
Did you want to speak to the referral or if you
go ahead?
- I'll speak briefly to it.
I, again, I think what we hear from the community
is there's some unknowns here,
and I think it's a very fair thing to ask for
them
to become knowns on the way the traffic
is going to move around this neighborhood.
Again, I want to be clear,
and I want to say I disagree with the approach
that some of my colleagues take in their language
they use.
I don't think staff have done anything wrong here
.
I think they put together a very fair proposal
based on the way that we normally do things.
This, just knowing the area is fairly unique
in the way that people will move around it.
And there are large discrepancies
between the major thoroughfare densities
and the interior densities within this triangle
that I think warrant a more careful look.
But I wanna be clear, I don't feel that's any
fault
of our staff in doing a bad job on this.
I just think for those of us who are
representatives
and you hear from the people who know the area
well,
This is a fairly unique place.
I've worked up in that area for many years.
I've walked these streets many times.
I kind of understand, as Councilor Raman does,
Councilor Provost does, Councilor Troso does,
that there's a bit of uniqueness
to this particular triangle.
I mean, if you just look at where it is,
it is an island within a massive amount of
traffic flow
moving around it in all directions.
It is a very unique part of the city.
It warrants a very careful look at it
before we make a decision that may change
the entire dynamics of this small neighborhood.
- Councilor Ferro.
- Thanks, Chair.
So I appreciate the conversation.
I appreciate the move to look into the traffic
study
and to consult with the hospital.
I do appreciate the public speaking your truths
and 'cause you know better than anybody,
especially I guess the one on Canterbury
and the one on Westchester and Windermere.
You know the area very well.
You see the traffic every day
and I really think that that is a very important
part
the insight that we need to see here so we can
actually bring something forward to actually
address this. I wasn't going to be supporting the
application as it was before. If I see
this traffic impact study come to through council
and it gets approved, I'll approve
that but that doesn't mean that it's approving
the bylaw amendment as it is. That's just us
looking back to see what is the traffic component
really going to look like with these developments
and then we can make a decision from them. So
that's really what I wanted to see. I would
also say you know like when it comes to I guess
the university even though they
didn't respond or reply that doesn't necessarily
mean that they may have an
issue or or not you know the responsible or the
the hospital is
responsible for obviously saving lives and the
emergency department themselves
are responsible for that triage component and we
are responsible more so
than the hospital obviously for you know how do
you get there the roads that
lead there and what happens with the traffic
there when it comes to our
planning. So it's really up to us to make sure
that we have that
responsibility and it's really up to us to make
sure that that works for
them. So I guess you know consulting with the
hospital
directly is I think the best choice here. I
really appreciate the
motion that the mayor has brought forward. I
appreciate
Councillor ramen, Councillor Pribble, Councillor
Troso's
comments on just pushing for that traffic impact
assessment
because I really think that is something that we
need to look at
and I appreciate you know consulting directly
with the hospital and
and pointing and flagging this to them just to
say,
what do you think when it comes to this?
So I will support this as it comes to committee.
Again, it's not approval of the zoning bylaw
amendment
as it is, it's just an approval
to look at that assessment coming back
and then we can make our determination
when we have more information as it comes back.
So I'll leave my comments there and I appreciate
the work.
- Thank you, and with further comments,
the committee will allow me from the chair.
Yeah, I think we've come to a good conclusion
here.
It's quite evident that there is some traffic
concerns.
I think when you have 14,000 cars,
and a 24-unit walk up, for sure,
how many of those units will have multiple cars?
Who knows?
We heard today that Western has limited parking
there,
so I think a lot of students are taking advantage
of transit that we have, those are living around.
being said. I'm familiar with this area and it is
a bottleneck and I think that's why staff are
looking at widening in the near future. But what
really concerned me was the comments about
access to emergency care at the hospital. So I
fully support this referral. I was actually
working on, you know, amendment myself and I'm
sure other committee members were when the mayor
brought this forward. So I think it's an
important thing that we look at the actual
traffic impact,
especially that pertains to the to the hospital
access for sure, so I will support the room.
Okay, any other comments or questions or I call a
vote? We have a seconded, I'll call the vote.
Housing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. Okay
, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 650
industrial road. I'll look for over to move the
opening of the PPM. Councillor Cuddy,
I'll second it, and we'll call the vote.
Councillor Stephen, closing the vote. The motion
carries forward to zero.
Thank you. I'll look for the applicant. We'd like
to address the committee.
Oh, I can hear you. Can please give us your name,
you know, five minutes.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the
committee. Daniel Salari with MHBC planning
representing the registered owner and applicant
pose some no properties. And also with me today
is Scott Allen. At this time, we would like to
express our support for the findings and
recommendations set out in the planning staff
report. The proposed zoning by lineman is
intended
to solidify the boundaries of identified open
space features on the subject lens. And we would
like to emphasize that no development is proposed
at this time. Furthermore, the proposed
amendments
would appropriately protect identified
environmental features while also broadening the
range of light
industrial users permitted on the balance of the
subject lens to support future development.
Finally, we would like to thank CDS staff for
their attention to this application.
thank you for your consideration and we would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. I'll look for people from the public
would like to address us. Please go ahead.
You have five minutes. My name is Annemarie Amal
astro. I was disappointed that the environmental
study
wasn't attached to the staff report. Unless I
made a mistake or I didn't see it, I would like
to get that report and it should be attached to
it going forward to council. This area is right
next to Pottersburg Creek and it's a large open
space. So I didn't, I had a hard time
understanding the staff report and unfortunately
I had a hard time understanding the gentleman
just who spoke ahead of me as well. I like to
know what the application and the applicant
are going to do about this green space place type
. It was confusing in the report of where
that space is when I looked at the map it seemed
to be not where the creek was and I would
appreciate
it and I'm sorry I, my guess is that the people
in the committee today are not familiar with
this space. I'm a little bit familiar with it
because I'm very keen. I think I photographed it.
I'm very keen on pockets of green space in the
city and I'm wondering if someone could
talk about the green space-place type,
and how Pottersberg Creek is going to be
protected,
and all the species that are probably going to be
displaced.
And when I look at Pottersberg Creek, which I
walk,
it's not protected.
The riparian zone is nonexistent.
And now here's an opportunity to protect that
zone
and also protect areas that flood,
which are very important for amphibian breeding
ground
and fish spawning.
You might think that there are just things
you can throw dirt over and expand the
development zone,
but ecologically they're critically important.
So before decisions made to support this,
I think that the city has to establish
the green space place type,
something that I've just learned about now.
And also the fact that for some reason,
the environmental study was not brought forward
to this committee so that they can also ask and
raise
the questions that I'm asking about.
So my question is to the chair,
and I'd appreciate it if it was represented
the way I'm going to state it.
Where is this green space place type going to be
in relation to the creek?
And how big is it gonna be in relation to the
total site?
And so I asked the chair to, if you can please
repeat it the way I've asked it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> I'll ask the speaker.
I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online.
There isn't.
I don't see anyone going to the microphone.
So I'll look for a motion to close the PPM.
Councillor K aye on it for a seconder.
I'll second it.
And we'll call the vote.
>> Mr. Stevenson.
>> I vote yes.
>> Closing the vote.
The motion carries 4-0.
>> So Ms. Velasco has asked and I hope I get the
wording right.
the green space in relation to the creek and was
a proportion of that to the site.
Excuse me. That's, thank you. Any more helpful?
We're not allowed, okay?
Through the chair, the area with the green spaces
is the area that is proposed to be
rezoned OS5 based on schedule A of the staff
report. So that's the area that we are looking to
include within the open space zone boundary and
then in the future green space place type.
Thank you. Thank you and regarding the
environmental study is there a environmental
study it was
done for this? Through the chair through the
consent application that is currently ongoing
submitted back in 2022 that was deferred by the
committee of adjustment until an environmental
impact study was completed to date that EIS has
been completed and accepted by staff. Thank you.
So I'll put this on the floor for committee
members. That's what cutting. Thank you Chair
through you. I'll move the staff recommendation
and we got a mover. I'll
look for a seconder, a mare of seconding. Look
for comments or questions from
committee members for visiting Councillors. Coun
cillor Cudi or Mike Sond you
want to comment. Thank you. Thank you chair. This
is my work so I do know the
area fairly well. I you know I've been in favor
of this. I appreciate the fact
that staff have come forward with this and I
think it's a good move. So thank
you. Thank you. Look for other councilor for
thank you chair. So the EIS was
was accepted by staff, is that what I heard from
staff?
Is there the ability to release that to the
public?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, the environmental impact
study
can be made available upon request.
- Councilor.
- Okay, requesting that, can I request that here,
or do you need like a formal motion for that?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, if you wanted to send me an
email,
anyone who wants a copy of it, send me an email,
and I'm more than happy to provide that copy.
Thank you.
- Councilor.
Okay, thank you for that.
And I guess just one more question.
I see that there's no development proposed right
now, but we are changing the zoning.
If the proponent is online, I see that this is
being changed to a holding light industrial
special provision zone.
I just wanted to know if we can be informed on
what is potentially going to be proposed
for the site.
Yeah.
The applicant is online.
Can you give us an idea of what's being
considered with this change in zoning?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Scott Allen, MHBC.
Apologies, my video doesn't seem to be working.
At this time, there's no specific development
plans for the particular site.
There is a permission for an additional truck
transport opportunity in the southwest corner
of the site, which Ms. Vivian spoke to in terms
of the original consent application.
So that is the one reason for that particular
zoning at that location.
But the intent is effectively to have lead
industrial manufacturing type operations on
this site and keeping with the applicant's
professional activities that they do at that.
And that is ultimately why the application moved
forward originally.
And the intent at this point is simply to
establish development boundaries for future
consideration of light industrial activities.
Thank you.
Councillor.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
I'm just sending an email for the request for the
EIS.
So I appreciate it.
I'll look for other comments or questions from
many members of visiting Councillors.
Seeing none, a call to vote.
Councillor Stevenson.
I vote yes.
- Vote the motion carries 4-0.
- Okay, moving on to 3.7.
This is regarding 845-875 Commissioners Road East
.
I'll look for a motion to open the public
participation.
Meeting, our councilor cutting moves it.
Councilor Mayeron seconds, and we'll call the
vote.
- I need some votes, yes.
- Using the vote, the motion carries 4-0.
- Thank you, I'll go to the applicant,
please, sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Good afternoon, committee members,
Mayor Morgan, visiting councilors.
My name is Alex Vanders-Sluice.
I am the development manager with Auburn Develop
ments.
We are the applicant for the proposed zoning by
law amendment
at 845, 865, and 875 Commissioners Road East.
We're very excited by the opportunity to develop
this site
and build several hundred rental housing units,
approximately 800 meters to the Wellington Road
BRT corridor
and certainly within walking distance
of one of the largest employment centers in our
city
Victoria Hospital and Parkwood Hospital just to
the west of the site. We do have
a request of committee which was outlined in a
written submission and is
on the added agenda. I'll explain a little bit
later but first I wanted to
give a brief overview of the history of the site
and explain the contents of the
application as far as the work that we've done in
getting to this point. We've
been studying these lands for years and with our
application we submitted a
planning justification report, environmental
impact study, hydrogeological study, geotechnical
study, a D6 air quality assessment, a methane gas
study, a functional servicing report,
transportation
impact assessment, noise and vibration studies,
and a full architectural package, including
floor plans, elevations, renderings, and a shadow
study.
Going back to the 1940s, these lands were
actually used as a gravel pit, and that use
continued for several decades. The lands to the
east were municipal waste disposal site
hence the methane gas study. Over time, the
aggregate extraction operations ran their course.
The portion of the site closest to Commissioners
Road East was used for commercial purposes.
There were different iterations of retail uses at
865 Commissioners Road East and 845 Commissioners
road east had a gas station and mechanic shop
there with the exception of 875 commissioners
road east which is a parcel of land that was
acquired from the city of London in a land
exchange for development lands elsewhere on
commissioners road that were needed for road
improvements. These lands actually have an active
industrial draft plan of subdivision
approval. They're also zoned and designated again
with the exception of 875 commissioners
roadies for commercial and late industrial uses
today.
The city owns a right of way through the middle
of the property, extending deep into
what will eventually become ESA as part of this
application for a cul-de-sac to service
that industrial plan of subdivision.
Instead of developing the site for industrial
uses, we are, of course, with this application
proposing the high density residential use.
I realize that there's a fair level of public
interest in the site.
It's a large development, high-profile location,
and so I do want to clarify that we are not
proposing to develop within the ESA.
The ESA will expand through our development
application and with the transfer of lands
to the city to be combined with lands to the
south and east to form part of the Westminster
Pawns ESA.
We're not developing within the wetland, and we
're in alignment with city staff about
the development limits and the buffer to the
natural features to the south.
we are generally supportive of the staff
recommendation. As I mentioned in my written
submission,
there's a couple of tweaks that we're looking for
to the zoning, which will allow us to maintain
the type of housing that we see fitting here and
not compromise our housing product, which is
residential unit designs that we've been working
on for years to get down to efficient and
functional
unit types that are desirable and work for our
tenants. We're also looking for an exemption
to the calculation of height in the by-law to
match what already exists, which exempts
outdoor amenity space at the rooftop level from
being calculated in the overall building height.
The London Plan designates these lands for 14
stories. We are proposing 14 residential stories.
However, when we do outdoor amenity space at the
rooftop level, we pair that with a complementary
indoor amenity space to allow for that indoor
outdoor use and all season use at that rooftop
level. So what we're looking for is an adjustment
to the zoning that staff had recommended to
exclude
rooftop amenity space indoor in the same way that
outdoor rooftop amenity space is already
excluded from height calculation. That's all I
wanted to say and certainly, you know,
following any other public comments, we'd be
happy to answer any questions from committee.
Thank you. Thank you. I look for members of the
public who would like to address the committee.
Please approach microphone. Okay, please, sir.
Give us your name. You have five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Wake. I've
been a long time advocate for protection of
of Westminster Pawns and made my first appearance
before a council committee at the old city hall
down the street.
So I've been following developments related to
the Pawns
for many years.
In this case, I find because of the history
of various previous approvals, the whole planning
history
of this project, I will support the staff
recommendation.
in particular the transfer of lands within the
ESA
to city ownership as that will certainly enhance
the management of those lands.
And also the holding provisions that are
recommended
by staff to assess some further details
related to the environmental impact statement
so that we can be assured of the best quality
of protection for the remaining area
and the best management of the buffer.
system. So I did write comments in that are on
the added agenda, and I just wanted to offer
those
clarifications in these comments. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker.
Hi there. My name is Jennifer Tranpluser. I am a
teacher of the H3ELP program at Westminster Pawns
.
This is a group of great 10 students that come
from across TVDSB and they participate with many
community members like we forestland and quite a
few others and we call the ESA
our outdoor classroom. On behalf of the students
that I've been teaching here
for seven years many of them have reached out
with its concern and I've
just kind of compiled some of their ideas
together and I have a couple of
students that will follow me. London must move
quickly to address its housing
crisis but not at the expense of and irreplace
able natural systems. The lands
As at 845-75, Commissioners Road East set
adjacent to provincially significant wetlands
and an active beaver pond that support Carolinian
species already under severe pressure from
habitat loss and urban sprawl.
These landscapes have been identified and
protected for good reason.
The proposal to introduce four 14-story apartment
towers and over 850 units on this sensitive
site is simply too intensive.
It risks the loss of an entire wetland complex,
increasing flooding, through greater overland
flow, and long-term damage to biodiversity, clean
water, and natural corridors that our
community depends on.
Introducing well over 1,000 residents, their
vehicles, and their recreational activities
to this location is environmentally irresponsible
.
London has many alternatives.
Numerous vacant and underutilized brownfield
sites exist across a city that would allow
us to meet housing goals through intensification,
filling in and building up without encroaching
on provincially significant wetlands. Housing can
and should be built where ecological harm
is minimal. I strongly propose that this site be
zoned as open space, supporting gentle,
accessible viewing platforms that allow residents
to appreciate and steward the existing wetlands
rather than erase them. If housing on this site
is deemed unavoidable, it must be significantly
skilled back to medium density forms with
meaningful setbacks and protection of wetland
complexes.
London's climate emergency action plan and the
London Plan clearly commit us to protecting
and strengthening our natural heritage system. As
a city that prides itself on innovation and
leadership, London should not only uphold these
commitments, but consider tightening protections
for our environmentally significant areas,
including Westminster ponds, metal lily,
Medway and others. These landscapes are essential
to biodiversity, climate resilience, community
well-being, intensification, intensified housing,
development adjacent to these locations should
be minimized going forward. Other jurisdictions
are moving forward by celebrating and safegu
arding
net nature through the creation of national urban
parks. Places that protect ecosystems,
support climate adaptation, and general community
pride, tourism, and long-term economic value.
London should be leading in this space, not er
oding the very natural assets that make our city
resilient and livable.
Growth and environmental stewardship are not
opposing goals, but that balance begins by
recognizing that some places are simply too
valuable to sacrifice.
Mayor and Chamber, thank you for listening to my
words.
Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please
, ma'am, give us your name in five minutes.
My name is Rebecca Deering and I am a grade 10
student speaking on behalf of the H3ELP
Environmental Leadership Program. Today's
decision is more about, is more than zoning.
It is about whether we prioritize short-term
development or long-term protection of a
sensitive
ecosystem that serves the entire community. I
also want to acknowledge that there is a housing
crisis in London and that increasing housing
supply is important. However, this specific
location
is not an appropriate place to address that need
given its direct connection to an environmentally
significant area and a provincially significant
wetland. I am here to oppose the rezoning of 845
to 875 Commissioners Road East to allow for 14-
story apartment buildings and instead urge
you to designate this land as open space. While
this site may appear vacant, it directly borders
an environmentally significant area and a provin
cially significant wetland. These areas are
designated
to protect sensitive ecosystems and the species
that depend on them. This includes species such
as
killed here, native plant species like snowdrops
and turtles such as the midland painted turtle
and snapping turtle. Both considered species
under special concern. These species are already
vulnerable and habitat loss or disturbance can
quickly push them toward threatened or endangered
status. The ESA also supports over 200 bird
species including the at-risk wood thrush.
Development of this scale introduces risks such
as bird window collisions and increased light
pollution, which can disrupt the migratory
patterns. It also increases sediment and
construction
runoff entering the wetland, reducing water
quality and damaging habitat for amphibians
and invertebrates. In addition, this site lies
within a floodplain under the Upper Thames River
Conservation Authority. Increasing paved and
built-up space surfaces reduces
natural water absorption and increases storm
water runoff. This raises the risk
of flooding while also carrying pollutants such
as oil, metals, and
sediment into the wetland system. These impacts
do not remain confined to the
development site. Once development occurs at the
edge of an ESA, ecological
effects extend beyond the boundary line. This
decision is not just about one
development. It is about whether we protect the
integrity of these ecosystems
or allow gradual encroachment that weakens them
over time. I urge you to reject
this rezoning proposal and protect this land as
open space. Thank you. Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker. Please ma'am,
give us your name, you know, five
minutes. Okay, hello. I'm Violet Smith and I am
here today to speak on behalf of
of the grade 10 H3 ELP Environmental Leadership
Program.
This program is located at Westminster Pawns.
Every day my classmates and I go to Westminster P
awns
to learn about how to better protect the ESA
in all of its biodiversity.
I don't just visit the ESA for school though.
I often go to Westminster Pawns with my family.
We often go on long hikes and are able to spend
quality time together in nature.
I know I speak for a lot of people in this room.
When I say I am very grateful for being able to
walk
around a beautiful forest
and feel connected to nature in this way.
I want to be able to show my future family
all of the beauty of a healthy, protected place.
Westminster Pawns isn't your average forest.
It's also unique.
Southwestern Ontario is one of a few places in
the world
that has Carolinian forests.
A Carolinian forest is a biodiversity hotspot
and can hold up to 25% of Canada's species at
risk.
As you've heard, we are opposed to the apartment
's
development that encroaches onto the ESA. However
, we also understand that there is a
housing crisis in London. So I'm here today
looking for a way to mitigate some of the factors
that will impact the environment. Once the
apartments are built, there will be a huge loss
in biodiversity, a lot more litter being blown
onto the Bieber pond, as well as having runoff
from the parking garage and a lot more foot
traffic creating trails through animal habitats.
So, I would like to suggest some ways to possibly
lessen the amount of biodiversity and habitat
destruction.
If large bushes are added along the edge of the
buffer zone, it will discourage people from
walking through the ESA.
Large bushes as well as more green space for
people to be outdoors will help soak up some of
the water that will be experienced because the
apartments are currently zoned on a floodplain.
If the number of apartments gets decreased to 2
instead of 4, there will be less litter being
thrown into the ESA and less parking needed,
which will help with the large amounts of runoff
that will pollute the beaver pond.
If the buck forgets enlargened, leaving more of
the ESA protected, this will help decrease
the amount of habitat destruction. A viewing
platform can also be added beside the ESA,
so people who are unable to walk the trails are
still able to appreciate the natural beauty that
it holds. In conclusion, we are opposed to
building on a plot of land that is meant to be
protected.
But if the bill is inevitable, we would like to
help work to lessen the harm inflicted onto our
beautiful ESA. Thank you. Thank you. Pollock for
the next speaker. Please go ahead. You have
five minutes. Hello. My name is Amy Schultz and I
have lived in East London for about six years now
,
but I travel all over London and I particularly
enjoy green spaces. I am low income and I have
struggled with housing insecurity, a struggle
that is all too familiar to so many Londoners
in recent years. I am also one of few people that
I have met in my years in the city that
is in love with it. Despite my love for London, I
have never had much of a taste for its nickname,
the Forest City. It would seem to be a misnomer
to any who see the city as it stands today.
There are still forested areas in the city, but
far too few, and we are here today discussing
whether it is worth money to destroy further our
irreplaceable natural resources and habitats.
It is about money to be clear. Londoners of
course need places to live. But with a current
unemployment rate of nearly 10%, the highest in
the country, and thousands homeless or housing
insecure, the last thing this city needs is to
destroy a scarce public good and replace it
with something we have in excess of already. Pse
udo-luxury high-rise apartments that will
not be rent stabilized, never mind affordable,
run by companies that can afford to build
elsewhere.
I am not opposed to high rises and upwards growth
. I think they are essential to city development.
However, there are plots of land available
already stripped of nature in this city
available for projects such as this. And despite
the supposed plans to mitigate the damage to
habitats for the sensitive and at-risk species
residing in this area, there is no replacement
for what is already there. It is an act of
ecological violence on its inhabitants.
The effects of this rezoning will spread beyond
the boundaries of the buildings.
The noise and light pollution alone are hostility
against the animals.
They may never return to Westminster Pawns again.
Building upon and damaging green space is not the
answer to the housing crisis in London.
It is not giving the people in this city what
they need.
What we need is rent stabilization and affordable
housing.
What we need is zoning of currently workable land
into apartment housing,
not building more outrageously expensive town
houses and single family homes.
The answer to our problems is not to further des
ecrate
irreplaceable, beautiful, and sensitive land
in animals for corporate profits.
Please do not approve this build,
or if nothing else, please decrease the scale.
There are so few beautiful areas of London left.
We do not need to burn down what little remains
of the forced city to keep corporate landlords
warm.
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
- Good afternoon, my name is Maitland Shaw, I'm
at grade 12.
- Okay, thank you, please go ahead, you have five
minutes.
- Hi, my name is Maitlyn Shaw.
I'm a grade 12 student at Medway High School
and a graduate of the TVDSB Environmental
Leadership Program.
I would just like to thank, over here,
we have David Wake, Mr. Tran Pleasure, Brendan
Samuels.
These are pioneers in conservation
that have been doing this for a very long time
and I definitely stand on their shoulders being
here today.
I would also like to thank you
for upholding London's climate emergency action
plan,
Section 7-1-C by having that climate lens as we
regard these issues and in considering
all the statements of the people in opposition to
the commissioner's East property.
I stand against this proposal.
I think that it should be maintained as open
space.
The Westminster Pawns area is the largest
environmentally significant area in London.
It is an absolute treasure hosting tons of
biodiversity.
It is essential for flood attenuation.
It's essential for climate change mitigation.
And it is a gem.
And it is what makes our city the forest city or
tries
to be that anyway.
Another point to consider is our provincial
promise.
This is close to this property borders
of provincially significant wetland.
and in section four of natural heritage
of the provincial planning statement,
we are not allowed to build on those properties
and I understand that the developer underwent
environmental assessment and it was determined
there were no risks there,
but we did not consider section four one and four
one two
which consider four one and four one and four one
two
which consider the long-term consequences
of a development like that,
including the connectivity of an area.
And I think by having four apartment buildings
right there close to the ESA,
we are restricting nature's access
to the environmentally significant area.
And we know that there are 265 species in Ontario
that are at risk.
Since, in the past 30 years, there's been a 15%
decline
in species at Westminster Pond specifically.
And it is a very vulnerable population.
I understand the developer mentioned in their
justification
that they were going to propose ecological
buffers,
as well as a reconstruction of a pond
that they're taking apart.
But the ecosystem is just too fragile
to undergo that in the time that we need it
and the benefits of having that environmental
significant
wetland preserved definitely outweigh the
benefits
of supporting that housing,
which might not accommodate many people
in the current economy.
So I would just like to say that if we consider
this
in the context of the municipal,
a government in the context of the provincial
government,
but also in the context of the federal government
,
that if we ever hope to maintain that COP 15,
30 by 30 target, 30% of our lands protected by
2030,
we need to model that on a municipal level.
and it starts with making decision now.
Your decision has a tangible impact
on the future of Westminster Paws and the future
of all kids
who go there to play on all people that go there
to hike
and expect to hear an avian population that is
sustained,
that in sea monarch butterflies that can benefit
from the milkweed and the golden rod and the a
sters
that will be there if we do not build in this
area.
So please do maintain this area that's proposed
on Commissioners East as open space.
It is in your hands, I'm proud to live in London,
but at the same time, I would hope
that you can fuel that pride
and live up to the name of the forest city, so
thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
Please ma'am, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- Hi everyone, my name is Alexandra,
and I wanna thank everybody for the time
to listen to me speak about this potential
of zoning bylaw amendment.
I'm an ecologist who has worked across Canada
for the last 10 years of my life.
During that time, I have worked alongside
environmental monitoring projects
similar to what is being proposed
the development by Auburn developments. A large
part of the conversation that is missing in these
developments is that these developments do not
happen in a vacuum. The increased pressure on the
area is not limited to the footprint of the
development. Rather, the impacts radiate out and
unintentional impacts routinely happen post-
development. Land developers work and think in
pockets of land
without understanding the interconnectedness of
the work that they are proposing. While this
development would provide additional housing, it
would also create additional trash and other
anthropogenic impacts in the surrounding
provincial significant wetland and
environmentally significant
area. We are rapidly losing wetlands across North
America and this development would be one more
cut
in the thousands that the land has felt already.
If those in attendance today do not know wetlands
are one of the best carbon sinks available to us
but they are often viewed as empty land that is
serving no other purpose than development
potential. The proposed development will be
negatively
impacting London's only listed cultural heritage
landscape. This area has also been noted to
have a rich archaeological significance that has
been used since at least 2,500 years before
present. Thinking closer to our modern time, this
land is encouraged naturalist in support
of the growth of London itself as the site of the
Westminster Pond Centre, which functioned
as an administrative building and will hopefully
function as a future centre for environment
and sustainability. Staying in the common era, we
are currently experiencing the six major
extinction event on Earth, which studies have
repeatedly found to be purely human caused.
There must be considerations for the species that
we share this line with, and who have
called the Westminster Pawns home for generations
.
The increased anthropogenic impacts, including
noise, outdoor cats, pollution, invasive species
brought in on the heavy machinery used to develop
the site, and trash will place undue
burden on this urban wild space that is already
under enormous pressure.
As previously stated, this is a provincially
significant wetland and is home to many listed
species who are losing their habitats year over
year.
There are many more appropriate spaces
to consider development, especially when
taking into account the inherent engineering
problems that
come with developing wetlands, including
having to drain the development area,
and then somehow keep water out of a place where
it wants to be.
London is supposed to be the forest city
according to the vast amount of marketing
information that
is produced by the city.
In fact, the city received the designation
as a 2026 forest capital of Canada on February 25
, 2026.
This project stands in opposition to that slogan,
and I hope that the committee makes a decision
that is more
aligned with the tagline on their merch.
During my time trying to research the development
on Google,
I found this report to the planning and
environmental
committee that has been predated with today's
date
in the executive summary states that, quote,
"staff are recommending approval to the requested
zoning
bylaw with special provisions to implement the
proposed
development, holding provisions to ensure
necessary updates
to the environmental impact statement and
compensation
strategy, access to the municipal sewer
and methane gas study to be completed
through a future site plan, unquote.
The document goes on to fit to further link this
to the quote's corporate strategic plan,
which states that this development fits
within the strategic plan by quote,
ensuring London's growth and development
and its well planned and considers use, intensity
and form.
This same document states that quote,
the submitted EIS is insufficient to deem it
acceptable.
This EIS is not visible to the public.
Furthermore, I could not find any archaeological
assessments
for the area, how have recommendations been put
forward
to approve the zoning change
without a full misunderstanding of the impacts of
the site?
I wanna be clear, I do not disagree with
development.
I just think that if we are marching forward
with high density at building,
we should be careful of where we are placing our
feet
so that a reparable harm does not occur.
Moreover, it is well understood in my line of
work
that offset and compensation plans are a drop in
the bucket
compared to an already functioning habitat
and that they function more as a pay-to-play
access
for developers.
There are currently hundreds of unaffordable
rental units
available within London.
There is opportunity to work with property owners
to lower these costs rather than continuing
to market units that are temporarily affordable
before falling out of reach for most people.
Additionally, there are hundreds of hectares
of golf courses, brown fields, and vacant lots
that would be much more appropriate for
development
as they've already been significantly impacted.
The people here today have the ability
to reconsider this development,
beginning with, at minimum, a more thorough,
multi-season environmental impact statement
and a clean equipment protocol required by the
developer
before additional considerations are made for
this project.
We only have so much nature left,
and the impacts to even small parts
of urbanized landscapes are in this proposal.
- 30 seconds.
- To conclude, you open this meeting
with the land acknowledgement.
You acknowledge that we benefit from the land,
but you do not see the benefits it supplies to us
,
just as it is.
I implore you to consider the whole ecosystem
impacts
and do your due diligence not to only think of it
,
and not to only think of it as one point on a map
.
I urge you to reject the proposal.
Thank you for your time.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
Please go ahead, you have five minutes.
- Good afternoon, my name is Wendy Stone
and I am a resident of 860, Commissioner's Road
East,
the property that is across the street
from the proposed development site.
First, I would like to commend the speakers
that have gone before me.
They've covered a lot of the ground
for which I wish I could have spoken
and which I know is supported by very many people
.
On that note, I would like to say
that I know another citizen, private citizen,
from the building in which I reside,
has put forth a letter to the city
and has attached a petition
with close to 200 signatures opposing this
development.
On that note, I'm choosing to focus specifically
on one area of the assessment that has done that
I have read.
And that is the transportation impact assessment
which I read.
The assessment that showed, as is done,
basically came up with a failing grade
as the situation currently exists.
From my understanding of the reading,
there's something called an LOS, a level of
service,
and it is graded from A to F.
Most of the assessments,
and the, can't think of the word at the moment,
but the ratings for those fell into the DEF
category,
which means the current structure for
transportation
is already failing.
- Well, I have looked on the site you have
or on the proposal.
There's a figure 2.1 that shows the particular
area
between Adelaide Street and Wellington Road,
with proposed traffic lights on there,
in particular areas where they think the traffic
from 900 parking spaces can be accommodated
in the current 16 traffic,
which I say is near impossible.
I think it looks good on paper
where these proposed traffic lights could be,
but that has nothing to do with the lived reality
of being on Commissioner's Road.
For starters, we have the hospital next door,
which again, as in previous statements,
I wonder whether the hospital has actually been
addressed
about the services that could possibly be
impacted
by this development site,
mainly ambulance services,
which I already watched from my balcony,
being slowed down because of train tracks,
because of traffic, because of the impact
of the busyness on Commissioner's Road.
Shift changes at the hospital happen.
There is a road that is not shown on the figure,
or there is an emerging, it is not shown as
significant
on the figure 2.1 on the plan that you have
that is just slightly east of Wellington Road.
It is a exit from the hospital that merges on to
commissioners.
Unless you live there, you do not know that that
merging,
which looks very innocent on a map,
and should perhaps allow people to get out easily
,
can back traffic up from Wellington Road to Count
ies,
Counties, what's it called?
Counties Western Counties Road and beyond closer
down to Adelaide.
As the traffic is trying to merge into the
existing traffic,
that already comes out.
That happens a couple of times a day with shift
changes.
On top of that, we have a railway line
that is just a short spit away
between the proposed development site
and Adelaide Street, three or four times a day,
trains there, we'll back up the eastbound traffic
,
going close again, back towards the hospital.
So there are already existing traffic congestion
periods
which make it impossible for people to move along
that area.
As I said, the ambulance traffic I have watched
with the trains,
the ambulances have to find a way to get around
the blocked tracks already, much less through the
traffic.
So the impact of 900 parking units
800 more people in that area from the
environmental impacts that these fine
folks have already mentioned makes it an
absolutely ridiculous situation for
traffic. Again, the hospital is right there. I
don't know if the hospital has
had any input, probably not. I've worked in
hospitals. They have a lot of other
things to consider than this sort of thing, but I
would encourage again somebody
to reach out to the hospital and say how does
this impact the emergency services
that are constantly going into VIC and I live
there so I see the ambulance is
going by. The fire trucks go by. So on that note
then I will close and say I
strongly oppose this development for many many
reasons. My particular choice was
to look at the traffic but I support the other
speakers that have spoken
already. Thank you. Thank you. I'll look for the
next speaker. Please give us your
name in five minutes. Hi, I'm Brenda Machit, a
long-term resident of 860
Commissioners Road. I will state the traffic
study. I don't think is gonna be
very accurate as there's new builds happening now
right on, sorry, the
north side of commissioners that will impact
traffic even more than what's
happening. As a person that watches out my window
quite a bit, I see a lot of a
a lot of wildlife that will no longer be coming
through,
which is part of the environmental, sorry,
part of that study.
Also, I see flooding on a constant basis
in the field across the road,
and I don't know how they will mitigate that
from happening, stopping,
because there is a creek that flows along
and it heads north up Adelaide anyways.
So just to support everybody who's spoken against
the project,
which I will say that I do not support the
project as it is.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
Look for the next speaker.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Good afternoon, members of the committee,
visiting counselors, Mayor Morgan.
Want to begin by thanking everybody
for showing up today and participating in the
process.
And I want to also thank a city staff
for making themselves available to meet with me
and answer some questions.
Probably not surprising that I'm not particularly
happy
about this development. If I were in your shoes,
I probably would vote to deny the application
on principle. However, that being said, I
recognize there's not much the city can really
do here, given the previous settlement agreement
and the likelihood that a refusal would be
taken up again with the Ontario Land Tribunal.
And so with that in mind, I would recommend
it to the circumstances that you should adopt the
staff recommendation in full, including
all of the holding provisions that the staff
recommended. I have a comment and a couple
questions. It is problematic to me that the
environmental impact study that was
submitted for this application is incomplete,
which staff noted in their
report. Frankly, in my opinion, that EIS was
poorly done and there are
numerous gaps. The various mitigation that the E
IS recommends does not appear to
align with the city's policies. So, for example,
we have a proper standard for
bird safe building design, which we've heard a
lot about today from the gallery.
In fact, Council adopted the following motion
moved by the deputy mayor in
January 2024. "The CSA A460 standard be used as a
reference by staff in building design and
construction." Of course, this is voluntary, but
it's a technical reference. It guides recommended
best practices. Yet with this application, and so
many others like it, the applicants and their
consultants don't make reference to what the city
is requesting and standardly using. Recommend
ation
47 of the EIS talks about all kinds of design
measures to prevent birds in the ESA from being
and killed by colliding with the buildings,
but several of these actions are not effective
and are not aligned with that standard
already adopted by a council resolution.
That standard isn't referenced here anywhere.
So this makes me wonder how seriously
the development community takes
any of this public feedback and requests from the
city.
For what it's worth, I've not seen a single
development
in London voluntarily comply with the standard
since council adopted it over two years ago.
And so this brings me to my first question.
Given the EIS included with this file
in the staff recommendation, moving forward,
can developers submit an incomplete application
with a half-baked EIS and still get a conditional
approval?
This doesn't seem consistent
with the city's environmental management
guidelines.
My second question pertains to site planning
and the impacts of bill 98.
In the staff recommendation, clause B says
the site plan approval authority be requested
to consider the following design issues
through the site plan process.
Importantly, for the public to understand,
requesting is not the same thing as requiring.
Bill 98 is being debated at second reading
at the provincial legislature right now.
Moving forward, if this bill passes,
the public and the municipality will have even
less control
over developments like this beyond the zoning
stage.
Londoners are represented at Queens Park by
Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Rob Flack,
who is championing this bill.
Unfortunately, he hasn't responded
to a single email I've sent over the years
to express my concerns about the province of
meddling
in our local land use planning.
And I suspect the situation is gonna become
even more difficult.
And so my second question is,
if this zoning application is approved today
with the holding provisions and the
recommendations
or requests, what would the implications be
of bill 98 getting passed,
given the proposed changes to the scope
of site plan control?
To close, please ensure these holding provisions
are reflected in your decision.
This will give all parties more time to figure
out
how this development can proceed
with sufficient mitigation that aligns with the
city
and conservation authorities' recommendations.
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
go ahead you have five minutes. My name is Anna
Muir Milastro. So again the
environmental impact study was not attached to
the staff report that so the
public could read it and the decision makers
could read it and make the best
decision they can. The applicant has not
committed to having bird-friendly
windows or planting native species. You haven't
made that commitment today even
though you you boasted about how you're swapping
lands and things like that but
that was very absent in your presentation.
The other thing is that environmental impact
studies
are woefully defective.
With high rises, they don't measure the impacts
of lighting
on the natural system.
It doesn't measure lighting on nocturnal species.
And it doesn't measure the impact of a massive
parking lot
that wildlife would have to traverse,
plus it gets lit all night long.
there's no rationale given why it's a surface
parking lot other than it's cheaper than building
an underground parking lot under the actual
buildings so that you can plant trees on the
perimeter of those buildings because you can't
plant trees over an underground parking lot.
None of that was addressed. My guess is none of
it was addressed in the environmental impact
study
and even that study wasn't complete and somewhere
there has to be a way to hold a developer
accountable. And this committee has that ability
to not accept this until an
environmental impact study is completed until it
addresses the impacts of lighting,
surface parking loss, and 900 people coming and
going right on the edge of an
unperventionally significant wetland. And the
other thing is that you cannot
replicate a wetland. You can put a hole in the
ground with, you know, with heavy
equipment. You can move earth and then fill it up
with water. That is not a wetland. That
is a hole in the ground with water that you've
put in there. A wetland is a very sophisticated
ecosystem. That's why they're protected. That's
why they can't be replicated. I encourage this
committee to deny the extra height on this
building and send this back until the
environmental impact
study is completed and that is where the city has
some ability to shape this
development and also if it has the ability to
bring it down it should it's
the intensity of the building not whether
something can go there or not
okay it has nothing to do with it being farmland
at one time in history it's
the intensity of the building that people are
opposing so wherever this
committee or council has the ability to bring
down the intensity including
lighting and surface parking lots. That's where
they should be looking to
ensure that whatever goes in there has minimal
impact on the natural system.
Thank you. Thank you. I'll look for the next
speaker. I understand there's someone
online. Miguel, can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, thank
you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah,
please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you
. Yeah, thank you, Chair and the
on the committee as well for allowing me to speak
today.
So my name is Miguel Belcina,
and I wanted to express my opposition
to the proposed bylaw amendment
and the overall proposed development.
So as a frequent visitor to the city's ESAs,
such as Westminster Ponds,
I'm deeply concerned about the condition
of the city's natural green spaces.
This proposed development will have a negative
impact
to the provincially significant wetland
and environmentally significant areas,
directly adjacent to development.
This area is not only beneficial to wildlife
that live and breed in the area,
but to the many Londoners who visit the area as
well.
There's extensive research that shows the
benefits
of wetlands from flood prevention,
cleaning our air and boosting local diversity,
as well as health benefits and social benefits
for being in nature with friends.
The building of the four,
the building of four 14-story high rises
and large paved parking lots so close to the PSW
and USA
do not adequately leave a buffer that ensures
there's no
negative impact to the ecology of this ec
ologically
sensitive area.
This plan is a fitting example of the shifting
baseline syndrome
that we continue to fall into, where
we continue to move the baseline on what we
consider
as conservation or protecting the environment
in the wrong direction.
We continue shrinking our ecologically sensitive
areas.
And eventually, the new baseline will
be there is no ecologically sensitive area.
The holding provisions in section 4.7 of the plan
report
also do not adequate to protecting the ecology of
the area.
The completed impact study that was mentioned in
the report
recommended buffers and mitigation measures to be
made.
I believe the proposed plan fails to achieve this
effective
buffer or mitigation development is only meters
away
from the ecologically sensitive area.
In the proposed drawings, you could see the ponds
,
which will be within feet of development
that's not paved over by the parking space areas.
So this will displace the many wildlife in area
and impact how the public enjoys the area.
So I respectfully ask the committee
to reconsider this by-law zoning amendment
request
and development, thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Hi, my name is Darlene
and I moved to London from Mississauga about 10
years ago.
I live in Black Friars area and I love London.
When I first moved here, it was like,
oh my God, it's so green here.
You walk the ESA's, you see people photographing
owls
and just like all this wildlife and now I'm a nut
for it.
But I think if we care about our ESA's
that we need to properly protect and support the
spaces
that we have, especially with the city wanting
to have 33% tree canopy.
interesting. I saw a satellite image recently of
London and really the canopy is the ESA's
and along the rivers where you really see that
dark green space. So I thought that was kind
of interesting. So it seems like development is
happening and if it is, I think we need
to put some safeguards into play. I want to make
sure that nothing moves ahead until there's
a clear plan in place to properly protect the
surrounding environment with the consultation
of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
If we can't stop it, I think we can make sure
that it's done right.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I'll look for our next speaker.
So, Clerk, if there's anyone else online, there's
no one online, I don't see anyone
else approach the mic.
So, I'll look for motion to close the PPM, Coun
cillor Cutty, I'll look for a seconder,
Mayor.
We'll call the vote.
The motion carries.
March is zero.
Okay.
I'll put this out for committee members and I'll
go to Mayor Morgan.
chair just wanted to tell myself. So I'm willing
to put a motion on the floor
which is an alternate motion to what the staff
suggested. It has several
additions. One, it addresses the 1.5 meter
setback concern that would allow
for the design to be a more affordable design as
the developer suggested. I also
don't have a challenge with the the difference
between the indoor and
outdoor rooftop amenities and the way that it's
counted. So the alternate bylaw
addresses that and allows for that. It adds two
pieces to the site plan approval direction one
and these are for consideration of the site plan
process they're not requirements but
consideration landscaping to include a minimum of
50 percent native species with no invasive
species planted and utilize bird friendly
policies using the adopted CSA standard which we
put in
other applications before for site plan approval
otherwise it's as staff recommended with those
those changes, I'll put that on the floor.
- Okay, Claire, do you have that up?
And, okay, so if everyone gets a chance,
so you can see the motion.
And I'll look for a seconder once we've had time
to rate it.
Councillor Cudi, second that motion, Chair.
Okay, Mayor, do you wanna speak to it?
- I do, I'm sorry, my clock now, Chair.
I'm gonna take some time to address this
because I'm sure there are members of the gallery
who stood up and said, listen, we really trust Mr
. Wake
Mr. Samuels and you're probably sitting there
wondering why they recommend us
approving the development as constituted by staff
. So I just really want to
explain this because I don't disagree with a lot
of the concerns have been
raised but people have to understand the reality
of the situation it is today and
what the current permissions are on the land.
First it's important to recognize
that there's already an approved plan of
subdivision on this site which means
without coming to council and just going to site
plan authority there could be a
a significant residential build on the site, a
build on the site already, yes, not residential
but a plan of subdivision build on the site
already. So the rezoning application allows
us to actually make some changes to what is
already approved there. When you look at the
actual zoning on the site, there is one small
piece of open space otherwise it's a significant
commercial zone and a massive light industrial
zone and the light industrial zone is in the
the furthest south portion of the block.
It is a huge amount of development
that overlays most of the area
that people were expressing their concern about.
What the development does is, yes, it allows for
some density.
Yes, it changes it from light industrial and
commercial
to a smaller block of land on that site
tucked up against a commissioner's road
and more to the west side of the block
away from the existing ESA.
And then it donates a huge portion
that formerly light industrial and commercial
land to the city to actually
expand to protect the ESA forever. So I
understand the concerns and I
understand why people would say just don't
approve it but the reality of
today is the site can be developed in a way that
you probably would disagree
with more and if there's an opportunity for us to
absorb a good portion of the
site through a development agreement that allows
for some density into the
city's hands and expand the ESA and protect that
portion of it that's
transfer to the city forever, that's not a bad
pathway moving forward if you care about
the long-term protection of the ESA.
One piece I want to mention to Mr. Wake, he didn
't mention it in his comments, but he
did mention it in his letter, there's also an
interesting history on this site, going
back to when it was Westminster Township, and I
totally agree with Mr. Wake, there might
be some interesting placking here about the
history of that through maybe the historic
Worksites Committee of the London Public Library,
I'd be happy to talk to you about that in
a future date.
I think there is some recognition of some history
on that site there that wouldn't be
part of this zoning process, but it's something
that might be interesting to add to the site.
I'm sure the applicant would be interested in
recognizing it on a portion of the property
somewhere.
So, all that to say, I think I'm very much a prag
matist, right, and I can agree with
a lot of what members of the gallery said, but
also recognize that there are other really
intelligent members of the gallery who share your
opinions, who are asking us to go with
the staff recommendation.
And I'm trying to articulate the reasons for that
so that you really understand it.
To my colleagues on council, I think that this is
a proposal that balances some intensification
and housing.
And there are many people in the audience who
said we recognize we have a housing crisis
that is steps from the under-constructed BRT
route, very close to major employment centers
in the city like the hospital and we have the
opportunity to absorb and expand the ESA
and take on a series of sensitive lands into a
city ownership without having to pay a tremendous
cost for acquiring them through a private process
, but as part of the development process we can
take on and make that part of the city's property
. So I think this is actually a very balanced
proposal that is on par in the best interests of
both the city and its residents to be able to
to expand to protect the ESA while at the same
time
addressing housing.
Again, I just want to be clear.
We have to make decisions based on what
is already allowed on the site, too,
and what can move forward without us.
When there is an opportunity for us
to shift that through a new development
application,
there's always opportunity for us to add a public
good to this.
And I think our staff have done an excellent job
of saying, you want to intensify this site from
what's
already allowed on it?
That's OK.
We can do that.
That aligns with the number of our policies.
But we actually want to take on a significant
portion
of the sensitive lands into city ownership
so that we can protect them in perpetuity.
So I wanna commend our staff for going down that
approach.
I know that a number of members of the gallery
were asking us not to do this,
but I would invite you to look into this,
speak with the two people who are in the gallery
who articulated for us to do this
and the reasons why I'm happy to engage with you
too.
And I know our staff are as well
to further understand why we would do this
if we agree with many of your comments
about protecting the ESA.
So I think I'll leave my comments at that, Mr.
Chair,
and I encourage staff to support my alternate
recommendation.
Our Councillors to support my alternate
recommendation.
- Thank you.
I'll look for members of the committee,
comments and visiting Councillors.
Councillor Trusson.
- If I understand it through the chair,
we're just discussing the amendment.
We're not discussing the main motion or.
- This is a motion that has been put on the floor
.
- Okay, I can't support this.
I just can't support this.
And I have the greatest respect for people who
have said,
We've got to go ahead with the holding provisions
.
We don't, we don't.
First question, is there anything in the
memorandum
of understanding from the previous LPAT decision
that says we do not have to go through the EIS
process?
- I'll go staff.
- Through the chair, the settlement decision
established the ESA boundary line.
The specific language within the settlement notes
that
parties, that there's nothing that contained in
them,
that shall limit or restrict normal exercise
direction for city staff on new applications.
And we do note that, however, we do have
consideration
for the existing settlement ESA boundary deline
ation.
And through the holding provisions
that we are proposing to carry forward in the
site plan,
we do believe that we will be able to satisfy
the new application components
by including compensation within the ESA lands.
As the mayor mentioned, we are increasing the
amount
of open space in OS5 zoning as well as green
space
to the effect of approximately three hectares.
And beyond that, we are meeting all of our PPS
requirements
and again, feel that it can be appropriately
satisfied
with the holding provisions through site plan.
- Well, my question was merely whether there was
anything
in the, what we've been directed to do
that says you don't have to do a full EIS
and I take it the answer to that is we still have
to do
the EIS. And Steph did say it was pointed out by
a few people in the audience that the
EIS was unacceptable, incomplete, and needs more
information. So I'd like to ask specifically,
in order to make the EIS complete, acceptable,
and not needing more information, what has
to be done to it.
>> Good stuff.
>> Through the chair, the completeness component
that we noted as part of our report was to
to ensure that in perpetuity and moving forward
through our policy, we would not be accepting EIS
s
that don't include revisions to map five.
So again, through the settlement,
we established the EIS boundary,
but the specific components of the ESA
that would appear on map five,
including significant woodlands,
the various wetland components that are not PSWs,
those pieces, those are complete application
requirements,
and we do have London Plan policy to require that
.
However, we do note that a blank map that
says map five revisions would satisfy that
component.
And then through this process and bringing the
applications
forward to council and committee,
we are able to disagree with the process,
but at least have a map to say to demonstrate,
this is what you're proposing.
This is what we believe that should be happening
based
on the findings of the EIS.
So it would just be that map five component.
- Thank you, Councilor.
- If I made the statement that I'm trying to get
to the bottom of what are the policy reasons
underlying the EIS requirement?
'Cause I think that's crucial to this discussion.
Because on the one hand, we have a lot of reasons
why we have to move forward with this.
We can sort of solve all of our problems
with holding provisions or site plan review.
But the EIS serves as a document that should
happen
early in the process.
The EIS should not be something that is left
till after the fact.
After the fact, it's not finished yet,
but we're gonna sort of put a holding provision
in
to make sure it gets finished.
And when I read through some of the guideline
documents
in some of the other cities, such as,
and I don't have time to go through all these
in my five minutes, but Hamilton's, Ottawa's,
wealth, there's more specific language in those
guideline
documents that makes the specific point that the
EIS
has a framework document.
And it has to come early in the process.
So I analogize saying, well, you know, the EIS
still needs
work, but we'll fix it.
In site plan review, we'll fix it.
In a holding provision, I think that's a little
bit like
building a structure that has a faulty foundation
.
But you'll say, well, the painters will fix
everything later.
Maybe they'll put a little spackle in some of the
holes.
We need to have a proper and complete and lawful
EIS
before we proceed.
I will be asking, and that's why what I would
want to say
would be contrary to that.
I would be voting against that.
Before we even get to that point,
I want to see a complete and certifiable EIS on
the table.
And the question I would ask is legal staff here?
Okay, so the question I would ask legal staff is,
what is the requirement for a complete accepted E
IS
in terms of the validity of a project?
Can a project be opposed on the grounds
that the EIS was not complete?
- Oh God, staff.
- Thank you, and through you,
so the determination as to whether to accept the
EIS
or as complete or not would be up to staff
during the application review.
And I expect that their test is PPS consistency.
- Councilor, I understand that.
And my question is, what is the remedy of the
wrong?
Would an aggrieved party who does not agree with
the EIS
be able to have a remedy to test the validity of
the EIS?
I'll go and stop.
- Thank you, and through you that would be
explored
through the council approval process.
And then also potentially subsequently
through an appeal process.
- Councilor.
- Thank you.
We're in the council approval process right now.
So I'm trying to ask the question again.
What is the implication of having an EIS
that is not complete or up to standards?
Could that jeopardize the subsequent appeals?
Would it agree if party have the ability
to test the validity of the EIS?
- Got to go ahead and stop.
- Thank you, through you.
So Council right now is assessing the opinion
with respect to the EIS.
If Council's opinion is that the EIS is deficient
,
then a refusal would follow.
And if Council believes that the EIS is fine,
then an approval would follow.
- Council is already, Steph has already written
through the chair, Steph is, I'm speaking fast
'cause I know Steph has already said in the
report
that the EIS as it stands right now,
which was dated back in September,
does not meet standards and it needs more
information and it's deficient.
So why would this council not feel satisfied
saying we are going to, unless we can get
an extension from the developer to not go to the
El Papagos of the time running out and
we're going to refer this back pending the
completion of an EIS.
Why would this council not just say the EIS by
the staff's own analysis is deficient.
We're going to deny this project, and of course,
that's without prejudice for the developer
coming back with the proper EIS, once those
deficiencies.
30 seconds, Councillor.
So I'm going to ask for additional time because I
have a number of questions, but could you
answer that one?
I'm sorry.
I didn't catch that?
Yeah.
I'll just take that last question from Steph.
Okay.
All right.
I'll look for Councillor.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought you missed it.
I'm sorry, Councillor.
would this council not just say we're with the
the staff has said the EIS is
deficient and we have to like not approve it at
this point and they need to come
back with a complete EIS why would that not be
okay I'm not too sure that you're
saying you're asking rhetorical question why
council would not in a
certain way I'm not sure staff can comment on
that well if the staff is
already admitted that these that the EIS is
deficient I don't think it's a
rhetorical question and I really think that we're
running we're running in
to some very potentially perilous situations here
.
I don't want to get dragged into a closed session
,
but I think we could be looking at some
additional litigation
if we are not careful about making sure
that this EIS is appropriate and complete
before we finish this process.
I will say more about this at the council.
I will have an alternative motion at the table,
but I think we need to have a proper EIS on the
table,
not something that's gonna get fixed
by a conditioned subsequent,
but something that is precedent to this project
approval.
- Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Frye.
- Thank you, and I just have a couple questions
through the chair.
I'm wondering if staff can comment on
if the previously approved application is better
or worse
for the environment in comparison to this
application.
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, as previously mentioned,
the site is approximately 6.8 hectares in scale,
and most of that would have been taken up
with the previous development.
So the fact that we are getting approximately
three hectares
that is coming into the green space place type
and can eventually be added to the ESA management
contract,
which I will note as part of the track
to pathway to target one areas
and manage at the level of a national park.
We do view it as a net benefit,
moving forward with the revised proposal.
- I'm sorry.
- Thank you.
And a couple more questions through the chair.
will the full buffers be honored by the developer
or are they asking for any exceptions?
- Okay, staff.
- Through the chair,
the buffers were largely established through the
settlement.
So beyond the ESA delineation,
we have enacted what has been proposed
and agreed to as part of that settlement.
But again, we do view it as a consistent with the
PPS
and to the benefit of the ESA.
- No, sir.
- Thank you, and in regards to the holding
provision,
the R10-4, in regards to the environmental
conditions,
Does that include inclusion for lids or bioswales
,
or that require an additional site plan
conditioned to be added to request that the
developer
include lids and bioswales near the parking lots?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, that would be in addition
to the holding provisions on site.
Thank you.
- Councillor.
- Thank you.
That is something that I would consider adding at
council
as I do think since it's so close to some
wetlands,
nothing would be more sad than to see all of the
salt
used on the parking lot drain directly into the
wetland.
And I'm wondering, can we add the submission
of a complete EIS as part of a holding provision
before moving forward?
- That'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, I would recommend
if you're looking to approve the zoning,
it that it would be added as a condition of,
or a direction to the site plan authority to
consider
if you would like an updated EIS.
We can also just require that as part of the site
plan process.
- Councillor.
- Thank you, it sounds like there'll be
a couple of additions at council.
And then I just wanted to also thank the mayor
for adding the native species and bird friendly
approvals.
We heard that was important as well
for many of the speakers.
So at this point, originally I had planned
to vote against this, but it has been brought to
my attention
that this is a slightly better version
than what was the previous one.
So I, between now and council, do a bit more
research
and consider it, but I do plan to bring a couple
more additions
to site plan at council to try and ensure
as much protection as possible to the
environmental space.
Thanks.
- Councillor Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I look forward, Councillor Frank,
to see further amendments.
I do have a couple of questions around the EIS as
well.
I'll throw you to staff.
I do have some questions coming from the gallery
about the transportation assessment.
staff just give me an update on that
transportation assessment with this
application. I'll go staff. Thank you through
through the chair. The TIA was
reviewed by transportation staff in the
conclusions where the the main East West
traffic flow on Commissioners Road are operating
at good levels of service now
and in future conditions. However it did note
that poor vehicle left-turn
improvements to and from the site development
were identified. So traffic
signals at one of the new access locations would
improve those left
turn movements on to Commissioner's Road from the
existing apartments to the
north and from the new development but it's not
warranted until beyond year 2030.
So the city has noted that this that will
continue to monitor the traffic
conditions in the area and as the site plan
advances. So that will still be
considered through the site plan process, the
upgrades on this road. I'm very familiar
with this area moving around, and I know how
congested it can be. I know the BRT is coming
to this area as well, so it's appropriate for
having the, I guess, the density in this
area, the 14th story. I am, you know, I wasn't
sure exactly how I was going to go with this
one as well. The fact that we're getting more
land to protect the ESA is something that
is really, really important that we need to be
able to do. And having that extra buffering
I heard from the applicant, no development on the
ESA, which is also important. So with
that I do want to I'm leaning towards it I know
this will go to council on the 28th
for a further conversation with council so I I'm
going to inquire a few more
outstanding questions I have but I do want to
thank the public and and the
students in particular for being here it's so
important that that we are that
We have these conversations that we listen to one
another,
that we hear each other.
It reminds me of an application many, many years
ago
that I was involved in over 20 years ago.
And once you start to ask questions
and hold us, your municipal government,
accountable
to having answers, it's really important,
this engagement piece.
We all learn, we may not all be happy
with how things go forward.
But it stays with us and we need to constantly be
engaged
'cause we know these ESAs, how important they are
to our city.
I know how I've heard from the public
that it is so important that we maintain
and we protect these areas and to have this
conversation here
with a development is very, very important and
vital
to our understanding as we go forward.
So thank you for being here.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other speakers, Councillor Ferri.
- Thank you, Chair.
And thanks to staff for the report.
I do, I feel like the real issue
that's kind of being circulated around here
is the fact that there is yet to be received
in environmental impact study,
but yet there is also a zoning bylaw amendment
that could be approved here today
and we're bringing that back to site plan.
And I think that's kind of the main issue
that's coming up, that's the main issue for me,
especially when it comes to potentially approving
a zoning by-law amendment and not having all the
information.
I don't know what the impact,
or the environmental impact study is going to
have.
And, you know, that would be something
that would be appreciated to be seen.
I did hear that staff did say that, you know,
according to our official plan policy,
having the environmental impact study
is something that we do require.
And I did hear from Council Trustees comments
having that as soon as possible
rather than later at the site planning stage
is something that we do have within our policy.
So I guess, I know Councilor Truss
would kind of ask this question,
but if we were to refuse this zoning by-law
amendment
or the amendment that we have here on the floor
because we don't have the impact assessment,
what maybe legal might be able to answer this,
but like the appealability of this at OLT,
would we have potentially a good case there?
Can we rightfully refuse this or send it back
until we get the environmental impact study
and then bring it back once we get that?
- I'll go to staff.
- Thank you and through you to provide that
response,
I would need to go into closed session.
- Councillor, I can't move to go to closed
session.
I guess I'll leave that to committee,
but maybe we should get that answer
if you would move to go into closed session.
But I'll continue with my questions.
I did, just going through the report,
I also saw that the climate emergency action plan
not necessarily referenced there in the report.
I did see in some of the comments from the public
that that was considered as well.
And just making note, you know,
in addition to the targeting net zero greenhouse
gases,
emissions by 2050 and focusing on resilience,
I do see it also includes protecting
the environmentally significant areas.
So I do see that maybe that would,
because I don't really see that being touched on
in the report
And I also see that the environmental impact
study
is not necessarily there.
I have those concerns.
And when I see that, the surrounding lands to the
east
are the ESAs along the CN rail line.
And then the south is the Westminster Pawns.
These are the issues that are coming up
that would restrain me from potentially approving
something like this because I do want all that
information.
And I did hear from the gallery.
like we could be potentially approving something
that could
irreparably remove significant lands.
And we could be risking losing the loss of our
wetlands
and the provincial wetlands.
And I hear, and I really appreciate the speakers
who said
they're proud to be Londoners because I'm very
proud
to be a Londoner as well.
But I have this kind of anecdote that I hear,
are we the forest city?
And that is something that we say all the time.
but the more we make decisions,
I also fear that we risk, you know,
are we the Forest City or that we're part
of the Forest Cleared Forest City?
And that's kind of the, I guess,
when I reduce things down to,
that's kind of what I'm thinking about.
And I have some concerns with that.
So at this time, I would be a little bit hesitant
to approve this.
I wouldn't approve this without that EIS.
I would like to see that EIS.
And I do see that that could give us standing
on potentially sending this back.
And I'm not saying to not approve,
I'm just saying we should have all the
information
available in front of us before we make these
decisions.
So I'll leave my comments there for now.
Actually, I do wanna ask one more question.
I did hear from a member of the public
who asked a question with respect to Bill 98.
And I wanted to know if we were to approve this
today
and this would come back to site plan
with some of the design issues.
Would Bill 98 getting passed,
and I don't know all the details of Bill 98,
but, and I have her in down here,
but if with Bill 98 being passed,
would staff be able to give us an update
on their understanding of the implications
between the two?
- I'm cautious to ask a hypothetical,
but a lot of staff want to comment on the
implications
if Bill 98 doesn't go through.
through the chair, with respect to Bill 98,
today we're working within the
current legislative requirements.
Suspecting that if Bill 98 comes in at some point
and the application for site plan hasn't come in,
we have to have due regard with that legislation.
Having said that, there are elements
that maybe the applicant is wanting to do over
and above
what the legislative requirements are,
but that's on the the onus of the applicant.
- Councilor, I'll go back to you with 45 seconds.
- All right, thank you.
I'll just, I'll give some closing comments then.
I would like to see if we could go into camera
to ask to see if we can get that question
answered
from our city legal team.
And I'd also say, you know,
it's just kind of making these decisions
and weighing out whether what's the impact for
our environment,
what could be irreparably taken away for housing?
Is it affordable housing?
It's just there's a lot of things that we're
trying to weigh out here, but without the all the
information in front of us
I wouldn't be able to support an application like
this if I had that information if I had the EIS
specifically that would help me
In my understanding here, and I really believe
that you know approving a zoning bylaw amendment
at this stage
We should really have that EIS in front of us.
Thank you. I'll look for other comments or
questions from video or account of his encounters
Seeing none of the committee will permit comments
from the chair
I want to direct it to the students.
Thank you for coming in today.
It's a tough job.
It's kind of nerve wracking having to speak in
this room.
And you guys did a great job.
And to your teacher, thank you for getting your
class involved.
This is very important.
And I think it was great that you sat here today
to see how it works at this level.
You can hear a lot of various opinions from those
who
spoke and from those that sit down here.
I don't think we're that far off on what you're
thinking.
I think Westminster Ponds and the other
environmentally
sensitive areas in our city are crucial to a good
city.
In an urban environment, we have to work with
those areas.
How do we do that?
And I think the London Plan speaks to something
that you spoke to, and that's a concern for our
environment.
London Plan encouraged a number of things,
primarily with transportation. That's why we have
rapid
transit, which is very close by to this
development, and also encouraged to high
development near
where people work. That's why I've been
supportive of high density downtown. What better
way to
keep a carbon footprint low than not to drive a
car, but to just walk across the street to work
there's 10,000 people working. So this provides 8
68 units to address the housing challenges that
pretty much everyone acknowledged but in a way
that I think is appropriate to access high-order
transit and also to where they live. I'm also
encouraged by the fact that we're not encroaching
onto the environmentally sensitive area but we're
giving three actors back and that's a lot of
That's a lot of land. Three hectares is a lot of
land. So I'm glad to see that.
You know, it's not the first time we've done it.
In my ward, there's a
provincially recognized ecological sensitive area
, Siftenbok. And at one time,
the Siftenbok was just in the middle of the
countryside. Now it's completely
surrounded with residential and commercial, and
it thrives. And I
encourage you, if you haven't been there lately,
to take a walk on the board walk
through it or the natural trails that go around
it, it's a terrific area. And you see what
wetlands
can be and should be. And we're able to do both.
And I think in this particular case,
we can. So for those reasons, I'm going to
support the motion. I think there's a chance to
address
are housing needs, for sure, but in a way,
that's environmentally sensitive for the reasons
that I listed, so I will be supporting it.
So I'll look for any other comments or questions
before I call the vote.
Seeing none, I'll call the vote.
I'm sorry, Councilor, you're out of time.
I know I've called the vote.
- I was thinking about the motion carries part to
zero.
- Okay, moving on to 3.8.
This is regarding the Kelly Stanton
environmentally significant area of conservation,
master plan phase one.
So I'll look for a motion to open the PPM.
Councilor Cuddy, I'll look for a seconder, the
mayor.
- I'm in favor, I've logged out.
- Closing about the motion carries four to zero.
- Apologize for the delay folks.
The mayor had to step out.
So we're just ensuring that we have quorum here.
Okay, got that sorted out.
So I'm looking for a motion to open the PPM.
Councilor Cuddy, I'll second it, we'll call that
vote.
- Where'd he go?
already we already opened it okay thank you so I
'll look for members of public
would like to address the committee please please
go ahead you have five
minutes my name is Anna Maria Velastro I've
documented this area extensively I've
walked it's all the way from the proposed Gain
esville Road all the way to the
mouth of the Thames River where it merges with
the Thames River I've walked
under the very scary culvert that goes under the
CP rail line and we've walked
the creek down the middle, the creek all the way
to the Thames River. And while I am pleased
that there is an ESA being proposed here, my fear
is that it's going to suffer the fate of the
Siften Bog, which is actually not in good health.
It is dying. I'm going to contact that teacher
and those kids and let them know that there are
problems with the Siften Bog because it has been
developed all the way around and it's actually
shrinking and that's why the
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
purchased land to help it by
expanding it along High Park Road. Okay so it's
just important to understand
these things. So the the Stanton we call it Sing
ing Frog Creek. We named the
Creek Singing Frog Creek at the time we were
walking it and trying to raise
public awareness about the ESA, that in its
current state it will also die because unless
the city purchases the farmland, then what is now
a defunct farm fields, that goes over
the Hunt Club lands and out along over the Hunt
Club neighborhood and then it over into
the Hunt Club golf course area, that ESA will
have the same fate as a sift and bog because
It's too small right now and it's a beautiful,
beautiful place and it's worth protecting.
So my understanding now that those farm fields
are owned by South Southside and the city
should actively pursue expanding and restoring
the ESA so it can actually live and support
the wildlife that are there because the city has
already done a lot of damage to the lands
on the south side of the ESA by turning it into a
stormwater drain, and it removed all
the function of the creek, the spring overflow,
which again is very important because it's
amphibian spawning ground and fish spawning
ground, and there's already been a lot of
damage to the ESA. And so while this is a
wonderful thing that they're protecting these
two parcels of land, it's not enough. And let's
not kid ourselves by saying
that things like the sift and bog are doing well
when they're not. And we need
to understand why it's not. And to foresee what
is going to happen to
this ESA, if we don't follow the creek all the
way
and protect those lands all the way to the mouth
of the river,
when you get down to the closer to the hunt club,
the houses are right up against the ridge and so
the only hope there is to acquire the
lands on the other side and maybe we can just do
the right thing for once. Let's just do the right
thing for once, protect the lands that are here
and then pursue restoring the lands that take it
all the way to the river because that's the
wildlife corridor. So let's not pretend that what
we're
doing is somehow great and thriving. It's just a
see it as a first step to expand the ESA all the
way to the river. Thank you. Thank you. I'll look
for the next speaker. Last click if there's
anyone
online. I don't see anyone going to the mic. So I
'll look for motion to close the PPM.
I'll look for a motion for someone. Councilor
Stevenson and I'll second it. We'll call the vote
.
So, Steve is in votes. Yes. Put this up. Sorry,
clerk. Wait, please.
Closing the vote. The motion carries three to
zero.
Thank you. So, I'll look for a motion from
committee.
Councilor Cutty. Thank you. Sure. I'll move staff
recommendation.
Thank you. Councilor Stephen seconded. I'll look
for any comments or
questions for staff. Seeing none, I'll call the
vote.
There's Stevenson. I vote yes. Closing the vote.
The motion carries three to zero.
Thank you. Moving on to 3.9. This is again
regarding Kalelei
metal metals environmentally significant area
conservation master plan phase one
all of her motion to open the ppm counselor cutty
I'll second it we'll call
the vote yes closing the vote the motion carries
three to zero look for anyone
that would like to address me on this one please
go ahead you have five
minutes burn in Samuels and generally very
supportive of the draft that you
see before you one thing I really respect about
London is how seriously we take
these conservation master plans when it comes to
ESA's. I just wanted to
highlight that in both this draft and the
previous one for Kelly Stanton there's
notes about invasive plant species that are
present within the ESA and I can't
stress enough that we really do not have a good
handle on these. A lot of these
invasive plants take over and they spread like
crazy and cause massive
ecological damage and a lot of these plants
actually originate from properties
adjacent to the ESA. So homeowners with backyards
that back on to the ESA
potentially not realizing that dumping their yard
waste over the fence creates
secondary issues. A lot of these species are
actually distributed in retail
settings in London. So autumn olive for example
is a popular ornamental plant.
Honey suckles can be bought at many garden
centers and we currently don't
have much in the way of education about invasive
plants by way of preventing
introductions to the ESA. So I note that in the
previous the Kelly Stanton file, there was an
excerpt that said the species listed in table
seven may require targeted and aggressive
measures
for control and where possible should be
considered for management programs and activities
. Something
I would love to see the city become more
proactive about is reaching out on a regular
basis to the
homeowners and renters adjacent to the ESA and
letting them know about what they can do to
maintain the ecological integrity, through the
advisory committee that I am part of that
reports to the community and protective services
committee. We're also looking actively at
business
licensing as a potential vehicle for making sure
that consumers are provided with information
at retail establishments about invasive species,
much like the city already regulates
establishments
that sell fireworks to provide education. So just
wanted to express my support and thank
their staff for their work on these drafts.
Thanks. Thank you. I'll go online. Just let me
just check here. Michael Patterson, right? Can
you hear me? Can you hear me? Yup. You have five
minutes, please go ahead. Thank you. So my name
is Michael Patterson, a longtime honore who
borders
the proposed ESA extension, proposed in section
four of the master plan for clearly knows.
I'd like to thank the time for the time today. I
'm opposed to the expansion of the ESA.
as it pertains to my private land.
I am supportive of the current USA
and continue to be an active member
in adding native tree species as part of Free
Forest London.
And I do appreciate the previous comments
from the gentleman that just spoke.
I think it's great that we educate people that
live
where I do in maintaining the USA
and keeping it in good stead.
Specifically, I believe the extension of the USA
on north of the Thames River border in Wakefield
Crescent
does not belong.
The broad nature of classification
of the sensitive area in this report
to measure tree cover, proximity to wetlands
is not specific and loosely ecologically defined.
As defined in map 11, this area that I'm talking
about
has not been defined as ecologically
or environmentally significant.
And we're talking about an area of 10 to 20 feet
of land
that would be added to the ESA along this parcel
of land.
And it's defined as the habitat of the Hackery
Emperor,
which is as laid out in table 14,
tolerant to human disturbance.
It's also defined as a significant woodland and
valley land,
but again, that definition would cover most of
the areas
along the Thames River in our city,
and I don't believe that warrants an extension of
the ESA areas.
As a homeowner, having the city seek control of
land
that I purchased, paid taxes on for the last 15
plus years,
would negatively impact the property value of my
house.
And I believe we can use resources
to more appropriately protect lands, again,
as laid out by the previous gentleman,
to make sure that we're protecting the existing
ESA,
which has unfortunately not been done
to the level that I would expect.
Much of the areas particularly behind my property
have had significant erosion problems.
So maybe a question to the council is,
How will the extension of the ESA
or how will this go about changing
how we deal with erosion
and how will mitigate erosion moving forward?
Thank you for your time and your consideration
as part of this public review.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Do you wanna speak?
- Yeah.
- Okay, go ahead.
You have five minutes.
- Because ESA's will die if they're like people,
they need to expand down to the microphone.
- Can you just go to the microphone please?
- Okay.
- Yeah, thank you.
- Okay, I'll just do this.
- Thank you.
- Okay, ESAs will die if they don't have a chance
to expand out, they're like anything.
They seed out, their nature is to expand out,
when they're confined like the sift and bog,
over time they will die out.
And so even if it's a small piece of land,
it's important to the health of that ESA
because they're not islands, they're an ecosystem
.
And that's theoretically what you're trying to
protect.
And so a lot of developers, they tear up these
natural areas,
and then they name their streets Deer Park or
Deer View.
And the reason they want to be along that, for
example,
the Thames River is because they know
that that's what a natural area is a selling
point.
But we need to talk about the health of these ES
As.
They're living organisms.
They're ecosystems and they're under a lot of
stress.
And so even expanding them a little bit
gives them a little bit of breathing space.
And I think homeowners, if there's erosion issues
,
that's something different that has to be
addressed,
but it's not related to expanding the ESA
so that it itself can expand and thrive as an
organism.
That's all I want to say.
I support the expansion.
I just wish you wouldn't take the beavers out.
But I support the expansion.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sir, go ahead.
Your name and you'll find this.
- My name's Peter Paulus-Juck and I do own a home
right along where you want to expand the ESA.
And I fully support it.
I've seen lots of damage happen by people
throwing stuff over their back fence
and I want to protect it.
So thank you.
- Thank you.
Please, sir, gives your name again, and you have
five minutes.
David Wake.
I've followed this work that's been done on Cal
ally
over the last number of years.
I strongly support the work that's been done
and the recommendation from the staff.
I do very much agree we need to do a better job
of managing some of the invasive species.
And when budget time comes around,
maybe we need to take a closer look at how we can
be more
effective in doing some of those things, but
strong support for this very good conservation
master plan.
Thank you.
I'll look for any other speakers.
Just check with the clerk if there's anyone
online.
Okay.
I'm seeing no one else.
I'll call.
I'll look for a motion to close the PPM, be
seconded by Councillor Stevenson and we'll
call the vote.
I vote yes.
Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
So there was one question that opposed the staff
regarding how this extension will mitigate
erosion in the area. Through the chair the
recommendation that staff are
proposing is to establish the green space place
safe on map one and then
subsequently revise the ESA delineation with
respect to erosion these features
are dynamic in nature and so they do change over
time the erosion that the
resident on Wakefield Drive may be experiencing
is likely due to the
changing route of the Thames River again rivers
meander and change over time
in terms of the specific management adoption of
the CMP will not be changing
our existing management program. That's location
specifically, we have, we are undertaking review
with the UTRCA, our management contractor in the
area, and we'll do our best to get that trail
component open as soon as possible. However, it
is currently closed with consideration for the
erosion.
Thank you. Okay, I'll put this on the floor
looking for a motion.
Councillor Coyote, are you moving the staff
recommendation?
Yes, sure. I'm moving the staff for committee.
Okay. Yeah, seconder. I'll
I'll, uh, Councillor Stevenson is seconded. So I
'll look for any comments or
questions. Uh, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. Mr.
Chair, to the staff, Mr.
Patterson, he mentioned two more things. And he
mentioned the question to, uh,
comments with the question at the end, map 11,
defining as being not significant.
And, uh, in the report, that's what it states.
And he says, why would we,
if in the report uh it states not significant why
would we consider enlarging it?
Don't go stop. Through the chair just to clarify
map 11 in the submitted conservation master plan
is a snapshot of the existing map five natural
heritage features that currently are included in
the London plan so the purpose would be to amend
that through the official plan amendment. We were
just demonstrating what the current and then
future version would be. Councilor. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that. Will this negatively
affect the value of my property,
or staff? Through the chair, we can't speak to
specific property valuations. However,
what we are proposing here does not refine the
zoning by-law, and it's that zoning that would
limit potential uses. So all the previously and
existing uses that the residents enjoy,
they will continue to enjoy. Councilor, thank you
for those answers.
There were from five different individuals, there
were comments and questions, and I just want to
to make sure have you responded to them,
have you answered them?
I would imagine the comments we considered,
but the questions have they been answered to the
individuals?
And especially I think it was Mr. Living
that he had one really, some specific ones.
- Do you want to stop?
- Yes, through the chair.
All of the submitted comments were addressed
either through calling the individuals
if it was requested or when the report was
drafted,
the recommendations and questions were addressed
and included in the report, notably the sections
about trail compatibility and the items
around implementation of the recommendations.
That was some of the concerns that Mr. Levin
brought up.
Thank you.
- Councilor, and I believe it is the comment.
Thank you, Ms. Burke and Williamson
because all the emails and calls I received,
which I forwarded to you,
you responded to the individual's residence
immediately.
Thank you for that.
- Look for other comments or questions.
- We have a motion moved and seconded, I'll call
the vote.
- I vote yes.
- Mr. Cuddy, closing the vote,
the motion carries three to zero.
- Thank you, moving on to three point one zero.
This is regarding 6585,
mentally road south and other lands.
I'll look for a motion to open the PPM Councilor
Cuddy.
Seconded by Councillor Stevenson, we'll call the
vote.
- I vote yes.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
- Thank you, I'll look for anyone that'd like
to address the committee on this item.
I'll just clerk if there's anyone online as well
as so.
I was part of this appeal.
And this, the city lost this appeal
because of a definition of trees.
And I mean, it's done now.
I'm not sure what the public meeting is about.
There was a decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal
,
but it's a lesson to be learned from staff and
council,
because decisions at the Ontario Land Tribunal
are those adjudicators don't have any ecological
background.
And I felt that we lost because there wasn't a
way
to address what came down to a trivial matter
about a type of tree.
And I just feel like going forward,
we lost something here because we couldn't argue
this
on an ecological perspective.
And the adjudicator, just the decision
was just based on a type of tree.
And I just think it's a lesson to be learned here
.
So I'm not sure what this public meeting is about
.
There's a decision made
and you're just adjusting the boundaries to the
decision.
Unless I'm wrong, I would appreciate you telling
me so.
Thank you.
- I look for other speakers.
Is there anyone online?
I saw a look for a motion to close the PPM.
Councillor Cudi is seconded by Councillor--
- Yes.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
- I'll put in the floor looking for a motion.
Ready.
Councillor Cudi, I'll move staff recommendation.
I guess seconder, Councillor Stephen seconds.
I'd like for comments or questions.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Oh yes, closing the vote.
The motion carries three to zero.
- Okay, I would like to move the order of items
to be considered.
I'd like to get permission from the committee
to go in camera to move 6.1 up to the next item
before we get into items for direction.
- I'll move the motion.
- I'll move the chair.
- Thank you, can I get a seconder for that please
?
- Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Stevenson seconds, and we'll call the
vote.
- I vote yes.
- Wasn't the vote 3-0.
- Okay, so we'll be moving into a closed session
for a matter of pertaining to security
of the property of the municipality.
The vice is subject to solicitor of client
privilege,
including communications necessary for that
purpose.
Councillor Stevenson didn't follow my lead.
Oh, she's there.
We got a motion moved and seconded to go on
camera.
I'll call the vote.
- Chair, could you just explain what going on
camera means
for those guests in the gallery
and that they would come back.
- Yeah, this is a confidential session.
Sometimes we'll move into another area,
but we're gonna stay here,
so we're unfortunately gonna have to have two
folks
to leave while we're in camera.
But then we'll come back and we'll deal
with the rest of the items on the agenda.
- Closing the motion carries three to zero.
- Recording in progress.
- Okay, I'm calling this meeting back to open
session.
I'll go to Councilor Cuddy to report out.
Thank you, Chair.
Committee went into in-camera from 4.56 to 5.35
PM.
We made progress.
Progress was made on matters discussed in closed
session.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
Okay, moving on to 4.1.
We do have a request for a delegation from Jay
Smith.
I'm just wondering if that's you.
Is that you?
Okay, he had to leave.
Okay, well, we'll have to get,
we have to vote to accept the delegation.
So let's just see what committee does.
So I'll look for a motion to accept the
delegation.
- Councilor Cuddy, second by Councilor Stevenson,
and we'll vote on that.
- Vote yes.
- Using the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
- Okay, if you could go ahead and give us your
name
and you have five minutes.
- Hello, well, good evening, Councillors.
My name is Ken, I'm speaking on behalf of Jordan
Smith
who is the chair of the east of Adelaide chapter
for Acorn in London.
For those who don't know our history,
London Acorn is a community and tenant union.
We represent low and moderate income residents.
You're most vulnerable,
yet often your most vocal constituents.
We are here because we believe housing is a human
right.
And right now, that right is under siege in our
city.
We are here today to talk about demavictions
and the catastrophic loss of affordable housing.
This isn't just a theory to us.
We've been going door to door
and the scale of this problem
becoming more apparent every day. These aren't
just one or two isolated cases or bad apples.
We are seeing a systemic pattern where long-term
tenants, those most reliant on stable housing,
are being forced out of their homes. The people
first in line to be pushed out
are the ones who can least afford to move. When
you displace a tenant who has been in their home
for 15 years, you aren't just moving them. You
are often pushing them into core housing
need or homelessness. We hear a lot about new
supply, but let's be clear. What is replacing
these lost units is nowhere near equivalent. Even
units labeled as affordable are often
pegged at 80% of market rent. In today's market,
that is still out of reach for the
people Acorn represents. We are tearing down the
only genuinely affordable units we have
left specifically because they are rent
controlled. The new units replacing them will not
be subject
to rent control, meaning the economic landscape
for Londoners is only shifting in one direction
toward more displacement and less stability. It
is significantly cheaper for this city to protect
existing affordable housing than it is to build
new units from scratch. Currently we are losing
affordable units faster than we can ever hope to
build them. Human suffering is happening at scale
in London. If you want to see the results of
failing to protect our most vulnerable,
you don't have to look further than our downtown
core. We are seeing the city fail in real time.
Acorn members are very pleased to see Councillor
Skyler Frank putting forward this motion
and that it includes consideration of tenant
compensation and moving costs.
This represents a vital piece of what Acorn
fought for last year with our advocacy for
a renovation by-law. If the committee chooses to
pass this motion, we would be so grateful
to see the city finally catching up to the
reality on the ground. This isn't radical.
Acorn has successfully worked with councils in
Burnaby, New Westminster, Toronto, Mississauga,
Hamilton, Kitchener, and Waterloo to pass similar
protections. What Acorn members in London really
want to see is the city council take steps to
protect our homes that are at risk. So please
pass this motion and let's work together to stop
mass displacement and preserve affordable
housing. We're also calling on the city to
implement full landlord licensing. We need
a base level of accountability where the city
provides proactive enforcement of its own bylaws
rather than leaving the burden of proof on the
tenant. Don't wait for the next crisis to act.
protect the housing we have, protect the people
who live there, and let's build a London that
actually includes everyone. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. So far as the committee and this item
is concerned, Councillor Frank has put forward a
suggestion for a motion and I'll look for someone
to you can see at the bottom of our letter that
suggests it wording. I'm willing to put that on
on the floor, but I'm from the chair.
So we only have three of us.
So I ask the, if someone else would be willing
to put that motion on the floor.
Or I can, I'll ask Councillor Cudi to take the
chair
so I can do that.
- Mr. Chair, I'll put the motion on the floor.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'll second it.
And then just to get the discussion going,
I think I'll just go to Councillor Frank.
It's your suggestion.
So why don't you go ahead.
Councillor Frank, please go ahead.
- Thank you and I appreciate the mover
and the seconder for getting this on the floor
as I'm not a member of planning.
And this motion came about through some of the
discussions
after the 550 right out streets south
as well as 145 baseline road west,
which is in my ward where we approved some infill
projects
that had existing tenants in those buildings
and had a lot of discussion about what will
happen
to those tenants and in those cases,
the applicant was willing to put in some good
faith,
verbal and written commitments.
That being said, we don't see that all the time.
And additionally, those are non-binding.
And as we continue to see and support
growth and intensification in the city,
I believe we also have responsibility to ensure
that the people calling these places homes
are not left behind in this process.
And I think that this motion is more about
balance.
It's making sure that while we're trying to build
the London of tomorrow, we make sure that the
tenants
and residents of London are not having their
housing
to stabilize today.
And we've already seen some examples
where we don't have a clear framework.
145 has been in the news.
And I do see that the efforts we did
to try and protect the tenants in those buildings
,
I think, were good,
but it has caused some confusion in the process.
And I think having a clear program or plan or
strategy
that would deal with the conditions for the
developer
the applicant for tenants security, I think that
would help us move forward in a good way.
And I think that the two examples I give, they're
not isolated cases.
We've had more come through in the last couple of
years, but we haven't been able to ensure
that there are protections for tenants with those
because we don't have a plan.
As you can see with my additional communication,
there are existing Ontario municipalities that
have some form of plans or programs or
protections.
they come in a variety of shapes and sizes,
some are bylaws, some are through the Planning
Act,
some are through the Municipal Act,
and that's why I'm seeking your support
to direct staff to come back with a report
because I'd like to understand what are the
benefits
and downsides of the various approaches.
And I think that staff being able to provide that
to us
would help us make an informed and better
decision,
including cost and other impacts.
So at this point, it's not saying
we should implement a plan today or tomorrow.
It's simply asking staff to come back
and report on what we can do.
And I do think in regards to the speaker,
I think this is trying to protect
the existing affordable housing we have.
There are reports that show
for every new single unit of affordable housing
we build,
which is usually still, as was pointed out,
much more expensive.
We lose 19 units in the city.
So I think we need to protect the stock we have
because it's actually a better bang for our buck
and trying to build new units.
And including also keeps people housed,
which is obviously what we're trying to do.
So I look forward to the discussion
and would love this committee's support on this
motion.
- Thank you.
In port 10 to six, although we only have another
item,
couple items on the agenda.
We're probably going to go past.
So I'm going to need permission of the committee
to go past some of that.
- I'll move that motion here.
- Okay, and Councillor Stevenson has seconded it,
so we'll call that vote.
- Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
- Okay, so we have a motion moved and seconded.
I'll open it to questions or comments
from committee members who are visiting.
Councillors, Councillor Cuddy.
- So a question to the maker of the motion,
'cause I was the mover.
You're asking staff to come back
with some recommendations on this, Councillor?
- Yes.
- Councillor Cuddy.
- Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, just to comment, I do have some issues
with putting burdens on landlords.
We have some landlords as we know.
We've discussed in the past that our difficult on
tenants.
That's why the renovation bylaw was passed
a couple of years, actually a year ago, March.
We've made some good progress.
We've learned yesterday that we're making more
progress
with that, we're making some changes to it.
- I'll support this motion and we'll see
what staff comes back with.
Thank you.
- A little further comments or questions.
Councillor Ferrell.
- Thank you.
First, thanks to Councillor Frank for bringing us
forward.
Obviously, I'm gonna support this.
I've been trying to see this for a while
and this, I guess I'll speak to the first part
that kind of comes to my mind
and it's the fact that we're speaking about,
I guess what you could call naturally occurring
affordable housing and that's housing that's in
rent control buildings built
prior to 2018 and it's the type of housing that
people are in because they
can afford it. It's they usually longstanding
tenants usually units that
are beyond one or two bedrooms and those are the
type of units that people
are staying in regardless if they want to leave
or not because there's not
really many units out there that would directly
accommodate their needs and be
at the level of what they can afford.
We have, you know, we have a lot of housing in
London.
I know housing is an issue,
but usually when I hear, you know,
we have a housing crisis in London,
it should be confirmed
that we have an affordable housing crisis in
London.
Like if you were to look at the last market
reports,
we do have vacancy rates that are escalating,
that are increasing and they are doing so
in short, constricted amounts of time.
But when you compare that directly with the
vacancy rate
affordable housing that's very very low it's very
very low it's I think it's
around 1% right now and that just makes it see
makes it that ability to secure
that type of housing for anybody who wants to
move or who has to move very
difficult to do and there is a real competitive
market out there to get that
affordable housing so a motion like this that
would be able to at least find a
way or a path forward at least have staff explore
what can be done to make
sure that that housing or other housing or
financial
compensations or whatever it may be exists for
individuals who may be at
risk of losing their rent controlled affordable
housing
is a very good direction that we need to go. Like
our strategic directions you know
we want to maintain our affordable housing we
want to reduce
homelessness and when you really think about that
you know the first point that you can really do
that is stopping homelessness
before it begins and stopping homelessness before
it begins really
will begin at, you know, taking away or easing
the pressure from individuals who might be
at risk of homelessness. Like, a cost that should
be referenced here is, in our last
evaluation report, homelessness and a reactive
sense costs the city and the province together
cumulatively when it comes to our municipal law
enforcement, when it comes to our policing,
when it comes to our emergency department visits
around $100,000 a year per person on
on the street like that's very expensive.
So if we were to find some type of avenue
or some type of policy that will reduce that cost
,
it will not only reduce the cost on the taxpayer,
but it will also reduce the cost of the social
cost
that we see outside.
And it will also give the city what the city is
asking for.
So this type of motion will align our strategic
objectives
within our strategic plan with policies
or with how we go about our planning process.
And I really appreciate that.
And I really think that's very needed.
It's not needed today.
It's not needed tomorrow.
It was needed yesterday.
It was needed last year.
So I really hope that we can get support for that
because this is definitely the direction
that the city needs right now.
So I'm gonna be fully supportive of this motion
when it comes to council.
And I think it was, it's great working.
And I hope that this committee can support it
here.
And I hope that we can support it at council.
And I look forward to seeing what comes back.
like clearly we can see from what Councilor Frank
has indicated that there are other municipalities
that have brought these extra protections.
Whether it's Mississauga, Oakville, Hamilton,
or Kitchener, these protections exist
and they seem to also be allowed under the
Municipal Act.
So having staff look into what the city can
actually do
for those extra protections, I think is a great
direction.
So I'm hoping for full support from the committee
.
I'm hoping for full support at council.
You'll see me definitely support this and thanks
again.
- I look for other comments or questions
from committee or visiting councilors.
Councilor Kerbal.
- I'm not gonna take a lot of time
because the council have proposed this motion
is very clear, very much in support of it, very
simple.
- Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
We have a motion moved and seconded.
Councilor. - Oh, just to say,
if anybody's gonna be surprised,
I'll be supporting this at council.
I appreciate you bringing this forward.
I think there's a need for this,
and I'll just leave it at that today.
- Thank you, Councilor Rama.
- Thank you and through you.
So yes, I'm supportive of the direction
that we're looking to take.
My concern though lies with what do we do in the
meantime,
because we have applications coming forward
already,
continue to come forward where we're having these
conversations with developers as to,
or people are having conversations with
developers
around what kind of remedies we can do in the
interim.
We now know, based on what just came up in the
news story,
that those don't hold water.
So we're going to have to, I guess,
rely on the fact that we don't have anything in
place
to ensure these protections right now
and make our decisions accordingly,
knowing that we have nothing to allow for these
protections
as we move forward until such time as a report
comes back and we make a decision.
- Thank you, other comments?
From the chair, thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Frank.
We ran into this with a recent development.
The developer was supportive of finding
other accommodation for the existing tenants.
What is the protection for those developers
that are not so inclined.
At the end of the day though,
it still comes to this community council
when we're deciding on such things.
So that type of response, we'll play into that.
I actually think this is a good thing
that it goes into Q1 to 27, speaking with staff.
They have a tremendous amount of stuff
on their plate right now that we need
to get finish this term.
So I will support this.
And one of the reasons is it goes into Q1 of 2027
.
So that will be supported for this.
We have a motion moved in second, I'll call the
vote.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries two to one.
- Okay, moving on to 4.2.
This is regarding Meadow Valley
at a wander on road,
the environmentally significant area,
area, encroachments and master plan.
So I'm just gonna put this on the floor right now
I'll see what bubbles up as far as suggested
motions
because more counselors here and next year's work
counselor
will be running in that area from my
understanding.
So I just wanna hear, you know,
what comes from committee members or visiting
counselors.
So I'll put it on the floor for those in
attendance.
- Yes, Chair, I'll just pass for the moment
if you don't mind, Google it.
- I'm sorry, I'm not ready at the moment.
- Okay, so we'll just pause for a second.
Okay, Councillor ramen, do you want to speak to
it?
Well, Councillor Cudi's working on it.
- Thank you and through you.
So I'm hoping that I might get support
from a member of this committee
to move an alternative motion.
The alternative motion I'm looking to move
is not withstanding the recommendation
of the deputy city manager housing and community
growth.
The following actions be taken with respect
to the staff report dated April 14th, 2026
related to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest
South,
environmental, environmentally significant area,
Adwondering Road, encroachments,
and the Conservation Master Plan.
A, the above-noted staff report be received.
B, notice of the following recommended actions
be circulated to the abutting neighborhood,
removing the planned level three paved multi-use
trail
east of Adwondering Road from the Conservation
Master Plan
and designate the passive recreation area as a
park
as per the historical use.
to regularize the existing informal trail
as a level one trail.
The next three would be plan to 10 meter
naturalized buffer associated with the regener
ating
cultural meadow and implement the previous
restoration efforts.
Part C, the civic administration be directed to
evaluate
and identify the area behind 1630 to 1726
out of one road to be maintained as a park
as it has been historically used
and used for unstructured passive recreation only
,
that is to be maintained as a mode grass area
in accordance with our standards for a park.
D, the civic administration be directed
to report back to a future meeting
of the planning and environment committee
to explore options two and three,
and a report back on alternative mechanisms
for individual property owners with properties
abutting the open space to pursue remedies
where boundary disputes exist.
And E, the civic administration be directed
to bring forward an update to the CMP
to protect the trees and shrubs native and non-
native
that abut the add-a-wondering properties.
- Okay, Councilor Cuddy, thank you Chair.
I'll put that on the floor.
Thank you.
Well, that's put on the floor.
I'll second that.
I think that's in should be in front of your
screen,
if you refresh your screen.
Perks doing that right now, and it's up.
Okay, so that's on the floor.
Moving in seconds, I'll open it for comments or
questions.
I'll go to Councilor Rhonda.
Thank you if I may just provide rationale
for the discussion that we're having
as I turned off my screen by accident just a
moment.
So I wanted to share that it was less than a year
ago
that we were here discussing the Medway Valley
environmentally significant area
and the Atawandran Road Encroachments
and Conservation Master Plan.
A reminder that we got here
because the Conservation Master Plan
included a recommendation for a level three trail
.
And this triggered a lot of the encroachment
issues
being enforced in the area.
And a lot of those encroachment issues,
as you can see in the report, exist
behind properties from 1630 to 1876 at Wandern
Road.
And they include misaligned fences, very one,
I think, retaining wall or something
of that sort, structures and trees and shrubs,
for the most part, onto city-owned open space.
The level one trail meanders and opens into a
grass park-like area.
In fact, it has signage that calls it Adwondron
Park.
As the trail extends south through the mode area,
which has been this way since the late
1970s, towards Museum of Ontario Archaeology,
parking area, the trail path becomes
progressively
less defined as the area but the area is still
firm and stable, and I'm not sure that it's
necessary to define it further in that area as it
has been used as a park.
I'm in agreement with the 10 meter naturalized
buffer that is currently in place and when
I say currently in place, the neighborhood has in
their submission and the added agenda
included where those markings exist and should be
established along the forest edge to protect
the identified features that is marked and right
now contains a lot of invasive buckthorn.
existing mode open space area should be
maintained in full while providing a
sufficient naturalized buffer to protect the
natural natural heritage
features and functions over the long term. As
noted in the package there was
historical encouragement for property owners to
plant trees and to have these
tax-paying property owners maintain the
landscapes of the sloped boundary area
abutting the park on behalf of the city of London
. I support pausing the tree
removal of the non-native trees from city-owned
lands within the Medaway Valley
ESA until this can be contemplated and revised in
the Conservation Master Plan.
Many of these changes require the city undertake
a PPM. My request is that the
PPM take place when the encroachment matters are
also dealt with. Otherwise
it will be difficult for residents to separate
those discussions and may
create further further complications in the
public participation meaning
process. Many did participate in the PPM and
participate in the discussion when we were
first discussing removing the level three trail.
And as such, they are aware that the
decision was made to move it to a level one. Rev
ising the conservation master plan to incorporate
these changes would require a bylaw amendment
later on to remove the planned level three trail
from the sustained trail concept figures include
in the conservation master plan and add a new
figure to provide a more detailed concept plan
for the Adwondering Road area. And with this mind
that would be the time to bring all of these
items together for a public participation meeting
.
And that's my submission. Okay. Thank you. I'll
look for comments or questions from members of
committee or is in Councilors. Councillor Trussa.
Yes, I just want to say in advance I can't vote
here today, but I'm fundamentally opposed to this
amendment. I support the staff report.
I think the staff report is much better policy. I
think it involves much less by way of legal risks
,
and I think there's a lot of work that's been
done on this file over the last few years.
And I think that, yes, there's going to have to
be a public participation
meeting. But I think it's a mistake. I think it's
a, it's a huge mistake, specifically D.
I think, I think D is against the interest of the
city. It's prejudicial. It will be viewed as
biased and unfair by other people who have
complied. And I think overall it's, it's bad
policy.
So I'm going to, um, at council, I'm going to, um
, oppose this. I, I hope you will vote this down
and uh recommend the staff report because I think
the staff report is uh much much much
sounder and I think that's really all I can say
right now please please don't please don't
adopt this as an amendment and um I think the
staff report should be accepted thank you thank
you I look for other comments or questions uh
council for thank you I guess further to that I
can't support this either um we see that there's
17 to 45 properties that have already complied
what are they going to say if we pause this and
look into the other options um the level the
removal
of the level three path to level one trail is
already um in my opinion um not good not a good
way for it as it is but just kind of going back
and just looking at these other options and
continuing to potentially allow these encroach
ments to exist I think is not the appropriate way
to
go like my neighbor has asked me who has their
property a budding on city property if they could
could extend their patio out onto city property.
And I was saying, no, you can't do that
because that city property,
how am I supposed to explain this movement?
Like in that case, when,
if this were to be something that would be
pursued,
they may be able to do that.
They may be able to just go and approach on that
land,
then hopefully we decide that, you know,
we'll come up with an agreement that they can
take the land.
I don't think that's a very good way to go.
I think we should enforce the city's legal
authority
over the public land as the city owns it,
especially when it comes to parklands.
And I won't be able to support this council.
I can't vote here, but I can't support this
direction either.
- Thank you, I'll look for other comments
or questions, Councilor Frick.
- Thank you, I just have a few questions to staff
to understand this motion a little bit more.
I'm just wondering, does this then take ESA land
and turn into parkland?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the Chair, this amendment is requesting
that the historic use of the open space
behind the Adewondering Homes be taken into Park
land,
which has established processes
and would require environment infrastructure
to initiate their processes.
In addition, we just would like to note
that all ESAs are currently located within Park
land per se
and that there's a variety of different Parkland
components,
whether those be activated, whether they be ESAs
and preserved for ecosystem preservation.
So although, so we would be potentially changing
the maintenance mechanism and associated zoning.
I'm not sure.
- I'm sorry.
- Thank you.
And then I do see some similarities
between the staff recommendation and this one.
So the buffer, I'm just wondering if there's,
if the buffer changes at all between the two
motions.
- Go ahead, staff.
- Through the chair, staff are recommending a
buffer
associated with our recommendation as well.
However, just based on the council's comments,
I would be unclear what line work she is basing
it off of.
It does appear that the submission by the
neighborhood
is noting that the line would start within the
feature
and then be 10 meters off of that versus our line
work
does start at the drip line of the feature
and includes areas that have already been natural
ized
as part of Friends of Medway Valley
and other ESA standard practice works.
- Councilor.
- Thank you for that clarification.
And then in regards, I heard some comments
but saving non-native trees.
So I'm just wondering,
'cause I'm not as familiar with this file
as some of the other counselors are,
is there a proposal to remove some non-native
trees
because they're in the ESA and they're non-native
?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, I believe that the trees
that are being referenced as non-native
are those that are currently on city property
but located within the fenced boundaries
at the encroachment sites of the residents.
So I think that they're,
I am assuming that the concern is
that there would be a loss of shade
in the existing backyard areas.
Again, those are currently on-city property,
but we would look to municipal compliance
to address those items.
- Councilor.
- Thanks.
Yeah, I'm probably gonna have to sit with this a
little bit
more, but at first glance, I'm not supportive
of the alternative motion brought forward.
Staff's motion seemed to have addressed
most of my concerns, but I would like to perhaps
chat
with the council a little bit more between now
and council to get a better understanding.
I was happy though with the direction that staff
initially proposed in the report.
- Can I look for other comments or questions
from committee members or visiting counselors?
Councilor Ferro.
- Just a question, a follow up.
I see that part E to bring forward an update
to the conservation master plan to protect the
trees
and shrubs at a future meeting.
I just, well, to bring forward an update.
So I just wanted to know when would we expect
that update?
- Go ahead, staff.
the chair that affects our work program so we don
't have any timeline at this
point. Councilor. Okay thank you and then I guess
same question with with D that
administration be directed to report back to a
future meeting a peck to explore
options two and three would we be able to know
when to expect that item to come
back. Good stuff. Thank you through the chair
that would be the same response they
would come together but at this point we don't
have a timeline. Councilor. Okay
- All right, I believe that we should probably
have a timeline put in there.
I can't do that at this committee.
But just knowing when to expect this to come back
,
especially when it comes to extending the time
to explore, meaning we're not gonna be enforcing
encroachments that just can push things out.
And I have risks with that.
There are risks with that.
- Go staff.
- Through the chair, that was a comment or
question.
- Councilor.
- It was just a comment.
about the risks associated with extending it out
and not having a timeline coming back and I
would wonder when it would come back. I think we
should resolve this matter quickly. We have a
good report back in front of us. I think option
one answers all the questions and puts us in the
best position for any type of exposure. So those
are my comments. Look for other comments or
questions.
Thank you. I just wanted to address some of the
questions and comments that have been
discussed so far. So first, as it relates to Part
C to direct to evaluate and identify the area,
it was through my discussions with staff that I
realized that without defining this as a park
land, if we want to use it as passive recreation
space, being that this is the only open space
that residents in this area have without having
to cross either Wonderland or Cross Fanshawe,
we would have to be able to have a level of
service
attributed to the area.
And right now, and for the last number of years,
the property has been mowed almost at the same
level
as a park.
So it hasn't been every nine weeks.
It's been regularly mowed so that people can use
the space like a park.
And so in this case, I'm trying to find a way
that we can direct what that standard of a park
of maintenance related to a park would be like.
And that's where I'm asking for an evaluation to
come back
so that we can include the appropriate use
of the passive recreation space.
This is space that's used by school children.
It's used by the museum.
I was just there today
where there were two full buses of school
children.
There is a sign on this property
that calls it at a wandering park.
For that reason alone,
is used as a park space because there's no
differentiating factors. So what I'm asking is,
if we're not planning to mow it as an open space,
if we're saying we're not going to mow it for
nine weeks, how is it going to be utilized as a
passive recreation space? So that's why I think
we need to define it as a park in order to or
evaluate it from the perspective of how will we
maintain it and come back with a maintenance
standard that is similar to a park. And lastly
with the buffering area. In the drip line that's
associated with the drawing that's included in
our package, it is very difficult to understand
or see. So what I did was I went and I visualized
it
and residents provided that visualization in your
package so that people can get a sense.
But I do ask my colleagues, please walk it
between now and counsel and see where those
markers are.
Our neighbors will likely welcome you there and
take you for a tour and show you because
this area has been naturalized and there's about
50 meters, I think there's quite a distance
there already between where that drip line is,
where the natural, the restoration activities
have taken place and the rest of the ESA.
So I just wanna give people a chance to go out
and see it
and hear from neighbors on why that,
as it's in the report summarizes,
that it actually cuts into a lot of the open
space
that was already defined behind these houses.
And so, just wanna make sure that we're all
speaking
of the same area when we make our decision at
council.
- Thank you, Councilor Toussaint.
This motion does not speak to a public
participation meeting,
and I thought I heard the Councillors say
that there would be one.
I think this motion fails to speak to that.
It just says you do it.
Doesn't say you have a public participation
meeting,
which I think is another flaw in this motion,
'cause I think a public participation meeting
is required.
The other question I have,
which maybe could be answered before Council, I
don't know,
if we're going to start doing the kinds of
maintenance
we would have in a park, what's that gonna cost?
And I think it's reasonable to ask
if we're gonna make this change,
what are the budgetary implications of that?
And this doesn't address that, I think it should.
And I'm not gonna try to improve this
'cause I think it's wrong as it is,
but I think that that's something that should be
addressed
as well as the public participation meeting.
I'd really like to get a better idea
as to when the public participation meeting will
be.
And I know that that would be very, very
difficult
for staff to give us a date right now
because they are so backed up and pressed,
particularly with respect to planning
applications
that are under statutory deadlines.
But I just think this is,
there's so many holes in this.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I don't look for any other comments or questions.
Councilor Ferri, do you need to raise your hand
higher?
I can't see your pen, thank you.
Please go ahead.
- Thank you, I just wanted to clarify.
Like my immediate concerns are not only
with the removal of the level three,
which I know we decided on the last one
and putting in or looking into level one,
for the level one trail.
My real concern is the fact that there are enc
roachments,
that there are individuals who have complied,
that we're encroaching, that we have cases before
with other types of encroachments that have
complied.
And my real concern is kind of what this
direction
is subtly implying to the rest of the city.
Our city lands, our public lands,
able to be encroached and then potentially taken
by adjacent property owners.
And I feel like that is the real risk that we're
running into.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
>> Thank you.
Look for other comments.
Councilor Pribble.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.
I know I heard word precedents and please remind
me, I believe that within last
one, two years, we had a situation with one
property in Old South.
to do and backyard to the parkland and I believe
we have approved it and we did allow encroachment
.
Please remind me if I'm correct. Go staff.
Through the chair there is one instance at which
time we
did sell parkland. I believe that Realty can
speak to this further but I believe that the
instance for that one was with respect to land
lock and that there was no municipal need
identified.
I'm sorry, or would you rather go to yeah, thank
you through the chair
Yes, that that land has been declared plus with
the intention of selling that particular piece of
property
Unfortunately, we haven't come to resolution this
time and it will be subject to a future report
committee council council
Okay, thank you for that and one of the council's
mentioned additional costs and yes
There's certainly I'm quite sure there would be
certain additional costs by I think the primary
as we are talking about
our
a recreational master plan that we discussed
yesterday.
We do need green space for young people as we
heard.
It's used by the museum, it's used by schools.
There were a couple of school buses today.
So I think yes, cost this certainly should be
associated
with it, but on the other hand, the use as well.
And we all realize that we do need that.
I do have actually questioned a specific one
to what's in front of us, but actually feedback
from the staff, what is actually in front of us.
If we can receive any feedback,
because I just saw it recently,
what's in front of us,
and I'm not sure if staff has seen it before,
before if they have, if I can receive feedback,
or go staff.
- Through the chair, we just want to be very
clear
that we brought the committee report forward,
and we have a recommendation associated with that
,
so that's really what our thoughts
and recommendations are related to.
we're happy to progress and to move this forward
as committee and council sees fit,
but from a staffing perspective,
we've laid out our position.
- Councilor?
- I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, just for the chair.
I've missed the last three, four of words he said
.
- Please repeat.
- Through the chair, so the committee report
that we submitted in our recommendation
that outlines what our recommended,
what we would suggest,
but we're happy to bring forward our council
and committee would like us to bring forward in
the future.
- Councilor?
- Okay, thank you for that.
And I will also, I certainly wouldn't decline
what's in front of us right now,
but I will, before the council,
I will have still communication with the council
and the staff what's in front of us.
Because again, I do think that when I hear
that it's being used and by children,
by the classes, by the school buses.
And as I said yesterday, when we talk about parks
and rec plan, we do need these facilities for
Londoners.
- Thank you.
If the committee will permit me
on just a couple of comments here.
I want to thank Councilor Raman.
Coming up with a way to get out of this,
we're in a bit of a pickle here.
Very complex issues, a number of issues
that I've been dealt with here.
Yeah, I mean, I think we had a movie in the park
here a couple of years ago.
So there is confusion on where this stands,
especially for those people that abut this area.
Pretty supportive of all the things here.
It's still questioning D with encroachment issues
,
but I'm gonna have to work through that.
But for now, I'm gonna support this
just so we have something to start with
and between now and council,
whether there's amendments and vote on things
separately.
We'll see, but I'm gonna support it as it stands
right now.
we have a motion moved and seconded, I'm gonna
call the vote.
- I think the vote, the motion carries three to
zero.
- Okay, thank you.
We have a consent item that was pulled 2.3
regarding the deferred loan payments,
the community improvement plans,
the financial incentive programs.
I'm going to go to Councillor Stevenson
who requested that to be pulled.
So please go ahead.
- Thank you, I appreciate that.
I have an alternate motion.
The clerk has the wording.
And if I could ask for their support in reading
it out,
that would be appreciated.
- Okay, the clerk.
- It extends the deferral program to March 20th.
- Right, okay, so if the clerk could post that
and actually read that out, that'd be helpful.
- Through the chair,
Councillor Stevenson's alternative motion reads
that the staff report dated April 14th,
2026 related to the deferred loan payments
community improvement plan and finance incentive
programs
be referred to a future meeting
of the planning and environment committee
to direct that specific administration work
with the OEV and Downtown BIAs on an extension.
- So it's straight interrupt.
That's the wrong one.
There's a motion that extends the deferral
program
to March, 2028, we had two motions ordered.
- Did you, Councillor, did you email that to the
clerk?
- She did, apologies for the confusion.
There were two.
I'm gonna pull it up here.
- That's probably it.
Yeah, okay, I think we got it, Councillor.
- Okay.
- Let's try this one.
- My apologies, okay, so the motion at hand
that the following actions be taken
with respect to the staff report dated April 14th
, 2026
related to the deferred low payments,
community improvement plan and financial
incentive programs,
A, that the report be received,
and B, that the deferral of loan repayments
under the facade improvements loan program
and upgrade to building code loan program
previously approved by municipal council
in response to the economic impacts of COVID-19
be extended for an additional one year period
to March, 2028.
- Is that for you intended, Councilor?
- And honestly, it is, and it is,
and it was, and I apologize, let me just pull it
up.
I did approve this wording,
but it's just instead of in response to the
impacts
of COVID-19, we had a wording that said,
so if we could just change the,
in response to the economic impact currently
being felt
in this area or what it was supposed to say
was in response to our current strategic goals
and the crisis that we just declared
or we asked the province to declare.
So if we could change in response to the,
if we could change economic impacts of COVID-19
to in response to the current conditions
our strategic goals and the crisis.
- I'm not sure if you cut off, but you said and
the crisis.
I'm not sure if there's anything further to that.
- So you might be frozen, sir.
- You permit me?
- Yeah.
- What Councillor Stevenson was saying
what I heard before she cut out there was she was
looking
to change the part where it said COVID-19
and she was saying in response to the economic
impacts
currently being felt.
I don't wanna be speaking for her,
but that's what I heard her say, I believe,
before she cut out.
- She's, yeah, I think you're right.
I think she's logging in again.
I'm going to find out from her directly.
Okay, we got you.
- Okay, apologies.
I'm back and--
- All right, so can you,
Councilor, can you read out after in response
to what you'd like to see?
- Yes, just give me the one second.
- Yeah, I've experienced the glorious V01
internet.
I know what you're going through.
We might have found your version,
so we might have just one second.
She's getting her earphones in.
Councilor, can you hear me?
- I can now.
- Okay.
- The clerk read it out.
I think we found the wording you intended.
So I'm gonna have the clerk just read out that
after a response.
- Response to the current conditions, the crisis,
and the city's strategic goals be extended
for an additional one year period to March, 2028.
- Sounds great.
- Okay, you read the rest of it.
- It's just the communication.
- Okay, all right.
So you're putting, you're moving that, right,
Councillor?
- I am.
- And I'll second that.
So that's on the floor, go ahead and speak to it.
- Yes, thank you.
I appreciate this, you know, as we know we had,
we had hoped that this was a temporary measure
and that we would have, you know, a different
situation
than we're currently facing.
We just, I saw a six to zero vote supporting the
agencies
yesterday and given the crisis that we have,
we've asked the province to declare a state of
emergency
and our businesses in this area need the extra
support.
So this is a request to extend it to March 2028,
which takes us to the next multi-year budget,
and hopefully will be in a different situation at
that point.
And if not, we'll need to find a source of
funding
or make a decision.
The next council is gonna have that task.
So I'm looking for committee support and council
support
around supporting our businesses through this
crisis.
- Okay, I'll look for other comments or questions
from the Zing Councilors or Committee Member,
Member.
Council Member.
- Thanks, Chair.
So this is something that I was seeking.
I wasn't seeking, I guess, a full blanket, I
guess,
deferral for everything, which is how I read this
.
I just wanted to know, 'cause I did read in the
report
that some of the deferring, the deferrals
for the loan repayments required, I think,
contribution from the community improvement
program reserve fund I believe
in the past. Can staff just confirm that and can
staff if you can let me know on
the likeliness of having to have a contribution
from that reserve fund or
any reserve fund to for this deferral? I'll go to
staff. Thank you and
through you Mr. Chair so yes the these programs
the particular loan programs
in question here they do flow through our
community improvement program
reserve fund. So what that means is that the
funding to fund the loans themselves
upfront comes from this reserve fund and then the
ultimate repayments of these
loans then replenish the reserve fund in order to
then fund other financial
incentives under the various community
improvement plan programs that the city
offers. So as it currently stands we would have
some concern with this
this motion as currently on the floor.
If the repayments that are currently anticipated
to resume this September, if they do not resume
now
until March, 2028, that would put the CIP reserve
fund in a very precarious spot, I would suggest.
And so we would have some concern about that
our ability to fund that. So I think our
preference or perhaps suggestion if there is
a desire to head in this direction of providing a
further deferral is to have staff report
back on what that might look like, what the
financial impacts of doing that are, and if
there is a need for a source of financing to
address that, that would be the opportunity
identified as part of a report back. There could
be multiple options or ways of going about
addressing the financial impacts of what is
proposed here, but I think it's probably best
articulated in our report back. Councillor. Okay,
thank you for that. Like the Councillor's
right, so a lot of these properties are dealing
with economic conditions that are not necessarily
conducive to being able to pay it back right now.
So I am with her on that. I just maybe on
more of like a blanket kind of deferral for the
entire program may there might be a better way
forward. Like I do see that these repayments are
supposed to go as supposed to begin again
August 2026. Sorry, September 2026. Okay, so we
do have a little bit of leeway here.
And I do like my concerns are I guess business or
properties that are the most impacted and
and whether, and I did have some properties
that I've been discussing with that have been
recently
impacted by the N-Wave Steam D commissioning as
well,
so they have these extra challenges
that are coming up as well.
But at the same time, I do see
with the community investment reserve fund
being, I guess, at a critical balance.
What would be the balance after,
I guess, would you even know how much we would
have
to contribute from that reserve fund?
- Oh, good stuff.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have that exact amount here today.
I do know that in terms of the monthly repayments
that are in question here,
we're talking probably in the neighborhood,
and Mr. McCauley can confirm this as well,
but probably in the neighborhood of around $60,
000 a month.
So it adds up over the course of what's proposed
here
is 18 months of further deferral from September
of this year
to March of 2028.
So you are looking at probably north of a million
dollars,
but we'd have to do some work to kind of refine
that
a little further, Councillor.
- Okay, thank you for that.
I think I said the community investment reserve
fund.
I meant the community improvement program reserve
fund.
All right, something has to be done.
Like a deferral needs to be made,
but maybe there's a better way forward.
that would be less impactful on our budgets.
But I do support where the council is going with
this
because I know that we need this as well
on my side of Adelaide.
So I guess without further information,
I'm gonna reach out to the councilor
and see if we can find something
that might work a little bit better,
but a deferral needs to be had.
And if we can be a little more maybe surgical
and kind of identify properties that may need it
more,
I know that the BIA from downtown
was speaking about a 12 month.
The last 12 months of the program being used
and then looking into having repayments
for everything beyond that.
I know I was speaking about the N-Wave D
commissioning
and kind of identifying those properties.
I'm sure a council of Stevenson has other needs
from properties in her ward on her side
and the BIA would be able to speak to that too.
But I guess I will be reaching out
if the council is okay with that
if we can find something better.
But if we can't, then I would be supporting this
as it is
'cause it is needed.
- Councilor Stevenson.
- Yes, thank you.
And I appreciate the questions.
And what I would like to say is maybe an
amendment
to this motion where we ask staff to come back
with the details on how much might be needed
and the options for where we can find the money,
but that we agree to go ahead and do the deferral
given the circumstances that these businesses are
facing.
We also just reported the highest unemployment
rate
in the country, and so we need to support these
businesses
and the jobs.
And so whether it comes from the Economic Reserve
Fund
or what our options are, if we can maybe make an
amendment
to ask staff to come back with a report on the
details
and our options for funding.
- Okay, yeah, I see where you're going.
I'm just gonna go to staff to see if an amendment
would work
If we pass this, but also like a B would be to
report back
with potential funding other than the current
funding sources.
As you mentioned, you spoke to the Reserve Fund
hit
at this would take.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll start.
And certainly, I think we would be more open to
an amendment.
I think maybe the concern we would still have
though
is committing to a further deferral
without Committee and Council fully understanding
what the implications of that are,
and how we're gonna go about addressing it.
So, you know, just in terms of a potential
suggestion,
maybe Part B is amended to have staff report back
in prior to September of this year
on options, financial impacts,
and if required, potential funding sources
to facilitate an extension of the deferral period
to March, 2028, something to that effect.
- Counselor, did you hear that?
Counselor's frozen.
- Through the chair, just to let you know,
if that was the case, Mr. Murray,
it would be contrary to what B already says.
So when either a new part would need to be made
or the B would need to fail.
- Yeah, I was wondering what that, okay.
We're just waiting, the Councillors lost
connection again.
So we're just waiting for her to reconnect.
While we're waiting, just a question to staff,
would it be possible to have that kind of...
Oh yeah, we're not quorum.
Sorry, sorry.
We're not quorum of the minor.
Yeah.
While the Councillor is disconnected, we don't
have quorum.
So we cannot continue the business of the Coun
cillor.
Welcome back.
I'm not too sure where we were at.
the idea of having amendment to have a report
back,
but still go ahead.
The clerk has ruled that, that would be contrary.
So I'm just gonna ask a question from the chair
to our finance guru.
Would it be possible between now and council
to have that kind of information available for
council?
Let's say we pass this motion,
but then when we go to council,
it can be asked of view these questions regarding
the reserve fund and concerns you have there.
- Through you, Mr. Chair.
So we've been conferring here amongst ourselves
here
and staff in the last couple of minutes.
And I think we are able to quantify the total
amount
of the monthly payments over the 18 month term
to be approximately to maybe $1.2 million.
So that's kind of the order of magnitude
that we would be looking at as far as lost infl
ows,
I suppose, to the CIP reserve fund.
In order to offset that,
maybe could consider directing staff
to fund it from an alternate reserve or reserve
fund.
The top of my head,
probably the operating budget contingency reserve
,
would be the engine that we would go to.
short notice and absent, you know, opportunity to
do a full review.
So approximately $1.2 million and from the
operating budget contingency reserve.
Okay, Councilor, did you, did you hear that, um,
uh, report from finance?
I did hear that, um, recognizing well, though,
this is a deferral, the payments will come in, uh
, we're just giving people time.
I understand the money still needs to come from
somewhere, but this is a temporary draw.
So, wherever finance feels, yeah, is the
appropriate place and the work in details,
so I just approved the emotion as currently that
works for me.
Okay. So, I understand where the counselor is
coming from. It's not like we're forgiving.
It's a, it is a deferral, but I understand also
that that still has to be accounted for somewhere
.
so I understand finance concerns so we have a
motion moved and seconded this will go to council
between now and then I think again I'm speaking
from the chair but it's getting late and I want
to get things moving here I think you know there
is a feeling of you know with the you know
unemployment rates so high the tariffs taking it
's a toll is there a way to provide some sort of
deferral so the merchants that are facing this
payment start in September can have some
assurances because until we do something that's
what they're expecting and I think there's
concern
there so I'm just going to put it out there this
is where we're at we have a motion we have a
council
in a couple of weeks I'll look for any other
comments or questions from
Councillor Ferri or Councillor Cutty or Councill
or.
Councillor Stevenson, please go ahead.
Yeah, I'll just say quickly that I'm happy to
work with staff
between now and council on any amendments that
are required.
Okay. Okay. Councillor Ferri?
Chair. Sorry, Chair.
Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Cutty.
Yes, thank you. I'll support this motion, but I,
you know, I have heard what Mr. Murray said, and
I think we,
that's serious. We have to consider that because
we don't need to put any
pressure on our on our reserve fund. So I'll
support it now, but it I'm glad
that that Councillor Stevenson will meet with
staff. Thank you. Yeah, okay.
Councillor Farr. It sounds good to me. I believe
we'll see I guess a little
more information in direction by council, but
appreciate the discussion.
Okay. And then from the chair, yeah, I concur
with comments that Councillor
Cutty made. Money is money, but it is a deferral.
So we've got to figure out a
way between now and council. I'm sure I trust we
can with
councilor Stevenson working with the highest
department. Okay,
that being said, we have motion moved and second
ed. I'll call
the vote.
Think about the motion carries three to zero.
That leaves. I
deferred matters list. So I'll need a motion to
accept that
list. Councilor Cutty moves it. I'll second it.
We'll call
the vote.
Closing the vote. The motion carries three to
zero. Thank
you. So I think that's just a motion to adjourn.
I'll look
from motion to turn, Councillor Cudi,
I'll second it, hand vote.
- Motion carries.
- Please focus that way longer, then.
- Thanks everyone.
My apologies for the intermittent internet.