I.

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

1.

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

II.

CONSENT ITEMS

2.

3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Recommendation:  That the 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 27, 2013 BE RECEIVED.

3.

4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Recommendation:  That the 4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment from its meeting held on April 3, 2013 BE RECEIVED.

4.

Property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North (OZ-7972)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council has reviewed a 4th and 5th concept plan, as submitted by the applicant, and see no reason to change the Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on March 21, 2011; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from W. Pol, on behalf of the area residents, C. McDonnell, 525 Huron Street, S. Allen, MHBC Planning, on behalf of York Developments and A. Soufan, President, York Developments, with respect to this matter.  (2013-D14A)

5.

Building Division Monthly Report for February 2013

Recommendation:  That the Building Division Monthly Report for February 2013 BE RECEIVED.   (2013-D00)

III.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

6.

5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Recommendation:  That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage from its meeting held on April 10, 2013:

a)         the following actions be taken with respect to the Heritage Alteration Application for 534 English Street:

i)              on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of M. McCullough, requesting permission for a solar panel installation on the designated heritage property located at 534 English Street, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed installation and has advised that the impact of such alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation is necessary for the purpose intended and is reversible in the future; and, 

ii)         subject to the approval of i), above, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) recommends that a black background solar panel BE REQUIRED;

it being noted that the LACH heard a verbal delegation from A. Hall-Holland, on behalf of the owner, M. McCullough, with respect to this matter;

b)         on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of J. Tedesco, requesting permission for an sign alteration to the designated heritage property located at 762 Dundas Street, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed alteration and has advised that the impact of such alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation is reversible; it being further noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) heard a verbal delegation from M. Hussein, with respect to this matter;

c)         the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 275 Thames Street (Fugitive Slave Chapel):

i)          a notice of the Municipal Council's intention to designate the property located at 275 Thames Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest BE GIVEN, for the attached reasons, under the provisions of subsection 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18;

ii)         the City of London BE REQUESTED to establish a source of financing for an Archaeological Assessment of the properties located at 275 Thames Street (Fugitive Slave Chapel) and the two adjacent properties located at 277 and 281 Thames Street;

iii)         the garage and the most westerly addition of 275 Thames Street (Fugitive Slave Chapel) BE REMOVED; it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) was advised by G. Goodlet with respect to a communication from the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario stating that a professional opinion had been received recommending the removal of these structures; it being further noted that the removal of the structures should be delayed until such time as an Archaeological Assessment has been carried out;

it being also noted that the LACH reviewed and received the following with respect to this matter:

·                     a communication dated November 9, 2011, from J. Rees, Beamish, the Living Museum of the North, with respect to moving buildings;

·                     a communication dated April 5, 2013, from H. Martelle, Heritage Consultants Inc.;

·                     a verbal delegation from D. Erksine, Aboutown Transportation;

·                     a verbal delegation from G. Hodder, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario; and,

·                     a verbal delegation from S. Baidoobonso and D. McNeish, Fugitive Slave Chapel Preservation Project, and E. Corrigan, and was provided with written material on the history of the Fugitive Slave Chapel, 275 Thames Street;

d)         the following actions be taken with respect to the Heritage Alteration Application for 792 Lorne Avenue:

i)          on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of J. Eastabrook, requesting permission for alterations to the designated heritage property located at 792 Lorne Avenue, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed changes and has advised that the impact of such alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation is negligible; and,

ii)         subject to the approval noted in a), above, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) recommends that wood BE USED in place of the proposed composite wood Trex for the frames and porch deck;

e)          that clauses 5 through 9, inclusive, of the 5th Report of the LACH, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from George Goodlet, Chair, LACH, with respect to these matters.

7.

Various Streets Listed in Section 4.21 of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (Z-8142)

Recommendation:  That, on 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 various streets listed in Section 4.21 of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1:

a)            the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013  to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to add, amend and delete various streets listed in Section 4.21 “Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads” of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1; and,

b)         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 by-law;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.    (2013-D14A)

8.

City Wide Stacked Parking (Z-8150)

Recommendation:  That, on 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 a City Wide amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 pertaining to stacked parking:

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to:

i)              add to Section 2 Definitions, between “SPECIES, VULNERABLE OR SPECIES AT RISK” and “STACKING LANE”, the definition “STACKED PARKING” means a parking space that is positioned above or below another parking space and is accessed by means of an elevating device;

ii)         change Section 4.19 2) to add, at the end of the sentence, the words “but does not apply to stacked parking”;

iii)         to change Section 4.19 6) (b) to add, at the end of the sentence, the words “but does not apply to stacked parking”; and,

iv)        to change Section 4.19 6) (c) by deleting the word “or” after “dwelling” and before “townhouse”, and adding the words “or stacked parking” after “dwelling” and before “provided” and adding the words after “unit”  “and when using stacked parking, to provide required parking, that the following shall be required:

A)           stacked parking be located wholly within a structure; and,

B)        a development agreement be entered into which includes:

I)          implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in a Traffic Impact Analysis  which includes a functional parking study to the satisfaction of the City;

II)         implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in a noise and vibration study to the satisfaction of the City; and,

III)        a qualified operator, certified by TSSA, in the operation of a stacked parking device be provided at all times.”;

b)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change Section 4.19 6) (d) by adding the words “stacked parking” between the words “barrier” and “or” and to add the words “but does not include the use of any fee to remove these temporary barriers to any driveway or entrance required to access a required parking space excluding institutional uses and legally established commercial parking structures or lots” after the word “vehicle”;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.     (2013-D14A)

9.

Properties located at 325, 345, 365 and 385 Sugar Creek Trail (Formerly: 570, 572, 576 and 580 Beaverbrook Avenue)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Manager, Development Services and Planning Liaison, the following actions be taken with respect to the Site Plan approval application of Old Oak Properties, relating to the properties located at 325, 345, 365 & 385 Sugar Creek Trail:

a)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that there were no issues raised at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the application for site plan approval;

b)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports the granting of approval of the site plan application, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, for four apartment buildings at 325, 345, 365 & 386 Sugar Creek Trail; 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 April 23, 2013;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.     (2013-D11)

10.

Property located at 160 Sunningdale Road West (Z-8151)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Manager, Development Planning, based on the application of Cobblestone Gate Land Corp., relating to the property located at 160 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013 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 R1 (h. h-100 R1-6) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings with an interior sideyard setback of 1.2 metres for a one storey dwelling plus 0.6 metres for each storey above one storey TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provisions (h. h-100 R1-6(4)) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings with a 1.2 metre interior sideyard setback regardless of the number of storeys;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.     (2013-D14A)

11.

Property located at 736 Talbot Street (Z-8149)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Robert Edward and Cindy Lynn Sedge, relating to the property located at 736 Talbot Street: 

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R10 (h-1*R10-3*H-36) Zone, which permits apartment buildings to a maximum height of 36 metres and a maximum density of 250 units per hectare, TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-1*BDC(  )) Zone, which permits a 4 storey mixed use apartment building with offices and studios on the ground floor and 9 residential dwelling units located in the rear portion of the ground floor or above the ground floor with a maximum height of 12 metres and maximum density of 250 units per hectare, a maximum lot coverage of 78% and a minimum of 6 parking spaces with a holding provision to ensure noise and vibration measures are incorporated into the building design;

b)         the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to address the following design matters:

·                     ensure that the roof style is consistent with the neighbourhood character. A flat roof style should be considered as a design alternative to the Mansard roof to respond to the neighbourhood character and building type;

·                     create an urban courtyard environment at the north-west corner of the site to improve the visibility of the commercial entrance. Reconfigure landscaping to achieve this, including removing or relocating the proposed landscaping along Piccadilly Street;

·                     provide a more prominent principal entrance at Piccadilly and Talbot Streets to improve the visibility of the commercial unit. This can be achieved through the building massing by creating an angled entrance (within the visibility triangle) as well as providing a more prominent canopy feature;

·                     emphasize the residential entrance on Piccadilly Street through architectural elements, such as a small overhang/canopy feature, and align the windows above with this entrance;

·                     ensure that any signage proposed for the commercial unit is integrated within the façade;

·                     explore opportunities to break up the visual bulk of the south elevation through recesses in the façade; and,

·                     provide additional French balconies, where possible, to break up the visual bulk of the façades; and,

c)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Planning and Environment Committee, upon completion of the design matters outlined in part b), above;       

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.     (2013-D14A)

12.

Property located at 655 Tennent Avenue (39T-13501/Z-8139)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Wastell Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 655 Tennent Avenue:

a)            the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that at the public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised by area residents with respect to increased traffic in the area and requesting a park;   

b)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, as submitted by Wastell Developments Inc., (File No. 39T-13501, prepared by Ricor Engineering Limited, certified by Robert Stirling, OLS, FKS Land Surveyors, as redline revised which shows 44 single detached lots and 1 walkway block served by 1 new local street, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the attached, revised, Appendix "C";

c)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 30, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone, which permits uses such as schools TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 12.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 360 square metres, a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 12.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 450 square metres, and a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-5(   )) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings with a special provision for a minimum lot frontage of 11.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 450 square metres; and,

d)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to liaise with the Thames Valley District School Board to determine if a larger section of the soccer field can be acquired for a park;

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

·                    Rick Dykstra, Ricor Engineering, applicant – expressing appreciation to the Civic Administration and the residents for their input; indicating that the redline mark-up is not ideal; indicating that there is a division between residents that would like to have a walkway and those that prefer not to have a walkway; indicating that Canada Post can charge the Developer for the installation of community mailboxes; and advising that they do not anticipate any impact to the school during construction.

·                    Sigmar Martin, 630 Tennent Avenue, on behalf of area residents – see attached presentation.

·                    John Kiteley, 1119 Glenora Drive – indicating that he is not opposed to the installation of a walkway as long as it is connected to green space; advising that the walkway is sometimes used at night as a gathering place; and advising that the Police have been called in the past.

·                    Dave Pinheiro, 649 Tennent Avenue – indicating that things in the area are changing quickly; advising that they are asking for a park, which is a small ask; advising that community parks keep families and neighbourhoods together; indicating that he realizes that there are issues with walkways; advising that, in the past the Thames Valley District School Board has assisted with walkway concerns; enquiring as to what is happening with the existing fence as it will impact his driveway; and enquiring as to whether or not there will be one main entrance for construction vehicles.

·                    Rod Morley, 1291 Rideau Gate – requesting that areas in the city be intensified so that we do not have to expand into the Urban Growth Boundary; advising that there will be increased traffic on Fanshawe Park Road and Adelaide Street North; indicating that Glenora Drive and Glengarry Street have both undergone traffic calming measures; enquiring as to what is happening with the pedestrian light at Fanshawe Park Road and Tennent Avenue; recommending less homes and more park space; and recommending that the developer work with the neighbourhood.

·                    Anna Parker, 1272 Glenora Drive – advising that the traffic on Glenora Drive is terrible; indicating that she cannot imagine adding 44 more homes to the area; indicating that there are no sidewalks; advising that safety is a concern; and advising that, with the increased traffic, there may be an accident involving kids.   (2013-D14A/D12)

13.

Properties located at 275, 277 and 281 Thames Street

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken regarding the listed properties located at 275, 277 and 281 Thames Street:

a)         the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that, subject to archaeological matters being addressed, the Municipal Council does not intend to designate the properties located at 277 and 281 Thames Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) has been consulted on this matter;

b)         if the applicant concurs with a deferral of the demolition request for the property located at 275 Thames Street, Notice of Intent to designate the property located at 275 Thames Street, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, BE DEFERRED pending the possible relocation of the main building to another site;

c)         if the relocation of the main building to a new site is not possible, the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to issue a Notice of Intent to designate the property located at 275 Thames Street for the reasons identified in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, as appended to the staff report dated April 23, 2013; it being noted that if the main building can be successfully located to another site, a revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest to refer to its new location shall be required;

d)         if the relocation of the building at 275 Thames Street requires a zoning amendment, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a City initiated zoning amendment to expedite this process;

e)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the historical interpretation of the Thames Street neighbourhood, through interpretive signage or a commemorative monument, in a place that is easily accessible to the public; it being noted that consultation among the Historic Sites Committee, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and the Fugitive Slave Chapel Preservation Project is encouraged; and,

it being noted that the archaeological/heritage community hopes to initiate a community driven archaeological assessment of the site and that the Civic Administration will advise the Municipal Council should there be a request for additional support for such an assessment; and,

            it being further noted that the Civic Administration will report back on the progress prior to the 60 day deferral;

f)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish a source of financing to support an archaeological assessment on all three properties (275, 277 and 281 Thames Street);

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

·                     a communication, dated April 12, 2013, from G. Hodder, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario London Region;

·                     a communication, dated March 20, 2013, from S. Baidoobonso, Chair, London Black History Coordinating Committee;

·                     a communication, dated April 14, 2013, S. McRae, President, London and Middlesex Historical Society;

·                     a communication, dated April 14, 2013, from M. Mlotha, Board of Directors, African Canadian Federation of London & Area;

·                     a communication, dated April 12, 2013, from J. Odanga Edubagwa (PhD), President, Kenyan-Canadians in London Ontario;

·                     a communication, dated March 16, 2013, from I. Seddon, 138 Chalet Crescent;

·                     a communication from R. Cory, 193 Duchess Avenue; and,

·                     a communication, dated April 14, 2013, from S. Liggett, Chair, Hidden History of Hamilton Road Committee;

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

·                     Mark Snowsell, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority – advising that the focus is where it should be, on the cultural aspect of the property; indicating that the properties are located in the floodplain and may also be in the floodway; advising that this may cause issues and constraints and may trigger a planning application.

·                     Gary Brown, 35A – 59 Ridout Street – advising that this is a larger context than the City of London; asking people to imagine the outrage if someone wanted to tear down Shakespeare’s home; advising that he first heard about the Chapel in the early 1980’s from his grandparents who were visiting from England; indicating that the Church welcomes needy people; advising that the owner is proposing to remove the building to install a parking lot; noting that four buildings are being removed at Western Fair and buildings are being removed at Thames Park to install parking lots; recommending that the building be designated; and advising that not dealing with the matter tonight just delays it and the same conclusion will be reached.

·                     Joe O’Neil, Jr, 350 William Street – advising that this is part of the Underground Railroad; advising that there is a plaque in Victoria Park delineating the first Black School in London; advising that Garland H. White, War Secretary for Abraham Lincoln, was the first person to suggest having coloured troops; advising that they are pushing for historical designation of the Chapel; advising that this matter is being watched by other Black groups across Ontario; indicating that co-operation from the owner is paramount; recommending that history and property rights be balanced; expressing support for the archaeological digs; indicating that the potential for burials behind the Chapel is low as the area was all swamps; and advising that there is a lot of support for the preservation of the Chapel. 

·                     Tanya Park, 300 South Street, President, SoHo Community Association – expressing support for the retention of the Chapel; advising that the historical significance of the Chapel is the equivalent to Banting House and Fanshawe Pioneer Village; indicating that it could be a tourist attraction; indicating that it reconnects Beth Emmanuel Church with its roots; and advising that Beth Emmanuel Church feeds 200 people a week in a room that fits 40 people.

·                     Reverend Delta McNeish, Beth Emmanuel Church – expressing appreciation to everyone who has attended the Planning and Environment Committee meeting; advising that the building is extremely important to them and will benefit the community; and advising that she would like the building moved to the Church property.

·                     Oliver Hobson, 45 Evergreen Avenue – indicating that he is a representative on the London Advisory Committee on Heritage; advising that the building and backyards are rich in potential for artifacts; and, requesting that the City tread carefully as he has seen pushback when the City designates a building against the owners’ wishes.

·                     Roberta Cory, 485 Duchess Avenue – advising that the fact that the Chapel exists and is in London is a big deal; advising that it represents the dreams, hopes and aspirations of so many people; noting that not everyone made it to the Chapel; advising that she was recently in Maryland, USA, and they are very interested in information on the Chapel; and advising that it connects both entrances of the Railway, from Niagara to Detroit.

·                     Roxanne Lutz, 8 Argyle Street – advising that there is lots of talk about budget and funding; and enquiring whether or not there could be funding for a project like this.

·                     James Donnelly, President, Aboutown Transportation – see attached communication.

·                     Derek McBurney, 4 – 466 South Street – advising that the Chapel was a wonderful place to visit as a child; indicating that you could still talk to grandparents and great grandparents who went through the Chapel; and advising that the City needs to rediscover its history.     (2013-P10D/R01)

14.

Industrial Lands Review (O-8014)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the staff report, dated April 23, 2013, BE RECEIVED for information in association with the April 23, 2013 public participation meeting regarding the Urban Growth Boundary expansion for future industrial development, it being noted that a proposed Official Plan Amendment to expand the Urban Growth Boundary for future industrial development will be considered at a future public participation meeting;

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

·                     Sean Ford, 15875 Robins Hill Road – expressing appreciation for the opportunity to speak; expressing appreciation to the Civic Administration for the efforts on this matter; expressing support for the 500 hectares of new Urban Reserve Industrial Growth Lands; expressing an interest in the Wilton Grove and Highbury Avenue area; expressing support for the Highway 401 and Highway 402 strategy; indicating that the 500 hectares may be on the light side; advising that there have been four large sites that have been completed; expressing support for the Evaluation Criteria; requesting that the Civic Administration be flexible; and indicating that some locations will sell faster than others.

·                     Joseph Plutino, Mainline – see attached communication.

·                     Brad McLellan, 4759 Wellington Road South – indicating that the Exeter Road/Highway 401 entrance to London is not utilized; advising that this is a great opportunity to expand infill; advising that infill should be undertaken near White Oak Road; advising that, near Orgaworld, there should be more Light Industrial development; advising that you can travel straight across Westminster Road and the only bottleneck is the Westminster Bridge; indicating that the Shaver subdivision has a public and a high school and you should consider building Light Industrial in that area; indicating that the area around Highway 401 should be Commercial; advising that on Wellington Road South, you have hydro, water, sewers and trunk lines for both Rogers and Bell; advising that the area on Wellington Road South has high visibility; recommending that Dingman Drive be surrounded with Light Industrial; suggesting that you need more than 500 hectares of land; and indicating that large companies are looking for a lot of land.

·                     Jack, 3226 Westminster Drive and representing his neighbors at 3356 Westminster Drive and 3045 Dingman Drive – expressing support for the Industrial Land Strategy; requesting that the City does what it can now rather than waiting for 10 years; requesting that what you say you will do, is what is done; requesting that the Civic Administration work with the private landowners to supplement growth; indicating that Highway 401 is a tremendous asset; indicating that he has approximately 150 acres in the Urban Growth Boundary and 90 acres outside of the Urban Growth Boundary; requesting that his entire property be put in the Urban Growth Boundary; indicating that he has services in the area and the property is ready to be developed; and advising that he believes in the city, invests in the city and lives in the city.

·                     Rod Morley, 1291 Rideau Gate – advising that he has issues with the ideas and concepts; noting that it is the same things that have been done in the past, and hoping for different results; indicating that the city is cheapening what is already there; and, advising that many Industrial lands could be redeveloped and could be infilled, with everything already serviced.

·                     Gary Brown, 35A – 59 Ridout Street – advising that there has been a lot of talk about intensification at the meeting tonight; indicating that he sees a lot of empty space on Clarke Road; indicating that we should use the lands we have more efficiently; indicating that 2.8 million acres of farmland has been lost in Ontario; indicating that food security is a serious issue; and, advising that only .½% of the land is classified as farmland and most of that is in Southwestern Ontario.

·                     Jay McGuffin, Monteith Brown, on behalf of Farhi Holdings Corporation – advising that Mr. Farhi has in excess of 500 acres; advising that his clients’ lands are appropriately situated with significant frontage on Highway 402, Colonel Talbot Road, Longwoods Road, Murray Road and approximate to the convergence of Highways 402 and 401; and indicating that the lands considered for employment and community growth purposes.

·                     Stan Topilko, 4653 White Oak Road – see attached communication.

·                     Peter White, London Economic Development Corporation – advising that due to the lateness of the matter being dealt with, several people had to leave; requesting an extension for communications to be received and placed on the Council Agenda; expressing support for the Civic Administration’s efforts; advising that he has met with a number of interested landowners; noting that he is receiving good feedback from the Industry; advising that the most recent largest transactions of land have been for 29 and 21 acres; and advising that he is pleased that the process is moving forward.

·                     Jamie Crook, 1766 Wilton Grove Road, on behalf of his neighbours at 1874 and 1811 Wilton Grove Road – advising that most of their properties front onto Highway 401; advising that he is trying to determine what the future development in this area will be; and requesting that the lands be included in the Urban Growth Boundary.    (2013-D08)

IV.

ITEMS FOR DIRECTION

15.

Blackfriars Community Infill Projects

Recommendation:  That, the following actions be taken with respect to the verbal presentation from the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner and the Manager, Development Services & Planning Liaison and the communication, from K. and D. Bice, 2 Leslie Street, relating to Blackfriars community infill projects:

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the implementation of an Interim Control By-law for the area;

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the initiation of a City lead rezoning of the subject area from an R2 Zone to an R1 Zone;

c)         the request for a Heritage Conservation District BE PRIORITIZED on the list of Heritage Conservation Districts that will incorporate heritage character design guidelines;

d)         a public site plan meeting BE HELD;

e)         a by-law BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1455-541, a by-law to designated a site plan control area and to delegate Council’s power under section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 with respect to an application for site plan approval submitted by Andrew Hines for the property located at 108 Wilson Avenue;

f)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with representatives from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources; and,

g)         K. Bice, on behalf of area residents, BE GRANTED delegation status when the Civic Administration reports back to the Planning and Environment Committee on this matter.   (2013-D04)

V.

DEFERRED MATTERS/ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

VI.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.