I.

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

1.

That it BE NOTED that Councillor B. Polhill disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 10 of this Report having to do with the application of Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 677 relating to the property located at 181 Skyline Avenue, as the application was dealt with by the Committee of Adjustment, by indicating that his son is a member of the Committee of Adjustment.

II.

CONSENT ITEMS

2.

Property located at 2310, 2330 and 2350 Dundas Street (39T-12502)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Planning, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and The Shrew Sports Corporation, for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 1, Concession 1, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the north side of Dundas Street, between Veterans Memorial Parkway and Crumlin Sideroad, municipally known as 2310, 2330 and 2350 Dundas Street:

a)         the attached Special Provisions to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and The Shrew Sports Corporation for the Auto Mall Subdivision (39T-12502), BE APPROVED;

b)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all related documents required to fulfill its conditions; and,

c)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Schedule “B” to the associated staff report, dated November 5, 2012.    (2012-D26-05)

3.

Properties located at 2310, 2330 and 2350 Dundas Street (H-8109)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of The Shrew Sports Corporation, relating to properties located at 2310, 2330 & 2350 Dundas Street, the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Highway Service Commercial/ Restricted Service Commercial (h*h-11*HS1/HS4/ RSC2/ RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone, a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h*h-11*RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone and a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h*h-11*RSC1(22)) Zone TO a Holding Highway Service Commercial/Restricted Service Commercial (h-11*HS1/HS4/RSC2/ RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone, a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-11*RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone, a  Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-11*RSC1(22)) Zone, a Highway Service Commercial/ Restricted Service Commercial (HS1/HS4/RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone, a  Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone and a  Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(22)) Zone, to remove the “h” holding provision; subject to the Applicant entering into the Subdivision Agreement and to remove the “h-11” holding provision; subject to final approval and registration of the plan of subdivision. (2012-D26-05)

4.

Property located at 995 Fanshawe Park Road West (H-8089)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Landea Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 995 Fanshawe Park Road West, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of 995 Fanshawe Park Road West FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h. h-100 R1-13) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-13) Zone, to remove the h. and h-100 holding provisions.   (2012-D11-05)

5.

Property located at 89 York Street (H-8064)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application by Endri Poletti Architect Inc. (Jennifer Castein), relating to the  property located at 89 York Street, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a holding Downtown Area (h-1•h-3•DA2•D350) Zone TO a Downtown Area (DA2•D350) Zone, to remove the holding provisions.  (2012-D11-02)

6.

Property located at 1820 Woodhull Road (39T-03511)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Manager, Development Services and Planning Liaison, in response to the request for extension of Draft Approval from Phyllis Matthews, relating to the property located at 1820 Woodhull Road, the following actions be taken:

a)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports a three (3) year extension of draft approval for plan 39T-03511, submitted by Phyllis Matthews, prepared by Callon Dietz (dated October 4, 2004, drawing No. X-857), as red-line revised, which shows 23 single detached dwelling lots, a park block and an open space block, served by 2 local public roads;

b)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports revisions to the Conditions of Draft Approval, to clarify  terminology and update servicing standards for the draft plan of subdivision, as identified in the attached, revised, Appendix “39T-03511-1”; and,

c)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated November 5, 2012.   (2012-D26-04)

7.

Property located at 1139 Fanshawe Park Road West (H-8086)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Steve Stapleton, relating to the property located at 1139 Fanshawe Park Road West, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of 1139 Fanshawe Park Road West FROM a Compound Holding Residential R1/R4 (h. h-100 R1-3/R4-3) Zone and a Holding Residential R1 (h. h-100 R1-3) Zone TO a Compound Residential R1 (R1-3/R4-3) and a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, to remove the h. and h-100 holding provisions.   (2012-D11-07)

8.

Properties located at 255 South Carriage Road and 1331 Hyde Park Road (39T-08502)

Recommendation:  That, in response to the letter of appeal submitted by B.R. Card, on behalf of Sydenham Investments Inc., to the Ontario Municipal Board, dated August 28, 2012, relating to the draft plan of subdivision located at 255 South Carriage Road & 1331 Hyde Park Road:

a)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has reviewed its position relating to this matter and maintains its original position; and,

b)         the City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to represent Council’s interests in these matters and may retain outside expert witnesses in support of the Municipal Council’s position.   (2012-D26-03)

9.

Property located at 7 Holiday Avenue (H-7964)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, based on the application of Barry Molloy, relating to the property located at 7 Holiday Avenue, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R2/Office Conversion (h-5*h-130*R2-4/OC4) Zone TO a Residential R2/Office Conversion (R2-4/OC4) Zone, to remove the holding provision requiring that agreements shall be entered into following public site plan review and that adequate storm water management and infrastructure addressing overland water flows are in place and that a development agreement, in association with a site plan, is entered into, to the satisfaction of the Municipal Council . (2012-D11-03)

10.

Property located at 181 Skyline Avenue

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, in response to the letter of appeal submitted by Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 677 to the Ontario Municipal Board, dated August 16, 2012, 2012, relating to the rezoning application concerning 181 Skyline Avenue:

a)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to grant the minor variance; and,

b)         the City Solicitor and the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, BE DIRECTED to provide legal and planning representation at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to support the Committee of Adjustment’s decision.   (2012-D11-05)

III.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

11.

2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Recommendation:  That the 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) from its meeting held on October 18, 2012, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee did not hear a verbal presentation from D. Sheppard, Chair, EEPAC.

12.

3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Recommendation:  That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) from its meeting held on October 10, 2012:

a)         on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit application of M. Kafadar, requesting permission to construct an addition to the designated heritage property located at 352 Central Avenue, BE DENIED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed addition and has advised that the impact of such alterations on the heritage features of the property is problematic with respect to their impact on the building and streetscape character; it being further noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage did not hear a presentation from Mr. Kafadar, with respect to this matter;

b)         the Managing Director, Development and Compliance Services & Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not oppose the demolition of the property located at  2079 Huron Street; it  being noted that the LACH requested that the Heritage Planner be allowed to document the building and that all salvageable heritage aspects of the property be retained; it being further noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage heard a verbal presentation from D. Menard, Heritage Planner, with respect to this matter;

c)         the Managing Director, Development and Compliance Services & Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not oppose the demolition of the property located at 2332 Main Street, Lambeth; it  being noted that the LACH requested that the Heritage Planner be allowed to document the building and that all salvageable heritage aspects of the property be retained; it being further noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage heard a verbal presentation from D. Menard, Heritage Planner, with respect to this matter;

d)         the Wortley Village/Old South Heritage Conservation draft Plan and District Guidelines BE APPROVED as presented by N. Tausky, E. Eldridge and D. Waverman, Consultants; and,

e)            that clauses 5 through 17, inclusive, of the 3rd Report of the LACH, BE RECEIVED AND NOTED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from W. Kinghorn, Vice-Chair, LACH, with respect to these matters.

13.

Properties located at 1351-1369 Hyde Park Road (O-8077)

Recommendation:  That, further to the direction provided by the Municipal Council at its meeting held on June 12, 2012 and based on the Official Plan Amendment relating to the west side of the property located at 1351 Hyde Park Road and the property located at 1369 Hyde Park Road, the following actions be taken:

a)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recirculate the revised application to include a Chapter 10 Special Provision to allow automotive repair on the west portion of 1351 Hyde Park Road and to change the designation of the properties located at 1351 and 1361 Hyde Park Road FROM a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, which permits residential uses up to a maximum density of 75 units per hectare TO a Main Street Commercial Corridor designation, to permit a wide range of pedestrian-orientated retail, office and personal service commercial uses; and,

b)         the Civic Administration BE ASKED to report back to a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

·                    a communication, dated October 22, 2012, from N. Buteau, 2012 President, Hyde Park Business Association; and,

·                    a communication, dated October 31, 2012, from R. Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc.;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:

·                     R. Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., on behalf of Fanshawe Motors – indicating that he has previously spoken to the Civic Administration with respect to this matter; advising that his client would like to add a new structure to the front of the existing building; indicating that this process has been frustrating because automotive use is not listed as a permitted use in the Official Plan designation for this site; indicating that the owners intent has always been the same; indicating that he does not believe that the application would need to be liaised again to permit the automotive use; advising that the properties located at 1371 and 1357 Fanshawe Park Road have twice the depth as the property to the north; and indicating that he is talking about the west half of the property located at 1351 Fanshawe Park Road; noting that the intention for the east half of the property was always to be turned into residential properties.   (2012-D18-00)

14.

Property located at 2079 Huron Street

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 2079 Huron Street:

a)            the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not object to the request for demolition for the Priority 2 listed property located at 2079 Huron Street; and,

b)            the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not wish to issue a notice of Intent to Designate this property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage has been consulted on this request for demolition;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.    (2012-D10-00)

15.

Grosvenor Gate Neighbourhood Character Statement and Compatibility Guidelines (O-8102)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of London, relating to the lands located within the area bounded by St. George Street on the east, St. James Street on the south, the Thames River on the west, and Grosvenor Street on the north:

a)            the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Section 3.5.3 (Policies for Specific Residential Areas - St. George/Grosvenor Neighbourhood), to add a policy to include the Grosvenor Gate Neighbourhood Character Statement and Compatibility Guidelines, and to amend Section 19.2.2 (Guideline Documents) of the Official Plan to include the Grosvenor Gate Neighbourhood Character Statement and Compatibility Guidelines as a guideline document; and,

b)         the attached, revised, proposed Grosvenor Gate Neighbourhood Character Statement and Compatibility Guidelines BE ADOPTED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     A.M. Valastro, 1-133 John Street – advising that she lives south of Oxford Street; advising that the Civic Administration has incorporated a lot of the public’s comments into the character statement and compatibility guidelines; however, there were also a lot of comments omitted; requesting that the mature trees on the streetscape be retained; indicating that the mature trees on the property are not included as they are required to be cut down in order to incorporate the new development; indicating that the language in the Guidelines provides “wiggle” room; requesting that the words “where feasible” be tightened; requesting that the mature trees be kept; indicating that area residents were not advised of the public meeting; noting that she heard about it at a Committee of Adjustment meeting; and advising that the Planning Department advised her that they are not required to advise people of the community meeting.

·                     J. Farquhar, 383 St. George Street – advising that the Executive for the Neighbourhood Association, and the area residents, have been working with the developer on this proposal; indicating that a lot of the Neighbourhood Association members attended the community meeting; advising that she is impressed with the amount of public comments that are incorporated into these guidelines; enquiring as to whether or not there will be public input at the site plan stage; and advising that there are no zoning changes required so the community had no choice but to work with the developer.   (2012-D11-02)

16.

Property located at 2371 Highbury Avenue North (Z-8078)

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the application of The Y Group Investments & Management Inc., relating to the property located at 2371 Highbury Ave North, BE POSTPONED to a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, at the request of the applicant;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated November 2, 2012, from P. Lombardi, Siskinds Law Firm, with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Alex Yazdani, The Y Group Investments & Management Inc. – advising that her organization has terminated their relationship with their previous agent and respectfully requesting a deferral until they can provide a new proposal.

·                     J. Ross, 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East – advising that his property is immediately south of the applicant’s property; indicating that he submitted correspondence based on the justification report that was circulated; requesting that, if the matter is deferred, that it come back to a public participation meeting; and, requesting that, if a revised justification report is circulated, he be allowed to review it.   (2012-D11-08)

17.

Property located at 390 Princess Avenue (OZ-8088)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Woodfield Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 390 Princess Avenue:

a)         the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend the Official Plan, to  change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-family, High Density Residential designation;

b)            the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 20, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R8 (R8-4) Zone, which permits apartment buildings, handicapped persons apartment buildings, Lodging House Class 2, stacked townhousing, senior citizens apartment buildings, emergency care establishments and continuum-of-care facilities at a maximum density of 75 units per hectare TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4(__)•H15•B-__) Zone, to permit the above listed uses, the existing apartment building with the current number of units in its current location, and, subject to compliance with the Bonus provisions, an additional 33 unit apartment building with a maximum height of 15 metres, a minimum front yard setback of 6.7 metres, a minimum west interior side yard of 5.5 metres, a minimum rear yard depth of 5.0 metres, a parking rate for the site of 0.6 spaces per unit, and a maximum overall site density of 256 units per hectare;

c)            in addition to the density bonus provisions, the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

Site:

i)              maintenance of existing trees where possible;

ii)         landscaping to enhance the appearance of the building setbacks and yard areas, and to screen parking, loading and service facilities from adjacent properties and the public realm, including but not limited to:

A)        a landscaped forecourt in front of the building between the front (south) façade and Princess Avenue, which should be co-ordinated with existing and/or future trees within the City boulevard in front of the building and include benches and other furniture to accommodate residents of the building;

B)        landscaping in front of the parking area adjacent to Hope Street and Princess Avenue to screen it and improve its appearance on the streetscape; and,

C)        privacy plantings along the west property boundary;

iii)            the use of materials other than asphalt, and alternatives to curb and channel methods within the parking lot to create a sense of shared space;

iv)           the use of water efficient landscaping, permeable paving and/or other methods to provide green/sustainable design elements; and,

v)            redesign of the surface parking area to provide safe access from the handicapped parking spaces to the wheelchair access ramp that does not require a person to manoeuver within the parking lot drive aisle;

Building:

i)          the use of materials and colours that represent and are used in a manner that represent the texture and palette of the existing building at 390 Princess Avenue;

ii)         providing a sufficient depth to the pilasters to achieve a sense of depth, shadowing and variation in the wall plane;

iii)         extension of the pilasters located at the garage entrance to the ground;

iv)        the colour of the quoin corners in relation to the remainder of the building and the possible elimination or modification of the contrast band at the first storey level to avoid the striping effect on the building;

v)            a contrast treatment for the top level of the building other than stucco; and,

vi)           the use of light-coloured, non-heat absorbing roofing finishes, efficient building systems, natural ventilation effectiveness, and/or other methods to provide green/sustainable design elements;

d)            the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R8 (R8-4) Zone, which permits apartment buildings, handicapped persons apartment buildings, Lodging House Class 2, stacked townhousing, senior citizens apartment buildings, emergency care establishments and continuum-of-care facilities at a maximum density of 75 units per hectare TO a Residential R10 Special Provision Bonus (R10-4(__)•H15•B-__) Zone, to permit apartment buildings, Lodging House Class 2, senior citizens apartment buildings and continuum-of-care facilities at a maximum height of 15 metres and a maximum density of 300 units per hectare, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)              the R10-4 Zone permits a density which exceeds the density requested for the proposed development; and,

ii)             a suitable approach to ensuring that the proposed development meets appropriate criteria for the West Woodfield neighbourhood is to maintain the current zone category and allow development at the requested density of 256 units per hectare through the application of a Bonus Zone; and,

e)         the applicant BE REQUESTED to continue to work with the neighbourhood and the Ward Councillor;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     R. Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – expressing support for the revised recommendation; expressing appreciation to the Civic Administration for the changes that they incorporated; advising that the height and design of the proposed new building is in keeping with the neighbourhood; indicating that, without adding a single, additional unit, the site development was already in the high density range; advising that there is a great opportunity within this area to intensify; and advising that the parking is very appropriate for this site.

·                     A. Kaplansky, 599 Maitland Street – advising that the first building was built in the early 1930’s and is five stories high; indicating that the new building is only four stories high; noting that the building should be five stories or more; and advising that this will increase the tax base.

·                     A. Walsh, 390 Princess Avenue – advising that she resides on the west side of the existing building; indicating that she was concerned with the intensification and that her concerns have been addressed; indicating that the intensification is in keeping with the neighbourhood; advising that the developer has an excellent reputation; indicating that they have a proven track record and are good property owners; expressing concern that the flow of air will be curbed due to the new building; noting that she is willing to forgo her concerns if the existing trees remain and new Carolinian trees are planted; and advising that she would prefer to see the space be retained as green space instead.

·                     W. Dickinson, 522 Princess Avenue – expressing support for the application; advising that it fills in the gap in the streetscape; advising that the community has been involved in all aspects of the proposal; and advising that they are supportive of the application as it does not require the removal of a heritage structure.    (2012-D11-08)

18.

Property located at 591 Maitland Street

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, the request by J. Regehr and Renee Kaplansky for the demolition of the designated residential building at 591 Maitland Street BE DEFERRED for up to 90 days to allow the applicant to work on a new design, in consultation with the Civic Administration and the Woodfield Community Association, that is more compatible to the neighbourood; it being noted that the applicant agreed to the postponement of the application; it being noted that the applicant will report back to the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and the Planning and Environment Committee as quickly as possible with a revised design;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

·                    a communication, dated October 22, 2012, from W. Dickinson, Planning Chair, The Woodfield Community Association;

·                    a communication, dated October 19, 2012, from C. Hawkins, by e-mail;

·                    a communication, dated October 26, 2012, from A. Kaplansky;

·                    a communication from R. & J. Regehr, applicants;

·                    a communication, dated October 31, 2012, from J. House, 453 Princess Avenue;

·                    a communication, dated October 13, 2012, from C. & B. Guy, 594 Maitland Street;

·                    a communication, dated November 2, 2012, from K. Bardai, 593 Maitland Street;

·                    a communication, dated October 8, 2012, from B. Lansink, Lansink Appraisals;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from A. & M. Harkins, 526 Princess Avenue;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from E. Ansari, by e-mail;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from J. Elliott, 46 Palace Street;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from A. McColl Lindsay, by e-mail;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from J. Johnson, by e-mail;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from R. & J. McDowell, 507 Princess Avenue;

·                    a communication, dated November 4, 2012, from L. Whitney & M. Apthorp, 487 Dufferin Avenue; and,

·                    a communication, dated November 5, 2012, from H. Moon, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     R. Regehr, applicant – advising that the house is on a significant slant; indicating that their structural engineer missed a rotten beam; advising that the house is full of mould; indicating that she has the support of over 60 people in the immediate area; indicating that the West Woodfield Community Association sent out a communication indicating that people are being forced out of the area; advising that she and her husband searched for a long time for a property that they can afford, that is not an apartment or does not require a lot of money upfront to make livable; and advising that the City is becoming a donut as citizens are moving to the suburbs.

·                     A. Kaplansky, 599 Maitland Street - expressing support for the demolition; advising that he only demolishes old, dilapidated buildings; indicating that the new building will increase the tax base; and advising that he has been in this profession for 27 years.

·                     L. Lansink, 505 Colborne Street – expressing support for the application; indicating that she moved downtown 25 years ago; indicating that she lived in a dilapidated house as a child and swore she would never do so again; and advising that she has renovated her house and you would never know it.

·                     K. Bardai, 593 Maitland Street – advising that he resides beside the applicant’s property; indicating that the Woodfield Community Association does not speak for him; advising that he has resided at his residence for 17 years; indicating that, with the previous owners renting out the building, he has had endless parties, cars parked out front and on his property and loud music; indicating that he welcomes the new owners; advising that the building is ready to fall over; expressing surprise that the building survived Superstorm Sandy; indicating that the best way to look after this building is to demolish it; suggesting that the Council Members should see the interior of the building; and advising that he supports saving heritage structures, but this one is not worth saving.

·                     H. Elmslie, 42 Palace Street – advising that she lives one block, as the crow flies, away from the applicants property; advising that she finds comments that the existing house is ugly offensive as her house is similar to this one; indicating that a lack of care for a property does not mean that it has to be demolished; indicating that the Woodfield Community Association members are elected publicly and that the membership is open to anyone; noting that the Woodfield Community Association Executive is open to hearing diverse opinions; advising that the Community Association holds several events in the community; indicating that, in 2012, Woodfield was voted the Best Neighbourhood in Canada; indicating that the current property owners are new to the area; noting that she has resided at her property since 1973; indicating that the area is important to her and to the City’s Official Plan; indicating that she has little sympathy for people who do not do their homework before buying a house; advising that the West Woodfield neighourhood is one of London’s oldest neighbourhoods; noting that the neighbourhood is located prominently in the heart of the City; advising that there are a lot of 1½ storey, gable fronted properties in the area; advising that, in her personal opinion, the property located at 86 Cartwright Street does not fit into the streetscape; reiterating sections of the Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Guidelines; commending the London Advisory Committee on Heritage’s unanimous decision on this matter; indicating that this is not the most modest property on the street and it is not in the worst shape; advising that Woodfield is in between two other Heritage Conservation Districts; indicating that it is intrinsic to what makes a neighbourhood; indicating that all price ranges sell in Woodfield; indicating that the area has architectural and economic diversity; advising that the uniqueness of the area is internationally known; indicating that Woodfield has been written up in travel guides; and indicating that London was established in the 1830’s and that there is very little of the original city left.

·                     S. O’Neil – (Secretary’s Note:  Mr. O’Neil’s communication was read to the audience as Mr. O’Neil was not in attendance at the time of this item);

advising that the retention of the home is important; indicating that the people are missing the point of belonging in the Woodfield Heritage Conservation District;  indicating that if you lose the building, you lose the role the building has; advising that older homes are a statement of the past; advising that old houses are robustly built; indicating that he studies old houses; indicating that old buildings are constantly being upgraded; indicating that there is no need to demolish this building; indicating that you can tell the last three buildings that were installed in this area; and advising that the neighbourhood invests in itself.

·                     W. Dickinson, 522 Princess Avenue, on behalf of several neighbours – realizing that the decision the Committee has to make is a stark one; noting that the problem is preservation versus gentrification; indicating that the streetscape should remain intact; indicating that Heritage Conservation Districts would lose 70% of their properties if all old, small buildings were demolished; advising that if you could rely on Category A or B houses, you would not need Heritage Conservation Districts; indicating that the Committee needs to vote to preserve houses; noting that if you let this one be demolished, how can you not let others be demolished; indicating that no one objected when the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District was created; advising that she is adamant to not see houses demolished; indicating that the Pillar & Pine e-mail is sent to hundreds of people; and expressing support for the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and Civic Administration’s recommendations.   (2012-D10-00)

IV.

ITEMS FOR DIRECTION

19.

Property located at 450 Oxford Street West (OZ-8003)

Recommendation:  That the delegation request from A.R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, with respect to the application of Bluestone Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 450 Oxford Street West, BE REFERRED to the November 26, 2012 Planning and Environment Committee meeting; it being noted that the application will be coming forward at a public participation meeting at that meeting.   (2012-D11-09/2)

20.

3rd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Recommendation:  That the 3rd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment from its meeting held on October 3, 2012, BE RECEIVED.

21.

2nd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Recommendation:  That the 2nd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on October 24, 2012, BE RECEIVED.

V.

DEFERRED MATTERS/ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

22.

Performance Indicators

Recommendation:  That the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner BE DIRECTED to provide, at the end of every Committee year, a report relating to the volume of work undertaken, the key performance indicators and how much money is spent for the amount of development that occurs, by the Planning Department.

VI.

CONFIDENTIAL

(Confidential Appendix to the 28 Report of the Planning and Environment Committee enclosed for members only.)

The Planning and Environment Committee convened in camera from 9:09 p.m. to 9:09 p.m., after having passed a motion to do so, with respect to the following matter:

C-1

A personal matter about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees, relating to the 2013 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

VII.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.