Recommendation: That, the following
actions be taken with respect to the ReThink London Official Plan Review
process:
a)
a
Public Participation Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE
HELD on October 8, 2013 to consider the Land Needs Background Study, as a background
document for the Rethink London Official Plan Review process; and,
b) the
development community BE ASKED to work with the Civic Administration to
further review the analysis and assumptions used to determine the urban growth
boundary and to further review the requests for expansions to that boundary,
to determine if certain lands have unique or strategic qualities that would
warrant them being added to or removed from the urban growth boundary;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications,
with respect to this matter:
·
a
communication dated July 10, 2013, from E.F. Brown, 3133 Colonel Talbot Road,
et al;
·
a
communication dated July 15, 2013 from D.R. Schmidt, Development Manager,
Corlon Properties Inc.;
·
a
communication dated July 17, 2013 from M. Jackson-Brewer, 1996 Bradley
Avenue;
·
a
communication dated July 19, 2013 from P. Masschelein, Vice President,
Neighbourhod Developments, Sifton Properties Limited;
·
the
attached communication dated July 23, 2013 from R. Knutson, Knutson
Development Consultants Inc.; and,
·
the
attached communication dated July 23, 2013 from C.M. Weibe, MHBC
Planning Consultants, on behalf of J-Aar Excavating;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Shmuel Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation – discussing a
parcel of approximately 137 acres in East London; indicating that he believes
that East London deserves to have development close to the work force;
advising that there should be affordable homes for people working close to
the Industrial Park; and discussing a parcel of 500+ acres along Highway 402,
Colonel Talbot Road, Longwood Road and Murray Road; indicating that this
property borders Highway 402 and is outside of the urban growth boundary.
·
Tom Brown, 3133 Colonel Talbot Road North, on behalf of the
West Talbot Road Landowners Association – advising that he represents the
landowners on the west side of Colonel Talbot Road, south of Southdale Road, north
of Pack Road and east of Dingman Creek; quoting the “Vision” statement;
indicating that their lands are surrounded by urban growth; advising that, in
years past, they were able to rent lands across the road and down Southdale
Road; noting that renting land is no longer available to them; advising that
the viability of farming this land is very restrictive; indicating that
moving farm machinery around the arterial roads is not only cumbersome, but
it could be dangerous; advising that the machinery can be quite large;
indicating that a large portion of their lands either abut or include the
Dingman Creek ecosystem and watershed, which is a very strong area of natural
heritage; noting that approximately 35% of their lands are either woodland or
part of the Dingman Creek ecosystem; reading Section 2.10 of the Official
Plan; advising that, at one time, they had approximately 600 acres of land;
noting that they no longer have that amount of land; advising that the
economist scale is lost for them; indicating that the viability of farming
that land is not an option; indicating that the urban development and
commercial development in the area is separating their land and forcing them
into a position where they can no longer move machinery and farm like they
used to; advising that trespassing is one of their major problems with urban
development on three sides; noting that they have people snowmobiling,
driving all-terrain vehicles, off-leash dog walking and dumping garbage on
their lands; indicating that their farms are running into a compatibility
issue with the surrounding urban areas as they cannot move their machinery
around and they cannot farm like they used to; advising that they used to
have dairy, beef and cash crops; noting that the revenue from the cash crop
will cover the cost of the crop itself, pay the taxes and insurance; noting
that this is what they are limited to now; advising that their land is no
longer productive as farm land; indicating that they have servicing on three
sides of their properties; noting that Southdale Road, Colonel Talbot Road
and Pack Road are all fully serviced; indicating that including their
properties inside the urban growth boundary would not be a significant cost
or pose a difficulty to include their lands in the South West Area Plan;
advising that there was recently a memo that stated that the South West area
is anticipated to have significant growth over the next 20 years; advising
that they are in that area; noting that the Dingman Creek would add
significant access to the citizens of London; and reiterating to please
include their lands in the urban growth boundary.
·
Ali Jomaa, 1431 Sunningdale Road West – indicating that he
owns 108 acres of property northwest of Sunningdale; advising that there is a
major transportation route being planned for Sunningdale Road; indicating
that the Heard Drain, which is being developed, is part of that land;
advising that his land slants towards the drain very slightly which is
excellent for the reduction of costs; advising that the land is very smooth
all the way across; indicating that the reduction of costs is very important;
and advising that if the City is looking to make sure that this is profitable,
he is making the argument that this is a natural position for it to be
positioned because of the services and the transportation route.
·
William Hill, on behalf of Margaret Jackson-Brewer – requesting
that the lands on the north and south side of Bradley Avenue from Old
Victoria Sideroad to the present urban growth boundary be put into the new
urban growth boundary; indicating that it is consistent with putting building
lots where people work and it is becoming impossible to farm on Bradley
Avenue because of the traffic; indicating that there is no cattle farming
left in the area; noting that it is all cash cropping as you cannot take the
risk of having an animal get loose on Bradley Avenue; advising that they
believe that it is a great piece of land for the City for several reasons,
including the fact that the City spent a lot of money providing hydro and
water to the area to service the industrial area; indicating that the south
side of Bradley in this area goes right to Highway 401 so that you have three
kilometers of land along Highway 401; indicating that you have the Highbury
Avenue interchange as well as the Veterans Memorial Parkway interchange, with
approximately four kilometers of land in between that is serviced already;
suggesting that the south side of Bradley Avenue be zoned Industrial and the
north side of Bradley Avenue be zoned Residential, which would then be
consistent with Bradley Avenue as it goes back into the old part of the City;
indicating that another reason he believes this land should be included in
the urban growth boundary is because when the City expanded the Industrial
area and went from Commissioners Road down to Highway 401 and over to Old
Victoria Sideroad, he does not believe that there was any consideration
given, and there was no consultation with the people who lived on Bradley
Avenue, as to the impact that the expansion that the Industrial lands will
have; indicating that a number of plants have now been built; indicating that
the amount of traffic that they have on Bradley Avenue now as compared to
what they had before, has turned it from a great place to live in the
countryside, to living in the City; noting that it is probably even noisier
because there are not the barriers around to break the noise; looking at it
from the point of view of the residents on Bradley Avenue, they should be in
the plan and the City needs to correct that; and indicating that they are an
island with nothing happening in between Veterans Memorial Park, the
Industrial area and Summerside.
·
Dave Schmidt, Corlon Properties Inc. – advising that their
property is approximately 82 acres on the northwest side of Sunningdale Road
and Wonderland Road North; indicating that they were before the Committee
five years ago as part of the 2006 Official Plan review; indicating that the
subject property is uniquely positioned because the municipal boundary is
immediately along the northerly property line all the way across the end of
the City, but the urban growth boundary follows Sunningdale Road, then goes
up Wonderland Road North and continues along the municipal boundary;
indicating that full municipal services already exist on their property;
advising that there is a 900mm watermain existing all the way down
Sunningdale Road, there is a 375mm sanitary sewer stub metres away from the
intersection that was part of the Medway Trunk sanitary sewer project that
has just been built in the last five years and was sized to service this
area; the stormwater management environmental assessment has been done and included
these lands; indicating that everything is here to allow this land to move
forward; advising that the problem is that there is a line on the map that
has it on the wrong side of it; indicating that there is a big difference
between today and the last Official Plan that was completed because at that
time the Municipal Council recognized many of the presentations that were
done, there were unique opportunities here that probably should have been
reviewed in a different way than has ever been reviewed to date; indicating
that the Municipal Council resolution from August 13, 2007 (reads part d) of
the resolution); indicating that he reviews the Agendas every week as part of
his job, he has reviewed the 2011 ReThink process, he has reviewed the 2001
Land Needs Background Study (reading the Terms of Reference for the 2011
Official Plan review); indicating that he has not seen this done to date;
noting that he has not seen the report from the 2007 resolution relating to
this matter and he has not seen an evaluation of the lands that possibly
could be considered for inclusion in the urban growth boundary being done,
other than an analysis that says that we have “x” amount of land, we need
“this” amount of land and we have more than we need, none of them represent
an emergence opportunity, nothing to do; indicating that he is not sure that
this is the way we should be proceeding forward; advising that we are
rethinking the Official Plan in the City of London; indicating that we are
not reaffirming a growth boundary that was drawn in 1996 as part of the
Vision 96 process based upon thinking that was in place at that time; noting
that lots of things have changed; advising that lots of infrastructure has
gone in the ground; indicating that some very big decisions have been made by
this Municipal Council since then with respect to servicing (ie. Southside
Sewage Treatment Control Plant); believing that the Municipal Council needs
to take into consideration not expanding the growth boundary but looking at
the viability of adjusting the growth boundary, not necessarily adding any
more growth acreage in, but taking a look at the requests that are before you
and deciding whether they represent good, sound, logical planning that is
cost effective and efficient to this municipality, its existing residents and
its future residents; noting that our development charges rely on this;
indicating that, if we continue to develop land that is not the most
economical to service, our development charges will put us at a continuous
economic disadvantage compared to our neighbouring municipalities around us
where people will continue to go to to seek residential homes when we price
ourselves out of the market because we are not developing the most efficient
land that we possibly can; reiterating that, with the piece of land that they
have, the services are bought, paid for and installed; noting that capacity
exists at the Plant, but the line drawn on the maps says that we have enough,
there is no reason to consider it; indicating that the methodology that was
employed the Land Needs Background Study that was just completed was the same
that was done five years ago; advising that land needs equals supply minus
demand; noting that it is impossible for anyone here today to contest those
findings; indicating that there is a lot of land inside the growth boundary;
enquiring as to whether or not this land is efficiently positioned to optimize
the services that we have already bought and paid for; noting that he is not
sure that anyone here can answer that question today; indicating that the
analysis that the Municipal Council requested back in 2007, as part of the
Municipal Council resolution previously mentioned, has never been done;
noting that it is not here today as part of the Land Needs Background Study;
advising that he is not sure anyone will be able to tell how much 100 acres
inside the urban growth boundary is going to cost to develop as opposed to
any of the applications that are before the Committee today; indicating that
other municipalities have swapped land; noting that the Township of Middlesex
Centre swapped land in their last Official Plan review; indicating that it is
not a question of whether or not we have enough land in the urban growth
boundary, but whether this land is strategically located to achieve
sufficient development patterns and optimize the investment in infrastructure
and public service facilities; indicating that a review of the City of London
Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement would suggest, to him, that
a realignment of the urban growth boundary needs to be considered;
reiterating that he is not talking about an expansion of the urban growth
boundary, but a realignment of the urban growth boundary; and advising that
the road that we are going down today is not consistent with the City of
London Official Plan, but also not with the Provincial Policy Statement.
·
Carol Weibe, MHBC Planning Consultants, on behalf of J-Aar
Excavating – indicating that she was before the Planning Committee in 2007
requesting that J-Aar Excavating be included in the urban growth boundary;
indicating that this is a unique property that is currently licensed as an
aggregate extraction property; noting that the urban growth boundary runs
along the west and the south property limits; also noting that it is adjacent
to existing residential property development on two sides, the west side and
the south side; indicating that it is currently designated Agriculture in the
Official Plan and zoned for extraction; indicating that, in the six years
since she was before them, there has been a considerable amount of
development in this immediate area; noting that the lands to the south and
west, those subdivisions, those lands have been developing at a very brisk
rate; showing a map of the Kilally North Area Plan; noting that the property
was intended, at the appropriate time, to complete this area plan; noting
that Blackwell Boulevard terminates at the property line and Cedar Hollow
Boulevard to the south is also intended to connect through and loop through
that property to provide that collector road system and to provide transit
and to really round out this Area Plan; indicating that the issues brought to
the Committee’s attention in 2007 are still relevant today; advising that
what is unique about this property is that it is a current extraction
operation, under their license they are required to extract the aggregate
that is there and every year that they are remaining outside of that urban
growth boundary they continue to extract so the grades on that property
continue to get lower and lower; advising that that means that when they have
exhausted the aggregate, in order for these lands to develop as they were
planned, an equivalent amount of fill will need to be brought in to bring
that land back up; indicating that the services for this property have
already been installed; noting that the services have been oversized,
constructed and paid for; reiterating that these lands can be serviced today;
advising that the concerns that J-Aar Excavating has is that if the lands
continue to be left outside of the urban growth boundary, they are going to
come to the point where the land is no longer economically feasible to
service due to the amount of fill that will need to be brought in; indicating
that the only way that they can relinquish their license is that they would
have to demonstrate to the Ministry of Natural Resources that their
rehabilitation plan required them to keep the elevations as they are today;
asking the Committee and the Municipal Council to look at this service and
say if we do not bring these lands in in the immediate future, we are going
to forever prevent them from being brought in because it will not be
economically feasible to do so; indicating that, as this Area Plan clearly demonstrates,
it was intended to complete this Area Plan and to have these road stubs just
terminate and never be completed is really bad planning; advising that she
believes that this site warrants consideration; and reminding the Committee
that when she brought these points to the Committee’s attention the last
time, there were three properties that were singled out and staff was
directed to go back and to look at them, noting that this was one of them and
it was because of the severity of the policies that said that if you have
sufficient lands within that 20 year horizon, it does not matter how
justified a parcel is and because staff did not want to go down that road of the
trade-offs and the swaps, it did not get in, even though, back in 2007, there
was recognition that it warranted further consideration; asking the Committee
to now take that extra step, look at the property and ask if we want to lose
this opportunity because that is exactly what will happen; indicating that
the property is approximately 40 hectares; however, there are a lot of ponds
on the land and chances are the northern half of the property will not be
built on.
·
Carol Weibe, MHBC Planning Consultants, on behalf of the
London Development Institute (LDI) – see communication dated July 19, 2013.
·
Maureen Zunti, Sifton Properties Limited – reiterating the
concerns about the Land Needs Background Study that Ms. Weibe just mentioned;
expressing concern with respect to some of the assumptions for
intensification; advising that one of the ones that she has a specific
concern about is that 88% of high density development will occur in the
infill areas; noting that that is above the trend for the past 10 years;
advising that what that means is that, if you assume that a typical apartment
building being constructed these days, particularly in suburban areas, is an
average of 150 units, the intensification assumption would require
approximately 77 apartment buildings to be constructed in the built area over
the next 20 years, with only 10 buildings in the greenfield areas; indicating
that she does not believe that that is reflective of what the City is looking
for in terms of building complete communities; advising that there are some
questions about how these assumptions are being put forward that we have to
look at and get more information on; reiterating the concern about the table
on page 335 on the PEC Agenda; noting that the variation in the average
densities between the five categories is far too wide as it does range from
3.5 to 34.4 units per hectare; further noting that some of the numbers may be
too low and some of the numbers may be too high; indicating that,
particularly with the designated residential lands, that they are assuming
there to be almost 34,000 units to be constructed; noting that the low
density units there are actually 41%, the percentage of low density units is
higher than is actually existing in the draft subdivision plans which are
currently under review and the density is still much higher than that;
advising that there are some numbers that do not make sense that they need to
have more background information on; indicating that she submitted a letter
to staff approximately one week ago outlining some of these concerns;
indicating that on page 23 of the staff report relating to this item, the
“Land Use Background Study”, it indicates that there were five adjustments
made to the residential greenfield supply numbers so we cannot really test
those numbers because the numbers are different than the Vacant Land
Inventories for 2011 and 2012; indicating that they do not know what the
adjustments are and they do not know how the densities were calculated,
whether they are net or gross; advising that it is really critical for them
to meet with staff and get more information on their questions and concerns
because the Land Needs Background Study is essentially a mathematical
exercise and if you do not have the right numbers at the front, then
everything else can be quite wrong.
·
Phil Masschelein, Sifton Properties Limited – see attached
presentation.
·
Nick Sauter, 204 Tremont Road – advising that he lives in
Argyle, which is the largest neighbourhood in London, with 55,000 people
living there; indicating that he speaks on behalf of the people living in
Argyle who have unique problems that no one in other areas of the City have
ever faced; advising that, in 1959, Argyle was not part of the City; noting
that they were not annexed until 1961; indicating that anyone who knows the
City knows that not all planning in the past has gone well; noting that, in
the past, the Planners divided the City into two, with all of the industries
in one end of town, which they did in the 1960’s and 1970’s; indicating that,
eventually, Airport Road (Veterans Memorial Parkway) was built, which was
deemed to be the first part of a ring road; noting that that did not work out
either; advising that the Argyle Community Association was started because
they did not feel they were being treated fairly; indicating that their five
Councillors are on board with what is going on; indicating that, in 2010, Mr.
Farhi approached him to get the Argyle Community Association’s support for a
project that he wanted to propose to them; indicating that he bought some
land that was formerly Lagrou Farms and he has some wonderful plans for a
subdivision with houses that people can afford; noting that the Argyle
Community Association supports Mr. Farhi’s idea and has lobbied for it; requesting
that this request not be rejected because we have enough land, that parcel of
land, east of Crumlin Road is the only spot left in all of Ward 2 where you
can build a small residential development; indicating that he believes that
ReThink London is a great idea; and advising that this is the first time that
he has heard of people thinking about building a city thriving on the idea of
neighbourhoods.
·
Alan R. Patton, Patton Cormier and Associates, on behalf of
the Wickerson Land Owners Association – indicating that the area is south of
Byron Baseline Road, Wickerson Road (the north/south road on the east side),
part of Southdale Road and over to West del Bourne; advising that the area is
approximately 87 hectares; indicating that the lands are boundary serviced
and the stormwater management ponds been the subject of an environmental assessment;
advising that the entire property is easily serviceable and is a logical
extension of land in the west end of the City which has schools and other
infrastructure; indicating that the plan picks up the proposed planned
realignment of Byron Baseline Road to meet with Elviage Drive on the west
side of West del Bourne; advising that this is not a hypothetical situation;
indicating that this is a very real, logical extension of the urban growth
boundary; advising that they have cost the project out, as Mr. Masschelein
said, for another area in the City, this is a net benefit in terms of
development charges of $23,000,000; indicating that it provides
transportation plans, the realignment of Baseline Road/Boler Road; advising
that it also relates to the Altus Growth Study because they play off Mr.
Barrett’s presentation; noting that a lot of the statistics are from 2006 to 2011
in terms of demand and building permits; further noting that, during this
time, there was a down turn in the economy, in terms of the building economy
and the worldwide economy and that had an effect on London, so that it is not
the best five year period to take for your analysis; indicating that another
problem with the Study is that it includes a number of verifiable assumptions
and a number of non-verifiable assumptions, which Ms. Weibe went over to a
considerable degree; indicating that the reliance on the Altus Study is much
on reliance on take-out yet those have been depressed over the last five
years, we are not at a take-out where we should be but we are in a recovery;
requesting, for verification of net benefit, refer to Agenda Item 26 e),
Sifton Properties (Mr. Maschellin’s) communication verifying the development
charges and the net benefit to the development charges funds; advising that
the infrastructure is planned; indicating that, logically, the Stanley estate
on Wickerson Road should have been included as there is a master plan that
provides for open space, stormwater management and represents a very logical
extension of the urban growth boundary in an area of the City, in the west
end, where there is a demand for growth and the other infrastructure and
amenities already exist and are development charges positive; and reiterating
that it really should have been included earlier, but it was left out.
·
Sergio Pompilii and Ryan Pompilii, Sergio E. Pompilii &
Associates Ltd. – see attached presentation.
·
Paul Hinde, Tridon Group of Companies – speaking in
generalities, we have heard from Planning staff that they believe that there
are sufficient lands within the boundary right now for 20 year growth and
there has been a substantial amount, and very compelling arguments to
encourage the Municipal Council to consider some flexibility and
consideration of bringing additional lands in, both from an economic
standpoint from servicing but also from other standpoints such as economic
growth throughout the City; advising that, although City staff is saying that
they have sufficient lands, they have also asked staff to look at, not on a
micro basis, but really is there sufficient lands within the 20 year growth
boundary to accommodate the growth that they actually need; indicating that
Tridon Group of Companies is in partnership with Thames Village Joint Venture
for a residential subdivision, in the southeast corner, in Old Victoria
(Hamilton Road and Commissioners Road) and that draft plan of subdivision is
31.5 hectares in size, of which only 14 hectares is being developed for
residential purposes; noting that the other 18 hectares is either Thames
River floodplain or natural heritage feature and non-developable lands;
advising that, on that micro analysis, out of a 31 hectare parcel of land,
only 40% of the land is going to be developed for residential purposes,
accommodating the growth that the City is looking at; noting that this is an
example of only 40% of the land is being developed; and encouraging the
Municipal Council to listen to the compelling arguments/suggestions that have
been made for some flexibility, for some swapping and to maybe consider some
new lands being brought in to accommodate those lands already within the
urban growth boundary which will not be developed because of constraints
associated with natural features or corridors or any other feature.
·
Mauro Castrilli, 2156 Highbury Avenue North – advising that
he has 4.5 acres that border the urban growth boundary line on the south and
west sides; indicating that it is currently zoned R1-11; noting that, in
2005, the Municipal Council passed a resolution severing the property into
three lots; indicating that he attended a Stoney Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer
meeting; noting that the sanitary trunk sewer was adopted by the Municipal
Council in 2010, which would service along Highbury Avenue North; advising
that the Municipal Council has already committed to servicing the property
along Highbury Avenue North; and requesting that his property be included in
the urban growth boundary.
·
Phyllis Matthews, #10-947 Adirondack Road – indicating that
she owns property on the west side of the City; advising that, during the
Vision 96 process, her property was in the southwest option; indicating that
her property is located immediately next to the current urban growth
boundary; noting that the property is 31 acres (12.6 hectares); advising that
it has been suggested to her by urban planners that the property is suitable
for commercial development at the corner of the two arterial roads – Oxford
Street and Gideon Drive; noting that the rest of the property, along Gideon
Drive, would be high density, medium density and low density along the
Parkland, which is now owned by the City; indicating that she submitted a
communication for inclusion in the urban growth boundary along with the
servicing feasibility of the land, which was prepared by ENG Plus; indicating
that there are no servicing issues; stating that the Eagle Ridge subdivision
will be required to build the sewer to the corner of Gideon Drive and Oxford
Street, which will be right across the road; advising that stormwater
management will be looked after by the regional stormwater management
facility that will be located on the north side of Oxford Street, opposite
Gideon Drive; advising that the Woodhull subdivision, which is immediately to
the west will be constructing a municipal watermain along Gideon Drive;
noting that this will be paid for by the developer; further noting that this
will provide water to her property; and reiterating that her property be
included in the urban growth boundary.
·
Joe Platino, Mainline Planning Services – indicating that
he is representing an owners group who own approximately 160 acres south of
Highbury Avenue South, south of Highway 401 and adjacent to the urban growth
boundary; thanking the Committee for the opportunity to speak; expressing
that it is clear that the Committee is invested in this process and has an
open mind for those who wish to be included in the urban growth boundary;
expressing support for the submissions, there have been a lot of passionate
people speaking and a lot of comprehensive work has been done; noting that he
does not believe that that could happen if the municipality had not done the
work it has; requesting to be included in the urban growth boundary; noting
that they are not on the list that the staff have compiled; indicating that
they will be making a very comprehensive submission in the coming days; .
·
David Cousins, CBRE – see attached communication.
·
Stephen Turner, 463 Tecumseh Avenue East – advising that
one of the cruxes of the situation before the Committee is how to determine
whose property gets put in the urban growth boundary and whose does not;
indicating that there are 13 applicants before the Committee; realizing it is
a question of fairness; advising that the Planning staff is well paid and
well educated; indicating that the Planning staff have advised that there are
more than adequate lands in the 20 year horizon to be able to complete all
the growth forecasts of the Lands Needs Assessments; indicating that the
arguments that he has heard about the potential to swap lands in and out to
create an urban growth boundary that is about the same size but he believes
it would be a fair question to ask all 13 proponents if they have land inside
the urban growth boundary that they would be prepared to swap out; advising
that there is speculation opportunity for those who have lands adjacent to
the urban growth boundary whose lands go up in value significantly as soon as
you move it; expressing concern about not seeing a lot of members of the
Committee at the ReThink London events and he thinks it is really important
for the context of the discussion that is happening on the part of the
citizens of London, about what they are saying about what they would like to
see the urban form look like and it really is the antithesis of expanding the
urban form further; indicating that it is time to pay attention to what the
people are saying, to incorporate a lot of the principles and visions that
have been articulated through the ReThink London process and take a good look
at what is happening here tonight; indicating that he believes that the
burden of proof is on the applicants to show that there is a compelling need
to expand the urban growth boundary and he does not think that that has gone
any further than what the Planning staff have said that there is not. (2013-D08)
|