|
Council
MINUTES
2ND
MEETING
|
|
December 17, 2013
|
|
The Council meets in Regular Session in the
Council Chambers this day at 4:07 PM.
|
|
PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, and
Councillors B. Polhill, B. 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, J.
Braam, B. Coxhead, S. Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, A. Hagan, M. Hayward, G.T.
Hopcroft, O. Katolyk, G. Kotsifas, L. Livingstone, V. McAlea Major, D.
Mounteer, D. O’Brien, R. Paynter, M. Ribera, L. Rowe, M. Turner, B. Warner
and B. Westlake-Power.
|
At the beginning of the Meeting all Members
are present.
|
Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 5 of the 1st Report of the Investment and Economic
Prosperity Committee, having to do with a mixed-use development, including a
Performing Arts Centre, by indicating that his employer, Orchestra London, is
a proponent.
|
Councillor M. Brown discloses a pecuniary
interest in clause 13 of the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee,
having to do with Sherwood Forest Public School, by indicating that the
Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) is his employer. Councillor M.
Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause C-3 of the Confidential
Appendix to the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do
with a matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and
employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or
disposition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,
including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or
recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a
proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; commercial and financial
information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition
and/or disposition the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to,
prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly
with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in
similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is
in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied,
and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial
institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed
acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has
monetary value or potential monetary value; information concerning the
proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be
expected to prejudice the economic interests of the Corporation or its
competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or
disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to
the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to
any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the
Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition, by
indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) is his
employer. Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in
clause C-1 of the Confidential Appendix to the 3rd Report of the Corporate
Services Committee, having to do with a matter pertaining to instructions and
directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a
proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to
solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that
purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of
the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of
land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining
to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position
or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the
Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the
Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information
continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person,
group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information
relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the
Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value; information
concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could
reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the
Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed
acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected
to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and
instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on
by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or
disposition, by indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board
(TVDSB) is his employer.
|
None.
MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION
|
Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that the Council rise and go into
Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose of considering the
following:
|
j)
|
(ADDED) A matter pertaining to instructions
and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a
proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to
solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that
purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of
the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of
land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining
to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position
or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the
Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the
Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue
to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group,
committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information
relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the
Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value; information
concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could
reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the
Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed
acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected
to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and
instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on
by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or
disposition. (C-1/3/CSC)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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 Council rises and goes into Committee of
the Whole, in camera, at 4:26 PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all
Members present, except Councillor M. Brown.
At 4:52 PM Councillor M. Brown enters the
meeting.
The Committee of the Whole rises at 5:05 PM
and Council resumes in regular session at 5:11 PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in
the Chair and all Members present, except Councillor S.E. White.
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve the Minutes of the 1st Meeting
held on December 3, 2013.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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)
None.
At 5:14 PM Councillor S.E. White enters the
meeting.
Councillor H.L. Usher
presents.
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to
Approve clauses 1 to 10, inclusive.
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
That it BE NOTED that the Civic Works
Committee elected P. Van Meerbergen as its Vice-Chair for the term ending
November 30, 2014.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the staff
report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to the contract for the Hamilton
Road and Clarke Road intersection improvements, BE RECEIVED for information.
(2013-L04)
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 9, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013
for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111).
(2013-C01)
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the Supply of High Performance
Cold Mix Asphalt:
a) the
tender submitted by Coco Paving Inc., 1865 Clarke Road, London, Ontario N5X
3Z6 at their contract price of $47,950.00, (HST extra) BE ACCEPTED; it being
noted that Coco Paving Inc. was the only bid received and meets the City’s
terms, conditions and specifications;
b) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this purchase; and,
c) approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the
subject matter of this approval. (2013-F18)
|
That, on the recommendation of Director,
Water and Wastewater the following actions be taken with respect to the 2014
Infrastructure Renewal Projects - Trees:
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to post the Tree Inspection Report assessments
on line for public information;
b) the
November 2008 Environmental and Engineering Services Department (EESD)
Construction Impact Tree Strategy BE REVIEWED to ensure it remains valid;
c) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete ground truthing for trees 50
years or older;
d) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to communicate and give notice of tree
removals at least 4 to 6 weeks prior to construction and in advance of
removal and to post signage on affected trees;
e) the
staff report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to tree removal, mitigation
and communication as part of the 2014 Infrastructure Renewal Projects, BE
RECEIVED. (2013-E04)
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Water and Wastewater, the 2013 Ministry of the Environment
Inspection Report for the City of London Water Distribution System BE
RECEIVED for information.(2013-E08)
|
That on the recommendation of the Director,
Environment, Fleet and Solid Waste the following actions be taken with
respect to the Community Energy Action Plan - Final Draft for Community
Engagement:
a) the
final draft of the Community Energy Action Plan BE APPROVED for release for
community engagement, which will include outreach through traditional media,
social media, the City’s website and at community events between December 17,
2013 and February 28, 2014; it being noted that the final draft includes the
following three companion documents:
i) Understanding
the Data;
ii) Learning
from People; and,
iii) Reporting
on Progress;
b) the staff report dated December
9, 2013, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Civic Works
Committee heard the attached presentation from the Director,
Environment, Fleet and Solid Waste with respect to this matter. (2013-E19)
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to intersection improvements at Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park
Road:
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take immediate steps to undertake an
Environmental Assessment;
b) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore other opportunities for traffic
flow improvements;
c) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek opportunities for expediting the
project; and,
d) the
communication dated November 25, 2013, from Councillor M. Brown, BE RECEIVED.
(2013-T06)
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its
meeting held on December 03, 2013:
a) clause
1 of the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to
the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting to be held December 16,
2013; and,
b) clauses
2 to 13 of the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its
meeting held on December 3, 2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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)
Councillor J.L.
Baechler presents.
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to
Approve clause 14.
|
14.
|
Property located at 275 Thames Street
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at 275 Thames Street:
a) $50,000
BE ALLOCATED for the foundation with a basement from the Capital Budget; and,
b)
the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to waive the associated
development and building application fees and charges.
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Amend clause 14 by deleting the clause in
its entirety and by replacing it with the following new clause:
“That, $60,000 BE ALLOCATED for the provision
of a foundation with a basement and the associated development and building
permit application fees with respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at
275 Thames Street; it being noted that the funding will be provided from the
Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.”
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 14, as amended.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)
|
Clause 14, as amended, reads as follows:
That, $60,000 BE ALLOCATED for the provision
of a foundation with a basement and the associated development and building
permit application fees with respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at
275 Thames Street; it being noted that the funding will be provided from the
Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to
Approve clauses 1 to 9, inclusive, clause 12 and clause 13.
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
That Councillor B. Polhill BE ELECTED
Vice-Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee for the term ending
November 30, 2014.
|
That the 10th Report of the Advisory
Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on November 6, 2013, BE
RECEIVED.
|
That the 11th Report of the Environmental
and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November
21, 2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Senior
Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to
entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of
London and Farhi Holdings Corporation, for the subdivision of land over Part
of Lot C, Gore Concession, (Geographic Township of Delaware), City of London,
County of Middlesex, situated on the east side of Woodhull Road, north of
Gideon Drive, municipally known as 1820 Woodhull Road:
a) the
Special Provisions, appended as Schedule “C” to the associated staff report
dated December 10, 2013, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between
The Corporation of the City of London and Farhi Holdings Corporation for the
Woodhull Subdivision, (39T-03511) BE APPROVED;
b) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the "Related
Costs and Revenues" appended as Schedule "B" to the associated
staff report, dated December 10, 2013; and,
c) the
Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any
amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.
(2013-D12)
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, relating to the application by the City
of London, for the property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North, the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013,
to add a new regulation to the existing Holding Neighbourhood Shopping Area
Special Provision (h-5*h-11*h-64*h-95*NSA1(8)) Zone which indicates that:
“The lot line which abuts an arterial street shall be interpreted as the
front lot line regardless of whether or not it is the longer lot line.”;
it being pointed out that there were no
oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter. (2013-D14A)
|
That the application of the City of London,
relating to a Zoning By-law and an Official Plan Amendment to introduce
non-industrial uses in industrial areas, BE REFERRED back to the Civic
Administration to incorporate the properties located at 457 Southdale Road
West, 1920 and 1930 Blue Heron Drive and to report back at a future meeting
of the Planning and Environment Committee;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Carol
Weibe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, on behalf of
the Muslim Association of Canada, relating to the property located at 457
Southdale Road West – indicating that she has been working with her client on
this matter for just over one year; advising that her client purchased this
land for two reasons; advising that one of the reasons is to develop the land
for a community recreation centre; indicating that the other reason is to
develop a mosque that would be connected to the community recreation centre;
indicating that this site is currently zoned Commercial Recreation (CR-1);
reiterating staff’s comments relating to the purpose of the by-law amendment,
as it deals with commercial recreation uses and assembly halls in Industrial
areas and any potential conflicts that may occur when you have non-Industrial
uses or sensitive land uses in close proximity to Industrial lands;
indicating that what has inadvertently happened, specifically relating to
this property, is that by changing the definition of “assembly hall” to
remove religious activities, it has now prevented her client from proceeding
to construct the mosque on that site; indicating that the timing is somewhat
ironic and coincidental in that her client has just completed the materials
required for their pre-consultation for their site plan; advising that
because the property is zoned, they met with Development Services staff in
May, 2013, to get confirmation on the list of permitted uses, as they have
received confirmation that a mosque would fall under the definition of
“assembly hall” because it does allow religious activity; indicating that, on
that basis, her clients engaged the services of an architect and they have
been working over the last number of months to refine the architectural plans
and have also engaged the services of an engineer; advising that her clients
are making a submission this week; indicating that she became aware of these
changes, and they are of great concern to her clients because they have
permissions, today, that would allow them to proceed with the mosque; noting
that the commercial recreation centre is not an issue; advising that she has
two recommendations to present to the Planning and Environment Committee;
advising that the first recommendation is for consideration for a site
specific exemption; (see attached proposed by-law wording);
noting that they have recently found out about the proposed by-law change and
have had to work quickly; advising that what she is requesting is that,
notwithstanding the changes to the definition to remove religious uses from
an assembly hall, a site specific exemption be permitted for the property
located at 457 Southdale Road West; indicating that they may be able to work
with staff to refine the proposed by-law wording between tonight’s meeting
and Council; failing that, the second recommendation would be to possibly
defer this matter and refer it back to staff as this may not be the only
property that may get caught inadvertently in some of these changes; noting
that there may be other churches or places of worship that are now going to
find out that their legal status has now changed to legal non-conforming;
indicating that, on this property, right now, with the current zoning, her
clients did receive confirmation that they could proceed; advising that they
are literally ready to submit an application; and, advising that time is
critical for them at this point.
·
Mike
Inglis, 147 West River Trace Walk – indicating that he and his wife have
owned and operated Gymworld Gymnastics for the last 12 years in northwest
London; advising that Gymworld Inc. currently has a completed and accepted
application for the rezoning of the properties located at 1920 and 1930 Blue
Heron Drive to add Commercial Recreation to the permitted uses in the Hyde
Park Industrial subdivision; noting that the Planning and Environment
Committee will be receiving an application relating to these properties
shortly; advising that their vision of putting together a multi-sport
training centre began many years ago when they purchased the property and
they have been waiting for servicing in the area; noting that servicing is to
begin next year; indicating that, prior to the introduction of this
application, they had their pre-consultation meeting with the Planning
Department, about their application, in the summer; indicating that because
their application is being reviewed using current by-laws, they do not have a
vested interest in the outcome of this application expressing a desire to convey
their opinion on how it will be more difficult, in the future, for
organizations, such as themselves, clubs, community organizations and places
of worship, to locate a business in London for commercial recreational
purposes; expressing support for the argument stated in the staff report
relating to non-Industrial or sensitive uses and their placement away from
general and heavy Industrial uses; expressing disagreement with the staff
report relating to the restrictions on secondary uses, and their locations,
having to do with Light Industrial areas; understanding that, by definition,
a Light Industrial location has few off-site impacts and it should not be
necessary to restrict the placement of secondary uses within a Light
Industrial area; indicating that the transportation movements and the
efficiency issues that have been referenced in the staff report are more
relevant in the heavier general industrial or heavy industry areas; noting
that LI-3, LI-4 and LI-5 uses may have location issues locating if they are
trying to locate on primary collectors or arterial roads within Light
Industrial areas; advising that the staff report references compliance with
Provincial Policy Statements; noting that the Provincial Policy Statements
also reference healthy communities; indicating that, when dealing with
commercial recreation activities, there are not a lot of areas in the City
zoned for commercial recreation; advising that, activities such as running a
gymnastics gym, running a karate studio or a dance studio, you are basically
destined for a Light Industrial area somewhere in a quiet little area where
it is affordable to offer affordable programming to the citizens of London;
and, indicating that, in his understanding of the staff report and moving
forward for the next generation, to have to put a facility out on an arterial
road somewhere is not feasible.
·
Derek
McBurney, 4-466 South Street – expressing appreciation to the staff for their
well-thought out report; expressing concern with the previous definition of churches
and places of worship and the secondary uses that are in areas that are
really inappropriate; expressing disagreement with the previous speaker;
advising that there are a lot of places in the city for recreational uses;
indicating that you have to do business in the reality of today; and,
indicating a desire to see the proposed revised by-law for the mosque.
(2013-D14A)
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with
respect to the application of the City of London, relating to amendments to
the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, for the property located at 2320
Auto Mall Avenue:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013
to amend Schedule C, “Transportation Corridors”, of the Official Plan to
remove a “Proposed Secondary Collector” road in this location that was added
to Schedule C, “Transportation Corridors”, of the Official Plan, and to amend
“Proposed Secondary Collector” road to “Secondary Collector” road for Driver
Lane from Dundas Street to Auto Mall Avenue to implement the accepted
Veterans Memorial Parkway Environmental Study Report (ESR); and,
b) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013,
to amend Section 4.21 (Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads) of
Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part
a), above), to delete and amend various streets in Section 4.21 “Road
Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads” of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law;
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 Senior
Planner, Development Planning the following actions be taken with respect to
the application of Norquay Developments, relating to the properties located
from 860 to 874 Southdale Road West:
a) the
Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve the draft plan of residential
subdivision, as submitted by Norquay Developments, (File No. 39T-13503),
prepared by Robert D. Sterling O.L.S., (Drawing No. DP1, dated July 3, 2013),
which shows 55 single detached dwelling lots, 11 single detached dwelling
part lots, the extension of Cranbrook Road, the extension of Thornley Street,
and a westerly extension of Collins Drive, SUBJECT TO the conditions
contained in Appendix "39T-13503", as appended to the staff report
dated December 10, 2013;
b) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that there were no issues raised at the public
participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect
to the application for draft plan of subdivision of Norquay Developments
relating to the property located at 860 to 874 Southdale Road West;
c) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013, to amend
Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to:
i) change
the zoning of the subject property from an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a
Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h.R1-6(4)) Zone and a Holding
Residential R1 Special Provision (h.h-108.R1-6(4)) Zone, to permit the
development of single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage
of 15 metres and a minimum lot area of 450m2 and to allow for 1.2
metre side yard setbacks for two story single detached dwellings; and,
ii) amend
Section 4.21 of “Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads” of the Z.-1
By-law to add Street “A” (Cranbrook Road) as a Secondary Collector Road; and,
d) the
financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the "Related
Costs and Revenues" appended as Schedule "B" to the associated
staff report, dated December 10, 2013;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual
made an oral submission in connection therewith:
Craig Linton, Norquay Developments –
expressing appreciation for the promptness that the application was dealt
with; advising of potential concerns that may be raised by the public during
construction; indicating that the concerns are related to Condition 60,
relating to construction access and Condition 62, relating to construction
access for new subdivisions; indicating that they will have to block off and
barricade Thornley Avenue in two locations, with another barricade on Collins
Drive; understanding that there are concerns about construction traffic while
house construction is going on through other areas; noting that there could
also be concerns raised by local residents during the approximately two year
period of construction, about the area residents not having enough mobility
through the area; and, indicating that it is at the Engineers discretion and
hoping that that discretion is used when the time comes. (2013-D14A)
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from
its meeting held on November 27, 2013:
a) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to explore the opportunity to implement a
reserve fund that members of the public could contribute to for the specific
purpose of planting trees in the community;
it being noted that the Trees and Forests
Advisory Committee (TFAC) reviewed and received a report dated October 29,
2013, and heard a verbal report from J. M. Fleming, Managing Director,
Planning and City Planner, with respect to the Emerald Ash Borer business
plan; and,
b) that clauses 2 to 8, inclusive,
BE RECEIVED.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following candidates BE APPROVED for
available positions on the Urban Design Peer Review Panel:
a) Brad Smith – Position of
Landscape Architect;
b) John Nicholson – Position of
Architect; and,
c) Steve Ries – Position of
Architect. (2013-C04)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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 J.L. Baechler to
Approve clause 10.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions regarding the
draft Blackfriars/Petersville Background Study BE TAKEN:
a) the
proposed Heritage Conservation District boundary, as appended to the staff
report dated December 10, 2013 as Figure 2, BE ENDORSED and that a Heritage
Conservation District Plan and Guidelines be prepared for the area;
b) the
draft Background Study BE RECEIVED, and circulated to the public, landowners,
agencies, the Blackfriars/Petersville HCD Steering Committee and the London
Advisory Committee on Heritage for review and comment; and,
c) prior
to final approval of the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District
Plan, a public information meeting BE HELD with the community to solicit
input on the draft Plan and Conservation Guidelines;
it being noted that a review of the current
Residential R2 zone variation applied to properties within the study area is
underway to address issues related to intensification within areas that are
susceptible to flood events;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Paul
Warden, 199 Lorraine Avenue – see attached presentation.
·
John
Clement, Chair, Steering Committee – advising that there was an incursion of
proposed development in the “pink” area as per the area map on display at the
meeting; advising that a group of local residents expressed their concern and
developed the Steering Committee; noting that the Steering Committee invited
members to join; advising that they did not put together the map that was
provided at the meeting; indicating that they have not told the Consultants
how to make their decisions; expressing support on behalf of the Association
Steering Committee of the current division; indicating that they did not
intend to exclude communities; encouraging people to form their own Community
Association; expressing appreciation to the members of the Planning and
Environment Committee and the Municipal Council for finding a way to maintain
and honour the history of the Blackfriars area as we build together towards
our future; expressing support for the work prepared by the Heritage
Consultants; expressing hope that the Planning and Environment Committee and
the Municipal Council will endorse this project as well; indicating that they
feel strongly that their neighbourhoods role in the history of the
development and growth of London needs to be evident and clear in the
appearance of our community on the ground and in our streets as we in the
community continue to develop and grow in the future in a way that is
harmonious for local community and future growth.
·
Angela
Goulet, 13 Lesley Street – advising that they purchased their house because
they were interested in living Downtown and near the Thames River; expressing
support for the staff recommendation; expressing appreciation to the staff
for making the Blackfriars area a priority for heritage designations;
indicating that what started as a strategy to protect Blackfriars from
inappropriate development has grown into a real celebration of the history of
our city; indicating that a tremendous amount of work went into the draft
Report on the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Study;
advising that designating the Blackfriars/Petersville area as a Heritage
Conservation District allows for a process of change management within the area
and is proof of the community’s commitment to care for and enhance the area;
indicating that they are seeing examples of this in their neighbourhood all
the time; providing the example that 12 Lesley Street, which was one of the
houses slated to be demolished, is now owned by someone who is taking great
care to repair the house; indicating that the correlation has not been lost,
this has historically been a working neighbourhood; advising that Blackfriars
is becoming a place for first-time homeowners, young families and people who
work Downtown and want to own property at a reasonable price; indicating that
the pride and love for this area will only increase with the designation;
indicating that there are a lot of children growing up in an urban pedestrian
style area; advising that their participation in municipal activities and
their involvement with the activities going on in the core is what breeds an
interest in the city and a connection to the city; advising that she
understands that the Planners are dealing with infill situations as opposed
to urban sprawl; advising that it is critical to maintain urban niche
neighbourhoods like Blackfriars; and, noting that if a city loses those
character rich areas, which often tend to be the historical areas, it loses a
lot of its personality and a lot of that appeal.
·
Susan
Spindler, 81 Wilson Avenue – expressing appreciation for all of the work that
has been completed on the draft Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation
District Study; advising that she does not believe that infill
intensification and urban sprawl are mutually exclusive; indicating that they
do not want enormous intensification in their neighbourhood which would
change the structure of what they consider to be a fairly small community;
and, reiterating that the Steering Committee was not responsible for the
division of the potential designation of the heritage conservation district.
·
Wes
Kinghorn, Chair, London Advisory Committee on Heritage – expressing support
for the draft Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District
Study. (2013-R01)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 clause 11.
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the urban growth boundary inclusion requests:
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)
|
At 5:48 PM His Worship the Mayor places
Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.
Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and
seconded by Councillor P. Polhill, that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council
Procedure By-law, Mayor J.F. Fontana be permitted to speak longer than 5
minutes with respect to the urban growth boundary inclusion requests.
Motion Passed
At 6:04 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes the
Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.
The motion to Approve clause 11 is put.
Motion Failed
YEAS: B. Polhill, D.G. Henderson, P. Van
Meerbergen (3)
NAYS: J.F. Fontana, B. Armstrong, J.B.
Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown,
H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve that the following actions be
taken with respect to the Urban Growth Boundary inclusion requests:
a)
NO ACTION BE TAKEN to amend the Urban Growth Boundary for residential,
institutional or commercial for the Rethink London Official Plan Review
process; and,
b)
the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a report outlining a
protocol for the review of the land needs assessment process and the urban
growth boundary, including the creation of a priority list of lands, that
will include community and stakeholder engagement and the establishment of a
working group, including representation from the stakeholders, to review the
submissions received and questions raised at the December 10, 2013 Planning
and Environment Committee Public Participation Meeting, outside the ReThink
London plan review process;
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)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and
seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Recess.
Motion Passed
The Council recesses at 7:22 PM and
reconvenes at 8:11 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members
present except Councillor D. Brown.
Councillor M. Brown
presents.
At 8:15 PM Councillor D. Brown enters the
meeting.
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve
clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and clauses 9 to 13, inclusive.
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
That the 10th Report of the London
Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on
November 21, 2013, BE RECEIVED.
|
That consideration of the staff report
dated December 9, 2013, with respect to Request for Proposal (RFP) 13-39 to
retain a consultant to conduct a Municipal Class Environment Assessment for a
preferred pedestrian recreational pathway crossing of Richmond Street, BE
REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake a further technical
review of the matter and report back at a future meeting of the appropriate
Standing Committee. (2013-F18)
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be
taken with respect to physiotherapy and occupational therapy services at the
Dearness Home, Request for Proposal (RFP)13-34:
a) the
RFP submission from Achieva Health, 355 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto,
Ontario M4P 1M5, BE ACCEPTED;
b) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts
that are necessary in connection with this contract; and
c) approvals
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal
contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this
approval. (2013-F18)
|
That, the following actions be taken with
respect to the 7th Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention
Advisory Committee (CSCP) from its meeting of November 28, 2013:
a)
the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Community Safety and Crime
Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) supports the proposed amendments to the
Parks and Recreation Area By-Law PR-2, a by-law to provide clarity on the
exclusion of e-scooters from Multi-Use Pathways, Section 2.1 By-law
Applicability Defined, as appended to the staff report dated November 11,
2013, and relating to “power-assisted bicycle”, specific to:
·
allowing e-bikes when powered by pedal, rather
than motor, when being used on a bike path and/or designated bike lanes;
·
requiring e-bike users to be at least 16 years
of age; and,
·
requiring e-bike users to wear helmets;
it being noted that the CSCP reviewed and
received the above-noted Report from the Managing Director of Parks and Recreation,
with respect to this matter, and received the fact sheets appended to the 7th
Report CSCP, from R. Black, London Police Service, on new and emerging
vehicles, e-bikes, mopeds and motor scooters;
b) the
Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to consider the importance of the following Police
Programs when considering the 2014 London Police Service Budget:
·
CORE
Unit;
·
Project
LEARN;
·
Five
(5) Resource Officers in the Secondary Schools;
·
Five
(5) School Safety Officers in the Elementary Schools; and,
·
Downtown foot patrols; and,
c) clause 3 to 9, inclusive, of the
7th Report of the CSCP BE RECEIVED.
|
That on the Recommendation of the Managing
Director, Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building Official,
that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC), the Ontario Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), and members of the Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee on the licensing option of banning the sale of companion animals at
flea markets and licensing pet stores for the purposes of consumer protection
and animal welfare;
it being noted that the following
communications were received regarding this matter:
• communication dated December 2,
2013 - P. Caskanette
• communication
dated November 28, 2013 – L. McCann, President CEO, Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council
• communication dated December 3,
2013 – C. Carter, ATN Access Inc.
• communication dated November
22, 2013 – M. Rubio (2013-P14)
|
That the following with respect to a
National Dementia Strategy BE SUPPORTED:
WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other
dementias are progressive, degenerative diseases of the brain that cause
thinking and memory to become seriously impaired;
AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other
dementias most often occur in people over the age of 65 but can strike adults
at any age;
AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other
dementias affect more than 500,000 Canadians currently and that this figure
is projected to reach 1.1 million within a generation;
AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other
dementias also take their toll on hundreds of thousands of families and care
partners;
AND WHEREAS an estimated further three
million Canadians face the burden and challenges of providing care for those
suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias;
AND WHEREAS there is no known cause or cure
for this devastating illness;
AND WHEREAS the costs related to the health
care system is in the billions and only going to increase, at a time when our
health care system is already facing enormous financial challenges;
AND WHEREAS Canada, unlike many countries,
do not have a national dementia strategy;
AND WHEREAS there is an urgent need to plan
and raise awareness and understanding about Alzheimer’s disease and other
dementias for the sake of improving the quality of life of the people it
touches;
AND WHEREAS MP Claude Gravelle Nickle Belt
has introduced Bill C-356, an Act respecting a National Strategy for
Dementia, as he works for broad, all party and non-partisan support for an
issue that touches us all, with his legislation calling for a national plan
that includes the development of strategies in priority health care, in health
promotion and prevention of illness, in community development in building
community capacity and care partner engagement, investments in research and
other (advisory board, objectives, investment in research and caregivers and
more);
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the
City of London calls on all levels of government and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities to adopt a national dementia strategy and urges all
citizens of our communities to become more aware and engaged concerning the far-reaching
effects of this devastating disease.
|
That the following action be taken
regarding the undated communication from S. Ford, Dancor regarding a Work
Order with respect to a contravention of the City of London Sign and Canopy
By-law S.-3775-94
a) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to place a moratorium on the enforcement of
section 10.1c of the Sign and Canopy By-law S.-3775-94 with respect to
existing signs on trailers, until such time as an environmental scan of other
municipalities has been conducted and a review of the Sign and Canopy By-law
S.-3775-94 has been completed;
b) the attached
communication from Councillor H.L. Usher BE RECEIVED.
|
That the undated communication from Jay
Brodie, regarding potential amendments to By-law PH-4, being a By-law to
provide for the regulation, restriction and prohibition of the keeping and
the running at large of dogs in the City of London BE REFERRED to the Civic
Administration for review and consideration during the upcoming reviews
By-law PH-4.
|
That the 10th Report of the Accessibility
Advisory Committee, from its meeting of November 28, 2013 BE RECEIVED.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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 M. Brown to Approve
clause 3.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home the following actions be
taken with the respect to the implementation of a Supply Chain Group
Purchasing Organization Contract for the City of London:
a) the
proposed attached by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the
Municipal Council meeting of December 17, 2013 to approve an agreement,
substantially in the form as attached to the by-law as Appendix
“A”, between The Corporation of the City of London and Extendicare (Canada)
Inc. carrying on business as Silver Group Purchasing (“SGP”) 3000 Steele
Ave., Markham, Ontario L3R 9W2, for SGP to act as the Supply Chain Group
Purchasing Organization under which the City will purchase food products and
other services and products for City service areas, including the Dearness
Home, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2014 and for SGP to act
as the single source supplier of a Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization
for a one year term with up to three one year renewals in accordance with the
“Procurement of Goods and Services Policy” Section 14.4 Single Source, clause
(d);
b)
the proposed attached by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED
at the Municipal Council meeting of December 17, 2013 to approve an
agreement, substantially in the form as attached to the by-law
as Appendix “A”, between The Corporation of the City of London and
Extendicare (Canada) inc., carrying on business as Silver Group Purchasing
(SGP), 3000 Steeles Ave., Markham L3R 9W2, for the City to participate in a
Revenues Share Program pursuant to the agreement with SGP for Supply Chain
Group Purchasing, under which the City will purchase food products and other
services and products for City service areas, including Dearness Home and
under which the City will receive volume related rebates for purchase of
food products and other services and products for City service areas,
including Dearness Home, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2014;
and,
c) the
Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the necessary
administrative acts in connection with the above-noted matters. (2013-L04)
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 M. Brown to Approve
clause 6.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Parks and Recreation, with respect to the noise levels at the
Rockin’ New Year’s Eve Event, the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED
at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013, to provide
an exemption from sections 13.1(a) and 13.2 of the City of London’s Special
Events Policies and Procedures Manual; it being noted that future exemptions
will be considered as part of the annual review which will be informed by
happenings at this year’s event;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following, the
following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:
- J. Harcourt – 7 Picton Street –
indicating he has been a resident at 7 Picton Street for 24 years,
expressing that he has 3 serious concerns with the proposed exemption;
firstly the noise levels from festivals held at Victoria Park prohibit
the reasonable use of personal property; and when he has guests to his
home on New Year’s Eve, his guests cannot have a conversation without
yelling over the noise from Victoria Park; secondly he had to leave town
for 6 weekends of the summer, as he is unable to enjoy his property due
to the noise from the festivals held at Victoria Park; and thirdly
security has to be increased at his property due to vandalism; and use
of private parking spaces by the general public during the festivals so
that residents and their guest have no place to park during the
festivals; requesting that the Committee not support the proposed
exemption for New Year’s Eve; and concluding that he is concerned that
his property value is being negatively impacted by the noise from the
festivals held at Victoria Park.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, 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, S.E. White (13)
NAYS: B. Armstrong, J.P. Bryant (2)
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve
clause 8.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Development & Compliance Services and the Chief Building
Official, the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare
Services contract, recognizing the vision for animal services where all pets
have a caring, respectful and responsible home:
a) the submission from
Urban Animal Management Inc. operating as London Animal Care Centre (LACC)
for implementing animal welfare services for the City of London and their
submitted total annual cost for services of $2,103,993 excluding taxes BE
ACCEPTED; it being noted that the total annual budget shortfall of
$146,265 related to this contract will need to be included as part of the
2015 Budget submission to maintain existing service levels and that the
budget shortfall for the last six months of 2014 will be funded through
one-time funding sources;
b) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake
all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this contract;
c) the approval
hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a
formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of
this approval;
d) the
following enhanced animal care strategies BE ENDORSED;
i)
an enhanced service for additional park
patrols to encourage responsible pet ownership and the licencing of dogs at
the off leash dog parks;
ii)
an enhanced veterinarian services model with a
focus on feral cat spay/neuter, microchipping, and medical triage;
iii)
an enhanced model of animal care focusing on
implementing a City Cat Adoption Centre;
e) the following annual operating
and one-time capital costs for the enhanced animal care strategies
BE SUPPORTED and BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget approval process:
i)
$375,776 operating and $700,000 one-time
capital for:
A)
$50,776 in annual operating for enhanced
services related to additional park patrols;
B)
$125,000 for annual operating costs for a
veterinarian; and $300,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile
building, product and equipment;
C)
$200,000 for annual operating costs for the
cat adoption centre; $400,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a
mobile building and equipment;
ii)
$50,000 annual contribution to a reserve fund
to be created to fund additional off-leash dog parks;
f) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider the following amendments to
the Animal Control and Dog Licensing and Control by-laws: No person shall
keep in any dwelling unit more than six of any combination of dogs and cats
with the number of dogs being limited to no more than three; except that any
person who, on the date of the passing of this by-law, was lawfully keeping more
than six of any combination of dogs and cats may keep those dogs and cats
until they have deceased or are otherwise been removed from, or have left
the dwelling unit; and further that new citizens to the City of London who
produce proof of a current valid licence for a dog/cat from another
municipality may continue to have that same animal licensed annually within
the City of London for the duration of the life of the animal so long as it
resides with same registered owner(s);
g) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider by-law amendments allow
newborns to be exempt from licensing and registration requirements for a
period of six months after birth for the purposes of promoting spay/neuter
responsibilities;
h) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider an Animal Fostering By-law
to include regulations intended to protect the health and safety of fostered
animals and to allow registered fosters to temporarily house up to ten
animals with a maximum limit of four dogs at any one time;
i) an
animal microchipping program BE IMPLEMENTED as a key component of the
enhanced veterinarian services model noting that microchipping is a proven
tool to promptly reunite lost animals with their guardians;
j) the Trap,
Neuter, Release (TNR) program BE ENDORSED as a successful program to address
the growing feral cat population;
k) local
businesses and retailers BE ENCOURAGED to participate in the “License to $ave
“ program in an effort to encourage and maintain companion animal licensing;
l) a barn
cat program BE ENDORSED as a positive program to address solutions for
healthy non-adoptable outdoor cats entering the animal shelter;
m) the first
principle of “no kill” and an open shelter policy, with continuous
improvement to obtain a live release of 90% by no later than year 4 of the
contract BE ADOPTED as the City’s goal for moving towards an animal welfare
model focusing on animal care; it being noted that shelter statistics will be
released monthly on the City’s web site and that the Civic Administration
will report annually to Council on the statistics and any recommended program
changes and/or funding requests;
n) consideration
BE GIVEN to initiating discussions on creating partnerships towards
the development of a joint venture multi-use animal welfare facility to
include centralized shelter, adoption, education and enforcement services;
o) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and report back on the potential
implementation of mandatory spay/neuter;
p) the
following delegation requests BE REFERRED to the public processes noted in
parts f), g) and h), above:
·
delegation request – F. Morrison
·
delegation request – D. Fortney
·
delegation request – M. Robertson
·
delegation request – D. Ennis
·
delegation
request and clause 1 of the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee – V. VanLinden;
it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee heard
the attached presentation from O. Katolyk, Chief By-law Enforcement
Officer, with respect to this matter. (2013-F18)
|
Motion made by Councillor S.E. White and
seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Amend clause 8 by adding the following new
part q):
“q) in
support of a no kill principle, City Administration BE DIRECTED to complete
the public processes noted in parts f), g) and h) above, early in 2014 to
ensure that any necessary by-law amendments are in place prior to July 1,
2014 to expand the opportunities for animal adoption and fostering of animals
and to move toward a reduction in euthanasia;”
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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. Orser and
seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve clause 8, as amended.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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)
|
Clause 8, as amended, reads as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Development & Compliance Services and the Chief Building
Official, the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare
Services contract, recognizing the vision for animal services where all pets
have a caring, respectful and responsible home:
a) the submission from
Urban Animal Management Inc. operating as London Animal Care Centre (LACC) for
implementing animal welfare services for the City of London and their submitted
total annual cost for services of $2,103,993 excluding taxes BE ACCEPTED; it
being noted that the total annual budget shortfall of $146,265 related to this
contract will need to be included as part of the 2015 Budget submission to
maintain existing service levels and that the budget shortfall for the last six
months of 2014 will be funded through one-time funding sources;
b) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to
undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this
contract;
c) the
approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into
a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of
this approval;
d) the
following enhanced animal care strategies BE ENDORSED;
i) an enhanced service for
additional park patrols to encourage responsible pet ownership and the
licencing of dogs at the off leash dog parks;
ii) an enhanced
veterinarian services model with a focus on feral cat spay/neuter, microchipping,
and medical triage;
iii) an enhanced model of
animal care focusing on implementing a City Cat Adoption Centre;
e) the following annual operating
and one-time capital costs for the enhanced animal care strategies BE SUPPORTED
and BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget approval process:
i) $375,776 operating and
$700,000 one-time capital for:
A) $50,776 in annual operating for enhanced services related
to additional park patrols;
B) $125,000 for annual operating costs for a veterinarian;
and $300,000 one- time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building,
product and equipment;
C) $200,000 for annual operating costs for the cat adoption
centre; $400,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building
and equipment;
ii) $50,000 annual contribution to
a reserve fund to be created to fund additional off- leash dog parks;
f) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider the following amendments to
the Animal Control and Dog Licensing and Control by-laws: No person shall keep
in any dwelling unit more than six of any combination of dogs and cats with the
number of dogs being limited to no more than three; except that any person who,
on the date of the passing of this by-law, was lawfully keeping more than six
of any combination of dogs and cats may keep those dogs and cats until they
have deceased or are otherwise been removed from, or have left the dwelling
unit; and further that new citizens to the City of London who produce proof of
a current valid licence for a dog/cat from another municipality may continue to
have that same animal licensed annually within the City of London for the
duration of the life of the animal so long as it resides with same registered
owner(s);
g) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider by-law amendments allow
newborns to be exempt from licensing and registration requirements for a period
of six months after birth for the purposes of promoting spay/neuter
responsibilities;
h) a public
participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider an Animal Fostering By-law to
include regulations intended to protect the health and safety of fostered
animals and to allow registered fosters to temporarily house up to ten animals
with a maximum limit of four dogs at any one time;
i) an animal
microchipping program BE IMPLEMENTED as a key component of the enhanced
veterinarian services model noting that microchipping is a proven tool to promptly
reunite lost animals with their guardians;
j) the Trap,
Neuter, Release (TNR) program BE ENDORSED as a successful program to address
the growing feral cat population;
k) local
businesses and retailers BE ENCOURAGED to participate in the “License to $ave “
program in an effort to encourage and maintain companion animal licensing;
l) a barn
cat program BE ENDORSED as a positive program to address solutions for healthy
non-adoptable outdoor cats entering the animal shelter;
m) the first
principle of “no kill” and an open shelter policy, with continuous improvement
to obtain a live release of 90% by no later than year 4 of the contract BE
ADOPTED as the City’s goal for moving towards an animal welfare model focusing
on animal care; it being noted that shelter statistics will be released monthly
on the City’s web site and that the Civic Administration will report annually
to Council on the statistics and any recommended program changes and/or funding
requests;
n) consideration
BE GIVEN to initiating discussions on creating partnerships towards the
development of a joint venture multi-use animal welfare facility to include
centralized shelter, adoption, education and enforcement services;
o) the Civic
Administration BE DIRECTED to review and report back on the potential
implementation of mandatory spay/neuter;
p) the
following delegation requests BE REFERRED to the public processes noted in
parts f), g) and h), above:
·
delegation request – F. Morrison
·
delegation request – D. Fortney
·
delegation request – M. Robertson
·
delegation request – D. Ennis
·
delegation
request and clause 1 of the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
– V. VanLinden;
q) in support of a no kill principle, City Administration BE DIRECTED
to complete the public processes noted in parts f), g) and h)
above, early in 2014 to ensure that any necessary by-law amendments are
in place prior to July 1, 2014 to expand the opportunities for animal adoption
and fostering of animals and to move toward a reduction in euthanasia;
it being noted that the Community and
Protective Services Committee heard the attached presentation
from O. Katolyk, Chief By-law Enforcement Officer, with respect to this matter.
(2013-F18)
Councillor J.B. Swan
presents.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14 to 17, inclusive.
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, with respect to use of
corporate resources during an election year, BE RECEIVED for information.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor, on the advice of the
Manager, Risk Management, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, regarding
the 2012 risk management services, BE RECEIVED for information.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, on the
advice of the Manager of Realty Services, approval be given to the
expropriation of lands as may be required for a project known as Veterans
Memorial Parkway South Extension, between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road,
and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:
a) application
be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority
to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving
authority for the approval to expropriate the lands required for Veterans
Memorial Parkway South Extension between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road;
b) The
Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above
application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;
c) The
Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any
requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of
The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and
d) the
proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to authorize
the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary
administrative actions.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) appended to the staff report dated December
10, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013
to delete and replace subsection 5 of section VIII of Council Policy 28(1)
entitled “Travel and Business Expenses” in order to add a provision that
addresses bereavement.
|
That on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
2013 Capital Budget Status - Third Quarter Report BE RECEIVED for
information.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on
the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the Agreement
dated the 20th day of October, 2010 between The Corporation of the City of
London and CB Richard Ellis Limited, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to
provide written notice to CBRE extending the term of the Agreement for an
additional (3) three years as provided for in the Agreement, on the
understanding that staff will only seek third party assistance for
transaction management and brokerage services under the explicit direction of
the Manager of Realty Services.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Parks and Recreation, the staff report dated December 10, 2013 with
respect to the City of London’s compliance with Ontario Regulation
191/11-Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, BE RECEIVED for
information.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human Resources Officer, on the advice
of the Division Manager, Corporate Security and Emergency Management, and on
the advice and with the concurrence of the Deputy City Treasurer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the provision of security services
by the Commissionaires:
a) the
proposal submitted by the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for the provision of
security services through a three (3) year contract with an additional two
(2) year renewal option BE ACCEPTED; it being noted this is a single/sole
source procurement;
b) the
proposed by-law (Appendix “A”), appended to the staff report dated December
10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013
to approve the Agreement (Schedule “A” to the By-law) between The Corporation
of the City of London and the Commissionaires (Great Lakes), at an estimated
annual expenditure of approximately $385,500.00 annually, and subject to the
amendments to be made which are noted herein;
c) subject
to b), above, the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the
contract with the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for the applicable services;
and
d) Civic
Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are
necessary in connection with the report and the Agreement referenced herein.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law appended to
the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal
Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute two agreements for the mutual benefit of the City and
Fanshawe College related to the City’s use of a discrete area within 137
Dundas Street for electrical and mechanical services that support Market
Lane, and for an encroachment into Market Lane at 139 Dundas Street to permit
stairs and ramping for Fanshawe’s new building.
|
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy
City Treasurer, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to write off the outstanding
Miscellaneous and Dearness accounts receivable, attached as
Appendix “A” to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, to the Allowance
for Doubtful Accounts, in accordance with the Uncollectible Accounts
Receivable Policy.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. 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 clause 2.
That, on the recommendation of the City
Clerk, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, providing information
outlining the legislative requirements to place a question on the 2014 Municipal
Election ballot, BE RECEIVED for information.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher, S.E. White (12)
NAYS: D. Brown, J.P. Bryant (2)
RECUSED: J.B. Swan (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 6.
That, notwithstanding the recommendation of
Staff to enforce the encroachment policy, on October 1, 2013 the Municipal
Council directed staff to sell certain encroachment properties. In light of
this, it is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to
the City-owned property known as Westminster Ponds - North East - Pond Mills
Environmentally Significant Area to the rear of properties municipally known
as 47 and 49 Agincourt Gardens, further described as Part Block A, Plan 875,
being an irregular strip of land containing approximately 4,125 square feet
(as shown on Schedule “A” appended to the staff report dated December 10,
2013):
a) the subject property BE DECLARED
SURPLUS;
b) the
subject property BE OFFERED for sale to the individual abutting property
owners at fair market value in accordance with the City of London’s Sale and
Other Disposition of Land Policy, inclusive of ancillary costs associated
with the transaction as detailed in the staff report dated December 10, 2013;
and
c) the
subject properties BE DISPOSED OF subject to the participation and agreement
of all (2) owners described above, noting that failure to do this will result
in increased cost and potentially landlocked lands.
|
Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Refer clause 6 regarding the declaration of
surplus city-owned land adjacent to 47 and 49 Agincourt Gardens back to the
Civic Administration for further review.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Armstrong, J.B.
Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van
Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)
NAYS: B. Polhill, D.G. Henderson, S.E.
White (3)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 7.
That, notwithstanding the recommendation of
Staff to enforce the encroachment policy, on October 1, 2013 the Municipal
Council directed staff to sell certain encroachment properties. In light of
this, it is recommended the following actions be taken with respect to the
City-owned property known as the Stoneycreek Valley, further described as
Block 26, Plan M-249, Part A: being a triangular shaped parcel to the rear of
25 and 29 Stoneycreek Crescent, containing approximately 1,050 square feet
(as shown on Schedule “A” attached), and Part B: being a 10
foot wide strip of land containing approximately 4,600 square feet to the
rear of 25 to 57 Stoneycreek Crescent (as shown on Schedule “A” appended to
the staff report dated December 10, 2013):
a) the subject property referred to
as Part B BE DECLARED surplus;
b) the
subject properties referred to as Part A and Part B BE OFFERED for sale to
the individual abutting property owners at fair market value in accordance
with the City of London’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy,
inclusive of ancillary costs associated with the transaction, which includes
survey, fencing, and legal; and
c) the
subject properties BE DISPOSED OF subject to the participation and agreement
of all (9) nine owners described above, noting that failure to do this will
result in increased cost and potentially landlocked lands.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, J.B. Swan, S. Orser,
J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van
Meerbergen, S.E. White (10)
NAYS: B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, D. Brown,
H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (5)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 9.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, being a
By-Law to amend By-Law No. A.-6151-17, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting on December 17, 2013, to revise Schedule “C” to By-Law No. A.-6151-17
being the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to:
a) increase
the dollar limit from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 for Tenders that do not have
an irregular result as per Section 13.2 in the Procurement of Goods and
Services Policy; and
b)
modify Section 20.3 d) ii) and Schedule “A” of the Policy both
regarding Contract Amendments/Extensions.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 11.
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the 2013 Operating Budget Status –
Third Quarter Report for the General (Property Tax Supported), Water, and
Wastewater and Treatment Budgets:
a) the
2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General Budget
(Property Tax Supported refer to Appendix A), Water Budget and Wastewater and
Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the
Civic Administration is projecting:
i) $6.9
million in savings in the General (Property Tax Supported) Budget; it being
noted that consistent with Council resolution, the $6.9 million in savings if
realized would be contributed to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; it
being further noted that $3.7 million of the $6.9 million projected surplus
relates to a one-time reconciliation of 2010 Ontario Municipal Partnership
Funding;
ii) $3.7
million in savings in the Water Budget; it being noted that consistent with
Council direction, the $3.7 million savings would be contributed to the Water
Works Capital Reserve Fund;
iii) $1.8
million in savings in the Wastewater and Treatment Budget; it being noted
that consistent with Council direction, the $1.8 million savings would be
contributed to the Sewage Works Reserve Fund;
b) notwithstanding
the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following drawdowns from the
Operating Budget Contingency Reserve be
considered:
i) $2.3
million to the City Facilities Reserve Fund in order to provide a “potential”
source of funding for facility related initiatives such as Ontario Works
Decentralization should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus
position; it being noted that the Ontario Works Decentralization initiative is
progressing and is on target to meet the staged timelines identified in the
June 17, 2013 report to the Community and Protective Services Committee;
ii) $1.0
million to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to be used to support
initiatives brought forward by the Investment and Economic Prosperity
Committee that best accelerate London’s economy and foster private sector
investment in the City, should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a
surplus position;
iii) $3.6
million be applied as a funding source to avoid 2014 capital budget
reductions; it being noted that as part of the 2013 budget deliberations,
Council approved a permanent $3.6 million funding cut to capital that flowed
through to the 2014 capital budget; it being further noted that the final
2013 year-end position could fluctuate significantly based on factors beyond
the control of Civic Administration such as Ontario Works caseload and/or
winter maintenance and will not be known until early 2014;
c) the
Civic Administration’s contribution of $1,435,013 ($1,280,920 – property tax
supported; $84,143 – wastewater; and $69,950 – water) to the Efficiency,
Effectiveness and Economy reserves in 2013 BE NOTED.
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and
seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Amend clause 11, in line 2 of part b),
by deleting the word "CONSIDERED" and by replacing it with the
following words "REFERRED to the 2014 Budget Process".
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 J.B. Swan and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 11, as amended.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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)
|
Clause 11, as amended, reads as follows:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
following actions be taken with respect to the 2013 Operating Budget Status –
Third Quarter Report for the General (Property Tax Supported), Water, and Wastewater
and Treatment Budgets:
a) the
2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General Budget
(Property Tax Supported refer to Appendix A), Water Budget and Wastewater and
Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the
Civic Administration is projecting:
i) $6.9
million in savings in the General (Property Tax Supported) Budget; it being
noted that consistent with Council resolution, the $6.9 million in savings if
realized would be contributed to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; it
being further noted that $3.7 million of the $6.9 million projected surplus
relates to a one-time reconciliation of 2010 Ontario Municipal Partnership
Funding;
ii) $3.7
million in savings in the Water Budget; it being noted that consistent with
Council direction, the $3.7 million savings would be contributed to the Water
Works Capital Reserve Fund;
iii) $1.8
million in savings in the Wastewater and Treatment Budget; it being noted that
consistent with Council direction, the $1.8 million savings would be
contributed to the Sewage Works Reserve Fund;
b) notwithstanding
the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following drawdowns from the
Operating Budget Contingency Reserve BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget process:
i) $2.3
million to the City Facilities Reserve Fund in order to provide a “potential”
source of funding for facility related initiatives such as Ontario Works
Decentralization should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus
position; it being noted that the Ontario Works Decentralization initiative is
progressing and is on target to meet the staged timelines identified in the
June 17, 2013 report to the Community and Protective Services Committee;
ii) $1.0
million to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to be used to support
initiatives brought forward by the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee
that best accelerate London’s economy and foster private sector investment in
the City, should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus position;
iii) $3.6
million be applied as a funding source to avoid 2014 capital budget reductions;
it being noted that as part of the 2013 budget deliberations, Council approved
a permanent $3.6 million funding cut to capital that flowed through to the 2014
capital budget; it being further noted that the final 2013 year-end position
could fluctuate significantly based on factors beyond the control of Civic
Administration such as Ontario Works caseload and/or winter maintenance and
will not be known until early 2014;
c) the Civic
Administration’s contribution of $1,435,013 ($1,280,920 – property tax
supported; $84,143 – wastewater; and $69,950 – water) to the Efficiency,
Effectiveness and Economy reserves in 2013 BE NOTED.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve
clause 13.
That the following actions be taken with
respect to consultation processes undertaken to consider concepts for the
possible redevelopment of the Sherwood Forest Public School property:
a) the staff report dated December
10, 2013 BE RECEIVED for information; and
b) the
attached communication from S. Levin, President, Orchard
Park/Sherwood Forest Ratepayers BE RECEIVED.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White
(14)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 18.
That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED
to provide one-time funding in the amount of $20,000, within the existing
budget to be contributed to the Operating Contingency Reserve Fund, for a
video to deliver an impactful message to young women to be shared widely,
including on-line media, with the objective of encouraging young women to
actively participate in civics and government.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen (2)
|
|
3rd Report of the Corporate Services
Committee
|
Councillor J.P.
Bryant presents.
Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to
Approve clause 1.
1.
|
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests
were disclosed.
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
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
(14)
RECUSED: M. Brown (1)
Councillor J.B. Swan
presents.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 3.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director of Corporate Investments
and Partnerships, the following actions be taken with respect to the
acquisition of the “Sentinel” public art:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 2, 2013, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013
to:
i) approve
the Donation Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the
Walter J. Blackburn Foundation to transfer the ownership of the “Sentinel”
public art to the City of London;
ii) authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the above-noted transfer and issue a tax
receipt to the Blackburn Foundation for their donation; and,
b) the
“Sentinel” public art BE LOCATED on City of London property in Mitch Baran
Park in close proximity to the Walter J. Blackburn Memorial Fountain at the
Forks of the Thames.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P.
Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)
|
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve
clause 5.
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the following actions be
taken with respect to the proposals submitted by Music London and the Grand
Theatre for a Mixed-Use Development including a Performance Centre:
a) the
joint letter provided by Music London and the Grand Theatre BE RECEIVED for
information;
b) based
on the request outlined in the above-noted letter, as well as the consistent
theme throughout the public consultation process, the creation of a proposed
“Joint Task Force” for the purpose of advancing the “Mixed-Use Development
Including a Performing Arts Centre” proposal, between Music London and the
Grand Theatre BE ENDORSED; and,
c) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the revised business plan
submitted by the Joint Task Force, and continue to engage Novita Interpares
for a third party review; it being noted that, previously identified
milestones may need to be amended at the request of the Joint Task Force.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, 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)
NAYS: S. Orser (1)
RECUSED: J.B. Swan (1)
|
At 9:20 PM Councillor S. Orser leaves the
meeting.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clause 8.
That the communication from A. Halwa,
Executive Director, London Arts Council, with respect to a funding request of
$50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE
REFERRED to the Civic Administration to work through the due diligence
project checklist process with the London Arts Council, with a report back to
IEPC, as soon as possible, at a special meeting if required.
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Amend clause 8 by deleting the clause in its
entirety and by replacing it with the following new clause:
“That the communication from A. Halwa,
Executive Director, London Arts Council with respect to a funding request of
$50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE REFERRED
to the 2014 Operating Budget Emerging Issues, to be included as part of
Business Case #57 Cultural Prosperity Plan, for consideration.”
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, 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
(14)
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and
seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 8, as amended.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, 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
(14)
|
Clause 8, as amended, reads as follows:
That the communication from A. Halwa,
Executive Director, London Arts Council with respect to a funding request of
$50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE REFERRED
to the 2014 Operating Budget Emerging Issues, to be included as part of
Business Case #57 Cultural Prosperity Plan, for consideration.
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to
Approve clauses 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Swan
disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5 of this Report, having to with a
mixed-use development for a Performing Arts Centre, by indicating that his
employer, Orchestra London, is a proponent.
|
That Councillor M. Brown BE ELECTED as Vice
Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014.
|
That, on the recommendation of the
Director, Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the proposed by-law,
appended to the staff report dated December 2, 2013, to amend Council Policy
8(11), entitled “Grants and Capital Grants Policy”, as it relates to the
Community Arts Investment Program, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on December 17, 2013.
|
That the report dated December 2, 2013, from
the Director of Corporate Investments and Partnerships, with respect to the
Western University’s IBM Industry problem solving workshop, BE RECEIVED for
information; it being noted that the Investment and Economic Prosperity
Committee heard a presentation from A. Kope, M.Sc Candidate Computer Science,
with respect to this matter.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the communication dated November 8, 2013, from A. Caxaj,
Executive, Artistic Director and D. Mumford, Board Member, Sunfest, relating
to a one-time funding request of $50,000 to assist in celebrating the
festival’s 20th Anniversary:
a) the above-noted funding request
BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget process;
b) any
funding granted through the Budget process BE DIRECTED to CAIP through the
Culture Office, noting that Sunfest currently receives operational funding
from CAIP Category 2;
c) Sunfest
BE REQUESTED to use local talent, in addition to international talent for
London Day to build live music capacity in London; and,
d) Sunfest
BE REQUESTED to work with the Culture Office and London Arts Council for 2014
Sunfest, to build sustainability for future years;
it being noted that the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee reviewed and received a communication from A.
Halwa, Executive Director, London Arts Council, with respect to this matter.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
J.B. Swan, 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 (14)
Councillor M. Brown
presents.
Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to
Approve clauses 1 to 5, inclusive.
|
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary
interests were disclosed.
|
That Councillor M. Brown BE ELECTED Chair
and Councillor P. Hubert BE ELECTED Vice Chair of the Audit Committee for the
term ending November 30, 2014.
|
That the report dated December 5, 2013,
from the Chief Technology Officer, regarding the progress ITS has made to
date on IT governance, BE RECEIVED for information.
|
That, on the recommendation of
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the following actions be taken with respect to
the Quarterly Reports on Internal Audit Results – Parks and Recreation -
Revenue Strategies:
a)
the Action Plans identified in Appendix A of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’
(PwC) report dated December 5, 2013 BE IMPLEMENTED; and,
b)
the Quarterly Results on Internal Audit Results identified in Appendix B
of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) report dated December 5, 2013, BE
RECEIVED.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the Proposed Risk Assessment and 2014 - 2016 Risk-Based Audit
Plan:
a) the
Risk Assessment and 2014 - 2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan identified in Appendix
A of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) report dated December 5, 2013, BE
APPROVED; and,
b)
the title “Risk Assessment and 2014-2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan” BE
CHANGED to “Risk Assessment and 2014 – 2016 Performance-Based Audit Plan” to
better reflect the goal of achieving effective and efficient services.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
J.B. Swan, 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 (14)
Councillor P. Hubert
presents.
Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to
Approve clauses 1 to 5, inclusive.
1.
|
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor B.
Armstrong disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of this Report,
specifically having to do with the Residential Rental Licensing Fees, by
indicating that he is a landlord.
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Manager, the staff report dated December 16, 2013 with respect to a survey of
Londoners as conducted by Environics Research Group BE RECEIVED for
information.
3.
|
Service London Update Report
|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director of Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, the staff report dated
December 16, 2013 on the deliverables and progress associated with the Service
London Implementation Plan BE RECEIVED for information.
4.
|
Public Participation Meeting – Amendments
to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to amendments to the Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law:
a)
a
proposed revised by-law which contains the various fees and charges included in
the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 16, 2013, with
the exclusion of item iv) under the Service Grouping “Fire Services”, contained
within the Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Fighting activity, for the recovery
of additional expenses through charging costs to the property owner, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 for the
purpose of repealing By-law No. A-46, as amended, being “A by-law to provide
for Various Fees and Charges” and replacing it with a new Fees and Charges
By-law that updates, adds and increases certain fees and charges for services
or activities provided by the City of London;
b)
item
iv) under the Service Grouping “Fire Services”, contained within the Fire &
Rescue Services/Fire Fighting Activity, for the recovery of additional expenses
through charging costs to the property owner, as included in the proposed
by-law appended to the staff report dated December 16, 2013, BE REFERRED back
to the Fire Chief for further review;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
J.
Hoffer, representing the London Property Management Association – expressing
concern with the lack of specificity in item iv) under the Service Grouping
“Fire Services”, contained within the Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Fighting
Activity, for the recovery of additional expenses through charging costs to the
property owner; noting that the Fire Chief would have too much discretion as to
when to apply the additional charges; further noting that those who could be
charged the additional fees would be easy targets without any ability to
challenge the application of those fees; stating that there is a systemic
problem with the by-law as currently drafted; and asking that further
consideration be given to this fee.
·
G.
Brown – 35A-59 Ridout Street South – expressing concern with any increase to
Parks and Recreation user fees and charges; suggesting that before raising user
fees, thought should be given to cancelling the project to pave a portion of
Thames Park and applying those monies to mitigate any user fee increases; and
noting that user fees affect those who can least afford them.
5.
|
2013 Report to the Community
|
That the presentation from the City Manager
and the Manager, Corporate Initiatives, with respect to the 2013 Report to the
Community BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong,
J.B. Swan, 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 (14)
Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to
Approve clause 6.
6.
|
Cycling Advisory Committee
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee:
a)
the
establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee BE APPROVED;
b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to
report back with a proposed terms of reference for the Cycling Advisory
Committee, approved in a) above;
c) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to
report back with revised terms of reference for the Transportation
Advisory Committee, which incorporate certain changes arising from the establishment
of a Cycling Advisory Committee; and
d) the following written submissions
BE RECEIVED:
i)
a
communication dated December 5, 2013 from S. Steel, speaking in favour of the
establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;
ii)
a
communication from A. Eftekarpour, Vice-President External, University
Students’ Council, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling
Advisory Committee;
iii)
the
attached communication from D.J. Rycroft, speaking in favour of
the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;
iv)
the
attached communication from P. Myers, Board of Directors of the
London Cycling Club, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling
Advisory Committee;
v)
the
attached communication from M. Marsman, speaking in favour of the
establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;
it being noted that E. McMahon advised that
she was unable to attend the meeting to make verbal representation with respect
to this matter;
it being further noted that the Managing
Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer and the
Director, Roads and Transportation, gave a verbal overview with respect to the
Civic Administration’s position on this matter;
it being pointed out that the following
individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Gary
Brown, 35A-59 Ridout Street South – making the attached
presentation in support of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;
noting cities with successful cycling all have Cycling Advisory Committees;
suggesting that London follow the model of other cities; claiming that London
is the least friendly and safe cycling community in Ontario; indicating that
staff could not provide a firm dollar amount for the City of London’s cycling
budget; pointing out that the Ontario Bike Master Plan will have funding
available for shovel-ready projects; and asking that the cycling community that
wants to be engaged, be engaged by the City.
·
Daniel
Hall – noting he is a London resident and avid cycler; indicating support for a
Cycling Advisory Committee; indicating that the City should be targeting the
“interested but concerned” segment of the cycling community; noting that a “one
size fits all” solution will not work; and asking that the City work with the
community to build the cycling infrastructure.
·
Henk
Ketellars – making the attached presentation in support of the
establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;
·
Ross
Graham – indicating that he and his spouse are avid cyclists; speaking in
support of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; indicating there
is a serious communications issue that would be addressed through the
establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; noting that 90% of people
surveyed want to live in London, not cars first and this message doesn’t seem
to be getting through—rather the opposite seems to be the case; stating that
pushing for more individuals to bike on sidewalks is actually “car centric”;
further noting that the next steps for transportation cited “generally pursue
no cost and low cost solutions” and “engage the public and business community
with respect to the Transportation Demand Management program”; stating that
cyclists are over engaged and under serviced; expressing he understands why
staff would like to see a more comprehensive committee, but more action would likely
be taken if a separate Cycling Advisory Committee were established.
·
Dave
Mitchell – indicating he has been to a number of the Transportation Advisory
Committee meetings and his view is that Committee is not serving such a limited
scope as cycling; stating he is a diehard cyclist and that he does not want to
see a piece meal solution; noting that cyclists are a growing demographic and
need to be considered beyond automobile drivers.
·
Anthea
Rowe, 44 Kingsford Crescent – indicating she is a young professional with two
children and two motor vehicles, living in South London; stating that she does
not have a lot of time to devote to staying fit and healthy, so cycling to work
offers her an opportunity to do that; further indicating that London’s quality
of life and ability to get around the City on a bicycle keeps her family here
as they don’t have other family here and job prospects might be greater
elsewhere; stating that she will never be a “fearless” cyclist but does
champion cycling with friends and peers; noting she is proud to live in London
and can see what we can be and that we are making progress; and expressing
support for a Cycling Advisory Committee.
·
Helen
Reardon, 590 Piccadilly Street – expressing support for a Cycling Advisory
Committee; noting it is very dangerous cycling off bicycle paths so safer
bicycle routes are needed; stating that other cities, such as Quebec City where
there is a lot of snow make year-round use of bicycle lanes and that is was
time that London did too.
·
Diane
Szoller – noting she has seen a lot of change in the environmental area in the
last 20 years and there is a need to provide focus to each aspect; stating she
attended the former Cycling Advisory Committee meetings when it was reviewing
the Bicycle Master Plan; noting the Bicycle Master Plan needs dedicated support
and that a specific committee dealing with cycling would ensure that cycling
was not forgotten in the bigger picture; further noting that she would like to
see more work done to make cycling safer, as a lot more can be done in that
regard; expressing that she does not like seeing more people ride bicycles on
sidewalks and would like to see better cycling education; and expressing
support for a Cycling Advisory Committee.
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G.
Henderson, D. Brown, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)
NAYS: P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher (2)
|
Councillor N.
Branscombe presents.
PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, and Councillors
B. Polhill, B. 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, J.
Braam, S. Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, A. Hagan, M. Hayward, G.T. Hopcroft, O.
Katolyk, G. Kotsifas, V. McAlea Major, D. Mounteer, L. Rowe and B. Warner.
Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe to
Approve:
That, as a procedural matter pursuant to
Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following
recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in
public session:
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on
the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, the lease between the City and
The Court House Block Inc. (the “Landlord”) for the 6th Floor space at 220
Dundas Street BE RENEWED for an additional term of two (2) years, for the J.
D. Edwards Upgrade Project, at a base rent of $8.00 per square foot, subject
to the same terms and conditions of the existing lease.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
Armstrong, J.B. Swan, 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
(14)
|
None.
None.
None.
At 9:29 PM Councillor S. Orser enters the
meeting.
BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND
THIRD TIME:
|
Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and
seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve Introduction and First Reading of
Bill No.s 31 to 55, inclusive.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 and
seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve Second Reading of Bill No.s 31 to
55, inclusive.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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. Orser and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve Third Reading and Enactment
of Bill No.s 31 to 55, inclusive.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B.
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 following by-laws are passed and enacted
as by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:
Bill
No. 31
By-law
No. A.-7048-22
|
A
by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 17th
day of December, 2013. (City Clerk)
|
Bill
No. 32
By-law
No. A.-7049-23
|
A
by-law to amend subsection 5 of section VIII of Council Policy 28(1) entitled
“Travel & Business Expenses”. (8/2/CSC)
|
Bill
No. 33
By-law
No. A.-6151(i)-24
|
A
By-law to amend By-law A.-6151-17, being a by-law to establish policies for
the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of
goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and
delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal
Act, 2001. (9/2/CSC)
|
Bill
No. 34
By-law
No. A.-7050-25
|
A
By-law to approve the Agreement with the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for
the provision of Security Services and to authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the Agreement. (15/2/CSC)
|
Bill
No. 35
By-law
No. A.-7051-26
|
A
By-law to approve two Agreements between The Corporation of the City of
London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology; and to
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreements. (16/2/CSC)
|
Bill
No. 36
By-law
No. A.-7052-27
|
A
By-law to approve a donation agreement with The
Walter J. Blackburn Foundation; and to authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. (3/1/IEPC)
|
Bill
No. 37
By-law
No. A.-7053-28
|
A
by-law to amend Council Policy 8(11) entitled “Grants and Capital Grants
Policy” as it relates to the Community Arts Investment Program. (4/1/IEPC)
|
Bill
No. 38
By-law
No. A.-7054-29
|
A
By-law to exempt the 2013 Rockin’ New Year’s Eve event from
subsections 13.1(a) and 13.2 of the 2013 Special Events Policies and
Procedures Manual. (6/2/CPSC)
|
Bill
No. 39
By-law
No. A.-7055-30
|
A
by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London
and Extendicare (Canada) Inc., carrying on business as Silver Group
Purchasing (SGP), for SGP to act as the Supply Chain Group Purchasing
Organization under which the City will purchase food products and other
services and products for City service areas including the Dearness Home
(identified as Purchasing Agreement) (3/2/CPSC)
|
Bill
No. 40
By-law
No. A.-7056-31
|
A
by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London
and Extendicare (Canada) Inc., carrying on business as Silver Group
Purchasing (SGP), for the City to participate in a Revenue Share Program
pursuant to the agreement with SGP for Supply Chain Group Purchasing, under
which the City will purchase food products and other services and products
for City service areas including the Dearness Home (identified as Revenue
Share Agreement) (3/2/CPSC)
|
Bill
No. 41
By-law
No. C.P.-1284(to)-32
|
A
by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to
parallel street network to the Veterans Memorial Parkway corridor. (8/1/PEC)
|
Bill
No.42
By-law
No. L.S.P.-3433-33
|
A
by-law to authorize an application to expropriate
lands in the City of London in the County of Middlesex for the Veterans
Memorial Parkway South Extension between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road.
(5/1/CSC)
|
Bill
No. 43
By-law
No. PS-111-14129
|
A
by-law to amend By-law PS-111 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the
parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (4/1/CWC)
|
Bill
No. 44
By-law
No. S.-5617-34
|
A
by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of
London as public highway. (as widening to Talbot Street, south of John
Street) (Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 45
By-law
No. S.-5618-35
|
A
by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London.
(Summerside Subdivision – Phase 9) (Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 46
By-law
No. S.-5619-36
|
A
by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London.
(Summerside Subdivision – Phase 10) (Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 47
By-law
No. S.-5620-37
|
A
by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London.
(Summerside Subdivision – Phase 12A) (Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 48
By-law
No. S.-5621-38
|
A
by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of
London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, between Merlin
Street and Ronald Street) (Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 49
By-law
No. S.-5622-39
|
A
by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of
London as public highway. (for the purposes of a public highway for
pedestrian use only, lying between Sunningdale Road East and Waterwheel Road)
(Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 50
By-law
No. S.-5623-40
|
A
by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of
London as public highway. (for the purposes of a public highway for
pedestrian use only, north of North Routledge Park and north of Moy Crescent)
(Chief Surveyor)
|
Bill
No. 51
By-law
No. Z.-1-142253
|
A
by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at
1103 Adelaide Street North. (6/1/PEC)
|
Bill
No. 52
By-law
No. Z.-1-142254
|
A
by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 Section 4.21 by adding, deleting and
replacing the road allowance for various streets. (8/1/PEC)
|
Bill
No.53
By-law
No. Z.-1-142255
|
A by-law
to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at
860-874 Southdale Road West. (9/1/PEC)
|
Bill
No. 54
By-law
No. A-47
|
A by-law
to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-46 being “A
by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” and By-law CP-20 being “A
by-law to provide for the Tariff of Fees for the processing of applications
under the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.13, as amended and to repeal By-law
CP-18” . (2/3/SPPC)
|
Bill
No. 55
By-law
No. A.-7057-32
|
A By-law
to authorize the renewal of the lease of property at 220 Dundas Street and to
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Lease Amending Agreement
between The Corporation of the City of London and The Court House Block Inc.
(2/2/CSC)
|
Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and
seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Adjourn.
Motion Passed
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.
_________________________________
Joe
Fontana, Mayor
_________________________________
Catharine
Saunders, City Clerk