- Good afternoon, everyone.
It's 1 p.m.
I'm gonna call the ninth meeting
of the planning environment committee to order.
Please check the city website
for additional meeting detail information.
The city of London is situated on the traditional
lands
of the Anishinaabe, Khod Noshne, Anapewak and Ad
awanderan.
We honor and respect the history languages
and culture of the diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
The city of London is currently home
to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today.
as representatives of the people of the city of
London,
we are grateful to have the opportunity to work
and live in this territory.
The city of London is committed to making every
effort
to provide alternate formats and communication
supports
for meetings upon request to make a request.
Specific to this meeting, please contact packatl
ondon.ca
or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.
I'll just say first folks, I'm sorry about the
dark up there.
We're having some technical challenges.
Hopefully, I was hoping we get that resolved by
today,
but it looks obviously that we haven't.
So I apologize because, you know,
obviously for maybe reading your notes while you
speak,
might be a little challenging.
Okay, just look around for any disclosures
of pecuniary interest.
Seeing none, we have no consent items.
We have quite a few scheduled items.
And so I'm just going to remind people
that are speaking with us today.
You have five minutes and I'll let you know
when your time is up at 30 seconds
and to members of committee and visiting
counselors,
we have five minutes as well.
And I'm gonna be pretty tight on the timing
just because we have such a pretty big agenda.
Okay, first item is 3.1 and this is regarding 39
2442
M4050 Colonel Talbot Road.
I'm gonna look for a motion to open the public
participation
meeting, the seconder, and would you be
comfortable
doing the same for all opening and closing as we
go along?
So we'll be moving things a little quicker.
Thank you.
So we've got a motion moved in second to opening
the PPM.
We'll call the vote.
- I think the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you.
So I will look to the applicant.
So there sir, please give us your name
and you have five minutes.
Micah, I can't hear you.
know turn on off switch up there I'll ask for got
some assistance up we got
someone coming we're just looking at opening our
auxiliary room because we
have been a overflow so hello okay there we go
okay all right good
afternoon members of committee visiting
counselors my name is Alex van der
sluze I am the development manager for Auburn
developments we are the applicant
for 3924 4012 and 4050 Colonel Talbot Road also
known as our Heathwood
subdivision in Lambeth. We have a zoning bylaw
amendment, city initiated official plan amendment
as well as a red line revision to the approved
draft plan of subdivision. Essentially, what
we're looking to do is to update the planning
permissions, modernize the regulatory framework
for the unregistered portions of the approved
subdivision. The subdivision is approximately 50,
60% built out at this point.
We also have some external parcels, 4012 and 4050
, Colonel Talbot Road, which we've
acquired since the initial draft plan approval
for the overall subdivision, which through
the red line we're proposing to bring into the
development to be developed comprehensively
with the rest of the community.
I want to thank staff for the collaboration,
obviously the city initiated OPA was needed
due to the some of the inconsistency between the
more dated Southwest Area Secondary Plan
and then the London Plan, which has a more up-to-
date planning framework. Staff are currently
working
to repeal the secondary plan and instead
implement the London Plan in this area. However,
that
hasn't happened yet. And so to do some of the
things that we're looking for, which are in
alignment
with the London plan staff initiated this
official plan amendment to essentially line up
the two
documents. We are generally in alignment with
staff on what they're proposing. We did submit a
small requested alternate motion related to
specifically garage and driveway widths on
smaller
lots. As land becomes more valuable we need to
use the land resource more efficiently and so we
see
our housing product transitioning to smaller
forms compared to what we've been developing
maybe in the last 10 years, moving towards some
of those smaller lot singles, semis,
duplexes, forms which we haven't really seen as
much of in London when land was perhaps
more plentiful or at least less expensive.
So in acknowledgment of that market reality, we
're also looking for an acknowledgment of
the market reality that folks are looking for
two car garages and double driveways.
And so the regulation that we've proposed
in addition to all of what staff has proposed and
supported
is a permission for lots, which are less than 12
meters,
which is a 40 foot lot.
So down into those 30 and 36 foot lots
to still have the ability to build a two car
garage.
And so that was the slight tweak that we
submitted
for your consideration and hopefully your
endorsement
on adjusting what staff have recommended.
I don't really have much more to say other than
that.
I know we have a long meeting,
but certainly if there are any questions
about what we've proposed or the overall
application,
be more than happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for members of the public
that'd like to address the committee on this
issue.
I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online.
And do we have the auxiliary room in operation?
Are there other people I have to check?
No.
Okay.
- I understand that, yeah, just second phase.
So we do have an overflow room
because the number of people here today,
it's gonna take about 10 minutes
before they can are able to communicate with us.
So we're just checking to see if anyone that room
wants
to speak to this particular item.
We've got someone going there, Counselor, thank
you.
So bear with us.
Okay, we checked the room and no one wanted to
speak
to this issue.
So I don't see anyone approaching any microphones
up there.
No one online, so I'll look for,
While we have a motion moved and seconded
to close with PPM, so I will call that.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- I'll put this out for committee.
Councilor Cuddy, thank you Chair.
I'll move the motion.
I don't have a seconder at the moment.
I'll look for a seconder.
Councilor Stevenson seconds.
So we have motion moved and seconded.
Any discussion?
- Chair, I'd like to open discussion
by speaking to this.
- Yeah, please go ahead, Councilor.
- Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Auburn Group
for bringing this forward to us.
I really appreciate it.
So I'll be supporting this request to amend the
application before us today.
So the application represents an important next
step in the continued development of Heathwood's
community in Lambeth, bringing forward a mix of
low and medium density housing while making
efficient use of service land within our urban
boundary.
The applicant is seeking a modest adjustment that
would allow a double car garage garages
in driveways on select lots under 12 meters in
width.
As housing affordability changes, challenges
continue,
builders are increasingly delivering homes on
narrow lots
to keep costs more attainable for families.
At the same time, many home buyers still require
space for two vehicles.
The proposed change recognizes these market
realities
while maintaining the overall vision of the
London plan.
It supports housing choices, provides flexibility
and design, and helps ensure these neighborhoods
remain
active and functional for future residents.
This is a practical amendment that balances
efficient
land use with the needs of today's home buyers.
And for those reasons,
I will be supporting the applicant's request.
Thank you, Chair.
- So, Councillor, there is a bit of confusion
'cause at the beginning,
you said you were moving staff's recommendation,
but the clerk has indicated that you had another
- I apologize, that was my modification, sorry,
thank you.
- Okay, so I'm gonna have the clerk read out
the modified motion.
- Thank you.
- And then I'll go to the seconder
to make sure that she is okay to second it.
Okay, apparently it's pretty lengthy,
so we're just gonna post it up there
and also on our computer screens as well,
so I'll just have you read it.
If you look in E-Scribe under 3.1, number four,
you'll find it.
- Yeah, that's fine, and I'll move the amendment
to that.
- Okay, so you're moving that motion that we see.
Councillor Stevenson, are you okay to second that
?
Okay, so that's the motion that we are dealing
with.
I'll look for any other, for other speakers.
I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis hand up.
Deputy Mayor, do you want to speak to this?
- Yes, just briefly Chair.
I support the Councilor's amendment.
That's absolutely fine, no objection to that.
We did have a request from Councilor Hopkins,
and I'm not sure if she's in chambers or not.
- The Councilor is in chambers and she notified
me
that she was going to look for an amendment here.
I'm just going to be members first here.
- Yeah, so to that note, the request is for a
revised
transportation impact assessment to be considered
as part of the future draft plan of subdivision.
I'm happy to move that forward or as an amendment
.
I don't think it's contrary to what Councillor C
udi
has put on the floor, I think it's just an
addition.
I'll look to the clerks to see if they can occur
with that,
but if that's the case, if it's not contrary,
then I'm prepared to move that for Councillor
Hopkins
and let her speak to it.
- Okay, I'll just confer with the current.
Okay, so Deputy Mayor, you're putting forth that
amendment.
for a seconder on that, Councillor Stevenson has
seconded.
I'll just go right to Councillor Hopkins as well.
And have you speak to that, Councillor?
- Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
I'm not part of this committee.
I do appreciate the committee members bringing
forward
another amendment.
I do think for the public's sake,
I would like to read the amendment that I'm
proposing.
And it's based on a lot of development that's
going on
in the Lambeth area and as we develop
and as we've already approved many, many
applications,
the importance of how we move around our
community
becomes even more important.
I do want to acknowledge the community.
There isn't a letter, an added attachment
to the agenda expressing a number of concerns.
One is the transportation.
So with the amendment, it would be added to
clause D
and it would be an I, which says any issues
raised
at the public meeting?
Well, I should start at the beginning.
With respect to the proposed red line revisions
to the draft plan of subdivision of Youth Woods
Subdivision,
as submitted by Auburn,
the Planning and Environment Committee
report to the authority on the following.
Any issues raised at the public meeting
and request a revised transportation impact
assessment
to be considered as part of the future draft plan
subdivision, detailed design and site plant
design processes. So that is my
added amendment and I thank the committee for
adding it to the
recommendation. I do have other comments. I will
speak to the main motion or is
this the main motion? Well we're dealing with the
amendment right now so if it's
amendment related go ahead but if you want to
hold off on the main motion go
that. Okay. So any further comments just on the
amendment that the deputy put forth on behalf of
Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead, Councillor
Peruzza. Thank you, sir. To the staff, I see the
letter on the two pages from the Auburn, but then
there's the amendment, then there's the
alternate motion, et cetera. And I just want to
make sure that if we either clerk or our staff
have gone through it or if this is approved by
this committee, if I just want to make sure that
it's aligned. If the committee approves it and it
goes to the council, I just want to make sure
that there are no discrepancy in terms of the two
letters and in terms of the additional work done
by Auburn. Okay, we're going to stop through the
chair. Thanks for the question. So,
Respect to the driveway widths and garages. It's
exactly exactly identical to what Auburn has
requested in addition within their letter
Staff noted they did request some changes. I
Believe to interior side yard
First the R5 and six zones
Because that was not detailed in their letter
staff maintained those provisions that were in
staff's
original by-law, so those are the only
differences. And it's a setback from the
interior property line if there's habitable
windows with a 3-meter setback.
Councillor. Thank you for that. And I will
support this at the Council. But as I said,
I just want to make sure that the letter or the
requests from Auburn which I will support at the
Council. Councillor, I just want to remind you
that we're in the amendment right now. So we're
We're just talking about traffic study that if
you're referring to that portion of it as opposed
to the whole motion that
Councilor Cutty put on the floor fine to just
just caution you to don't get too much off track
here into the into the main motion
Okay
Do what I believe it is now
I'll just clarify one more thing when it comes to
the amendment to the main motion
Okay, any other comments or questions on the on
the amendment we have amendment moved in second
and I'll call that vote.
- Those in the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- So I'll go back to the original moverner.
Seconder, are you okay to move the amended,
as amended motion?
- Yes, Chair.
- Councillor Stevenson, okay, second.
Okay.
So now we have the motion as amended.
And I'll look for comments.
I can go back to you Councillor Hopkins
'cause you had indicated that you wanted to speak
to that.
Yeah.
- Thank you for recognizing me again.
So on the main motion.
First of all, I want to thank the consultant.
I think you did a great overview of what the
zoning
and the official plan amendments
that are in front of us right now.
I know it seems a little complicated.
I've had a hard time myself trying to align
everything
and then of course the added properties.
But from my understanding what we're doing here
is bringing all these plans in alignment
and we're creating more or less policies
in particular as well policies to align with the
London plan.
I want to thank the community again
for asking a number of questions.
I know this is a subdivision agreement.
There's going to be a draft plan and site plan
process
is going forward.
The community can often reach out to the planning
department
to find out where this process is at, as well as
reaching out to our website and monitoring
the application as well.
It will probably take a while for this
development to come about, but I think it's
important
to the community to understand where this process
is.
I also understand that the we'll be looking
forward
into the future on improving some of our IT
enhancements
as well, so making it easier for the community
to find out what is going on.
On the amendment, thank you again, committee.
I am not quite sure how I'm gonna support
the added two car garage.
I know we have parking standards coming forward.
to the next planning committee.
I'd like to see those standards a little bit more
,
understand the amendment that's being proposed.
I haven't read it completely,
so I have time until council to understand it.
But I do have concerns sometimes when we build
new homes,
we create these garages that sort of overtake a
house
and the way it looks in the neighborhood.
So I have a few concerns, but like I said,
So I'll follow up on the applicant's amendment
as this goes to council.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other comments or questions.
Councilor Pervault.
- Thank you, Chair.
So just to follow up on my last question.
So I'll try to be specific on the edit agenda
page 47 to 49.
Is the letter from Auburn?
Then it's from 49 to 57.
Is the additional amendment and appendix AB?
And my question is, is it aligned?
Has the stop gone straight than either planning
or the legal?
Is it aligned with the two pages of the letter,
besides what I already heard, the difference?
Are there any other differences or is it aligned?
- Go staff.
Through the chair, the only pieces of the bylaw
that are not aligned are section three and four
of the bylaw under II of first section three,
for rear and interior side yard depth,
where staff still included the three meters
where no windows or habitable room face
for interior inside, or sorry, interior side
setback
and rear setback.
And we felt the need to still include those
provisions
as Auburn's letter didn't speak specifically
to any removal of those items.
It just spoke specifically to widen driveway
and widen garage width.
- Councillor.
So thank you for that.
So what will be done then if the committee
approves it,
now what's in front of us?
Where is the point where it's actually
going to get either aligned?
Is this going to be done before the council?
Or I just want-- I'm just a little bit on this
one.
As I said, normally we get the letter
and we don't get the additional six, seven pages
from the developer.
So I just want to make sure how it's going to be
aligned
and how we are going to be through the planning
and then council, if you can kind of clarify it
for me.
staff through the chair we are aligned with the
the bylaw that's in front of
committee right now with respect to the the
driveway width and garage width what's
not aligned is section 3 in section 4
specifically for rear interior side
yard setback depth as those provisions still are
within the bylaw in front of
committee as they weren't specifically called out
in Auburn's report I might
on a deferred to Auburn to see if they have any
concerns with that inclusion as it may have been
missed in there or it was intentional it just
wasn't called out specifically as I mentioned in
their letter to committee. I'll go to the
applicant. Okay thank you Peter. I truthfully I
thought what
was in the the staff by-law was an oversight
because it was permitting a setback which we had
requested of 1.2 meters which we just requested a
setback of 1.2 meters which
is a typical interior side yard setback for
single-family homes and it's for
street town homes and the revised by-law as well
so we had requested that for
cluster town homes essentially but staff had
included in their by-law where
there are no windows that the by that the setback
would be larger so where
you have windows it could be 1.2 meters but where
there are no windows it would
three meters so I know truthfully we didn't speak
about it I thought it was
just an oversight I had deleted it in the draft
file that I had proposed we
expect to have windows on those side yards in
which case that three meters
wouldn't come into play so I it doesn't concern
me if that's I know that's what's
on the floor if you want to proceed with that I
don't have concerns but I
thought that the I thought it was just a mistake
initially that I corrected but
As Peter said, I didn't point it out in my letter
because I didn't think it was of substance.
Hopefully that helps.
Thank you.
Councillor.
And just a full-up sort of chair to our staff
after hearing this, can you provide us feedback
on those comments?
I'll go to staff.
Through the chair, based on what Auburn was
highlighting there in their speaking notes,
it sounds like they're okay with this special
provision, but if committee wants the by-law
to be amended we can remove the provision as I
noted it's within section 3 which is for the R5
zone
as well as section 4 of the by-law specifically
within the R6 zone but based on what we heard
from
Auburn it seems like they're okay with the
provision. Okay thank you. Mr. Mathers do you
want to
Mr. Mathers do you want to add to that? Yeah
through the chair just to make it very
clear that there is no staff concern with what's
before you so if you choose to move forward with
With that, we don't have a concern with that.
What's before you today when you're by law?
- Thank you, Councillor.
- So thank you for answering all my questions.
I will leave it as I'm not a member of this
committee.
I will leave it as the committee,
but thank you for all your answers.
- Okay, thank you.
I'll look for other comments or questions
from committee members or staff or visiting Coun
cillors.
Okay, we've got a motion, a motion moved and
seconded
and we'll call the vote.
- I was thinking about the motion carries five to
zero.
Thank you. Moving on to 3.2. This is regarding
employment area, policy review, industrial
land review. We have a motion to open the public
participation meeting moved in second
already, so we'll call that vote.
Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.
Hi, I see you at the microphone. Please give us
your name and you have five minutes.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members of the
Committee and City Councilors. My name
is Alia Richards and I'm a planner with Zilinka-P
ramo Limited representing
Focal Point Development Corporation. I'm here to
speak to item 3.2 to request
consideration for a special policy area encomp
assing the commercial
industrial lands located in the Hyde Park
District to allow for a broader
range of commercial and office uses. This request
is based on both recent
provincial policy changes which no longer class
ifies these lands as an
as an employment area and the unique
characteristics of the specific area which
does not function as a typical commercial
industrial area as envisioned
in the London Plan. These lands are not located
near active industrial or
employment uses and are not positioned as a
transition between industrial and
sensitive land uses. Instead they are embedded in
a mixed use context surrounded
by neighborhoods, main street areas, shopping
areas,
and open space uses.
As a result, this area presents a unique
circumstance
that warrants reconsideration of how the policies
are applied.
Under the current policy framework,
many commercial and service uses are either
prohibited
or severely restricted as the vast majority
of the commercial industrial lands at this
location
are not adjacent to a civic boulevard
and are not located near any industrial
or employment lands with a workforce to serve.
As currently written, the policies do not provide
meaningful opportunities for landowners
to optimize their lands, and they limit the
ability
for the area to evolve in a logical way.
The London Plan needs to acknowledge
the unique circumstances of this area,
which strongly deviates from the commercial
industrial areas in London,
which are positioned next to active industrial
lands
throughout the city.
With rethink zoning underway,
This is the appropriate time to consider
the how the existing policy framework impacts
and constrains these lands.
If no changes are made,
this area will likely remain stagnant and under
utilized
because it does not have the appropriate planning
purpose
under the existing framework.
It does not have an appropriate planning purpose
under the existing framework,
considering the context of the surrounding area.
Notably, many service and office-oriented uses
are already present in the area.
However, those uses require significant time,
effort,
and cost to establish under the existing policies
governing
the commercial industrial place type.
Importantly, we are not seeking a full re-design
ation
of these lands, but rather a targeted and
practical solution,
which would remove unnecessary restrictions
on commercial uses, broaden the range
of permitted commercial service in office uses,
acknowledge the existing industrial uses in the
area,
and better align the policies with both
provincial direction
and the existing context.
In closing, we respectfully ask the committee
to recognize the unique context of these lands
and support a site-specific policy approach
that would allow for more appropriate
and functional use moving forward.
As such, we would request that this matter
be referred back to staff to consider expanding
the range of permitted uses within the Hyde Park
District.
Thank you for your time, and I would be happy
to answer any questions.
- Thank you, Ms. Richards.
I'll look for other speakers.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Ross Raines, owner of Focal Point
Group,
a small family run office rental business
serving tenants across London.
For context, we're talking about here
a 14,000 square foot office structure
that was built originally about 35, 40 years ago
as an industrial support office for the barcode
industry.
The site has 90 parking spaces on two and a half
acres.
We have owned the property for 20 years.
It's our first building.
We pay currently 60,000 per year in city taxes.
And in October 2025, we lost our anchor tenant
due to bankruptcy
as a result of the 100% tariffs from the US
on the aluminum product industry.
Right now, we simply cannot fill the space.
There is virtually no demand for light industrial
in this quickly transitioning area we know as
Hyde Park.
We face the real option of needing to sell to
someone
who may turn it into a step down use
such as mini storage or whatever.
Our experience over the years with our two
properties
in Hyde Park is that there's a huge demand
for general office space for professionals,
doctors, personal services, counselors, and
others.
And yet there's virtually no demand for occupancy
by anything in the existing LI,
or light industrial zoning category that we're in
.
We have a private K to 12 school
that would take over the property tomorrow,
but the city has said no.
We qualify for a commercial school
that fits the zoning, but not private school.
We have two large proven caregiving counselor
groups
that have been circling like airplanes
needing to land the past six months
on any possibility that zoning
would be upgraded to reflect the needs
of this growing suburban market,
but they too do not comply with existing zoning.
We showed the space again this morning
to one of these groups and they're very eager.
They specialize in services for autistic children
.
I don't think our situation is unique.
The area as a whole has emerged
into a mature suburban setting,
but the zoning flexibility of this light
industrial area
has not kept pace with the true demands of the
market.
I can't speak to retail or other commercial uses,
but the office segment is very limited in this
area.
We simply ask that the council consider
significantly expanding uses
under the current light industrial zoning.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sort of give us your name and you have
five minutes.
- Good afternoon, my name is Eric Steele
from Monteith Brown Planning Insoles.
We're here on behalf of our own clients,
the owners and developers of the lands known as
2448 Dundas,
so shown on schedule 5, Appendix B of staff's
report.
These lands are split designated between a
neighborhood's
place type and a light industrial place type.
And so in consultation with staff,
we have submitted a request that these lands
be re-designated to be entirely neighborhood's
place type
as part of the city's review of unsuitable
and ineligible industrial lands.
These lands were designated or identified
as being unsuitable through the city's
industrial land use assessment process
due to proximity to more sensitive residential
uses
to the east, west, and south.
And so given that context, we are the position
that these lands be more appropriate
to augment residential uses through that redesign
ation.
Additionally, I would note that since these lands
were deemed unsuitable, there'd be no removal
of employment lands, or as any impact
to the city's supply of employment lands
through this redesignation.
And so in summary, we are supportive of staff's
recommendation
to re-designate these lands
and to happy answering questions as it relates to
that.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online
like to address the committee.
I don't see anyone else coming to the microphone,
so I'll open the vote to close the public
participation meeting.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this on the floor for committee.
Councillor cutting.
- Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation.
I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Stevenson seconds.
I'll look for questions or comments on the motion
.
I don't see anyone wishing to speak.
Councilor Trassel.
- Thank you through the chair.
I'm not a member of the committee.
I'm just making comments as a guest.
I'll keep them very brief.
Would this allow additional office,
this would allow additional office space in the
area?
- I'll go to staff on that question.
- Through the chair.
So the policy changes do recognize existing
and silvery uses in light industrial areas.
And continuing in light industrial areas,
You can have, based on size requirements, certain
office uses.
The purpose is to recognize primarily existing
make-ups of industrial areas because provincial
policy changes have identified non-industrial
uses as not being permitted unless they are
ancillary to an industrial area.
The commercial industrial question that came up
separately is not the same type of instance.
they are primarily commercial areas,
but not mainstream types of commercials.
We have met with that applicant,
but they did not make an application
for an official plan amendment.
So it wasn't considered as part of the scope of
this,
which was intended to recognize changes
to provincial policy.
- Counselor.
- Thank you through the chair.
With the type of ancillary uses here,
the uses that would be competing
with commercial office space providers in the
court.
- I'll go stop.
- Through the chair.
There are size limitations on office uses.
And the purpose is to target office uses
to those main course notes and corridors.
And that is the purpose of maintaining
especially service types of office being
in other sorts of locations.
And these are being primarily for the kinds of
commercial
and small scale office that may be
ancillary to industrial uses or of a scale
that does not compete with with those
other primary downtown types areas.
- Councilor.
through the chair more directly than is their
attention
between allowing these additional uses
and our policy of trying to grapple
with the very serious problem of downtown
vacancies.
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, those are the purposes
of maintaining size limitations and types of
offices.
So some are more, you know, traveling public
generating
as opposed to ones that are tied
to the types of uses within those areas.
Councilor is finally my last question is through
the chair is there is there anything in these
guidelines that would require some showing that
there be something particular about this part of
town of the suburban area of town or this this
part of Northwest London that that would cut down
on on trips or could could anybody be renting
these places I'll go stop through the chair so as
currently zone they're not permitted the size and
scale of them and the the uses are limited to
what
is permitted by the zoning by-law through rethink
zoning, they are being re-evaluated,
but the general character of type of office is
intended to do that and recognize those
that are more in keeping with the industrial and
quasi-industrial versus those that are
more public facing on main streets.
And there are policy requirements about those
within commercial industrial areas being located
on arterial roads for those purposes.
Councillor?
Thank you.
Nothing else.
Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanna, through you, give my thanks to
staff.
I know staff did a lot of intensive conversations
with the community prior to the PPM.
I'm glad the public is out today
expressing their comments as well,
but as we align our policies and update them,
I just wanna pass on my thanks to staff.
- Thank you, other comments or questions?
Councilor Allen.
- Thank you and through you.
Yep, I wanted to start with the thank you to
staff as well
for the work they're doing on addressing
the employment area policy review.
Specific to the Hyde Park area,
I wanna thank Alia Richardson, Richard, sorry.
And Mr. Raines, Ross Raines,
for coming today to speak to this issue.
I know it's something that we've had previous
discussions
about as well.
This is a very unique part of the city
with this unique light industrial zoning
that continues to be part of the area,
which is kind of going through a regeneration as
well.
We're seeing a lot of change,
some to residential in the area.
We're seeing some desirability
for more of this office commercial.
Is the rethinking zoning process the best place
for these discussions to happen?
Or is a site specific policy the best way to
address it?
and wondering if staff can provide more input on
that.
- I'll go to staff.
- Thank you through the chair.
My suggestion would be the applicant make an
application
for an official plan amendment.
And we could look at it in a more comprehensive
manner
and what the range of uses could entail in this
area.
And then certainly the zoning would match
the policy framework subject to council approval.
- Councilor.
- Thank you and through you.
So for the applicant to do so,
one, it's quite a lengthy process,
but it also engages in having to find a tenant
that's willing to kind of stay with you
while you go through that process
to re-imagine what it could be and how it could
be used.
And that's part of the challenge, I think,
is that you have tenants maybe that are
interested,
but to take them through that process
while they wait to see whether or not that
approval happens,
It requires quite a bit of commitment and long-
term planning.
Is there another way that staff might be able to
look at this,
or is that the only way, and is this something
we're thinking about with rethinking zoning?
- Oh, good staff.
Thank you through the chair.
To review an official plan amendment, it's 120
days.
So that's not a very lengthy process, as we've
heard.
And certainly we would like to entertain
what the applicant's looking for
and what those range of uses are.
- Councilor. - Thank you.
- Other comments or questions?
We have a motion moved and seconded, we'll call
the vote.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 1837,
Churchill Avenue.
We will open the vote to open the public
participation meeting.
- Wasn't the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- I see someone at the microphone already.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Thank you through you, Chair.
My name is Jamie Robertson.
I'm from Strict Baldwin only Moniz SPM here in
London
as a planner representing Al Taco for this file.
I'd like to thank you for your time today
as well as the PEC members and the visiting
counselors.
For this application, there is a site plan
application
that is in process to increase the existing use
at the site 1837 Churchill Avenue.
For that, it was determined that a private school
use
is not currently permitted on the site
and as such a minor zoning by-law would be
necessary.
So we've also added into that as a private school
for a permitted additional use.
We have a front yard depth allowance of 3.5
meters
and that Merlin Crescent be recognized
as the front yard lot line
as opposed to the Edmonton Street frontage
that would otherwise be the front lot line.
The entire property including the access
at Edmonton Street would also be rezoned to the
same NF zone,
removing the previous residential zone
on that small strip of land,
that otherwise would not be able
to accommodate a single detached home.
A couple of notes with this application
is we know historically there have been traffic
issues,
especially on Maryland Crescent
and a lot of the local streets surrounding.
The idea and intent of this site plan
is to provide much larger on-site parking areas
that would help reduce that impact,
take these cars off of Merlin Crescent,
accessing through Edmonton Street.
There would no longer be any regular vehicle
access
to Merlin Crescent.
The only remaining vehicle association
would be dedicated bus parking along Merlin
Crescent,
and then access towards the back for garbage
collection,
which wouldn't happen on a consistent basis.
The new Edmonton Street access
through the site plan process is seen
as meeting all of the safety requirements
for site lines and distances.
It would include a stop sign to control the
access
and make the Edmonton Street along with Churchill
Avenue,
a full regulated intersection,
ensuring that there is specific safety addresses
for vehicles to access and leave the site
as well as pedestrian safety.
And finally, the operational hours of the school
are generally Monday to Friday, 730 to 330.
Traffic impact study was done with the site visit
during the peak hours to notice the impacts
on Merlin Crescent at the current time in local
streets.
And it was determined that the access
being provided through Edmonton Street
is the main north-south connection between Will
well
and Dundas and would greatly reduce the impacts
that are currently being felt on Merlin Crescent.
again, that's going through the site plan process
.
So specifically before us are the permitted uses
for the additional permitted use for private
school,
the front yard setback reduction,
and the entire site rezoning with Merlin Crescent
being the front lot line.
Should there be any questions?
I'd love to do my best to address them.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other speakers this item.
Please ma'am, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Thank you.
My name's Linda Davis and I live one house away
from El Talkway.
I, currently, the traffic that was noted on
Merlin
is a nightmare.
It is really, really difficult.
Now, I know that that might change with the
school
being coming off of Edmonton Street.
But the continue to have bus access off of Merlin
,
I think, is still a problem.
Merlin is never, I don't think was ever an actual
street,
it is like a laneway, it's, I don't know the
width of it,
but it's not, it doesn't seem wide enough.
There are no curbs, grass is quite long
on the sides of the road and it makes it really
difficult
as a pedestrian dog walker and person in the
neighborhood
to get around.
Last night I was coming home from an event at 10.
20
And the school bus was parked in the parking area
where they're saying it's still going to be
happening.
And there were so many cars waiting to pick up
the students
that I couldn't get through.
I was stuck.
They were parked three across the street in both
directions.
And I'm just shocked that somebody hasn't been
hurt.
I think that far more traffic studies need to be
done.
and I would speak against this expansion of the
school.
- Thank you, I'll look for other speakers.
Last click, if there's anyone online,
there's nobody online.
I don't see anyone else approaching the
microphones,
so we'll call the vote to close the PPM.
- Losing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this on the floor for our
committee.
Councilor Cuddy.
- Thank you, staff all.
Thank you Chair, I'll move the staff
recommendation.
- Thank you, look for a seconder.
Councilor Stevenson, we have a motion moved
second, I'll look for any comments or questions.
Deputy Mayor Lewis, please go
ahead. Thank you chair. So I'm gonna state first
as people generally know that I
live on way valve. Although that's true, I am not
with the notification zone for
this application, so I don't have any conflict as
a homeowner. I will say as a
word counselor though, I cannot support this
application. While I appreciate
Al Paco wanting to move away from Portables and
get students into a
building proper. I have tremendous concern about
the traffic assessment. The Edmonton
Street access is approximately 8.1 meters. If you
allow 3 lanes or 3 meters per lane,
that's 6 meters right there. A 1.6 meter walkway
gets you to 7.6. That leaves 0.4 meters for
fencing, retaining walls, anything there. And
immediately on the other side of the property
line, you have a residential driveway. So I'm
concerned about the access there. I also
share Ms. Davis concern and I've heard from a
number of residents in that Park Ave, Merlin
Crescent area, the same concerns. Since Altauqua
has taken possession of this property, the
traffic
has been an absolute nightmare. The school bus
service, as was mentioned, buses are parked on
the property overnight. So I think that this is
actually being run as a private service, not a
yellow bus service. I'm not sure that the
maintaining the buses on our land is going to
address the
residents' traffic concerns, especially when we
hear examples from the neighbors of buses coming
home from wherever the students were on presuming
some sort of field trip and still blocking the
roadways for pickup at 9, 10 o'clock at night at
times. I think this is an over-intensification
of the site. I am concerned as well about the
private access on Edmonton and how that interacts
with East Lions Community Center, which is at
Edmonton and Churchill. We have seen an increase
in traffic of course on Edmonton since the
Community Center opened. That's great news
because the
Community Center is well used and well loved. But
to start putting all of that school traffic
through on Edmonton through an eight meter access
, I have serious concerns about and I have
concerns
about the plan in general and what's happening to
the neighborhood. I want to confirm as well
the comments that we heard from Miss Davis.
Merlin Crescent has no curves and gutters.
If it weren't for the good neighbors, cleaning
some of the catch basins in the spring,
and sometimes even after they've cleaned them,
there's so much leaf fall from the mature trees,
which are lovely to have, but we have flooding
issues there. Requests have to go into service
London to get those catch basins cleared. As much
as the neighbors try their best to keep them
there, they can't always keep up. People have
lives and it's not really up to them beyond being
a good neighbor to clear those catch basins. So
for those reasons, I just think that this is
an over-intensification of the site and we're
also talking about a site that's not just
focusing on
being a school. It also offers prayer services
throughout the week and on the weekends. So that
traffic doesn't stop at 3.30 and it doesn't stop
on Friday afternoon. It's a
seven-day a week site where people are coming and
going and the dual use the
increased traffic and the plan as is to keep the
buses on Marlin is something
that I just as the word counselor I've heard from
my residents I will not
support it. Thank you. I look for other comments
or questions. Seeing none we have
a motion moved and second I'll call the vote.
Seeing the vote the motion fails two
to three moving on to three point four this is
regarding two four nine six
Dundas Street I'll open the vote to open the PPM
closing the vote the motion
carries five to zero thank you all look for the
applicant if the applicant would
like to address the committee please sir give us
your name you have five minutes
my name is Eric Steele I'm planning with Monty
Brown planning consultants here
path for a client Rosewood Grove Limited who is
the owner and developer of the
subject lands. These lands were
re-designated last year through OPA 116
from Light Industrial to Neighborhoods Place type
.
And so the purpose of this application
is to really align the current zoning of the
property
with that re-designation.
And so let's facilitate the development
of 73 townhouse units on the property.
We believe that this re-zoning would be
appropriate works and property development for
these lands
and provide opportunities to issues housing
options
within this area of the city.
I also like to note that there's a concurrent
site plan
control application that has been submitted
as currently in third submission.
So many of the technical elements and concerns
with staff have already been addressed
through those processes.
And so in summary, we have reviewed staff's
report
and by-law and are supportive of staff's
recommendation
to approve the application.
We thank staff for the work in processing this
file
and happy answering any questions and members of
the committee.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other speakers, like to address
this item.
I'll ask Clerk if there's anyone online.
There's nobody online.
They don't see anyone approaching the microphone.
So I'll open the vote to close the public
participation meeting.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this item out for committee.
- I'd be prepared to move that chair.
- Deputy Mayor Lewis moves it.
But for a seconder, Councilor Cuddy is seconding
it.
I'll look for discussion.
Councilor or Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you, Chair.
I'm gonna be brief.
This is another one in ward two.
Very supportive of this application.
I think there's a good plan, the applicants work
with staff
to sort out some of the technical details.
And I think this would be a good use and a good
opportunity
for some residential infill in the East End.
- Thank you, my further speakers.
Seeing none, we have a motion moved
and seconded, we'll call the vote.
- Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, moving on to 3.5.
This is regarding 221 Queens Avenue.
I'll open the vote to open the public
participation meeting.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, I'll go to you, sir.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee,
Jay McGuffin, Principal Planner,
Montyth Brown Planning Consultants.
Here this afternoon on behalf of Sifton
Properties Limited,
the owner of 221 Queens Ave.
Our client is requesting approval
to extend temporary zoning permissions
for surface parking at 221 Queens Ave
for an additional three years.
We've had an opportunity to review,
just recently the staff report.
The staff report is recommending refusal.
We are requesting the committee grant,
the requested application.
Siften has lawfully operated this site
as surface parking since 1995.
The lot itself provides 67 parking spaces,
65 of which are tied to active leasing contracts
supporting their nearby office buildings.
39 of those spaces are at 171 Queens Avenue,
which is at Richmond Street intersection.
And 26 of those spaces are at 200 Queens Avenue
at Colburn Street.
So for clarity, these are not surplus or
speculative spaces.
They are contractually committed
and essential to existing tendencies
that SIPTIN has been working very diligently on.
No need to provide a reminder on current market
conditions,
but the downtown office market remains under
significant stress.
As a result, CBC's article back in December of
2025
identified that the city of London
the largest office vacancy rate in Canada.
In this challenging environment,
Siften has made substantial investments
in their building upgrades.
They've undertaken actively three negotiations
to retain tenants, and they're working diligently
to stabilize the occupancy in 171 Queen Street
in particular.
These efforts depend in part on reliable,
accessible parking for their tenants and their
employees.
The importance of this parking lot,
the subject lands are functionally integrated
with the surrounding office uses.
In the removal of this parking,
jeopardizes the existing lease agreements,
undermines tenant retention efforts,
creates operational instability for both of these
buildings,
and further weakens the downtown economic
vitality.
This is especially critical,
given that Siften is actively investing
in downtown revitalization,
and has recently converted office space to
residential space
to adapt to changing market realities in the
downtown.
In response to the staff recommendation,
staff have suggested refusal
for the purposes of incentivizing redevelopment
of the property.
Respectfully, this approach is misaligned
with the current market conditions.
This is not a viable redevelopment window.
Office demand is currently very weak.
Financing conditions remain difficult.
Vacancy rates are persistently high.
Enforcing the removal of a productive improved
parking
asset would not trigger immediate redevelopment.
Instead, it will result in a vacant or underutil
ized
site downtown and it will harm not help the
downtown overall. In conclusion on
behalf of our client we respectfully request that
the committee approve the
extension of the temporary service parking
permission for another three
years. I thank you. I'm available to respond to
any questions. Thank you. I look
for other speakers this item. I'll ask clerk if
there's anyone online. There's
nobody online and I don't see anyone approaching
the microphones so we will
call the vote to close the PPM. Closing the vote
the motion carries 5 to 0. I'll go
- Go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Through the clerk, I circulated a motion earlier
notwithstanding the staff recommendation
that the extension be approved.
I believe if you want to confirm
that I have a seconder in Councilor Hillyer,
once that's on the floor, I'll speak to it.
- Thank you.
I have confirmed confirmation of Councilor Hill
yer's
seconding.
I'm just going to make sure the clerk has the
wording
that she can put into e-scribe.
Okay, should be up.
Go ahead, please, Deputy Mayor.
- Thank you, Chair.
So in moving the extension on this one,
I think it's really important to share.
I reached out to the applicant,
received some information from them.
Vacancy rate at 171 Queens right now, 48%.
At 200 Queens, vacancy rate is 22%.
At one London place, it's 27%.
Tenants at all three of those locations,
Canadian Mental Health Association,
Bank of Nova Scotia,
architects, Tillman, Ruth Robinson,
Joan and Grant Thornton LLP.
These folks are using the parking lot
as the representative for the app communicated.
These are not speculative.
These are leased spaces attached to existing
leases
to keep our commercial vacancy rate from getting
worse.
This law is not sitting vacant.
It is being utilized by folks who are coming to
work
in our commercial office spaces in the downtown.
We also know we're working with the genuine
partner here
in Siften, who just completed with the Anglican
Diocese,
the first office to residential conversion
with homes unlimited running a new 94 unit
affordable housing project,
a block away up on Duffer Nav.
If they had an opportunity for redevelopment
right now,
they'd be moving on it.
They're moving on properties
that they have in the downtown
and with partners that they have in the downtown.
But this is not a market
where we can be removing parking at this point.
we have actually municipal parking at 185 Queens
Ave
that we put out an RFP for redevelopment
as a municipality and we did not get any
qualifying offers back.
The opportunity to redevelop these surface
parking lots
on Queens Ave is just not there right now.
And to jeopardize commercial leases that could be
terminated
because parking was part of the lease
and we removed the parking,
then the folks on the lease may have grounds to
terminate
and create more office vacancy.
I just think that that would be a really bad move
right now.
I also think that this actually conforms
to the temporary use evaluations
given the circumstances that we have in the
downtown.
So for those reasons, I'm moving that
notwithstanding
the recommendation of the Director of Planning
that we approve a three-year extension on this
site.
- Thank you.
I look for other speakers.
Many members are Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I'll just say that I'm happy to see this come
forward.
It's an obvious path for us, I think.
given the conditions of our downtown
and the need for parking,
just to appreciate all of the businesses
that are downtown still and happy to support this
.
- Thank you, other comments?
Councillor Trussell.
- Thank you, to the chair.
Is there a definition in the Planning Act
of the word, quote, temporary?
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, I don't believe
there's a specific definition,
but I will note that the temporary use provisions
section 39 of the Planning Act limit temporary
use by-laws to a maximum of
three years. Councillor. And what year was this
first adopted for three year
that the three year reference? What was the first
year? I'll go and stop. Through
the chair the parking lot has existed since 1995.
Councillor. Okay so I believe
and I believe it's a recognized rule very simple
rule of statutory
construction that says when there's not a
specific definition in a measure like
the Planning Act we would then resort to the
common everyday plane meeting
usage and I've gone through some of the diction
aries and I could sit here and
read all of the definitions in dictionaries but
it's pretty much along the
lines of lasting for just a second Councilor.
Councilor Cuddy thank you
chair and through you. We have a long docket and
I appreciate the fact that
Councillor Trossa was going to give us a
dictionary explanation of the word
temporary but I don't think at this stage we need
it. I think we just have to make
a decision on this. Thank you. Well, Councillor,
I'm going to let
Councillor Trossa go ahead with all due respect.
I think this is part of the
discussion because it has been renewed a number
of times so I'm going to allow
him to continue. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you
very much to the chair. We do
have to have this discussion and we do have to
talk about what we mean by the
word temporary this is not a temporary use this
is a permanent use it's just
it's just over it's too long this is not a
temporary use we have people come to
these chambers every meeting every planning
committee meeting begging us to
take a little bit off some of the applications
that have come forward and
we're told persistently time and time again we
have to do this we have to we
We have to increase the density.
We have to increase the height.
We're going to hear it a couple of times tonight
because we need housing.
We cannot continue to use prime, developable
space downtown right on a transit corridor
where you don't have an adjacent residential
neighborhood that's going to raise some of
the things that adjacent residential
neighborhoods often raise.
We need to build housing here and we are never
going to build housing here if we persistently,
If we persistently, time after time,
can you with this temporary use fiction?
This is not a temporary use.
This is a permanent use,
and there is a huge opportunity cost
for allowing surface parking here.
So I will be supporting the staff recommendation
at council,
and I would urge my colleagues to do so.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for other comments for questions.
Council approval.
- Thank you.
We can discuss, I'm just going to make some
comments.
We can discuss dictionary, permanent.
We can discuss temporary.
But I think that one important thing
is the most important one, which is the reality.
If you talk to anyone who wants to open up a
business
or offices downtown, number two issues
are safety together with security and parking.
Safety and security, as we know,
even though we have introduced certain
initiatives,
we are far from being perfect.
we need this parking lot, as we heard before,
from the applicant.
It's already from the existing tenants,
which is supporting the lease and potential
releases,
and potentially we would be even higher,
over 30% of our vacancy.
So again, even though it does say temporary use,
even though there's a certain limit, we heard
three years,
but I think really we have to realize the facts
of life
and the reality and the reality is that we need
it.
We cannot jeopardize any other businesses or
office space
or whatever it is to move downtown.
And as we heard, if I look at actually
at our applications where we approve
during the last three and a half years,
certainly downtown in terms of the units
is a very high number.
So it's not that we are not pushing downtown.
It's not like the individuals that are coming in
the gallery
are speaking only in terms of the downtown. No,
it's from the old ERS of London, but I want to
say
what's in front of us. At the council, I will 100
% support it. I want to jeopardize downtown.
I want downtown to become sky is the limit and
this is part of it. Be absolutely needed in this
case. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Sorry to have to come back on this, but I think
There's a couple comments that were made that
need to be addressed here as as staff indicated
we can only renew on a temporary basis for three
years. That doesn't dictate the overall
number of years that a property can be used for
that purpose. It just means that every three
years
they have to come back and ask us again. There is
an if being noted in my motion that indicates
that
could be noted the applicant is not looking for
an OPA an official plan amendment right now
to make this permanent, which they could do
because they may look for a redevelopment
proposal
in the future here, but for now they need this as
parking. And when I hear comments, and I was
going to call a point of order, but I decided not
to, I decided to just wait and address the
committee again, when I hear we need to make
people build housing here, we cannot make people
build anything on their private property. We have
zoning that can restrict what's on a property,
We have height limits that can restrict what it
looks like, but we cannot make people take their
private money and build housing on land that they
own. And as I indicated in my first round of
comments, this applicant has actually just worked
with the Anglican Diocese on Dufferinav to
convert
some commercial to residential. They're helping
bring housing to the core, but they need this
parking to retain their commercial tendencies.
And as much as we need housing in the park,
we also need a vibrant commercial district in the
car. We need people coming to work, we need
people coming to shop in the car, and those
people are going to require partnering. So here
we have
an instance where parking is being utilized by
existing tenants and the applicant is asking for
another three-year extension. So I want to
emphasize that on any of these properties, on any
of the
items on our dock today, whether you support or
oppose them, we cannot make private land owners
build anything. If their money, they choose
whether to invest or not and how to invest it
moving forward. So I just think that that had to
be underlying because when I hear we have to
make 30 seconds here, that is not within our pur
view. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy.
Thank you, Chair, and through you, siftans have
been one of our best corporate citizens
for the past 80 years. They build when they can,
they build when they can lease, they're creative,
they're they have great ingenuity when they build
. As Deputy Mayor Lewis just pointed out,
they they worked cooperatively with the Anglican
Diocese for affordable housing projects. This is
the company that has moved this city forward for
the past 80 years. If they could build this and
lease it out chair, they would. If there was if
there was a need for it, they would build.
So with all due respect, I will be supporting
this the amendment that Deputy Mayor Lewis put
forward. Thank you. I look for other comments or
questions. Councillor ramen.
thank you and through you so appreciate the
discussion here and I'll be honest I'm a bit
torn on this one I appreciate sifton's position
the need for additional parking for their current
tenants and for other downtown office and
commercial uses or spaces but at the same time I
also
understand that we have looked at this property
for future development and that staff have
shared their thoughts that this hinders and
delays the long-term
redevelopment. I'm wondering just actually a
question with respect to the
motion itself. Under the it being noted, the it
being noted has been changed to
be, has taken the wording that was in the
original motion and it's changed that
wording to correspond with the notwithstanding
and I'm just wondering if
if that is correct.
- I don't know whether I should go to staff
or the clerk on that one.
I'll try the staff first,
but if you want to defer to the clerk,
I'm fine with that too.
- Through the chair, as this is not withstanding,
it is up to yourselves to decide
whether you want to remove some of those pieces.
I think that it being noted probably doesn't
necessarily
apply unless the mover did intend that language.
So it completely up to yourselves
to be able to decide whether that wording is
appropriate.
Councilor thank you so just further to that the
it being noted says that the
request conforms the established policies of the
London plan so I guess I
just want to be clear that staff said one thing
in the motion that was put
forward in draft form with this application this
is now contrary so I
believe the it being noted has to come out well
again I'll go to staff but if you
want to go to the clerk I understand. Thank you
through the chair I'll qualify
this as notwithstanding the staff recommendation
and and the mover the
motion would have to provide rational reasons for
the notwithstanding and the
the direction forward so that's why whether it
being noted is in or out there
still needs to be a rationale and with the
reasons for that which could be
contrary to the staff position. I'll go to the m
over if he would like to weigh in here. Yes,
chair. So as Miss McNeely just indicated, you
have to put those things in. Under part one of
the first it being noted. Yes, it's my opinion
that it does conform with the evaluation criteria
for temporary use bylaws. So staff and I have a
different opinion on that. And so I think where
we got hung up perhaps is the language with the
it being noted. I think that the council's point
is accurate so after the planning act no further
notice be given semicolon I think that the it
being noted that should come out and it should
just say the above noted amendment is being
recommended for the following reasons which are
my reasons not steps. Okay thank you councilor.
- Thank you, that addresses my concern.
- Okay, thank you.
- So if there's the consent from the committee,
Mr. Chair,
if we can just have the clerk make that minor
language tweak.
- Okay, I'll also clerk to do that.
Okay, it should be refreshed on your screen.
Please check that that you're comfortable as a m
over.
Thumbs up and Councillor Hill here as a seconder.
Thumbs up too.
Okay, so that's been changed.
Look for any further discussion on this item.
We have a motion moved and seconded.
We'll call the vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries six to
zero.
- Thank you, moving ahead to item 3.6.
This is regarding 1057 to 1061 Richmond Street.
We will call the vote to open the--
- Mayor Morgan, closing the vote,
the motion carries six to zero.
- Thank you, I'll go to the applicant.
The applicant's here, please give us your name.
You have five minutes.
- Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee
.
Mike Davis with civic here on behalf of our
client,
Roar Premier Homes.
Roar Premier Homes has acquired this property
Richmond Street, it's the former Robinson
Memorial United Church prominent
heritage building in and around the Western
campus. This project has had a
lengthy planning history. It's currently sitting
in an unfinished state, so
Robert Merholm's is very excited to be able to
bring this project to a
completion, bring it to fruition, and these
amendments are important to help
them enable that. A couple of points that I want
to make, we do, we are in full agreement
with the staff recommendation report. Of course,
I appreciate their help in bringing these
amendments forward quickly. At the outset of this
project, we did deliver notice to all
properties within 120 meters of the site. We did
set up a project website to share the
information about the project and invite
neighbors to contact us if there was questions. I
do
appreciate that as I alluded to there's been a
lengthy planning history with
this project and I appreciate that in 2013 there
was a very significant
investment by the neighbors financial and time-
wise towards previous
amendments and Terry Land Tribunal or OMB
hearings so we do respect that but
one thing I do want to make very certain is I do
want to kind of dispel any
notion that there has not been any changes to the
planning framework since
that time there have been very significant
changes to the planning framework which directly
underpin and enable these amendments.
A few examples would be firstly the London plant
coming into force and effect which saw
these lands redesignated from low density
residential in the 1989 official plan to urban
corridor.
There have been two new versions of the
provincial planning statement both of which in my
opinion
further support, residential intensification,
housing, adaptive reuse of commercial
and institutional properties in areas well served
by transit.
And then lastly, and potentially most impactfully
,
in 2022, the city made significant changes
to parking rates for residential uses.
All of those things, as I mentioned,
underpin and support these amendments.
And that's why they are able to be brought
forward
and recommended for approval by staff
at this time.
If there's any questions for members of committee
,
our team is here to help answer those.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look to members of public,
would like to address the committee.
Please, ma'am, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- I will.
Okay.
Hi, I'm Mary Ann Kolihan.
I am one of the neighbors to Robinson Memorial
Church,
and I have, unfortunately or unfortunately as a
neighbor,
been two council on two previous occasions
to have a discussion about activities on that
property
and as well, I was part of one of the parties
at the OMB in 2013.
It's a great, beautiful property.
It is on one of the key arterial roads
that lead from downtown to the university gates.
So much planning, so many planning documents
around the Old North community, with its emphasis
on heritage,
have been a part of understanding what
is wanted for our neighborhood.
As well, we know that we are part of a near-
campus neighborhood.
And there is that town and gown struggle.
And we live it on our street.
We have student homes on our street,
but our street is very small, exceptionally
awkward.
It is a dead end, very narrow, set up.
You know, a lot of the number of the homes
are from the 19th century, whether it was farms.
There's a lane way that goes behind the church.
There have been an unusual number of city trucks,
buses,
and other large vehicles that have gotten stuck
on our street
over the years.
In 2013, we made a movie about it.
I have slide shows.
There's no room.
There is simply no room to negotiate on our
street.
So now, we have this large church
with a very large parking lot.
And apparently, the consultants will, I think,
back this up, more parking than is probably
required
for the number of units.
We chose to go to the OMB, not because it was
easy.
And in fact, the OMB was not thought to be all
that friendly
to neighborhoods like ours who had a heritage
building
that they wanted to, they wanted to save and have
reused.
We understood that this was a give and take
process.
We entered into that process via the OMB
with the developer who wanted as many,
or almost as many units as the current,
that Royal Premier Homes is asking for.
We knew that was too much.
It was too dense.
It was going to overwhelm the street.
And so we entered up, went to the OMB,
and had this argument.
One of the things that we wanted
was to preserve the heritage of the building.
That was one of our big asks.
They were asking for a lot of units.
We met in the middle of what we wanted,
which was far less.
And we were hoping, at one point,
the developer was talking about
high-end condos, senior citizens, mixed use in
the back,
like a lot of different things.
And we understood, given the dynamics in our
neighborhood,
that likely it was going to be student housing,
and it continues to be student housing.
But we went to the OMB, and we got this worked
out.
And we were happy because we thought
the negotiation between us and the developer
was a-- it was law, that we had an agreement,
and it was reasonable for both parties,
and both parties could live with that.
I can't speak to the development that's gone on
or hasn't gone on in the last decade,
plus it has been a Bob's Your Uncle series
of people and organizations,
and it hasn't been great.
And having a building sit for a while is not a
good thing,
but it still needs to be right-sized.
This is an important heritage structure.
It is on an arterial road of great historic
importance
to London, and we are trying to protect it
while looking for an adaptive reuse.
We thought we had all of that settled in 2013,
and then all of a sudden the OMB disappears in
2025.
And it seems like this agreement
that we hammered out in good faith.
- 30 seconds.
- Threatened.
So, what do I want?
I want one thing.
I want this committee and members of council
and the staff to understand how much work has
gone into
making this a safe development for our street.
And I just want you to follow the rules
that we hammered out in good faith.
Thank you all very much for your time.
- Thank you.
I'll go to the next speaker.
So you have the top mic there.
Please ma'am, go share your name and you have
five minutes.
My name is Diane Lejwa, and I live at 192 Sher
wood Ave.
But I'm speaking on behalf of a neighbor who had
to leave.
Is that allowed?
Yeah, please go ahead.
OK.
My name is Steve Harris.
I live at Sherwood Ave., two doors west of the
church site.
My family supports the use of the church as a
residence.
The standing OMB decision permits that
development
to take place in a reasonable way.
I would request that the planning committee
support the former decision, not the current
application.
Viability seems to be one of the key points
supporting the application for an increase
in the number of residents.
It appears that the numbers are about financial
benefit,
not density.
YOMB decision of 2013 allows for a reasonable
number
of people to live at the church site
along with the viable development.
Couple of additional observations.
I do not believe that the available space for
this project
could accommodate additional residents
without a significant number of people
having to live in the basement.
Have you visited the basement of 100-year-old
church
in London, Ontario?
These are at best dark and damp places.
You can improve the public spaces
in an old church above grade,
but the basement simply can't be made fit
for long-term habitation.
And so it follows.
If people are meant to live in the basement
of this development, we should all be very
concerned.
It would simply not be safe for them.
And this is on behalf of Steve Harris.
I'm sure it would happen.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
- Good afternoon.
Give him a name of five minutes.
- Michael Bax, I live on shore would have
just down and across the street
from the proposed amendment change.
And while I support the re-adaptive use
of heritage buildings, this proposal is just
going too far.
I mean, we're basically doubling the density here
.
And this kind of goes contrary to the London Plan
because the London Plan also incorporates
the near-campus neighborhood, which has a purpose
.
And the purpose of that near-campus neighborhood
is to protect the area of being close to the
university.
The London Plan speaks extensively
about creating vibrant, diverse, and inclusive
communities.
Near-campus neighborhood policies
were developed in London and many other
university cities
to protect long-term viability diversity
and character of neighborhoods near large
institutions.
These policies recognize the pressures created
by large transient student populations,
including parking shortages, increased traffic
and activity, noise and the risk of an unbalanced
demographic
that can erode the stable residential areas
and reduce housing options for families
and long-term residents.
Approving 17 units in this building
will create an unbalanced demographic,
heavily skewed towards student housing.
This will upset the adjacent low density
neighborhood area
and dwellings and converted buildings
that are currently used for people to live.
Why are the near campus neighborhood restrictions
not being meaningfully applied to this site?
The site is clearly within the near campus in
North Richmond
Preservation segment.
And these policies direct intensification
to appropriate locations while protecting stable
residential
character.
Staff's recommendation appears to prioritize
general corridor
intensification over specific protective policies
of the London plan in the near campus
neighborhood.
In my view, the city planning staff
to be aired in recommending the approval of this
application.
The staff report does not sufficiently
demonstrate
how nearly doubling the intensity to 94 units per
hectare
aligns with the clear direction of the London
Plan
for the protection, character, conservation
of mature landscapes, and low density housing.
Another part of the London Plan under 962
says, under the near campus neighborhood
definition,
says clearly do not allow incremental changes in
use, density, intensity, and lot size through
zoning amendments, minor variances that add, add,
add, add. And it goes on. And this is
totally contrary to what's in their plans, and
they've ignored it. How can they be reasonable
and when they ignore their own directives? Anyway
, so the other issue that they bring up is that,
Okay, the church is a heritage designation and
they're going to protect it and now they're going
to protect it by increasing the density. The
heritage designation is also already conserved,
doubling the number of units, provides no
additional heritage benefit. And on the site
itself,
there's 11 parking spots and a lot is covered in
just 30-percent open space. There's no additional
amenity space for the increased number of
residents just to create significant pressures
on the neighborhood, including parking shortages
and spillover, increased traffic and visitor
activity, reduced privacy and amenity for the
residents and the neighbors alike.
These policies directly undermine the policies of
the near-campus neighborhood that are designed
to protect and conserve the area and ignore the
fact that the city's own planning and
directives that the near-campus neighborhood
policies shall prevail where
there is a conflict and 30 seconds. So these
policies are supposed to prevail.
The near-campus neighborhood policy overrides all
the other policies but
they're being ignored. The 2013 OMB settlement
clearly balanced density,
heritage, traffic, parking, etc. etc. And I
respectfully request that
Council reject the staff recommendations to
approve it to approve 17 units and
maintain instead the existing nine established by
the OMB. Thank you. Thank
you. I look for the next speaker. Could I talk
again for myself? No ma'am. You had
your time. Thank you. I'll look for the next
speaker. Please sir, give us your
name. You have five minutes. Thank you very much.
My name is Greg Barrett and with
my wife Jennifer Smout, we are residents at 197
Sherwood Ave where we've lived for
30 years, our house is about 30 meters away from
the West property line of this site.
You've heard that the neighbors actually are
pretty happy and that there's some interest
in completing the redevelopment of this property.
As a matter of fact, you've got two letters in
support of the proposal in front of you.
What I'm standing here in front of you is to say
that I don't agree with the recommendation.
In fact, I'm here embarrassed, saddened, and
angry.
I'm embarrassed because I'm standing here
fighting a recommendation based on policies
that I actually had something to help develop,
and I have a recommendation now that is ignoring
previous decisions that have been made by council
with the very same policy basis.
Mr. Davis identified three things that have
changed, and I'll address those as I go forward.
But in fact, the previous decisions of council
and the decision of the OMB are not only
important
relevant, but they're determinant of this
instance.
I know that councils are not bound by the
previous decisions of other councils, but you
are bound when the facts in front of you are the
same, the policy basis is the same.
I don't understand how you can review the same
policies and come up with a different answer.
In the same way an OLT hearing would be a de novo
hearing, which unfortunately the neighbors
don't have a right to, which would mean that it's
based on its merits and the new information
that would be provided.
Well, the new information that would be provided
is, in fact, a project that is more intense
than what the board had refused or that the board
actually accepted as part of a settlement
in 2013, and the policy basis is the same as it
was in the past.
So in fact, what has changed is 13 years, but
what hasn't changed are the policies that
you would be using.
Just a little bit more on the history on this,
because I think, again, it helps understand
why the neighbors are concerned.
The 2013 application was for 14 units and 34
bedrooms, and that was a 76 unit per hectare
development.
That was recommended by staff, but as a result of
concerns that were raised, it was referred
back.
In the time that it was being considered the
referral, the applicant appealed to the then-OMB
because of a lack of non-decision.
There was a subsequent report that came back to
council in October of 2013 that recommended
the nine units, 27 bedrooms that was actually the
basis
of the settlement hearing in front of the board.
So this is what's happened.
With respect to the policy basis that has gone on
,
the one thing that Mr. Davis did note
was that the lands were LDR and now are urban
corridor.
That is correct.
However, the urban corridor policies that are in
place
are preservation policies which mirror the
policies
in the '89 plan that were in force and effect
when this application was reviewed.
So your policy basis is the same.
The other thing within the 89 quarter review
or the quarter policies and the preservation
policies
of the current plan is that they have been looked
at
actually more contemporary as part of your
heights framework
review and as part of the transit village
and transit quarters review and no policy change
was made.
Again, also within the context of changes
from the provincial government as it's relating
to focus on providing more opportunities for
housing.
Intensification is already provided for on this
site.
It is already pre-zoned to provide for this
development.
There are 110 properties within the preservation
quarter
from Oxford Street to Huron Street.
And within those 110 properties,
a number of them are taken by the institutional
users
of St. Joe's and Mount Hope, and then the Manor
Village.
The remaining properties except for the office
conversions
that are permitted, the Southerly and Closer
to Oxford Street are residential.
And they are limited in zoning quite frankly
right now
with an R2 zone that provides for single semi dup
lex
and converted dwellings with four properties
that actually have an R3 to allow for four units
because they were purpose built for that.
This property is actually already zoned
to provide for the nine units.
So the intensification has already been provided
for on the site.
The other thing that Mr. Davis mentioned
was the change of provincial policy statement.
That in fact is true.
And what it says, it's identified this
as a strategic growth area
because it aligns with the city policies
for increasing development along the transit
quarters.
This had already done that, that was a policy
context,
that was a quarter, it was already intended
for redevelopment and intensification,
and the appropriate level of intensification
has been decided.
Lastly, or one of the other agencies
of the parking requirements is fine.
The last thing I just wanted to say is that
the notion of providing the intensity
with respect to form deals with the visual impact
,
the notion of providing for the intensity with
the units,
the density, or the number of bedroom count,
which is permitted under policy 970, the London
Plan.
- Thank you, that's your time, Mr. Mayor.
- The intensity of development.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- I am Paul Adams.
I live at 191 Sherwood Avenue.
This is a encore performance for me
since I was here in 2013 as part of the core
group
defending our street and our neighborhood
for a very similar project.
And it concerns me greatly.
I am very much against the decision
that has been made by the city council.
And I just want to remind you that we got the
same kind
of decision the last time from the city council,
and we returned down by the planning committee.
So we were told that was the kiss of death.
But we went to the OMB on our own.
They just laughed and said, good luck.
We're quite a team on our street, and we won.
And that decision is still standing.
And whatever these people say, oh, we can get rid
of it.
It's a new plan now and so on.
That is incorrect.
I'd like to start off by saying that I have
received a letter
from Jackie Farquhar, who is the head of one
of the other neighborhood associations.
She's very well known in the Old North area.
Can I read her one-page letter?
It's your five minutes.
Thank you.
I am a representative of the St. George Grovener
Neighborhood Association.
I only just heard about this decision by the city
.
This intensification is far too high
for such a small property and absolutely overkill
for student residences.
New and existing accommodations for students is
enormous
and not necessarily due to the limits
on international students.
As well as Western's new 200-based student
residences
and the 20-story building proposed
across from university gates,
there's also an approved 35-story,
500-unit student apartment building
at the corner of Oxford and Richmond
owned by fibro-rovis real estate.
Surely planning committee must realize
that the need for intensification
of the aforementioned old church property
is definitely not necessary.
Moving on, just a final comment
on what I started off by saying.
The two things that we won the last time from the
OMB
were that we had the OMB statement
from a provincial judge, it's published,
it's out there, it hasn't changed.
The other thing we got was the heritage
destination, which is another type of protection
and very
important.
If you don't know about how to undo some of these
things, I'm just going to give you
two quotes that should make you shiver.
Cities in Ontario do not have the power to
directly overturn or veto decisions made by
the Ontario Municipal Board, OMB, or its
successor, the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Because the tribunal acts as an independent
binding adjudicator, the rulings are legally
final and generally binding on the municipality.
If a city council simply ignores or passes a by-
law to contradict a final tribunal order,
developers of affected residents can take the
city to court to enforce the tribunal's
decision.
I rest my case.
This one's for the children.
Thank you, sir.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Sir give us your name in five minutes. Good
afternoon. Good afternoon committee members.
My name is Jeff Garde. My property is actually 14
.9 feet from this property. So today I will
be the closest property owner speaking. Another
property owners tried to zoom online but missed
or was the clerk's office was having the issues
getting them. I support and you know which is
unusual for me, I support staff on this
application. I was involved also in
2023. I was not one of the neighbors that took it
to the OMB for my own
personal reasons. The property itself, the
application, there's no mention that
it's going to be for students. For all we know it
could be luxury condos. Like
everyone's making an assumption. The property
sitting empty has been since
2013, we have, as neighbors, in my opinion, lost
good opportunities at one time. Kennedy
Fowler was wanting to go in there as medical
dental. The neighbors did not like that. So
what I'm trying to say is everyone has a
different opinion. Everyone has their own
assumptions,
but that's not necessarily actual or truth. My
biggest concern, and I think all the neighbors
will agree with this is is the city lane way. It
's been problematic. I've had
documentation from 1943 that it's been a problem.
So one of the suggestions when
I spoke to staff is that this committee pack
could give clear direction as part
of the site plan approval process that 1057 1061
Richmond Street will not
utilize the city own lane way to the west for
vehicle access. I have spoken
with representatives of Royal Premier Home.
I was given assurances that they have no
intention
of using the lane way.
So I hope that direction can be given
to ensure that that lane way is not used for
whatever,
even if it's only nine units
on the property at Richmond Street.
But I reiterate, I'm totally in favor of the 17
units
And I really, really do not think it's
appropriate
just to automatically assume it's students.
Thank you for your time.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online.
Amy, we see your hand up.
I'm not too sure if this is what you want to
speak to
or another item later in the agenda.
- Yes, I want to talk about something here.
- Okay, please go ahead.
Give us your full name and you have five minutes.
- Good afternoon, chairs and members of committee
.
My name is Amy C. I'm a resident of London. I'm
representing one of the closest neighbors
of this building. I understand that applicant is
seeking approval for 17 residential units
with only 11 parking spaces, which represents
approximately 0.64 parking spaces per unit.
My primary concern is parking and traffic impact
on the surrounding neighborhood.
This area is located near Western University and
has historically experienced high demand
for on-street parking in practice.
Many households own more than one vehicle and the
student-oriented housing often generates
additional parking demand. If the development
proceeds with only 11 parking spaces for 17
units, there is a significant possibility that
overflow parking will spill onto nearby
residential
streets. I would respectfully ask the committee
to carefully consider whether 11 parking spaces
are sufficient for the proposed density, the
potential impact on neighboring properties
and existing residents. The cumulative effect on
traffic, visitor parking, waste collection,
and the neighborhood safety, whether additional
parking solutions should be explored before
are approving the requested zoning amendment.
I support responsible redevelopment
and the investment in our city.
However, I believe it is important
that the parking supply and infrastructure
are adequate to support the proposed intensity
of development.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
A lot for other speakers.
So clear one more time if there's anyone else
online.
don't be online. I don't see anyone else
approaching the microphone, so we'll open the
vote to
close the APM. Mayor Morgan closing the vote the
motion carries six to zero. Thank you, so I'll
put
this item on the floor for committee members.
Councillor Cutty. Thank you chair. I'll move the
staff recommendation. Thank you. I'll look for a
seconder. Councillor Stevenson has seconded.
The motion moved and seconded. I'll look for
comments or questions from
committee members or visiting Councillors. Coun
cillor Cutty. Thank you chair. A question to
staff and this would be the heritage is carrying
heritage has any issues with
this motion. I'll go to staff. Thank you and
through the chair as you know the
property is designated under part four of the
Ontario Heritage Act as there's no
alterations proposed to the exterior of the
property which are which includes
all the heritage attributes of the property there
's no there's no heritage
impact assessment required for this application.
If there are alterations
is that may impact the heritage attributes
that would be handled through the heritage
alteration permit approval process.
And that's required prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
So at this time, given that this is all interior,
we don't have any concerns with the proposal.
- Councillor, thank you Chair, that's great.
And thank you staff.
I make a circle back later for questions.
- Okay, thank you.
I'll look for other comments or questions
from committee members or visiting Councillors.
Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I was wondering if I could get assistance from
staff
in moving the amendment that was recommended
by Jeff Garde regarding the laneway at site plan
processing.
- Yeah, I could staff comment on that proposed
amendment
suggested by the member of the public.
- Thank you, and through the chair,
we'd have to look into the status of the laneway
to determine if that's possible.
- Counselor.
- Thank you, so I'll deal with that
between now and council then.
- Thank you.
Okay, I'll look for other comments or questions.
Councillor Troso.
My first question to the chair is I would like to
understand better what the site review
is going to be on this.
There is a normal site review, but I don't see
requests to the site review authority
in your step report that's usually there.
Why are they absent from this step recommendation
?
So I'll go to staff on that.
Thank you.
And through the chair, there was no
recommendations for a site plan in this instance.
There is a registered DA on file based on a 2015
site plan approval application.
The other instance here is with the fact that all
the works are internal to the existing
building and there's no exterior changes proposed
.
Councillor, on the basis that you're not going to
do a site plan alone, I would have
a very difficult time supporting this because I
think many of the concerns that have been
raised by residents, and the biggest one for me
is putting the OMB aside. I'll get to that.
The biggest one for me is what's happening on
Sherwood. That street cannot take any more
traffic. In fact, that street cannot take the
traffic that it has. And I think the residents
have been very good in terms of submitting
evidence showing the difficulty that larger
vehicles have negotiating that street even if
there's not snow. It's really a very dangerous
situation. I'm concerned about that. I'm
concerned about that there is not a robust list
of site plan
conditions including perhaps looking at whether
or not the residents on Sherwood could have
preferential parking. I know that's a separate
process. But I want to go back to the OMB.
I'm not satisfied that the OMB decision isn't the
determinative in this case because while OMB
cases can always be, you can always say they're
not binding because of changed conditions,
when you actually look at the street there are no
changed conditions. The conditions
on Sherwood as they exist now pretty much as they
were, pretty much as they were for a long time.
I think that if the staff report wanted to ignore
the OMB decision, it would be incumbent
in this council making findings that these are
the changed conditions that would allow
us to depart from the OMB.
So could I hear more from perhaps legal as to why
the OMB decision is not, and I don't
want to use the term binding, but more determin
ative in this situation.
I'll go to staff.
- Thank you through you, Chair.
So with respect to what I would say in public
session,
applicants, our landowners are always permitted
to apply for land use changes.
And its staff and council's role to accept the
application
and evaluate it on the basis of the current
policy framework.
So while there may not have been physical changes
on the street, there have been three new
provincial policy statements and a new official
plan.
So I would suggest the policy framework may have
changed,
but in any event staff can't prevent land owners
from applying for changes.
- Councillor.
- True, true.
They can't stop owners from applying for changes,
but they don't have to recommend them
and this council does not have to accept them.
So I would like a little bit more information
as to why we should not follow the existing OMB
decision.
And if you can't do that in public session,
I would like to have that in closed session.
- I'll go to staff if they have any comments on
that,
or, nope, okay, it is what it is.
Second, please.
So, Councilor, a member of this committee
would have to make that motion and be seconded.
So, I'll look to committee, if Councilor
Stevenson.
- I'll make that motion that we go into closed.
- Okay, I'll look for a seconder.
I'll second that motion.
So, let's just deal with that.
We have a motion moved and seconded to our voting
camera
to discuss questions raised by the counselor
and vice given.
So there's no discussion on that.
So we will just go to a vote.
Okay, that vote process should be up in front of
you right now.
- Mayor Morgan, closing the vote.
The motion carries five to one.
- Okay, I'll ask the clerk and the staff to
prepare
for voting in the camera.
And unfortunately, folks,
you're gonna have to clear the gallery
because this is in camera.
I also wanna remind folks to take your signs
and personal belongings with you as well, thank
you.
All right, folks, thanks for taking that break
and opportunity to stretch your legs.
We are back in open session.
I'm gonna ask Councilor Stevenson to report out.
- Yes, progress was made for the item
for which we went into closed session.
- Thank you, Councilor and Councilor Trussow,
you were in the speaker at the time.
So I'll go back to you.
You have two minutes and 20 seconds remaining.
- May I just defer to some other Councillors
and maybe wrap up after other people get to speak
?
- Sure, yep.
I'll go to Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ram
an.
- Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
I'm not part of this committee,
but I've been listening very intently here.
I have also met with a developer.
I've also heard from the consultant loud and
clear
that planning framework has changed.
I heard that loud and clear,
and I also heard from Mr. Barrett
that we've had those plans,
intensification already exists.
So we have an application that is twice
the intensification that was allowed at the OMB
hearing.
I think OMB decisions matter greatly to the
public.
I've heard that loud and clear here.
think they should matter to us. And right or
wrong, I really, really do think we should
respect the process that's been taken to date.
The community spoke about meeting in
the middle. So I kind of wonder when you meet in
the middle, you've had to make some compromises
along the way. If this was an intensification of
a couple more units to what it already
is there. I would be okay with it. But this is
twice the amount. It is going to make a
difference
in the community. I think it's important that we
understand that the community followed these
rules. That should matter. It matters to me. I
would encourage the committee not to support
staff's recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Row
an.
Thank you and through you. So I'd like to use
some of my time to ask some questions about this
application. The first has to do with bedroom
count. I'm just wondering if staff
might be able to clarify what the anticipated
bedroom count is for this
development. I'll go to staff. Through the chair,
based on the near campus
neighborhood specific policy area, the definition
of a dwelling unit means it
can contain no more than five bedrooms. The
applicant may be able to better speak
to the number of bedrooms that are proposed. I'll
go to the applicant. Thank
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the
question of bedrooms.
So there is a large number of the units within
this building that are complete as three bedroom
units.
The remaining space that's really going to be the
platform for the new units, as one
of the residents alluded to, will be in the lower
level, which right now is kind of a
blank canvas.
It does have high ceilings.
about 8,000 square feet of space down there. So,
you know, while I don't have the exact floor
plans
or know the exact number of bedrooms, they will
be smaller units. They will not, you would not be
able to fit an additional that amount of three
bedroom units within that space, just it will be
constrained. So, I likelihood that in that lower
level, this will be a much higher proportion of
one bedroom and door studio style units. Council
or? Thank you, through you. So, does that get
sorted
out a site plan in terms of what the
configuration of the basement is, how many units,
what
the makeup is.
I'll go to staff.
Through the chair, at the site plan stage, I just
previously noted there is a development
agreement registered on title here, which means
that pending the outcome of this application,
they could proceed to building permit where the
internal configurations, including bedrooms,
is reviewed.
Zoning review would be undertaken at that time to
ensure conformity with the zoning by-law
as well.
Thank you. So just to clarify that means that
because it was approved at nine units
Before that there isn't a site plan. Is that what
I'm going to understand? I'll go stop through the
chair
It's because the your the modifications are all
internal to the existing building if there was
any external
Modification staff would review and determine the
appropriate path forward in terms of a site plan
application
But given the current application is all internal
there is a registered DA on title
They are more welcome to just proceed to building
permits.
Should there be any changes to the building
permit stage,
staff would be notified.
And then we would review further from there.
- Councillor.
- Thank you.
But the internal impacts the external.
So for instance, if there's more bedrooms now,
per say,
in the basement of this building,
doesn't that then mean more open space?
Doesn't that mean there's more potentially need
for parking, et cetera, that had to be considered
.
And therefore, the internal affects the external
and a site plan, I think, would be helpful.
- Oh, good stuff.
That's through the chair.
So we did review the proposal.
And in terms of zoning, the development
and the existing site plan meets all the zoning
requirements,
we don't control bedroom numbers through site
plan approval.
It's based on the number of units and the density
.
And again, that all meets the zoning.
So there would be no physical changes required
if they came in for a site plan approval.
- Councillor.
- Thank you, I appreciate that.
I'm just wondering also,
why are the bedroom units not additional
residential units
instead are considered a new application
in this context?
- I'll go stop.
- Through the chair, the additional residential
units
are to be kind of within a primary dwelling unit
related to a single detached dwelling,
some ED touch dwelling and I think a triplex as
well,
whatever kind of limits that four units per lot.
In this case, we're dealing with an existing
converted building previously approved at nine
units.
So it does exceed that additional residential
unit capability.
- Councillor.
- Thank you.
And with the parking on this site,
how many spaces have to be accessible?
How many spaces have to be designated for
anything
other than one unit per unit in the building.
- I'll go stop.
- Thank you.
Through the chair for parking on site,
they are requesting a special provision
for 0.5 spaces per unit.
They are actually providing 0.64 spaces per unit.
In terms of other parking requirements,
given that there are less than 12 spaces,
it only requires one type A barrier-free parking
space,
which would have also been required
through that subsequent site plan.
Visitor parking is typically only required
once you exceed the 10 units.
That's included in the overall required parking,
so it's not a separate requirement.
So by way of that,
they would also meet that parking requirement as
well.
- Councillor.
- Thank you, I really appreciate the answers
and I'm sure that I'll have more between now and
council.
Just looking at this,
it is a very complex development
being that we're just considering
changes on the interior of this building. I
understand the policy change. I understand why
staff have come forward with this recommendation.
However, I do see the points the
neighborhoods making that this does feel more
intense and a doubling of the occupancy and
intensification with this application. So like I
said, I'll have more questions between now and
Council. Thank you. I'll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis
. Thank you, Chair. So I'm going to be supportive
of the staff recommendation here. And while I
heard the neighbors speak to the 2013 OMB
decision,
lots has changed since 2013, including the fact
that the properties changed hands.
This isn't the same owner or same applicant that
brought forward an application in 2013 and that
maps. This owner actually acquired the property
in the spring of last year. So they haven't had
it that long. They're running forward an
application that they feel that they can develop.
The parking
ratio was sufficient. It's not impacting the
heritage attributes of the building. I do
appreciate
Councillor Stevenson asking staff about Mr. Garde
's question about the laneway and I look forward
to
to whatever answer she can get from staff,
'cause I don't think that's an unreasonable
consideration.
I know the applicants indicated
that they don't intend to use it anyway.
So it seems like there's no point of dispute
there.
So if something like that comes forward at
council,
I'm amenable to discussing what that looks like.
But we don't have a static situation here from
2013.
We do have the, I mean, it was referenced
that the previous decision was made under the
1989
plan, which is not in force and effect and hasn't
been for a while. We are
under force and effect of the London Plan now,
including the Heights Plan
Review and the urban corridor classifications
that have been referenced
already through the discussions today. This is a
good adaptive redevelopment.
We've heard how the property sat vacant since
2013. Do we really want it to sit
vacant for another 13 years? I don't. I want to
see this move ahead and I think
that this is actually a reasonable proposal,
otherwise staff wouldn't be supporting it.
You know, I am personally and frequently
criticized by why aren't you supporting a staff
recommendation.
I support 95% of the staff recommendations that
come forward, and this is another one I'm going
to
support. And I know that other Councillors may
not agree, that's their prerogative, but
nonetheless,
any of us can see where there's a variance from
or an acceptance of a staff recommendation.
In this case, I think staff have got it right
under the new planning frameworks that are in
place
and I'm going to be supportive. I'll look for
other comments or questions. Councilor Trussa,
two minutes and 20. Thank you. I'll just close by
saying the more things change, the more things
stay the same. And with respect to life on that
block, the fact that we were under a different
planning framework doesn't really change the
physical reality of the day-to-day lives of the
residents on those streets. And if anything, it's
gotten worse. If anything, it's gotten worse.
And so basically, there's no site plan. At the
very least, we'd be able to have a robust site
plan
process that could maybe ameliorate some of these
concerns about the condition on Sherwood,
which is dire right now. It's just terrible right
now. We don't know the number of bedrooms,
and we're told we can go straight to building
permit.
Well, I can't, I really wanted to find a path for
something here, but I can't.
And the more I hear, the more I hear about the
details, the more I'm convinced that I am going
to be voting no on this, something is going to
have to change in order to change my mind on that
.
I very badly want more affordable housing for
students. This is going to be for students.
let's not make any mistakes about it. We can't
talk about who's going to live there. So I can't
make an amendment saying, "Well, if it was
seniors, it would be okay. We can't people zone.
I'm not
going to purport to do that." But this is not a
good application. Now that all of these details
are unraveling as much as I want to see
improvement on this property, because believe me,
I've been
hearing from neighbors about the dilapidated
conditions that the previous owner has allowed
this the 40 seconds and that's going to be
enforced and that's going to continue to be
enforced but
we can't say there was a problem with the
maintenance of the property so we have to go we
we have to
say no no no site plan no no we don't know the
number of units there there there are a lot of
questions about the omb decision so this this
application is going to need more work i would
encourage the applicant to thank you counselor
withdraw this and we need to spend more time with
this. Thank you. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you,
Chair, and through you. Yesterday, I had the
opportunity to meet with the applicants, Councill
or Trosto, and also some residents from the street
.
And I appreciate Councillor Trosto giving me the
time to speak about this yesterday.
And one of the things that came up in my
discussion with the applicants was that people
had broken
in, some vagrants had broken in, and it set a
fire to the part of the building. They built a
fire,
there was drug paraphernalia left and and I have
no doubt that in fact this
happened they wouldn't have told me chair if it
hadn't happened they don't
think they they created this but someone had bes
et a fire and chair the
applicants have moved ahead and have secured the
entire building the
perimeter they actually have a security guard
that I believe is on on duty 24
hours a dad could be corrected but they are
making every effort to salvage that
building a building that has been vacant for many
years and I can speak from
experience chair of a building on Talbot Street
that I lived next door to and I
I apologize I'm not going to get off topic but it
burned to the ground it was
Locosmont 651 Talbot Street and it burnt to the
ground chair because because the
owners deliberately left it vacant and it was it
was inhabited by people who
just chose to destroy it and to set fire to it
and a part of the ground well my
family and I lived next door and I don't want to
see that happen to this
property and it could very well happen chair so
we could break in there they
don't have to break in, they could have walked in
, set another fire, and the building would
be gone.
A historic building would be demolished forever.
The second point I want to make, and then I'm
going to conclude, is Councillor Trosto
said to me yesterday, "Peter, I wish they'd put
seniors in there."
Well, Councillor Trosto, I wish they would make
it for seniors as well, but that's not
our decision.
And Deputy Mayor Lewis made this point earlier.
Our decision is not to tell people what they can,
builders and developers, who they can
put into their building.
So we don't have that choice.
That's not our prerogative, but they have
developed what I think is a very, very fine
development that I think, well, at the end of the
day, Chair, will be proud of.
And I think the residents, I'm sure we'll be
proud of.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
I want for any other speakers.
We have a motion moved and seconded.
We'll call the vote.
Closing the vote.
The motion carries five to zero.
Thank you.
Moving on to 3.7.
this is regarding 36 weathered street.
We'll call the vote on opening the PPM.
- I think the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, and if the applicant would like
to address, please sir, give us your name, you'll
five minutes.
- Through the chair, my name's Adam Lagrou.
I'm a planner at Montyth Brown Planning Consult
ants,
and we're here on behalf of the property owner of
36 Weathered.
We just like to thank staff for their work on
this
application with the bylaw they've presented.
We believe that it will help City of London get
to its goal of 47,000 new homes by 2031.
Just want to note that the development, we have
12 parking spaces for the 9 units proposed.
Thank you again for staff and we're hoping that
committee can endorse the staff recommendation.
We're here to answer any questions that the
committee or public may have.
Thank you.
I'll look for other speakers from the public.
Please ma'am, give us your name.
You have five minutes.
Hi, my name is Haley McKinnis and I live at 38
Weather Street directly beside 36 Weather
Street. My husband and I bought our home eight
years ago and were drawn to the quiet
street with big yards, lots of trees and privacy.
That will all change if you accept the proposal.
It appears to me that the property owners,
developers and deputy city manager of housing
and community growth who had recommended approval
have not considered the impact to the
neighborhood
or adjacent properties. There is a lot of context
, analysis and consideration missing
from the application.
The proposal has been compared in isolation to
the London Plan and that analysis has been
deemed sufficient.
I hope that you declined the proposal today.
After living next door to the property, it is
evident that the property owners do not
care about the impact this development will have
on the neighbourhood.
I'm sure you've all cut your grass two, three
times so far this year.
The property owners have not cut their grass yet
this year and that is not unique to this
year or this season.
They have also offered to purchase our property
to rent it back to us so that they can then
evict us from our home when they are ready to
develop the two properties.
If that does not tell you that their motivation
is purely monetary and not for the betterment
of the community, I don't know what else will.
As for the proposal itself, there are many
elements and features that don't make sense.
The Deputy City Manager is recommending approval
of a plan that inaccurately shows the property
line through our house.
that gives a false sense of space
to build their fire row and landscaping.
Does that not make you question
what else may be inaccurate?
The proposal also left out key features of our
property,
namely a deck and patio along the south side of
our property.
These along with our bedrooms being along our
south wall
will make our daily life significantly impacted
by this development from the increased noise and
light
as well as reduced privacy.
None of this was seriously considered
and the only mitigating factor proposed
was a six foot fence.
As you'll see, my husband is taller than that.
We also do not consent to the removal of the
trees.
This will significantly hinder the design
of their proposal.
And what about the increased drainage
into our yard due to the proposed paving
and, again, lack of mitigation?
Should they not have taken those into
consideration
or discussed it with us first?
Again, this all points to a lack of consideration
and analysis as to the impact it will have on our
property.
The proposal also references 16 Weather Street
many times,
but as residents of Weather Street,
We are very aware of parking and garbage removal
issues
and lack of enforcement.
That property has eight units
with two dedicated parking spots per unit.
Yet we are to believe that less parking per unit
with only 12 for, as they said, eight,
but I believe it's, they said nine,
I believe it's only eight units,
is supposed to be sufficient as well.
How is it intensification of the property deemed
acceptable
when 16 Weather Street's law is 24% bigger
and they had to reduce their intensification
from 10 units to eight?
Finally, I feel there is no true analysis done
as to the need to rezone the property.
16 Weathered Street, along with the new
development
at Oxford and Highbury, provide ample housing
opportunities.
Within the vicinity to these developments
and the reduced enrollment at Fanshawe and
Western,
I'm not convinced rezoning is necessary
or that the amount of infill is needed on one
street alone.
The proposal significantly lacks any
consideration
for the impact it will have on the neighborhood
or adjacent properties.
If this rezoning is approved, Councillors,
you're setting a precedent
that any property on Weather Street can be rez
oned
just because another one was.
I ask you all to consider,
what if this was your neighbor proposing to do
this to you?
Would you be comfortable and content
with the level of analysis conducted and
mitigation proposed
and then be understanding when city staff approve
it
because it checks some boxes on a city plan?
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
Good afternoon, everybody.
My name is Zachary McInnes.
I live directly north of the subject property.
To reiterate the representative from Monty Brown
said it was nine units, it's actually
eight.
So that's incorrect on his part, I just want to
clarify that.
To begin, basically, I just want to thank
everybody here and everybody online.
I've lived at the property with my wife for the
past eight years.
Basically, we live there with our newborn baby
girl.
This is in our second home, our third home.
This is our only home.
This is where we live.
This is where we call home.
This is where we go and relax at the end of the
day.
Basically, I would just kind of really want you
guys
to read the report that we submitted
and that our neighbors submitted.
The application submitted is very aggressive
and it's the most dense housing structure complex
on the street.
They make reference, again, to 16 weathered
several times.
That property is actually much larger.
It's actually 24% larger when you review the
application
they submitted versus the application that was
submitted and approved for 16
weather. So it's significantly larger. Another
key point is I just want to
mention the inadequate parking that has been
proposed. I don't want it to much but
basically the proposed application has 12 parking
spots for eight units and if
you break down that parking it is actually one
visitor parking, one
accessible parking which basically just leaves 10
spots for eight
residential units. Again, when I go back and I
listen to all the different scheduled items like
3.7 and especially earlier with Mr. Cuddy, he
mentioned specifically, oh like with Auburn
developments, you may have made a comment that
most of the parking spaces or most of the
residents
within the city, it's pretty common they have two
cars. Realistically, that doesn't actually fit
here if we have less than two cars for parking so
I'm not really sure how that
is going to work. Additionally there's currently
inadequate snow storage and
removal based on the submitted concept plan. On
the concept plan submitted by
Monteith Brown there's only indicating a six foot
by roughly two feet spot placed
between buildings A and building B for snow
removal. So realistically a six foot
spot between a building for a complex. Just think
of your driveway. Your driveway would
have more snow than that. They're going to have
essentially two lanes of traffic, one
with the fire lane and one with the entrance lane
into the property. And they're going
to somehow manage to maneuver all of that snow
somehow within two buildings. To me, that
doesn't seem realistic. Additionally, it also
increases the flooding risk to my property.
And on the top of the fire route,
the fire route is directly outside the bedroom
window
of all three of my bedroom windows.
So again, we live in a very modest house.
It's the only house we have.
There's all three of the bedrooms
are directly within two meters of the property
line.
Basically, there hasn't been any consideration
into how that affects my daily life, the life of
my wife,
or the life of my children.
Additionally, it's not even just the fact
that there's eight units.
It's not just eight units, it's eight units,
it's their, there's eight units, it's their
guests,
it's their Uber Eats, it's their Amazon,
it's their FedEx, it's not just eight units.
Additionally, the planning and advisory,
sorry, the planning and environmental committee
has not addressed how they will mitigate these
factors.
There's also a few key things that we touched on
today.
Mr. Trossa who's not here at the moment,
but he kind of mentioned before.
We need more infill.
We need more thoughtful infill is what he was
saying.
I totally agree that infill is a good thing
in certain circumstances, so long as it's
thoughtful.
I do not believe this is thought out well.
I do not believe it's thought out intentionally
and ultimately it will fall on me and my family.
30 seconds.
Some final things I want to mention is basically,
Councilor Raman made a very good point.
Well, why haven't we considered,
why isn't the applicant considered the ADU?
What's wrong with building an ADU?
That increases density, makes a more vibrant
community.
It also addresses many of the key concerns.
Basically, that would be my question
to the planning and environmental committee as
well.
- Thank you very much, that's your time.
- Thank you.
- I'll look for the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Okay, thank you.
My name is Stephen McGinnis.
I wanted to thank the planning committee
for the opportunity to speak.
I'm a professional engineer by profession
And I reviewed, along with my son, the planning
application.
And I just wanted to highlight that there's a few
things in there
that are a little bit suspect and should be
really looked at closely.
One being the discussion about parking.
While it's acknowledged there's 12 parking spots
for the eight units,
that's in itself a little bit misleading.
Of the 12 parking spots, one's accessible, one's
dedicated for visitors.
that's leaving 10 spots.
Of those 10 spots, it's all predicated on the
four units
at the back of the property of the proposal,
having one unit or one parking space in the
garage
and one parking space in front of the garage.
So effectively, you have two parking spaces
dedicated to each of those units
and for eight leaving two parking spots
for the remaining four units.
Inevitably, that's gonna lead to parking in the
fire lane,
which it becomes an enforcement issue,
or parking in the winter time
where no overnight parking's permitted on the
road itself.
The second thing is the drainage, the site
drainage.
I looked at the site drainage,
and from what I can tell, it's wrong.
It's the report itself as conflicting information
within the planning proposal
with respect to drainage area and runoff
coefficient.
So that's something that was not really
adequately
discussed in the staff report, as far as I'm
concerned.
I also want to suggest that the London plan,
which has been
talked about many times, talks about the type of
rezoning
and considerations in rezoning.
And one of the key points is potential impacts
on adjacent and nearby properties in the area
and the degree to which such impacts can be mit
igated
or managed and mitigated.
That is something that is simply mentioned,
but there's no actual indication of how there's
any mitigation.
So with those points being made,
I would just like to suggest that
if the planning committee is going to consider
the proposal to redevelop or to rezone,
it should be without the further five amendments
that's being proposed within the rezoning.
So limit the rezoning to just the R5 designation,
not the other five amendments that's being
requested.
By not agreeing to the other five amendments,
it may create sufficient space on site
to mitigate some of the impacts
that are anticipated with this development.
So with that, I'd like to thank you
and look forward to the outcome.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
- I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online.
There is nobody online.
I don't see anyone also approaching the
microphones,
so I'll open the vote to close PPM.
- I'll bring the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this item on the floor for
committee.
Councillor Cutty.
- Thank you Chair, I'll move the staff
recommendation.
- Thank you, I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Hillier, seconds.
We have motion moved and seconded.
I'll look for comments or questions.
Is that Councillor?
- I just know sometimes you address some of the
questions
that were asked in the gallery.
There were no, there was comments and before,
but there was no specific questions that I heard,
but committee and visiting counselors are well,
are perfectly capable of asking their questions.
- Okay, sounds good.
I do have a few questions.
In this case, there were the town homes at 16 we
athered,
which went through, it was just approved
in this term of council.
This is now, you know,
there's a stretch of single family homes north of
that.
And this is one lot on this string of single
family homes
that is now being proposed to be eight.
And it does raise the issue of, you know,
can this just happen on any street with a single
family homes?
So I wanted to just raise on page 208
where it talks about policy 969.
It says that the London Plan further discourage
forms
of intensification within nearby campus
neighborhoods that.
And one of the things that says is continue an ad
hoc
and incremental trend towards residential intens
ification
within a given street, block or neighborhood
rather than a proactive coordinated and planned
approach
towards residential intensification.
So I just wondered if staff could help us
understand,
like I think that the neighborhood understood the
townhomes
right near the commercial property near Oxford,
But this does seem ad hoc, and it does seem out
of line
with what's currently there.
- I'll go to staff, through the chair,
and thank you for the question.
With regards to the near campus neighborhoods,
which was the policy that you're referring to,
there are a number of criteria that need to be
met
in order for residential intensification within
that NCN
or the near campus neighborhood to be appropriate
.
And a couple of them are conformity with table 10
, 11,
12 of the Lomond Plan, which is the use and
intensity that is permitted, and this proposed
development meets those criteria. Up to three
stories is permitted here. This proposed
development
is two stories and then or seven meters. And a
number of other criteria which you referenced
as well is whether this is an incremental change
or ad hoc development. And in our opinion,
this is actually the opposite because it's a
specific zoning by-law amendment to this
application instead of what we could consider ad
hoc development, for example, additional
residential units being added onto a single-det
ached dwelling, which is also occurring
on the street.
So by this certain bylaw amendment, this is going
through the appropriate process to
allow for review and ultimately also public
engagement.
And so it's not an incremental change, but it's a
site-specific zoning bylaw amendment.
Councillor.
I guess the question would be,
this is a street of single family homes.
And now one is being rezoned for eight.
So like, so then are we gonna be doing that
all the way along, or are there's gonna,
at what point does it become too intense for the
area?
- I'll go to stuff.
True to Chair, and thank you for the question.
Every development or proposed development
will be looked at based on its own merits and
reviewed.
In this instance, it's quite a modest development
.
Like I said, it's seven meters higher, two
stories,
and landscape open space on lot coverage
requirements
are all met, overall lot coverage is 25%,
which is not as much as we typically see
for these types of infill development,
but it is possible that more development comes
forward,
and that will, again, be reviewed based on its
own merits.
- Councilor.
- Okay, well, again, it says that the London Plan
discourages forms of intensification
that do not reasonably accommodate the
relationship
to adjacent residential properties
and not consistent with the prevailing
neighborhood
form of character.
And I think the neighborhood would
feel that this is out of that space.
And also, there's several, as the one resident
mentioned,
five special provisions being asked to intensify
it even further.
But I will just ask around the drainage.
There was concerns around some of the conflicting
information
in the site drainage report.
And there's also a hold back here
that staff seem to have some concerns as well.
So if we could hear more about that.
- I'll go to staff.
Thank you and through to Charles.
I'll start with this answer.
So as part of the recommendation,
we are recommending a holding provision,
H6 holding provision,
to address some of these stormwater concerns.
Hoping that my colleague,
Brandon Lambert can further speak to that.
- Thank you, through the chair.
Yes, like I was like mentioned, we request a
holding provision due to the conveyance of
overland flows from external drainage areas. The
report that was submitted as part of the
application didn't address those external areas.
So we still have concerns with the
design that's proposed to date. So essentially a
revised swim brief will have to be
resubmitted to city staff. We'll have to accept
it and then building permits can be issued.
Councilor. Thank you. Can I ask what our option
is regarding referring this back
until that type of information comes forward? Go
staff. Thank you through the chair.
It's up to committee. Should you want to refer
the matter back? As the staff have mentioned that
through detailed design, we would be looking at
the more of the servicing aspect and that
would be through the site plan process. At this
stage of the zoning, we're satisfied enough that
we have the information we need to proceed with a
recommended recommendation of approval
and the holding provision will allow for that to
happen and the additional information at the
time of site plan. Councilor. Thank you the um
can staff comment on the this is a small lot
beside with that where the house as they said
three bedrooms just a few meters from the
property
line was that factored in at all in terms of
approving the intensification on this lot. I'll
go
of staff. Thank you and true to chair. Absolutely
that does weigh in. There are criteria in
the R2 section of the London plan that really
speak to that compatibility and fit. And that
is also the reason why staff is recommending
additional special provisions for an increased
interior side track setback for the townhouses.
Councillor.
I'd also like to ask regarding the snow removal,
there was concerns around a six foot spot.
Go to staff. Thank you and true to chair. As this
application is not going through the
set plan application stage. It is challenging to
determine where the snow
storage will be located. As mentioned, there is a
small space for some snow
storage. Ultimately, it will be up to the
applicant to ensure that snow
storage is addressed appropriately. Councilor.
Okay, that sounds a little
concerning, especially given the last winter we
just had. The other thing is
garbage. What happens with that? I'm assuming it
has to all go out to the curb.
- Good staff.
Thank you and to the chair at this moment,
I don't think that the applicant has decided
on their garbage system or,
but typically for a relatively small development
like this,
the residents would be responsible for bringing
the garbage to the streets in blue bins
and garbage bags.
Councillor.
- Yeah, is there any concern about the footage
even at the front of that building
to be able to put eight units worth of garbage
out at the street?
- Public health staff.
- Through the chair, these questions
should be directed to the applicant.
- I'll go to the applicant.
- Through the chair.
We have considered some garbage mollusks on site
in the preliminary concept.
However, this is subject to refinement
through the detailed design stage of development.
- Councilor, go back to you and you have 30
seconds.
- Yeah, maybe the applicant could answer the
question
around the snow removal as well.
- You respond to concerns of snow removal.
- Again, with the detailed design of the
development,
we would look at where that could be.
Notably, the holding provision with the storm
water report,
the stormwater management concerns will be
addressed,
and that would include runoff from snow storage.
- Counselor?
- Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna be able
to support this proposal, and it's in my ward.
- Okay, I'll look for other comments or questions
in committee or visiting staff or visiting
counselors.
Seeing none, we have a motion moved
and seconded, and we'll call them.
The clerk just notified me that Deputy Mayor
Lewis,
had your hand up are you and then it went down
just want to make sure we didn't
miss you. No why my hands down. Okay thank you.
That was just flaking the wrong
button. Okay all right we got motion moving
second we'll call the vote.
Sing the vote the motion carries four to one.
Okay moving on to 3.8 this is
regarding 929 Cheap Side Street. I'll open the
vote on opening the PPM.
Sir Hillier closing the vote the motion carries 5
to 0. Okay if the applicant is
here. I would like to address Mitty, please
forgive us your name again in your five minutes.
Through the chair, my name is Adam LeGrew. I'm
from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants.
I'm also here with Jay McGuffin, Principal Plan
ner for Monteith Brown,
and we're both here on behalf of the owner of the
929 Cheap Side Street. We would just like to
thank, extend our thanks to the committee and to
council for allowing the referral of the
Zoning By-law Amendment back to staff during the
March 31st Council meeting. This allowed our
our client the opportunity to work with staff on
addressing concerns raised by the community.
Since that time we've made considerable changes
to our proposed design considering the feedback
we received during the March 10th PEC meeting.
Some considerable changes in the design since
the original submission include reduction in
total units from 105 to 79 and this increased
our parking ratio from 0.4 spaces to unit to
above the minimum standard in the
by-law. We've also increased setbacks from cheap
side, we've reduced lock
coverage, and we've increased the amount of
landscape open space throughout the
site. So we hope the committee will endorse the
staff recommendation and are
available to answer any questions the committee
or public may have regarding
the revised application. Thank you. I look for
members of the public like to
address committee. Please give us your name and
you have five minutes. Yes, Sharon
Riley on Clifford Street in that area. I wondered
, did you receive the Zoom from
Stephen Ord? He's not able to be here today. He's
overseas, but he thought he
could maybe get his report through. Did you get a
chance to read that yet?
I'll ask a clerk if we receive the video. Well,
then I've got the report here I
can read. He was online. You read it? I'm just
saying that the gentleman was
online. I assume. Okay. But did anyone read it? I
am online. Is that Stephen? Yes. Oh,
so has he, would he like to read it now then?
Well, you're, it's your turn. I can go to
him in another time, but it's your turn when you
have five minutes. Well, I'm just reading
his words. Is that all right? You can do please.
Number one, incompatibility with the neighborhood
context. You are pushing the all the limits and
primarily asking us to ignore a unit density
60% over the limit. This is over development and
overcrowding but not in any way compatible
with our established community. Number two, the
height of six stories being too tall.
yes the city plans or city allows a story six-
story building but just because you
and having a hard time reading this just because
you can does not mean you should
just like you can buy a case of 30 well i'll
leave that part out um over development of the
site
your own figures uh found on zone provision
highlights and port and point to the plan
as just plain overdevelopment.
From the yard depth of 64% of zoning requirements
,
the interior side of the yard is 60%.
And the exterior side yard is a mere 10%
of the zoning requirements.
Your reference and argument that existing
buildings
on cheap side violate current setbacks and those
should you be allowed to be entirely backwards.
Those properties, setbacks are considered grandf
athered.
I'm going to skip along here.
The proposal has open space as just over half 56%
of current requirements, and lot coverage
is 33% greater than allowed.
The very definition of overdevelopment.
Contents of the reduced parking, well, you
mentioned that.
but I'm just going to read what he said.
Although your parking ratio is within the current
bylaws
of the city, this committee has already realized
they are inadequate, and I was waiting the
drafting
of new units, or unit limits.
Let me see here.
To increase gin traffic within the area,
by the way, the developers seems to think
that it was 50 miles per hour on Cheap Side
Street
hasn't been that for some time.
is 40% from St. Joseph's fan or on Richmond,
all the way down to Fanshawe College.
So when you're talking about speed
and increased traffic, that's where it really
hits.
To the city, zoning regulations set out the rules
for the development, but they are useless
if every time a developer waltzes into town
and asks you to change them, you do.
So I have paid taxes in this city for over 45
years,
yet I have to abide by zoning regulations.
I tried to get permission to build a carport
and on my property, but zoning refused,
went on a busy street.
I asked to have a circular drive for safety,
but was refused.
I had to live with that in social developers.
The bylaws are there to protect everyone,
primarily the neighbors.
do you or do the bylaws only apply to the little
guy,
but if you have enough money,
does that mean you have to just ignore them?
Land owners have the rights
under federal, provincial and municipal laws,
but this development developer knows the rules
when they purchase the property.
And I'm gonna just sum up here at the end.
As our city representatives,
you have an obligation to enforce our bylaws
and protect local residential neighborhoods.
Stand up and protect the London neighborhoods
and citizens you are supposed to represent.
And pardon?
- Hold on a second, please.
Who's online?
Could you please mute yourself?
'Cause we're hearing chatter.
Please go ahead, you have 30 seconds.
- Let's be clear.
We are not opposed to a development on the site,
but let's find a more suitable solution
that fits the neighborhood, the community,
and allows the developer to make a reasonable
profit.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll go to gentlemen over here.
Please forgive us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Hello, I'm Paul Strong.
I live on Sterling Street of 40 years now.
Pretty much what was just said is pretty much
what I would say.
You've been asking for our approval,
but six stories is far too high for our area.
Every other building is three story walkups.
If you must put in an apartment,
at least keeping continuity with the neighborhood
would be appreciated.
It should be self-contained.
We shouldn't have to have permanent parking
on the street at any time.
I'd hear the numbers for parking is adequate,
but really for functionality, it's not.
In the winter, we would never be able to navigate
our street
with permanent parking.
It's brutal at the best of times.
Our homes are one to two stories.
That's what we would like to see at the end of
our street.
It was formerly retail when it was a garden
center.
I would love to see something that actually
serves
our community where we can buy things or donate
in a value village, anything.
But what you're asking us is to just shoulder a
burden
with absolutely no benefits to the neighborhood
at all.
It just seems like a horrible advancement for us.
I just, that's about it for me.
I just don't see a benefit and only see a burden
to a community that's been there since the 1940s.
- Thank you.
We'll look for the next speaker.
Please ma'am, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- Hi, my name's Anne Wild.
I was here on March 10th
when we had another round of this.
So I'm going to start with the continued
opposition
in your revised development proposal of 929
Sterling Street.
While the developer has made minor adjustments
and a close analysis of the architectural
and landscape plans,
reveals that the changes are just appeasements
on a piece of paper that fails to address the
fundamental
and the lack of compatibility in our neighborhood
.
The proposal continues to prioritize
the developers' profit over safety
and the experience of an existing neighborhood
and the future residents in the new development,
excessive density and misplaced intensity.
The 25% reduction in the units from 105 to 79
is just a tactical distraction.
At 235 units per hectare, the density remains
significantly
higher than the standard R8 or R9 zoning,
typically found in the London area.
and nearly 10 fold increase in the density
over the established 15 to 30 units per hectare.
The level of intensity belongs
on a major arterial growth channel,
such as Oxford, Dundas Street.
Cheap side street was never included in rapid
transit
for a reason.
Forcing the level of info into a residential
pocket
is an overreach.
The disregard for local housing needs,
despite your clear community feedback that we had
,
developers failed to include any three bedroom
facility units. CMHC data in 2025
shows one bedroom apartments in London have
reached a 15-year high vacancy
rate at 4% while three plus bedroom units remain
in high demand. The
parking and safety is deficient while the
developer has increased the parking
account from 46 to 55. The ratio remains
functionality insufficient at 0.69 spaces per
unit. The developer has also increased bicycle
parking to 80 spots as a tactical trade-off
to justify the vehicle deficiencies that there
are. While sustainable transit is a goal,
it cannot be used to ignore a reality. Stat scan
data for the city of London shows approximately
84% of households own at least one vehicle. With
an average of 1.47 cars per household.
London's zoning Z1 bylaw requires 1 to 1.25
spaces per unit for a reason. Since this is not
a primary transit area, residents in visitor
parking will inevitably roll onto the street
of Sterling and Barker, creating congestion and a
direct safety problem. The facade,
the step back, the visual privacy crisis, the
developer's use of setbacks is a structural
maneuver that fails to solve the privacy crisis
for the neighbors and the school.
The new fourth floor terrace, the fifth and sixth
floor windows continue to provide
an unobstructed view over rooftops directly into
the school's playground and into the private
backyards. That violates the London plan,
requirements for visual privacy, and
creates a permanent fishbowl effect. For our
children, the residents, the simple
architectural shifts do not mitigate that. The
environmental,
degradation, and the snow management as discussed
, the landscape is perhaps the
most prime example of profit over neighborhood
character. The developer
intends to remove 37 mature trees,
including several city boulevard trees
with high value native species like black walnuts
and maples.
- 30 seconds.
- And replace those with 22 decorative trees.
We require the city to reject this plan in its
current form.
We advocate to develop that respects the zone
and you are our voices.
You are our counselors, you're us.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
for the next speaker.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Goodness, sorry.
Hi there, my name is Nicole Shea.
I live on Sterling directly across
from this proposed building.
I'm here not only on my own behalf,
but also on the behalf of many residents
who have expressed concerns about this proposal
throughout the public consultation process.
Over the past several months,
residents have participated in meetings,
submitted comments, raised concerns about the
scale
and the impact of this development.
While the proposal has been revised
since it was first introduced,
the fundamental issues remain unresolved.
The current proposal is for a six-story apartment
building
containing 79 residential units
with only 55 vehicle parking spaces.
In a neighborhood made up primarily of one-story
homes,
a six-story building is simply not compatible
while with the existing character of our
community.
Residents have repeatedly stated
that there are no six-story buildings along Che
apside Street
between Clark Road and St. George.
the development would be dramatically larger
than anything that currently exists in our area
and would significantly alter the streetscape
that residents have invested in and called home
for many years.
The concern is not simply the number of units.
Reducing the unit count does not address
the larger issue of scale.
The height, density and massing of the building
remain out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Another major concern is parking.
The proposal provides only 55 parking spaces for
79 units.
This community is not served by a major transit
corridor,
and many residents rely on personal vehicles
for work, family responsibilities, and daily
activities.
Residents are concerned that overflow parking
will spill onto nearby streets,
such as Barker and Sterling,
creating additional challenges
for existing homeowners and visitors.
Traffic and safety concerns also remain
unresolved.
Residents regularly experience congestion
along eastbound, cheap side street,
particularly during the afternoon rush
between four and six.
There's also been many accidents at the Barker
Street
and Cheap Side Street intersection.
Many of us feel that the traffic studies
presented
do not accurately reflect the realities
experienced
by people who live in this neighborhood every day
.
I would also ask that Council consider
the broader planning implications of this
application.
The developer is requesting multiple variances
because of the proposal does not fit
within the existing zoning framework.
The London Plan emphasizes compatibility
an appropriate transition between developments.
A six-story building immediately adjacent
to one-story homes does not represent
an appropriate transition.
Approving this application would send a message
that mid-rise developments can be inserted
into established low-rise neighborhoods
regardless of context.
That would create a precedent that many residents
across the city would find concerning.
Carling Heights is a strong, established
community
made up of seniors, veterans, young families,
and long-term residents.
We are not opposed to this development.
We understand that growth is important.
However, growth must be appropriate,
compatible and respectable to the neighborhood
in which it occurs.
Today, I respectfully ask council
to listen to the residents who live here
who understand this neighborhood
and who will live with the consequences
of the decision long after the developer has
moved on.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
- Thank you.
I look for the next speaker.
- All right.
- Please give us your name, you have five minutes
.
- Yeah, my name is Catherine Church.
I've read the proposal and have many concerns and
objections
with regards to the rezoning and amendments for
this
and other proposed buildings and long-term
effects
to their neighborhoods and to the environment.
The number of requested amendments alone are a
red flag.
The application revision has gone from 10
amendments to eight.
And while I appreciate the developer
has reduced the units and increased the parking,
other amendments have stayed the same
or have become more extreme and concerning.
Developers and municipalities need to work
with existing tax paying communities
and respect zoning and bylaws.
Bylaws are in place to protect citizens,
property, animals, and the environment.
The developer is requesting a zone change
from commercial one and R1 to an R9-7,
special provision to allow for six stories
with multiple zoning bylaw amendments.
They're looking for by-law amendments
on all the yard debt, the height, the density,
the lot coverage, landscaped open space,
and yard encroachment.
Simply put, a construction that requires
a long list of amendments is not the right
project
for the lot size and the neighborhood
where it is being proposed.
In addition, it conflicts with the London Plan
policies
193, 252, and 255.
The sudden jump from R1 to R9 from one to six
stories
is not a gradual or appropriate transition.
Overall, in my opinion, it shows a lack of
concern
for the negative impact on neighbors and the
community.
The proposal is a big change
from what has existed historically
and what tax paying homeowners in the
neighborhood
have come to expect.
In addition, I'd like to mention the parking,
the proposed parking at 0.9 spaces per unit,
It's still not enough.
This is a concern for London
and is prompting a public consultation on June 22
nd
and a council vote proposing a return
to parking ratios of one parking spot per unit.
The proposed parking still does not take into
account
that there will be parking overflow
from deliveries, visitors and tenants
with multiple vehicles.
My next concern is the green space.
When you look at the lot and you take away the
building
and the parking, it means that there is 17%
landscaped open space spread around the building.
This means no meaningful green space.
It means 83% of the lot will be concreted in
asphalt.
London's commitment towards the environment
must be maintained.
It is a fundamental part of the city
of London's identity and character.
This is not a downtown core area.
trees and greenery provide privacy for neighbors,
offset pollution, and replenish the water table
and moisture to combat hotspots, drought
conditions,
which is an increasing problem across Canada,
and helps drain areas prone to flooding.
The next issue is paradigm transportation
solutions
limited prepared and impact assessment.
However, it is questionable and contains errors.
The numbers of cars reported at peak hours
in the traffic studies seem to be lower
than what is experienced.
Traffic volumes fluctuate depending on the season
,
day of the week and local events, example, school
hours.
Peak traffic fluctuates throughout the day.
A single sample of one day out of the whole year
is not a good reflection of what happens daily,
nor does it reflect the daily experience.
these can all lead to faulty trip generation
forecasts
out of context historical data
and failure to evaluate multimodal impact.
More importantly, there is an error,
as was mentioned before, there is an error
where they mentioned that cheap side,
Barker and Sterling Street are all 40 kilometer
an hour streets.
They are, sorry, they're all 50 kilometer an hour
streets
in the report when in fact they are 40 kilometer
an hour
and there is a community safety zone on sheep's
side.
- 30 seconds.
- Vera issues with water, tight density,
Brownsfield, I could go on and on in conclusion.
It is well understood that during an artificial
creation
of a housing shortage started in 2020,
the government introduced incentives for
developers.
I get it, there's something there to be gained.
- Thank you very much, that's your time.
We'll look for the next speaker good afternoon.
Mr. Chair, please start give us your name. We
have five minutes
Jay MacGuffin principal planner Monteith Brown
planning its owns also acting on behalf of the
applicant
I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments
that I've just heard
For clarity in terms of suggesting that a
professional engineer has made an error in the
report that they have stamped with their
professional seal
I think it's important to identify that when a
Design speed is referred to in a reported design
speed is typically 10 kilometers greater than
what the posted speed limit is
So I don't want the committee thinking that our
traffic engineer was making errors in his report
There is a difference between a design speed and
a posted speed limit on a road
further, I want to identify there's a lot of
Reaction to the drawing that was provided in our
revised submission and I would like to make it
very clear to committee
that the staff proposal for the zoning bylaw
amendment is not reflective of
the drawing that was submitted in the revised
application. The staff have
chosen to require additional setbacks and to
require additional open space and
to require additional landscape provisions on the
property from what is
shown on the drawing. So with respect to matters
of things like snow storage
there'll be significantly more area as a result
of the additional landscape
open space that is going to be required and the
reduced
coverages that are being proposed through the
staff
amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to the
next speaker.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
Good day. I'm Maureen Wilson. I do not live in
the immediate area of 929
cheap side. However, my own neighborhood recently
went through a second round of rezoning changes
for the property
abutting our yard. So why am I here? I've been
following
some other developments in the city including
this one.
I would like to share with you some overall
comments and suggestions for your consideration.
I will be including some examples of pain points
we experienced to help illustrate my points.
While the development abutting us past and will
move forward,
I continue to have a deep sense of angst
regarding the overall process
and the current direction of infill development
in the city.
The application before you now and like many
others in recent years is full of special
provisions.
My issue with this is special provisions are no
longer special when they have become
and something that developers routinely attempt
to exploit.
In particular, I've used setback requirements
as being abused and ignored.
In my opinion, the planning and environment
committee
should not even be seeing the volume
of special provisions that pass through here.
Current rules and policies should be enforced
at the initial application stage.
I believe requesting a small reduced setback
of say half a meter in order to build something
that could not otherwise be built
in a slightly smaller format
would represent a truly special scenario
where it might be reasonable to entertain a
reduced setback.
I question whether those that review, recommend,
and approve setbacks have a true understanding
of why they exist.
A quick consult with Google regarding the
purposes
of building development setbacks
returns many important reasons--
safety, light and air, noise and pollution
buffering, privacy, stormwater management, future
expansion
of roads and sidewalks, neighborhood character,
density control and open green space?
Are you aware that the city policies for setbacks
indicate the setback becomes larger with higher
heights?
Do these reduced setbacks cumulatively create a
situation
where the city will have less ability
to handle extreme melts and/or rainfalls?
Are we swapping our forest city for a heat island
and creating future stormwater management
challenges?
The staff report that PEC receives does include
some detail in the form of a couple of numbers,
required and proposed.
And to the planning department's credit,
this development also includes a third number,
recommended.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the
recommendations,
but it does appear as though some attention
and thought was given to setbacks,
which is an improvement.
However, I believe the level of detail
while short and sweet does not do a very good job
of illustrating the differences
between the required and proposed setbacks.
I would like to suggest PAC requests
that reports submitted to them include a chart
that illustrates the required setback, story by
story,
so you as a decision maker can more easily
identify
when proposed setback is grossly deficient.
Perhaps even expand this to have a sliding scale
of flexible setback approvals
based on the required calculations, story by
story,
if later in the process something changes
and the number of stories were reduced, not
likely,
they could have a smaller setback.
If they build the planning tall, a tall building,
it uses the required larger setback.
Make it clear, story by story.
In my neighborhood, the setback was passed
for an eight story, aligns more with the four
story.
And shockingly, under the rethink zoning document
,
which gives us a glimpse into potential future
state,
the setback that passed does not even align
with the one story.
Even more shocking is that the developer retains
more than three times the required setback on the
east,
while at the same time getting a special
provision
to reduce the West setback, mind boggling.
In addition, I would like to suggest
that a city staff member should do a site visit
when an application innocent progress to fact
check.
Are the applicant's descriptions of the property
truthful?
Are there glaring omissions?
If so, why is that?
In my neighborhood, the initial application
described
the property with a description that was dece
iving at best.
The property was flipped and the second round
was more truthful, although in my opinion,
it did omit details for the west side
as they were not as glowing as the write up
for the other directions.
So what can you do?
You have the tools to push back on special
provisions
by simply returning them to their intended
special state.
- 30 seconds.
- Ask why it's required.
Ask if it's reasonable.
How is it reasonable?
Ask for specifics.
Ask what could be built if a special provision
is not approved.
The answers should not simply be driven by higher
profits.
To the planning staff in PEC,
I believe enforcing current rules and policies
initial stages would create less friction and
save to valuable time. I encourage you to ask
questions,
flush out the whys. Thank you for your time and
consideration and to those of you speaking up
for your neighborhoods today, I thank you. Thank
you. I'll look for the next speaker.
Clerk, if there's anyone online? Stephen Ward?
Excuse me. Please go ahead, you have five minutes
.
Okay, thank you. I'm talking to you from Tuscany
in Italy, so I hope the quality's there.
I know that Sharon just had read some of my
comments earlier. I do want to just comment
on one thing about the traffic study to the
gentleman who represents the applicant.
I'm reading right from the study right now. It
says the speed limit is 50 kilometers per hour.
It doesn't say that anything else just straight
speed limit is 50 kilometers per hour
and it states that on all three streets it is
actually 40 and if actually somebody had attended
the site and looked there are three signs right
opposite the the property school safety zone
community safety zone and a 40 kilometer per hour
speed limits to sign so I question the study
and I think somebody needs to take that on and
take another look at the traffic
The space allocated for snow storage is vastly
inadequate. London receives an annual snowfall
about 76 and a half inches with 17 snowfalls over
two inches each. The space allocated for
snow storage is vastly inadequate and I'm sure
that snow will be piled up against the
back of the parking lot and will drain into the
properties, single family properties behind it.
possibly with salt and that salt damage to their
properties, the liability is there.
I think that this could be done. This whole
property could be developed in something
a much smaller size and still be profitable for
the applicant, but this is not it. Sorry,
they're way over on everything and I think the
city just needs to put a stop to it. We don't
need
more 500 600 square foot units. We need single
family homes for families. So I just hope that
our counselors who are voted in to represent us
will represent us and vote this down. Thank you.
Thank you. I look for the next speaker. Let's
clerk if there's anyone online. There's a second
sir. Okay, there's no one online. Please sir, go
ahead. Please give us your name in five minutes.
- Sure, Leo Weister, live on Barker.
Wanted to reiterate again that the traffic study
has some questionable pieces of information in it
,
as the prior person said, the report does talk
about
posted speed limits as 50 kilometers an hour,
and they are indeed posted at 40.
I am an engineer, like to collect data,
and to say that you can collect data for one day
and use that to make judgment on traffic
requirements
going forward all the way out into 2033,
just seems a little bizarre.
It should have been at least a one week study
every day,
And as somebody had mentioned, the traffic
is often seasonal in that area and should
have been spread over a long period.
The one thing that the report doesn't talk about
either
is Barker tends to be a corridor specifically
for traffic going north into the cemetery up on
Huron and Barker.
Often we have funeral possessions down the street
and they can be anywhere from a couple of cars
up to 30 cars and that is something
that's not even considered within the report.
I think I just wanna reiterate the same concerns
that everybody has that the building
is just not appropriate for the neighborhood.
It's a neighborhood of one story homes,
primarily built in the '50s, small lots,
and a lot of the homeowners do have two cars,
and people are parking on the street today.
There's no parking on cheap side, not talked
about.
Overflow parking on Barker and Sterling
is limited to one side of the street,
so to put a building of that size
with potentially that many residents in there,
is just gonna totally overwhelm the neighborhood.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
I don't see anyone approaching the microphones,
so I'll call the vote to close the PPM.
- Deputy Mayor Lewis,
posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.
- Thank you, so I'll put this item on the floor
for committee.
Councillor Cutty.
- Thank you, Chair, and through you,
I'll move the staff recommendation.
Okay, I'll look for a seconder.
Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds,
sorry, motion moved and seconded.
Look for questions or comments from committee or
visiting counselors deputy mayor. Thank you chair
and for you
I think it's really important because we heard a
number of speakers reference the special
provisions
This recommendation from staff actually
Refuses the special provisions in part B. It
approves the blanket zoning the r9
But in part a but in part B. It says to refuse
those special provisions, which means that the
applicant's going to have to find a way to work
with
this building that doesn't require all of those
reductions, the encroachment reductions, the lot
coverage reductions.
They're going to have to revise the plan again,
but what it does say is yes, it can go from a
commercial special provision to a residential
special provision.
To say plan of approval in part C,
also asks for opportunities to relocate prepared
transit lay by a landscape buffer on cheap side
and sterling work with London Transit Commission
to integrate bus stop at Cheap Side Barker as
part of the proposed development. So, you know, I
have to respectfully disagree with the folks who
said the developer really hasn't done anything
except return a couple minor changes on paper.
We've seen a reduction in units and density. We
've seen the parking and listen, I'm the one who
to introduce the motion to revisit one-to-one
parking.
But I have to operate under the firm by-law,
which is 0.5,
which means that they have met the required
parking ratio.
So much as I may not personally like that,
I have to accept it as within the planning rules
we have to work within, it meets the criteria.
Likewise, the six stories meets the criteria
in terms of what is allowed here on cheap side.
And we've heard that from our staff in the last
go around
and it's consistent here.
Yes, there's gonna have to be some changes still
because they're not getting the special
provisions.
But the blanket zoning or the base zoning,
I should say not blanket zoning,
the base zoning is in conformity.
And so I'm gonna support this this time around.
I think it's also important to say,
and I heard at least one resident,
maybe there was two as I was making my notes here
.
You know, they'd like to see a store or something
this,
well, there was a commercial space there,
it was no longer viable.
And the reality is, and this is not specific
to this property, this is happening across the
community,
these neighborhood commercial spaces are
disappearing,
because there's just not enough people using them
to make them commercially viable,
whether it's a garden center or a variety store,
I've got a couple of closed vacant variety stores
I wore it. Nobody wants to touch them because
they can't make go of it anymore because people
just order their stuff online, have it delivered
to their home, and that doesn't keep a corner
store
functional. So while I appreciate the sentiment,
and I do because I've got a closed convenience
store just around the corner from me, that's a
bit of an eyesore, but I know that nobody's going
to
turn that into another variety store because it's
just not going to work. So that's the reality
here is we're not going to see another commercial
development come to this site.
It is being looked at for repurposing for
residential.
I said this at the last meeting and I'm going to
reiterate it today.
Yes, it's good that we have a high vacancy rate
for the highest in 15 years because we're
actually just getting into the healthy zone.
CMHC recommends a vacancy rate that should be
between 3% and 5% and we're now hovering
around the 4% mark.
we talk about housing affordability, that's what
brings rents down. And we've seen that
in the year-to-date information comparing 2025 to
2026, and you can say the same thing
about 2024 to 2025. Today, we are seeing rents
that are more than 6% lower than they were
a year ago. And that's a good thing for housing
affordability. And that's not reflective of
too much inventory on the market. That is
historically where municipalities should be.
It wasn't an artificially created housing crisis
in 2020. We had vacancy rates that were
below 2%. There really was a housing crisis. Now,
there were some multiple reasons for that.
I'm not going to suggest by any means that it was
just about housing inventory. There were
other factors, particularly some of the federal
government policy factors that played into that.
But nonetheless, there was not enough inventory.
And we are finally today starting to see enough
inventory on the market, that we are seeing
decreasing housing prices. We are seeing housing
become more accessible to people. But the housing
crisis isn't over. And this application,
while I've heard and I understand why residents
feel that six stories is too high, it is what's
allowed here. And so I'm going to be supportive
of the base zoning. But I do support staff's
refusal of special provisions. I think that that
is quite reasonable to say, you know,
you still have too much lock coverage. You still
have some exterior side yard and especially the
yard encroachments at 0.2 meters. You're going to
have to make some changes before you are approved
to go ahead. And that's why sending it to site
plan with the base zoning, but telling them they
can't have the special provisions is what I'm
supporting today. Thank you. Oh, Councilor
Stevenson.
Thank you. I am going to ask that AB called
separate from B&C. I'm not going to be able to
the support this and as was said by several of
the residents
here, I am their voice and they're speaking
pretty clearly
about what it is that they don't want to see in
their
neighborhood. And the concern that I have is, you
know, we
talk about six stories is allowed, which I can't
argue. But
maybe through you to staff, when was that when
did that come
to pass? Like six stories has been allowed since
when I'll go
staff. Thank you. And through the chair, those
changes were made
just part of the heights review.
I believe it came forward in 2024.
It was ultimately approved by the province in
2025.
Councilor.
- Yeah, so my point is that this is less than a
year old
where six stories is allowed
and we passed it as a council
as part of the frame, the Heights framework
review.
It was done in August of 2024
and approved a council I believe on September 10
th.
At a time when the public really isn't paying
attention,
everybody's on in vacation mode, it wasn't
explicit.
So we knew about 45 stories downtown and that
kind of thing,
but we didn't go out and transparently say to the
public,
hey, due to the housing crisis and wanting to
meet the needs,
we're gonna be raising the heights
from four stories to six stories on these corners
.
This is what we're planning to do and let the
public speak.
So that's, I have a real problem with that,
that it just kind of went through really quickly,
not explicitly shared,
and something that really impacts neighborhoods,
and not just this one, but several across our
city.
The other concern that I have is,
we have another development that's coming up on
Geary,
and when I look at them, we've got a density here
that is, assuming the zoning goes through,
it's 75 units per hectare,
and recommended 235.
So it's three times the required amount.
With Geary, it's went from 150 to 358,
which is two times the density.
Parking is about the same.
Land coverage is about the same.
Landscaping is about the same.
So one, we've got an approval by staff
and one, we've got a refusal by staff.
So I'm just wondering through you,
if staff can help the public
and council understand how one is coming through
as an approval and one as a refusal.
- I'll go to staff.
- Through the chair, generally speaking,
the sites are a little bit different
in terms of the type of development that's
proposed
and staff have concerns with the intensity
proposed
at Fanshawe and Gearia as well as the form.
This one staff are generally satisfied with the
intensity,
with some refinements to the form that we feel
can be accomplished at the site plan stage,
subject to the staff recommended zoning.
- Councilor.
- Thank you, and while I understand that,
six stories is allowed on cheap side,
eight stories is allowed on Fanshawe.
The density is three times on cheap side,
and it's only two times on Fanshawe.
So, and Fanshawe is a main street and cheap side,
although it is, it really isn't.
It's hard to compare, the neighborhoods are the
same.
These are single-family, you know, low-density
residential neighborhoods where we're talking
about putting something that's three times the
required density.
And you know, while I understand that the
provincial policy statement asks us to look
at unused commercial spaces and switch them to
residential, how many times have neighborhoods
have we got rid of schools and then realized that
we, you know, a little while later maybe
be regretted that decision.
So we're making 50 year decisions here
when we put up apartment buildings.
And although commercial is not a viable option at
the moment,
this is a midway between Adelaide and Highbury.
It's a great little spot to have walkable
commercial spaces
that may be very viable five to 10 years from now
and won't be an option anymore if this goes
through.
So I'm not going to be supporting the zoning
change
to from commercial to residential and I really
think that we need to listen to the public if you
watch what's happening Calgary in their municipal
election they did repealing a blanket zoning
there's other cities in sofasan Ontario that
point of order mr chair hold on to second
councilor point of order go ahead the councilor
is way off base in talking about calgary
municipal
elections out there that has nothing to do with
this application and not only is it a completely
different municipalities it's under completely
different provincial jurisdiction. I'd ask the
councilor keep her comments to this file. Yeah I
have to agree there councilor just
please keep it to this item. Okay no problem my
my point is really just about public
like when I talked to the public in 2022 the
housing issue was a very big issue as we
implemented
for as of right and ARUs and and heights review
changes and as these things are unfolding in
in our city, there's been a change of heart
and ask for us to reevaluate, to look at things,
to listen to them, to ensure that we're making
decisions.
They're gonna create a better city in general
for all of us and for the next generation.
So my point is that we've seen,
even in Southwest Ontario, cities make changes.
Just like the .5 parking, through you two staff,
when did the .5 parking go through?
- I'll go staff.
Thank you and true to Chair.
- That was in 2022, Councilor.
- So again, 2022, I don't know if it was this
term,
a Councilor just the previous one,
but we made this change to 0.5 parking.
And now we've realized it's not a good idea.
Now we're looking at going back to one.
But in the meantime, we're having to approve
projects
that we know or we believe to be going to cause
parking problems in our neighborhoods
because we did these fast changes and we course
corrected.
We have the ability to make other course
corrections
And I think we need to listen to the public.
- Thank you.
Look for other comments or questions.
Councillor Trussell.
- I'm gonna, thank you very much again.
I'm not a member of this committee.
I won't be voting.
I wanna thank Councillor Stevenson
for her very thorough research on this.
And I think that some of your insights were very
astute.
Looking at comparing the numbers
from different parts of the city,
It's just very curious.
I don't see the consistency.
Now I'm going to be, I guess one way of fixing
that
is to just approve both of them,
but I'm not asking you to do that.
But I just wanted to say that what bothers me
about this
is I don't understand the difference
between cheap side and fan shore park road
in terms of the treatment.
I'm troubled.
Cheap side gets to Adelaide really quickly,
and then it comes through my ward.
I don't want to see a six story building
in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
And I have to, I've asked this before at this
council.
Where is the missing middle?
There's no missing middle.
Because whenever an applicant has the opportunity
to go beyond what would be a reasonable missing
middle,
we get something much bigger.
Let me get something that's inappropriate.
I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the traffic
study.
At many of these council meetings,
I talk about the traffic study.
Once again, I think the traffic study was flawed.
I won't repeat all the reasons.
I think that the members of the audience
did a good job critiquing the traffic study.
I wish there was some way that we could look
at the traffic study before it gets to this stage
.
because for me to say, this traffic study was
flawed,
I'd like to send it back, I'll be told,
well you can't do that because we're under a time
limitation.
So we basically, time after time, we are sort of
forced
to accept unacceptable traffic studies that are
flawed
and their conclusion and their methodology
and the way they look at things, and it's the
same thing.
These traffic studies that we get,
they're just hand, they're just the same,
And we need to develop a better process
for looking at the traffic studies
earlier in the procedure.
And I know I'm getting off the application.
So I won't go, I won't talk about the need for
that.
But this traffic study was inadequate.
And I think the way this neighborhood is being
treated,
assumption should not be made about your
purchasing habits.
Assumption should not be made
about what the demographic here is
in terms of what kind of shopping opportunities
you'd like to have.
I don't know if you were allowed to make a point
of personal privilege on behalf of another
neighborhood
that you don't live in, but I almost had my hand
up there
for a while.
I think it would be very reasonable not to put up
a huge shopping center there, but mixed use.
We're not talking about the missing middle.
We're not talking about mixed use.
We're not talking about a variety of different
options
of housing types.
We're just getting the same persistent over
development
requests, prime after time.
And I think that you go across the different
neighborhoods
in this city, and people are tired of it.
People are tired of it today,
and they're tired of it at other meetings,
and we're gonna keep hearing that.
One final thing, in terms of the September 2024
adoption
of a lot of different changes to the official
plan,
I said it at the time, we took on too much that
night.
And a lot of those, I think we're having some
regrets
about some of the things that we rushed through
without adequate public consultation
and understanding of what the implications were
gonna be.
And I think the next council, we can't do it,
but the next council is gonna have to go back
and look at that, and make some corrections.
But for tonight, to get back to this project,
I stand with the Ward Councilor,
and I will not be supporting this.
Councillor Hawkins.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
I'm not part of this committee,
but I do appreciate making a couple of comments.
And I would like to encourage the committee
to support staff's recommendation.
You already have done a very similar
recommendation
in my ward, a number, maybe almost a year ago.
And I'd just like to point out, on the refusal
part of the B, the special provisions,
there's a lot more work that needs to be done. I
appreciate the work
that the applicant has done today, reducing it.
But this application still has a lot more work
to be had. I think we have to be careful if we
get too much into the weeds, and it's very
difficult
for the community to understand this process. I
have challenges, and I've been here a long time,
But it's important that we try to share this
information,
explain it to the community what this refusal
even means,
and try to understand it.
You may not want this development.
But I said, like I said, there's a lot more work
to be done,
so I would encourage the committee
to support the recommendation.
Councilor Omen.
Thank you, and through you, I just
had a couple questions before I state my position
on things.
I wanted to ask staff if they can explain
what the next step, if this was approved,
would be with respect to be
and how the community would be informed
or what kind of communication they would receive
about any future submissions.
- Go to staff.
- Thank you and through the chair.
After this application goes to council,
all members of the public that have commented
on this application will receive notice of
decision,
notice of council decision.
Additionally, if a new application would come in,
we would do the same circulation process as
previously.
So within 120 meters of the subject lands,
planning application sign, a webpage,
and everybody who has previously provided
communications
would again be notified as well.
- Councillor.
- Thank you.
So just to clarify where it says, let's say,
Council supports A and B as it's written.
what can the community expect if Council supports
A
and supports B with the refusal in terms of
what the building form might look like,
what it could be because of the change
in the special provisions that are listed here.
- I'll go start.
- Thank you and true to Chair.
What it means is that a base R9-7 zone
with a maximum height of 21 meters has been
approved,
that basically all other special provisions
would need to revert back to the base regulations
in the R9 zone.
So the requested reductions, for example,
for landscape open space or increase in coverage,
if B would be approved, those would be refused
and we would go back to the base
of zone regulations in the R9 zone.
- Councillor.
- Thank you.
So would the public see any revisions based on
what's here?
What happens next in the process?
for the staff.
Thank you and through the chair.
No, if this would be approved,
this would move further to the stipend approval
stage
where those changes would have to be made,
the general public would generally not see those
changes.
Councillor?
- Thank you.
And if there was an open site plan process, would
they?
- Good staff.
Thank you and through the chair.
If council decides to add a holding provision
or a direction to site plan
for an open site plan consultation process,
then that would occur, Councillor.
- Thank you, that's helpful to know.
One of the challenges I have with what's in front
of us
besides the height, besides the ongoing
conversation
about some of the changes that we made
through the height framework,
as well as the parking regulation changes,
which I support going back to one to one,
is just where we're left with the recommendation
at this point and what that communicates to the
community.
What it says to me is that throughout the process
,
we had drawings, we had submissions,
we had things that people could look at,
that gave them a sense of the building in the
form.
And then when we approved part of,
if it were to be approved the height part in part
A,
they wouldn't get a sense of what happens next
with part B because of the refusal.
And I think that that creates some underlying
tensions
that continue on because there's a lot of unknown
s
as to what could end up being built there.
So I'm not sure how we resolve some of those
tensions
if this were to be approved.
As I said, I'm not supportive of the proposal,
but I do think that it's important
to contemplate all scenarios.
And it might be something where we need to
consider things
like open site plans or something
that allows the public to continue
to have some ability to lend some opinion
into what comes out of this project.
- Is that a question, Councillor, or is that a
statement?
- A little bit of both, it was a question, sure.
- Okay, staff, wanted to respond to that.
- Thank you, and through the chair.
I just want to clarify earlier, misspoke.
The holding provision for public site plan
has been removed that is no longer in place,
but you can make a direction for an open site
plan process.
And so that is one way to go about it.
- Councillor.
- Thank you, yes, I'm aware.
I'm just not a member of the committee,
so I'm just sharing my thoughts.
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll go for any other comments or
questions.
Councillor Stevenson.
- Well, just second please.
Councillor, you're already have five minutes.
We're in committee, if you can be brief, go ahead
.
- I was just wondering if we could make that
amendment
to for the open site plan process,
given that there hasn't been a design
that the public can see.
- Yep, if you want to, yep.
- If I have a seconder.
- Okay, well, the clerk is typing that up.
The deputy mayor doesn't indicate he will second
that.
So it's, we'll wait until we get up and be sc
ribed.
Just been informed by the clerk and procedure
'cause it's your second time speaking,
you can't make an amendment.
So, Councilor Cuddy is going to make that
amendment.
- I'll make the amendment for Councilor Stevenson
.
- Okay, and I'll go back to the Deputy Mayor.
Oh yeah, you could, you know.
- Yeah, I'm still fine in a second.
- Okay, so we got motion moved by Councilor Cuddy
and seconded by the Deputy Mayor Lewis.
Okay, on the amendment, I'll look for any
conversation.
Oh, just second, please.
Oh, staff wants to wait in here.
Please go ahead.
- Thank you, through the chair.
Just wanted to clarify.
Open site plan doesn't mean anything to us.
We would need clear direction
that it's a public site plan meeting.
So that that's the language that we would need to
use
to give clear directions--
- Can you suggest, can you give some wording
to the clerk of what you need to see?
- Staff have provided to the clerk already.
the clerk has that wording. Okay, thank you for
that. I'm going to wait until that's up on
e-scribes so the mover and the seconder can see
exactly what what's going on. Okay, so the
clerk has advised me that that wording is now an
e-scribe to the mover and the seconder want to
review it and let me know that that is okay to
proceed. The mover and the seconder are okay with
that wording. So just on the amendment, any
discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll go to the mover and the seconder
of the main motion to see if they're okay to do
it.
As amended, Councillor Cudi has indicated.
- Yes.
- And the deputy mayor is okay too.
Okay, Councillor Stevenson, do you still request
separate votes on A and B?
- Yes, I do, I'll be voting against A.
- Thank you.
Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded as
amended.
Look for any conversation before I call that vote
.
- Seeing none, let's call that vote.
- Just to be clear, this is A, we're doing first.
- So you're voting on the motion as amended,
so part C as amended currently,
and then you'll vote on A separately, A and B
separately.
- Council, I just wanna make sure you voted
the way you intended on that particular vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries four to
one.
- Now we're voting on part A, call that vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries three to
two.
now or open the vote on Part B.
- So Stevenson, closing the vote,
the motion carries five to zero.
- Chair.
- Yes.
- Just wondering if, when this is done,
if you could just explain the results to the
gallery.
- I'll have the clerk do that.
- Through the chair.
So as per the votes for this motion,
Part A, past three to two,
Part B, past five, nothing,
and the amended Part C,
which included the public site plan meeting
passed four to one.
- And I'll just give further clarification.
Part A is the meat of it with the general idea
of the rezoning.
Part B was the special provisions that was upheld
and then part C was the site plan approval
which we amended to make a public thing.
So, does that satisfy your councilor?
it is just to clarify that the refusal
of the special provisions was upheld.
- Correct, yeah, the refusal, that's right.
Okay, okay, thank you.
Okay, we've been at this for over four hours.
I'd like to look to committee to consider
taking, you know, a 10-minute break.
If I could say, I guess--
- I'll move a 10-minute break.
- Okay, can I get a seconder, please?
Councilor Hillier has indicated second.
Okay, we'll call that vote.
Okay, whoops.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, folks, we'll be back at 5.30.
(laughing)
Okay, thank you for indulging us in that break.
Call this meeting back to order and we'll deal
with 3.9.
This is regarding 1945 High Park Road.
So I'll call the vote on opening
the public participation meeting.
- Let's think about the motion carries 4-0.
- Thank you, so I'll go to the applicant.
The applicant would like to address the committee
.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Good afternoon.
- Thank you, Chair, members of the committee and
staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Daniel Orlana,
Senior Development Manager at Smart Center's REIT
,
representing the property owners at 1945 Park
Road.
We are pleased to bring forward this proposal
and excited about the opportunity to redevelop
the site
as it has remained vacant for a considerable
period of time.
We believe this new retail represents an
appropriate
and positive addition to Hyde Park community.
The proposed development anchored by a shop for
drug mart
and complimented by additional high quality
retail
will provide convenient services,
food and other for the local residents
while enhancing the existing commercial area.
We appreciate staff's recommendation for approval
and I believe the proposal is consistent
with the city's planning framework
and surrounding commercial context.
Thank you for your time and happy to answer
any questions you may have.
- Thank you, I'll look for any members of the
public
would like to address the committee on this item.
I'll ask to clerk if there's anyone online.
There is nobody online.
I don't see anyone coming to the microphones.
So I'll call a vote to close the PPM.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries four to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this on the floor for committee.
Councillor Stevenson, will you be willing
to move the staff recommendation?
Thank you, I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Cudi, vote for conversation on this.
Councillor ramen.
- Very briefly, just wanted to say I'm supportive
of what's proposed with the Shop Restartments
Commercial Plaza.
I understand that they will be using the sanitary
on site
so that there's no issue with the concern
around lack of sanitary in the area
and the storm water management upgrades
that are being made in the area.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
Any further comments or questions?
We have a motion moved in second.
I'll call the vote.
- I'm saying the vote.
The motion carries four to zero.
- Okay, moving on to 3.10.
This is regarding 517 and 525 Fanshop Road East
and 1536 Geary Avenue.
I'll call the vote.
I don't think the public participation meeting.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries four to
zero.
- Okay, I'll go to the applicant.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Okay, Mr. Chair, Mike Davis with Civic Planning
and Design here on behalf of our client,
Royal Premier Homes.
I'll start off by saying,
Royal Premier Homes is a London company.
They're a family business and they are extremely
proud
of the work they do here, helping to build the
city.
They have a growing pipeline of infill,
multi-residential projects.
This block being one of them.
And I think with each project that they bring
forward,
they understand that these projects
are going to leave a lasting, hopefully,
positive impact in the community.
They take that responsibility seriously.
At the same time, we understand there's
been significant public interest in this file,
in particular, in terms of our work with planning
staff.
Obviously, as committee is aware,
they are mandated to bring these applications
forward
to you quite quickly in 90 days.
We're on a boat day 71 right now.
Within that timeframe, they have circulation
timelines
and deadlines, they have report deadlines.
And so the actual time available for
collaboration
and dialogue with staff is limited through that
process.
We did, the applicant did submit a revised plan
upon hearing from staff through the process,
which we believe contains significant revisions,
but in terms of further revisions,
we essentially kind of ran out of time,
which is where we stand here today.
What I do want to point out is that
Royal Premier Holmes has made a written
submission
which they've included on the agenda.
They're given the amount of comments
and dialogue in the application.
There were some points that they felt proper
just to clarify for the committee's benefit
of committee's consideration this evening.
Lastly, I think we want to kind of emphasize
that we respect all the time that's been put in
by neighbors, by members of the committee
into the review of this application.
We know it's been a challenge
and we respect the efforts of staff
to get this brought forward before this committee
.
Primarily we're here this evening
to listen to the perspectives that are being
shared
and so we can better understand those
for moving forward with the project.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll go to members of the public,
like to address the committee.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Good evening, thank you for your time.
I know this has been a long day
and we appreciate your attention
to this matter currently on deck.
Sorry, I'm not that loud.
My name is Kate Kaconan,
and I'm a founding member
of Stony Brook for Community First Development.
I'm here today to support the staff
recommendation
to refuse the zoning bylaw amendment before you
for 517 to 525 Fanshawe Park Road East
and 1536 Geary App.
Originally, I intended to begin by recognizing
the remarkable efforts of our community,
thanking Councilors for their engagement
and summarizing the concerns you will hear today
regarding height, density, traffic, tree loss,
neighborhood compatibility,
and many other significant impacts.
Instead, I feel compelled to begin
with a concern about the integrity of this
process.
Late yesterday afternoon, I was informed by
Ward Councilor Pribble that Royal Premier Holmes
had submitted an additional letter for inclusion
in today's agenda.
Residents were not notified,
our community group was not informed,
and the public was given no meaningful
opportunity
to review or respond to its contents.
This is particularly troubling,
giving the extraordinary level of public
engagement
surrounding this application.
Residents have participated in good faith for
months.
From our group, this proposal has been the
subject
of two London Progress articles, an interview
with CBC,
two segments on 980 CFPL.
Our community has built two Facebook platforms
with a combined following of more than 500
residents
and supporters, generating thousands of views
and interactions.
We have gathered more than 700 petition
signatures
and generated over 240 e-mails to city staff
and elected officials.
Anything less than this level of public
participation
is a blanket attempt to circumnavigate the public
involvement.
Row Premier Holmes states in their letter, and I
quote,
"The revised proposal reflects substantial
changes made
in direct response to staff and community
feedback.
If the changes are indeed substantial,
then they warrant a new zoning by-law amended
application,
complete with updated supporting studies
and a renewed public consultation process.
The public should have the same opportunity
to review and comment on a substantially revised
proposal
as it did on the original application.
I therefore respectfully ask that members of
council
give no weight to any new arguments or
information
contained in this late submission.
Residents came here today prepared to address
the application that was publicly presented to
them.
Not material introduced at the 11th hour
without any opportunity for meaningful public
reviewer
response.
I also respectfully request that no time today
is spent debating the contents of this letter
beyond acknowledging its existence, which I have
now done.
Instead, I ask that council focus on the
application before them
and on the thoughtful and formed and evidence-
based concerns
that residents have spent months preparing to
present.
Council's decision today extends beyond a single
application,
especially when it comes to the zoning amendments
and the zoning request being submitted.
In conclusion, while I understand that the
recommendation
by staff is for refusal and we trust
that council will agree, we are still taking the
time today
to share our comments and our concerns.
As we know, development will take place
along Fanshawe Park Road.
That is not up for debate.
Development will happen and at no point in this
process
has this community group said we don't want
development.
We have just said we want development
that works for the neighborhood.
So we would like this opportunity
to still engage with council
in the hopes of guiding future development
proposals
and we thank you for your time and thoughtful
consideration.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
Please give us your name in five minutes.
- Hello, my name is Tammy Pollinik
and I am a resident of Stony Brook.
I am the other founding member
of Stony Brook for community first development
and have been working to challenge this
development
since January 15th, 2026.
I'm speaking to you today with the expectation
that the committee members will follow staff's
recommendation
and refuse the proposed development by rural
premier homes.
I want to start by thanking the mayor
and all the councillors who came out to Stony
Brook
to see how the true scale of this proposed
development
would actually affect our neighborhood.
Our community pushed hard to understand the
proposal
at 517 to 525 Fanshawe Park Road
and 1536 Geary Avenue.
We spent many months reviewing zoning bylaws,
the London Plan, the Provincial Planning
Statement
and the Planning Application Submitted by Civic.
All of the concerns were raised.
All of the concerns we raised about the over-int
ensification
of this project were validated by city staff
in the report to the Planning and Environment
Committee.
One major concern I have, which is a direct
result
of the exemplary community engagement of our
group
has demonstrated, is the backlash that we are
getting
for pushing back against this over-intensified
development.
The residents pushing back are not the problem.
It's the developers like Royal Premier Homes
and design firms like Civic who should be getting
reprimanded.
They are the ones who are blatantly ignoring
zoning limits, abusing special provision requests
, and who have no
sliver of respect for established neighborhoods,
they are trying to push
through developments that are incomplete, not
thought through, are poorly designed
and have adverse and irreversible impacts on
neighborhoods. Every section of the
staff report verifies this, and I'll now read
direct quotes from it as they
relate to this application. And I quote, "The
proposed scale and intensity of the
development are considered to exceed what is
appropriate for the site and
represents over intensification. The proposal
does not represent a well-designed
built form that is a good fit within and
compatible with its surrounding
context, nor does it support a positive
pedestrian environment. The built form and
site layout do not effectively respond to the
surrounding context or existing
neighborhood character, nor has it been
appropriately designed to minimize and
mitigate potential adverse impacts on the abut
ting nearby properties. The
The building has not been sufficiently oriented
towards the higher order street to minimize
impacts on the lower order street and the
proposal has not adequately demonstrated that
the proposed intensification is sensitive to
compatible with or appropriately integrated
within the existing and planned neighborhood
context.
The scale and intensity of the proposed
development is excessive and represents over
intensification
of the subject lands.
Development also represents a substantial
departure from the intended scale and approach
to modest height increases envisioned across the
city, including within established neighbourhoods
.
The application has not adequately demonstrated
that the subject lands can appropriately
accommodate
the proposed scale and intensity of development
while maintaining compatibility with the
surrounding
neighbourhood and protecting the abutting low
density residential uses. The proposed intensity
of
development is not appropriate for the size and
configuration of the site. And lastly,
The proposal is not in the public interest and
does not represent good planning," end of quotes.
And I want to reiterate, those are all verbatim
taken straight from the City Planning Report.
Once again, staff have recommended refusal, not
referral, and not another redesign, refusal.
We all understand that development is going to
happen at the site,
but a developer's economic viability is not a
justification for maximization and over-intens
ification.
So I want to end by asking you this, is it really
the residents pushing back
who are the ones stalling import development in
the city. Thank you. Thank you. I'll look
for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your
name. You have five minutes. Thank you very much.
My name is Tarik Khan. I think I should say good
evening, right? So I'm a resident of
Stony Brook Press. Chair, can I say thanks to my
neighbors, my friends, who have been submitting
over 200 petitions so far. And there is a
collective petition we submitted. It was
it carried over 700 signatures. And I also want
to say my special thanks to our core team.
Frankly, they were working very hard during last
over 100 days. Whether it was a cold or it was
a warm, it was sun or it was rain. They were out
knocking at the doors, talking with people,
raising awareness, sending emails, engaging media
,
talking to the radio, and inviting counselors.
And thank you very much.
And PC members, let me tell you, your job is not
easy.
You know what?
It is something like a walking on a tightrope
without any balance.
Most of the time, it is so difficult to come up
to the expectations of the residents
because of many reasons.
During my service life, I was in the staff shoes.
post retirement, I got the opportunity privilege
to sit on the other side of the table. So I can
fully understand the complexities, the challenges
, the problem when you deal with such a proposal.
I have examined the proposal and from my
background in local government systems
and the town planning, I can very easily say that
this proposal has so much technical flaws
that even if I start writing it will take me like
two days.
This proposal or this application is a typical
example of misinterpretation,
misreading and miscoting of London's official
plan. We call London plan
and the provincial policy statement 2024. If I go
further into details
and I don't want to because my other speakers
will speak on those.
I have my fellow residents, my fellow friends,
they have already submitted over 200 petitions
and the points and the objections or the
recommendations or the concern, they have
mentioned in their
proposals, I am 100% in agreement with them. And
then I'm also 100% agree with our staff,
who have very clearly mentioned in their five
recommendations that this proposal
supposed to be refused. All right, go side track
because there is a time limit. I've wasted 10
seconds, right? So PC members, I'm coming
directly to you now. Being elected members,
you are the custodians of the city. You are the
city fathers. Whatever the scene you take today,
It is going to impact London forever and our
future generation forever.
Please stand by, stand behind the staff and your
taxpayers.
30 seconds.
Finally, I would like to thank Councillors Purine
Raman,
Councillor Sam, Councillor Jerry, Councillor
Stephen,
Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Steve Lehman and
finally Mayor Josh Morgan
for spending his time, visiting us, listening us
and giving us our hope.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Before I go to
the next speaker, just hold on. Okay, it looks
like
we're going to extend past six o'clock. That's
why I need someone to move. Councillor Cutty,
you're moving that we go past six. I'll move. And
Councillor Stevenson, you're seconding, so we'll
call that vote. Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the
vote. The motion carries six to zero.
Okay. Thank you. Now we can go to you. Please
give us your name and you have five minutes.
Okay. Well, good evening, good afternoon. My name
is Julie Peters. And in 2017, while serving
as 3M Canada's Director of Transportation Safety,
I was proud to see the City of London join the
Global Vision Zero Movement. I was equally proud
to attend the Transportation Association of
Canada
Conference the following year, where London
received national recognition for its leadership
in advancing roadway safety. Today, London stands
alongside more than 1,200 municipalities
worldwide
who have adopted Vision Zero, a strategy that is
built on a straightforward but
powerful principle that no loss of life and no
serious injury on our roadways is
acceptable. Vision Zero was not nearly just a
traffic safety program. It is a
commitment by everyone in this room to ensure
that transportation planning,
roadway design, land use decisions, and public
policy work together to protect
human life. A particular focus of vision zero for
those that are not
acquainted with it is the protection of what is
referred to as vulnerable road
users. Those are children, pedestrians, cyclists,
older adults, and persons with
disabilities. Safety is achieved not solely
through driver behavior but
through planning and design that reduces risk,
manages traffic volumes
particularly around school zones, and prioritizes
people and the places where
they walk, learn, play and gather. So committee
it is through this lens of
safety that I ask you to evaluate the proposal
that this applicant has. The
proposed development density combined with a veh
icular access point along
Geary Avenue will introduce significant track
volumes on to Stony Brook Crescent
as drivers aim to utilize the traffic signal at
Fanshawe and Stony Brook when
when trying to turn left.
As council is aware, Stony Brook Crescent
serves an elementary school
and presents existed documented challenges.
There are multiple blind curves.
There are roadway pinch points.
There are limited sight lines
and significant seasonal visibility obstructions
from winter snow banks.
These concerns have been raised repeatedly
by school administrators, by parent councils,
by residents and by former members of this
council.
I will also note that the traffic study
that was commissioned by Royal Premier Holmes was
flawed.
It did not take into consideration
any of these issues raised by the community,
and it was not conducted over a statistically
significant
point in time, and it failed to incorporate the
safety
of the complete thoroughfare and this school zone
.
I therefore urge the committee to accept staff's
application
to refuse it in its current form
and to support only future applications
that provide a singular vehicle access
along Fanshawe Park Road.
I'm gonna repeat that.
There should be no access along Gary Avenue.
Above all, I urge this committee and council
to honor your principles division zero
and to place the safety of our children
and of all vulnerable road users
at the forefront of every decision you make.
Thank you.
- Thank you, I'll look for the next speaker.
I'll go up top.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- My name is Jim McKee.
My family has resided on Geary Avenue
for more than 55 years.
I'm here to respectfully urge the committee
to uphold the recommendations of Planner Michelle
Hines
and refuse the application submitted by Royal
Premier Homes.
At its core, the application raises a simple
but important question.
Does this proposal represent good planning
and is it in the public interest?
The London Plan calls for the development
that is an appropriate fit within the surrounding
neighborhood
and does not undermine the character
of lower order residential streets.
It's difficult for me to see how a ninth story
apartment
building containing almost 300 single bedroom
units
with a limited green space and insufficient
parking
can be considered an appropriate fit adjacent
long-established family bungalows situated on
large lots with massive trees.
Beyond the issue of compatibility, the proposal
raises significant concerns
about traffic and parking. The development
proposes 216 parking spaces for
almost 300 residential units, which leaves a
shortfall of more than 80
vehicles, before accounting for visitors, service
vehicles, and deliveries that
will also be there. Where would those vehicles
park, particularly during the
winter months, when snow removal operations
already limit
available street parking.
Geary Street is not a long street.
Rlying on Geary for overflow parking
will result in increased congestion
and potential safety concerns.
This is not a theoretical concern.
It's a predictable outcome of approving a
development
with parking that does not match the building
scale.
Traffic circulation presents another serious
concern.
The proposal should result in hundreds of vehicle
movements
each day entering exiting onto Geary Avenue,
a lower order residential street.
During peak morning and afternoon periods,
this traffic will intersect with interact,
with pedestrians, school bus loading zones,
and crosswalks carrying students and families
in our neighborhood, which raises an obvious
question.
Why is traffic being directed at all onto Geary?
Nearby apartment complexes at 370 and 420 Fanshaw
e Park Road
access directly onto Fanshawe.
If direct access onto a higher-order road
was appropriate for those developments,
why was a similar approach not pursued here
instead of routing the traffic
through a lower-order residential street?
The city staff have concluded
that this proposal is not in the public interest
and does not represent good planning.
This committee has the opportunity
to uphold the principles of the London Plan
and ensure that growth occurs in the manner
that is compatible, responsible,
and respectful of long-established communities.
I respectfully ask the committee
to support the staff's recommendation
and refuse this application.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
- Thank you, I'll go to the gentleman here, am I
right?
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- Thank you, my name is Robert Thorin, I live on
Stony Brook.
Members of the Planning Environment Committee,
I stand before you today not to oppose the,
excuse me,
the development entirely, but to advocate
for the livability and the character
of our established neighborhood.
We are here to address the proposed eight-story
apartment building, and specifically the severe
impact of introducing a high-volume service and
residence traffic into a quiet residential street
.
Furthermore, while the main corridor street has
been upgraded to accommodate for eight floors,
the London Plan limits development with a
residential street access to a maximum of four
stores.
With no extra parking for guests, visitors will
have to compete for limited parking spaces on-
site
and on the adjacent residential streets creating
significant strain on the surrounding
infrastructure.
Adding to these concerns, the only off-street
access will likely result in delivery vehicles
turning left onto the neighborhood streets,
avoiding the difficult left onto Fanshawe Park
road during peak traffic, channeling heavy
commercial vehicles through the neighborhood
and past the public school. Finally, the only
entrance will be situated immediately adjacent
to homes where that driveway will be used for
service vehicles, garbage, recycling, deliveries
i.e. Amazon, Skip, Prescriptions, Uber, and
Access to Underground Parking, further disrupting
the quality of life for those residents. While I
understand the city's goal for intensification
along primary corridors, this eight-story
proposal with its high density, limited parking,
service accessing into quiet residential streets
presents a risk that far outweighs the potential
benefit of the local neighborhood. I ask the
committee to respect the established urban design
guidelines and deny this application. Thank you
for your time.
Thank you. I look for the next speaker. Please
sir, give us your name. You have five minutes.
Good afternoon or good evening I guess now. My
name is Rob Ashton and I live in the Stonybrook
neighborhood immediately adjacent to this
proposal. I would like to begin with thanking
planning staff for their careful analysis of this
application. In my respectful submission,
staff has correctly identified the central issues
before this committee. This is not about whether
London should intensify. It should. This case is
about whether this particular proposal represents
the type of desirable intensification
contemplated by the Planning Act, the Provincial
Planning
Statement, and the London Plan. I submit that it
does not. In my respectful submission, one of the
most significant flaws in this application is
that it takes height, density, and massing,
justified by frontage on Fanshawe Park Road, and
extends those impacts onto Geary Avenue,
a local residential street where the required
transition simply does not occur.
The applicant seeks approval for an eight-story,
almost 300-unit apartment building on a site
directly abutting one of London's most
established low-density neighborhoods.
This proposal therefore represents a level of
intensity that far exceeds what can be reasonably
considered compatible with surrounding
neighborhood context. The issue is not the number
of stories
alone though. It's the overall scale, massing,
intensity, and lack of transition between this
proposal and the surrounding community. Good
planning requires more than blind compliance
with maximum height permission. The Planning Act
speaks of promoting well-designed built form
and creating a sense of place. The Provincial
Planning Statement speaks of development that
is compatible with insensitive to surrounding
land uses. The London Plan repeatedly requires
development to fit within its context provide
appropriate transition and contribute positively
to neighborhood character. Those principles are
not optional. That is the framework through
which intensification is evaluated. In this case,
the proposal attempts to take density that may
in isolation be appropriate along the less
residential section of Fanshawe Park Road
and extend it into Geary Avenue, a local
neighborhood street. That distinction is
critically important.
Fanshawe Park Road is a major urban corridor.
Geary Ave is not.
Good planning requires a meaningful transition
between significantly different built forms,
which this proposal fails to provide.
Further, Geary functions as the entrance
to a stable residential neighborhood
comprised predominantly of detached homes
and mature landscape features.
The applicant's approach does not merely
intensify a major corridor.
It internalizes corridor scale intensity
under a local residential street
that was never planned, designed, or intended to
accommodate that form of development,
and all without providing the transition required
by the London Plan in provincial planning policy.
That is not an example of appropriate transition,
that is the absence of transition.
It's more accurately described as expansion.
Approval of this policy would signal that
corridor scale intensity
may be extended onto local residential streets
without achieving the transition required by
policy.
It would effectively permit lands fronting major
corridors
to be assembled and used to justify increasingly
intensive development extending deeper into
established neighborhoods. That interpretation is
difficult to reconcile with the compatibility,
transition, and fit objectives embedded
throughout the London plan.
The outcome would undermine one of the most
fundamental principles of land use planning.
Growth must be directed in a manner that respects
context and achieves compatibility.
I respectfully submit that staff are correct in
concluding that the proposal fails to achieve
this transition fit an integration required by
policy. Importantly, refusing this application
would not be a rejection of intensification. It's
a recognition that intensification must
still be respectful of planning principles. There
are forms of redevelopment that could
succeed on this site. A low to mid-rise
development with reduced height, reduced massing,
along
gear, greater setbacks, stronger landscape buff
ering, improved transition, vehicular
access off of Fanshawe, they could all achieve
housing objectives while remaining compatible
with the surrounding community. Those are not
competing objectives. They are exactly
what good planning requires. For those reasons, I
respectfully submit the staff have reached
the correct planning conclusion and I ask the
committee to support staff's recommendation
and refuse the application in its current form.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker.
- Today, I'm wearing--
- Oh, hi, I'm sorry, I was looking over here.
Look over here.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- I'm Maureen Wilson.
I do not live in the immediate area
of Stony Creek, Fanshawe, and Geary Development.
However, my own neighborhood recently went
through
a second round of rezoning changes
for the property abutting our yard.
Earlier today, I spoke regarding 929 Chief's side
.
So why am I still here?
The proposed infill development
for Stony Creek, Fanshawe, and Geary
also contains numerous special provision requests
.
Please recall my comments from earlier.
They also apply here.
Please review the special provisions and ask
questions.
Are they truly special or are they do overzealous
?
Push for the whys.
In addition to my earlier suggestion
that submission should include a chart depicting
required
and proposed setbacks, story by story,
I would like to make additional suggestions
based on my own recent experience.
I would like to suggest that staff reports to PEC
include five new sections.
- Okay, I'm going to just interrupt you there.
I allowed you some leeway
when you first addressed the committee.
I just asked that you keep your comments specific
to the item that we're discussing right now.
There are other avenues where you can make your
suggestions
as far as generalities, as far as staff or
committees.
So please keep your comments
to the Fanshawe and Geary development.
- Well, I think this is because visual inspection
would require an in-person visit to the property
by the planning department
when an in-fill application is in its early
stages.
And I'm certain that many of you in this room
took the tour of the neighborhood
for the application currently before you.
Sadly, this does not happen for all applications.
And I suspect you would agree that the view from
the street
is more impactful than for behind a desk and a
computer.
I too attended one of the tours
for the application currently before you.
It was interesting to hear many of the resident's
comments.
Grading, fit, and compatibility,
it sounded very familiar from my own round.
Fact check and actively look for omissions.
Are the descriptions and facts truthful?
Are there obvious omissions and if so why?
Mockups of the development would look like
from abutting streets.
Currently mockups only depict appearances
from the fronting street along with other views
from within the development.
Grading, this is currently left
for the site plan stage.
Gary also mentioned grading, so in my instance,
so I think that when they're submitted,
they should have to include the high and low
spots.
Developers should have to show anticipated grain
changes.
Diagrams show zero degrees at all corners
and is not transparent and does not illustrate
zero degree,
how the zero degree is achieved,
is backfill required?
Would it require a retaining wall?
Is it reasonable?
Does it fit the character of the neighborhood?
I will admit, this is a personal irritant
as we believe we will look at a six foot wall.
The setback chart, including calculations for
every story
to more readily gauge whether a setback request
is reasonable or grossly deficient and overz
ealous.
In addition, the city needs to find ways
to measure things that are subjective,
fit and compatibility immediately come to mind.
These are supposed to be taken into consideration
for infill developments in existing neighborhoods
and unfortunately both are very subjective.
Developers should have to demonstrate
how their development fits and how it is
compatible.
Simply stating that it fits and it's compatible
fails the SNF test.
To me, it is about, you don't wanna hear that's
mine,
it is not a sufficient explanation demonstrating
fit
and compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
It is refreshing to see that the staff report
before you today has not let the developer off
the hook
with generic comments and staff
are indicating the proposal is not compatible
and does not preserve the character
of the lower order street.
Please take the steps to ingrain a balanced
judgment
of fit and compatibility for future developments
and ensure the current wave of judgment
does not simply vanish in six months.
To planning, staff and PEC, I believe the
addition
of my earlier suggestions to enforce current
rules
and policies at the initial stages
and the creation of five suggested sections
would create more transparency,
less friction and save valuable time.
I encourage everyone to ask questions
and flush out the whys.
Thank you for your time and consideration of
these items
that I see as pain points and related suggestions
that may make situations better for future info
applications.
And a huge thank you to all of those here
speaking up for your neighborhoods today.
- Go to our next speaker.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- My name is Mary McKee and I live at 1522 Geary
Ave.
I'm here today to strongly urge you
to uphold city staff's recommendation
and refuse the zoning amendment application.
I wanna use my time specifically
on the critical issue of traffic and pedestrian
safety.
And I'm going to use honest driving.
I have lived on Geary Ave for the last 10 years.
In that decade, I have watched the volume of
traffic
on Fanshawe Park Road explode.
We already know the intersection of Fanshawe and
Adelaide
is operating at a failing level of service.
As a resident there, I am no longer willing to
risk
a left-hand turn onto Fanshawe Gary during peak
hours.
It is simply too dangerous.
Instead, I frequently choose to travel south on
Gary,
turn right on Stony Brook Crescent,
drive directly past the elementary school,
and make my turn at the safe signalized traffic
light
of Filbert Drive.
I explicitly advise visitors to my house
to do the exact same thing during peak hours.
Today, this is the only viable safe alternative
to a blind left hand turn onto Fanshot in peak
time.
And I am not the only resident of the street that
does that.
My behavior is based on the current traffic
situation,
long before adding the proposed development.
The developers proposed 299 unit plan,
keeps the primary full access driveway on Gary
Avenue.
This design guarantees cars will be backed up at
the corner,
making it certain that hundreds of new hurried
commuters
will choose the exact same path that I do,
turning south into the neighborhood
and cutting directly past Stony Brook School.
Gary should not have to handle this volume.
In fact, just this past April,
we received an official letter from the city
outlining an upcoming traffic calming project
on Gary F.
It's going on right now.
And it was in this direct response to,
and I quote, increasing traffic concerns on the
street.
The city is actively spending taxpayers' money
to fix Gary as a safe local residential road,
approving a massive complex that dumps
its operational traffic load onto Gary,
immediately nullifies the city's own
infrastructure
investments and safety goals going on now.
The volume fundamentally are incompatible
with the lower-order street.
So my objectives are grounded directly
in the state's mandates of the London Plan.
I don't want to, and I want to highlight
four specific failures of the design.
One, violation of policy 920,
lower order compatibility.
The London Plan explicitly mandates
that developments at intersections
must protect the character of lower order streets
.
By keeping its primary access point on Gary
Avenue,
the developers treating a quiet residential
street
as a commercial thoroughfare.
The main entry and exit must be on Fanshawe Park
Road.
Two, the predictable shortcut.
The developers traffic assessment assumes drivers
will patiently exit north onto Fanshawe.
In reality, morning commuters wanting to go west
will not wait indefinitely for a gap in the road
traffic.
They will take the path of least resistance
and head past school.
Three, severe risk to the school zone.
This route forces an unsafe surge of commuter
traffic directly past the front gates of
Stony Brook Public School.
The building's morning peak traffic overlaps
precisely with school drop-off hours, directly
violating the city's obligation to prioritize
active transportation for vulnerable children.
And four, street narrowing being park overflow.
With 299 units, the project relies on a sub-1-to-
1 parking ratio.
visitors parking will spill onto Geary app
narrowing the roadway and dangerously blocking
sight lines of school buses, emergency vehicles,
and crossing students.
Finally, this layout directly violates London's
own Vision Zero Road Safety Strategies.
Vision Zero explicitly states that our
transportation network must be engineered to
anticipate human
air and designed for reality.
Reality dictates that forcing hundreds of daily
commuters onto Geary app will cause
dangerous, short cutting through a school zone.
- 30 seconds.
- If the council stands by the Vision Zero
promise
to prioritize the safety of school children
and over development density,
it must refuse this application.
- Thank you.
I'll wait for the next speaker.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Hi, hello, my name is Kate Drum
and I'm a resident of Stony Brook neighborhood.
I am speaking to you today with the expectation
that committee members will follow staff's
recommendation
and refuse the proposed development by Royal
Premier Homes.
To begin, I will quote the following
from the City of London website
regarding the Tree Canopy Conservation Program.
The City of London's urban forest strategy
sets out a target of 34% tree canopy cover by the
year 2065.
To achieve this goal, trees within city limits
must be planted and existing trees must be
managed
in a way that extends their life.
As a large proportion of London's trees
are on private property, homeowners play a
crucial role
in achieving this target," end quote.
Now, keeping this in mind, let's review the Arbor
ist Report
for Zoning by Law Amendment, provided by Ron Caut
us
Landscape Architects Inc. on behalf of the
developer.
The recommendations of the Arborist Report
regarding the 81 individual trees
and eight vegetation units are as follows.
One, based on the proposed site plan,
the majority of the trees would need to be
removed
due to direct conflict with construction.
Two, recommended preservation of four trees
and three vegetation units located beyond the
subject site.
Let me state that again, four trees of the 81
And these four are not even within the boundaries
of the subject site.
Royal Premier Homes is clear cutting the forest
city
and this is very concerning.
Not only are they removing all the vegetation
within the boundary of the four lots,
they are yet again going beyond
and are requesting to clear cut 13 additional
trees
located either on the property boundary
or on the private property of 1531 Stony Brook
Crescent.
Consent from the landowner of 1531 Stony Brook
Crescent
is required, and please note that consent
has not been granted.
I ask staff and council to think about
how this proposal can in any way be permitted to
proceed
when it blatantly disregards the city's own
tree canopy conservation goals.
To add to the devastation,
they are requesting to remove 12 trees
that are 50 centimeters or more in diameter,
including one that is 95 centimeters.
We will never get that back.
And let's recall that again,
according to the city under the by-law,
any tree with a trunk diameter of 50 centimeters
or greater
measured 1.4 meters from the ground
is legally classified as a distinctive tree.
and the unpermitted removal of a tree over 50
centimeters
can result in fines of tens of thousands of
dollars.
I ask you, how can such preservation
contradictions
be allowed to proceed?
No amount of landscaping will replace the trees
and habitat being lost.
Lastly, as per the staff report,
there is stated to be no ecological concerns,
but then they note the following.
1. Avoid tree removal within the act of bat roost
ing period, which is April 30th to September 1st.
To reduce potential interactions with endangered
bat species, to avoid contravention of the End
angered
Species Act. 2. Avoid vegetation removal within
the act of breeding bird period, which is April 1
st
to August 30th to avoid disturbing nesting birds
and contravening the Migratory Bird Convention
Act.
So when the damage is done and it cannot be
undone,
what happens to the local ecology?
I ask the committee to uphold their own city-wide
objectives
and to not allow a third party to impose
detrimental
environmental impacts on our forest city.
stop the excess demand for special provisions and
uphold the integrity of our city.
30 seconds. Our neighborhoods and our
environmental standards refuse the development at
517 to 525
Fanshawe Park Road and 1536 Geary Ave. Thank you
for your time.
Next speaker. I'll ask the clerk if there's
anyone online. Angela, can you hear me? Angela?
- Sorry, I was just trying to switch to my
microphone.
- Okay, great.
You give us your name and you have five minutes.
- Sure, thank you, and thank you Rose for waiting
.
Hi, my name is Angela Dillon,
and I am speaking today as one of the many
Stony Brook residents who has come together
to inform our neighbors about this proposal.
I was part of a small outreach group of residents
whose goal was to raise awareness,
connect with our community,
help people understand what this proposal would
mean,
and what they could do if they wanted their
voices heard.
Over a six-week period, our small group
went to approximately 1,000 doors.
We spent countless evenings and weekends
walking street after street,
talking to neighbors face-to-face.
We listened, we answered questions,
we explained the proposal,
and we directed people to the city's materials
and encouraged them to review the application for
themselves.
What struck me most was not a response of anger,
but of disbelief.
People could not understand how a proposal of
this scale
was being contemplated in this location.
And after countless conversations, I can tell you
this,
not one person told us they wanted this proposal
approved,
not one.
Now, does that mean people are opposed to
development?
Absolutely not.
Our neighbors understand that London is growing,
they understand we need more housing,
they understand intensification has a role to
play.
What they do not support is this proposal.
They do not support a development
effectively reaches nine stories when city staff
have determined that enclosed rooftop
amenity area constitutes an additional story
beyond what is permitted. They do not support a
proposal that extends an eight-story built form
along Geary Avenue and places six-story
massing directly beside existing low-rise homes.
They do not support a proposal that city staff
have repeatedly described as over-intensification
. Our community's concerns are not emotional.
They are the same concerns identified by your
professional planning staff.
Staff concluded that this proposal does not
significantly demonstrate compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not
adequately mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent
and nearby properties. Represents an over-intens
ification rather than the compact form of
development
contemplated by the London Plan. Fails to provide
appropriate transitions to neighborhood homes
is not appropriately oriented toward the higher
order street
and instead extends substantial massing along
Geary Avenue
and raises unresolved concerns regarding traffic,
access, parking, site functionality, and landsc
aping.
Most importantly, staff concluded
that the proposal is not in the public interest
and does not represent good planning.
Our community did more than talk.
We organized three weekend signature collection
events.
Hundreds of residents came out.
Both online and in-person, we collected 717
signatures
From people who took the time to stand up and say
,
this proposal is not appropriate for this
location.
In addition, more than 240 emails were submitted
to the city by concerned residents
who wanted their voices heard.
Those numbers matter,
not because planning should be decided by
popularity,
but because they demonstrate something important.
Residents paid attention.
They read the materials, they attended meetings,
they asked questions,
engaged in the process exactly as they were
intended to do. And when they did, they reached
the same conclusion as City Planning Staff. Today
I ask that you listen not only to the hundreds of
residents who signed petitions, attended
community events, and who wrote to the city, but
to your own
professional planning staff. Staff have
recommended refusal, not referral, not more
studies, not
another redesign, refusal. After reviewing the
application, the planning framework, and the
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood staff
concluded that this proposal is inconsistent
with good planning and should not proceed.
Members of the committee, our community has
done its part. We knocked on doors. We informed
our neighbors. We participated respectfully.
We trusted the planning process and today we are
asking you to do the same. Please uphold the
principles of the London Plan. Please support
your planning staff and please refuse this
application.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Or do we have
another person online? Megan, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you. Are you able to hear me?
Yeah, yes, I can. Please give us your name and
you have five minutes. Thank you. My name is
Megan Tancredi. I want to start by thanking the
chair,
the PEC members of council and Mayor Morgan for
your time, your consideration, and all of your
care during the proposed Donnie Brook development
process. So I live in the neighborhood of this
proposal that's proposed at eight stories, 299
units at Fanshawe Park Road and Geary.
I've lived in this neighborhood since 2018 with
my husband and our two children. Our kids are
10 years old and 7 years old and we love this
neighborhood for many reasons that have been
mentioned by some of my neighbors such as the
school district, the spacious and older
properties
with the mature trees and the privacy that our
homes and yards have. So this building would
would significantly impact the life of myself and
my family.
So for context, a handful of you have actually
been in my backyard during your tours
of the neighborhood in the proposed development
site.
I live adjacent to the site at 1537 Stony Brook
Crescent.
So the property where Royal Premier Homes
has proposed this new building would be,
our backyard is perpendicular to that
of 525 Fanshawe Park Road.
So that means our family would lose all privacy
both in our backyard, as well as to the bedrooms,
our living areas, and our bathrooms
at the back of our house.
I worry about the sound and the light
that would pollute our yard in our house.
Ultimately, this would disrupt our daily living.
We moved to this house because of the privacy
that it affords us.
Currently, we have no windows and no homes
behind us facing into our yard.
I'm sure as you can understand
going from privacy to having hundreds of new
residents with the birds eye view into our yard
and house feels devastating and it feels like a
big invasion into our privacy in our personal
lives.
During the initial zoom meeting a few months ago
with the developers I did
raise my hand and ask what their plans were for
privacy and the response indicated potentially
more trees. However as my neighbor Kate just
talked about the development plan actually shows
the opposite it's going to remove dozens of trees
. I also have done some reading on trees and I don
't
know that there are any large enough to give us
privacy that would fit in a couple of meters
between our fence and the building and the
parking lot and just like have been mentioned by
other
neighbors the London Plan itself speaks about
privacy and the fishbowl effect in our family
would be
in a fishbowl to this proposed development so as
a resident neighboring this development site
there's other concerns that I have for my family
such as other people have mentioned the snowy
winters where would the snow go when the parking
lot is being plowed would it go against our fence
where when the snow melts in the spring would
that run into our backyard and into our basement
so those are all things that are of concern to
myself and my husband. Also, when the news
recently
has been talks about increased rodents in London,
so thoughts of rats and mice going in our
property
doesn't sit well with us either. Of course,
removing our personal situation of living
directly
beside the property, I have the same concerns
that have been mentioned by neighbors, such as
the
parking, environmental impacts, the zoning not
being respected, and the misrepresentation of
height of
the building. My two children walk to and from
school each day and to get there they have to
walk
down Stony Brook Crescent and navigate a blind
corner which already has no sidewalks. Then they
would have to cross or they do cross Geary Ave
where traffic would significantly increase with
such a large development as one of my neighbors
already touched on. And then finally my kids have
to cross the already busy school zone. So again
with an added 299 units I worry about their
safety
as well as the safety as other children and
pedestrians of all types in the neighborhood.
So in summary, I want to thank you. These are
some of the reasons that I do not support the
proposed development in its current state. An
eight plus story building does not fit this
neighborhood and maybe for developers we're just
another family but for us this is life-changing.
So I thank you for your time and I respectfully
hope that you consider my points
as well as the points that have been brought
forward by our neighbors. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please
go ahead. Give us your name. You'll five minutes.
Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members of the
Planning and Environment Committee,
members of Council and staff. I do thank you for
the opportunity to speak regarding this
proposed development at Fanshawe and Geary. My
name is Rose Klein-Stiver and I am a resident
of the Stony Brook neighborhood. I'm on Stony
Brook Crescent on that straight away to that one
set of traffic lights. The question that is
before us is whether this proposal
represents good planning and a livable form of
intensification.
I am here today asking committee to uphold staff
's recommendation of
refusal. Residents are not opposed to growth and
appropriate density.
I agree with the principal building up and out.
My grandma's on our 100 acre family
farm that my dad grew up on, so I see the value
of curbing urban sprawl.
But building up does not mean building as high or
as dense as possible
possible on every site.
It means building thoughtfully.
What we want to refuse is the over-intens
ification
that exceeds the scale, density, and character
of established neighborhoods, while leaving the
residents
to absorb the consequences.
When a development requires numerous special
provisions
and pushes density beyond what a site can
reasonably accommodate,
the livability suffers.
This is precisely why staff have recommended
refusal.
Our concerns are not theoretical.
They are practical issues that residents
to live with long after construction is complete.
I have three main topics to speak of.
First, as Megan touched on,
was snow storage and site functionality.
With the reduced setbacks and numerous special
provisions
being requested, where will this snow go?
And as Councillor Stevenson alluded to,
the longest winter known to man just passed.
So we can all acknowledge and appreciate
that snow management is not a minor detail.
Will it be piled against neighborhood fences?
will it eliminate the already limited parking
spaces?
Will it spill onto the adjacent properties?
And as a gentleman in Italy alluded to as well
was the drain off and the salt content of that
snow.
These questions remain unanswered
and yet residents will be expected
to live with the consequences.
Secondly is waste management.
The staff report specifically notes
that the site layout does not demonstrate
sufficient space
to accommodate waste collection operations.
This proposal seeks approval
despite failing to show how waste generated
by hundreds of residents will be managed.
Of particular concern is the location of waste
facilities
directly adjacent to existing homes on Geary Ave,
particularly a living room window.
Again, residents are left asking
how exactly are neighboring properties being
protected.
Staff's concern about waste management
supports the broader conclusion
that the site is being over intensified
and lacks sufficient space for the practical
needs
of nearly 300 units.
These are not issues that should be deferred
to site plan approval.
These two issues above must be addressed
in any future proposal for the site
and not be left for vague consideration during
site plan.
They should be resolved
before any zoning approval is granted.
Lastly is the traffic and safety
which we have already talked about
but particularly the cut through traffic.
School zone should be among the safest places in
our city
and residents of Stony Brook as we've alluded to
have no firsthand of how the vehicles move
through the neighborhood where we cut through the
residential streets, where the children
walk, bike, and cross those roads every day, some
of which don't have those sidewalks including
my four-year-old and six-year-old daughters.
Any development that increases cut-through
traffic must be carefully scrutinized and child
safety must take precedence over a developer's
interest.
As Deputy Mayor Lewis also spoke to in his
previous item in his neighborhood, the time
doesn't stop after 330 for children's safety.
a dual purpose of Stony Brook at Stony Brook
Public School
is used for organized sports that happens on
evenings
and weekends and Hastings Park
that is also in the background there.
I am a pediatric registered nurse here
at Children's Hospital at Vic
and we need to not have a critical incident
to make us realize that this is a problem.
We wanna be proactive about this and not reactive
.
So I would urge committee members to consider
whether the traffic impact assessment
truly reflects neighborhood realities
and whether children's safety
and all of our vulnerable road users
have been given the weight it deserves.
I'm almost there.
Beyond these concerns,
residents will also face increased noise like
pollution.
Remember, no trees to mitigate this impact.
Overflow parking, loss of privacy, litter,
and individually these may seem like minor items,
but together they fundamentally change the
experience
of living in our community.
- For two seconds.
- Oh gosh, contributing to the degradation
of the community's livability.
This is not compatible growth.
It is over intensification.
It is not the right fit for this site,
and I respectfully ask committee
to support staff's recommendation
to protect the livability of Stony Brook
and refuse this application.
Thank you so much for your time, your attention,
and your consideration.
- Thank you, go to the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- My name is Clark Kufniggles,
and I'm a Stony Brook resident.
I wanna start with a bit of personal context,
because I think it's relevant here.
I lived in New York City in a 25 story building
before moving to London.
I'm not someone who is opposed to density
intensification. I understand what it looks like.
I understand what it requires, and I understand
the trade-offs. So when I stand here asking for a
refusal, I want to be clear that this is not a
knee-jerk reaction to change. I deliberately
chose Stony Brook neighborhood as the place I
wanted to
raise my kids. We moved during COVID. My wife and
I had the ability to move anywhere in the US and
Canada, and we chose London. And not anywhere in
London. We chose Stony Brook. It's the only
neighborhood that we looked at. Not because of a
school ranking or commute time. We chose it
because it was a place where my three kids could
learn to ride their bikes outside where they
could
walk to a friend's house on their own and could
play in the front yard safely. Those things sound
small but they're not. They're the things that
are disappearing in a lot of our cities and they
're
worth protecting. These are the kinds of
neighborhoods where families come to raise their
kids and people
state for as long as they can. These
neighborhoods deserve to be preserved,
not because they're historic, not because they
have some special designation, but
because they work, and once you lose it, you don
't get it back. Now to the proposal
itself. Good news, and I mean this generally, I
've been inspired by this
process, is that the city's own planning process
is working. City staff are
recommending a full refusal of the proposal. Our
bylaws exist for a reason
and the planners are applying them correctly.
That's not a failure,
this is the system doing exactly what it's
supposed to do.
And all that's left is for the committee
to respect that work.
The part of the proposal that I'm most concerned
about
is the Geary lot that is zoned
as an R1 residential property.
The Geary lot has nothing to do
with Fanshawe Transportation Corridor.
Geary lot is moving from a one unit,
which it has right now per hectare, to 395 units.
This is a clear case of development creep
into a residential neighborhood.
Just because an R1 property is adjacent
to another property with a different zone
does not mean that R1 properties should be
changed.
And there's more good news here.
Council has already acknowledged this concern
when they ruled on the Dunboin proposal.
When a development tried to creep
into a residential neighborhood,
the planner said no, the planning committee said
no,
council said no.
That precedent matters
because that's what we're looking at here on Gary
.
The system is working.
The planners have done their job.
The Dunboyne president is there.
All that's left is for committee to follow that
recommendation
and vote for a full refusal.
Thank you for your time.
- Thank you, I'll go look to the next speaker.
Please sir, give us your name, you'll five
minutes.
- Thank you everyone.
My name's Julian Hathaway and I'm a resident
of the Stonebrook community.
I wanna begin by saying clearly that I'm not
opposed
to the development in our neighborhood.
I understand London needs more housing,
I understand infill is important,
and I understand the other city has to grow.
My concern is not that we want something built on
the site.
My concern is the proposal is too large for the
location
and mainly the traffic that it will create.
My son is seven years old.
I have the privilege of walking him to school
every day.
We live on the other side of Hastings.
We cut onto Hastings Gate and we make a right
onto Stony Brook.
If you visited the school between 8.30 and 9,
I believe, Council Raymond, you saw the traffic
conditions
in the morning.
It's a zoo and that's just with the school's
traffic.
that's the parents dropping them off.
My son next year wants to start walking himself
to school.
I don't think we're gonna let him walk to school
if we're gonna have additional 200 cars,
potentially coming down Stony Brook,
'cause like everyone's mentioned,
if you try to make a left onto Fanshawe,
you're gonna make a right,
or you're gonna turn around, just like we do.
We go to Haysin' Gates, we go on the Stony Brook,
and then we make a left on that light
if you have to get to Fanshawe.
The proposed development would add a significant
number
of units and vehicles to the site
that connect directly to the residential
neighborhoods
and towards Stony Brook.
Even with the provider's proposal,
the main access is still tied to Gary
with only a secondary access on Fanshawe.
That means traffic will still be drawn into
neighborhood,
and many drivers will logically use Gary
and Stony Brook Crescent to move through the
neighborhood.
That is especially concerning to my son,
his friends who live on Stony Brook.
They all walk drop off times and pick up times,
and neighborhood are already busy,
then you're gonna add Uber drivers,
you're gonna add Amazon deliveries.
Those guys are very quick, they zip through the
neighborhood,
adding that level of traffic increases
the number of potential conflicts
between vehicles and children.
We've heard that if the problems arise,
traffic calming measures can be considered
at a later point.
Respectfully, I think that is backwards approach
when children's safety is involved.
prudent city planning should anticipate
foreseeable risks and require changes
before those risks are placed
on families walking to school.
The right development for the site
should have direct access on and off of Fanshawe
and not through Gary towards the school route.
It should include proper planning for deliveries,
drop off, visitor parking, service vehicles.
It should also be scaled in a way that fits the
neighborhood and encourages long-term
residents to become part of the community.
We've already seen examples of buildings with
access onto Fanshawe, 420 Fanshawe.
The bill has direct access onto Fanshawe and not
to Donnie Brook, which is directly behind
it.
Density can strengthen the community when it's
done thoughtfully, but density without
sufficient parking, without proper access,
without safe traffic planning, and without
adequate outdoor space does not build community.
It creates turnover pressure and risk. I
respectfully
ask the council to refuse the current proposal
and send a clear message that the development
in Stony Brook must be responsible appropriately
scaled and designed around the safety of our
children and family who live there. Thank you.
Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please give
us your name. You have five minutes. I'm Beth Ton
kin. I live in Stony Brook. World Premier
Homes proposed development doesn't just push the
limits of our planning regulations. It completely
shatters them. This project crams so many units
onto the site that it will have 189 more units
in the R9 density they're applying for actually
allows. It cuts into the neighborhood by
including
the interior single-family gerry lot. It adds
another 200 cars to a street that leads to a
school
zone with known safety concerns. Traffic calming
road work is literally being installed today.
It exceeds setback limits so much that will end
up with a nine-story building only eight
meters away from a family home obliterating their
view, privacy, and sunlight. It's only one meter
from Fanshawe severely limiting bike paths and
future road expansion. It disrespects the
planning
process by submitting it as an eight-story
building when it has a ninth floor, maybe and a
half.
It doesn't match the neighborhood character. It
looks like the big box stores down the street
rather than the beautiful neighborhood that it
would be surrounded by. It proposes clear
cutting 100% of the trees on the site completely
ignoring the city's urban forest strategy
and also doesn't meet minimum landscaped area
requirements. It's being built by a developer
that can't even handle proper waste management
for a neighboring 42-unit complex they already
own, but they say they're going to do it for
another 299 units and ultimately it will make
Stony Brook, a worse place to live.
The excuses for justifying it are not grounded in
reality.
It won't stop urban sprawl.
Projects that eat up farmland are still being
approved
despite the new construction that's happening.
The narrative is that we need housing supply,
but the plan submitted show it will be mainly one
bedroom,
600 square foot luxury units representing the
unit type
and price point with the highest vacancy levels
London has seen in the last 15 years.
I'm sick of trickle down economic style arguments
to defend this sort of development.
The most direct and meaningful way to meet
housing needs
is by building what is actually needed,
not flooding the market with what isn't
and hoping things eventually shake out and lower
rents.
And while we're on the topic of supply,
intensification is not an excuse for over
development.
You don't need to go from four units to 299
to achieve intensification.
There are a whole lot of numbers in between.
On top of that, our city isn't so full
that we have to carve up neighborhoods
that we rely on to attract people to
and keep people in London, people like Clark,
people like myself.
There are many info locations including vacant
and boarded up high density buildings
that would benefit from this kind of investment.
You'd think with everything I just listed,
this would be an easy no.
But we've had to organize against this project
four months
including trudging door to door through the
winter snow,
more door knocking through the spring,
242 emails sent by community members to the city
opposing it, 717 signatures on petitions,
launching and managing social media channels and
groups,
designing, printing and installing street signs,
giving up our privacy to speak to the media,
attending community meetings,
hosting Council for individual neighborhood tours
,
and enduring the design firm calling us
uninformed and uneducated in London Free Press
and CTV news.
This is why public trust is broken.
We need to be able to rely on our city
to stop this sort of nonsense in its tracks
without donating countless hours of community
time
and taxpayer dollars.
To be clear, we aren't asking you to block all
development.
While countries around the world are trying to
figure out
how to raise birth rates and attract people to
live there,
we have the gift of population growth.
Let's stop treating it as a disaster to be
managed
and start recognizing it for what it really is,
an opportunity to be harnessed.
Growth should be used to enrich our city
and make it a better place to live for everyone.
It is not an excuse to let developers build over
our neighborhoods.
Councillor ramen is answering the call to action
and I believe later, we'll be sharing her request
for a letter to the province, bravely fighting
to return or to add community voices to the OLT.
She's doing it knowing she has colleagues
who will work to undermine this.
To the rest of council, including those of you
not present today, many of you have offered your
time
and support and we genuinely thank you.
- 30 seconds.
not we are here for you too. Don't let developers
push you. Don't let planners mislead you or
the province take away your power. We are here to
stand with you if you stand with London in our
neighborhoods. I ask you to refuse this
application and any applications that don't
conform to the
planning standards our city has in place. Thank
you. You'll look for the next speaker.
As for clerk there's anyone in line. There's
nobody online. I don't see anyone else coming
to the microphone, so we'll call the vote to
close the PPM.
- Councillor Hillier, second call for Councillor
Hillier,
making him absent.
Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero
.
- Okay, I'll put this item on the floor
for committee members, Councillor Cudi.
- Thank you, Chair.
I'll move the staff recommendation.
- Okay, I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Stevenson, my motion moved and second
ed.
Look for comments from committee members.
Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Peruzza.
- To a point of order, and I don't want to go,
I had to committee members.
I want to leave my five minutes after,
but there were three specific questions
that came from the gallery.
And I was just wondering,
even though there was a refusal from the staff,
I just wanted to ask these three questions staff.
- Well, committee members go first.
And once they're done,
they can maybe have the same questions you have,
and then we can go to you.
So, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.
- Thank you.
I did just have a couple questions.
I mean, I'm gonna support the refusal.
But I am still trying to understand
the recommendation from staff for refusal.
When, you know, in this term of council,
I supported two 10-story buildings on Oxford
Street,
which were right beside tiny little single family
homes,
had all the same concerns.
Schools nearby, traffic, parking.
There was a 26-story on Mornington overlooking
small single-family homes, supported it.
Now things were changing, as I said, and I haven
't supported a few recently.
But I thought what the staff recommendations were
based on a set of rules that they came
forward a certain way, and then the leeway was to
counsel to make the decision.
So when cheap side comes as approval, and then
this one comes as a refusal, which honestly
makes it easy for committee and council, I'm just
really struggling with the consistency
here.
So, again, supporting the refusal, but I'd like
to understand how staff is recommending
refusal on this one. When in the urban design in
March of 2026, it was supportive of the eight
story. Keepside came as an approval of the rez
oning with refusal of the special provisions.
Why not on this one? Why not an approval of an
eight story? Because the eight's allowed,
just like the six was allowed and maybe a refusal
of some of the extras. Can you just
explain to me how a refusal like how how is it
incompatible here and compatible in other
neighborhoods.
I'll go to staff. Thank you through the chair.
Every application is reviewed on its own merits
based on the policy framework that applies to
that site as well as the neighborhood context
surrounding that site. In the case of the cheap
side application, staff were of the opinion that
the changes needed to the form were relatively
minor and relying on the base zone regulations
could be addressed through the site plan process.
In the case of this application the changes that
staff would need to see are much more significant
and require much more discussion with the
applicant
probably additional special provisions to control
the form. So in this case it's both an issue of
intensity and form. Staff are not necessarily
adverse to an eight-story building. In this case,
what's proposed is actually nine, but it's the
form of that building that's rather imposing on
the neighborhood, and we don't feel the
mitigation measures have been included in the
design that
would mitigate any impacts of the additional
intensity. Tell us, sir.
Again, I don't want to belabor it, and this might
not be the place, but there is a feeling,
- Well, I'll ask this.
Does the number of 717 signatures have any impact
in terms of staffs gathering an opinion
of whether it's compatible or not?
- Go ahead, staff.
- We received the petition, but at the end of the
day,
staff make their recommendation
based on land use planning policy.
- Tell us, sir.
- Okay, thank you, 'cause again,
if I'm representing the residents that talk to me
,
they feel there's an equity issue.
They feel that, because they're not able to
mobilize,
they're for whatever reason,
or that just because of the area of the city
that they live in, that they're treated
differently.
And I don't like to see that, and I defend
against that.
This is making this harder for me.
I also wanted to ask about the transportation,
'cause I know this comes up as well,
but here the transportation study said everything
was fine,
and then there was a change made
that apparently was something that's not usually
done
on Tofanza, so maybe if staff could just explain
more
on that one.
- I'll go to staff on comments
on their transportation study.
- Thank you, through the chair,
we actually have the traffic engineer online
as Saad Yousani, he'll speak now.
- Thanks to the chair.
In order to minimize any traffic impacts
on Gaili Avenue, so we were looking for our
options.
and we thought that having a right out on Fanshaw
e
will mitigate some of the traffic impacts.
So there will still be some traffic,
of course, using Gary Avenue
and trying to make unsafe left run on Fanshawe,
but the safest way is to circle around
and make a left at Stony Brook.
But back to the point, yes,
having a restricted access on Fanshawe
will mitigate some of the traffic issues.
- Thank you.
- Councillor.
- And is it unusual to make a change outside
of what's happened on this traffic study
without maybe needing to reevaluate it?
- I'll go staff.
- No, through the chair we directed the
consultant
who came to meet us a couple of weeks ago.
So he was directed to look at several options,
multiple options with some strong technical
evaluation.
Not based on the convenience or inconvenience,
but based on the evaluation.
So it was determined that only write out
should be appropriate rather than punching
and write in write out or write in write out
and left into the site.
So because to avoid any impacts on these existing
site list
users along the front end of the property.
So we determined that from the technical
perspective,
write out will be more appropriate.
Thank you.
Councilor.
Thank you.
And we were just at a housing event last night.
and the minister was saying that it takes too
long
and it's too expensive.
These are the big problems with housing.
And one of the things I hear from the residents
and I hear their concerns, I also hear from the
developers
and I hear their concerns about the process
that they go through about how they feel that
things change
along the way, they only have a certain amount of
time
and sometimes they're surprised to see a refusal,
especially when they're proposing something
and it's eight stories in an eight story area.
So I just wondered if there was any comment there
too
as to, or maybe you could help the public
understand
to the process that goes through
when the developer comes with the application.
Are they given a pathway to success over the 90
days
to get an approval?
And what happens if there's changes that are made
through that process?
How's that dealt with with the developer?
I'll go to staff, I just want to remind the
council
for you up 30 seconds left, I'll go to staff.
- Thank you, through the chair.
Generally speaking, we encourage all applicants
to begin with a pre-application consultation
process,
although it's no longer required under the
Planning Act
and can't be required of applicants.
But that is the initial starting point
for preliminary conversations with staff
before the 90-day timeline officially begins
upon receipt of a complete application.
I will make comment that the London plan,
although does contemplate heights up to eight
stories,
doesn't or also includes policies that say
the maximum height will not be appropriate on all
sites.
So that is something that staff take into
consideration
through the review when reviewing the appropriat
eness
of the proposed building height
and whether the mitigation measures incorporated
into the design effectively mitigate impacts
of that intensity.
- I'll serve back to you with 30 seconds.
- Yeah, well, I need to understand that more
because sometimes we get told we can't refuse
something that falls within the regulation
or we'll lose that OLT.
I just wanted one other question
around the compatibility grounds for the height.
Is there any concern here about OLT?
We ask it with other things,
so I'll just ask if there's any concerns there.
- Okay, and that'll be the end of your time.
I'll go to staff on that.
- Through the chair, as with any application,
the applicant does have the opportunity
to appeal the decision of council.
- Okay, I'm gonna go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you, Chair.
And through you, first, I want to take the
opportunity
to say thank you to Kate and our first speaker,
I think tonight on this file
for the excellent conversation we had
with the health issues I've had,
I wasn't able to make it out,
but good phone conversation with Kate next.
I thank her for talking to me
the community concerns on this one. I want to
start with saying I'm going to support the
refusal as well and there are a few reasons that
I am supportive of the refusal but I'm going to
focus right now on one in particular and I know
Councillor Stevenson started to ask it but I need
to follow up on it because for four plus years
now I've seen on planning application after
planning
application after planning application. The
comments from staff that we do not do
arterial road access points where we have a
building that abuts an
intersection. Yes, there are some that are mid
walk and there's no other option, but
where there are options to have traffic flow out
onto the side street and then
onto the arterial road that has generally been
the recommendation we've
always gotten. So I need to go back to staff and
understand better because
Frankly, if I thought that this was an option on
some previous applications, I would have
looked for it and now I'm being told it's an
option on this application after many, many
years of being told if it's at a corner, we
direct the traffic out to the side and then
onto the arterial road. So what's like, where's
the threshold cut off here? Don't get me wrong,
I'm supportive if a new application comes forward
and there's a write-in right out on Fanshawe,
I'm going to be supportive of that based on what
I've seen in today's report. But I still,
like Councillor Stevenson. I'm struggling to
understand where the tipping point is.
We've seen a couple of those on Colonel Talbot
Road and Councillor Hopkins board.
We've seen others in boards around the city, the
Colonel Talbot one's just one that occurs to me
right off the top of my head. So I'm looking for
a little more clarity on where the tipping point
is. I'll go to staff. Yeah, through the chair. We
always look at applications depending on the
spacing of the intersections from existing unsign
alised and signalised intersections.
And also if there are any active transportation
paths like in this case the cycling facilities
fronting the street. So, and also we try to
minimize the direct access on higher-class
ification
roads like Fanshawe or any other arterial road
ways. But as I said that if there is an option
available
to the lower classification road for the access,
we try to go in that direction and try to
minimize
the erm, direct access on arterial roadways. So
to minimize the conflicts with all modes of users
,
all modes of traffic. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Okay. Well, I'm not going to belabor the points
here at committee. I will do some more follow up
discussion with staff on that, but I did find
that comment in the report a little bit
inconsistent with what we've seen in previous
reports. And so
that that may be somewhat questioning why it was
in there. But like I said, I won't belabor that
point today. I do hear the resident concerns
particularly about the density and the impact
that that has on traffic and the scaling massing
because of the density. You know, I was honest
with Kate and I will say this again, something
bigger is going to be built there. It probably
will be eight stories, but I think that something
with less density and a little more alignment
towards Fanshawe Park Road and less massing
towards Gary, something where we do have an
access point on Fanshawe Park Road as well would
be more appropriate. And I think the residents
who spoke about the lack of clarity around the
waste management also raised an excellent point
and I know that was in the staff report as well.
Yes, we don't get into the details
and into the leads at planning committee that the
details are left to site plan.
but when we don't have any real good indication
even in the general application that does become
a bit of a concern. So I will say as well on the
eight versus nine stories. I know we're talking
about stories here. I think we've got some some
work to do as a committee moving forward and
and whether it's this committee before the end of
the term or whether it's the next committee on
Council because I know we do have rooftop amenity
spaces in the city that have been proved just
as part of the development agreement requiring
them to not be eligible for conversion to
residential.
I think rooftop amenity spaces are great but they
're not very useful in January in Canadian
climates and so if we're going to count them as
we sometimes do we say well we've got rooftop
amenity so that's landscape open space we count
that towards that but if it's not available seven
and rate months of the year.
I think that's an item we're gonna have to tackle
and this application has kind of highlighted that
for me.
So I just wanted to share that,
but I will be supporting the refusal on this one.
I think staff's done a very thorough report
and outline the reasons why they're suggesting
the refusal at this point in time.
- Thank you, I'll go to Councilor Cuddy.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all the residents who came up.
Thank you for inviting me
and the other committee members out to visit.
I don't know if you know this,
but I spent an hour and a half with you.
And there were almost 40 of you actually lost
count,
an hour and a half and very quickly, Chair,
we don't often get that invitation.
And we do appreciate it because it means so much
to us.
And in four years, I've never seen engagement
like I've seen with your group.
So thank you very much.
- Thank you, I'll go to Mayor Morgan.
- Yeah, thank you, Chair.
So first, I'll be supporting the staff
recommendation
for our refusal.
I just want to say to our staff,
I appreciate the thoroughness of the
recommendations
and the analysis that you did in the report.
I think it's good work and you've articulated
a very good case here to the community members,
of course, through the chair.
I appreciate the engagement as well.
It was, I appreciated going around the
neighborhood,
having a chance to talk with many individuals.
But what I actually appreciate quite a bit is we
hear
at this committee often, I don't wanna see
anything there.
I want it to be status quo and nothing can change
.
It has to be exactly as it is.
I felt like it was a very thoughtful engagement
with a community that says we recognize
that there is a role for density
along a major thoroughfare like Fanshawe Park
Road.
But here are the challenges we have with this
development
and almost all of it rooted in planning rationale
,
which I would say is rare for us to see sometimes
,
but I just wanted to commend the community
in doing a very thoughtful job of making points
that are very relevant to the planning,
decision-making process and recognizing
that there is a role for density
along this corridor in our city.
So I'll be supporting the recommendation,
and thanks again to our staff
and the community for their feedback.
- Councilor Pribble.
- Thank you, and through the chair,
there were out of the 16 speakers,
there were three specific questions,
and I don't want this to count to my time,
because it's a question from the gallery that
came,
just in case I need the time.
And I do realize that it was a refusal
of recommendation from the staff,
but these three specific questions were asked.
How can we consider allowing removal of so many
trees
with the city's canopy goals and targets?
- A good staff.
- Thank you through the chair.
As part of the complete application,
the applicant provided a tree preservation plan
for consideration through this process.
However, I'll note that the technical review
and approval of said plan takes place
through the site plan process.
So should council approve this?
That's where the review and approval
of that plan would occur.
- Councilor.
- Thank you, second question.
How was waste and excuse me,
and snow management considered and evaluated?
of staff through the chair again snow removal and
storage and garbage
collection and storage are our matters considered
through the site plan approval
process again we consider those issues through
the zoning to some degree when
evaluating intensity and whether the proposed
intensity is appropriate but
the actual strategy for those matters is reviewed
in detail and and approved
through the subsequent site plan process Councill
or. Thank you. And the third one which was already
answered but I want to make sure that it's
answered directly. Why would the vehicular access
be
allowed on the lower order of the street? I'll go
to staff.
According to excess management guidelines, if the
property has boundaries on two roads,
two types of roads, one is higher classification
road where the purpose of the higher
classification
road is too far through traffic with minimum
interruption minimum traffic conflicts so and if
the second road is lower classification road or
say local street or neighborhood connector in
this case Gary is designated as a local street
but Stony Brook is designated as a neighborhood
connector so we always try to provide the access
on a lower classification road but that doesn't
mean that we shift all the problems or the
existing residential houses, those who are living
there.
But like in this case, Gary Avenue is being
reconstructed with some traffic calming measures
and a storybook is classified as a classified as
a neighborhood connector. It has a traffic signal
at Fanshawe. So as I said that, of course, there
will be some issues for sure, but in order to
mitigate
some of the issues. We had a conversation with
the applicant and then we reached out an
agreement
for a right out access on Fensha. So basically in
order to minimize traffic conflicts for all
more sub-transportation on high classification
draw. Thank you. Councilor, thank you for that.
So
that's those are the three questions I called
from the 16 speakers. So I'm going to start
with my own now. Thank you everyone for your
continuous feedback over the month.
it has been greatly appreciated by everyone as
you have all they heard. I want to clarify a
couple of things and I'll start with the
submission that came to our staff. The first one
and it's
actually the only official one. That's the one
that our staff gave us feedback on. They went to
other departments and received back from. So that
's the only one we are evaluating here. I do know
there were certain other versions circulated
among potentially a few or many bottom line
is we are not dealing with that here at all. It's
just the first one. On the planning committee
added agenda yesterday I do take the feedback
from RPH or the additional document as
clarification
only and again it should not be evaluated by any
one of us as part of the submission or
consideration.
So we are really doing only what's truly in front
of us.
I do want to say that I will be to my colleagues
as well.
I will be certainly supporting what's in front of
us
from the staff.
And even though I cannot do it here,
I just want to let you know I'm not planning
to do at a council any referral either.
I do have a couple of questions in terms of this
application.
And again, if it's accepted or if it's confirmed
by the PAC
and by council in a couple of weeks.
But in terms of modification to this,
when the either the planner, the developer comes
back,
what modifications would our staff consider
to potentially approve and recommend?
Because I don't believe you are looking at
smaller items,
we are really looking at something bigger.
Is there something you could potentially clarify?
- I'll go to staff.
Thank you through the chair.
It's difficult to provide that evaluation off the
cuff
without a plan or a revised concept before us.
Generally speaking, some of the things
we're looking for is a better transition in
height
and a breaking up of the mass.
So a particular concern to staff is the
transition in height
as well as the sheer bulk of the building.
And so at minimum, our expectation
would be to see an enhanced transition in height,
particularly along Geary as the development
transitions
into the neighborhood, as well as the actual bulk
and mass
of the building being broken up.
- No, I'm sorry.
Okay, thank you for that.
Not sufficiently oriented to the higher order
street.
Can you please clarify this or we'll be more
seeking
from our staff, go to staff.
- Thank you through the chair.
So in instances where we have corner properties
at the intersection of a higher order street
and the lower order street,
the expectation in the London plan is that
the greater intensity be oriented
to that higher order street and the height
transition down
as it transitions rather into the neighborhood.
So again, speaking to my last point,
we would wanna see the greater heights oriented
to Fanshawe
and then heights transition down along Geary
to maintain that low rise residential character
along Geary.
Councilor thank you rooftop amenity we did
consider or even approve before in this one we
are not
We are basing it on height or what other
considerations are we basing it not for the
rooftop amenity as I know I'll go staff
Through the chair, it's not necessarily the use
of rooftop amenity
of course staff are highly supportive of a
variety of amenities being provided in
redevelopment projects such as this.
However, the way it is proposed does constitute
a ninth story, which conflicts with the London
Plan.
We've mentioned that a maximum of eight stories
is contemplated here, and what's proposed
is reflective of a ninth story and contributes
to the massing of the building substantially.
- Counselor.
- Okay, thank you.
I have no more questions.
I'm just gonna make a comment again.
As a word counselor, I'm supporting what's in
front of us,
the refusal, and I'm just reiterating once again,
at the council, I will not be putting forward
any referral, I will be moving as is, thank you.
- Councilor Raman.
- Thank you Chair.
You've done a great job today,
chairing this meeting, so thank you for that.
I wanna start by saying I appreciate the work
that planning staff, especially Ms. Hines,
has put into this application.
I know she's been extremely responsive,
so I wanna say thank you for that.
I wanna take a moment to thank the community
who has done a fantastic job engaging,
not just on behalf of your neighborhood,
but on behalf of the city of London.
You've reached out to projects in other wards.
You've had thorough discussions
about planning contexts with them.
You've looked at this not just as how it affects
your neighborhood, but how it affects the whole
city.
And I think that's relevant and it's important
and we need to be discussing it.
This proposal represents significant intens
ification
that is not compatible with the existing
character
of the surrounding area.
The adjacent neighborhoods, as you've heard,
consist primarily of low density residential uses
,
and this development introduces a scale and form
that is out of context.
Transition and height density in built form are
insufficient.
The proposal would over intensify,
with excessive density, limited setbacks,
a built form that maximizes masses
at the expense of livability.
Good planning is not simply about achieving
density targets.
It's about ensuring appropriate fit and function
within the local context.
Page 320 of this report,
the current proposal does not demonstrate
sufficient
compatibility with the surrounding context,
nor does it incorporate adequate mitigation
measures
to address potential impacts.
Furthermore, and this is important for the
consideration
of a revised version at a later date or in the
future,
while an increase of up to two additional stories
could be reasonably anticipated relative
to the application approved in 2022.
The current application represents a substantial
departure
from the intended scale and approach
to modest height increases across the city,
including within established neighborhoods.
Page 322, each application is viewed
on a site-specific basis and zoning.
Therefore, may limit building heights
and that the development will not undermine
the character of the lower-order street.
You heard repeatedly about traffic and
infrastructure concerns.
I won't belabor the point.
The proposal raises legitimate concerns
around traffic and cumulative impact.
We have heard consistent and strong concerns
from this community.
Residents are not opposed to development.
They are asking for appropriate scale,
respect for neighborhood character, thoughtful
integration.
In its current form,
the application does not adequately address these
concerns.
The revised version, since it's there,
I'll just share my thoughts.
It's still nine stories and two tall.
It's still overdeveloped and not oriented
to the higher road or higher order street.
It's still inadequately set back to the point
where you can't plant a tree to buffer.
Still a lack of green space.
Still no plan for how to remove garbage.
Still overly intense and under parked.
To members of the committee,
I just heard some general questions as well
about traffic and about height.
And when we were talking about similar things
that cheap side, there seemed to be agreement
that the height review was rushed.
And now in this application,
we're arguing that the height should be permitted
.
So just to conclude,
I believe this proposal as presented
does not represent good planning.
Therefore, I will be supporting the refusal.
- Thank you.
I look for other speakers.
Councillor Trussell.
- Yes, thank you very much.
And I'm going to limit my comments
to things that haven't been said.
some of my colleagues have said some very
compelling things.
She just said, Councillor Ramen,
I think was a very good summary
of the reasons not to support this.
Councillor Stevenson, you raised some very
poignant
and compelling and troublesome issues
about our overall process and equity
that I plan on following up, not tonight.
But what I do wanna follow up with tonight
because I think it might come up again
if this application is resubmitted.
And guess what I'm gonna talk about.
I'm going to talk about the traffic and the
transportation
study, because that's sort of what I do when I'm
visiting here
and I'm looking at things in detail.
If I could ask the traffic engineer to come back,
I'd really appreciate it.
Hello, thank you for being with us this late.
And I understand the challenges that
are involved when you have an application being
reviewed
by staff, it cuts across different divisions and
departments.
I've been raising a lot of concern
about the level of scrutiny that the
transportation
and the traffic study get at the initial level.
The way I see it is there are three levels here.
The first level is stuff that comes in at the
beginning
and you have to certify that there's a complete
application.
It doesn't even get to the public period
unless there's a complete application.
One of the requirements for a complete
application
is a certified transportation analysis,
unless you decide to waive that,
which you didn't do here.
Second step is very familiar to the public.
It ends at city council.
And then the third step is after the fact site
review.
I'm hearing a lot of things that I think should
be dealt
with early on that are being relegated to site
review.
That's not the main point I want to make
with my limited time, but I want to point that
out.
When traffic has a discussion with the applicant
at the beginning, before you decide to
deem the application complete, which of course
starts at the time period running,
could you just walk me through what happens
at that pre-consultation meeting before you
accept
the transportation study and before the time
starts to run,
What is your department actually do?
I'll go stop.
- Yeah, thanks through the chair.
The application stage is really a good stage
where we can communicate with the applicant
on the requirements, from the traffic perspective
.
And we discuss the traffic impact assessment
guidelines.
And if there are any questions,
we can answer those questions.
We always ask the applicant and their consultant
to send us the scope of work for our review
and providing feedback so that minimum revisions
to be done in the future.
So having said that, so pre-application stage
is very a big stage where we communicate the
applicant,
what we are looking for, what impacts we will
review
and so on.
And also in terms of the access, for example,
in this case, the applicant was when applicants
shared
with us the concept plan.
It was showing only the one axis on Gary Avenue,
but we also communicated to them
to provide a restricted axis on Fensha
to minimize the impacts on the local street
network.
As I mentioned earlier that,
that doesn't mean that we always try to put more
problems
and remove the problems from higher
classification rule
like Fensha and dump on the local network street.
But in this case, specifically, given the fact
that Stony Brook is designated as a neighborhood
connector, it means it should have more capacity
for traffic to handle.
Moreover, it is also intersecting at Fenshaw
College--
sorry, Fenshaw Park Roadway at a signalized
intersection.
So it was safer to make a left or right run lane
over there.
Now back to the point, once we received the TIE,
we look at the report if the report was completed
based on our TIA guidelines.
But we normally accept the report
if something is missing, but not major.
For example, if our direction was not followed,
but it means we have the opportunity to review
and provide comments accordingly.
This is what we did in this case,
at the site plan consultation stage.
Then once we move on to the next level
and then our comments either are reiterated
or more consolidated in such a way
that we go to the highest level.
So I understand that there are,
I mean, only a vacant piece of land
is considered as zero traffic impact.
Once the lands are developed,
there are always impacts of minimum to maximum,
but we always try to minimize the impacts
as I mentioned that.
But there are impacts and there is no denying to
the fact
no traffic engineer will say there will be zero
impact.
No, based on my past experience,
I can say that this draft,
this development proposal will have impacts on
Gary Avenue,
will have impacts on Fanshawe, will have impacts
on Stony Brook.
But as once we review the report,
we try to come up with some ideas.
Brainstorms are engineering judgment and come up
with,
and discuss with the applicants
so that the impacts are minimized.
Thank you.
- Okay, I threw the chair.
Councilor, just a second, please.
I'll call on you, Ms. McNeely, please go ahead.
- Thank you through the chair.
I also just like to clarify,
as early as possible, you try to encourage
applicants
to consult with us.
And it's not just on the zoning application,
it's also on the site plan,
because we wanna understand how the site can
function,
because often we hear, you know, the chicken and
the egg,
and we get the questions of the site plan matters
.
Well, we wanna make sure that the zoning box
that we're creating works with the site
functionality
from a very high level.
So that's that consultation.
So we're also learning at the very early stages
about the access arrangement.
So I just wanted to give that context
so that you understand that that's what we try to
encourage.
Not all applicants come to the consultation
process,
but we do encourage site plan consultation
even before we get to the zoning stage.
- Councilor.
Okay, back to the traffic and transportation
study.
Please, when you have this initial consultation
with the developer, do you ever say
this is just not adequate. And before the time
starts running, we want you to fix this now.
Good stuff. Thanks. Yeah, through the chair, it
has happened once when our direction was
completely
ignored, what we what we said in the meeting in
the in the in the beginning, when we looked at
the concept plan, then we said, okay, we need the
we need the missing information before we start
of a review. Yeah, it happens sometimes. But if
there are some minor things which we think,
which we think we should review and provide as
part of our comments to the applicant,
then we go accordingly. Thank you. Okay. Sorry.
Yeah. Thank you. That's helpful.
And I'm glad that there's at least the
possibility for that. I guess what I'm saying is
I'd like to
see that more exacting and happening more often.
The reason I raised that is did you have any
Any discussion since this is a Fanshawe Park Road
and there are a lot of developments
in that area anticipated, recent and upcoming,
did you have any discussion with this applicant
about the other projects along that strip in the
near facility or was this focused merely
on this one property?
I'll go to staff.
Thanks to the chair.
I don't recall at this point but maybe when we go
into the meeting or when we have a chance
to discuss the proposal at hand. We try to look
at the bigger picture. We try to look
at what is happening on the on each side of the
road or something like that. Maybe we may have
taken into account, but I just wanted to make
sure that I'm covering this part that we we have
always we always look case to case. I mean some
of the I know someone said that why was the
access allowed on Fenshaap Park Roadway for
development A or B. Maybe at that time when we
evaluated the situation, when we looked at the
road network or when we evaluated the
access options, that was a better option. So as I
said, I don't remember at this point,
but definitely we look at the bigger picture.
Thank you.
Okay, well, I'm sorry you don't remember that,
but I think it's important.
do you when you have this conversation to the
chair do you um talk about overall city goals and
policies like our vision zero um policy thank you
yeah through the truth of course oh just a second
folks uh we're not going to get into back and
forth here i'm going to take a control back here
i ask each of you to hold on until i recognize
you so please go ahead staff thank you um yes of
Of course, this is the direction through the
chair, this is the direction in the mobility
master plan, vision zero, and in all our
decisions of development approvals, development
review
of any traffic reports, vision zero sits at the
heart.
So vision zero encompasses the safety for all
modes of transportation.
as I mentioned earlier in response to a question
that why did we choose on the right out
the most restricted access on Fensha in this case
because we wanted to minimize the impacts
conflicts
with the bicycle users along Fensha Street.
Yes, we do keep in our mind, of course.
Thank you.
- Councilor.
- Well, thank you to the chair.
My concern about that is having read through this
report
and all the other reports.
In fact, when I get these new applications,
It's the traffic study that's the first thing I
go to.
I don't think there was any discussion
about vision zero, and it wasn't reflected.
And we had a number of people here tonight
talking about how when they were thinking about
whether they feel safe having their children
walk around the neighborhood,
it is the vision zero issue that comes to mind.
And I guess what I'm trying to do here
is, and I'm really glad that the staff
has come to the recommendation.
I commend you for that.
I think it's wonderful.
I should be very happy tonight and I should just
go home.
But I'm sorry, I just do not feel,
I think the weak link in this whole process
is the transportation and traffic study.
And I'm gonna ask about this,
every time this comes to the table,
I'm gonna ask about how you really dealt with
Vision Zero,
I'm gonna ask about how is this related
to other issues that are happening in the
neighborhood
with respect to traffic safety and mitigation.
Have you gotten petitions?
I just don't think there's enough integration
of traffic policy issues into this process.
And it's just something that comes up time and
time again.
And if it wasn't for the importance of traffic
safety
in residential neighborhoods like this,
maybe we could let it go.
But this is what I'm hearing from the community
that you care about.
So I guess my--
- Thank you, Councilor.
That's your time.
Thank you.
- Oh, okay, I'll pick this up next time.
Okay, I'll look for other comments or questions.
We have a motion moved and seconded.
It is 7.30.
We've been here for a while.
I think these folks would like to get on with it.
We still have this to go to council,
which you can save your comments for that
or do some offline research
with those questions of staff.
So, just one more look before I call the vote.
I don't see anything, so let's closing the vote.
The motion carries five to zero.
- Thank you, thanks folks for sticking around
to this late hour, appreciate your input.
That concludes our scheduled items.
We will move now to items for a direction.
The first action for committee,
we have a request for a delegation.
And I'm gonna look to committee to see
if we would entertain that.
Councillor Stevenson, are you moving that?
- Look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi has second
ed,
so we will call the vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, so if the delegate would like to address
the committee, you have five minutes.
- Good evening, I'm Mohammad Musa.
Thank you for that us.
I just wanted to start out by saying,
totally agree that third party deal rights should
exist.
My problem with this coming up at this point in
time
is the timing of it.
June 4th, 2024, is when Bill 185 got assent
and went into law.
And if we wanted to move something like this
forward
at that point, we should have done it then.
Little suspect that it's an election year.
And on top of that, it would be very toothless.
I thank you through the chair.
Thank you to the Ward 7 counselor, bringing this
forward.
But I think time would be better spent
with actually lobbying fellow counselors
to vote for with the London Plan,
provincial planning statements, the Planning Act,
recommendations of committee, sorry,
recommendations of staff.
What we have here is hopefully I'm keeping this
tight,
not going to, but we need to have this broad
discussion
over Bill 185 and it's lack of appeal.
As I said, I agree that third party appeal rights
should exist. I just don't think this is the way
to go about it. As I said, it's
toothless to have one municipality go to the
province and lobby for that. I got
to go down this route. Red Bill 185, front to
back. Nowhere in that bill does
it suspend planning act? Does it suspend our
London plan? Does it suspend any
provincial guidelines or the provincial planning
statement? This committee, this
Council needs to abide by the legislation, by the
plans, by all the above that I
just mentioned. The frustration that a lot of
people have is that appeal
rights have been taken away by the province, but
don't kid yourselves.
Frustration is how that's been used by this
council. The frustration of going
above and beyond what is legislatively allowed,
what our own London plan is about,
and people blame it on nimbyism when people come
here and and say, you know, I don't like this,
but over the last two years you've had a lot of
people coming here with with legislation with
with policies of the London plan.
I can't count how many times we've heard
notwithstanding the recommendations of staff that
is so frustrating. Why do we have staff tell you
things that come from good planning principles
from sound planning principles?
principles only to ignore them. The frustration
with not having appeal
rights is around the horseshoe with the exception
of the clerk, of course. The
decisions that are made are not, they're incongru
ent with a lot of things
that we have. And what's happened over this time
is, I'm not aligned by saying
this, but counsel has used, and I'm not painting
the entire counsel with the same
broad brush, but I will use, when I say counsel,
the majority of counsel, has
as used bill 185 as to hide behind.
It's not appealable.
- 30 seconds.
- Not only use it as a shield, but use it as a
sword.
And that's a frustration for a lot of people,
whether it's Pac Road,
whether it is minimum distance separations,
whether it is 30 stories rather than the 16,
it takes away the checks and balances on you, on
council.
I thank you for your time.
- Thank you.
Okay, so I will go to committee.
or go to the mayor.
- Talk about this, I don't think about it.
- Yeah, thanks, Chair.
So I've read Councilor Raman's letter carefully
and I'm prepared as a committee member
to put a variation of the motion on the floor,
which is a little bit different
than what Councilor Raman proposes.
So I'm happy to read it out.
And then if there's a seconder,
I can provide more rationale,
but I've asked the clerk to load it into East
grad.
It'd be that municipal council
endorse the following actions with respect to
third party appeal
mechanisms during the Ontario Land Tribunal
process. A, the
mayor be requested to write to the Association of
Municipalities
of Ontario requesting that I consider advocating
for the
restoration of a limited third party appeal
mechanisms to the
Ontario Land Tribunal. That one applies to
individuals residing
in the statutory notice area who have
demonstrated prior
participation in the municipal planning process.
Two incorporates
appropriate safeguards to discourage frivolous,
vexatious, or delay-driven appeals.
And three, supports the province's objective
of facilitating timely and efficient housing
development,
and then B, the communication with Councilor
Rahman,
B, received, and then a note of all the
communications.
So I'm happy to put that on the floor.
It's slightly different than what Councilor
Rahman suggested,
but I think provides a path forward
for engaging with the wider network of
municipalities on it.
- Okay, thank you.
I'll look for a seconder for that.
I'm not seeing a seconder for your motion, Mayor.
- That's fine.
- Okay.
- So we will go from there.
I need a motion of some sort to deal with this.
Motion to receive.
- I will move the motion to receive.
- Okay, Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis
has a motion to receive and seconded by Councill
or Stevenson.
And then we'll have discussion on that.
So I'll go to committee first
and then to visiting Councillors after that.
John, it's for Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Chair, I'll start off, Chair.
I'm gonna try not to use all my time
'cause you still wanna come back,
but I'm not supporting this request.
First of all, I think what our delegate said
about one municipality saying something to the
provinces,
it really is not going to go anywhere.
Whatever label you wanna put on it,
I don't think that it's of any value at all.
And I didn't support the mayor's motion either
because I think we have more than enough things
we are advocating for the province with including
at AMO and through AMO and I
don't think that this is quite honestly something
that should be seen as a
priority in any way shape or form when we are
trying to advocate for relief on
homelessness when we are trying to advocate for
infrastructure dollars even
for support for things like the cost of leasing
we need to save our ammunition
and keep it dry so that when we ask AMO to take
positions on issues they're
are really substantive issues
that are going to move the needle on things.
You know, when we talk about public engagement,
transparency, I think we've just been through
six plus hours of public engagement.
No other level of government
is as transparent and accountable as the
municipal government.
You can't go to Queens Park or the House of
Commons
and get five minutes in the gallery
to talk to your MPPs or your MPs.
That's not a thing.
You can't even go to a committee
unless you have been sponsored
by one of the parties to go to a committee to
testify,
and then approved by the committee chair in
Parliament
to actually come and be a witness.
People don't even have to register
to come and participate in a public participation
meeting.
And we saw a great number of people who came out
today,
as well as folks who wrote us,
because for one reason or another,
they weren't able to come today,
or they felt their writing was a more comfortable
thing
for them, 'cause not everybody's comfortable
standing up
in front of Council or an audience
and making their speech about why they are taking
position
on something and all of that's okay.
But if we start advocating to add a third layer
of approval bureaucracy and that's what an OLT
appeal is.
These aren't elected officials.
They're appointees of the government.
It's a bureaucratic process done through the
Planning Act.
I looked back over my time on Council
prior to the appeal being removed.
I couldn't find a single example
where the OLT sided with a third party on an
appeal
of a decision made by the city council in London.
These are not also equitable processes
because they're not cost free.
If you will on a seriously challenging
application
at the OLT, you're gonna need professional
planners
and lawyers to go over your submission, get that
ready.
You know, I've asked around, an OLT appeal
roughly
has a $50,000 bill.
That might not be a big barrier to an affluent
neighborhood,
it certainly would be to a less affluent
neighborhood. So it's not an equitable process
either.
I don't think we should be championing this. And
frankly, it passes the BOC to the province
and to a third and to a tribunal. I think that
the decisions the BOC should stop with us. We
should be keeping decisions local. We should be
listening to the community as well as to our
planners and as well as to the planners on the
other side of the application. But when it's kept
local, there's accountability. When it goes to
the OLT, there's no accountability. It is not
something that I think we should be using our
limited advocacy debit card or bank account or
ammunition, whatever you want to call it. The
mayor can only go and ask for so many things.
Able can only go and ask for so many things. And
the province has been really clear on this.
They're not interested in having long delays and
frivolous appeals. You know, frankly, to my mind,
I heard somebody today who came and said that
they weren't a member of the community, but they
were
they were gonna speak to something anyway.
That's the type of frivolous appeals that we used
to see.
We've got a London resident who used to appeal
everything,
the council approved.
Now, a number of them would get thrown out,
but we've got a resident in downtown London
or who used to regularly appeal things--
- Point of, well, I can't make it,
but he's getting very close to--
- Thank you.
- Just to me, this is what we have to do.
- Hold on a second, Deputy Mayor.
- Okay, just Deputy Mayor, I just wanna let you
know
that we've got, we're at four minutes and 30
seconds.
So I just wanted to give you that time up there.
Please go ahead.
- Yeah, so that's, I was actually getting to the
point of
who defines frivolous?
I don't think this is where we should be spending
our time and energy.
Let's keep the decisions local.
- Okay, thank you.
I'll go to other committee members first
before I go to other Councilors, Councillor
Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I'll just say I'm not supportive.
I wasn't in support of anything to do with this.
either to tell the province what they should do
or not to do what they just did.
It's very clear the direction that they're moving
.
So it really is toothless, as was said.
I also would prefer to focus on what we can do.
So there were opportunities for us
to involve the public more in our Heights
framework review
and give them the opportunity to have a say early
before we're fighting over developments
that neighborhoods don't want.
We as a council could have involved them early
so that there were no surprises.
They knew what was approved in their
neighborhoods.
And we also, it says in the letter,
the limited ability of residents to seek
independent review
of planning decisions that directly affect them,
well, were the elected representatives?
So if even if our policies say
that you can build an eight story in an area
and staff do recommend it, council can say no.
And then it can go to OLT,
but we will be the representatives of the
residents
and make the decision early.
And to me, that's where our power is,
is to be that voice and to make the decisions
and let the issues at OLT be fought there.
So I prefer to focus around the power
that we have around this horseshoe.
It's a lot more than I think we have utilized
and I think we get to make the changes ourselves
to look after our residents.
- Okay, I'll look for other comments from Council
Robin.
- Thank you Chair.
So I'll start with, my request was for council to
support
advocacy to the province regarding recent changes
to the Ontario land tribunal process.
On this issue of timing, to me, this is no
different
than any letter I've written or co-signed
on things like ARUs, one-to-one parking,
in the Heights review, when I brought a motion to
refer it.
Specifically, I'm asking that the mayor send a
letter
to the province requesting reconsideration
of the removal of third party appeal rights under
bill 185.
This aligns with similar advocacy
already undertaken by Windsor,
and this is an opportunity for London to show
leadership
and solidarity.
I wanna be clear, I support the province's goals
of looking at increasing housing supply
and improving planning efficiency,
but these objectives are not mutually exclusive.
The removal of third party appeal rights
has significantly reduced opportunities
for meaningful public participation in planning
decisions.
Previously, residents who engaged in good faith
through written or oral submissions
could seek an independent review at the OLT.
That layer of accountability has now been removed
.
Residents now have fewer avenues
to raise legitimate concerns,
but local impacts such as infrastructure,
compatibility, and neighborhood context.
And this has led to frustration and decline
in public trust in both municipal
and provincial decision-making processes.
I'm not asking for a return to an open-ended
system.
I'm asking the province to consider a balanced
approach,
such as allowing appeals only from individuals
or organizations who have demonstrated prior
engagement
including safeguards to prevent frivolous
or delayed-driven appeals, and that public
confidence
is a critical path to success for a planning
system overall.
When residents feel heard and have access
to fair review mechanisms, outcomes are stronger
and more widely supported.
I'm asking my colleagues,
I know you're just receiving this at this point,
to consider a council to support this request for
advocacy.
This is about striking the right balance
between building homes quickly
and maintaining transparency, accountability
and meaningful public engagement.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I look for other speakers, Councilor Trussoff.
- Thank you very much.
As somebody who has represented community
organizations
at the OMB, such as it used to be called,
gratis, I can tell you that if there is a will
to prepare your case and go to the OMB
or the LPAT or the OLT,
as it's now called, you can do it.
Taking away third party appeals,
it's an access to justice issue.
It's closing the courthouse door.
It's telling citizens, it's telling residents
that you can come in to the courthouse,
not really a courthouse, it's not judicial,
but it's quasi judicial.
So I'm gonna use the courthouse metaphor here.
You can't come on into the courthouse.
You're not the right person.
Somebody who's got a different position than you
can come.
And it's used as a club, boy, you said it.
It's used as a club.
So many times we're said, well, we better not
really oppose this,
because if you do, the applicant can go to the OL
T
or and we'll lose, maybe we won't,
but to tell citizens, residents,
that they cannot have access
to a fundamental part of our judicial,
what is our judicial system, it's an abomination.
And we have an obligation as a city
who's representing our residents to act on their
behalf.
And we don't always act on their behalf
'cause sometimes we take a contrary position
to our planning decisions,
to what people in the community want.
And that's okay, that's part of the quasi-
judicial process.
That's part of how courts and administrative
agencies
work under the rule of law.
But to say that certain people, based on their
status,
cannot participate in that process.
That is just as somebody who's spent my adult
life
studying or practicing or teaching
or just these days just talking about law,
I just find it very, very difficult.
I am gonna fight very hard to restore the rights
of our residents to go to this administrative
agency.
And I think the city should be supporting them.
And to hear my colleagues say,
"Well, this is contrary to the need to build
housing."
We're, that's not right.
That's not what we're balancing here.
We're balancing the different stakeholders.
And we are privileging.
We are privileging a particular class of
stakeholders.
And believe me, if this went to a court
on due process grounds, there'd be a very, very
shaky
justification for abolishing third party appeals.
So I'm glad this came up.
Now I do wanna say that there recently has been
an Auditor General's report on this agency.
And it's not pretty.
This Auditor General's report,
and I don't know how much attention it will get,
talks about a lot of reforms that are needed
at the OLT.
This is one of them.
So we need to take a broad look at how is the
process
of the OLT in terms of how it's been defined
by this provincial government?
How is this skewing not only the land use
decisions we make,
but the willingness of our residents to come and
talk to us?
Because I think what it results in is this view
that the system is not for me.
The system is for paid lobbyists.
They know what they're doing.
They have the funding, but it's not for me.
We have to make our justice system all parts of
it,
not just the courts, but the administrative
agencies
accessible to all of our residents,
and we owe them that as a city.
- Thank you.
- Okay, any other councilor Provost?
- Thank you.
So when I go through my notes when I was
preparing them,
I'm not gonna repeat what the Pierre Mayor Lewis
and what Council Stevenson said.
I would say you have exactly the same words,
like pass the back, et cetera.
But I do want to say this,
that we have the one housing policy,
provincial policy building policy,
which our staff is evaluating according to such
policies.
OLT in my, not sorry,
in my information when I look into it,
they evaluate it exactly to the same policy.
If I go back three and a half years ago,
How many great projects we have approved?
How many times do we have a gallery full
and they were against it?
They were against it.
So all these projects, they would be stuck at
loyalty
for eight, 12, 14, 16 months.
Where is our economy?
Where are the jobs?
Where is the cost for housing?
All those are gone.
And we need it.
I hope we stay on this track.
We need to do involvement of locally.
Absolutely, do we need to do more?
Whatever we can, within our power, absolutely.
Should we pass the back to someone else
and to just say to the residents,
hey, we did our job, no, we didn't.
To the right, I'll let it to lobby, that's not a
job.
It's the job to get it done right here.
We need it, look at this.
We need the housing, we need affordability.
When we have it in place,
we can go back to the federal government.
Guess what?
We need more international students.
Guess what?
All those instructors that have been put on leaf
laid off,
we need them back.
This, we are under, I believe we are on the right
path
as long as we get, again, look at today,
perfect example of today's session of the pack.
I know it wasn't like that every day, every pack
session,
but again, look at back.
We approved some great things, which again,
we had gallery full, and guess what?
12, 18, 19 months ago, we wouldn't have a result
yet.
And we don't have, as I said, I said it once,
but I'm gonna say it again, where's the
affordability housing?
Where is the, where is our economy?
Where are the jobs?
No, we need that.
Look at our economic indicators.
They certainly are not stellar.
So I will certainly not support this at the
council.
Do I want us to look into other options?
Absolutely.
Can we be better?
We can always be better.
But let's focus on ourselves instead of passing
the buck
and just sending a letter or asking our mayor to
lobby.
Thank you.
- Okay, I'll look for any other speakers.
Everyone's been heard.
We have a motion moved and seconded and we will
call the vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries three to
two.
- Thank you.
That leaves, what do we have?
Okay, deferred matters.
Just, I'll just look for someone to accept
the deferred matters motion.
We don't have any deferred matters.
- Not on this.
- Not on this, okay.
So we don't have to do that.
- Perfect.
- Good, that leaves a German.
Councilor Stephen, are you moving to adjourn?
Seconded by Councilor Cuddy, hand vote.
Thanks everyone that Councillors for a rather
long session.
Thank you.