|
|
Council
MINUTES
10TH MEETING
|
|
|
May 14, 2013
|
|
|
|
The Council meets in Regular Session in the
Council Chambers this day at 4:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill,
W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown,
P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P.
Bryant, S.E. White and C. Saunders (City Clerk).
ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P. Barber, A.L.
Barbon, G. Barrett, G. Belch, J. Braam, B. Coxhead, Sandra Datars Bere, J.M.
Fleming, T. Grawey, M. Hayward, G.T. Hopcroft, J. Kobarda, G. Kotsifas, L.
Livingstone, V. McAlea Major, D. Menard, D. O’Brien, J. Page, R. Paynter, L.M.
Rowe, R. Sharpe, E. Soldo and B. Westlake-Power.
|
|
At the beginning of the Meeting all Members
are present except Councillors W.J. Armstrong, D. Brown and J.B. Swan.
|
Councillor J.P. Bryant discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 2 of the 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee
having to do with Western University’s Strategic Plan, by indicating that her
spouse is on the faculty of Western University. Councillor J.P. Bryant further
discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 5 of the 9th Report of the Community
and Protective Services Committee having to do with the 5th Report of the
London Housing Advisory Committee, as it relates to the recommendation related
to the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law, by indicating that she owns a
rental unit.
Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause C-2 of the 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee
having to do with a matter pertaining to potential litigation and advice that
is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary
for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions
to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to a potential
arbitration concerning the apportionment of costs for social housing, Ontario
Works, Child Care and Land Ambulance between Middlesex County and the City of London,
by indicating that he is the Executive Director of a social services agency
that has a purchase of service agreement with Ontario Works.
Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a
pecuniary interest in clause C-2 of the 14th Report of the Corporate Services
Committee having to do with a matter pertaining to potential litigation and
advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications
necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and
directions to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to a
potential arbitration concerning the apportionment of costs for social housing,
Ontario Works, Child Care and Land Ambulance between Middlesex County and the
City of London, by indicating that his spouse operates a day care.
Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 2 of the 5th Report of the Investment and Economic
Prosperity Committee having to do with the Orchestra London Business Plan, by
indicating that he is the Executive Director of Orchestra London.
|
At 4:10 PM Councillor D. Brown enters the
meeting.
|
|
1.
12th
Report of Planning and Environment Committee
2.
9th
Report of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee
|
|
MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve that Council rise and go
into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose of considering the
following:
|
|
e)
|
A matter pertaining to labour relations or
employee negotiations with respect to the School Crossing Guard Program.
(Added)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, S. Orser,
J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van
Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)
|
The
Council rises and goes in camera at 4:16 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the
Chair and all Members present except Councillors W.J. Armstrong and J.B. Swan.
Councillor
W.J. Armstrong enters the meeting at 4:25 PM.
The Committee of the Whole rises and Council
resumes in regular session at 4:42 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and
all Members present, except Councillor J.B. Swan.
|
At 4:57 PM Councillor J.B. Swan enters the
meeting.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve the Minutes of the 9th Meeting
held on April 30, 2013.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant,
S.E. White (15)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen
and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve referral of the following
communications for consideration with the noted clauses:
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong,
J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White
(15)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to
Approve clauses 1 to 10.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, based on the application of the City of
London, relating to the property located at 905 Pond Mills Road, the attached,
revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be
held on May 14, 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
Light Industrial (h-122*h-123*LI3) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial
(h-123*LI3) Zone to remove the holding provision that requires a parking
study be completed and a development agreement be entered into for the
subject property with the City of London; it being noted that urban design
will be addressed though the site plan approval process for these lands.
(2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the
Municipal Council supports granting a three (3) year extension of the draft
plan of subdivision, submitted by Z-Group Limited, relating to the property
located at 530 Sunningdale Road East, submitted by Z-Group Limited, prepared
by Donald A Riley RPP (Z-Group), certified by Jeremy C. E. Matthews, Ontario
Land Surveyor (Drawing No. CAD:POWELL_Redline, dated March 24, 2008) as
red-line amended, which shows 12 single detached dwelling blocks, 1 medium
density residential block, 1 possible school block, 1 open space block, 1
neighbourhood park block, 2 walkway blocks, and 2 road reserve blocks, served
by the continuation of Canvas Way, 1 new secondary collector road (Superior
Drive) and 2 new local streets SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in
Appendix "A” as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013.
(2013-D12)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Planning, the following actions be taken with respect to the
application of Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property
located at 1602 Sunningdale Road West:
a) the
Ontario Municipal Board decision contained in Appendix "A” as appended
to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, relating to the Old Oak Properties
appeal of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law BE RECEIVED;
b) in
response to the letter of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, dated
February 15, 2013, as submitted by Alan Patton, on behalf of Old Oak
Properties, relating to the Draft Plan of Subdivision application by Foxwood
Developments (London) Inc., concerning the property located at 1602
Sunningdale Road West, the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the
Municipal Council has reviewed its recommendation to the Approval Authority
and sees no reason to alter its previous recommendation; and,
c) the
Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to
provide legal representation at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in
support of the Municipal Council’s decision and the position of the Approval
Authority. (2013-D12)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Planning, based on the application of Claybar Developments Inc.,
relating to the properties located at 1934-1984 Wateroak Drive and 1923-1931
Wateroak Drive, the following actions be taken:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2013, to
amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to
change the zoning of 1934-1984 Wateroak Drive and 1921-1931 Wateroak Drive
FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h. h-100. R1-4) Zone and a Holding Residential
R1 (h. h-100. R1-13) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone; a Holding
Residential R1 (h. R1-4) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-13) Zone, to remove
the h. and h-100 holding provisions from certain portions of these lands;
and,
b) the
application to change the zoning of the properties located at 1968-1984
Wateroak Drive FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h. R1-4) Zone TO a Residential
R1 (R1-4) Zone, to remove the h. holding provision BE DEFERRED until such
time as the original Heard Drain, that is located within these parcels, is
decommissioned. (2013-D14B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Planning, based on the application of Bremor Engineering
Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 2350 Dundas Street,
(also known as Block 5 of Draft Approved Plan 39T-12502), the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at
the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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 Restricted Service Commercial Special
Provision (h*h-11*RSC1(22)) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special
Provision (RSC1(22)) Zone, to remove the “h” and “h-11” holding provision,
subject to the registration of the subdivision plan prior to May 14, 2013.
(2013-D14B)
|
|
That the Building Division Monthly Report
for March 2013 BE RECEIVED. (2013-D00)
|
|
That the 5th Report of the Environmental
and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 18,
2013 BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to
the application of Miller Thomson, LLP, relating to the property located at
2800 Roxburgh Road and the easterly portion of the property located 635
Wilton Grove Road:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2013, to
amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to
change the zoning of the property located at 2800 Roxburgh Road FROM a Light
Industrial (LI1) Zone, which permits such uses as bakeries, business service
establishments, manufacturing and assembly industries, pharmaceutical and
medical products industries, printing, reproduction and data processing
industries, research and development establishments, warehouse and wholesale
establishments TO a Light Industrial (LI2) Zone, to permit any use permitted
in the Light Industrial (LI1) Zone as well as such uses as dry cleaning and
laundry plants, food, tobacco and beverage processing industries excluding
meat packaging, leather and fur processing excluding tanning, repair and
rental establishments, service and repair establishments and textile
processing industries; and,
b) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2013 to
amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to
change the zoning of the easterly portion of the property located at 635
Wilton Grove Road FROM a Light Industrial (LI1) Zone, which permits such uses
as bakeries, business service establishments, manufacturing and assembly
industries, pharmaceutical and medical products industries, printing,
reproduction and data processing industries, research and development
establishments, warehouse and wholesale establishments TO a Light Industrial
(LI2) Zone, to permit any use permitted in the Light Industrial (LI1) Zone as
well as such uses as dry cleaning and laundry plants, food, tobacco and
beverage processing industries, excluding meat packaging, leather and fur
processing excluding tanning, repair and rental establishments, service and
repair establishments and textile processing industries;
it being pointed out that there were no
oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated
with this matter. (2013-D14A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Services and Planning Liaison, the following actions be taken
with respect to the Site Plan approval application by 1873739 Ontario Ltd.
relating to the property located at 433 Hyde Park Road:
a) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that, at the public meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised
with respect to the following:
i) landscaping;
ii) traffic
and pedestrian safety;
iii) loss
of privacy;
iv) loss of
wildlife habitat;
v) insufficient
parking; and,
vi) the
height of the buildings;
b) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the
granting of approval of the site plan application, as appended to the staff
report dated May 7, 2013, for two (2) townhouse buildings containing nine (9)
residential units in total, proposed at 433 Hyde Park Road; and,
c) the
financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated
Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix “A” to the associated staff
report, dated May 7, 2013;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Barry McCarthy, #21 – 455 Hyde Park Road – indicating that
many of the concerns that were outlined in the staff presentation are
concerns that he has; indicating that he has three main issues; advising that
he is speaking on behalf of those that are not able to speak, that being the
wildlife; noting that there is a wide variety of species living in the area,
from the smallest animal to deer; advising that it bothers him that there is
no consideration given to preserving the animals habitat; indicating that in
1997, a by-law was adopted relating to maintaining the heights of development
within residential areas; expressing concern with the development of a two-storey
development in a single storey area; noting that this area of Hyde Park Road
is single storey buildings; advising that this is really poor aesthetically;
advising that the area consists mostly of seniors; noting that a two-storey
development is not compatible with seniors who have problems with stairs;
indicating that the most important concern to him is the visual access of the
proposed two-storey dwellings into his property; noting that there is not
much distance between his property and the proposed properties; also noting
that they will have access to his bedroom; further noting that when he is
sitting on his deck, he will have the same visual access to their bedroom;
advising that young trees are generally planted and that, by the time they are
old enough to block visual access, he will not be around; indicating that
canopy trees do not have leaves for a long time and that visual access will
exist for 6 – 8 months; indicating that there is not enough parking on the
west side of Hyde Park Road, as there are ball and soccer games held in the
park; indicating that there is not enough parking in the park for parents and
they park along Hyde Park Road; expressing concern that a child may dart
between parked cars and into traffic; indicating that there is no additional
parking proposed with this application; noting that he does not advocate that
it be proposed; and advising that, if someone in the new development has more
than a couple of guests, those cars will have to be parked on Hyde Park Road
as well.
·
Barbara Richardson, 1128 Mahogany Road - indicating that
the development is literally in her backyard; reiterating the comments
previously mentioned; indicating that it is a beautiful site with deer and a
variety of animals; noting that it is a thoroughly forested area; advising
that it is heartbreaking to see more development; indicating that she
participated in the zoning debates that happened 10 years ago; advising that,
at that time, the residents were assured that only one-floor residences would
be built; advising that two-storey buildings are out of character with entire
area on Hyde Park Road; expressing concern with the area in general and her
privacy and safety; advising that the road into the site will be driving into
her windows; noting that a fence has not been proposed; indicating that this
will devalue her property, both financially and in her ability to enjoy her
property; expressing concern about the swimming pool and the impact of noise
potentially coming from the pool; indicating that she previously made a
submission; and advising that she would like to reiterate the points made by
the previous speaker as it is very risky to put such buildings in this area.
·
Michelle
Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – providing
background on the zoning; noting that the site plan her firm has submitted
complies with the current zoning regulations; advising that in 2004, site specific zoning
was given to the proposed properties and the properties along Mahogany Road,
to ensure that they are sympathetic to the existing residential properties to
the west along Mahogany Road; advising that there is an increased rear yard
setback and an increased landscaped open space; noting that they have met
these requirements; advising that there is a maximum height of 7 metres for
these properties and they comply with the maximum height restriction;
indicating that there is a balance between the existing condominiums on Hyde
Park Road and the existing two storey single family residences along Mahogany
Road; and indicating that, along the easterly property line, the applicant
will build a 1.8 m board fence as well as installing new landscaping that
staff recommended. (2013-D11)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant,
S.E. White (15)
|
Motion
made by Councillor S.E. White to Approve clause 11.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager,
Development Services and Planning Liaison, the following actions be taken
with respect to the site plan approval application of Ontario Addiction
Treatment Centres, relating to the property located at 425 Wharncliffe Road
South:
a) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that, at the public meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised by
the applicant’s representatives with respect to their request to maintain the
existing fence and the Civic Administration’s request to remove the armour
stone;
b) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the north and south fences are to be
constructed of wrought iron, the existing interior chain link fence be retained
and the clear throat access be applied;
c) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the
granting of approval of the attached, revised, site plan and
the site plan application to convert the existing used car dealership into a
methadone clinic, dispensing methadone to a maximum of 200 clients per day;
and,
d) the
financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated
Claims and Revenues Report” contained in Appendix "A” as appended to the
staff report dated May 7, 2013;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Steven
Cornwell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd, on behalf of the applicant – expressing concern
with the staff recommendation to remove the existing four foot chain link
fence across the south property line and replacing it with a six foot chain
link fence; noting that a four foot fence is the standard that the City uses;
advising that the applicant does not see the necessity of replacing an
existing fence that is working fine; advising that a six foot chain link
fence would look worse; indicating that the request for a higher fence does
not address a specific issue and the applicant would like the Planning and
Environment Committee to consider accepting the existing fence as appropriate
for this site; advising that there have been a lot of comments about the
large number of parking spaces on the site; pointing out that, contrary to
what some believe, it is difficult for methadone service providers to find a
suitable location consistent with their needs and that meet the City’s
policies for locating these facilities; indicating that the owners of the
subject property had to make many sacrifices; indicating that there is no
need to look at how much parking exists on this site and say that’s an
indication of the intensity of use that is going to go on here; advising that
the Official Plan policies call for high quality and long-lasting materials to
be used in fences, but what the policies do not specify, is the circumstances
in which fencing is required; noting that it has not been the practice of the
City to require fences between commercial properties in a corridor like
Wharncliffe Road South; advising that, in fact the City’s practice has been
to encourage back and forth movements between commercial sites; noting that
it is unclear what the purposes of the fences on the north and south sides of
this property would actually serve because he does not believe that this City
would require different treatment for people suffering from addictions than
for any other of its citizens; advising that when you look at the
requirement, you can say that the fences on the north and south side of this
property meet with the provisions that the holding provision refers to in the
Zoning By-law, neither of which are necessary from a planning perspective;
and advising that there is no reason to suspect that a 6 foot fence would
satisfy anything that a four foot fence would not.
·
Alan
R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, on behalf of the applicant – see attached
communication. (2013-D11)
|
|
At 5:50 PM, His Worship the Mayor places
Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair, and takes a seat at the Council Board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At 5:57 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes
the Chair, and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe to Approve that part b) of clause 11 be
amended to read as follows:
"b) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the north and south fences are to be
constructed of wrought iron, at a height of 1.8m, the existing interior chain
link fence is to be retained, the clear throat access is to be applied at a
minimum of 6 metres, and decorative stones are to be permitted instead of
armour stone;"
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, W.J. Armstrong, J.L.
Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P.
Bryant (9)
NAYS: B. Polhill, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, S.E. White (6)
|
Pursuant
to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen
calls for a separate vote on clause 11 b).
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe to Approve clause 11, as amended,
excluding part b).
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant,
S.E. White (15)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and
seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe to Approve clause 11 b), as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, J.L. Baechler, N.
Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (8)
NAYS: B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B.
Swan, S. Orser, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, S.E. White (7)
|
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 12.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Manager
of Development Services and Planning Liaison, the following actions be taken
with respect to the appeals by Colonel Talbot Developments Inc., on the
neglect by the Municipal Council to make a decision on the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law amendment applications and the failure of the Approval
Authority to make a decision on an application for subdivision approval
concerning lands located at 3924 and 4138 Colonel Talbot Road:
a) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has reviewed
the appeals and determined that a decision to approve the Official Plan
amendment, Zoning By-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision
applications, at this time, would be premature, and would not be in the public
interest for the following reasons:
i) the
subject lands are located within the area affected by the Southwest Area Plan
(OPA 541), which is currently under appeal. Land uses, road alignments and
conditions of draft approval cannot be finalized for this plan of subdivision
until such time as the land use policies and servicing requirements for the
Southwest Area Plan are confirmed;
ii) conditions
of draft approval cannot be formulated for sanitary servicing since there is
no sanitary servicing available to service the proposed plan of subdivision.
The Development Charge By-law (By-law C.P.-1473-212) and Growth Management
Implementation Strategy, that are currently in effect, do not provide for
financing to service the required sanitary works within the 20 year planning
period;
iii) conditions
of draft approval cannot be formulated for stormwater management because a
storm/drainage and stormwater management (SWM) servicing Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (EA) is required prior to consideration of this
application, to confirm stormwater management requirements for this
development and external lands. The Development Charge By-law (By-law
C.P.-1473-212) and Growth Management Implementation Strategy, that are
currently in effect, do not provide for financing to service the required
storm/drainage and SWM works within the 20 year planning period;
iv) collector
road alignments and conditions of draft approval cannot be finalized for the
proposed plan of subdivision until such time as the connecting alignments in
the Southwest Area Plan have been confirmed. The collector road alignments in
the proposed plan of subdivision are inconsistent with the collector road
alignments in the Southwest Area Plan and the Traffic Impact Statement
submitted with the revised plan of subdivision application, does not satisfy
requirements in the Official Plan Traffic Assessment Guidelines;
v) the
proposed plan of subdivision is not consistent with the Natural Heritage
policies in Section 15 of the Official Plan or the Natural Heritage features
delineated in the Southwest Area Plan. The Subject Lands Status
Report/Scoped EIS, submitted with the revised application, has not been
prepared in accordance with the requirements in Section 15.5 of the Official
Plan. Also, the proposed plan of subdivision does not include the pathway
corridor alignments as identified in the Bicycle Master Plan; and,
vi) based
on the deficiencies identified with the proposed plan of subdivision, and the
current status of the Southwest Area Plan, the proposed plan of subdivision
is not consistent with the provisions in Section 1.6 and 2.1 of the
Provincial Policy Statement, and Section 2 of the Planning Act;
b) the
City Solicitor and Managing Director of Development & Compliance Services
and Chief Building Official BE DIRECTED to provide legal and planning
representation at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to support the position
of Municipal Council; and,
c)
the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to continue discussions with the applicant
relating to the application
for draft plan of subdivision approval concerning lands located at 3924 and
4138 Colonel Talbot Road;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Steve
Stapleton, Auburn Developments, applicant – see attached
presentation.
·
Carol
Wiebe, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, on behalf of
York Developments – see attached presentation. (2013-L01)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant,
S.E. White (15)
|
The
Chair directs that clause 13 be considered in conjunction with clause 16.
Pursuant to section 18.6 of the Council
Procedure By-law, clause 13 is submitted to the Municipal Council for its
disposition.
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to
Approve the following staff recommendation as it relates to clause 13 and to
Approve clause 16:
That, on the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the
following actions be taken with respect to the application of Romlex
International Inc. relating to the properties located at 1057, 1059 and 1061
Richmond Street:
a)
the
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013 as Appendix
"A", BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May 14, 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
Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone and a Residential R2 Special Provision
(R2-2(9)) Zone TO a Holding Neighbourhood Facility Special
Provision Bonus (h-5*h-(*)*NF1( )*B( )) Zone to continue to permit Churches, Elementary schools, Community centres, Day care centres, Libraries, Private schools, Fire stations, Private club and Police station subject to
a Special Provision for
a minimum parking area setback from a front/exterior lot line of 0.5m, a 0
meter parking area setback from the interior/rear property line, a minimum
landscape open space of 10% and to add a Bonus Zone to permit a maximum of 14
residential units within the existing building located at 1061 Richmond Street
as a permitted use and regulations that: limit the maximum number of bedrooms
per unit to 4, permit a maximum of one (1) four bedroom unit, permit a minimum
of nine (9) two bedroom units, with a maximum density of 76.6 units per
hectare, including holding provisions to ensure that development takes a form
compatible with adjacent land uses, agreements shall be entered into following
public site plan review and for the protection of the public right-of-way
corridor,
which
shall be implemented through a development agreement in return for the
provision of the following services facilities and matters:
·
the
preservation of the heritage structure on the property located at 1061 Richmond
Street through its designation under the Ontario Heritage Act
·
a
1.2 m (4 feet) in height, masonry wall matching the materials and architectural
expression of the existing building located at 1061 Richmond Street,
supplemented with high quality landscaping, to provide for screening of the
parking area along the majority of the Richmond Street frontage;
b)
subject
to policy 19.1.1
iii) of the Official Plan where ‘Minor variations
from numerical requirements in the Plan may be permitted by Council without an
Official Plan amendment, provided that the general intent and objectives of the
Plan are maintained, the requested density of 76.6 unit per hectare BE
INTREPRETED to conform to the policies of the Official Plan; and
c)
the
London Advisory Committee on Heritage BE REQUESTED to review the plans
submitted as part of the Zoning By-law amendment application and consider the
reasons for designation that have been prepared for the property to date,
noting that future Richmond Street right-of-way requirements may necessitate
the removal of the staircase which is located in the road allowance;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated May 1, 2013,
from W. Pol, Pol Associates Inc., with respect to this matter;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this
matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – expressing general
support for the staff recommendations; indicating that there is no need for the
holding provision for the front staircase; advising that the front staircase is
clearly on the municipal road allowance and the municipality can remove it any
time it needs the right-of-way; reiterating that there is no need for the
holding provision on the front staircase; advising that the design of the
building is such that the staircase is not necessary for the function of the
building as the ground units access the side entrance; advising that the second
holding provision deals with the details of site plan; noting that the main
portion of the site plan is known, being the church; noting that no other
buildings are being proposed to be built on this site; advising that the other
site plan details are parking, access and the laneway; asking the Planning and
Environment Committee to support the other elements of the staff recommendation
as this is an efficient and effective reuse of an important building in the
streetscape; advising that the intensification is fully within the parameters
of the City’s Official Plan, even without the bonusing; advising that the
bonusing provides the Municipal Council with extra control to ensure that
things are done in a particular way; advising that the intensity that is being
sought is an intensity that is permissible under the Low Density Residential
designation that applies to this property without bonusing; indicating that
this approach is an acceptable one where there is a heritage building; noting
that the approach that is being taken ties the use to the building in an
appropriate matter; advising that the comment was made to refer the matter back
to staff, noting that the Municipal Council has already referred this matter
back to staff for specific matters to be dealt with; advising that the
applicant has agreed to a number of improvements to the laneway; indicating
that the matter of traffic in and out on Richmond Street was dealt with by the
City’s Transportation staff and lead to the recommendation before Committee
today; advising that people will not be crammed into the basement; noting that
there will only be three units in the basement; advising that the demolition of
203 Sherwood Avenue is no longer part of the application; advising that the
church is not to be considered as a single family residence; noting that
churches are not prezoned in all single family residential areas because they
have locational criteria and they are intensive uses; indicating that what is
being proposed is a residential use fully in keeping with Low Density Official
Plan Policies, as well as in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement;
noting that the Policies promote the preservation of buildings of cultural
heritage merit; indicating that this is not a blockbusting precedent; noting
that this is a unique situation on Richmond Street indicating that
Neighbourhood Character or Neighbourhood Compatibility statements were prepared
at the outset of the application; advising that the neighbourhood plan has
downsides, as it will be uneconomical and will not retain the church;
indicating that preserving the church will provide a neighbourhood benefit;
noting that the church is being preserved as it is with minor changes; further
noting that it is too expensive to maintain a slate roof; indicating that the
stained glass windows are still remaining; indicating that the neighbours and
the applicant would like to see a high class upscale development, which cannot
be achieved by reducing the number of units; advising that the application is
for mostly two bedroom units; indicating that this is not student housing;
advising that the costs to renovate the church are such that it is out of the
students price range; advising that these units will command a high price as
they are in a desirable location; reiterating that this proposal is within the
Official Plan policies; indicating that this application fulfills the intent
for the North London policies; and requesting that the staff recommendation be
passed.
·
William
Pol, Pol Associates Inc., on behalf of the area residents – see attached
presentation
·
Paul
Adams, 191 Sherwood Avenue – showing a video presentation prepared by M.A.
Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue.
·
Michael
Backx, 192 Sherwood Avenue – advising that the residents did not oppose the
residential use for this site, they oppose the application because it is too
intense; indicating that the issue on this application is intensity and how
many units should be permitted; advising that the issues relating to this
application, such as parking and traffic, just to name two, are related to
intensity; advising that, simply put, there are too many units proposed;
indicating that, in the church the applicant proposes 14 units with 34
bedrooms; indicating that a number of the residents are proposing 6 units, with
3 bedrooms each, for a total of 18 bedrooms; advising that the issue is 14
units versus 6 units, in other words 34 bedrooms versus 18 bedrooms; advising
that the residents proposal conforms to the Official Plan and represents good
land use planning; requesting the Planning and Environment Committee to
consider the residents proposal; advising that the application is contrary to
everything that the City Council has done in North London; advising that the
issue of intensity in this area has been on every Council’s agenda for decades;
indicating that Council and the City have undertaken numerous reports, attended
countless Ontario Municipal Board hearings and spent thousands of dollars in
staff time studying issues directly related to the intensity of this area;
advising that there is the Richmond Street Corridor Plan, which studied
Richmond Street from Grosvenor Street to Park Hill Avenue and the purpose of
which was to preserve the Low Density Residential character despite pressures
of multi-unit residential and office conversion uses; advising that there was
also a North London Residential Study which dealt with addressing pressure
relating to residential intensity and resulted in zoning amendments to address
intensity, including the imposition of more area ratios and parking
regulations; advising that, more recently, there was the Greater Near Campus
Neighbourhood Strategy, which was done to address issues related to residential
intensification in this area; advising that zoning amendments arising from this
study include the three bedroom limit which the City will be defending to the
Ontario Municipal Board in June; indicating that, despite all of these studies
and years of problems and countless Ontario Municipal Board hearings in an area
whose primary concern has always been intensity, the Planners are recommending
a proposal that will exceed the maximum density permitted in the Official Plan;
indicating that the neighbourhood is simply at a loss, hence why they looked
for outside advice; indicating that they have 14 units and 13 bedrooms, with a
maximum density of 75 units per hectare; reiterating that it is too much and is
not of the scale which is compatible with the neighbourhood; advising that this
is a blockbuster precedent; advising that there is nothing like this on
Richmond Street; indicating that on Richmond Street, between Grosvenor Street
and Huron Street, there is no other residential properties that, meet, exceed
or come even close to the maximum density in the Official Plan of 75 units per
hectare or that have 14 residential units; pointing out that there are none
with more than four residential units; advising that the application has also
included tearing down a heritage home on Richmond Street which will leave a
large, gaping hole in the landscape; advising that in the Official Plan, it
says that conversions done in this area are to be done through conservation and
rehabilitation of existing housing stock; noting that he does not see how that
fits with tearing down homes, especially heritage homes; indicating that there
was a suggestion to install a brick wall in place of the demolished home;
advising that this is not good urban design; indicating that there are no brick
walls on Richmond Street between Grosvenor Street and Huron Street; enquiring
if this is to be the new standard, brick walls in front of parking lots all
along Richmond Street; enquiring if this is the face of Avenue Road in Toronto
to which the applicant alluded to in February; indicating that there is nothing
in the Planning report to justify how the Planners arrived at the maximum density;
indicating that the Planning report justifying 76.6 units per hectare to keep
the church, is not a reasonable bonus or density; advising that they are at a
loss as to how Planning staff can justify this amount; indicating that if the
proposal is to be compatible, the starting point for the density would be the
surrounding neighbourhood residential units, which he understands to be 35
units per hectare, not the maximum of 75 units per hectare; indicating that
they met with city staff on this matter and the staff did not provide the
residents with an answer; advising that they are not aware of any obligation in
land use planning to suggest that the City must go to the maximum density;
advising that there was no neighbourhood character statement and no compatibility
report done by the applicant, as required under the Official Plan, for
intensification; indicating that these reports are critical to good planning
and that is why they are included in the Official Plan; indicating that these
reports would have highlighted the incompatibility of this development on the
neighbourhood; advising that the Official Plan is clear, for intensification, a
proposal must be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; advising that
there are 12 residential units, in total, on Sherwood Avenue; noting that this
proposal is for 14 residential units, which more than doubles the existing
intensity; indicating that concerns have been expressed by the neighbours and
even the City, about traffic, access and parking; noting that all of these
issues stem from intensity or the number of units; if the traffic is too much
for ingress and egress on Richmond, then simply put, it is too intense; noting
that if it is too much for Richmond Street, then it is too much for Sherwood
Avenue, which is a one block, dead-end substandard street; advising that the
impacts need to be contained on the site and if they cannot be, then the
proposal is simply too intense; reiterating that the application is too
intense, that it is contrary to everything that the City has done to protect
this area; indicating that neighbourhoods are the fabric of our communities;
requesting that neighbourhoods be protected, not destroyed; and asking that the
Planning and Environment Committee refuse this application.
·
Sid
Noel, 196 Sherwood Avenue – indicating that the aspect of the planning proposal
that most affects life on Sherwood Avenue is whether or not access to the
laneway from the development is permitted, if it does, it will create serious
deterioration in the quality of life on the street; noting that it is a narrow
street, without a turning circle at the end; indicating that it is totally
inappropriate to have traffic directed into Sherwood Avenue in connection with
this proposal; requesting the Planning and Environment Committee turn to page 9
of the staff report, at the top, where it states “the parking access will be
directed towards Richmond Street instead of Sherwood Avenue”; commending the
planning staff for realizing the importance of this point and expressing
support for this part of the staff report; indicating that the staff report
opposes placing bollards at the rear of the property, by saying that the
blockage would result in added vehicular impact on Sherwood Avenue from
vehicles travelling north on Richmond Street and turning left onto Sherwood
Avenue and using the street to u-turn, so that they could enter the parking lot
with right-in, right-out access onto Richmond Street; advising that this entire
passage is premised on the notion that only right-in, right-out access will be
permitted with even a raised median to be placed on Richmond Street to prevent
left turns; enquiring as to why should this relatively small parking lot for
the Robinson Memorial Church proposal be treated differently than other lots on
Richmond Street; indicating that the Planning and Environment Committee should
be aware that there are numerous parking lots along Richmond Street that have
unrestricted access and there is no special problem with any of them, to site a
few examples, there is the CIBC parking lot just north of the Oxford
Street/Richmond Street intersection; noting that this is a busy parking lot
during business hours; the Chabbad House parking lot at 1114 Richmond Street,
which is now a student centre, formerly a Greek Orthodox church, has a parking
lot far larger than the one proposed for this redevelopment and it has
unrestricted in and out access onto Richmond Street; noting that the high rise
apartment blocks north of the University Gates, each with unrestricted entry
and exit; notwithstanding the reservations of the Transportation staff, urging
the Planning and Environment Committee to consider treating this access to the
parking lot like all of the other access points along the street; advising that
imposing a restriction on Robinson Memorial United Church redevelopment only is
an unnecessary complication and completely at odds with the treatment of other
parking lots that have exit/entry onto Richmond Street; reiterating that not
directing traffic onto Sherwood Avenue is the key part of the planning staff’s
report; and noting that, if this can be accomplished, it would be a major step
towards preserving the quality of life on Sherwood Avenue.
·
Steve
Harris, 201 Sherwood Avenue – suggesting that the safety of children be the
baseline issue and the top priority; advising that he is requesting, on behalf
of the families with children on the street, that common sense rule as someone
could be injured or killed on this lane due to the increased traffic that would
be part of the new development; advising that the solution is simple, please
keep automobile access for this development along Richmond Street; and
requesting to please close the west end of the parking lot so that traffic
cannot enter or exit at the lane.
·
Brian
Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – advising he is the former owner of 203 Sherwood
Avenue and sold it to Jane Bigelow many years ago; indicating that he and his
wife have raised two children on this street at a time when all the young
children lived at the Richmond Street end and not the other end of the street;
expressing support for the restriction of the ingress into Sherwood Avenue to
allow any attempt at parking as it will make living in their place completely
unsustainable; noting that they already have major problems with people turning
around in their driveway at all hours of the day and night; and noting that
this will only make it much worse.
·
Pollyanna
McClinton, 194 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concern for the safety of the
children on Sherwood Avenue; noting that they play hockey and baseball on the
street; advising that the lane is used daily by all the children going to
school or to the park; and requesting that the Planning and Environment
Committee consider the residents quality of life.
·
Jim
Waters - advising that he previously resided at 1059 Richmond Street, which has
been demolished; reiterating that access to the lane and the street be denied;
and advising that he spoke at the previous public participation meeting with
respect to this matter. (2013-D14A)
|
That the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that
the Municipal Council supports the rights-in, rights-out access onto Richmond
Street and the denial of access to the laneway, as it relates to the
properties located at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street.
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Amend clause 13 to permit a maximum of 8
+1 residential units within the existing buildings located at 1057, 1059 and
1061 Richmond Street as a permitted use and regulations that: limit the maximum
bedrooms per unit of 3, with a maximum density of 45 units per hectare.
Councillor S.E. White leaves the meeting at
6:11 PM.
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that clauses 13 and 16 BE REFERRED
back to staff to work with the applicant to address the following matters:
a) prohibiting
access to the site from the laneway;
b) provision
for all-way turns into and out of the site;
c) removal
of uses from the base Neighbourhood Facility Zone that are not desired by the
applicant;
d) exploration
of opportunities to reduce density and bedrooms on the site, with
consideration given to compatible density suggestions; and
e) revision of the urban design
brief to address the revised project proposal.
|
|
At 6:25 PM, His Worship the Mayor places
Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair, and takes a seat at the Council board.
|
|
At 6:31 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes
the Chair, and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council board.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve the motion to refer be Amended in
part d) by deleting the words "compatible density suggestions" and by
replacing them with the words "a maximum density of 45 units per
hectare, that is compatible and reflective of the character of the existing
neighbourhood".
|
The
motion to Amend the motion to refer is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser,
J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(9)
NAYS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, M. Brown,
D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen (5)
|
The
motion to Refer, as amended, is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, W.J. Armstrong, J.B.
Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)
NAYS: B. Polhill (1)
|
The
motion to Refer, as amended, reads as follows:
Referred
back to staff to work with the applicant to address the following matters:
a) prohibiting
access to the site from the laneway;
b) provision
for all-way turns into and out of the site;
c) removal of
uses from the base Neighbourhood Facility Zone that are not desired by the
applicant;
d) exploration
of opportunities to reduce density and bedrooms on the site, with consideration
given to a maximum density of 45 units per hectare, that is compatible and
reflective of the character of the existing neighbourhood; and
e) revision
of the urban design brief to address the revised project proposal.
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 14.
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Blackfriars/Petersville neighbourhood:
a) the
report, dated May 7, 2013, from the Managing Director, Corporate Services and
City Solicitor, relating to the planning options for the
Blackfriars/Petersville neighbourhood BE RECEIVED;
b) the
London Advisory Committee on Heritage BE REQUESTED to consider the
Blackfriars/Petersville neighbourhood as the next potential Heritage
Conservation District on the list of potential Heritage Conservation
Districts as maintained by the London Advisory Committee on Heritage;
c) the
London Advisory Committee on Heritage BE REQUESTED to recommend the hiring of
a Consultant to prepare a study for the Blackfriars/Petersville
Neighbourhood, generally bounded by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the
north, the Thames River to the east and south and the floodplain boundary to
the west, and as shown on Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report dated
May 7, 2013, to determine whether areas within the Blackfriars/Petersville
area meet the Official Plan criteria and the Ontario Heritage Act criteria
with respect to the creation of a heritage conservation district under
Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act;
d) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a concurrent study to consider
a City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject area from a
Residential R2 zone to a Residential R1 Zone;
it being noted that
staff will report back regarding possible changes to the staff workplan that
may be required to undertake the zoning study identified above;
e) that
NO ACTION be taken with respect to an Interim Control By-law for the
Blackfriars/Petersville area;
f) the
proposed draft by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2013, for
the purpose of revoking the delegated authority for site plan approval for
the property located at 108 Wilson Avenue; and,
g) a
special meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE HELD on Tuesday,
May 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM to receive advice from the London Advisory Committee
on Heritage, the Managing Director of Planning and City Planner and the
Managing Director of Corporate Services and City Solicitor, with respect to
the potential designation of the Blackfriars/ Petersville area as a heritage
conservation study area by by-law, pursuant to Section 40.1(1) of the Ontario
Heritage Act;
it being pointed out that the Planning and
Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from the Manager, Land Use Planning
Policy, the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor, the
Manager, Development Services & Planning Liaison and the attached
presentation from K. Bice, 2 Leslie Street, on behalf of the Blackfriars
community, with respect to this matter. (2013-R01)
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
|
|
12th Report of the
Planning and Environment Committee
Councillor B. Polhill presents.
|
|
|
|
|
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 2.
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the 6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH)
from its meeting held on May 8, 2013:
a) on
the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with
the concurrence of the Heritage Planner, the Blackfriars/Petersville
Neighbourhood BE PRIORITIZED as the next potential Heritage Conservation
District on the list of potential Heritage Conservation Districts (Heritage
Places: A Description of Potential Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of
London, 1993);
it being also noted
that the Planning and Environment Committee was advised by the Manager,
Policy Planning and Programs, that the Municipal Council, at its meeting held
on June 20, 2011, identified SoHo as the next Heritage Conservation District
(HCD); noting that the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner’s report,
dated May 8, 2013, indicates that SoHo is sixth on the list of potential
HCD’s;
b) a
study of the Blackfriars/Petersville Neighbourhood BE UNDERTAKEN for
the purpose of designating a heritage conservation district in accordance
with the Terms of Reference appended as Schedule “B” of the staff report
dated May 8, 2013; and,
c) subject
to the approval of parts a) and b), above, the attached,
revised, by-law to designate the Blackfriars/Petersville Neighbourhood heritage
conservation study area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be
held on May 14, 2013, to designated a heritage conservation district study
area for the Blackfriars/Petersville neighbourhood;
it being noted that the London Advisory
Committee on Heritage (LACH) reviewed and received a Report, dated May 8,
2013, from the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, and heard a
verbal delegation from G. Barrett, Manager, Policy Planning and Programs,
with respect to this matter;
d)
on
the recommendation of the Managing Director, Land Use Planning and City
Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration
Permit Application of M. Schiller/A. Schiller requesting permission for an
change to the cladding on the designated heritage property located at 142
Kent Street BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has
reviewed the proposed change and has advised that the impact of such
alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons
for designation, while not negligible, is reversible; it being noted that the
London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) heard a verbal delegation from
A. Schiller with respect to this matter; it being further noted that the
Staff report relating to this matter was provided to the LACH at its March
13, 2013 meeting; and,
e) that clauses 3
through 15, inclusive, of the 6th Report of the LACH, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clauses 1 and 3.
|
1.
|
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
|
That
it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
|
3.
|
Heritage Conservation Districts
|
|
That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED
to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee
with respect to the potential of undertaking concurrent Heritage Conservation
Districts, on the list of potential Heritage Conservation Districts (Heritage
Places: A Description of Potential Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of
London, 1993), including sources of financing and the procedure for
undertaking this initiative; it being noted that the Planning and Environment
Committee heard verbal presentations from the Manager, Policy Planning and
Programs and the Heritage Planner, with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
|
11th Report of the Planning and Environment
Committee (continued)
Councillor B. Polhill presents.
|
Motion
made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 15.
|
That the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED
to review the amount of parking in Hazelden Park and look for potential
opportunities to expand the existing parking lot; it being noted that cars are
parking along Hyde Park Road during ball games and soccer games.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown and
seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Recess.
Motion Passed
|
Council recesses at 6:58 PM and reconvenes at
7:40 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present except Councillor
S.E. White.
|
Motion made by Councillor D. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 7.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor J.P.
Bryant disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5 of this Report, having to
do with the 5th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, as it
relates to the recommendation related to the Residential Rental Unit
Licensing By-law, by indicating that she owns a rental unit.
|
|
That the 4th Report of the London Diversity
and Race Relations Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 18,
2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and
the Fire Chief, the following actions be taken with respect to the No. 7 Fire
Station Relocation Project No. F07-PP1089 (Tender No. 13-51):
a) the
bid submitted by Graceview Enterprises Inc., 50432 Yorke Line, RR1, Belmont,
Ontario N0L 1B0, at its tendered price of $1,824,000.00 (HST excluded) for
No. 7 Fire Station Relocation, BE ACCEPTED; it being pointed out that the bid
submitted by Graceview Enterprises Inc. was the lowest bid received and 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 attached to the staff report dated May 6, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
which are necessary in connection with this project;
d) the
approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal contract with the contractor for the work; and
e) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-L04A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Development and Compliance Services & Chief Building Official,
the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of May 14, 2013, to amend the
Fence By-law, PS-6, to for the purpose of addressing public safety.
(2013-C01)
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 5th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee (LHAC),
from its meeting held on April 10, 2013:
a) on
the recommendation of the LHAC, the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the
LHAC expressed its support for the administration and enforcement of the
Residential Rental Units Licensing By-law, with a focus on addressing
substandard housing conditions proactively, protecting amenities, character
and stability of residential areas and ensuring compliance with the Fire
Protection and Promotion Act; and,
b) clauses 2 to 5 BE RECEIVED.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the request for delegation status from S. Charles, Guaranteed
Designs to request an amendment to the Sign and Canopy By-law related to the
property located at 1064 Western Road:
a) the
request for delegation status BE NOTED AND FILED; it being noted that a new
sign by-law is scheduled to be brought forward at a future meeting of the
Community and Protective Services Committee and public comments will be
received at that time; and,
b) the
additional correspondence from M. Shahabi, with respect to this matter BE
RECEIVED.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the request for delegation status from Youth Create Healthy
Communities, related to a proposed student bus pass subsidy from the City of
London:
a) the request for delegation
status BE NOTED AND FILED; and,
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to arrange a meeting with the local Members
of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as soon as possible, in for the
matter of income redistribution to be further discussed in order to
facilitate a program such as the one proposed above.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
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, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to
Approve clauses 1 to 8, excluding clauses 2, 5, and 7.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor J.P.
Bryant disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of this Report having to do
with Western University’s Strategic Plan by indicating that her spouse is on
the faculty of Western University.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer,
staff BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with appeals under the Assessment Act for the
properties as set out in Schedule “A” appended to the staff report dated May
7, 2013.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to voluntary donations to the City of London:
a) the
City of London’s current practices with respect to donations to the City of
London BE AFFIRMED; and
b) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to update the City of London’s website to
make reference to the ability to make a donation to the City of London, in
keeping with current practices.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, notwithstanding Council Policy 3(8) – Policy for City Events at
Budweiser Gardens, which restricts a group from having more than two event
days over a five year consecutive period, the request from the United Way
Campaign to host the annual United Way Campaign Launch & 3M Harvest Lunch
on September 19, 2013 BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at the Budweiser
Gardens; it being noted that only one other request has been received for
2013.
|
|
That the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to review
the appointment process for the City of London’s appointees to its local
boards and commissions, with a view to ensuring the process provides for
consideration of the qualifications of applicants and that any necessary
changes to the appointment process are made prior to the commencement of the
new Council term; it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee
received a communication dated April 10, 2013, from V. Sharma, Chief
Executive Officer, London Hydro Inc., with respect to the training
expenditures for a board member for London Hydro.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
Motion
made by Councillor N. Branscombe Approve clause 2.
|
That the Mayor and the City Manager BE
REQUESTED to advise Western University that, further to the letter dated
April 24, 2013 from the Mayor and the City Manager providing input on Western
University’s strategic plan, the City of London has an interest in connecting
international students within the Downtown core through a graduate program;
it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received an information
report from the City Manager with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
RECUSED: J.P. Bryant (1)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 5.
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, the annual meeting calendar for the period December 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2014, as appended to the staff report dated May 7, 2013, BE
APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be
required from time to time in order to accommodate special meetings or
changes to governing legislation.
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Amend the annual meeting calendar to move
the SPPC meeting of February 13 to February 10, 2014.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Amend clause 5 by revising the annual
meeting calendar to include the following new meeting dates:
Dearness Committee of Management:
Thursday, January 23, 2014 at Noon
Thursday, March 27, 2014 at Noon
Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at Noon
Thursday, September 18, 2014 at Noon
Audit Committee:
Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM
Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 4:00 PM
Thursday, September 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM
Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 4:00 PM
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)
NAYS: P. Hubert (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 5, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
Motion
made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 7.
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Manager, and the Managing Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human
Resources Officer, the report dated May 7, 2013 with respect to the Welcoming
the World to London Campaign BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that
there will be a future report regarding next steps and the costs associated
therewith; it being further noted that the Corporate Services Committee heard
a verbal delegation from the Director of Corporate Communications with
respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
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 award of contracts for the
2013 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3: Dreaney Avenue and King Edward
Avenue Reconstruction Project (ES2414-13, EW3765-13, ES3055):
a) the
bid submitted by Omega Contractors Inc. (Omega), 4104 Breck Avenue, London,
Ontario, N0M 2A0, at its tendered price of $1,768,850.15 (excluding H.S.T.),
for the 2013 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3 project,
BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Omega was the lowest of
eight bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in
all areas;
b) R.V.
Anderson Associates Limited (RVA), #200-557 Southdale Road East, London,
Ontario, N6E 1A2, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and
contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate,
on file, at an upset amount of $203,500.00 (excluding H.S.T.) based upon the
Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services recommended by the
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section
15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design for the
project;
c) minor
future additional annual operating costs of $500.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result
of this project; it being noted that these costs are as a result of new
infrastructure installation, and will be considered and accommodated within
future Water & Wastewater Operating Budgets;
d) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2013;
e) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this project;
f) the
approval 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 relating to this project (Tender 13-13); and,
g) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.
(2013-L04A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for the
2013 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #8: Manitoulin Drive Reconstruction
Project (ES2414-12, EW3765-13, TS3014-13, TS3037-13):
a) the
bid submitted by Aar-Con Excavating, 10998 Longwoods Road, Delaware, ON, N0L
1E0, at its tendered price of $1,834,911.50 (excluding H.S.T.), for the 2013
Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #8 project, BE ACCEPTED;
it being noted that the bid submitted by Aar-Con Excavating was the lowest of
eleven bids received and 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 May 6, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this project;
d) the
approval 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 relating to this project (Tender 13-25); and,
e) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-L04A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the award of the contract for the
2013 Arterial Road Rehabilitation - Contract ‘2’ (TS1446-11 & 12):
a) the
bid submitted by Dufferin Construction Company, 2200 Jetstream Rd, PO Box
189, London, ON, N6A 4V7, at its submitted tendered price of $2,872,006.64
(excluding H.S.T.), for the 2013 Arterial Road Rehabilitation - Contract ‘2’,
BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Dufferin Construction
Company was the lowest of two (2) bids received and meets the City’s
specifications and requirements in all areas; it being further noted that
there is no anticipated additional operating costs to the Environmental and
Engineering Services budget in 2014 and subsequent years associated with
approval of this tender;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2013;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this project;
d) the
approval 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 relating to this project (Tender 13-35); and,
e) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-L04A)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for the
Sherwood Forest Weeping Tile Disconnect Internal & External Works
(ES2680):
a) the
bid submitted by All Season Excavating, 8513 Churchill Line, Watford, ON, N0M
2S0, at its tendered price of $172,240.00 (excluding H.S.T.), for the
construction of the Sherwood Forest Weeping Tile Disconnect Internal Works,
BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by All Season Excavating
was irregular (sole bid received) but came in below the estimate, meets the
City’s specifications and requirements in all areas, and All Season
Excavating was one of five contractors that prequalified to bid;
b) the
bid submitted by All Season Excavating, 8513 Churchill Line, Watford, ON, N0M
2S0, at its tendered price of $305,167.50 (excluding H.S.T.), for the
construction of the Sherwood Forest Weeping Tile Disconnect External Works,
BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by All Season Excavating
was the lowest of seven bids received and meets the City's specifications and
requirements in all areas;
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to provide an allotment of $1,000.00 to
each homeowner that participates in the weeping tile disconnection program
(total of $28,000.00) to cover future operating and maintenance costs for the
sump pump;
d) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing
Report appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2013;
e) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this project;
f) the
approval 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 relating to this project (Tender 13-49 & 13-22);
and,
g) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other
documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2013-LO4B)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken to permit
the use of on-street municipal parking spaces for boulevard cafes in the
Downtown:
a) the
attached revised on-street boulevard cafe principles for the
use of on-street municipal parking spaces for boulevard cafes BE APPROVED for
a period of up to three years, ending November 1, 2016;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to finalize and report back to Council
regarding technical and design guidelines for boulevard cafes; it being noted
that the establishment of on-street boulevard cafes under the program shall
be at no cost to the City; and,
c) the
current Boulevard Cafe Permit Program BE AMENDED to provide for the use of
on-street municipal parking spaces for seasonal boulevard cafes. (2013-P09)
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Roads and Transportation, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension and Hwy 401
Interchange Improvements Environmental Assessment (TS1325):
a) the
Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension and Highway 401 Interchange
Improvements Transportation Environmental Study Report BE ACCEPTED;
b) a Notice of Completion BE FILED
with the Municipal Clerk; and,
c) the
Transportation Environmental Study Report 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
Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, with respect to this
matter;
it being pointed out that there were no
oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter. (2013-E05)
|
|
That the communication dated May 1 2012,
with respect to the attached London Transit Service 2012 Annual
Report, from L. Ducharme, General Manager, London Transit Commission, BE
RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Civic Works Committee
received the attached presentation from Mr. L. Ducharme, with
respect to this matter. (2013-C03D)
|
|
That the communication dated April 5, 2013,
from Councillor D. Brown, with respect to traffic flow on Bruce Street and
Elmwood Avenue, BE REFERRED to staff for a report back to the Civic Works
Committee. (2013-T04)
|
The
motion to Approve clauses 1 to 9, excluding clause 6, is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen
and seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Amend the criteria attached to part
6, "Criteria For the on-street Boulevard Cafe Program:" in part j)
by adding the words "along Dundas Street within", following the
words "York Street".
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)
NAYS: D. Brown (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen
and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clause 6, as amended.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)
NAYS: D. Brown (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clauses 1 to 5, excluding clause 2
|
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Swan
disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of this report, having to do with
the Orchestra London Business Plan, by indicating that he is employed by
Orchestra London.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the Director
of Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the Investment and Economic
Prosperity Project updates report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted
that the City Treasurer indicated that he would be ensuring that the City’s
economic partners understand the urgency of and the requirement for
implementation timelines, with regard to the prosperity projects they are
involved in.
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the Eldon House Corporation first quarter update:
a)
the communication dated April 29, 2013 from the Eldon House Board of
Directors, with respect to the 2013 Business Plan for the Eldon House
Corporation BE RECEIVED;
b)
the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to continue to dialog with Museum
London with respect to the apportionment of costs related to Eldon House;
and,
c)
the 2014 Eldon House budget submission BE REFLECTIVE of a sustainable
financial model for the future;
it being noted that the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee heard the attached presentation
from M. Spencer Golovchenko, Chair, Board of Directors and R. Warden, Interim
Manager, Eldon House, with respect to this matter.
|
|
That the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED
to look at the Community Improvement Program (CIP) within the framework of
the Industrial Land Strategy as an economic development instrument with a
view to attract businesses and resources for the City of London’s various
programs and projects, inclusive but not limited to, the 401/402 Corridor.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
Motion
made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 2.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy
City Treasurer, the following actions be taken with respect to the Orchestra
London Business Plan:
a) the business plan from Orchestra
London, BE RECEIVED for information; and,
b) the
business plan noted in a) above, BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to
review, with a report back at the next Investment and Economic Prosperity
Committee meeting;
it being noted that the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee heard a verbal delegation from J. O’Neill, President,
Board of Directors, Orchestra London, with respect to this matter.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)
RECUSE: J. Swan (1)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 7.
|
|
1.
|
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
|
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
|
That it BE NOTED that the City Manager
presented the new City of London “At Your Service” video and acknowledged the
City’s partnership with Fanshawe College on the project.
|
|
That the following actions be taken arising
from the 2012 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London Hydro
Inc.:
a) the
attached presentation from Vinay Sharma, Chief Executive
Officer, London Hydro Inc. and Peter Johnson, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc.,
as well as the London Hydro Annual Report 2012 BE RECEIVED;
b) on
the recommendation of the City Manager, the by-law (Attachment “A”) appended
to the staff report dated May 13, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on May 14, 2013 to:
i) ratify
and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of the London Hydro
Inc. attached as Schedule “1” to the by-law; and,
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Annual Resolutions of the
Shareholder of the London Hydro Inc. attached as Schedule “1” to the by-law;
and
c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to complete its review of the Shareholder's
Declaration, in liaison with London Hydro, and in conjunction with the shared
services review, and report back with any suggested changes that may be in
order by September 2013.
|
|
That the following actions be taken arising
from the 2012 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London &
Middlesex Housing Corporation:
a) the
attached presentation from Steve Matthew, Executive Director,
London & Middlesex Housing Corporation, as well as the London &
Middlesex Housing Corporation Annual Report 2012 BE RECEIVED;
b) on
the recommendation of the City Manager, the by-law (Attachment “A”) appended
to the staff report dated May 13, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on May 14, 2013 to:
i) ratify
and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of the London &
Middlesex Housing Corporation attached as Schedule “1” to the by-law; and,
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Annual Resolutions of the
Shareholder of the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation attached as
Schedule “1” to the by-law.
|
|
That the following recommendation BE
REFERRED back to staff for further dialogue and report back at the June 10,
2013 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:
“That, on the recommendation of the
Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Environmental &
Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following changes to the City’s
“local service” definitions BE APPROVED in principle:
a)
watermain
oversizing be claimable from the City Services Reserve Fund;
b)
stormwater
open channel oversizing be claimable from the Urban Works Reserve Fund -
Minor Storm Works;
c)
the
definition of Sanitary Sewer Oversizing be reconsidered subject to
information to be provided by the Master Servicing Study consultants; and
d) the
definition of storm water management works be more broadly defined as all
works required to provide stormwater management servicing that satisfies the
requirements of a Class Environmental Assessment process;
it being noted that the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) heard the attached
presentation from the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City
Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer, and the Manager, Development Finance, and
verbal delegations from Jim Kennedy, President, London Development Institute,
and Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road, with respect to this matter; it being
further noted that the SPPC also received a written communication from Jim
Kennedy, President, London Development Institute, with respect to this
matter.”
|
|
That the following recommendation BE
REFERRED back to staff for further dialogue and report back at the June 10,
2013 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:
“That, on the recommendation of the
Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer with the concurrence of the Managing Director of Planning and City
Planner and Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services &
Chief Building Official, the following actions be taken with respect to
amending the City’s policy with respect to DC area specific rating:
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the 2014 DC rate calculations
and draft the 2014 DC by-law amendments necessary to implement differential
DC rate calculations for SWM facilities in the Central Thames Watershed (CTW)
Area identified in Appendix B to the staff report dated May 13, 2013; and
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop the implementation rules
(including any transitional arrangements and further refinement of the
boundary) related to establishing the Central Thames Watershed SWM DC Area
Specific Rate for inclusion in the 2014 DC by-law;
it being noted that the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) heard the attached
presentation from the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City
Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer, and the Manager, Development Finance, and
verbal delegations from Jim Kennedy, President, London Development Institute,
and Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road, with respect to this matter; it being
further noted that the SPPC also received a written communication from Jim
Kennedy, President, London Development Institute, with respect to this
matter.”
|
|
That the following recommendation BE
REFERRED back to staff for further dialogue and report back at the June 10,
2013 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:
“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 policy amendments with respect to the City’s Urban
Works Reserve Fund (UWRF) and the future funding of Storm Water Management
Facilities (SWMs) BE APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE as part of the 2014 DC By-law, subject
to further dialogue with external stakeholders with respect to:
·
details
of implementation, including the change to the number of SWMs affected and
their costs, all of which would ultimately be included in the Background
Study in any event;
·
how
the existing financial obligations of the UWRF (“Transition payments”) will
be met through the implementation of the new policy;
·
assurance
that the policies being introduced are not intended to be used to unduly
delay approvals for land development by staff or by Council; it being noted
that the existing Growth Management Implementation Strategy is the mechanism
which facilitates the sufficient supply of serviceable land, and which must
be respected following its implementation;
·
an
update of Stormwater Management Facility design standards; and
·
details
regarding the impact of changing the timing of payment of the SWM component
of the DC from building permit to subdivision agreement:
a)
funding
of all future SWM works be consolidated under the City Services Reserve Fund
(CSRF) – SWM component; it being noted that suitable transitional measures
associated with existing claims and development applications involving Urban
Works Reserve Funded (UWRF) Storm Water Management Facilities (SWMF) in
progress will be in the draft 2014 Development Charges DC By-law; it being
further noted that the City’s policy regarding Private Permanent Stormwater
Servicing is expected to reduce the number and size of ponds that will be
constructed in the future;
b)
revised
timing of collection of the SWM component of the DC charge under Section 26
of the Development Charges Act be incorporated in the next DC Rate
By-law; it being noted that this will result in DC charge collections for
this component being made at time of entering the agreement of subdivision or
consent rather than from collection at building permit stage;
c)
new
processes for Design and Construction of Storm Water Management Facilities
(SWMF’s), as generally summarized in Appendix D be implemented as
appended to the staff report dated May 13, 2013;
d)
the
Civic Administration be directed to further develop the procedures governing
construction of infrastructure undertaken through development agreements,
summarized in draft form in Appendix E as appended to the staff report dated
May 13, 2013;
e)
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; and
f)
comments
received from the London Development Institute, the Urban League and Lyn
Townsend, LLB, with respect to the above-noted policy amendments as Appendix
G, appended to the staff report dated May 13, 2013 be received for
information;
it being noted that
the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) heard the attached
presentation from the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City
Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer, and the Manager, Development Finance, and
verbal delegations from Jim Kennedy, President, London Development Institute,
and Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road, with respect to this matter; it being
further noted that the SPPC also received a written communication from Jim
Kennedy, President, London Development Institute, with respect to this
matter.”
|
Pursuant
to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler calls
for a separate vote on clauses 5, 6 and 7, collectively.
The
motion to adopt clauses 1 to 4 is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant
(14)
|
The
motion to adopt clauses 5, 6 and 7 is put.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown
(8)
NAYS: J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M.
Brown, P. Hubert, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (6)
|
Councillor
J.P. Bryant leaves the meeting at 8:43 PM.
|
Motion made by Councillor D.G. Henderson to
Approve progress on the in camera matters.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
None.
None.
None.
|
BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND
THIRD TIME:
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve Introduction and 1st Reading
of Bill Nos. 211 to 232.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve 2nd Reading of Bill Nos. 211 to
232.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve 3rd Reading and Enactment of Bill
Nos. 211 to 232.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve Introduction and 1st Reading of
Bill No. 233.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
The
City Clerk advises that there is a small typographical error in Part 6, whereby
the word “of” after the word “year” should read “from”.
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve 2nd Reading of Bill No.
233, with the corrected typographical error.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert,
D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve 3rd Reading and Enactment
of Bill No. 233, with the corrected typographical error.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
The following by-laws are passed and enacted
as by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London.
|
Bill No. 211
By-law No. A.-6959-162
|
A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held
on the 14th day of May, 2013. (City Clerk)
|
|
Bill No. 212
By-law No. A.-5273(ci)-163
|
A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-5273-82 entitled, “A
by-law to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers
for the City of London.” (Manager By-law Enforcement)
|
|
Bill No. 213
By-law No. A.-5273(cj)-164
|
A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-5273-82 entitled, “A
by-law to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers
for the City of London.” (Manager By-law Enforcement)
|
|
Bill No. 214
By-law No. A.-5896(t)-165
|
A by-law to amend By-law 5896-233 entitled, “A by-law to appoint
Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of
The Corporation of the City of London.” (Manager By-law Enforcement)
|
|
Bill No. 215
By-law No. C.P-1455(j)-166
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. C.P.-1455-541, a by-law to designate a site plan control
area and to delegate Council’s power under Section 41 of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13 with respect to an application for site plan approval
submitted by Andrew Hines for the construction of a duplex at 108 Wilson
Avenue. (14c/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 216
By-law No. L.S.P.-3429-167
|
A by-law to designate 3378 Homewood Lane to be of historical and
contextual value or interest. (5/5/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 217
By-law No. L.S.P.-3430-168
|
A by-law to designate 1460 Commissioners Road West to be of
historical and contextual value or interest. (5/5/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 218
By-law No. PS-6-13002
|
A By-law to amend By-law PS-6 entitled, “A by-law to provide for
regulating and governing fences in the City of London.” (4/9/CPSC)
|
|
Bill No. 219
By-law No. S.-5564-169
|
A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain
reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as
widening to Asima Drive). (City Surveyor)
|
|
Bill No. 220
By-law No. S.-5565-170
|
A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in
the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Colonel Talbot Road,
south of Pack Road) (City Surveyor)
|
|
Bill No. 221
By-law No. W.-5538-171
|
A by-law to amend By-law No. W.-5290-234 entitled “A by-law to
authorize the Southdale Road Widening – Wonderland to Wharncliffe Project.
(Project No. TS1486)” (8/4/CWC)
|
|
Bill No. 222
By-law No. W.-5539-172
|
A by-law to authorize the 2010 Recreation Facilities (Project No.
RC2201) (4/5/FASC/2012)
|
|
Bill No. 223
By-law No. W.-5540-173
|
A by-law to amend By-law No. W.-2040-70 entitled “A by-law to
authorize the Wonderland Road North Improvements Project (Project No.TS1156)”
(7/15/BC/2010)
|
|
Bill No. 224
By-law No. W.-5541-174
|
A by-law to authorize the Skate Canada – Fountain Area Plaza – Fork
of the Thames (Project No. GG1312-03) (4/5/CSC/2012)
|
|
Bill No. 225
By-law No. Z.-1-132187
|
A
by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the h-122
holding provision from the zoning for an area of land located at 905 Pond
Mills Road. (2/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 226
By-law No. Z.-1-132188
|
A
by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning
for lands located at 1934-1984 Wateroak Drive and 1921-1931 Wateroak Drive.
(5/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 227
By-law No. Z.-1-132189
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone the easterly portion of the property
located at 635 Wilton Grove Road.
(9/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 228
By-law No. Z.-1-132190
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 2800 Roxburgh Road.
(9/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 229
By-law No. Z.-1-132191
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning on
lands located on a portion of 2350 Dundas Street (Block 5, 39T-12502)
(6/11/PEC)
|
|
Bill No. 230
By-law No. A.-6960-175
|
A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the
Shareholder of London & Middlesex Housing Corporation (SPPC)
|
|
Bill No. 231
By-law No. A.-6961-176
|
A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the
Shareholder of Hydro Inc. (SPPC)
|
|
Bill No. 232
By-law No. Z.-1-132192
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning on
lands located at 2310 & 2330 Dundas Street. (3/28/PEC-2012)
|
|
Bill No. 233
By-law No. L.S.P.-3431-177
|
A by-law to designate a heritage conservation district study
area for the Blackfriars/Petersville neighbourhood.
|
Motion
made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Adjourn.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (13)
|
The
meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.
_________________________________
Joe
Fontana, Mayor
_________________________________
Catharine
Saunders, City Clerk