TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS - PLANNING COMMITTEE

SUBJECT:

FROM:

ANNEXED AREA ZONING BY-LAW PROJECT SECOND REPORT ON OMB APPEALS

MEETING ON

R. W. PANZER GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDATION I That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning and Development, in response to the letters of appeal (see attached) to the Ontario Municipal Board relating to Zoning By-law No. 2.-1-061488, 2-1-061489 and 2-1-061490 concerning properties at 1922, 1930 and 1956 Mallard Road, 1380 Wilton Grove Road and 4922 White Oak Road, respectively, the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has reviewed its decisions relating to these matters and sees no reason to alter them.

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

A report on outstanding issues and appeals was reviewed by Planning Committee on April 3, 2006. A previous report on the appeals was submitted to the Committee for the September 26, 2005 meeting. Since the Annexed Area Zoning Project was initiated in April 2001, a number of reports have been prepared by Planning staff and reviewed by Planning Committee to review and address issues.

I BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2006, Planning Committee reviewed a report on outstanding issues and appeals which included the subject sites (the Background reports are attached with the appeal letters). On April 10, 2006 Council approved the zoning changes. Notices of Passing of the By-laws were sent on April 22, 2006 with a deadline date for an appeal on May 15, 2006.

In response to the Notice of Passing of By-law four letters of appeal were received, two for the Mallard Road properties and one each for 1380 Wilton Grove Road and 4922 White Oak Road. Planning staff have reviewed the attached letters and the previous background material presented to Planning Committee (see attached) and see no reason to change the previous recommendations.

A enda Item # Pa e #

LIE3

May 17,2006 CP /CP

reportiowuncilonappealsrnay2006

2

- . . . ~ .. . .- . . ~ ~ ...,,.... ... .. .. .. ,.

B// - 02-06

May 6,2006

The Corporation of the City of London City Hall 300 Dufferin Avenue London, ON N6A 4L9

Attention: Mr. Kevin Bain City Clerk

Re: Notice of Appeal By-law N0.Z.-1-061488 1930 & 1956 Mallard Road Properties

Dear Mr. Bain

Hand Delivered

Further to your public notice of April 25,2006, this letter is providing written confirmation that I, Hugh Hudson, the owner of 1930 & 1956 Mallard Road properties, wish to appeal and thus formally object to City Council’s adoption of By-law No. Z.-l- 061488.

The grounds and reasons in support of our objection are as follows:

a) The replacement of the existing former Township of London’s Light Industrial (M2) Zone with an Open Space (OS4) Zone will create unnecessary and unwarranted business, insurance, and financing issues. My company, Hudson Boat Works Inc. (a racing boat manufacturer which has a workforce of 35 to 40 employees), has been operating within the subject properties since 1994.

b) The Council approved Open Space (OS4) Zone is not an appropriate zone for this long standing industrial area.

c) Within this calendar year (2006), construction will start and/or be completed of a new stormwater management facility and the associated realignment of

the Stanton Drain which will remove all flooding concerns within this area of Mallard Road, Woodcock Street, and future Woodcock Place. In tum, when the said construction is completed, this will immediately eliminate the need for the Council approved Open Space (OS4) Zone.

1930 Mallard Road, London, Ontario N6H 5M1 (519) 473-9864 Fax (519) 473-i861 E k i l HBW@Hudsonboatworks.com

. . . . . . , , .~........_..I--._-. . . . - ~ ~... .. . ~ . . ~ . . ~~ ,.. ~ . . .. . . ~ ~ . , . ...

-2-

Enclosed, please find a cheque in the amount of $125.00 payable to the Minister of Finance, as prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

Yours truly

HUDSON BOAT.WORKS INC

H u b Hudson General Manager

-- .. . . ... ~~.~ .... ~ . . . ... , .. . . .~ , , , _....___.____I___

- ., Dj / - -oz -06 J. DEAN WILLIAMSON LIMITED

POULTRY AND EGG GRADING EQUIPMENT CHORE-TIME CAGE SYSTEMSlDlAMOND EGG GRADING SYSTEMS

1922 Mallard Road, London, Ontario N6H 5M1 Telephone (519) 657-5231 Facsimile (519) 657-4092

i

May 4, 2006.

The Corporation of the City of London, City Hall, 300 Dufferin Avenue, London, Ontario. N6A 4L9.

Attention: Mr. Kevin Bain, City Clerk.

HAND DELIVERED

Re: Notice of Appeal By-law No.Z.-1-061488 1922 Mallard Road Property

05-05-O6AO4:25 R E F :

Dear MI. Bain,

Further to your public notice of April 25, 2006, this letter is providing written confirmation that I, David Williamson and my wife Suzanne Williamson, the owners of 1922 Mallard Road, wish to appeal and thus formally object to City Council's adoption of By-law N0.Z.-1-061488.

The grounds and reasons in support of our objection are as follows:

a) The replacement of the existing former Township of London's Light Industrial (M2) Zone with an Open Space ( O S 4 ) Zone will create unnecessary and unwarranted business, insurance and financing issues. Our company, J. Dean Williamson Limited (a wholesaler of poultry and egg grading equip- ment has a workforce of 8 employees and leases the remainder of the building to two other smaller companies), has been operating within the subject property since 1988.

Continued on page 2 ...

-2-

May 4 , 2006.

Mr. Kevin Bain, City Clerk, The Corporation of the City of London.

Re: Notice of ADpeal, By-law No. 2.-1-061488 1922 Mallard Road Property.

... continued from page 1.

The Council approved Open Space (OS4) Zone is not an appropriate zone for this long standing industrial area. We purchased the subject property with the full knowledge that it was zoned for light industrial use. Subsequently, we received a building permit from the former Township of London during that same calendar year (July 6 , 1988) and imediately proceeded to construct our present day industrial building. Within this calendar year ( 2 0 0 6 ) , construction will start and/or be completed of a new stormwater management facility and the associated realignment of the Stanton Drain which will remove all flooding concerns within this area of Mallard Road, Woodcock Street, and future Woodcock Place. In turn, when the said construction is completed, this will imediately eliminate the need for the Council approved Open Space (OS4) Zone.

Enclosed, please find a cheque in the amount of $125.00 payable to the Minister of Finance, as prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act. \

DavidJJilliamson

DW/tn

and 1867 Blue Heran Rfhre, (Map 12)

status

defarred by Planning Committee on nt of the Stanton Drain. Gouncll herd Bet. set asMe money for thtr

Drain is part of the stormwater management a m and the canstruckion of a new S W pond on the

s agreements needed to be Developments Inc. befo

nmental Services

iLonlng By-law ProJeot

ofnclat Plan - Outsie ESA'S

~ l ~ ~ n ~ ~ n l n @ - Ught € n d u ~ a ~ (k@], General Provisions (4.9) (Former London Township)

Draft Zanlng - O M b U e 8

Use), Floodplain, Vt7g d Pfain and Envimnme

Most af the Roadplain fan

pmperty ~~~~

of this sit@. Ttmre ona which ipi wmt (moved to Fan

for the storage of used asphak shtngleJEc urcheaed the property in 'i"a3. The

offices are on Hyde Park Road ch an? occupied by two buainw

Psrk Rd. E.) and the other by an

Z-6985iG. Parker

agricultural supply business and general warehouses.

The lands, on the mgs, appeared to be designated and zoned Industrial since the eariy fgBO’s, h m v e r , General Provisions St4ctlons 4.8 (Municipal Drains) and 4.9 (Hazardous h a s ) ofthe former London Township By-law No. 5000 overrode the zoning and required some d e ~ e ~ a t i o n ofthe location of the hazard line by UTRCA. Through the Offidal Pian ~ n d ~ ~ No. 88 process, annexed lands designated for urban uses und I Plans were given a City of London land use

ng dwignation unless the lands were of to Roodplain regulations. Results ofthe

Stanton Drafn Su!wabrshed study (1995) shomd that these properties wera MIOW the floodline. The Own Space designation on these lands was approved DeGember 23, lQS9 by the On&& Municipal Board. Detailed policies restriding development below the floodplain are also included in the OPA No. 88 amendment and are consbtent with the Pmvtndal Pokicy Statement.

In 1997, th@ Shaws in builders yard for a %me (3) p a r p r b d and that was approved conditional upon them entering into a site phn agreement with the City. That agreement was never entered into.

The process of changing floodlie8 is not under City control as it is the ~ p o n s ~ i l ~ of the UTRCAto establl r the policies of the ~ ~ o ~ p l a ~ n

ased on various engineering Fisheries and the

a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a

change in the land use

City and UTRCA staff ham a the position that the Open Space d e s ~ ~ a t i o n or zoning should ged until the culvert has be@n replaced, the resultant tba nd adequate provisions have been made to ensure down not negatively impacted by altenttion ofthe culvert and the mulling f l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ charz?tcterlstics of the stream.

To assitrt the landowners a specie1 dauw was tnserted into the Official Plan through OPA No. 193 and the Hyde Park Community Plan which stated that:

‘ When dhe rwapefty owners complsts the necessary engineering studies and approvai fmm &e UnCA is received td alfer the ffoodllne, fhe City will pmcess &e officii/ Plan ~ n ~ 8 ~ ~ to change fhs C&%&t/ PIan designation to Lfght Indu8Wal and alter &e fbod Iines on schedole B of ff‘te Official Plan wifhout cost to #e property ownem.”

t

Through the Ann A m Zoning process ttm landowners have raised similar concern about the propose4 zoning$. Ali the properties which are below the floodlhe are proposed to be! zoned Open Space (OS4). Planning staff have received five letters from the landowners and have met wkh them on four occasions. been exkensive d w m i o n s about the pombie rec;onstructionlretocatio Stanton Drain and the redefinition of the floDdpIain boundaries, howe oaur until the conshuctfon work has been completed and the new lines Verified by UTRCA.

In the 2003 City capital budget $eQfJ,OaO (Capital Project # ES2487) was sei aside to

verified by UTRCA 90 the Official; Pian and zoning should not be changed.

The landowners appeared at the October ff, 2004 PPRC public meeting and requested referral of the proposed zoning and the Committee resolved to de

work which in ity H. The wo

gning the Stanton Drain and t been completed and changes

considemtion of open space zones uflti! new fbodplain boundary lines in rialetion to the Sfanton Drain have been verified by fhs Upper Thames River Cunmfvaiion Authon@.”

Because, of the status of the drain i r n p ~ ~ ~ f l ~ and their timing, the former Township zoning my stili apply for awhile. The purpose and intent ofthe Annexed Area Zoning By-law process is to replace fhe former by-law to reduce duplication, make, regutations consktent Citywide and simplify the provision of zoning information.

-I . . ........ ~ ...,...., ...... ~ ~ ^ , ,

SUITE 200,252 PALL MALL STREET LONDON, ONTARIO N6A 5P6

TELEPHONE (519) 433-5117 * FACSIMILE (519) 963~0285

Internet Address: brcard@ympatico. CLI

May 4,2006

DELIVERED

Kevin Bain, City Clerk The Corporation of the City of London City Hall, 3rd Floor 300 Dufferin Avenue London, Ontario N6B 122

Dear Sir:

Re: Section 34(19), Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board City of London Zoning By-law 2.-1-061489 1380 Wilton Grove Road, London Owned bv: Mary Laidlaw, George Laidlaw. Rosemarv McCallen

I am the solicitor for George Laidlaw, Mary Laidlaw and Rosemary McCallen, the owners of a 24 acre parcel of land located at the East Half of the South Half of Lot 16, Concession 2, Westminster (opposite 1355 Wilton Grove Road). On behalf of my clients, I hereby appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to enactment of the captioned Zoning By-law amendment. The following reasons pertain to the appeal:

1. My clients’ land is presently zoned M1-H by the former Town of Westminster Zoning By-law, No. 2000-1. The M1-H zone was a “holding zone”. Section 39.2.7 of the By- law calls for the holding symbol to be removed in accordance with “Section 35 of the PZunningAct, 1983”. Section 35 provided for removal of the holding symbol in the same manner as under the current Act. In other words, the site was pre-zoned for industrial use and in most instances, all that was required for removal of the holding symbol was site plan approval for a specific permitted use.

The current planning staff recommendation for an ER zone for the centre portion of my clients’ property is a downzoning from the current MI-H zone. The most directly equivalent zone to M1-H would be some combination of Light Industrial or Restricted

2.

- 2 -

May 4,2006

Service Commercial zones with a similar holding symbol under By-law 2.-1. Section 3.8(2)(a) of By-law Z.-1 does provide such a symhol:

“‘h’ Purpose: to ensure the orderly development of lands and the adequate provision of municipal services, the ‘h’ symhol shall not he deleted until a subdivision agreement or development agreement is entered into for the lands in question with the City of London.

Permitted interim uses: existina uses”.

3. The zones applied to the balance of the property LI2LI7 would also be appropriate and satisfactory.

Given the location of these lands near the intersection of two arterial roads, the list of permitted uses in the Westminster M1 zone are appropriate. Downzoning is unjustified.

A related appeal has been submitted concerning the Annexed Area Zoning By-law, on

4.

Board Case No. PL050749. It is respectfully submitted that the appeals be heard together.

Enclosed please find my client’s cheque for the appeal fee. I respectfully request that you proceed to forward a record to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with s. 34(23). Please contact me if anything further is required to permit you to honour this request.

BRC:jmh Encl. cc: Ontario Municipal Board - 1-416-326-5370

George Laidlaw - 1-519-837-9774

3.

Z4935K. Parker

(&st half of the South Half of Lot f6, Corn

€ram June 27,2005 CouncPl meetlng

OfRclal Pfan- SchaduIe A- LisJht f n d u s ~ a ~ v i ~ n m e n t a l Review

b W n g Zonlng - Industrial Holding (MI-H) (Former Town of Westminster By-law)

Schedule B - VageWn Patches Outside ESA's and Wetland6

Light Industrial ( L l ~ t ~ ~ ~ l d ~ n g Light lndustrkl (h- tal Review (ER)

b U @

On June 20,2005 ~ ~ n n ~ ~ Co Fesultlng from the flnal public October 3,2M)5. This specMc mattsr had not been raised before and no written or verbal submissiins had beten made prior to the public meetlng. On June 27,2005

this property. On Ju& 19,20015 the landowner appealed the zoning. Pfanning nta letter to the OMB d a w October 14, 2005 questioning the appeal bemuse the proposed zoning had been deferred by Council so it was not approved.

7he only issue is that an ER Zone has been applied to the central portmn of the property. They feel thatthis is a "dowoning" bemuse the previous zoning, they feel, prezon@d the sit@ for induPltrjal uses..

Analysis

Patchf%Za252wasi~n~d~hrough~ rshed Studies which were mpiesrtzd behnreen .E9Q3-1@98. OfRdat Plan polides and a process were developed to awe88 potential natural heritage Mtum to datenine whether they should be indudsd in the Natural Herltage System. Untid dtweloprnent was imminent and an e n v i ~ n ~ n ~ l study had baen comp e lands were designated ~ n v ~ ~ ~ n ~ t Review on Schedule A an a Vegetation Patch on Schadub B, The policies were approved by icipal Board on December 23,1@@8.

An environmental study (see a@.ckd) ha$ been completed on the property to the ea&, by Earth Tech, portion of the patch on that property was signiffcant OS5.The portion of the patch on the subject property is woodland. When the lands develop an EIS Will be required to mtablkh &e boundaries of the retained portion. The study concluded that them coufd be some linbuslon into the woodlot based on that study.

The existing zoning on the properky is industrial Holding (M1-H) which only allows existing uses on misting lots, om not prezone the site for industrial uses. SecUon 38.2.7 of 0y-law No. 2000

" Lands zoned lndu cippkation to the Corporation may be rzszoned ufiltzing the n 35 of the Planning Act, 1983. to either B MI or A42 Zone if in con&mity to #e Ofidal Plan."

The key words In the r e ~ u l a ~ n are 'r;ezoned' and "in conformity with the Official Plan." A zoning by-law ~ @ n d ~ n ~ appkation is required and it must be in conformity with the OfficiaI Plan. The CMMai Pkn dmignation is Environmental Rev& on Schedule A and Vegetation Patch on Schedule B. Industrial zoning would not conform to the OMclal Plan. There wre no appeals to thuse Official Plan designations in 1996.

met to deal with the remainder of the ng on (he Annexed Area Zoning By4

Council passed the hnexed h a Zoning By-law amendment which In

I

If the l ~ n d o ~ e r s want to devdap their lands for industrial uses an &‘%!ai pkn and zoning by-kw a r n ~ ~ n ~ a p p ~ ~ t ~ n will be needed which shouid includt, an ~ n v ~ ~ n ~ e ~ l impact study establish the boundaries of development.

~ ~ ~ r n ~ n ~ ~ o n

No action to mmove the Environmn&l Review (ER) Zone from the middle porttan of the property.

’.

Feb+sry 10,2000

i

The subject woodlop is m a d within uc&etatixm Patoh #IO-152 @Rnsed Patch i?l) and i 8 of London. The patch i s mom omm of Eighbwy Avenue nrnd

Wlton Cnovc R a a d Patch 10-152 iapar&y withintha 1380 Wilton Gmve Road propesty and p d y *%in the aajacent City-ovmdpxopxty.

The w c d o t 52 is not wrttigwm wi* any other natural features or mrrfaco waterbodim. of thc woodlot (on City prq~aty), m the southeast comer, is situated on a ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ e ana.

E A R T H T E C H

Page 2 i

E A R T H . T E C H

Page 3

E A R T H . T B C . H

A UD. COMPANY

Mi. Y.A. ate Corporatim of the City of Lmim FeLmary 10,2000

,- I . .

Page 4

E A R f . H : T E C H

FeGwuy 10,2000 Page 5

i

E A R T . H . r R C . H

I

Mx. V.A. Cote C ~ ~ 0 f t h e : C i t y O f L a a d r m Pcbrslary lo, 2000

Page 6

i

!

Barrv R, Card BARRlSlER &SOLICITOR

SUITE 200. 252 PALLMALLSTREET LONDON, ONTARION6A5P6

TELEPHONE (519) 433~5117 * FACSIMILE (519) 963~0285

Internet Address: brcard&mpatico. ca

May 4,2006 DELIVERED

Kevin Bain, City Clerk The Corporation of the City of London City Hall, 3rd Floor 300 Dufferin ,4venue London, Ontario N6B 122

’ Dear Sir:

Re: Section 34(19), Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board City of London Zoning By-law 2.-1-061490 4922 White Oak Road, London Lech Rutkowsla

I am the solicitor for Lech Rutkowski. On behalf of my client (the owner of the subject property), I hereby appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to enactment of the captioned Zoning By-law amendment. The following reasons pertain to the appeal:

1. The subject land is being rezoned from an AG2 zone (not yet in force) to a NF1 (“Institutional”) zone. This zone does not permit any reasonable use of the land, which is privately owned.

The current “Westminster” Institutional zone permits, inter alia, private clubs, recreational uses and associated “parking lots” and is more appropriate for the subject lands than what the Council has proposed.

There has been no agricultural use of the land for several decades.

There has been no truly institutional use or the land for decades.

A related appeal has been submitted concerning the Annexed Area Zoning By-law, on

2.

3.

4.

Board Case No. PL050749. It is respectfully submitted that the appeals be heard together.

. . . . ~. .. .~ ., ..~ , . . . ~ ...~ .

- 2 -

May 4,2006

My client respectfully requests that current zoning regulations remain in force until the area has been properly studied.

Enclosed please find my client’s cheque for the appeal fee. I respecthlly request that you proceed to forward a record to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with s. 34(23). Please contact me if anything further is required to permit you to honour this request.

BRC:jmh Encl. cc: Ontario Municipal Board - 1-416-326-5370

Lech Rutkowski - 680-3802

.-I,I ~ , .. . ... . . ........,......_,. ~ .. . .

4.

QPncJaf Plan- SGhedule A -Agriculture, Environmental Review Schadule B - Roadplain

!%i5ttq4 Zonfngl- Instktutional (E) (Former Town of Westminster Sflaw No. 2000)

P ~ o p ~ e d Zoning- ~ricultumf fAG21, Open Space (OS4)

ISMA*

The iandownerwould like to broaden the zoning currently applying to this site. The building was o ~ ~ g i n ~ l ~ used as a public school for approximbly 50 yews. It w then conmfted to a union hall fwthe IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) for approXrmtely 20 years. In 1995 the current kndowner bought the p q s Q and has operated a transport truck business on the property.

In August 2003 a zoning by-law enforcement complaint was made to the City. To deal with the complatnt the applicant first requested zoning to recognize the existing business and same commercial uses on the property. Planning staff were reluctant to apply commrcial zoning to the property, however, to deal Mth the ~ ~ f a i n t ~ e a ~ f ~ ~ n ~ s u b m ~ d a zoning by-law a ~ n d m e ~ a p ~ J i ~ ~ o n for ternpomry toning to permit transport trailer parking. Reports Were by Fhnming Committee on June 22,2004 and Septembsr 12, 2005 I appwved the zoning change but withheld %re@ readings of the a ~ n d m e n ~ until a s i b plan agmernent and a boufevard parking agreement had been entered into. Neither have occurred yet.

The long term zoning for the property is the main issue.

Analysts

The Official Plan designaiimn on the property is Agricultural and on the Drain it is ~ ~ ~ r o n ~ e ~ ~ i Review to reoognize its floodplain characteristics. The range

in the Agricultural designation is veiy e or support the agricultural ~ ~ m u n ~ . The

any relationship to the surrounding I Plan polrcies do perm% the mcognition of

exlsting legally esttkblished uses through zoning.

The existing I school, church, public utiUly, ntre, a club or fraternal organhtion and related mcreationai facil ibrary, a fire hall, a csrnetery or a parking fat inciclem and above. It permits the original &oal and, arguably, the union haIfht it does not permit office uses or other commerciai u w . There is some question a8 to whether the trucWna businas was l ~ a l l ~ ~ ~ b l ~ h e d .

The subject site is not a goad camrc ia l site or even a good location for office m a . There is no direct acce88 to Highway 401 and the elmst interchanges am at ~~~~~ Road and Colonel Talbot Road some distance

nel (k) Zone (Former Town of Westminster) permits a

I

away to the east and we& mspecfively. To get to this property wquiras a conskferable amount of g of Clty and rural roadways, There isn’t enough or popu nearby to justify commercial zoning on this PmWW

Based on the above, what is the most appropriate zoning to apply? ln&tlfy, Planning staff felt that the site should be prezoned Agricultural (Am), similar to n e i ~ h b o u ~ n ~ lands, to encourage consolidating of farm parcels in The tt”xiating ~n~~~~~ business may have been recognized under the legal conforming pmv~sions of S&%ons 1.3 and 4.16 of the By-law. The ~ ~ n n i 5 ~ r ~ o h ~ n Drain was zon4 Open Space (OM}, after input from the Upper Themes RIver Conservation Authority (UTRCA), to be consistent with Section 5.28.1 of By-law No. 2MO (Former Westminster). Council approved these zones on June 2 l , 2005.

Following the submbion of the appeal letter dated July 21,2005, Ptannlng staff have reviewed the proposed zoning and are now recommending &at a N 0 i ~ ~ b ~ u r h o o ~ Facilty (NM) &ne be applied to the property, primar#y to mmgnke the Bxtent of the fomr Inatiiutional (I) zoning. The NFI Zone variatian pemlts churches, community centres, day care centws, elemntary schools, libraries, priva& schools and fife stations which is very similar fo the existing zozank~. Comparing the iwo zones, there is no “downzoning’ involved, simply a change in zoning.

This site has never becan toned far commercial uses, including o owner wishes to pursue camwial zantng an Official Plan and law ~ m e n d ~ n ~ applimtion, with full public review, will be required.

~~~~~0~ - c to N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ EecIIg (NFI).

proposed zoning from AgrlcWml (Am)