|
Recommendation: That, the urban growth
boundary inclusion requests, the following actions be taken:
a)
the
questions that were raised at the Public Participation meeting held at the
Planning and Environment Committee on December 10, 2013, BE REFERRED to the
Civic Administration to answer and to continue discussions with the
development community; and,
b) a
Task Force BE ESTABLISHED with a membership similar to the Development
Charges Working Group, with L. Townsend as Chair, to review the submissions
received at the December 10, 2013 Planning and Environment Committee Public
Participation meeting and to report back to the Planning and Environment
Committee in three months;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated December
5, 2013, from P.V.
Hinde, Manager, Land Development, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating 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:
·
William
Hill, 2168 Bradley Avenue, on behalf of the property owners on Bradley Avenue
from Innovation Park to the current Urban Growth Boundary – advising that there
are 13 landowners; noting that 12 of the landowners formed their own group;
indicating that he reviewed a staff report on the November 18, 2013,
Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Agenda which indicated that the
City needs more industrial land, in terms of size, location and quantity;
indicating that they have potential industrial land in this group of
properties along Highway 401; advising that their lands are deemed
inappropriate as they cannot be serviced by existing or planned infrastructure;
expressing disagreement with this because roads, sewers and water were
mentioned as being expensive to build; advising that, a few years ago, the
City rebuilt Bradley Avenue and brought water and hydro to Innovation Park;
noting that they have always had gas service along Bradley Avenue; advising
that when he looks at what has been done and the fact that Innovation Park is
at the east portion of the lands and the Summerside residential development
is at the west end of the lands, it should be possible to service these lands
at a reasonable cost; advising that, for the people he is representing, they
are all original owners; noting that he has lived there for 25 years and he
is the newest resident; indicating that there are people in the group that he
represents that are in their fourth generation of living on the land;
indicating that they have no land developers or land bankers; advising that
they need some change so that they can do something with the land; noting
that these are small lands, originally they were 50 acres and five acres were
removed to accommodate Highway 401; indicating that they are no longer viable
as farm land; noting that only one person is still farming and he has a
secondary job off the farm; further noting that it is cash crop, the dairy
farms that used to be on Bradley Avenue disappeared a long time ago;
indicating that they are surrounded by development; pointing out that they
have Highway 401 on one side, Innovation Park on another side, residential
development along Jackson Road; noting that there are a lot of “change of
use” signs along Jackson Road and Commissioners Road and Sifton has just
started a development along Hamilton Road, near Commissioners Road; advising
that they feel isolated and helpless because they do not have any zoning to
allow them to do anything effective with their lands; indicating that,
despite everything that he has heard about the fact that lands cannot be
added unless lands are taken out, which will not be a popular idea;
indicating that the residents of Bradley Avenue are requesting that the lands
on the south and north sides of Bradley Avenue be included in the urban
growth area; recommending the south side of Bradley Avenue should be
industrial; suggesting that the north side of Bradley Avenue should be
residential; advising that the land is suitable, as there are approximately
2.5 kilometers of land along the Highway 401 corridor, which is highly
visible and reasonably flat; noting that it would not require the amount of
grading and excavating that went into Innovation Park, there is great access
to the city core; and, further noting that there is no need for a ring road
in the area as they have Highway 401, the Veterans Memorial Parkway and two
interchanges servicing Bradley Avenue .
·
Alan
R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates – see attached
communication, dated December 10, 2013, from M. Campbell, Planner, Zelinka
Priamo Ltd.
·
Doug
Brown,on behalf of the West Talbot Landowners Association – indicating that
these lands are located south of Southdale Road, west of Colonel Talbot Road
and north of Pack Road; advising that they have been seeking inclusion into
the urban growth boundary for over 20 years; advising that they have spoken
to the Municipal Council several times outlining some of the problems and
challenges that they face as landowners being surrounded on three sides by
encroaching development and city growth; noting that these problems include
trespassing, land erosion, difficulty in economically farming the lands,
inability to procure insurance and other difficulties; advising that they
would like to focus on three key areas, those being conceptual design for the
development of the lands, compliance with the City criteria and requirements
for land development and the economic feasibility to look at developing these
parcels of land; advising that they hired IBI Group to explore how the lands
could be developed and what the community might look like; noting that there
could be a bike path to connect old London with new London, there could be a
recreational area which would include a community centre that would provide
sports and entertainment and other activities to the area residents and the
plan could provide an opportunity for approximately 1,500 single family homes
along with multi-family and high density development, community commercial
school sites and recreational facilities; also noting that it provides for
the extension of Boler Road, which is already planned by the City, linking
Southdale Road to Colonel Talbot Road; advising that the West Talbot lands
would provide the City with control over one of the largest natural heritage
features in southwest London, as the back boundary is Dingman Creek;
indicating that in October, 2013, they were provided with an outline of the
City’s criteria that they would have to meet to be considered for development
of these lands; noting that these included environmental, social,
agricultural and economic requirements; advising that from the social
standpoint, the inclusion of these lands will allow for the development of
the Talbot community to reach its full potential as a vibrant residential and
commercial community, it will enhance the entire Talbot community and allow
the area to reach its full potential as a sustainable community; advising
that the single biggest negative impact on agricultural land is to do
nothing; advising that the subject lands are an agricultural island isolated
by urban development on three sides and a large natural heritage area on the
fourth side; advising that, with the appropriate development buffers and
management practices, these lands can be environmentally protected and
maintained as sustainable, ecological features; indicating that the study
also indicated that they can meet the necessary infrastructure requirements
and intensification and density targets; advising that the West Talbot land
represents some of the most economical opportunities in the City of London,
an opportunity to bring in one of the largest tracts of land at little
additional servicing costs beyond what is already in the planning stages;
advising that development studies by IBI Group clearly indicate that the
lands can be attracted to service and developed considering the costs
involved; noting that actual indications are that these lands could be more
economically developed than other areas already included in the urban growth
boundary; advising that development of the area could create jobs for local
citizens, provide the street expansion to meet traffic needs and reduce
present congestion at rush hours; advising that their group has worked very
hard to make sure that these areas have not been left out of planning of
future infrastructure as the City looks forward as to how the southwest area
is to be serviced. (See attached presentation).
·
Dave
Schmidt, Corlon Properties - (See attached presentation).
·
Bob
Stratford, RWS Consulting – advising that he participated in three of the
requests by landowners for urban growth boundary alterations; indicating that
he will be speaking in general terms, not in terms of specific applications,
looking at the costs and engineering analysis that appears to have gone into
the final suggestions that staff have made as to what should go in and what
should stay out of the urban growth boundary; having attended prior meetings on
this topic, and Mr. Schmidt talked about some of the older meetings, his
understanding was that we wanted to investigate where there were
opportunities to bring lands in, where there was little to no added cost
burdens on the City of London; advising that he thought that it was fairly
straight forward; noting that there is infrastructure in the ground with land
near it that you do not have to spend any more money from a development
charges perspective; recommending that these lands be capitalized on, bring
in the land, earn the development charges revenues and carry on; noting that
there are some sites where this could happen; believing that they were going
to look at obvious and logical areas; understanding that there are a lot of
requests and a lot of land area, but it was their hope that it would be kept
simple and you would find the low-hanging fruit and try to take advantage of
it, generate some development charge revenues where you already have
infrastructure sunk and paid for in the ground and where there is no new
added significant costs; advising that when he looks at the staff report and
the special consideration lands, he does not see the logic; indicating that,
with regard to two of the properties, where there is consideration for
inclusion, one of them is for NW-1, on Sunningdale Road, bounded by Fanshawe
Park Road and the City limit, staff is suggesting that there is no big
impediment to this, but he advises that there are 1,600 metres of sanitary
sewer required to get to that piece of land from where the sewer exists
today; indicating that the sewer needs to go through private property, an
Auburn development; noting that it is going to take 10 to 15 years for that
sewer to get there if they go by the rates at which adjacent development has
progressed; advising that the point is that that is not something that they
need to worry about capitalizing on today; noting that there is another
Official Plan review in five years; further noting that you could probably
wait until the one after that; indicating that it is the notion that they
should be going after the easy kills, if you will; indicating that we know
that it needs a stormwater management facility, which is planned in the GMIS
for 2016, but when you go north, there is another sewer through private
lands, ultimately through plan of subdivision, that need to be brought up to
area NW-1, so this piece of property is years and years away; indicating that
he did not think that it was something that the Committee was looking towards
in terms of advancing development, generating revenues and jobs and getting
people active again; advising that the second property, W-1, is something
that staff suggests should be considered for inclusion; noting that, again,
you need to build a sanitary sewer; advising that the sanitary sewer is
approximately 800 metres long to get to an existing sewer; noting that the
sewer would have to go through private property and is not going to happen;
advising that the W-1 area is within the Tributary C watershed and is outside
of the recently completed and approved environmentally significant area study
for Tributary C so it is really not going anywhere fast; reiterating that it
missed the point that we were looking for solid examples that could happen
now; indicating that the two examples that he pointed out are heavily
encumbered in terms of their servicing routes and other infrastructure;
advising that he is not sure how we can say that those are ready and ripe to
go; indicating that, in when we talk about having to go through other
property developments, he recalls being in meetings about the GMIS and
Committees and Council making strategies that said that they do not want
other private developers in between growth, that the Committees and Council
did not want to see a leap frog, but you hate to see a developer holding up
some other opportunity; reiterating that these are two properties that were
recommended to be brought into the urban growth boundary; advising that, in
comparison, they could look at two of the requests that were Tier 2 or Tier
3; noting that he did not work for the property owners; advising that he is
talking about Corlon Properties at the northwest corner of Wonderland Road
North and Sunningdale Road; advising that there is a sanitary sewer and a
watermain at Sunningdale Road; noting that the services are right there;
advising that the City has most likely already paid the pipe subsidies out of
the GMIS; noting that you have already paid the developer to oversize the
pipes, so you could bring the land on; noting that it does need a stormwater
management facility, so the City would have that extra expense; noting that
the facility in the EA that is approved is $1,700,000, the site generates
$12,000,000 in development charges revenues, which, in his opinion, is easy pickings,
which is where he thought we were headed on this project; advising that
another one would be out in the Wickerson area, which he did work on for
Sifton Properties Limited and the other landowner group out there; advising
that they looked at the servicing and costs as a whole of the servicing of
the areas outlined in red on the map presented at the meeting; indicating
that they also prepared a subset of calculations for the lands located on the
east side of Wickerson Road; noting that this land was not considered a Tier
1 or preferred property but there has been heavy infrastructure investment
through the development charges out in this area; arguing that the lands on
the east side of Wickerson Road and the lands fronting Wickerson Road can be
serviced; noting that there are no impediments, there are servicing
requirements, but there are no added development charges costs; indicating
that, in his opinion, this is the low-hanging fruit that the intention was to
go after to recover costs on prior investments; indicating that, on the lands
on the east side of Wickerson Road, there is the pond at the south limit of
it, that the City of London is currently going out for a tender to build that
pond, but they will not bring in the lands, which does not make any sense to
him; advising that there are probably other obvious and logical places where
we could look to gain an advantage and gain those opportunities that they
were looking for; indicating that Riverbend South is one of the lands that
were looked at for removal; advising that there are large sewers at the edge
of the property, with a $5,000,000 pumping station in Riverbend that City
Operations staff complain does not get enough flow yet as it is not
developing quickly enough; noting that it is operating in a manner that was
not intended because development is not happening fast enough; reiterating
that staff would like to see more flows to that facility; indicating that the
Tributary C Environmental Assessment took five years; noting that the
Ministry has now approved it; further noting that the Minister rejected a
Part 2 Order request; advising that all the works that go to this are
scheduled in the GMIS today and, to his understanding, the lots apply to this
end of the city, so it would make no great logical sense that this should be
an area to be considered for withdrawal from the urban growth area;
indicating that the Parker-Jackson lands were suggested could be removed from
the urban growth boundary; noting that he does not work for the landowners; enquiring
why staff would pick those lands when there are sewers all along Jackson
Road; indicating that right beside these lands, there are 44 hectares that
there is no planned infrastructure for and there have been no planning
applications for these lands; indicating that there are 44 hectares, in the
urban growth boundary, with no hope, in the near future, of being developed;
indicating that, to him, these areas are pretty obvious to be removed from
the urban growth boundary and put the other low-hanging fruit in; providing
another example on Clarke Road, near the Upper Thames River Conservation
Authority, with 37 hectares, with no hope of being developed, but it is
inside the urban growth boundary; advising of another property along Dundas
Street that is 45 hectares, that is inside the urban growth boundary;
reiterating to take the lands out and put the easy ones in, get the
development charges revenue; suggesting that the mechanics of the current
analysis bears no resemblance to what was discussed at prior Committee
meetings or to what many in the industry expected to occur through this work;
and, requesting that the Committee refer this matter back to have staff to
simplify the review and figure out where the obvious areas for inclusion and
exclusion from the urban growth boundary are located. (See attached
maps).
·
Phil
Masschelin, Vice-President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties
Limited, representing Sifton Properties Limited, Crown Homes of London,
166142 Ontario Limited, 818255 Ontario Limited, relating to the properties
located 2270, 2380 and 2576 Highbury Avenue North, (the Highbury North
Landowner group), the properties are located on Highbury Avenue North, south
and north of Sunningdale Road, on the east side of Highbury Avenue North; Sifton
Properties Limited, property located at 1682 Byron Baseline Road and 2420
Westdel Bourne; the Dirks, property located at 1697 Byron Baseline Road;
2090864 Ontario Incorporated, property located at 2291 Wickerson Road; Kape
Developments Limited, property located at 2280 Wickerson Road; the James
Wickerson Stanley estate, property located at 2426 Wickerson Road, (the
Wickerson Landowner group) and Hans and Sigrid Wagner, property located at
1478 Westdel Bourne – indicating that there has been a lot of discussion at
the meeting tonight about Municipal Council resolutions from 2006, staff
reports, land needs, the Terms of Reference from 2011 and the recent
Municipal Council direction that has stirred the staff report that the
Committee has in front of it currently; advising that there are two things
that he concludes from this process; indicating that one of those matters is
that Vision ’96 laid out a growth boundary, at that time, which was almost 18
years ago, and today, we are basically still dealing with the same line;
enquiring as to why, in 18 years, that line has not moved for the most part; indicating
that, with 18 years of absorption, the line is due for an update; requesting
the Committee to look at all the growth that has occurred, especially in the North
and the West and the relatively small amount that has occurred in the Southwest;
noting that the lack of development in the Southwest is mainly due to the lack
of services; advising that it is time for a proper review; advising that we
do agree that the current 20 year growth boundary does have more than 20
years of supply in it today; expressing agreement that the land needs
determine that we do not need any new land; enquiring as to whether or not
all of the land inside the boundary can be serviced by engineers; responding
that of course engineers can come up with a solution to service anything; advising
that it is a question of cost, timing and how much land to bring in;
enquiring as to whether or not we can get the maximum developable land using
the Official Plan growth forecasts from Altus, that no one seems to dispute,
for the least amount of money; expressing regret that this is not what we
have in front of us tonight; advising that this is not what the Municipal Council
asked for in the review of events; noting that, in 2006, the Municipal
Council asked to review the urban growth boundary looking at cost and
benefits and a review of the entire boundary; indicating that the report
tonight makes the premise that if you are designated Urban Reserve Community
growth that you are presumed to be more costly or at least a longer term;
advising that they respectfully submit that this is not correct; indicating that
there has been no analysis done on the cost, the revenues for the lands to be
removed and for those lands in Riverbend South; advising that, with all due
respect, the land use designations themselves are irrelevant; indicating that
the most important matter here is whether or not you have access to a sewer,
what proximity there is to a sewer, whether or not it is funded or could it
be funded; indicating that the Riverbend South final Environmental Assessment
has been completed and the sewer will be constructed in 2014; indicating
that, at Riverbend South, there will be a sanitary sewer at their doorstep in
early 2014; advising that, just last month, a Thames Valley District School
Board meeting was held and the School Board identified a need for a school in
Riverbend South; noting that the School Board has provided written
correspondence to them and identified a future site in their property for a
school; indicating that Sifton also has a property in Northeast London, in
the Highbury Avenue North and Sunningdale area; advising that their review
shows that Northeast London has the lowest supply of land in the entire City,
with an eight year supply of land; indicating that Riverbend is second with a
12 year supply; advising that the largest supply in London is Southwest London
with a 50 year supply; noting that this is based on the City’s own calculations;
advising that proposing to remove land in West London, the second lowest lot
supply, with sewers at the doorstep in 2014, does not make any sense to them
whatsoever; advising that, if the Municipal Council were to accept this
report tonight, this would cause appeals and significant issues on proceeding
with this proposal; reiterating that this is not what the Municipal Council
intended to do; indicating that they think that there is a better way to
proceed; advising that Sfiton has lands inside and outside the urban growth
boundary; indicating that Sifton and other companies are able to exchange
those lands, which is a better way that has the potential to proceed;
however, we understand that that does not work for everybody as not everyone
has lands that they can swap in and out; suggesting taking it one step
further; indicating that it has been seven years since the 2006 direction and
we believe that in order for the Municipal Council to obtain the appropriate
information and to make a proper decision, it is important to refer this back
to staff and a new Municipal Council resolution to be obtained; proposing a Task
Force be established with members of this Committee serving on the Task Force
as well as possibly members of the development community, the planning
community and the engineering community, to investigate the actual line,
where the line should be, what lands should be in the boundary, what lands
should be out; recommending Lynn Townsend, who was involved with the City on
the last Development Charges by-law, who would be an excellent candidate to
be chair of the Task Force; anticipating that the review could take 4 to 6
months as it is a significant review of the boundary which is what the
Municipal Council, on two occasions, has asked for.
·
Carol
Weibe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, on behalf of
J-Aar Excavating Inc., for the properties located at 1620 to 1640 Fanshawe
Park Road East (N-3) and South Winds Development Co., relating to the
property located at 1870 Fanshawe Park Road East (N-4) – (see attached
communications dated December 10, 2013).
·
Sergio
Pompilii and Ryan Pompilii, Sergio E. Pompilii & Associates Ltd., on
behalf of Louis
and Marjorie Flannigan, 2969 Trafalgar Street, Scott McLaren, 3050 Trafalgar
Street, Suzanne McLaren & Betty Jean O’Reilly, 3085 Trafalgar Street, Dorothy
Loewy, 2735 Trafalgar Street, Doug and Joyce Byers, 2612 Trafalgar Street,
Elizabeth Byers, 2700 Trafalgar Street and Peter Drankowsky, 1176 Crumlin
Side Road -
(See attached presentation).
·
1711794
Ontario Corporation, property located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road
and Kilally Road – advising that they were not provided notice of this
meeting until the day before the meeting by a member of the public, not by
the City; indicating that the staff report recommends that the property
located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road and Kilally Road be removed
from the urban growth boundary, which they are opposing; recommending that
the meeting be adjourned; advising that any discussions which could affect
their property should not be allowed to take place this evening as it would
constitute a clear abuse of process; and, indicating they trust that the
Committee will reschedule this meeting and provide them with proper notice.
·
Paul
Hinde and Don DeJonge, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating to the
Kempinski/Tridon Hyde Park property (NW-2) – (see attached
communication).
·
Ali
Jomaa, on behalf of himself and Randy Clarke (NW-1) – (see attached
presentation).
·
Murray
Jones, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Vaness, 2031 Commissioners Road East – indicating
that this is a farming property; advising that this is not A-1 Agricultural
land; indicating that the property is west of Old Victoria Road, south of
Commissioners Road; advising that the property to the north is designated
future residential, the property to the east is industrial and the property
to the west is commercial and residential; advising that they believe that
this property would be a great fit to fill in Commissioners Road; indicating
that $13,000,000 has been earmarked to upgrade Commissioners Road in 2014;
and, indicating that he does not forsee this being a problem to add into the
urban growth boundary .
·
Joe
Plutino, on behalf of Green Valley Estates – (see attached
presentation). (Secretary’s Note: The Green Valley
Estates Inc. and Green Valley Estates II Inc., Proposed Green Valley Estates
Phase I and Phase II Subdivision Development Functional Servicing Report is
available on the City of London website).
·
Fernando
Desando, 1530 Westdel Bourne – advising that he is not here to discuss his
property as he is not sure which criteria it came in at; speaking about the
money that has gone into Westdel Bourne; indicating that he heard, tonight,
that a decision was made to have some parcels removed; advising that, as
taxpayers, they have put in two watermains on either side of the road;
indicating there are approximately 10 houses on the east side of the road
that are being utilized on the watermain; and, enquiring as to when the money
is going to be recouped if development is not allowed along that road.
·
Jim
Kennedy, London Development Institute – indicating that through the
discussion that has occurred at this meeting, one of the underlying faults
that has come up is that, unless you have projects to service your lands that
are included in the GMIS, you cannot go forward; advising that you cannot
bring projects into the GMIS unless the lands are in the growth boundary;
indicating that they are currently in the process of updating the 2014
Development Charges and the GMIS; noting that one of the things that is being
discussed is putting a couple of stormwater management ponds in as a
contingency; and, advising that provisional items in this review and the
Development Charges and the GMIS review would assist so we are not doing this
again in five years.
·
Doug
Stanlake, on behalf of Stantec Consulting, and their client, Z Group – objecting
to any suggestions that the lands be taken out of the urban growth boundary;
advising that the Parker-Jackson lands are part of a larger complex that Z
Group brought forward in the 1990’s, when both sanitary and trunk services
were provided; advising that one stormwater management pond has been built
and another one will be built shortly; advising that the second pond is the
only service requirement left to build these lands; and, enquiring as to why
you would take out Tier 1 lands only to replace it with Tier 1 lands.
·
Sandy
Levin, 59 Longbow Road – advising that, for over a year, he has been working
with the London Development Institute, staff and the London Home Builders
Association on the Development Charges study, which becomes an important date
because it is August, 2014, when the current by-law expires; advising that
everyone agreed that there was no reason for the Official Plan review; noting
that there will very likely need to be an expansion of the urban growth
boundary in the next Official Plan review; indicating that more supply does
not create more demand; cautioning the referral back because four to six months
brings you to June; advising that there have been a lot of reports from staff
relating to the Development Charge study; and, indicating that it is unclear
what will happen if you do not have a Development Charge by-law.
·
Steve
Polhill, 341 Hale Street – indicating that the boundary and how it is
developed is fundamentally flawed as it does not look at certain things that
should be looked at; speaking to the lands east of Crumlin Side Road and
south of Dundas Street; and, advising that there has been an increase in
industrial with no residential to support it.
·
Mauro
Castrilli, 2156 Highbury Avenue North – requesting to be included in the
urban growth boundary; indicating that is municipal water that fronts his
property; advising that the Municipal Council has accepted a Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment recommendation for the sanitary service works of the
Stoney Creek sanitary sewer which runs along Highbury Avenue North.
·
Susan
Smith, 124 Bruce Street – indicating that none of the presentations included
transit supported investment if the city permits roads; and, indicating that
she does not like to see Rural Settlement as a secondary appendix.
(2013-D09)
|