Recommendation: That, notwithstanding the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the
following actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of
London relating to Section 3.2.3.1. “Residential Intensification Definition”
and Section 3.2.3.5. “Public Site Plan Review and Urban Design policies” of
the Official Plan, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for
further clarification; and,
pursuant to Section 34(17) of
the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, NO FURTHER
NOTICE BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed Official Plan
amendments, as the proposed amendments are minor;
it being pointed out that at
the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following
individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
M.
Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., representing several clients – indicating
that, in the Civic Administration’s recommendation, there are beneficial
changes proposed to the Official Plan; questioning the requirement for the
site plan approval process; advising that some of the paragraphs in the
report seem to contradict each other; and advising that, in the past
applicants didn’t need site plan approval, they just applied for a building
permit.
·
R.
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the London Area Planning
Consultants (LAPC) – expressing appreciation to the Planning Department for
their meaningful discussions; advising that the LAPC has concerns with the
staff report; indicating that the Official Plan policies are a deterrent to
intensification; advising that the policy changes provide more discretion and
allow for a shorter process; noting that the LAPC will need to see how this
is implemented; indicating that LAPC has asked that where development conforms
to zoning, they not go through a public site plan process; noting that the
Civic Administration’s response to this request is in-line; advising that
existing policies force new development into a specific area; indicating that,
through Re-Think London as coordinated by the Planning Department, change in
character is encouraged; noting that compatibility is not to be seen as
sameness; indicating that in the Civic Administration’s report, the
Residential Intensification Policies are open to further review; indicating
that this review is intended to deal with a narrow scope; noting that further
review is necessary and indicating that he would be pleased to participate in
the review process.
·
J.
Kennedy, London Development Institute and London Home Builders Association
(LHBA) – advising that this review relates more to the LHBA than to
developers; requesting clarification on a number of items as the wording is
still not clear; noting that on page 171, there may be possible site plan
control by-law changes and there may be some staff discretion; advising that
the devil is in the details and that there may be further wording revisions
necessary.
·
A.
Kaplansky, KAP HOLDINGS INC. – indicating that he has been a developer in
London for 27 years; advising that he has learned from the Planning
Department, that when they ask for clarification it makes things worse; reading
“Purpose of this Amendment” on page 182 of the Planning and Environment
Committee Agenda; advising that the Civic Administration is making infill worse;
advising that if he wants to sever a lot, he needs to get Committee of
Adjustment approval; indicating that contemporary architects cannot work in
London; enquiring as to whether you are allowing intensification when you put
in more restrictions; realizing that it is important to allow infill in
London; advising that the Planning Department is using the Provincial Policy
Statement to eliminate and control infill; and noting the previous decision
PEC made with respect to his properties located at 186-188 Huron Street and 2
Audrey Avenue, relating to infill. (2012-D11-02)
|