|
|
Council
MINUTES
13TH MEETING
|
|
|
July 30, 2013
|
|
|
|
The Council meets in Regular Session in the
Council Chambers this day at 4:02 p.m.
|
|
|
|
PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant and C. Saunders (City Clerk).
ABSENT: J.B. Swan, P. Van Meerbergen and
S.E. White.
ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P. Barber, J.
Braam, S. Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, M. Hayward, G.T. Hopcroft, J. Kobarda, G.
Kotsifas, L. Livingstone, L. Marshall, V. McAlea Major, D. O’Brien, J. Page,
R. Paynter, M. Ribera, L.M. Rowe, J. Smout, B. Warner and B. Westlake-Power.
|
|
Councillor M. Brown discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 3 of the 20th Report of the Corporate Services Committee
having to do with local improvement charges and Sherwood Forest Public School
by indicating that he is employed by the Thames Valley District School
Board. Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause
21 of the 20th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with
an appointment to the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee
by indicating that the subject individual is his spouse's supervisor.
Councillor M. Brown also discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 13 of the
17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to do with the
property at 655 Tennent Avenue by indicating that he is employed by the
Thames Valley District School Board.
|
|
Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 9 of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective
Services Committee having to do with the Ontario Works Service Plan by
indicating that he is the Executive Director of a social services agency that
has a Purchase of Service Agreement with Ontario Works. Councillor Hubert
further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause C-1 of the Confidential
Appendix to the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services
Committee having to do with a matter to be considered for the purpose of
instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation
pertaining to a proposed disposition of land; advice that is subject to
solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that
purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of
the Corporation pertaining to a proposed or pending disposition of land;
commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the
proposed disposition the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to,
prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly
with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in
similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is
in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied,
and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial
institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed
acquisition or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary
value or potential monetary value; information concerning the proposed
disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the
economic interests of the Corporation or its competitive position;
information concerning the proposed disposition whose disclosure could
reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the
Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or
to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed
disposition, with respect to the Dearness Home; personal matters, including
information regarding identifiable individuals, including municipal
employees, with respect to employment-related matters; labour relations and
employee negotiations; and advice or recommendations of officers and
employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that
purpose; and for the purpose of giving instructions and directions to
officers and employees of the Corporation and the related Bill No. 356,
pertaining to the current location of Ontario Works by indicating that he is
the Executive Director of a social services agency that has a Purchase of
Service Agreement with Ontario Works.
|
|
Councillor D. Brown discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 24 of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective
Services Committee having to do with an extension to the lifecycle of
limousines, by indicating that her employer operates a limousine business.
|
|
Councillor J.P. Bryant discloses a
pecuniary interest in clause 4 of the 8th Report of the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee having to do with London’s Medical Innovation
and Commercialization Network vision, by indicating that her spouse is on the
faculty of Western University.
|
|
MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe to Approve that Council rise and go
into Committee of the Whole in camera, for the purpose of considering the
following:
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
|
|
That Council rise
and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose of considering
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
a)
|
A matter to be
considered for the purpose of instructions and directions to officers and
employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed disposition of land;
advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or
recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a
proposed or pending disposition of land; commercial and financial information
supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed disposition the disclosure
of which could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the
competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other
negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer
being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that
similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or
gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency;
commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition or disposition
that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary
value; information concerning the proposed disposition whose disclosure could
reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the Corporation
or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed disposition
whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the
financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any
negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the
Corporation concerning the proposed disposition, with respect to the Dearness
Home; personal matters, including information regarding identifiable
individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to
employment-related matters; labour relations and employee negotiations; and
advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation,
including communications necessary for that purpose; and for the purpose of
giving instructions and directions to officers and employees of the
Corporation (C1/13/CPSC)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
The Council rises and goes in camera at 4:16
PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.
The Committee of the Whole rises and Council
resumes in regular session at 5:06 PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and
all Members present except Councillors Swan, Van Meerbergen and White.
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and
seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve the Minutes of the 12th Meeting
held on June 25, 2013.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve referral of the following
communications for consideration with the noted clauses:
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to
Approve clauses 1, 3 to 16, 19 and 20.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the supply and delivery of crew
cab and chassis:
a) the
tender for the Supply and Delivery of Twenty-Five (25) Crew Cab and Chassis
submitted by Carrier Centres, 645 Athlone Place, Woodstock, Ontario N4S 7V8
at their tendered price of $1,704,425.00 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED;
b) the
funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which
are necessary in connection with this award; and,
d) the
approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this
approval. (2013-L04)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the Supply and Delivery of
Platform Type Dump Bodies:
a) the
tender for the Supply and Delivery of Twenty-Five (25) Platform Type Dump
Bodies submitted by Commander Industries, 16A Second Street, Strathroy, ON,
N7G 3H7 at their tendered price of $542,240.00 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED;
b) the
funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which
are necessary in connection with this award; and,
d) approvals
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this
approval. (2013-L04)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the award of a contract for the
construction of the Gordon Sanitary Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation:
a) the
proposal submitted by Liqui-Force Services, 2015 Spinks Dr., Kingsville, ON
at its price of $2,287,000.00 excluding H.S.T., for the Gordon Sanitary Trunk
Sewer Rehabilitation project BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that Liqui-Force
Services was the only contractor to respond to a Request for Proposal and
their submission meets the City's specifications and requirements in all
areas;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) Dillon
Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and
contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate,
on file, at an amount of $54,560.00 excluding H.S.T, based upon the Fee
Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, 2006; it being noted that
the award is in accordance with Section 15, Clause 15.2(g) of the Procurement
of Goods and Services Policy;
d) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with these projects; and,
e) the
approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied
and the work to be done with respect to these projects. (2013-A05)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to land transfers with the Ministry
of Transportation for the proposed Highway 401 / Highbury Avenue Interchange:
a) all
City-owned parcels of land identified on the Location Map in Appendix ‘A’ to
the staff report dated July 22, 2013 being Parts 3, 4 and 5 on Plan 33R-18627
BE DEDICATED as public highway; and,
b) the
parcels of land identified on the Location Map in Appendix ‘A’ to the staff
report dated July 22, 2103, being Parts 3 and 4 on Plan 33R-18627 which are
to be dedicated from the City to the Ministry of Transportation BE DECLARED
surplus to the needs of the City and BE TRANSFERRED to the Ministry of
Transportation. (2013-L07)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 for
the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111).
(2013-C01)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 for
the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111) to address
safety concerns during the Western Fair. (2013-C01)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the Wilton Avenue and Oakland
Avenue Watermain Improvements (EW3563-13):
a) the
estimate submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Limited, 169 Fenmar Drive, North
York, Ontario, M9L 1M6 at a price of $304,951.38 excluding H.S.T for the
Wilton Avenue and Oakland Avenue Watermain Improvements BE ACCEPTED; it being
noted that the sections of Watermain on Wilton Avenue and Oakland Avenue have
insufficient flows to provide proper fire protection and are being lined to
maintain an acceptable fire flow to the area as required by the Fire Underwriters
Survey; it being further noted that the estimate submitted by Fer-Pal
Construction Limited is an extension of their 2013 Watermain Cleaning and
Structural Lining Program and contract unit prices were maintained;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this project; and,
d) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-E08)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consultant
for the contract administration services for the Old Victoria No. 2 SWM
Facility (ES3020-OV2):
a) Delcan,
1069 Wellington Road South, Suite 214, London Ontario BE APPOINTED Consulting
Engineers to carry out the contract administration services and post
construction monitoring of the said project in the amount of $87,209
including contingency, excluding HST; in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of
the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy and based on the Fee Guideline
for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional
Engineers;
b) the
financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of
Financing Report” appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract with the consultant for the work; and,
d) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consultant
for the functional design services for the Wickerson No. S-B SWM Facility
(ESSWM-SB):
a) AECOM
Canada Inc., 250 York Street, Citi Plaza, Suite 410, London Ontario N6A 6K2
BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to carry out the functional design for said
project in the amount of $170,254,00 including contingency, excluding HST, in
accordance with Section 15.2(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services
Policy and based on the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services,
recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;
b) the
financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of
Financing Report” appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,
d) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-A05)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Roads and Transportation, the following actions be taken with
respect to the reprioritization of the Western Road (TS1489) and Bradley
Avenue East (TS1479-1) widening projects:
a) the
Western Road Widening from Platts Lane to Oxford Street, BE ADDED to the 2014
Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update in the year 2017 as the
project was identified in the 2030 Transportation Master Plan as a 0-5 year
need;
b) the
timing of the Bradley Avenue East Widening BE RESCHEDULED to the 5 to 10 year
horizon in the 2014 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update;
c) the
approved 2013 Growth Capital Funding from the Bradley Avenue East Widening BE
REALLOCATED; and,
d) a
budget of $450,000 to initiate the Western Road Widening (TS1489) BE APPROVED
as set out in the Sources of Financing Report appended to the staff report
dated July 22, 2013. (2013-E02)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Roads and Transportation, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Gore Road Bridge Replacement (TS1214):
a) the
Gore Road Bridge Replacement Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Schedule ‘B’ Project File BE ACCEPTED;
b) a Notice of Completion for the
project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,
c) the
Gore Road Bridge Replacement Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project
File BE PLACED on public record for a 30 day review period. (2013-T04)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Environment, Fleet & Solid Waste, the addition of plastic
garden containers and large pails (up to 20 litres) to the Blue Box program
BE APPROVED; it being noted that the revenue from the sale of these materials
will offset most or all of the recycling costs. (2013-E07)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Environment, Fleet & Solid Waste the following actions be taken
with respect to the packaging and removal of waste electrical and electronic
equipment from City of London depots:
a) approval
hereby BE GIVEN to enter into a one (1) year contract for the packaging and
removal of waste electrical and electronic equipment from City of London
depots with Global Electric Electronic Processing Inc. (GEEP) with an option
to renew for a further one (1) year at the City’s discretion;
b) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this contract;
c) approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory
prices, terms and conditions with GEEP to the satisfaction of both the
Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer and the Managing Director, Environmental & Engineering Services
& City Engineer; and,
d) approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this
approval. (2013-L04B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Environment, Fleet & Solid Waste, the staff report dated July
22, 2013 with respect to the Key Energy Stakeholder Engagement – Community
Energy Action Plan BE RECEIVED. (2013-E19)
|
|
That the communication dated July 14, 2013,
from Councillor M. Brown, with respect to the Sidewalk Repair Program, BE
REFERRED to staff for a report back to the Civic Works Committee. (2013-t04)
|
|
That the communication dated July 12, 2013,
from Councillor H. L. Usher and Councillor D. G. Henderson, with respect to
the realignment of Highway 401 at Colonel Talbot Road BE REFERRED back to
staff for a report back to the Civic Works Committee. (2013-T09)
|
Motion
Passed
YEAS:
J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe,
M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 2.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002:
a) a
communication BE SENT to the Ministry of Environment seeking further
clarification with respect to the individual responsibility with respect to
the Standards of Care Provision;
b) based
upon the response to a), above, the City’s indemnification by-law, BE
REVIEWED to see what amendments might be in order to better protect Council
Members and staff; and,
c) the
report dated July 22, 2013 with respect to Ontario's Safe Drinking Water Act,
2002 Standards of Care Provision, including the attached
document entitled “Safe Drinking Water and Standard of Care”, BE RECEIVED.
|
Pursuant to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure
By-law, Councillor H.L. Usher calls for a separate vote on clause 2a).
The
motion to Approve clause 2a) is put.
|
Motion Failed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown (6)
NAYS: J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M.
Brown, P. Hubert, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (6)
|
|
The motion to Approve the balance of clause
2 is put.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
Clause 2, as amended, reads as follows:
That the following actions be taken with
respect to Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002:
a) the
City’s Indemnification By-laws BE REVIEWED to see what amendments might be in
order to better protect Council Members and staff; and,
b) the
report dated July 22, 2013 with respect to Ontario's Safe Drinking Water Act,
2002 Standards of Care Provision, including the attached
document entitled “Safe Drinking Water and Standard of Care”, BE RECEIVED.
|
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 17.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director,
Roads and Transportation, the following actions be taken with respect to the
Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability South of Hamilton Road Bridge Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Schedule “B”:
a) the
Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability South of Hamilton Road Bridge Municipal
Class EA Schedule “B” Project File BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that two
recommended servicing alternatives to the Municipal Class EA Study are: Slope
Stabilization with Pottersburg Creek Channel Realignment or Buyout of Residential
Properties to remove the gabion baskets and re-grade the slope to a stable
incline;
b) a Notice of Completion of
Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,
c) the
Municipal Class EA Schedule “B” Project File for the Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability
South of Hamilton Road Bridge BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review
period.
it being noted that the Civic Works
Committee (CWC) received the attached presentation from the
Manager of Stormwater with respect to this matter;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual
made an oral submission in connection therewith:
• A.
Dixon, 1199 Hamilton Road – pointing out that option #1 will limit the
emergency exits and suggesting that option #4 is in the best interest of the
residents. (2013-E20)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 18.
|
That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED
to bring forward the necessary proposed by-law(s) to a public participation
meeting to be held by the Civic Works Committee on August 19, 2013 to give
consideration to deleting the fee exemption for the initial pilot program
area for the Residential Parking Pass Program. (2013-T02)
|
|
Motion Failed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, S. Orser, H.L. Usher
(3)
NAYS: B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.L.
Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, J.P.
Bryant (9)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to
bring forward a proposed draft by-law, at a public participation meeting of
the appropriate Standing Committee, to amend the Fees and Charges By-law to
provide Trowbridge Avenue with the same Residential Parking Pass Program fee
exemption as the initial pilot program; it being noted that the Trowbridge
Avenue residents will continue to be able to use free parking passes until
this matter is dispensed with by the Municipal Council.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 21.
|
That the communication dated June 21, 2013,
from Councillor S. Orser, with respect to a request to consider increasing
the time on the Wellington Street parking meters adjacent to St. Joseph's
Hospital from 2 hours to 6 hours BE REFERRED to staff for a report back to
the Civic Works Committee to consider alternative solutions. (2013-T02)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D.
Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
NAYS: J.L. Baechler (1)
|
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 22.
|
That the matter of railway safety BE
BROUGHT forward to a future meeting of the appropriate Standing Committee of
Council for the purpose of discussing such matters as traffic flow, how
communities are being protected when dangerous goods are being transported,
and what measures are in place for response by the railways, and other
emergency response partners, in the event of a railway related emergency; it
being noted that the Mayor gave a brief verbal update with respect to
discussions he has undertaken with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to
Approve clauses 1 to 20.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That the 2nd Report of the Agricultural
Advisory Committee from its meeting held on June 19, 2013 BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That the 6th Report of the Trees and
Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on June 26, 2013 BE
RECEIVED.
|
|
That the 7th Report of the Environmental
and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee from its meeting held on June 20,
2013 BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, based on the application by Western Fair
Association, relating to the property located at 412-416, 420-424 Rectory
Street and 814-826 King Street, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff
report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to
be held on July 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 Regional Facility Special Provision (h-147*RF(2)) Zone TO a Regional
Facility Special Provision (RF(2)) Zone to remove the holding provision.
(2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Dennis Oliver, relating
to the properties located at 3592-3614 lsaac Court and 6951-6973 Clayton
Walk, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23,
2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 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.R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone to remove the “h”, holding
provision. (2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Louis Cooke,
relating to the property located at 1550 Highbury Avenue North, the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 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 Highway Service Commercial/Restricted
Service Commercial (h*HS/HS2/HS3/RSC1/RSC3/RSC4) Zone TO a Highway Service
Commercial/ Restricted Service Commercial (HS/HS2/HS3/RSC1/RSC3/RSC4) Zone to
remove the “h” holding provision. (2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Planning, based on the application of Starcevic Homes
Limited, relating to the property located at 537 Crestwood Drive, the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to
amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to
change the zoning FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision
(h-145.h-146.R6-2(13)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-2(13))
Zone to remove the h-145 and h-146 holding provisions. (2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Planning, based on the application of Old Oak Properties,
relating to the property located at 365 and 385 Sugar Creek Trail, the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 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 R5 Bonus
(h-1*h-18*R5-2*B11) Zone TO a Residential R5 Bonus (R5-2*B11) Zone to remove
the “h-1” and “h-18” holding provisions. (2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to
the application by Sifton Properties Limited, to exempt the following lands
from Part Lot Control:
a) pursuant
to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013, to exempt Lots 88
and 89 in Plan 33M-631 and Lots 1-12 in Plan 33M-632, from the Part Lot
Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act, for a period not to
exceed one (1) year; it being pointed out that these lands are subject to a
registered subdivision agreement and Lots 1-12 in Plan 33M-632 are zoned as a
Holding Residential R1 (h-96*R1-5) Zone and Lots 88 and 89 in Plan 33M-631
are zoned as a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which
permits single detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 12m and
minimum lot area of 415m2; it being further noted that the applicant shall
submit to the City confirmation that the approved reference plan for final
lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office; and,
b) the
applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of this by-law is to be
borne by the applicant in accordance with City policy. (2013-D12)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to
the application by Greengate Village Limited, to exempt the following lands
from Part Lot Control:
a) pursuant
to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
a future meeting of the Municipal Council, to exempt Lots 60 to 73 and Lots
113 and 114 in Plan 33M-533, from the Part Lot Control provisions of
subsection 50(5) of the said Act, for a period not to exceed one (1) year; it
being pointed out that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision
agreement and are zoned as a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(12))
Zone, in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits single detached dwellings with
a minimum lot frontage of 10m and minimum lot area of 300m2;
b) the
following conditions of approval BE COMPLETED by the applicant, prior to the
passage of a Part Lot Control by-law for Lots 60 to 73 and Lots 113 and 114
in Plan 33M-533, as noted in clause a), above:
i) the
applicant shall submit a draft reference plan to the Development and
Compliance Services Division for review and approval to ensure the proposed
part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning
By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the Land Registry
Office;
ii) the
applicant shall submit to the Development and Compliance Services Division a
digital copy, together with a hard copy of each reference plan, as noted in
part i) above, to be deposited in the Land Registry Office; it being noted
that the digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London's
Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83
UTM Control Reference;
iii) the
applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development and Compliance
Services Division that the assignment of municipal numbering has been
completed, in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should
there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the
approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in
the Land Registry Office;
iv)
the
applicant shall enter into an amended subdivision agreement with the City for
Registered Plan 33M-533 to address all issues outlined below and provide
adequate related security:
I)
all
services are to be constructed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
including all private drain connections and water services, in accordance
with the accepted final design of the lots, and is to be in compliance with
all the obligations for current and proposed works and associated
requirements set out in an amended subdivision agreement for Plan 33M-533;
II)
all
lot grading is to be undertaken in accordance with the final lot layout and
is to be in compliance with all the obligations for current and proposed
works and associated requirements set out in an amended subdivision agreement
for Plan 33M-533, and on the accepted revised grading plans for Plan
39T-07508 accepted by the City on July 8, 2008 and the accepted plans for
Plan 33M-533;
III)
the
Owner shall ensure all parts contained in the draft reference plan are in
accordance with the draft approved lotting and road geometry for Plan
39T-07508, to the satisfaction of the City;
IV)
Parts
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 shall be restricted from development until Plan 39T-07508
for the creation and construction of Strawberry Walk over Part 9 has been
registered; it being noted that the Owner shall provide a 0.3m reserve at the
north limit of parts 7, 9 and 11; it being further noted that this 0.3m
reserve shall remain in place until the registration of 39T-07508;
V)
the
Owner shall construct Asima Drive in accordance with the accepted engineering
drawings for Plan 39T-07508 accepted July 8, 2008; and,
VI)
clearance
is to be obtained from the City that requirements I) to V), above, have been
satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of any Certificate of
Conditional Approval for the proposed lots;
c)
the
applicant BE REQUIRED to submit to the City confirmation that an approved
reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land
Registry Office; and,
d) the
applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of this by-law is to be
borne by the applicant in accordance with City policy. (2013-D12)
(11/17/PEC)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Planning, Development Services, the following actions be taken
with respect to a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City
of London and Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd. and 160 Sunningdale
Road West Ltd., for the subdivisions of land, situated on the south side of
Sunningdale Road West, midway between Richmond Street and Wonderland Road
North:
a) the
Special Provisions, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, be
contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London
and Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd. and 160 Sunningdale Road West
Ltd., for the subdivision of land over Part of Lots 41 and 48, Registrar’s
Compiled Plan 1029, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County
of Middlesex (Geographic Township of London), for the Sunningdale Meadows
Subdivision (39T-10502) BE APPROVED;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Related Costs
and Revenues” appended as Schedule “B” to the associated staff report, dated
July 23, 2013;
c) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any
amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.
(2013-D12)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to
a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and
Wastell Developments Inc., for the subdivisions of land, situated on the south
side of Tennent Avenue, west of Adelaide Street North:
a) the
Special Provisions, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, to
be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City
of London and Wastell Developments Inc., for the subdivisions of land over
Part of Lots 9, 10 and 20, Registered Plan No. 325(C), City of London,
County of Middlesex, for the Wastell Subdivision (39T-13501) BE APPROVED;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of
Financing” appended as Schedule “A” to the associated staff report, dated
July 23, 2013;
c) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Related Costs
and Revenues” appended as Schedule “B” to the associated staff report, dated
July 23, 2013; and,
d) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any
amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.
(2013-D12)
|
|
That the Building Division Monthly Report
for May 2013 BE RECEIVED. (2013-P06)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, in response to the letter of appeal to
the Ontario Municipal Board dated April 2, 2013, submitted by Stikeman
Elliott, on behalf of 1830145 Ontario Limited (York Developments), relating
to Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application No. OZ-8115,
relating to the property located at 2825 Tokala Trail, the Ontario Municipal
Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has reviewed its decision
relating to this matter and sees no reason to alter it. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, in response to the letter of appeal to
the Ontario Municipal Board dated May 16, 2013, submitted by 1875425 Ontario
Inc., relating to Zoning By-law application No. Z-8132, relating to the
properties located at 275-277 Piccadilly Street, the Ontario Municipal Board
BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has reviewed its decision relating to
this matter and sees no reason to alter it. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, in response to the letter of appeal to
the Ontario Municipal Board dated May 29, 2013, submitted by 2261531 Ontario
LTD, relating to Zoning By-law application No. Z-8142, relating to various
streets listed in Section 4.21 “Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads”
of the Z-1 Zoning By-law, the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the
Municipal Council has reviewed its decision relating to this matter and sees
no reason to alter it. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the report dated July 23, 2013, relating
to the decision by the Ontario Municipal Board, concerning the appeals by
Alan Patton, on behalf of Loblaw Properties Limited, FCHT Holdings (Ontario)
Corporation, Barvest Realty Inc., Sunningdale Developments Inc. and Auburn
Developments, with respect to an amendment to the Official Plan and the
Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, a Municipal Council decision relating to the property
located at 1761 Wonderland Road North BE RECEIVED. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the report dated July 23, 2013, relating
to the decision by the Ontario Municipal Board, concerning the appeal by
Kapland Inc., with respect to an application for an amendment to the Zoning
By-law No. Z.-1, which was refused by the Municipal Council concerning the
property located at 754 Maitland Street BE RECEIVED. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the report, dated July 23, 2013,
relating to the decision by the Ontario Municipal Board, concerning the
appeal by Robert Malpass, President of the Fairmont Lawn Bowling Club, on
behalf of the Fairmont Lawn Bowling Club, relating to Official Plan
Application No. O-7668, relating to the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary
Plan, described as 840 and 850 Highbury Avenue North and 1414 and 1340 Dundas
Street and lands without municipal address east of 850 Highbury Avenue North
and bounded by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways, BE
RECEIVED. (2013-D08)
|
Pursuant to section 12.3 of the Council
Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler calls for a separate vote on clause
13.
The motion to Approve clauses 1 to 20,
excluding clause 13, is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Amend
clause 13 by adding at the end the words “; it being noted that the Municipal
Council supports the establishment of a parkette within this development.”
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 13, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
Clause
13, as amended, reads as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to a
subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Wastell
Developments Inc., for the subdivisions of land, situated on the south side of
Tennent Avenue, west of Adelaide Street North:
a) the
Special Provisions, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, to be
contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of
London and Wastell Developments Inc., for the subdivisions of land over Part of
Lots 9, 10 and 20, Registered Plan No. 325(C), City of London, County of
Middlesex, for the Wastell Subdivision (39T-13501) BE APPROVED;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of
Financing” appended as Schedule “A” to the associated staff report, dated July
23, 2013;
c) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Related Costs
and Revenues” appended as Schedule “B” to the associated staff report, dated
July 23, 2013; and,
d) the Mayor
and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending
agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions;
it being noted that the Municipal Council
supports the establishment of a parkette within this development. (2013-D12)
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to
Approve clauses 21 to 24.
|
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the 7th and 8th Reports of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage
(LACH) from its meetings held on June 12 and July 10, 2013, respectively:
a) 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. Furmston requesting permission for alterations to the
designated heritage property located at 340 St. James Street BE APPROVED; it
being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed alterations
to the building, including a demolition of an existing garage and its
replacement and has advised that the impact of such an alteration on the
heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation
is negligible; it being further noted that the LACH heard a verbal delegation
from M. Furmston, with respect to this matter;
b) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the areas of Riverview and
Evergreen Avenues in the geographic description of the potential Heritage
Conservation Districts currently known as “Stanley-Becher”; it being noted
that the LACH reviewed and received a communication from O. Hobson, with
respect to this matter;
c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest
Community on the list of potential Heritage Conservation Districts; it being
noted that the LACH received a communication dated May 22, 2013, from T.
Jones, Orchard Park Sherwood Forest Ratepayers, with respect to this matter;
d) the
report dated July 10, 2013, from the Managing Director, Planning and City
Planner, with respect to a Heritage Alteration Application submitted by R.C.
Leach for the property located at 366 Central Avenue, BE DEFERRED to a future
meeting of the LACH, pending further discussions with the owner and the West
Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Association, to review the
District’s heritage alteration applications and approval Guidelines, as
related to the proposed property alterations; it being noted that the LACH
heard a verbal delegation from R. C. Leach, with respect to this matter;
e)
the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include, as part of the Application for
Heritage Alteration approvals process, an 8½ x 11 sign, as appended to the
LACH Report dated July 10, 2013, to be posted by the applicant in the front
window or other suitable area visible from the street, for the time period
between the filing of the application and its approval by the City; it being
noted that the sign should clearly indicate that an application for heritage
alteration has been submitted with a phone number to contact for more
information; it being further noted that the LACH received and reviewed the
Planning and Policy Sub-Committee’s minutes from its meeting held on July 2,
2013;
f) that
J. Manness BE REQUESTED to submit completed nomination forms for the 2013 Ontario
Medal for Good Citizenship and the Ontario Heritage Trust 2013 Recognition
Program to the Mayor for signature and submission to the Ontario Heritage
Trust;
g) the
communication from G.W. Smith, Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community
Association dated July 22, 2013, relating to their request for Meadowlily
Woods to be considered as a Cultural Heritage Landscape BE REFERRED to the
LACH for consideration;
h) that
clauses 4 to 22, inclusive, of the 7th Report of the LACH BE RECEIVED; and,
i)
that
clauses 4 to 9, inclusive, of the 8th Report of the LACH BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from W. Kinghorn, Chair,
LACH, with respect to these matters.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Planning, based on the application of Doman Developments Inc.,
relating to the property located at 1615 Northroutledge Park, the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 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 Light Industrial Special Provision(LI1(8) Zone,
which permits electrical and electronic products industries, office, store
and business electronic products industries, commercial schools,
medical/dental offices, clinics, day care centres, bakeries, business service
establishments, laboratories, manufacturing and assembly industries, support
offices, paper and allied products industries excluding pulp and paper and
asphalt roofing industries, pharmaceutical and medical product industries,
printing, reproduction and data processing industries, research and
development establishments, warehouse establishments, wholesale
establishments, custom workshop, brewing on premises establishments and
service trades TO a Compound Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(8)/LI3)
Zone, which permits, in addition to the above noted uses, assembly halls,
commercial recreation establishments, day care centres, private clubs and
private parks;
it being pointed out that there were no
oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated
with this matter. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That C. Wilson, 36 Blackfriars Street BE
DENIED delegation status at a future Planning and Environment Committee
meeting as the staff is currently undertaking a Heritage Conservation
District study for the Petersville/Blackfriars area and there may be programs
available once the HCD is completed. (2013-D19)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Services and Planning Liaison, the Terms of Reference, as
appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, to guide the process and
preparation of the River Bend South Secondary Plan BE ADOPTED;
it being pointed
out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the
following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:
M. Zunti, Sifton Properties Limited,
applicant – expressing support for the Terms of Reference. (2013-D08)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 25.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with
respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Inc., relating to the properties
located at 754 and 764 Waterloo Street and 354 Oxford Street East:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013, to amend Appendix
“1” the Official Plan to change the identification of the subject property
FROM a Service Station TO a Convenience Commercial and Service Station
identification;
b) the
attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the
Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013, 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 Convenience
Commercial/Service Station (CC/SS) Zone and a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone and
a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone, which permits such uses
as convenience service establishments without a drive-through facility,
convenience stores without a drive-through facility, financial institutions
without a drive-through facility, personal service establishments without a
drive-through facility, gas bars, single-detached dwellings, semi-detached
dwellings, duplex dwellings and converted dwellings, fourplex dwellings,
dwelling units, medical dental offices and offices TO a Holding
Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Service Station
(h-(*)*h-5*h-103*CC6( )/SS) Zone, to allow for such uses as bake shops
without drive-through facilities, commercial schools without drive-through
facilities, florist shops without drive-through facilities, pharmacies
without drive-through facilities, eat-in restaurants without drive-through
facilities, brewing on premises establishment, including a maximum front yard
setback of (1.0m), a maximum exterior side yard setback of (1.0m), a maximum
lot coverage of (35%), a maximum gross floor area of 948m2 and a
minimum of 28 parking spaces; it being noted that the holding h-(*) provision
is to ensure landscaping
enhancements are implemented within the abutting Oxford Street and Waterloo
Street road allowances to achieve high quality landscaping and the creation
of an attractive street edge at this strategic gateway location; it being
further noted that the holding (h-5) provision is to ensure that
development takes a form compatible with adjacent land uses, by requiring a
public site plan review meeting; it being also noted that the holding
(h-103) provision is to ensure that urban design is addressed at site
plan;
c) subject
to Policy
19.1.1 of the Official Plan, the subject lands at 764 Waterloo Street BE
INTREPRETED to be located within the “Multi-Family, Medium Density
Residential” designation;
d) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE
REQUESTED to consider the following design elements through the site plan
approval process:
i) consider
rotating the building (general design, function and floor plate can remain
the same), as illustrated in Appendices ‘C’ and ‘D’, clockwise by 90 degrees
to engage the intersection and create active street frontages along Waterloo
and Oxford Streets such that the proposed east elevation be situated on the
south elevation (along Oxford Street) and the proposed south elevation be
situated on the west elevation (along Waterloo Street) and incorporate the
following design elements:
I)
consider an entrance
at the southwest corner facing the intersection of Waterloo Street and Oxford
Street to service those travelling by foot or transit, with a secondary
entrance located at the southeast corner of the building to service those
coming from the parking lot;
II)
create a height
element at the southwest corner of the building (at the intersection) to
announce the entrance as well as address the intersection;
III)
create a corner plaza
at the intersection of Oxford and Waterloo Streets between the building
entrance and the intersection of the public sidewalks including enhanced
landscaping in order to create a welcoming forecourt that engages the
intersection;
IV)
ensure that the
majority of windows located along the Oxford and Waterloo Street corridors
are transparent glass to activate the street frontages;
V)
ensure that the sign band is integrated into the building and
below the height of the parapet in order to allow for the southwest corner
parapet (at the intersection and entrance into the building) to act as the
height element for the building;
VI)
ensure that the materials used on all facades and the level
architectural detailing are in keeping with the heritage district; it being
noted that in accordance with the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage District Plan
materials should include brick and masonry and architectural details are to
include brick soldier courses and corbelling; and,
VII)
provide enhanced landscaping to screen all exposed parking lots
from Oxford and Waterloo Streets in order to create a positive edge condition
and enhance the pedestrian experience; it being noted that this may be
achieved using a landscape wall and landscaping that includes, but not
limited to, shrubs, tall grasses, and trees;
ii) install
a 1.83 metre (6 feet) minimum sound attenuation fence along the property line
directly abutting St. George Public School (the north property line of 354
Oxford Street East) in order to ensure continued student safety;
e) a
meeting BE HELD, prior to the end of the appeal period for this application,
with representatives of the Bishop-Hellmuth Community Association, St.
George’s School Association, the applicant and the Civic Administration, to
discuss the final design, with the date of the meeting to be provided at the
Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013; and,
f) 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 as the proposed
amendment is minor in nature;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications,
with respect to this matter:
·
a
communication dated July 19, 2013, from G. McCormack, Chair, Executive of
School Council, St. George’s Public School;
·
a
communication dated July 19, 2013, from N.Z. Tausky, 288 St. James Street;
·
the
attached communication dated July 22, 2013 from M. Loft, 784
Wellington Street; and,
·
the
attached communication from S. Barre and C. Scott-Barre, 774
Hellmuth Avenue;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – advising that the
northeast corner of Oxford Street and Waterloo Street has been commercial
since before most of the Bishop-Hellmuth community was built; indicating
that, from the early 1880’s there was one and then a second, retail store at
this location, until they were replaced around 1955 by a gasoline service
station which was there for over half a century; advising that the service
station and two other buildings have been removed; noting that the site is
now vacant; advising that, at various times, three of the four quadrants of
the intersection have had service stations on them; advising that the current
application seeks to broaden the range of local service retail uses on the
corner so that, in addition to the current permission for service station use
and the fairly narrow convenience commercial uses, the site may be allowed to
develop for a broader range of uses, specifically for the pharmacy that is
being proposed at this time; indicating that the application is based on the
desire of Rexall to establish a full-line drug store on the northeast corner
and to convert their existing small sized dispensary on the southeast corner
to medical clinic uses; advising that the applicant and Rexall have proposed,
and modified, plans for a high standard of design at this location as a
recognition of its importance in the City generally and its importance at the
entrance to the Bishop-Hellmuth area; advising that this did not come in as a
conventional store with parking in front; indicating that the common
condition along Waterloo Street is front yard and boulevard parking;
recognizing that, when this was a service station, there were parking and
service areas extending into the boulevard; notwithstanding that the proposal
is for the building to come up to the corner of the property, with the
parking behind and in the side and rear yards of the property; incorporating
suggestions made by the Urban Design Peer Review Panel, City staff and the
public, both in the form and in the function of the site; indicating that
were able to resolve the entry issue in the southeast corner of the site on
Oxford Street to ensure that it is both safe and functional; advising that
the garbage will be located at the rear of the site (northeast corner);
indicating that there will be pedestrian connections from both Oxford Street
and Waterloo Street; indicating that the original application was for the
implementation of sound attenuation barriers to the north, clear glazing
along Oxford Street on the store front and a variety of building materials
including stone, brick and stucco, a faux entry feature at the southwest
corner facing the intersection so that it would not be a blank wall but would
actually have a feature that mirrored the entry; advising that, in the design
of the site, there are six existing entrances that are being removed and two
entrances that are being put in; indicating that there will be provision for
bicycle parking; indicating that the main entrance is close to a London
Transit Commission bus stop; advising that, as part of the process and the
modifications that were made to the plan up to May of this year, the
entrances were updated and reoriented so that there would be direct access
from Oxford Street; noting that the additional entrance at the northeast
corner of the building was enhanced; indicating that there will be awnings;
indicating that there will be cantilevered canopies at the rear; indicating
that there will be transparent windows along Oxford Street; noting that a
majority of the windows along Oxford Street will be transparent; indicating
that, on Waterloo Street, where there would otherwise be no windows, there will
be spangled glass; advising that the most recent version of the plan adds
more windows; indicating that there will be a raised parapet and large
awnings over the panels in the southwest corner of the building; indicating
that they will be planting large trees with understory plantings as well as a
landscaped feature at the corner with understory plantings and small native
species; indicating that there will be a landscaped area and a bus stop rest
area on the north side of Oxford Street close to the store; indicating that
there will be plantings to screen parking areas; advising that the applicant
is moving towards choosing building colours and materials that will blend in
with the Bishop-Hellmuth District; advising that the brick colour that will
be used is a yellow brick tone, which reflects the dominant brick colour in
the area with a grey stone base that would be used along the Oxford Street
and Waterloo Street elevations; indicating that they have not shown changes
that would undermine the function or the commercial viability of the
development; advising that Rexall has prototype stores, it also has model
stores that it uses; noting that this store is not one of them; advising that
this building has been designed for the site for the specific location within
the city and the importance that is attributed to it at the entrance to the
Bishop-Hellmuth District; thanking Mr. Yanchula for his presentation which
touched on some of the points that he wanted to raise; advising that, while
we generally support the staff recommendation, there are some matters that he
would ask this Committee to change in its recommendation to the Municipal
Council; advising that they have always asked for the addition of uses to the
existing convenience commercial service station/commercial zoning
combination; advising that, although in the Official Plan amendment that is
being recommended, the convenience commercial to the service
station/commercial is added on Appendix “A” of the Official Plan; advising
that it was not carried forward in the Zoning By-law; advising that the
existing service station zoning was requested to be carried forward into the
new zoning; advising that we are asking the Committee to reinstate the
existing service station zoning provisions in the by-law that is recommended
to the Municipal Council; advising that the h-103 holding provision will
ensure that urban design is addressed at the site plan stage; indicating that
section d) of the recommendation does include, under i) is a matter for
consideration at the site plan stage; advising that we are willing to
continue to work with staff to enhance the presence of the use at the
intersection; however, staff have added that first bullet that requests that
the building be rotated by 90 degrees; advising that this is a directive, not
a consideration; advising that this is a hammer and he ask this Committee to
consider that it is not an appropriate hammer to put in the Council
resolution for the site plan stage; advising that it does not recognize the
functional imperatives of the pharmacy operation; advising that it does not
recognize that the store is not square, but rectangular; advising that if the
building is to be rotated, it does have an adverse effect on the rest of the
site; noting that as a directive, instead of a consideration, it could
undermine the entire proposal; asking the Committee to remove the first
bullet from the recommendation to the Municipal Council; indicating that
there is already consideration at the site plan stage for the entrance to be at
the southwest corner and another at the southeast corner; noting that there
is also a similar situation in part iv); indicating that the consideration is
a proper and valid one, encouraging as much transparent glass rather than
spangled glass is a reasonable consideration; however ensuring that that
happens would not be proper as it does not recognize functional imperatives
of the store and undermines the ability of store to go in; reiterating that
he is asking the Committee to reword, where possible, to have the windows
along the Oxford Street and Waterloo Street corridors as transparent glass to
activate the street frontages; noting that that is a proper submission and we
can work with staff but to require by ensuring that the majority of the
windows be transparent glass does not give us any room for error; indicating
that the other “ensure” directives, we do not have a problem with, they can
be achieved; advising that the revised by-law with the change from minimum
front and rear yard setbacks to maximum, recognizing that this is not a
perfectly square site, building wall can’t be parallel to both streets;
making sure they are avoiding the necessity for any minor variance that may
come; noting that the intent of having the maximum at 1.0 metre properly covers
it; requesting that the Committee makes the changes that he has submitted;
advising that if the service station commercial use was an additional use
that we were requesting, this would have to go back for further notice;
however, it is part of the existing zoning on the site and will continue to
be the existing zoning on the site if the by-law is not passed; and
requesting that the recommendation also be made that no further notice be
given with respect to the changes being made to the zoning by-law.
·
Don
Clark, Director of Design, Store Planning and Construction, Rexall –
expressing excitement about the opportunity to develop on this site;
indicating that they are looking forward to providing healthier choices to
the neighbourhood and their customers; noting that this will also be a first
class retail environment; advising that they are adding 20 additional jobs as
well as a tax base to this site; indicating that they will be spending
millions on this site; and advising that this is a one of a kind development
for them.
·
Scott
MacDougall-Shackleton, 802 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that he lives within
the Bishop-Hellmuth Conservation District; noting that he is a member of the
Community Association and a member of the St. George’s School Council, which
is steps away from this site; advising that he has talked to a lot of his
neighbours and a lot of people in the school neighbourhood; expressing
appreciation to the Planning Department for recognizing the communities
concerns in their report; noting that the staff did a great job of
recommending some holding provisions that are very important for this site;
expressing appreciation to the applicant for acknowledging the importance of
heritage and the importance of this Conservation District for the wellbeing
of the core of this City; reiterating that these holding provisions are
important; advising that the history of this site is that they lost a
heritage building on this site because of demolition by neglect; advising
that with the approval of the demolition of that house, there were holding
provisions that included landscaping on the site; advising that the
landscaping has never happened; indicating that the site has not been
maintained and they have to call in to have the property mowed; advising that
the community is not secure in taking people’s word that the site will be
developed properly; urging the Committee to stick with the holding provisions
as outlined by Planning staff; recommending that it is ensured that heritage
elements are included and this includes having a streetscape along Waterloo
Street and along Oxford Street, not a streetscape along a parking lot;
expressing excitement about having a vibrant new business rather than an
empty gravel lot that is not being maintained; advising that they would rather
see a business on site; noting that the business needs to fit into the
community and that the community is going to be supporting; indicating that
they are a large community and they want to support their local businesses
but we want them to fit in and have a streetscape along the streets;
expressing concern with the garbage, at the northeast corner of the site,
backs onto St. George’s public school, which is a Kindergarten to Grade 8
public school, with a developmental centre for severely developmentally
challenged children; reiterating that this is an important local public
school; advising that development of this site will not only impact the
heritage district but the school as well; and indicating that both of these
need to be addressed and the best way to do this is to ensure that the
holding provisions are included in the Committee’s recommendation to the
Municipal Council.
·
Greg
McCormack, Chair, Executive of School Council, St. George’s Public School –
expressing appreciation for all of the work that has gone into this; echoing
the comments of Mr. MacDougall-Shackleton; enquiring as to what is the worst
property that can go on that site if the zoning is approved; requesting that
the Committee consider that as they do not want that built in this location;
advising that the school is a community school with a large number of
students that walks to school, especially along the Waterloo Street corridor;
indicating that they are concerned about security elements, especially the
driveway on Waterloo Street; advising that the School Council requests that
the driveway be removed and just have a single entrance across Oxford Street;
and advising that, with the trees, it is a blind entrance and it is only a
matter of time before someone is hurt.
·
John
Dickinson, 873 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that he is on the Bishop-Hellmuth
Community Association; advising that he has had the opportunity to meet with
the landowners in the past and that it is nice to the see the potential
occupant representative at the meeting as well; indicating that what the City
Planners recommended in their report makes a lot of sense, especially during
the slide presentation where slides were shown of what a pharmacy looks like
when it is not live windows; advising that the walls without windows make him
quite concerned; having really solid recommendations, maybe even a minimum
requirement for a certain amount of glass is what I would like to see;
expressing support for the safety concerns; advising that one of his children
would be passing the pharmacy every day; and reiterating that he would like
to see many of the staff recommendations adopted along with minimum
requirements.
·
Laura
Kaufman, 778 Hellmuth Avenue – requesting that the entranceway be moved from
the southeast corner to the southwest corner and make it more of a
streetscape in keeping with the local neighbourhood; advising that she
purchased her house five years ago; noting that part of her decision to
purchase was because of the architecture and to put something that resembles
suburban strip mall blight on a corner that is a gateway to a historic
neighbourhood just is not right; and hoping that the Committee follows the
guidelines and the recommendations and makes them stipulations instead.
·
Mohamed
Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue – advising that he grew up in Old North and that
he presently still resides in Old North; indicating that he has never made a
submission to a Committee or to staff in any shape or form, but what they
have on the site is a vacant lot; advising that they have the opportunity to
develop this land into something usable; indicating that they want to keep
the character of the neighbourhood; indicating that asking Rexall to put in a
new door that could possibly make it unfeasible for them is a shame;
reiterating that he would like to keep the character of the area, but not to
handcuff the applicant, whether it is Rexall or someone else; advising that
this is an opportunity to take a vacant lot and get tax money out of this for
the next 15, 20 or 30 years; and advising that the infrastructure is there
and to handcuff a business coming in here would be very sad.
·
Mari
Parks, 798 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that she has been involved with the
Community Association for a very long time; indicating that she has been
before the Committee for two or three other issues in this neighbourhood;
expressing concern about the architectural design of this indicating that
Shell worked with the community over its redevelopment many years ago;
advising that Shell representatives met with the Community Association and
that has not happened in this instance at all; indicating that Mr. Farhi was
asked to meet with the Community Association and the community when the house
was demolished over some landscaping and other plans at the time; noting that
that still has not happened; indicating that, other than the landscaping
issues, these two proposals have not addressed the architectural features or
the compatibility concerns that have been mentioned in many letters to staff
and the Committee members; advising that this design would be more
appropriate if Appendix “E” of the staff report was considered; noting that
this would address the aesthetics of the building, make the connection with
the community and the pedestrian traffic more appropriate for this area;
indicating that we need to get this right as this building is going to be
there for a long time; noting that it is not something that is going to be
put up and torn down in five to 10 years; indicating that the building has be
to used if Rexall decides to pull out; noting that this building has to be
useful for other purposes as well; and recommending that the Committee add
the recommendations in Appendix “E” to the zoning application so that the
community knows that they can go forward with consistent historic aspects for
this community.
·
Sandra
Boersen, 310 Huron Street – advising that this is the entrance that she uses
to get into her neighbourhood; noting that she tends not to go in through
Huron Street or Adelaide Street or Richmond Street; expressing surprise for
where the building sits on the site; advising that she was expecting to see
something that mirrored the northwest corner where the Shell is; advising
that she was expecting to see a mirroring as it is a gateway into the neighbourhood;
indicating that she does not object to what this is, she just did not expect
to see this; advising that she expected to see some tie in to being a part of
the historical area by having a wall similar to what the other side has;
expressing concern with the service entrance because there will now be
delivery trucks coming in and out of Waterloo Street and that is not the
intention of Waterloo Street; noting that it was never the intention for
Waterloo Street, even when it was a commercial facility before; advising that
two houses were removed to make this site into one larger commercial spot
which now encroaches more into the neighbourhood than normal; echoing the
concerns of the school about what comes in and out of that service entrance
and whether that would be restricted in some way so that those service trucks
do not end up coming into the neighbourhood further and start using Waterloo
Street as a bypass instead of going down Oxford Street, which they should be
using; advising that she has not seen much in the way of any historical
features going into this building besides the brick colour; indicating that
she thinks that this is a Waterloo Street address and putting in faux windows
and doors does not address the fact that this is a Waterloo Street address;
indicating that this reminds her of the silos that were built on Huron Street
where there were no entrances and windows and the concerns that were raised
over that at the time; noting that putting up faux windows does not address
that; advising that it just flies in the face of what we consider a
historical area and what we would consider appropriate; indicating that the
difference in terms of width and length is 10.5 feet; indicating that 10.5
feet is not enough to stop the internal flow inside a building; advising that
she echoes the concerns that have been raised about the length of time the
building will be standing and how it is the entrance to the neighbourhood and
what that represents; understanding that jobs will be coming to this
facility, but they will be coming to this facility whether it faces 90
degrees or not; they will come to this facility whether they build this
correctly or not; advising that her concern is in building something
appropriate; indicating that a slow erosion of a historic district ends up
being no historic district at all; advising that a lot of effort has gone
into making this a historic district and we are asking that that concern be
honoured; requesting that when people buy something in a historic area, they
actually build something that fits into the historic area; indicating that
when she travels, she travels to areas that have mostly historic buildings
because she likes architecture; indicating that when she goes to places like
Niagara-on-the-Lake it always shocks her how well national chains are able to
accommodate older buildings and work within them and still maintain a sense
of history yet they can do it without having to do this; indicating that it
can be done, there needs to be a will to do it; and noting that if there is a
will to do it, you will make it work and you will make it work for everyone.
·
Jim
Kogelheide, 373 Byron Boulevard – advising that he has an education in
architecture; noting that it was always fascinating for him when pushed by
the teachers, when we were doing mock designs, how they would go about
thinking of the history of an area and using that history to incorporate some
of the technologies of the present to create something that was a blending of
the two to further enhance the integrity and architectural aspects of the
area as well as to consider the needs, both commercially and economically in
terms of employment for local communities; advising that when he hears that
another national chain is coming to town is the amount of garbage that will
be created; and advising that national chains do nothing to enhance local
economic development as most of their products are shipped from overseas.
·
Shmuel
Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation, applicant – advising that it was not easy
to find an international client like Rexall prepared to build a flagship
store at this location creating construction and retail jobs; noting that it
is 25 new jobs for the site, with over 170 jobs during construction;
indicating that the only other serious inquiry that they had in the last year
plus was from petroleum dealers looking to open another gas bar as the
current zoning allows; advising that this pharmacy development will generate
an additional $2,000,000 in taxes for the City; indicating that Rexall is
sensitive to the concerns, the standard layout was significantly modified to
create a design more harmonious with the neighbourhod; indicating that the
finished building will be far more attractive than the old drugstore on the
southeast corner and the gas bar and office building on the northwest corner;
advising that when talking about heritage, he takes credit to say that he
owns more heritage buildings in the City of London than any other individual
or corporation; noting that he owns over 52 buildings to date; indicating
that he looks after them; indicating that he understands what heritage means
and that he understands what is at stake; however, looking at this corner, he
thinks that this application is the best use of what can be done with this
corner; advising that they are taking a small store and bringing it into this
century; reiterating that this development will be a much better fit than any
other gas station or anything else than can be built there; and advising that
he welcomes international companies into London any day. (see attached
photographs) (2013-D14A)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Amend clause 25 by adding a new part
d)i)VIII) as follows:
“VIII) consideration
be given to the rooflines so that they are in keeping with the heritage
district;”.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve clause 25, as amended.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Clause
25, as amended, reads as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with
respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Inc., relating to the properties
located at 754 and 764 Waterloo Street and 354 Oxford Street East:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013, to amend Appendix
“1” the Official Plan to change the identification of the subject property FROM
a Service Station TO a Convenience Commercial and Service Station
identification;
b) the
attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal
Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013, 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 Convenience Commercial/Service
Station (CC/SS) Zone and a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone and a Residential
R3/Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone, which permits such uses as convenience
service establishments without a drive-through facility, convenience stores
without a drive-through facility, financial institutions without a
drive-through facility, personal service establishments without a drive-through
facility, gas bars, single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex
dwellings and converted dwellings, fourplex dwellings, dwelling units, medical
dental offices and offices TO a Holding Convenience Commercial Special
Provision/Service Station (h-(*)*h-5*h-103*CC6( )/SS) Zone, to allow for such
uses as bake shops without drive-through facilities, commercial schools without
drive-through facilities, florist shops without drive-through facilities,
pharmacies without drive-through facilities, eat-in restaurants without
drive-through facilities, brewing on premises establishment, including a
maximum front yard setback of (1.0m), a maximum exterior side yard setback of
(1.0m), a maximum lot coverage of (35%), a maximum gross floor area of 948m2
and a minimum of 28 parking spaces; it being noted that the holding h-(*)
provision is to ensure landscaping
enhancements are implemented within the abutting Oxford Street and Waterloo
Street road allowances to achieve high quality landscaping and the creation of
an attractive street edge at this strategic gateway location; it being further
noted that the
holding (h-5) provision is to ensure that development takes a form compatible with
adjacent land uses, by requiring a public site plan review meeting; it being
also noted that the holding (h-103) provision is to ensure that
urban design is addressed at site plan;
c) subject
to Policy
19.1.1 of the Official Plan, the subject lands at 764 Waterloo Street BE INTREPRETED
to be located within the “Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential”
designation;
d) the
Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design
elements through the site plan approval process:
i) consider
rotating the building (general design, function and floor plate can remain the
same), as illustrated in Appendices ‘C’ and ‘D’, clockwise by 90 degrees to
engage the intersection and create active street frontages along Waterloo and
Oxford Streets such that the proposed east elevation be situated on the south
elevation (along Oxford Street) and the proposed south elevation be situated on
the west elevation (along Waterloo Street) and incorporate the following design
elements:
I)
consider an entrance at
the southwest corner facing the intersection of Waterloo Street and Oxford
Street to service those travelling by foot or transit, with a secondary
entrance located at the southeast corner of the building to service those
coming from the parking lot;
II)
create a height element
at the southwest corner of the building (at the intersection) to announce the
entrance as well as address the intersection;
III)
create a corner plaza
at the intersection of Oxford and Waterloo Streets between the building
entrance and the intersection of the public sidewalks including enhanced
landscaping in order to create a welcoming forecourt that engages the
intersection;
IV)
ensure that the
majority of windows located along the Oxford and Waterloo Street corridors are
transparent glass to activate the street frontages;
V)
ensure that the sign band is integrated into the building and
below the height of the parapet in order to allow for the southwest corner
parapet (at the intersection and entrance into the building) to act as the
height element for the building;
VI)
ensure that the materials used on all facades and the level
architectural detailing are in keeping with the heritage district; it being
noted that in accordance with the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage District Plan
materials should include brick and masonry and architectural details are to
include brick soldier courses and corbelling;
VII)
provide enhanced landscaping to screen all exposed parking lots
from Oxford and Waterloo Streets in order to create a positive edge condition
and enhance the pedestrian experience; it being noted that this may be achieved
using a landscape wall and landscaping that includes, but not limited to,
shrubs, tall grasses, and trees; and,
VIII)
consideration
be given to the rooflines so that they are in keeping with the heritage
district;
ii) install
a 1.83 metre (6 feet) minimum sound attenuation fence along the property line
directly abutting St. George Public School (the north property line of 354
Oxford Street East) in order to ensure continued student safety;
e) a
meeting BE HELD, prior to the end of the appeal period for this application,
with representatives of the Bishop-Hellmuth Community Association, St. George’s
School Association, the applicant and the Civic Administration, to discuss the
final design, with the date of the meeting to be provided at the Municipal
Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013; and,
f) 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 as the proposed
amendment is minor in nature;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications, with
respect to this matter:
·
a
communication dated July 19, 2013, from G. McCormack, Chair, Executive of
School Council, St. George’s Public School;
·
a
communication dated July 19, 2013, from N.Z. Tausky, 288 St. James Street;
·
the
attached communication dated July 22, 2013 from M. Loft, 784
Wellington Street; and,
·
the
attached communication from S. Barre and C. Scott-Barre, 774 Hellmuth
Avenue;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this
matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – advising that the
northeast corner of Oxford Street and Waterloo Street has been commercial since
before most of the Bishop-Hellmuth community was built; indicating that, from
the early 1880’s there was one and then a second, retail store at this
location, until they were replaced around 1955 by a gasoline service station
which was there for over half a century; advising that the service station and
two other buildings have been removed; noting that the site is now vacant;
advising that, at various times, three of the four quadrants of the
intersection have had service stations on them; advising that the current
application seeks to broaden the range of local service retail uses on the
corner so that, in addition to the current permission for service station use and
the fairly narrow convenience commercial uses, the site may be allowed to
develop for a broader range of uses, specifically for the pharmacy that is
being proposed at this time; indicating that the application is based on the
desire of Rexall to establish a full-line drug store on the northeast corner
and to convert their existing small sized dispensary on the southeast corner to
medical clinic uses; advising that the applicant and Rexall have proposed, and
modified, plans for a high standard of design at this location as a recognition
of its importance in the City generally and its importance at the entrance to
the Bishop-Hellmuth area; advising that this did not come in as a conventional
store with parking in front; indicating that the common condition along
Waterloo Street is front yard and boulevard parking; recognizing that, when
this was a service station, there were parking and service areas extending into
the boulevard; notwithstanding that the proposal is for the building to come up
to the corner of the property, with the parking behind and in the side and rear
yards of the property; incorporating suggestions made by the Urban Design Peer
Review Panel, City staff and the public, both in the form and in the function
of the site; indicating that were able to resolve the entry issue in the
southeast corner of the site on Oxford Street to ensure that it is both safe
and functional; advising that the garbage will be located at the rear of the
site (northeast corner); indicating that there will be pedestrian connections
from both Oxford Street and Waterloo Street; indicating that the original
application was for the implementation of sound attenuation barriers to the
north, clear glazing along Oxford Street on the store front and a variety of
building materials including stone, brick and stucco, a faux entry feature at
the southwest corner facing the intersection so that it would not be a blank
wall but would actually have a feature that mirrored the entry; advising that,
in the design of the site, there are six existing entrances that are being
removed and two entrances that are being put in; indicating that there will be
provision for bicycle parking; indicating that the main entrance is close to a
London Transit Commission bus stop; advising that, as part of the process and
the modifications that were made to the plan up to May of this year, the
entrances were updated and reoriented so that there would be direct access from
Oxford Street; noting that the additional entrance at the northeast corner of
the building was enhanced; indicating that there will be awnings; indicating
that there will be cantilevered canopies at the rear; indicating that there
will be transparent windows along Oxford Street; noting that a majority of the
windows along Oxford Street will be transparent; indicating that, on Waterloo
Street, where there would otherwise be no windows, there will be spangled
glass; advising that the most recent version of the plan adds more windows;
indicating that there will be a raised parapet and large awnings over the
panels in the southwest corner of the building; indicating that they will be
planting large trees with understory plantings as well as a landscaped feature
at the corner with understory plantings and small native species; indicating
that there will be a landscaped area and a bus stop rest area on the north side
of Oxford Street close to the store; indicating that there will be plantings to
screen parking areas; advising that the applicant is moving towards choosing
building colours and materials that will blend in with the Bishop-Hellmuth
District; advising that the brick colour that will be used is a yellow brick
tone, which reflects the dominant brick colour in the area with a grey stone
base that would be used along the Oxford Street and Waterloo Street elevations;
indicating that they have not shown changes that would undermine the function
or the commercial viability of the development; advising that Rexall has
prototype stores, it also has model stores that it uses; noting that this store
is not one of them; advising that this building has been designed for the site
for the specific location within the city and the importance that is attributed
to it at the entrance to the Bishop-Hellmuth District; thanking Mr. Yanchula
for his presentation which touched on some of the points that he wanted to
raise; advising that, while we generally support the staff recommendation,
there are some matters that he would ask this Committee to change in its
recommendation to the Municipal Council; advising that they have always asked
for the addition of uses to the existing convenience commercial service
station/commercial zoning combination; advising that, although in the Official
Plan amendment that is being recommended, the convenience commercial to the service
station/commercial is added on Appendix “A” of the Official Plan; advising that
it was not carried forward in the Zoning By-law; advising that the existing
service station zoning was requested to be carried forward into the new zoning;
advising that we are asking the Committee to reinstate the existing service
station zoning provisions in the by-law that is recommended to the Municipal
Council; advising that the h-103 holding provision will ensure that urban
design is addressed at the site plan stage; indicating that section d) of the
recommendation does include, under i) is a matter for consideration at the site
plan stage; advising that we are willing to continue to work with staff to
enhance the presence of the use at the intersection; however, staff have added
that first bullet that requests that the building be rotated by 90 degrees;
advising that this is a directive, not a consideration; advising that this is a
hammer and he ask this Committee to consider that it is not an appropriate
hammer to put in the Council resolution for the site plan stage; advising that
it does not recognize the functional imperatives of the pharmacy operation;
advising that it does not recognize that the store is not square, but
rectangular; advising that if the building is to be rotated, it does have an
adverse effect on the rest of the site; noting that as a directive, instead of
a consideration, it could undermine the entire proposal; asking the Committee
to remove the first bullet from the recommendation to the Municipal Council;
indicating that there is already consideration at the site plan stage for the
entrance to be at the southwest corner and another at the southeast corner;
noting that there is also a similar situation in part iv); indicating that the
consideration is a proper and valid one, encouraging as much transparent glass
rather than spangled glass is a reasonable consideration; however ensuring that
that happens would not be proper as it does not recognize functional
imperatives of the store and undermines the ability of store to go in;
reiterating that he is asking the Committee to reword, where possible, to have
the windows along the Oxford Street and Waterloo Street corridors as
transparent glass to activate the street frontages; noting that that is a proper
submission and we can work with staff but to require by ensuring that the
majority of the windows be transparent glass does not give us any room for
error; indicating that the other “ensure” directives, we do not have a problem
with, they can be achieved; advising that the revised by-law with the change
from minimum front and rear yard setbacks to maximum, recognizing that this is
not a perfectly square site, building wall can’t be parallel to both streets;
making sure they are avoiding the necessity for any minor variance that may
come; noting that the intent of having the maximum at 1.0 metre properly covers
it; requesting that the Committee makes the changes that he has submitted;
advising that if the service station commercial use was an additional use that
we were requesting, this would have to go back for further notice; however, it
is part of the existing zoning on the site and will continue to be the existing
zoning on the site if the by-law is not passed; and requesting that the
recommendation also be made that no further notice be given with respect to the
changes being made to the zoning by-law.
·
Don
Clark, Director of Design, Store Planning and Construction, Rexall – expressing
excitement about the opportunity to develop on this site; indicating that they
are looking forward to providing healthier choices to the neighbourhood and
their customers; noting that this will also be a first class retail
environment; advising that they are adding 20 additional jobs as well as a tax
base to this site; indicating that they will be spending millions on this site;
and advising that this is a one of a kind development for them.
·
Scott
MacDougall-Shackleton, 802 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that he lives within the
Bishop-Hellmuth Conservation District; noting that he is a member of the
Community Association and a member of the St. George’s School Council, which is
steps away from this site; advising that he has talked to a lot of his
neighbours and a lot of people in the school neighbourhood; expressing appreciation
to the Planning Department for recognizing the communities concerns in their
report; noting that the staff did a great job of recommending some holding
provisions that are very important for this site; expressing appreciation to
the applicant for acknowledging the importance of heritage and the importance
of this Conservation District for the wellbeing of the core of this City;
reiterating that these holding provisions are important; advising that the
history of this site is that they lost a heritage building on this site because
of demolition by neglect; advising that with the approval of the demolition of
that house, there were holding provisions that included landscaping on the
site; advising that the landscaping has never happened; indicating that the
site has not been maintained and they have to call in to have the property
mowed; advising that the community is not secure in taking people’s word that
the site will be developed properly; urging the Committee to stick with the
holding provisions as outlined by Planning staff; recommending that it is
ensured that heritage elements are included and this includes having a
streetscape along Waterloo Street and along Oxford Street, not a streetscape
along a parking lot; expressing excitement about having a vibrant new business
rather than an empty gravel lot that is not being maintained; advising that
they would rather see a business on site; noting that the business needs to fit
into the community and that the community is going to be supporting; indicating
that they are a large community and they want to support their local businesses
but we want them to fit in and have a streetscape along the streets; expressing
concern with the garbage, at the northeast corner of the site, backs onto St.
George’s public school, which is a Kindergarten to Grade 8 public school, with
a developmental centre for severely developmentally challenged children;
reiterating that this is an important local public school; advising that
development of this site will not only impact the heritage district but the
school as well; and indicating that both of these need to be addressed and the
best way to do this is to ensure that the holding provisions are included in
the Committee’s recommendation to the Municipal Council.
·
Greg
McCormack, Chair, Executive of School Council, St. George’s Public School –
expressing appreciation for all of the work that has gone into this; echoing
the comments of Mr. MacDougall-Shackleton; enquiring as to what is the worst
property that can go on that site if the zoning is approved; requesting that
the Committee consider that as they do not want that built in this location;
advising that the school is a community school with a large number of students
that walks to school, especially along the Waterloo Street corridor; indicating
that they are concerned about security elements, especially the driveway on
Waterloo Street; advising that the School Council requests that the driveway be
removed and just have a single entrance across Oxford Street; and advising that,
with the trees, it is a blind entrance and it is only a matter of time before
someone is hurt.
·
John
Dickinson, 873 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that he is on the Bishop-Hellmuth
Community Association; advising that he has had the opportunity to meet with the
landowners in the past and that it is nice to the see the potential occupant
representative at the meeting as well; indicating that what the City Planners
recommended in their report makes a lot of sense, especially during the slide
presentation where slides were shown of what a pharmacy looks like when it is
not live windows; advising that the walls without windows make him quite
concerned; having really solid recommendations, maybe even a minimum
requirement for a certain amount of glass is what I would like to see;
expressing support for the safety concerns; advising that one of his children
would be passing the pharmacy every day; and reiterating that he would like to
see many of the staff recommendations adopted along with minimum requirements.
·
Laura
Kaufman, 778 Hellmuth Avenue – requesting that the entranceway be moved from
the southeast corner to the southwest corner and make it more of a streetscape
in keeping with the local neighbourhood; advising that she purchased her house
five years ago; noting that part of her decision to purchase was because of the
architecture and to put something that resembles suburban strip mall blight on
a corner that is a gateway to a historic neighbourhood just is not right; and
hoping that the Committee follows the guidelines and the recommendations and
makes them stipulations instead.
·
Mohamed
Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue – advising that he grew up in Old North and that he
presently still resides in Old North; indicating that he has never made a
submission to a Committee or to staff in any shape or form, but what they have
on the site is a vacant lot; advising that they have the opportunity to develop
this land into something usable; indicating that they want to keep the
character of the neighbourhood; indicating that asking Rexall to put in a new
door that could possibly make it unfeasible for them is a shame; reiterating
that he would like to keep the character of the area, but not to handcuff the
applicant, whether it is Rexall or someone else; advising that this is an
opportunity to take a vacant lot and get tax money out of this for the next 15,
20 or 30 years; and advising that the infrastructure is there and to handcuff a
business coming in here would be very sad.
·
Mari
Parks, 798 Hellmuth Avenue – advising that she has been involved with the
Community Association for a very long time; indicating that she has been before
the Committee for two or three other issues in this neighbourhood; expressing
concern about the architectural design of this indicating that Shell worked
with the community over its redevelopment many years ago; advising that Shell
representatives met with the Community Association and that has not happened in
this instance at all; indicating that Mr. Farhi was asked to meet with the
Community Association and the community when the house was demolished over some
landscaping and other plans at the time; noting that that still has not
happened; indicating that, other than the landscaping issues, these two
proposals have not addressed the architectural features or the compatibility
concerns that have been mentioned in many letters to staff and the Committee
members; advising that this design would be more appropriate if Appendix “E” of
the staff report was considered; noting that this would address the aesthetics
of the building, make the connection with the community and the pedestrian
traffic more appropriate for this area; indicating that we need to get this
right as this building is going to be there for a long time; noting that it is
not something that is going to be put up and torn down in five to 10 years;
indicating that the building has be to used if Rexall decides to pull out;
noting that this building has to be useful for other purposes as well; and
recommending that the Committee add the recommendations in Appendix “E” to the
zoning application so that the community knows that they can go forward with
consistent historic aspects for this community.
·
Sandra
Boersen, 310 Huron Street – advising that this is the entrance that she uses to
get into her neighbourhood; noting that she tends not to go in through Huron
Street or Adelaide Street or Richmond Street; expressing surprise for where the
building sits on the site; advising that she was expecting to see something
that mirrored the northwest corner where the Shell is; advising that she was
expecting to see a mirroring as it is a gateway into the neighbourhood;
indicating that she does not object to what this is, she just did not expect to
see this; advising that she expected to see some tie in to being a part of the
historical area by having a wall similar to what the other side has; expressing
concern with the service entrance because there will now be delivery trucks
coming in and out of Waterloo Street and that is not the intention of Waterloo
Street; noting that it was never the intention for Waterloo Street, even when
it was a commercial facility before; advising that two houses were removed to
make this site into one larger commercial spot which now encroaches more into
the neighbourhood than normal; echoing the concerns of the school about what
comes in and out of that service entrance and whether that would be restricted
in some way so that those service trucks do not end up coming into the
neighbourhood further and start using Waterloo Street as a bypass instead of
going down Oxford Street, which they should be using; advising that she has not
seen much in the way of any historical features going into this building
besides the brick colour; indicating that she thinks that this is a Waterloo Street
address and putting in faux windows and doors does not address the fact that
this is a Waterloo Street address; indicating that this reminds her of the
silos that were built on Huron Street where there were no entrances and windows
and the concerns that were raised over that at the time; noting that putting up
faux windows does not address that; advising that it just flies in the face of
what we consider a historical area and what we would consider appropriate;
indicating that the difference in terms of width and length is 10.5 feet;
indicating that 10.5 feet is not enough to stop the internal flow inside a
building; advising that she echoes the concerns that have been raised about the
length of time the building will be standing and how it is the entrance to the
neighbourhood and what that represents; understanding that jobs will be coming
to this facility, but they will be coming to this facility whether it faces 90
degrees or not; they will come to this facility whether they build this
correctly or not; advising that her concern is in building something
appropriate; indicating that a slow erosion of a historic district ends up
being no historic district at all; advising that a lot of effort has gone into
making this a historic district and we are asking that that concern be
honoured; requesting that when people buy something in a historic area, they
actually build something that fits into the historic area; indicating that when
she travels, she travels to areas that have mostly historic buildings because she
likes architecture; indicating that when she goes to places like
Niagara-on-the-Lake it always shocks her how well national chains are able to
accommodate older buildings and work within them and still maintain a sense of
history yet they can do it without having to do this; indicating that it can be
done, there needs to be a will to do it; and noting that if there is a will to
do it, you will make it work and you will make it work for everyone.
·
Jim
Kogelheide, 373 Byron Boulevard – advising that he has an education in
architecture; noting that it was always fascinating for him when pushed by the
teachers, when we were doing mock designs, how they would go about thinking of
the history of an area and using that history to incorporate some of the technologies
of the present to create something that was a blending of the two to further
enhance the integrity and architectural aspects of the area as well as to
consider the needs, both commercially and economically in terms of employment
for local communities; advising that when he hears that another national chain
is coming to town is the amount of garbage that will be created; and advising
that national chains do nothing to enhance local economic development as most
of their products are shipped from overseas.
·
Shmuel
Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation, applicant – advising that it was not easy to
find an international client like Rexall prepared to build a flagship store at
this location creating construction and retail jobs; noting that it is 25 new
jobs for the site, with over 170 jobs during construction; indicating that the
only other serious inquiry that they had in the last year plus was from
petroleum dealers looking to open another gas bar as the current zoning allows;
advising that this pharmacy development will generate an additional $2,000,000
in taxes for the City; indicating that Rexall is sensitive to the concerns, the
standard layout was significantly modified to create a design more harmonious
with the neighbourhod; indicating that the finished building will be far more
attractive than the old drugstore on the southeast corner and the gas bar and
office building on the northwest corner; advising that when talking about
heritage, he takes credit to say that he owns more heritage buildings in the City
of London than any other individual or corporation; noting that he owns over 52
buildings to date; indicating that he looks after them; indicating that he
understands what heritage means and that he understands what is at stake;
however, looking at this corner, he thinks that this application is the best
use of what can be done with this corner; advising that they are taking a small
store and bringing it into this century; reiterating that this development will
be a much better fit than any other gas station or anything else than can be
built there; and advising that he welcomes international companies into London
any day. (see attached photographs) (2013-D14A)
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 26.
|
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 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. Masschelein’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)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Amend part b) by deleting everything
following the word "boundary" and by adding a new part c), as
follows:
"c) staff
to evaluate the lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, and requests beyond,
with a view to not expanding the Urban Growth Boundary but possibly
re-adjusting when it represents logical sound planning and is cost-effective
to the municipality by using infrastructure more effectively and
efficiently".
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 26, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Clause
26, as amended, reads as follows:
|
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;
c) staff
to evaluate the lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, and requests beyond,
with a view to not expanding the Urban Growth Boundary but possibly
re-adjusting when it represents logical sound planning and is cost-effective
to the municipality by using infrastructure more effectively and efficiently;
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 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. Masschelein’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)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to
Approve clauses 27 and 28
|
|
That the communication from Councillor M.
Brown dated July 3, 2013, with respect to Council Committee recommendations
source identification BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for
consideration. (2013-C03C)
|
|
That B. Storonianski, 13 Blackfriars Street
BE DENIED delegation status at a future Planning and Environment Committee
meeting; it being noted that the staff will work with the applicant to try to
resolve this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Recess.
Motion
Passed
The Council recesses at 6:29 PM and
reconvenes at 7:19 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members
present except Councillors J.B. Swan, P. Van Meerbergen and S.E. White.
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 4, 6 to 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 to 21.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor D. Brown
disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 24 of this Report having to do with a
request for a limousine lifecycle extension, by indicating that her employer
manages a limousine company.
|
|
That the 7th Report of the London Housing
Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 12, 2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That the 5th Report of the Community Safety
and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 27,
2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the report dated July
22, 2013 with respect to the implementation of a services and financial
program review of the Homemakers Program at the Dearness Home BE RECEIVED for
information. (2013-S02)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Housing,
Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Convert-to-Rent/Rehabilitation Program Proposal at 1048 Dundas
Street East:
a) the
municipal allocation for 2212126 Ontario Inc. in the amount of $96,000
($48,000 per unit) for two (2) units, plus $5,000 for accessibility
modifications to one (1) of the units, for a total municipal allocation of
$101,000 for 1048 Dundas Street East, BE APPROVED;
b) the
above-noted funding allocation BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of
Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013; and,
c) in
accordance with Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law No A.-5814-11, the by-law
appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the
Municipal Council meeting being held on July 30, 2013 to:
i) approve
the Contribution Agreement pertaining to the above-noted proposal, substantially
in the form of agreement appended to the aforementioned by-law and to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor, and
ii) to
authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the said Agreement.
(2013-S11)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Housing,
Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Convert-to-Rent/Rehabilitation Program at 343 Richmond Street
(Phase 2):
a) the
second municipal allocation of $14,000 per unit for sixteen (16) affordable
housing units at 343 Richmond Street for a total of $224,000 for At^lohsa
Native Family Healing Services BE APPROVED; it being noted that this group
has previously received approval for $10,000 per unit in 2010;
b) the
above-noted funding allocation BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of
Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013; and,
c) in
accordance with Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law No A.-5814-11, the by-law
appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the
Municipal Council meeting being held on July 30, 2013 to:
i) approve
the Amended Municipal Contribution Agreement pertaining to the above-noted
proposal substantially in the form of agreement appended to the
aforementioned by-law and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, and
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the said Agreement. (2013-S11)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Managing Director of
Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the report dated July 22, 2013,
with respect to the implementation of the Housing Services Act, 2011 BE
RECEIVED for information and the local standards, as appended to the staff
report dated July 22, 2013, with regard to the administration of social
housing within the City of London and Middlesex County, BE APPROVED.
(2013-S11)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Fire
Chief, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Neighbourhood, Children
& Fire Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the
supply and delivery of a Fire Services Quint:
a) the
negotiated amount with Carl Thibault Fire Trucks Inc., 38 Thibault Street,
Pierreville, PQ., for the supply and delivery of one (1) 75 foot Quint, at
the proposed price of $851,180.00 (HST extra) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted
that this price includes two options;
b) the
funding for the above-noted purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of
Finance Report as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this purchase; and,
d) the
approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record, relating to
this matter. (2013-A05)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and
the Managing Director, Neighbourhood, Children & Fire Services, with the
concurrence of the Managing Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness
Home, the following actions be taken with respect to Project #P126-RC2751,
Request for Proposal No. 13-18:
(a) the
proposal submitted by Cornerstone Architecture, 110-700 Richmond Street,
London, Ontario N6A 5C7 to act as Prime Consultant for the addition and
interior alterations to the South London Community Centre for a fee of
$399,500 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being pointed out that the proposal
submitted by Cornerstone Architecture was deemed to provide the best
technical and financial value to the Corporation, meets the City’s
requirements in all areas and acceptance is in compliance with Section 15.2
of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
(b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report attached to the staff report dated July 22, 2013;
(c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which
are necessary in connection with the project;
(d) the
approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract with the consultant for the work; and
(e) the
Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-A05)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Fire
Chief, with the concurrence of the Managing Director of Neighbourhood,
Children and Fire Services, the information report with respect to fire inspections
BE RECEIVED; it being noted the Community and Protective Services Committee
received the attached presentation from Deputy Chief J. Jessop,
with respect to this matter. (2013-P16)
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 7th and 8th Reports of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(AWAC) from its meetings held on June 6, 2013 and July 4, 2013, respectively:
a) the
Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(AWAC) supports the proposed new Dingman off-leash dog park, with
construction planned to begin in the fall 2013; it being noted that the AWAC
expressed thanks to the Staff for developing a very attractive and functional
design and for working with the community partners to bring this idea to
fruition; it being further noted that the AWAC heard the attached
presentation from A. Macpherson, Manager, Parks Planning and Design, with
respect to this matter;
b) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to review the attached
Toronto Animal Services Sheltering Data, 2011, and consider including the
Toronto indicators in London’s animal services reporting model;
c) clauses 3 to 11 of the 7th
Report of the AWAC BE RECEIVED;
d) clause
1 of the 8th Report of the AWAC BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for
review and comment, including the video; it being noted that clause 1 reads
as follows:
"1. That the
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) BE PERMITTED to forward the attached
informational letter to the Drainage Superintendents Association of Ontario;
it being noted that this letter informs about the availability of non-lethal
beaver management practices.";
e) the
following actions be taken with respect to the proposed development of
properties located at 3130 and 3260 Dingman Drive and the rear portion of
4397 and 4407 Wellington Road South:
i) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider conducting a study of the
specific wildlife species that inhabit the area of Dingman Drive and
Wellington Road South, and that the study include recommendations for the provision
of safe exit corridors and/or relocation of the affected species;
ii) the
Ministry of Natural Resources BE CONSULTED on all wildlife species inhabiting
the above-noted area; and,
iii) the
Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(AWAC) is not supportive of the proposed development of the above-noted
property; it being noted that an environmentally significant woodlot with
wetland such as this, provides essential habitat to numerous species, all of
which are interdependent of each other, also noting that the area provides
environmental benefit to the citizens of London; it being noted that the
AWAC held a general discussion and reviewed and received a communication
dated June 23, 2013, from S. Rans, with respect to this matter and asked that
its Chair meet with the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner
regarding the Dingman Drive/Wellington Road property and the City’s wildlife
policies; and
f) clauses 3 to 10 of the 8th
Report of the AWAC BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Community and
Protective Services Committee received a verbal presentation from S. Rans, V.
Van Linden and M. Puzanov, AWAC, with respect to this matter.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 2nd Report of the Town and Gown Advisory Committee from its
meeting held on June 13, 2013:
a) the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to amend the Town and Gown Committee Terms of
Reference to include a Ward 13 resident as a Voting Member; and
b) clauses 2 to 10, inclusive, BE
RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken
with respect to the proposed Dingman Dog Off-Leash Area:
a) the
lands adjacent to the Dingman Pumping Station, at 4695 Dingman Drive BE
APPROVED as the recommended site for the next dog off-leash area; and,
b) in
accordance with the City’s Engagement Policy, the adjacent property owners,
within 200 meters of proposed site, BE INFORMED of the plans to construct an
off-leash area;
it being noted that the Community and
Protective Services Committee received a communication dated July 22, 2013
from B. Sayler, London Dog Owners Association, with respect to this matter.
(2013-R04)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Parks & Recreation, the following actions be taken with
respect to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in City-owned facilities:
a) the
City’s Aquatic Services Area's support of lifesaving training (first aid, CPR
and AED) to staff and to the public BE CONTINUED and the City's use of the
Heart and Stroke Foundation as the primary source of public education and
awareness regarding the benefits of defibrillators BE SUPPORTED;
b) the
exploration of funding opportunities and work with partners to expand the
placement of defibrillators in City-owned facilities BE CONTINUED;
c) the
Heart and Stroke Foundation BE REQUESTED to work directly with the various
school boards and private operators regarding placement of defibrillators in
schools and recreation facilities not owned or operated by the City; and,
d) the
Mayor BE REQUESTED to write to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
asking her to work with the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs on
changes to the dispatch protocols dealing with cardiac arrests to require
clear and mandatory CPR direction in cases of cardiac arrest. (2013-R05)
|
|
That consideration of the City of London
funding relationship with Neighbourhood Watch London BE REFERRED to a special
meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to be held in
advance of the July 30th meeting of the Municipal Council.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human Resources Officer, the Civic
Administration BE DIRECTED to develop and pursue a request for proposal to
purchase a public notification system. (2013-P03)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D.
Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 5.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions
be taken with respect to the physiotherapy and occupational therapy services
at the Dearness Home:
a) the
proposed by-law, appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to:
i) approve
the Amending Agreement, substantially in the form attached as
Schedule 1 to the by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and
Arvan Rehab Group to provide physiotherapy and occupational therapy services
to the Dearness Home from August 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014; and
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted agreement; and,
b) the
approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal procurement process for physiotherapy and occupational therapy
services to be completed by January 31, 2014. (2013-S02)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that clause 5 be amended to read
as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions
be taken with respect to the physiotherapy and occupational therapy services
at the Dearness Home:
a) the
attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal
Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to:
i) approve
the attached revised Amending Agreement, substantially in the
form attached as Schedule 1 to the by-law, between The
Corporation of the City of London and Arvan Rehab Group to provide
physiotherapy and occupational therapy services to the Dearness Home to
January 31, 2014; and
ii) authorize
the Managing Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, or in
his/her absence the City Manager, to execute the above-noted agreement; and,
b) the
approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal procurement process for physiotherapy and occupational therapy
services to be completed by January 31, 2014. (2013-S02)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 5, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 9.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the report dated July
22, 2013 with respect to the Ontario Works Service Plan for 2013-2014 BE
RECEIVED for information. (2013-S04)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 14.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 6th Report of the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory
Committee (LDRRAC) from its meeting held on June 20, 2013:
a) the London Race Relations Award
Policy BE AMENDED as follows:
i) the
purpose of the Award:
A) should
be used to promote public awareness on diversity, anti-racism, inclusivity
and human rights;
B) should
be changed to the “Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award”; and,
C) the
three-fold purpose of the Award, should read “encouraging ongoing initiatives
within the City of London which promote/advance London as a welcoming city”;
ii) the
date for the Award:
A)
the award should be given in conjunction with Human Rights Day, which is
recognized annually on December 10. This day recognizes the ‘Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)’, which was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1948; it being noted that this represents a
change from the current annual Award date of March 21, which is known as the
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
iii) the
eligibility criteria for the Award:
A) should
be changed to allow past winners of the award to be eligible in future years.
However, the eligibility should stipulate that the same initiative from a
past nominee cannot be recognized more than once;
iv) the
Nomination Categories of the Award:
A) Small
Business and Small Labour (sizes to be determined in consultation with the
City);
B) Corporations,
Large Business and Large Labour (sizes to be determined in consultation with
the City);
C)
Institutions (including both public and private);
D)
Social/Community Services (including Not-for-Profits), Education and Training;
and,
E) Youth/Young
Adult Groups or Organizations;
v) The
Corporation of the City of London BE REQUESTED to provide support and
resources from Corporate Communications to assist with the publicity and
promotion of the award (e.g. preparing and disseminating both public service
announcements and promotional materials, etc.);
vi)
in
the event that the recommendations in a) above are adopted by Council, the
various strategies to help publicly promote the Award (including a public
‘re-launch’ of the Award and the creation of a communications strategy to
support the Award) BE REFERRED to the London Diversity and Race Relations
Advisory Committee for its discussion and consideration;
it being noted that the Award should be
reinstated and rejuvenated in keeping with the above-noted recommendations,
as it is anticipated that these changes to the existing award will assist
with the goal of increasing the number of nominations received;
it being further noted that the London
Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) received the attached
revised a report from its Nomination Sub-committee, with respect to this
matter; and,
b) clauses 2 to 8, inclusive, BE
RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Community and
Protective Services Committee received a verbal presentation from P.
Shanahan, Chair, LDRRAC, with respect to this matter.
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Refer clause 14a) back to the London
Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee as the award should remain
centred around March 21st, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, and should not include Human Rights as this is a different
matter.
At 7:35 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana places
Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.
At 7:36 Mayor J.F. Fontana resumes the Chair
and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.
The motion to Refer clause 14a) back to the
London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee is put.
|
Motion Failed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, S. Orser,
P. Hubert, H.L. Usher (5)
NAYS: B. Armstrong, J.L. Baechler, N.
Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, J.P. Bryant (7)
|
The
motion to Approve clause 14 is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, S. Orser,
J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown,
J.P. Bryant (10)
NAYS: J.F. Fontana, H.L. Usher (2)
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 11.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the School Crossing Guard Program:
a) the
Single Source contract with Stinson Security Services Limited BE APPROVED in
accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services
Policy;
b) the
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 22, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the July 30, 2013 Municipal Council meeting to:
i) authorize
and approve an agreement with Stinson Security Service Limited to supply and
manage School Crossing Guards;
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,
iii) designate
the Managing Director of Environmental & Engineering Services and City
Engineer, or designate, as the City Representative with respect to the
Agreement;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this work; and,
d) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-L04)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 16.
|
That the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a
letter to the Provincial Minister to request consideration of additional and
increased penalties for distracted driving; it being noted that the Community
and Protective Services Committee received a verbal presentation and
communication dated July 22, 2013 from Councillor S. Orser, with respect to
this matter. (2013-C00)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Amend clause 16 to add the words
"and Police Chief" following the word "Mayor".
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 16, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Clause
16, as amended, reads as follows:
That the Mayor and the Chief of Police BE
REQUESTED to write a letter to the Provincial Minister to request consideration
of additional and increased penalties for distracted driving; it being noted
that the Community and Protective Services Committee received a verbal
presentation and communication dated July 22, 2013 from Councillor S. Orser,
with respect to this matter. (2013-C00)
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 22.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Division
Manager, Corporate Security and Emergency Management with the concurrence of
the Managing Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human Resources Officer,
the following actions be taken with respect to the Monitored Surveillance
Camera Program:
a) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to add two stationary cameras at the
corner of Richmond Street and Dundas Street; it being noted that the cost of
adding the cameras can be accommodated from within the existing 2013
Operating Budget; and,
b) the Ten-Year Review Report,
dated July 22, 2013, BE RECEIVED. (2013-P15)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D.
Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
NAYS: N. Branscombe (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve reconsideration the actions
of the Municipal Council taken at its meeting of May 14, 2013, related to the
adoption of clause 7 of the 9th Report of the Community and Protective
Services Committee (CPSC), concerning a delegation request from Youth Create
Health Communities, as detailed in part a) of clause 23.
|
|
Motion Failed
YEAS: B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, S. Orser,
J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown, J.P. Bryant (9)
NAYS: J.F. Fontana, D.G. Henderson, H.L.
Usher (3)
|
Clause
23b) was not considered as the motion to reconsider the matter failed.
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the request of Youth Create Healthy Communities for delegation
status, related to a subsidized, monthly student bus pass:
a) pursuant
to section 13.7 of the Council Procedure By-law, the actions of the Municipal
Council taken at its meeting of May 14, 2013, related to the adoption of
clause 7 of the 9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee
(CPSC), concerning a delegation request from Youth Create Health Communities,
BE RECONSIDERED; and,
b) delegation status at a future
meeting of the CPSC BE APPROVED.
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 24.
|
That the communication dated July 18, 2013,
from M. Taylor, Checker Limousine, BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration
for consideration and report back as part of the Taxi By-law report currently
being drafted.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: D. Brown (1)
|
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clauses 1 and 2.
|
1.
|
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, the following actions
be taken with respect to the funding agreement between The Corporation of the
City of London and Neighbourhood Watch London:
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to withhold the 3rd installment of funds to
Neighbourhood Watch London for the 2013 Budget Year, except as provided in
part c), below;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and
Protective Services Committee on August 19, 2013 with any further information
provided by Neighbourhood Watch London's Board of Directors that materially
impacts their current funding agreement with the City of London; and,
c) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide funding in the amount of $5,000
from the above-noted third installment, to support the payment of staff
wages.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 1.
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to
Approve clauses 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 to 14, 16 to 20 and 22.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013 (Appendix “A”)
BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to
authorize the Mayor and the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City
Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer to execute a Letter of Agreement between
the Province of Ontario and the City of London with respect to the Dedicated
Gas Tax Funds for Public Transportation Program.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
following actions be taken with respect to financial support from the City of
London for the 2014 Memorial Cup:
a) the
letter from Tourism London requesting $100,000 of financial support from the
City of London, as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013, BE
RECEIVED for information, noting that Tourism London will match this
financial support with a $100,000 contribution from its own operating budget;
and
b) that
financing for this project BE APPROVED as detailed in the Sources of
Financing Report appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, the report dated July 23, 2013 with respect to civil marriage
ceremonies BE RECEIVED for information.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Chief
Technology Officer, Information Technology Services, the following actions be
taken with respect to the Print Optimization Request for Proposal for managed
print services, including multifunctional devices, legacy printers,
centralized print facility and software licensing solutions.
a) the
submission from Xerox Canada Ltd., 1398 Wellington Road South, Suite 2-6,
London, ON N6E 3N6 for implementing a Print Optimization strategy for managed
print services for multifunctional devices and legacy printers for the City
of London and their submitted annual cost of hardware, software and services
of $467,472.34 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED;
b) the
submission from Canon Canada Inc., 6390 Dixie Road, Mississauga, ON L5T 1P7
for implementing a Print Optimization strategy for the centralized print
facility for the City of London and their submitted annual cost of hardware,
software and services of $263,103.00 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this contract; and
d) approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory prices,
terms and conditions relating to the subject matter of this approval;
it being noted that the annual cost of this
contract is within the existing operating budget for printing services, and
there are no increases over the four year term.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Housing,
Social Services and Dearness Home and the Director, Municipal Housing, with
respect to the vacant City-owned property located at 57 Tecumseh Avenue West,
legally described as Lots 305 and 306, Plan 488, measuring approximately 110’
x 68’, containing an area of approximately 7,480 square feet, the following
actions be taken:
a) the subject property BE DECLARED
SURPLUS;
b) the
offer submitted by Habitat for Humanity Oxford-Middlesex-Elgin to purchase
the subject surplus property from the City, for a consideration of
$20,000.00, BE ACCEPTED in a form to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;
and
c) the
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to
authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement of Purchase
and Sale.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager
Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to property on
Max Brose Drive and described as Parts 5, 6, 7 & 8 on Plan 33R-15347:
a) the
request submitted by Brose Canada Inc. for an extension of the reconveyance
period until August 1, 2016, over Parts 5 and 6 of Plan 33R-15347, on
approximately 12 acres of land located on the north side of Max Brose Drive,
as outlined on the location map as appended to the staff report dated July
23, 2013 as Parcel 2 on Schedule “A”, BE APPROVED; and
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to negotiate an Option Agreement with Brose
Canada Inc. to Option (Parts 7 & 8 of Plan 33R-15347) approximately 3.22
acres of land located on the north side of Max Brose Drive, as outlined on
the location map as appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013 as
Parcel 3 on Schedule “A”.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, the report dated July 23, 2013
with respect to Metrolinx BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that
Metrolinx has recommended that if province-wide implementation of new revenue
tools for transportation infrastructure is adopted, the revenue generated
from outside the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) should be directed
to areas outside the GTHA.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, the report dated July 23, 2013
with respect to the AMO Annual General Meeting, Conference and Trade Show for
2014 BE RECEIVED for information.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, the report dated July 23, 2013
with respect to the August 1st Ontario Provincial London West By-Election
Candidate Questionnaire BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services & Chief Human Resources Officer, the report
dated July 23, 2013 with respect to the employee suggestion program BE
RECEIVED for information.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director - Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 23, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 30, 2013 to:
a) approve
a Vehicle Lease Agreement, appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule 1,
between The Corporation of the City of London and Tourism London for the
lease of a City owned vehicle described as a 2012 Dodge Grand Caravan VIN #
2C4RDGBG5CR199233; and
b) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the lease agreement noted in a),
above.
|
|
That the request by Councillor H.L. Usher
to utilize $200 from his 2013 annual expense allocation, to assist a local
youth with the cost of her participation in the Children’s International
Summer Villages, BE APPROVED on a one-time basis.
|
|
That the Fall Fest to be held August 30 –
September 2, 2013 in Victoria Park BE DESIGNATED a Municipally Significant
Event in the City of London.
|
|
That Jewel Hartviksen BE APPOINTED to the
Accessibility Advisory Committee for the term ending February 28, 2015, as a
non-voting resource member representing Partners in Employment (PIE).
|
|
That Hazel Elmslie BE APPOINTED to the
London Advisory Committee on Heritage for the term ending February 28, 2015,
as a Voting Member representing the Historical Sector.
|
|
That the communication dated June 21, 2013
from Antoinette Dona, resigning her appointment to the Accessibility Advisory
Committee, BE ACCEPTED and Ms. Dona BE THANKED for participating on the
Committee.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.
Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 3.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the acquisition of property through the local improvement process:
a) the
staff report dated July 23, 2013 entitled “Local Improvement Charges -
Sherwood Forest Public School” BE RECEIVED for information;
b) the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to report back with a draft policy, in liaison with
the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor and the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer,
with respect to the potential use of the local improvement process for the
acquisition of property; and
c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the community, the London
Muslim Mosque and the Thames Valley District School Board to explore how the
City might facilitate the acquisition of Sherwood Forest School by the London
Muslim Mosque, and report back thereon at the August 20, 2013 meeting of the
Corporate Services Committee;
it being noted that the Corporate Services
Committee received the attached communication dated July 17,
2013 from R. Osman, Chair, London Muslim Mosque with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Amend part c) of clause 3 to read as
follows:
"c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the Sherwood Forest community
and the London Muslim Mosque to explore how the City might facilitate the
acquisition of Sherwood Forest School for a community or school use purpose
at no cost to the City (ie. The London Muslim Mosque) and report back thereon
at the August 20, 2013 meeting of the Corporate Services Committee."
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 3, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
Clause
3, as amended, reads as follows:
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the acquisition of property through the local improvement process:
a) the
staff report dated July 23, 2013 entitled “Local Improvement Charges - Sherwood
Forest Public School” BE RECEIVED for information;
b) the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to report back with a draft policy, in liaison with the
Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor and the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, with
respect to the potential use of the local improvement process for the
acquisition of property; and
c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the Sherwood Forest community
and the London Muslim Mosque to explore how the City might facilitate the
acquisition of Sherwood Forest School for a community or school use purpose at
no cost to the City (ie. The London Muslim Mosque) and report back thereon at
the August 20, 2013 meeting of the Corporate Services Committee;
it
being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received the attached
communication dated July 17, 2013 from R. Osman, Chair, London Muslim Mosque
with respect to this matter.
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 5.
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, and in accordance with the policy for City events at the Budweiser
Gardens, the following event BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at the
Budweiser Gardens:
Duck Dynasty’s Call On Farmtown Canada
October 12, 2013
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Amend clause 5 to read as follows:
That
the following actions be taken with respect to City of London Days at the
Budweiser Gardens:
a)
in accordance with the policy for City events at the
Budweiser Gardens, the following event BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at
the Budweiser Gardens:
Duck
Dynasty’s Call On Farmtown Canada
October
21, 2013;
b)
the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to report back to the Corporate Services Committee
with a proposed change to the current policy for City of London Days at the
Budweiser Gardens in order to provide for use of City of London Days for
local purposes.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 5, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 8.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager
Realty Services, with respect to the vacant City-owned property, municipally
known as 337 Ridgewood Avenue, described as Parts 1, 2, Lot 39, Plan 783,
measuring approximately 55’ X 124’ (16.764 m x 38.054 m), containing an area
of approximately 6,865 square feet (638 square meters), the following actions
be taken:
a) the subject property BE DECLARED
SURPLUS; and
b) the
subject property BE OFFERED for sale to the abutting property owners at fair
market value, failing which it will be tendered for sale in accordance with
the Sale and Other Disposition of Land City Policy.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 15.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services & Chief Human Resources Officer:
a) the
revised Workplace Diversity Statement as appended to the staff report dated
July 23, 2013 BE ENDORSED;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite the City of London Agencies,
Boards and Commissions to participate in the renewed Diversity Task Force;
and
c) the balance of the report BE
RECEIVED for information purposes.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant and
seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Amend part b) to read as follows:
“b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite the City of London agencies,
boards and commissions to embrace the City’s Workplace Diversity Statement
and to participate in the renewed Diversity Task Force; and”.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 15, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Clause
15, as amended, reads as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services & Chief Human Resources Officer:
a) the
revised Workplace Diversity Statement as appended to the staff report dated
July 23, 2013 BE ENDORSED;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite the City of London agencies, boards
and commissions to embrace the City’s Workplace Diversity Statement and to
participate in the renewed Diversity Task Force; and
c) the
balance of the report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 21.
|
That Janet Tufts BE APPOINTED to the London
Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee for the term ending February
28, 2015, as a Non-Voting Member representing the United Way of London and
Middlesex.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 6.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interest
were disclosed.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
following actions be taken with respect to RFP10-24 Internal Audit Services:
a) approval
hereby BE GIVEN to extend the current contract for a one (1) year period and
enter into negotiations with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) LLP, 465 Richmond
Street, Suite 300, London, Ontario N6A 5P4 for Internal Audit Services;
b) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that
are necessary in connection with this contract; and
c) approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into negotiations
for satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) LLP to the satisfaction of the Managing Director, Corporate Services
and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 2012 Financial Audit and Audit Findings Report 2012, as
prepared by KPMG:
a) the
2012 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London BE RECEIVED;
and
b) the Audit Findings Report for
the year ending December 31, 2012 BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Audit Committee
received the attached presentation from the Deputy City
Treasurer and a verbal presentation from KPMG with respect to these matters.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Results on urban forestry
and planning applications and Corporate Services/Finance’s budgeting process:
a) the report dated June 27, 2013
BE RECEIVED; and,
b) the
action plans identified in Appendices A, B and C of the report noted in a),
above, BE IMPLEMENTED.
|
|
That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED
to investigate and report back to the Planning and Environment Committee with
respect to the possibility of, and costs related to, the establishment of a
tree replacement process whereby residents are given the option of purchasing
larger trees and making arrangements for a City of London approved contractor
to undertake the work at the residents’ expense.
|
|
That, the Managing Director, Corporate
Services and Chief Human Resources Officer BE DIRECTED to provide a written
report of the September 2013 Audit Committee meeting with respect to
succession planning; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a
verbal update from the Managing Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human
Resources Officer with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to
Approve clause 1.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
|
|
21st Report of the
Corporate Services Committee
Councillor J.P. Bryant presents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to
Approve clause 1.
|
|
1.
|
Disclosures Of Pecuniary Interest
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
Motion
made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clauses 1 to 5, excluding clause 4.
|
1.
|
Disclosures Of Pecuniary Interest
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That the communication dated June 17, 2013,
from R. Sifton, President, Sifton Properties Limited, with respect to
Sifton’s support for the Grand Theatre's development proposal, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That the verbal report from H. Mitchell,
Chief Executive Officer, Western Fair District (WFD), with respect to an
overview of the WFD strategic and development plans, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That David Webb BE GRANTED delegation
status at a future meeting of the Investment and Economic Prosperity
Committee, pertaining to a development proposal for the Pottersburg Creek
Brownfield property, subject to the satisfactory review of the proposal by
the Civic Administration.
|
Motion
Passed
YEAS:
J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe,
M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
Motion
made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 4.
|
Recommendation: That, on the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services, Chief Financial
Officer and City Treasurer and the Director, Corporate Investments and
Partnerships, the following actions be taken with respect to the development
of London’s Medical Innovation and Commercialization Network:
a) the
vision for London’s Medical Innovation and Commercialization Network BE
SUPPORTED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the preparation of a governance structure;
and,
b) in
collaboration with St. Joseph’s Health Care Foundation, London Health
Sciences Foundation, Lawson Health Research Institute, Robarts Research
Institute, London Health Sciences Centre, St. Joseph’s Health Care and
Western University, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a
governance structure, as noted in a) above, for the Medical Innovation and
Commercialization Network; it being noted that the proposed governance
structure will be presented at a future meeting of the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee;
it being noted that the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee (IEPC) heard the attached
presentation from Dr. Michael Strong, Robarts Research Institute, Dr. David
Hill, London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph's Health Care, Dan Ross,
London Health Sciences Foundation and Michelle Campbell, St. Joseph's Health
Care London, with respect to this matter.
|
|
At 8:28 PM his Worship the Mayor places
Councillor D.G. Henderson in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.
|
|
At 8:36 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes
the Chair and Councillor D.G. Henderson takes his seat at the Council Board.
|
The
motion to Approve clause 4 is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (11)
RECUSED: J.P. Bryant (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 4.
|
|
1.
|
Disclosures Of Pecuniary Interest
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer,
with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering
Services and City Engineer and the Managing Director, Development and
Compliance Services and Chief Building Official, the following actions be
taken:
a) the
following policies with respect to the retirement of the Urban Works Reserve
Fund BE APPROVED; it being noted that a number of the recommendations in the
May 13, 2013 report have been refined or redesigned in comparison to the May
13, 2013 report, based on discussions with the London Development Institute,
the London Home Builders' Association and the Urban League:
i) funding
of all Urban Works Reserve Fund works be consolidated under the City Services
Reserve Fund (CSRF); it being noted that suitable transitional provisions
with respect to works currently included in draft plan conditions or under
agreements will be addressed in the draft 2014 Development Charges(DC)
By-law and Background Study;
ii) the
enhancements to the Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update Process
as generally summarized in Appendix ‘A’ to the staff report dated July 29,
2013 be endorsed;
iii) the
new processes for Design and Construction of Storm Water Management
Facilities (SWMF’s), as amended, and as generally summarized in Appendix ‘B’
to the staff report dated July 29, 2013 be endorsed;
iv) the
Municipal Service and Financing Agreements Policy as outlined in Appendix “D”
to the staff report dated July 29, 2013 to be enacted as part of the 2014
Development Charges By-law be endorsed for accepting, assessing and
administering applications for the acceleration of DC-funded works through
Front-Ending Agreements under the Development Charges Act following the
adoption of the 2014 Development Charges By-law;
v) the
draft front-ending agreement prepared by external legal counsel as outlined
in Appendix “E” to the staff report dated July 29, 2013 be received for
information, it being noted that final agreements will be prepared at the
time of Council approval of an application for a Municipal Service and
Financing Agreement based on issues specific to the subject infrastructure
project;
vi) the
Civic Administration be directed to further develop the procedures governing
construction of infrastructure undertaken by developers through development
agreements; and
vii) the
Civic Administration be directed to prepare by-law amendments and further
refine administrative processes necessary to effect the above-noted changes
coincident with the effective date of the 2014 DC By-law;
b) comments
from the London Development Institute and the Urban League of London,
included in Appendix ‘F’: “Stakeholder Comments” of the staff report dated
July 29, 2013, as well as the attached submission from L.
Langdon, Executive Officer, London Home Builders’ Association, with respect
to the above-noted policy, BE RECEIVED for information; and
c) the following changes to the
City’s “local service” definitions BE APPROVED:
i) Watermain oversizing be a
claimable work;
ii) Stormwater Open Channel
Oversizing be a claimable work;
iii) the definition of Sanitary
Sewer Oversizing be redefined subject to information to be provided by the
Master Servicing Study consultants; and
iv) the definition of storm water
management works be more broadly defined as all works required to provide
stormwater management servicing that satisfy the requirements of a Class
Environmental Assessment process;
it being
noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard the attached
presentation from L. Townsend with respect to this matter.
|
|
That the 1st Report of the 2013 Council
Compensation Review Task Force from its meeting held on June 26, 2013 BE
RECEIVED.
|
|
4.
|
Special Strategic Priorities and Policy
Committee Meeting – Council Member Training and Education Session
|
|
That a Special Meeting of the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee BE HELD at a future date to be determined
based upon Council Member availability, at an offsite location, for the
purpose of holding an education/training session to assist the Council
Members in defining interpersonal behaviours and values, in order to
strengthen relationships and cohesion.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
None.
|
Councillor
D. Brown enquired about how the methadone clinic at 425 Wharncliffe Road
South was able to open and operate without fulfilling the requirement for
wrought iron fencing. The enquiry was referred to the Managing Director,
Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building Official for review
and report back to Councillor D. Brown, with a copy of the response to be
provided to the other Council Members.
|
|
Councillor W.J. Armstrong enquired about
the status of the sound barrier for Veterans Memorial Parkway. The Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer advised
that a report on this matter will be coming forward in late September, in
keeping with the advice he had previously provided to the Councillor.
|
None.
Motion
made by Councillor D. Brown and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that
the Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose
of completing the in camera matters previously stated.
Motion
Passed
The Council rises and goes in camera at 8:43
PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present except
Councillors J.P. Bryant, J.B. Swan, P. Van Meerbergen and S.E. White.
Councillor
J.P. Bryant enters the in camera session at 8:45 PM.
The Committee of the Whole rises and Council
reconvenes in public session at 9:30 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair
and all Members present except Councillors S. Orser, J.B. Swan, P. Van
Meerbergen and S.E. White.
Councillor
S. Orser enters the meeting at 9:35 PM
PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant and C. Saunders (City Clerk).
ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P. Barber, S.
Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, M. Hayward, V. McAlea Major, J. Page and L. Rowe.
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe to
Approve:
1. That, on the recommendation of
the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2013 Queen
Elizabeth Scholarships:
(a)
notwithstanding
Council Policy 1(3), which provides for Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the
amount of $2,000 each, to be granted by the City of London in each school
year, for admission to any University, to the two students with the highest
scholastic achievement based on six O.A.C. Credits, the following three
students BE AWARDED the 2013 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts
shown:
Julian
Donovan Regina Mundi Catholic College 98.83% - $2,000
Emily
Dzongowski Mother Teresa Catholic Secondary 97.83% - $2,000
School
Jason
Mile Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School 97.83% - $2,000
it being noted that the awarding of Queen
Elizabeth Scholarships to three students is being recommended on an exception
basis due to the fact that two students are tied for second place; and
(b)
the additional $2,000 Scholarship BE FUNDED through the City’s 2013 Operating
Budget.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe to
Approve:
2. That, on the
recommendation of the City Manager, regarding the lease between the City of
London and Farhi Holding Corporation with respect to Market Tower, located at
151 Dundas Street, the following actions be taken:
a) the
proposal submitted by Farhi Holding Corporation to relocate a portion of the
City-leased space at Market Tower/Annex to the Bell Building, located at 100
Dundas Street, for the purpose of supporting the sale of Market Tower and
the Annex Building to Fanshawe College BE ACCEPTED in the form of a Letter of
Intent, subject to the following covenants:
i) Total
Rentable Area of up to 38,000 square feet;
ii) the
Landlord shall provide 30 underground parking spaces at a rate of $56.25 per
space per month for the first year and escalating at 10% per year for the
remaining nine (9) years;
iii) the
Term shall be ten (10) years, with two further options each of five (5)
years;
iv) commencement
date is subject to the completion of the transfer of Market Tower and the
Annex Building to Fanshawe and shall be the earlier of May 1, 2014; or the
day following the end of the Fixturing Period;
v) Basic
Rent for Years 1 to 10 at $10.00 with no escalation during the term;
vi) Tenant’s
work – the Landlord will carry out the Tenant’s work at its cost and the
Tenant agrees to repay the Landlord in equal monthly instalments with the
rent, an amount that amortizes interest free the total cost of the Tenant’s
work over the term of the lease; and
vii) the
negotiation of a commercial lease which is contingent on the completion of
the sale of Market Tower and the Annex Building by the Landlord to Fanshawe
by May 1, 2014 or earlier, including the assignment of the existing lease
with necessary or negotiated modifications.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)
|
|
BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND
THIRD TIME:
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve First Reading of Bill No.s 327
to 355, including the revised Bill 331.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve Second Reading of Bill No.s 327 to
355, including the revised Bill 331.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve Third Reading and enactment of
Bill No.s 327 to 355, including the revised Bill 331
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve Introduction and First Reading of
Bill 356.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve Second Reading of Bill 356.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve Third Reading and Enactment of
Bill 356.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson,
D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (11)
RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe to Adjourn.
Motion
Passed
The
meeting adjourns at 9:43 PM.
_________________________________
Joe
Fontana, Mayor
_________________________________
Catharine
Saunders, City Clerk