Report 2024 - 140 regarding a proposed city-initiated Zoning Bylaw Amendment (File OZS2 4-00 2) to permit up to four dwelling units on a… be received

2:06:36home, three town homes on a single RL one lot. Just it's the two don't jive. So there's a need

2:06:45to address that within the bylaw itself. You want to call it row housing or something else that's

2:06:50fine but cannot use the term town home unless you decide to change the definition of what a town

2:06:56home is. Again I think the challenge here is to have a really long term vision. I know that

2:07:02councils are elected in four year terms so you kind of block yourself off in four year terms and

2:07:08the official plan goes through an amendment every five or ten years and it only stretches out for

2:07:14about 20 years. But at some stage of the game we need to really focus on what do we want Guelph to

2:07:20look like with 400,000 people in 55 or 75 years time. And I think unless we can come up with what

2:07:28that's going to look like then we're going to be short changing ourselves. So I challenge council

2:07:32here the council members and the council members online to really think when you're approving this

2:07:38is to and it's already been approved when you're looking at the regulations. I did want to note

2:07:43that I think bedrooms you know the way the province has defined them medium density property is by

2:07:52the number of living units in that property. I think we're you know it's terrible when we can put

2:07:59101 bedroom units on a protractive land that's zoned to medium density. We could also put

2:08:07104 bedroom units on it and that seems as if there needs to be some cross pollination there where

2:08:14we end up with a combination of units and bedrooms. I would prefer to have four units with 10 bedrooms

2:08:26than I would with having three units with 15 bedrooms quite frankly. I mean I think we all

2:08:32have seen what the north end of a Myra Road looks like and what we had to do as far as

2:08:38figuring out the Loud Street parking there because we had six cars parked in the front yard.

2:08:45We don't want to have that. So in combination with this proposal proposed change I think we

2:08:52need to understand that the only way you can end up making the city livable is to make sure you

2:08:58have enough density to make public transit profitable and accessible and realistic and unless you have

2:09:05a good public transit system that serves the places where you're going to put a multi bedroom or

2:09:11multi living unit properties it's going to be difficult to control the parking. People are just

2:09:17we're still hooked on cars unfortunately. Anyway that's about all I had to say. If there's any

2:09:22questions I'd be pleased to try to address them. Well thank you. Thank you. Oh okay. Councillor Billings please.

2:09:34Mr. Mayor I just wanted to ask a little you didn't comment about the number of parking spaces that are

2:09:39being proposed for the four unit and I just wondered if you did have a comment. Well my comment there

2:09:46was more the last one I made that unless you have good public transit so that the people have got

2:09:52access to be able to move around in the city and do what they need to do within a reasonable

2:09:58distance of where these four living unit properties are going to be it's going to make life difficult.

2:10:05You're going to have a major parking parking issue in all likelihood. I don't have an issue particularly

2:10:11with the concept of the one two and three additional living units and the number of parking spaces

2:10:18associated with them but I think unless they have their positioned in a place so again some people

2:10:24are proposed you need to go through a proposed to today that you need to have a more regimented

2:10:29process instead of as of right. Maybe it's as of right along arterial roads or a secondary road as

2:10:37opposed to a purely curvy residential street where the buses cannot navigate and that kind of thing.

2:10:43Maybe there is a need to put some more restriction on where the four living unit

2:10:49properties can be replaced. With the three parking spots for the four units. Yes. Yes that's what I

2:10:59was getting at. Okay and then the other thing you only slightly touched on it you would prefer to see

2:11:06max number of bedrooms per unit. Not per not per unit per property. Per property. Would you like to see that?

2:11:15I think that's not unrealistic to put a maximum number of bedrooms per property.

2:11:21Thank you. I see a combination of living units and bedrooms. I think there needs to be both parts of

2:11:28that need to be addressed. Thank you. Okay. Oh councillor Oroch has a question and then and then

2:11:38Alt. Thank you Mayor Guthrie. Through you to Mr. McNair just from a realtors perspective I'm just

2:11:44trying to get my head around it and I'm trying to think about what happens at the you know second

2:11:50third owner etc. We're very focused on streetscape and maintaining the front look of a property. I'm

2:11:57wondering what you think the impacts are of a two-story ADU in the rear yard when there are

2:12:03backyard neighbors or neighbors to either side. So do you have any sense of what is occurring

2:12:08currently with three units as of right and would you have any projections on challenges I mean

2:12:15with the surrounding neighbors in terms of resale value or potential impacts?

2:12:20I was actually pleased to see that we took off the restriction or the proposing to take off the

2:12:27restriction that the ADU in the rear yard wouldn't be limited by the roof height of the primary

2:12:34building in the front of the property. I think that's a positive step. Quite frankly I you know

2:12:42the person that's going to buy a property with four living units on it is probably going to be

2:12:47relying on the income from three of those units as the primary dwelling occupier. So I don't think

2:12:55it's going to have a major impact on the value of the properties and I think when people get upset

2:13:00about multi-mule putting residential living units in the rear yard their concern is more about the

2:13:09fact is it going to impact the value of my property. People's focus is not on is it going to impact the

2:13:16places where the birds can go and all that kind of stuff nearly as much as they are about the value

2:13:22of the property and I don't think it's going to have a major impact. It may even increase the value

2:13:26of the neighbor's property. Okay appreciate that thank you. Okay alt please. Okay you're okay okay.

2:13:37Great thank you very much. Thanks for jumping up take care. Okay and so that's it. It is thank you

2:13:44to all the delegates and thank you for those that sent in the the correspondence as well.

2:13:49Just a reminder just in case anyone joined us halfway through and they missed my preamble at

2:13:53the beginning. This is a receive only. We're hearing feedback right now. We're not here to make a

2:13:59decision. So I think if you don't mind I'll go to staff versus for a second if there's anything

2:14:05that you would like to say that you've heard. Is there any clarity that you want to bring before

2:14:09we start questions at all on anything? Not yet perfect. I'll start with questions and lucky me

2:14:15I get to go last which means most of my colleagues will probably ask my questions anyways. So I'll

2:14:19go to councillor Downer then alt. I'll start there. I see hands on the screen so just wait for me to

2:14:24yell at your name later okay. Yeah so I have a couple questions but I have lots of comments so I

2:14:30don't know what. So on the comparison I'm sorry I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm okay by the way

2:14:39if you want to do questions and then a comment right away okay just so we don't have to keep

2:14:42circling. If you have get your questions and your points taken to staff get your comments done and

2:14:48we'll just we'll keep chugging along okay. So I'm sorry to interrupt. Go ahead Kathy. Councillor Downer.

2:14:53Thank you through you Mr. Mayor. So on the comparison sheet in the report I forget what

2:15:00the judgment is copied it off. It to me it seems incomplete so maybe you could comment on this

2:15:06so it only deals with foreplex definitions. So there's not much on here about the comparisons

2:15:16of the ADUs in other communities so and you didn't include them in ours as well. So when you talked

2:15:24about what our proposed ones how we're changing the ADUs you did mention Kitchener but you didn't I

2:15:31don't know what Hamilton's doing. I know what they're doing with foreplexes based on this comparison

2:15:36I know what Toronto's doing with foreplexes but I don't know what have they changed their ADUs or

2:15:40not and any of these communities because you didn't include it for Guelph as a change either but

2:15:47your proposal is to change it. So if you didn't include it and that's fine if it was an omission

2:15:56then when you come back with the final report I'd like to see what all those communities are doing

2:16:01were their ADUs so did they also so so I I wrongly assumed we were coming back looking at

2:16:08foreplexes and I didn't realize that that meant that we were also and yet I noticed it was four

2:16:13units so that was my bad but so but you've come back looking at the ADUs as well so is that an

2:16:22omission or can you come back with that information? Yeah through you Merga through you to Councillor

2:16:28Downer we we tried to target certain ones because there's only this is so much room in the chart

2:16:33but we're happy to provide that information as well. Yeah that comparison also I just want to be

2:16:38reminded so we don't have design guidelines for we won't have design guidelines for foreplexes or

2:16:46the current design guidelines would other than in a heritage district wouldn't wouldn't apply for any

2:16:52of these units right? That's correct we don't have design guidelines at this point. Okay those

2:17:00are questions I can make some comments so um as I said I have concerns around the two ADUs in the

2:17:10in the rear yard or as we have um in one of location in Ward 5 ADUs aren't just in your rear

2:17:20yards they're in side yards so we have one on you home um that's going to be in the side yard

2:17:27because there's no backyard and it's a corner lot and so beside a number of bungalows there will be

2:17:34an ADU and if this passes that could possibly be a two-story ADUs so which sort of then leads me to

2:17:42the diagrams that are in the report that sort of demonstrate what is proposed um the diagram

2:17:56we're just going to pull it up on the screen I think it's good that we have visuals as we kind of go

2:18:00through it so are these diagrams to scale because the ADUs look awfully small to what I'm seeing

2:18:11in reality out there in public like see so I'm looking at the one um I have to look up here

2:18:22because we got printing on this one so the one on the proposals where you've got like a bungalow

2:18:27where you've got one and two and then three and four two-story in the back that's and that's

2:18:33supposedly a bungalow in the front that's not the reality in the older part of the cities where these

2:18:39will go because a bungalow in the new subdivisions compared to a bungalow in the old subdivisions

2:18:46is significantly different so the the the the standards for the the height of the basements

2:18:51and things like that are very different in an old neighbourhood the bungalows are lower in new

2:18:56neighbourhoods the bungalows have a higher are higher so it looks to me like you've taken what

2:19:01would be in a new neighbourhood where you'd likely as council gives them pointed out you probably wouldn't

2:19:06have room for one of these in the back two-story in the backyard and so these this isn't really

2:19:12looking like this is to me I don't want to use the word misleading but it's not accurate to what

2:19:18what the reality is that you're going to see when we come back can we get some to scale diagrams of

2:19:26not what building a new house with a new with a new 80 u in the backyard but built what the height

2:19:34of an old house in the older neighbourhoods with a two-story in the backyard because in this one

2:19:39I knew home too it's right beside an older style bungalow that is quite low and if we permitted

2:19:44it would be a two-story and you know possibly whether the new regulations if they had room in

2:19:49the backyard it could be in the backyard so what that then ties into the other issue of gentle

2:19:55density so your terminology here for gentle density I think it was saying

2:20:05that you're not supposed to be able to the ultimate sign of successful gentle density is

2:20:12that it is gentle enough that one hardly notices it that's not going to happen with the two stories

2:20:20in front of the old under the new regulations behind a bungalow in older neighbourhoods or

2:20:26beside it in the side yard they're going to notice that and believe me on forest street

2:20:33and again on ridgeway this is going to be very noticeable so my concern around that terminology

2:20:41rightly or wrongly like so without saying these are wrong developments on forest or anywhere else

2:20:48the term gentle density is is is inaccurate to many people living in the neighbourhoods and I

2:20:56think it they feel like what the feedback I'm getting is that they feel like it's kind of a

2:21:02orwellian or gaslighting language and I know that's not the intent but that's what it's coming across

2:21:09as to the public and I think we should just do away with the language and just say it's intensification

2:21:14I think it's because that's not if you end up with 40 bedrooms on ridgeway I mean that's going

2:21:23to be quite noticeable you're not going to walk by ridgeway and say oh I don't notice that you're

2:21:30not going to be walking down you home with the two-story 80 or you beside a bungalow and say

2:21:36oh I don't notice that you know because of we've reduced parking and students I've got a house just

2:21:43down for me with eight cars that's going to be more we're not going to we're going to notice that

2:21:50people in the neighbourhoods are going to notice that so using the term gentle density I would just

2:21:54change the term I mean it's not in a lot of cases in the older parts of the city so that that's

2:22:03part of my feedback I agree with Paul Krilling wrote about the 35 percent of small lot areas

2:22:10it should only include living plant material and not include the patios and porches and aprons of

2:22:18driveways it should be about that if that's what we're talking about I'm concerned about permeability

2:22:22of I know we got infiltration and I've heard that's very expensive from spruce living but I think

2:22:29we need to think about that more greener I don't know if we can fit it into the somehow the bylaw

2:22:36I have a concern that our tree protection bylaw does not come in to effect until next year and

2:22:41these these will be built and approved before then the even where I understand we're going to lose

2:22:50trees and the tree protection bylaw will not necessarily protect them on smaller lots but

2:22:55boundary trees and things like that we need to have those types of policies that will be part of

2:23:01that tree protection bylaw are not available to to things like boundary trees or other trees that

2:23:09are remain on the lot and is there a way that we can do some kind of stop gap like something in

2:23:18term to deal with with these I don't know but trees was that's what we heard at the neighbourhood

2:23:24meeting in around the these issues around in the in the old university neighbourhood anyway and

2:23:33there's other neighbourhoods as well but again pardon oh oh my time is up I'm hearing again so um

2:23:42parking will be another issue so I'm that's that's not something I'm gonna I'm gonna dwell on I'm

2:23:47sure others can talk to that but it's mostly around you know that the losing the height restriction

2:23:54and around some the bedrooms I kind of agree with mr. McNair if there's a way we could balance that out

2:24:02I think would be better so it's it's really let's let's give the the public what we're really talking

2:24:08about because I don't think that's showing in the comparisons or in the diagrams that we have

2:24:14and I don't think council is really aware because there's not a lot of neighbourhoods we don't

2:24:20understand the full consequences of of this until these are built out and then

2:24:27and then it's too late so and and the pendulum is swinging so far to what end allow two on a lot

2:24:34and two in the building I think you're going to get a huge backlash and it's going to swing you

2:24:39know there's going to be such big attempts to move it back the other way why can't we do this

2:24:42incrementally um and um and really have gentle like what would be appeared to be gentle density so I

2:24:48just think the pendulum in this again I thought we were dealing with four plexus but now we're

2:24:54dealing with ad use how do how do we not have the pendulum swing so far one way great thank you

2:25:04is there anything that you need to respond to that or was that all good takeaway so I make sure okay

2:25:11um alt then kateen thank you very much mayor guthrie I I do have a few questions

2:25:18primarily because I am in support of the concept of four plexus but I am less inclined to the idea of

2:25:27four as of right units I think what we're dealing with is something where the devil is

2:25:32clearly within the detail and first question really is what differentiates a four plex from

2:25:38four units on a lot as of right and do we have issues with both aesthetics land use and permeability

2:25:46drainage and the impact on on lots that are adjacent to anywhere where we might see those units

2:26:00through you mayor guthrie to counselor alt there's a few key differences between four plexus

2:26:06four plexus and having um four units on a lot through ad use so the four plex we wouldn't be

2:26:13controlling the size of individual units they could all be the same size or could be various

2:26:19um the parking the same amount of parking is required but it couldn't be stacked so you'd have to have

2:26:28individual spaces and technically as was mentioned in in one of the delegations they could be

2:26:35all owner occupied you could create a smell condo though the current condo process

2:26:39doesn't really lend itself well to it whereas with ad use there would be a primary dwelling

2:26:45unit within the main building and the additional dwelling units would need to be smaller the

2:26:51parking could take place in the existing driveway in a stacked arrangement if if that was desirable

2:26:57to the to the owner um I think I think those are the key differences there's also differences in

2:27:06terms of how uh parkland dedication and development charges are are considered that will be providing

2:27:15that information in our future decision recommendation report um and then the second half of your

2:27:21question was about it's really about the impact on adjacent lots I am concerned about everything

2:27:27related to that setbacks everything I was wondering if uh just take it away and we can deal with it

2:27:32in the more technical details I presume sure I'll just briefly say that uh we aren't proposing any

2:27:38changes to existing setbacks in the RL1 or RL2 zone we're also not proposing any changes to lot

2:27:44coverage so the same permeability and setbacks and permissions that are there today would

2:27:51remain with those different housing types on them thank you I'm going to deal with parking next

2:27:57it seems that what we are dealing with with regards to the foreplex than the adu

2:28:01question right now is accepting the need for on-street parking is that correct

2:28:12at this time we're proposing um one space less than the total number of units

2:28:18as the minimum parking requirement certainly many homes that are larger lots that could

2:28:24consider four units may already have at least four spaces available it really does depend on

2:28:30the lot so it was to provide additional flexibility it isn't intended to rely on on-street parking

2:28:36because we know we don't have on-street parking overnight through the winter now but it could

2:28:42be a future consideration and again if that could be taken away in a dress that would be appreciated

2:28:47as I mentioned I live in an older area where height is significantly different than what it

2:28:53might be in newer areas I'm wondering will staff recommend the removal of the height constraints

2:28:59regardless whether we approve foreplexes and the 4 adu in all areas of the city or are we going to

2:29:07keep them if we if we sustain the three of rate uh through humor got through to counselor alt

2:29:19I'm I'm not sure I completely understand your question on height in right now yeah there is

2:29:25an issue because it must be only x amount of height and in in an area like ours where I live

2:29:31you you can have units that are 20 30 about 30 35 feet high and consequently that that height

2:29:40limit that was discussed recommending getting rid of it is is an interesting challenge for older

2:29:47neighborhoods I see so so to clarify what we're proposing now all rl one and rl two lots the

2:29:56main dwelling unit is permitted to be three stories in height and we don't we don't assign a specific

2:30:03a specific height value other than three stories what we're proposing is no change to that height

2:30:08for the main dwelling and we're proposing up to two stories if it's a detached dwelling in the in

2:30:13the rear side yard so in in those cases the two stories would have its own height limit of 6.1

2:30:21meters which is relatively low okay thank you um and mizawa I do remember did make reference to

2:30:29some of the challenges the limitations of water wastewater and storm water capacity and this

2:30:33was brought up by somebody earlier uh I think we need to have that clarified for the community is

2:30:39it possible to to make a quick clarification now or take it away uh through the mayor to counselor

2:30:46so as the delegate did speak I did say that previously I I still say that not all streets

2:30:52will be able to accommodate four units in the draft bylaw we have a provision for that laid out

2:30:58that services have to be adequate and available and that would certainly be if anyone was purchasing

2:31:02a part property would be part of their due diligence um but services have to be adequate

2:31:07and available and not all areas of the city will be able to accommodate this thank you next question

2:31:13comment was made as of right removes planning authority I was wondering if you could

2:31:16please comment on whether you consider that to be actually true

2:31:23through the marriage of the counselors so if the bylaw moves forward in in some form we were

2:31:28definitely hearing today in some comments that will be will be take back and we'll be looking at

2:31:32further but then there's only bylaws in place if they conform to the bylaw then they go straight

2:31:37to building permit the province did remove site plan approval for anything under the 10

2:31:43under 10 units we used to have site plan for three or more but that is no longer available to us

2:31:49so it would go straight to building permit okay thank you last question really it's it's borderline

2:31:55political um comments were made about the premier and the prime minister having differences of opinions

2:32:01on four lot four units as of right um are we getting into a bun war and is is what we are

2:32:09dealing with a consequence of the offer of federal money or would we be dealing with this regardless

2:32:16through the mayor of the counselor this council directed staff in october to look at four units

2:32:22as of right and bring it back by q2 2024 next is katin then gibson through you mr mayor uh so I wanted

2:32:37my stuff kind of organized by category so uh i want to talk about reduction in bedrooms because

2:32:43number of bedrooms seem to be a very popular topic and i was wondering would fourplexes as written

2:32:50allow boarding homes uh through you margoth the counselor katin uh we don't have uh boarding

2:33:04homes or say we do have lodging houses which are a separate use and would not be permitted within a

2:33:09within a fourplex or or within um 80 us or a house with 80 us great um and i was wondering have we

2:33:19had more bylaw complaints in areas that currently have fourplexes uh through you margoth three we

2:33:31we don't have a significant number of fourplexes or areas with them at this point so we wouldn't

2:33:37be able to we wouldn't have that data thanks um would restricting the number of bedrooms allowed

2:33:45affect where families can live uh it would depend on the number of bedrooms that it's restricted to

2:33:59and yeah each individual's demand or intent and sorry i'm just going to sorry through you margoth

2:34:08three two counselor katin just going back to your last question on um number of bedrooms as well

2:34:14and fourplexes and complaints um just for information um there are nine uh parcels across

2:34:22wealth that currently have three units or the max according to what's legislated by the province so

2:34:31as mentioned we are not seeing a huge uptake in um number of 80 us at that maxima

2:34:39okay it just seemed to me that most of the issues are about potential behavior and noise that could

2:34:44be better addressed by bylaw rather than restricting people who need affordable accommodation from

2:34:49living in quiet neighborhoods um my next question is about the height of the um ARDUs

2:34:57i know that we can't control accessibility for any of these units um i'm concerned that

2:35:04wouldn't allowing two stories in the backyard potentially reduce the number of physically

2:35:08accessible bungalows from being built and that could just be a takeaway you didn't you jane

2:35:15answer that one um and then i have another question i'm parking so some of the complaints

2:35:21addressed parking and i was i'd heard um that our on-street winter parking study could potentially

2:35:29be moved out to 2028 and i'm just wondering would pushing that study out at the same time

2:35:35is bringing this in cause more parking issues um through the mayor to the the council will

2:35:50respond fully when we bring it back but by identifying the number of parking spaces available

2:35:55if this is a rental property which i think has been the concern that i've heard the most this

2:35:59evening or today um then when there's a lease agreement signed there's only three parking

2:36:05spaces available if it's a four unit so that is how it would have to be accommodated at this time

2:36:11and any other parking infractions would be forwarded to bylaw thank you very much great

2:36:19thanks councillor kate and councillor gibson then billings thank you through you mr mayor a few

2:36:24questions for staff um i heard a number of delegates talk about the sort of the easiest

2:36:30point of entry i i phrase it that way and and how what are going to be the more attractive

2:36:36properties and i'm just wondering if staff can comment on the inclusion of semi-detached homes

2:36:42and townhomes in this conversation and what the realistic opportunity of converting semi-detached

2:36:49and townhomes into four plexus or four units is are there pockets of the city where this

2:36:54where like the property size is big enough to to create that adu in the backyard um i i just i'm

2:37:01struggling with um i'll i'll phrase it a different way i i found the gis layering that the city has

2:37:09access to and the size of the properties and the driveways and things like that in the zoning

2:37:13quite frankly where that was really useful during the driveway conversation has the city utilized

2:37:18the gis um mapping of the city to sort of identify where these more ideal properties are and and

2:37:26whether or not the townhomes and semi-detached would be would be really applicable for four units

2:37:37through margath rate of councillor gibson we have been using um the lot information we have

2:37:44available to us to look at the different types of lots and what we think could fit and and certainly

2:37:51a number of semi-detached non-street townhouses certainly wouldn't be able to permit four units

2:37:57the proposed regs though would provide additional flexibility for them to provide

2:38:01uh some adus and certainly there are one-off ones uh on corners or on extra large properties

2:38:10as a remnant parcel where they could potentially fit so we've included them at this point

2:38:16okay thank you is there any conversation or i think we heard it from the delegates where

2:38:22um instead of as of right could it be um four units as of right based on property size or

2:38:32and could the city sort of utilize gis to determine um the return on and the return on sort of

2:38:41policy investments so if we if we limit four units as a right to a certain size of property that we

2:38:47could we not do a sort of a calculation on the housing stock we would potentially open up

2:38:51and then and sort of create that gradation of quality or that gradation of housing stock

2:38:56available to us if we if we did some evaluation based on property sizes and and um yeah i guess

2:39:04not every property is created equal but with the gis software that we have i think that that's

2:39:09probably possible uh three you make a three to councillor gibson uh that is another approach

2:39:16we could take at this point we've taken the approach of looking to provide flexibility

2:39:22and providing the the parameters of the lot the setbacks the coverage requirements

2:39:27and leaving it to the individual lot or property as to what they could fit not

2:39:32over prescribing or under prescribing in terms of maybe they want to do four small units and that

2:39:39could potentially fit whereas they couldn't do four large units right so um it is something

2:39:45we could review and it's something we could regulate if if that's the approach we want to take

2:39:49yeah i mean i'm really interested in seeing that most of the time when we talk about public policy

2:39:55we talk about you know what does this what does this unlock what does this mean and we always

2:39:58hear these big grand announcements about what this will mean um so many units are getting helped built

2:40:03but it would be beneficial for me to see the consequence of the decision so if we limit

2:40:09four units as of right to single detached lots that are 40 feet of frontage or 150 feet of depth

2:40:17what is the potential housing stock opened as a result of that decision if we just go to

2:40:22four units as of right across the entire city you know what does that mean in terms of potential

2:40:28housing stock that we've unlocked and at some point is that return on return on investment from a

2:40:34policy policy perspective does it kind of tail off like if we're just going to say four units

2:40:39as of right for any home across the city well there's a there's a mountain of town home and

2:40:45semi-detached neighborhoods that this might not work well in but people are going to try and

2:40:49fit them into um you know is that is that something that we want to be cognizant of before we say

2:40:55go ahead and try uh the second piece i i wanted to follow up on a few other comments about parking

2:41:02again using cities the the GIS layers of the city we can get a good understanding of

2:41:07of what type of parking accommodation these properties have um four units in a town home

2:41:14four four parking spots in a semi-detached house that has a 50 foot wide driveway in a

2:41:20sort of carriage house in the backyard that's different from how the homes have been built

2:41:23over the last 20 years and so what are staff's thoughts on reducing the parking minimums

2:41:31in neighborhoods the context here is i think council spent the last six years discussing

2:41:37relaxing driveway widths in neighborhoods to try and accommodate the needs of the modern home

2:41:43what would it mean to then turn around and reduce the needs even further does this

2:41:48does this equate to more cars on the street um does it negate the gains that we made on the

2:41:54driveway file through you may have got three to council gives and those are both things that we

2:42:06can take away and um provide more information on in the recommendation report for june okay thank you

2:42:14so maybe i'll just end with comments just to make my expectations clear is that i would really

2:42:20like to see again the return on investment in terms of housing stock there was a lot of

2:42:26comments today about how the developer wins the developer wins profit margin no it's the housing

2:42:31stock that wins and we have to help with that we have to put more houses in the supply in order

2:42:36to moderate prices we know that but i would really like to see what the gains are from a housing

2:42:42unit perspective um if we open up single detached lots that meet a certain size criteria

2:42:48if we open up all lots across the city i'd like to see that gradation of gains just as a consequence

2:42:54of our decision because i haven't landed on a position where i'm a four or against four units

2:42:59but i would like to see some more prescription in terms of like what are the gains along the way

2:43:06surely there are gains on largest state lots that have half acres of property in a

2:43:112000 square foot home on it i can completely understand that argument are those gains

2:43:16eroded as you get into the 18 foot frontage town home that's been built over the last 20 years

2:43:22and how in the world are we going to think that we're going to put four four units in those places so

2:43:27thanks very much a good conversation all i appreciate it and look forward to the response

2:43:32councillor pilling's please true you mr mayor i just wanted to ask stuff i mean i know there's

2:43:41no max on bedrooms but did you talk about like an alternative if we did put a max number of bedrooms

2:43:48what would that look like uh through you mr gathry to councillor billings uh we we currently

2:44:01have bedroom limits of up to three bedrooms if it's a basement or up to two otherwise for 80 years

2:44:08so certainly we can look at what that would look like or an alternative um through our recommendation

2:44:14or point okay and then also through your worship parking spaces did staff think more like okay um if

2:44:23you're on a major transit corridor i can understand the the three parking spaces for the four units

2:44:31however as you get away from the corridor the transit corridor the major transit corridors is it

2:44:38i'm i'm thinking it doesn't seem realistic to allow only three and then we could still allow the four

2:44:52staff can look at uh proximity to the transit corridor and report back that would be great thank you

2:45:01great thank you councillor billings or orc thank goer thank you margathry through you to staff

2:45:08i've got a number of questions and then some comments um miss matthews you you referred to the

2:45:15four units as the goal as a dispersed pattern but said some streets could see a concentration

2:45:22so i'm just wondering what provisions are in place to prevent a domino effect right because

2:45:29what i'm hearing from constituents is that if there was a land assembly that was required for

2:45:34an apartment building with a similar number of units there would be a whole lot more constraints

2:45:38and scrutiny than if the land assembly is sort of horizontal and then they could end up with the

2:45:43same number of units and the same impact density but with a different set of regulations so

2:45:50how do we reassure people in in a neighborhood that that we really are preserving that original

2:45:57character right of the low density residential and that it is a dispersed pattern uh through you

2:46:07margathry to councillor orc so there are several um parts or answers to that question um first

2:46:15you're still limited by what can fit um within the existing envelope um in terms of what can be

2:46:21built so again the existing zoning permissions are still in place we're going to set back um lot

2:46:26coverage um open space open landscape space so that is still in effect or would likely still be in

2:46:32effect um also there are other factors involved in terms of um the expense to provide um additional

2:46:42either four plexus or ad use and not everybody can can afford that so we do not expect and based

2:46:48on experience in guelph and as mentioned with the number of the uptake for tri for for three

2:46:56as of right um we're seeing we're seeing it very incrementally and in in very limited numbers um

2:47:02so again um we're not seeing that domino effect yet and we likely do not see what they the proposed

2:47:13the proposed zoning provisions to to see a domino effect either given that we are still limiting

2:47:18it to what can fit within that building envelope okay um I have some other questions related to

2:47:26lots eyes and in a sec um Councillor Kate and ask my question around the you know potential to

2:47:33basically have roaming houses um and you've answered that I'm curious because we brought in a

2:47:39residency requirement for ARDUs for sorry short term short short term rentals um have we considered

2:47:48a local residency requirement for four units as of right especially if they're rentals because I

2:47:54I think there's a concern in the community particularly where it's close to the university

2:47:58that you could have absentee landlords uh in properties like that through you Merigoth three to

2:48:06Councillor O'Rourke uh this time we have not considered um any uh owner occupied requirement

2:48:14for these units okay um and I'm wondering through you Merigoth three to staff um some of the

2:48:22correspondence some of the conversations we've had uh talk about tree canopy obviously parking

2:48:27also waste bin storage uh so you know I live in the south end and the garages are pretty tight so

2:48:33you see a lot of the waste bins outside um so I'm just wondering how the bylaws going to address

2:48:39issues like waste bin storage rear yard overlook onto surrounding properties um and tree canopy

2:48:52did you want us to answer those now or is that for part of the you can take it away if you like

2:48:55but I think it's important to raise it uh here that right the if we are trying to maintain a look

2:49:01of a neighborhood then to have you know a dozen of the waste receptacles out so we are going to

2:49:07have to figure that out and I saw in the correspondence questions about snow storage as well um but I

2:49:13think if we are trying to really achieve that gentle density and that fitting in with the

2:49:16neighborhood those are considerations I wondered through you Merigoth three um is there a way to

2:49:24differentiate infill developments versus new developments so if you are putting in a four

2:49:28units as of right downtown and the the parking maybe there's no parking at all or you're doing it

2:49:34in a green field when clearmalt b um is built you could plan if you were doing a four unit in

2:49:41clearmalt b to have adequate parking right because it's a it's a clean slate whereas trying to fit

2:49:47it in an infill is a different story so is there now or would there be a way to differentiate

2:49:54a four unit as of right infill versus a four unit in a new development

2:50:04out through you Merigoth three to counselor work uh at this time the regulations are based on the

2:50:09zone so it's it's not based on location so certainly downtown may have a different zone a

2:50:15downtown zone that could be different but otherwise these same regulations would apply to

2:50:22to all properties within the rl one and rl two zones okay so maybe it's a comment then

2:50:29then it would be possible to provide adequate parking um if you were starting with the blank

2:50:35slate because you could figure out the configuration so that's that's an observation on my part

2:50:40for your consideration um Merigoth three through the correspondence somebody talked about

2:50:46this is related to federal government funding and what if that funding didn't come through etc

2:50:52is there a way to do a pilot for four years and see what the uptake is and see what the impacts

2:50:59are and then revisit the bylaw in a period of time uh through Merigoth three to counselor work uh

2:51:09typically zoning bylaws don't really lend themselves well to pilot projects um however what

2:51:16what you could do is is um approve a zoning amendment zoning bylaw amendment and revisit

2:51:23it in a few years after there's been some four plexes or four as of right and and revisit um

2:51:32some of the zoning permissions that way okay um so through you Merigoth three I just have a

2:51:39couple questions about the um chart that was provided for the comparators so we're proposing

2:51:48freeing up smaller lots than um London, Berry and Kitchener and I'm wondering why that is

2:51:55in terms of frontage and also I believe in terms of the minimum lot area so to counselor Gibson's

2:52:01good point um could we start with a larger lot see how that goes and the impact rather than

2:52:08jump in with smaller lot frontages um has been looked at as an option through you Merigoth three

2:52:17to counselor our work certainly that is an option uh and we have considered the the differences in

2:52:24lot size and lot frontage things like that and we we recognize very very openly that not all smaller

2:52:32lots could accommodate four units nor do we anticipate that they would uh the idea was to

2:52:37provide the flexibility um within the zone so it is possible to look at just larger lots though if

2:52:44if that was counsel's preference okay um so just further to that through you Merigoth three

2:52:50one of the letters referred to a committee of adjustment a decision that allowed a 21

2:52:55percent reduction of the lot frontage so I suppose it's a comment my concern is if we

2:53:01already start with smaller lot frontages and then committee of adjustment will reduce those by 20

2:53:05percent then I I'm hearing what the communities are saying in terms of their concern because

2:53:11they're looking at a great big property that has a um a bungalow on it and they're not at all

2:53:17concerned if there was duplex there they are concerned when there are a number of them right

2:53:23so I'm just uh flagging that as a concern um and then just in terms of the okay thank you

2:53:31um so I'll jump to I'll frame these all as comments then Merigoth three um in the proposed

2:53:38regulation 4.12.1 says um the residential floor area has to be less than the primary dwelling unit

2:53:48I'm curious about that I don't understand why we couldn't just have a triplex where the three

2:53:52units are the same um I agree with the ability to have exterior doors and not sort of an interior

2:53:58vestibule which was a comment in the consultation I have concerns about um the height and the impact

2:54:07the height of an adu and the impact on the surrounding backyard neighbors I think we're

2:54:11very focused on the street front and I'd like to look at what are the options to buffer um

2:54:18I'm not a fan of allowing this for on street towns I think that if we know right off the bat

2:54:24the probability of fitting four units in an on-street on an on-street town lot uh and Hamilton

2:54:30has done the same I just don't see why we would include it in the um in the by-law I have a concern

2:54:37with the calculation in terms of the parking per number of bedrooms if we're looking at just unit

2:54:43but a unit can have five bedrooms previously our own research shows that a basement apartment with

2:54:49one or two bedrooms needs to have a parking spot so then I'm not sure the proportions work to say

2:54:54if you have four or five bedrooms you still only need one yep thank you Mayor Guthrie um

2:55:01we're so I will agree with my colleagues we do need additional rental stock we do need more housing

2:55:06stock um I think we can get to it in a way that fits and in a way that perhaps takes some steps

2:55:13towards it without uh being entirely permissive thanks Mayor Guthrie thank you it gave a little

2:55:20bit of grace so I have to extend that grace to all my all the rest of the colleagues now

2:55:25so uh Councillor Galway and Boussatel thank you uh through worship uh to staff thank you for

2:55:32bringing this um this forward I wanted to to clarify some of the concerns that I'm hearing about

2:55:38the loss of green space when I read this I understood that it actually doesn't change the

2:55:43requirement before you could only pave up to a certain amount now you can only pave up to a

2:55:49certain amount has that changed uh through America 3 to Councillor Goller uh no we haven't

2:55:57changed any of those requirements so uh driveway widths are the same uh lot coverage and uh yard

2:56:05coverage are all the same uh we're not proposing anything else okay okay I appreciate that so I

2:56:11could either build a large home that only leaves 35 percent of open space or I could build now a

2:56:19foreplex but still having to leave 35 percent of open space that's correct there's no change to the

2:56:26building envelope or setbacks correct thank you for that now the other main concern that I'm hearing

2:56:32is about um the number of bedrooms are there no requirements it's my understanding through the

2:56:40Ontario Building Code so an additional dwelling unit it would still be a maximum of 80 meters square

2:56:47or or so and there are size limits to to how small bedrooms could be is that correct uh it is just

2:56:58to clarify so we are recommending or proposing I guess at this point 80 square meters for the

2:57:05detached ADU we are not proposing um a maximum size for the attached ADU just that it's smaller than

2:57:15the main dwelling so um but the second part of your question that the building code does regulate

2:57:21bedroom size okay okay perfect so it's my understanding that specifically with the additional

2:57:28dwelling units that are detached there would really be a maximum of what five bedrooms is that

2:57:34sort of the upper limit as to what you can get just I'm hearing people throw out you know 10

2:57:38bedrooms 15 bedrooms and I'm just thinking that would that even fit within the the additional

2:57:45dwelling units the 80 square meters lends itself to generally a three bedroom apartment okay okay

2:57:53thank you for that I really appreciate that um with the the other main concern that I'm hearing is

2:58:00about um the the parking the the the issue of parking and I understand from from our perspective

2:58:07when we put this into place we are giving a certain number of parking spaces that are allowed

2:58:12we're saying um when you have your first um additional unit there's no parking requirement

2:58:20and I appreciate that a lot of my my constituents who particularly uh all their senior residents

2:58:27that that want to share their home but they cannot rent you know a basement apartment because of that

2:58:32extra parking unit that would be helpful but as we look at this I'm hearing from from the public

2:58:38in both the letters and the delegates that whether we have it in the bylaw or not people will move in

2:58:45and they will park on the street so how have other communities address this as they put into

2:58:51places you know do other communities have regulating for the on-street parking I that's

2:58:58something that I didn't see in the in the studies is that something that you look that you've looked

2:59:02at these other communities that do allow uh for plexus or for residential do they manage on-street

2:59:08parking uh we we have looked at it some but I think we can report back with a more fulsome response

2:59:16okay I would appreciate that um and um yeah that that is it the more for me thank you very much

2:59:23thank you worship great thank you uh busatil and then uh chiu um I'm just going to ask a

2:59:29Councillor Caron did you want to say anything as well just because you're the only one that hasn't

2:59:33yeah okay perfect so we'll go to uh busatil then chiu and then yourself thank you and through the

2:59:39mayor of strategic I've been crossing questions out here I've got scribbles all over here so very

2:59:44quickly just for my own knowledge I know we uh track in the city the type of housing that is

2:59:50constructed do we track or do we have data on ownership I know there was a reference to residency

2:59:57if it's corporations or investment companies do we have that data uh through you mayor Guthrie

3:00:09to Councillor Busuttil we do have that data yes okay thank you my second question is about you

3:00:14know we've done the three units as a right how much analysis do we have and I think this you

3:00:20know Councillor Gibson was talking about you know how much has it increased our housing

3:00:24stock our availability uh do we have something comprehensive on the uptake and the impact and

3:00:30the benefit through you America 3 to council busatil um so as stated in the staff report we do

3:00:40know that there are 4,080 us that we registered 80 us across the city um in terms of the three

3:00:46units as of right there are nine uh lots across the city out of 32,000 res low density residential

3:00:55that have reached that cap of three as of right so uh I would say that the the uptake is very low

3:01:05with that comparison okay thank you my next one is um you know it has to do with

3:01:14I guess bad behavior and you know the the process that some of the delegations talked about you

3:01:19know the process it goes straight to building permit assuming that people go through to building

3:01:24permit um and I know even in the west end right now there is a non on-street townhouse where

3:01:31there is construction happening without a building permit do we have data on like accurate data on

3:01:38what exists in the city of Guelph you know we we know of of what's available through the building

3:01:43permits do we have an analysis of uh accessory dwelling units or apartments or things like that

3:01:50that we may not be aware of and is it just through complaint basis and and do we have an

3:01:55effective control there uh through the mayor to the councillor so right now it is on a complaint

3:02:04basis uh we also do some proactive monitoring and we have enforcement where we go in and check if a

3:02:09building permit has been issued that is a bit of a time consuming process but we do that uh annually

3:02:15as well thank you and I'm trying to get at that domino effect that if everyone thinks that four

3:02:20is a right or three is right and and doesn't go through the process that's a huge concern

3:02:26I guess my last question to staff is from your perspective we've heard about the process

3:02:31and the controls that you have in the planning process do you believe that the draft by-law

3:02:37as presented provides you with enough of those controls and checks and balances uh at this time

3:02:50we're we're satisfied that those regulations as proposed could work but we're of course happy to

3:02:55revisit all the comments and consider all the delegates and written comments we've received

3:03:01as well thank you that's all mayor thank you to then Karan thank you through you mr. mayor

3:03:12everything that I have been thinking about has really been captured but I think just as a point

3:03:16of suggestion to staff um if you can kind of highlight and emphasize a little bit more on the

3:03:22servicing and infrastructure impacts like in certain areas of the city akin to what the

3:03:27stormwater management master plan has with the list of projects that's going to take place city-wide

3:03:33I think that would kind of help people better conceptualize what the implications will be

3:03:38in their neighborhood if we were to do you know four units and if there's a way like to

3:03:47counsel Gibson's point if we can utilize like GIS a bit more and we even do not imposing extra work

3:03:52but even do some sort of story map to get people to better visualize what's going on I think that

3:03:58would help a lot in this discussion um no need to comment but just a suggestion for you to

3:04:04gently take away thank you and count sir Karan please I think most of my questions have been

3:04:13addressed on street townhouses um and infrastructure I know you know we've we've seen some examples

3:04:22since we added the third unit where I would characterize it as over development and when

3:04:30we say things like as of right it that is what kind of catalyzes that that fear if everybody on the

3:04:39street so we have to think of the maximum effect of our decisions and if everybody on a street

3:04:46took it to the maximum development level at what point will we say we don't have the infrastructure

3:04:55how will we know that so for example 60s bungalows are seem to be ripe for this type of redevelopment

3:05:02most of those bungalows were built in subdivisions where the uh life cycle of the infrastructure is

3:05:08is uh 50 to 70 years so we're right about that time if we were to take one lot and and this is a

3:05:15real example one lot with a bungalow that had four bedrooms divided into three lots with three

3:05:22art uh 80 use if we take that to four 80 use and the example that we have in real life in in one of

3:05:29our ward five neighborhoods has gone from four bedrooms to 24 bedrooms that's a 600 increase

3:05:36how will we know when we've reached that infrastructure max and I heard I heard miss walkie say that

3:05:42everything that we're doing is subject to our capacity um are we going to map that capacity is

3:05:49this first come for serve uh when will we know when we've reached the infrastructure max in a

3:05:56neighborhood uh through the mayor to the counselor um so with every application even if it does not

3:06:05come through site plan still have to submit a servicing plan before they get a building permit

3:06:09and that's when we look at servicing capacity so it could be a first come first serve and that's

3:06:13why we have that provision it written in the bylaw that it's dependent on adequate and available

3:06:18servicing it's in the bylaw as a whole but we've also specifically tied it to this because there

3:06:22will be a a cap at some point on certain streets um we are looking at servicing city wide and

3:06:28prioritizing where we put our capital dollars in so some streets may not be able to develop this and

3:06:36and some may be able to have you know to your point you know one or two come through and then

3:06:41they then it might be capped so uh that's what's in the bylaw and certainly depending on where this

3:06:48ends up um as part of our uh information page we would certainly ask make sure that that is known

3:06:54to developers or purchasers that they do have to check servicing before they uh think they can move

3:07:01ahead in the past we've used a separation distance as part of our zoning regulation for lodging houses

3:07:07where you can't have two lodging houses within 100 meters of each other have we considered that a

3:07:12separation distance might be appropriate for the gentle part of our definition because as

3:07:18councillor Downer identified gentle is that it it's it's barely noticeable 10 in a row is not gentle

3:07:27one out of every 10 could be defined as gentle um separation distance is that a potential solution

3:07:35uh through the mayor to the councillor um we've had to remove separation distances

3:07:41out of our zoning bylaw and we had to do that last round is it's a human rights issue

3:07:45so that has been removed so that would be our concern with bringing it forward but we'll take

3:07:49a little bit look into it a little bit further but if there's capacity um and council approves this

3:07:54in in a form then uh we would support it moving forward yeah and I believe that the separation

3:08:00distance legality was related to the definition of family so there may be some differences there

3:08:06but thank you for looking into that um third question habitable windows I know are setbacks

3:08:12for habitable windows to property lines but I am familiar with cases where doors front front doors

3:08:19and front porches are actually within uh 1.3 meters from the property line looking into other

3:08:25backyards there's you know there's a an example on willett street where that the front door is

3:08:33in a backyard is is habitable windows also include habitable or usable doors and if not

3:08:40can we can we add that to the regulation if if uh if a front door is on a property line looking

3:08:48into a backyard a neighbor's backyard uh through you may got through to councillor crown uh we

3:08:56have uh just windows so not habitable or not any window as well as any uh upper story porch or

3:09:03stair to the porch but we can certainly consider adding doors as well yeah front door is just

3:09:09as intrusive as a habitable window um and then my last question actually has to go back to your

3:09:14presentation you put that in fall of winter q4 of this year you're going to be looking at

3:09:19fifth units and I I wonder is council directed you to look at four or more are you looking I don't

3:09:28we've just gone to three now we're talking about four we have had no time to even evaluate the

3:09:34impact of three let alone the impact of four would you like some council direction to to take the

3:09:41five plus unit uh work off of your work plan through the marriage to the council so it that

3:09:52is already an existing council direction we have is to look at it so I believe that was

3:09:58April 2023 to to take a look at five plus um we did we say q4 2024 was a timeline

3:10:08I will double check on that but I'll report back on that but we've been asked to take a

3:10:13look at it and it it may be different than this and that's why we separate it out and pull the four

3:10:19units forward separately four units could go on more properties especially in the rl one and rl

3:10:25two zone as we look at more we'll be looking at those intensification corridors transit corridors

3:10:30and other areas which may be able to accommodate more okay um maybe it could follow up on that as a

3:10:36separate issue but I want to take that off your work plan I think we have to evaluate the impact

3:10:41of four before we start even looking at at five plus um so if that helps you focus your work on

3:10:50all the other planning matters that are before you um so those are my questions my comments

3:10:55search are uh have already been raised we all know why we're doing this we need to add housing stock

3:11:03to our city we need to make rental more affordable we need to intensify our existing neighborhoods

3:11:10make better use of our infrastructure we know all the good reasons why we're doing this

3:11:16where we are stuck or where I'm stuck is how to do it to the in the best possible way where the

3:11:22unintended consequences don't destroy the fabric of the community that we've built where gentle

3:11:28density is truly gentle where we add affordability and some of these forms some of these new

3:11:34developments purpose built and development built and investor properties are not affordable

3:11:39and I think the way to do that is as we all know in the planning process is through the

3:11:43regulations so the regulations that that we set are so crucial to getting this right

3:11:49and for me it means a limitation on the number of bedrooms on a property it means

3:11:54wider setbacks it means limitations to height especially for the detached unit for me it means

3:12:01four plex and not four units so those those drawings and those models we talk a lot about

3:12:07all the great examples in Montreal I love those examples though those work we have four plexes

3:12:12in our neighborhoods already they're working but we have to mirror what's what those positive

3:12:20qualities are in the new regulations we set we need the landscaped green space not just open

3:12:26space because asphalt is not green space there's a reason we should not be demonizing single detached

3:12:32forms of development because single detached forms of development in our community are also

3:12:38groundwater recharge areas and urban canopy areas as well as important to storm water

3:12:44so as we intensify our single detached neighborhood form we still have to maintain those benefits

3:12:53as part of the new form of development so that we still have urban canopy we still have groundwater

3:12:58recharge which means we need design guidelines so I'd like a better idea when we come back to this

3:13:04how soon we can get design guidelines in place and parking you know from personal experience

3:13:11in the areas around the university cars cars are still part of the rental market

3:13:19and the overflow of five six seven eight cars and I'm not exaggerating I you know if anyone needs

3:13:25evidence I'll drive around pictures um rentals have cars and the accessory dwelling units have

3:13:33cars and so we need to get that parking ratio right or we need some kind of on-street permitting

3:13:39system so that there's a cost to that I don't think that 12 months a year free on-street parking

3:13:45is just so you know how to go on you're just you've got a minute over your time which I gave to

3:13:50Councillor works it's if you could just wrap it up be great wrapping up don't forget about parking

3:13:54thanks all right perfect thank you um let's see is there anything further before I hit everybody

3:14:04with my questions in our comments okay I'll start my own timer here then I'll make this as quick as

3:14:09possible as most of mine have been done as I said at the beginning usually my colleagues will ask

3:14:13most of it as as well look I just want to ask one question um they're back to the height issue I

3:14:22think it started with Councillor Alts questions and I just heard a little bit with Councillor Caron

3:14:29but I want you to correct me if I'm wrong so clarity because I think being clear before we

3:14:34leave today is important so currently currently because of the way the adu issue is even if we

3:14:43weren't talking about four units they have a height limit right now if it's a detached garage in the

3:14:50back with like a loft or apartment above it at the 6.1 is that 6.1 meters because I I believe

3:14:58that's what we originally back in the day agreed to is that right that's correct okay perfect and

3:15:05then what you've said based on today moving forward with four units as of right that height would

3:15:11stay the same so the height doesn't increase but the number of units it applies to is expanded so

3:15:20right now that 6.1 only is permitted over a garage but we're saying that two-story setup could

3:15:28could apply to any detached unit on the ground okay that's great so because it's now two-story

3:15:35if you classify it as that and because there's no measurement included in a story you could end up

3:15:40one maybe being 6.5 or 7 if it if you only count it by story and that's where the height issue is

3:15:46coming into play no so we we've kept actually the 6.1 and the two stories together the the

3:15:53change is that it's not any longer just over a garage so yeah so it could be one unit on top

3:16:01of another or one smaller two-story unit okay so I'm going to ask it one more time is 6.1 still

3:16:09the limit it is oh okay so there is no out of control height issue based on what we've already

3:16:17approved for an ad you in the backyard already even if we had it but the way it is now it's a

3:16:23detached garage with a unit above it this way would be potentially you could have two units

3:16:29but the height will still be the same that's correct yes no I don't so to answer councillor

3:16:36downer's question I think she has a valid question and I believe you I want you to correct me if I'm

3:16:41wrong I believe at the time council made a decision that not with a detached garage with a unit above

3:16:50it would be a 5. something meter limit but because of a detached garage with a unit above it we would

3:16:57allow that a bit more height am I correct in that that's correct perfect so the height issue is

3:17:05actually in my view not an issue it's important to have that clarity out there because what you're

3:17:10presenting is what the limit is already okay I want to address there was one comment that said that

3:17:19developers can just get away with anything quote unquote what you're presenting is actually a

3:17:26framework regulations zoning permissions what's allowed what's not allowed within this document

3:17:33that's going to come back to us so it's not if I could just get your opinion here it's not get away

3:17:38with anything they have to conform to what our zoning bylaw would pertain to that's correct we're

3:17:48trying to limit the number of changes the same building envelope but a different number of units

3:17:56permitted within it yeah okay perfect okay so thank you for clarifying that as well so the other

3:18:05I'm going to just get to my comments now so I really appreciate all the feedback and the

3:18:11correspondence that has come in and I think the commenting from my colleagues is fair as well

3:18:17as a takeaway I do want to just really broach the issue of how problematic I think the ability

3:18:29to allow people with choice if something fits for their piece of property should be able to move

3:18:35ahead and I guess maybe I do have a question the reason why I believe staff are trying to do as of

3:18:41right is because that's the starting point I believe that makes it actually from a bureaucracy

3:18:49point of view and permission point of view at least it's an open door policy to be able to come in

3:18:54and knock on the door and go hey I heard that I could do four units as of right that's the starting

3:19:00point but literally 30 seconds later someone could find out I can't do four units as of right my

3:19:06property won't won't fit it I can't get the setbacks I can't get the height I can't get the parking

3:19:13like so within seconds because of what we're talking about today people will know pretty much

3:19:20instantly whether or not they can or cannot am I correct in that yes that's correct essentially

3:19:30we're just moving one removing one step in the process in terms of doing his own change but there

3:19:36are still constraints and requirements that still need to be met in order to be able to do four units

3:19:42and if four units doesn't fit then yes it may need an adjustment to to do less or fewer perfect

3:19:48and have you considered how much this might unlock from speeding up processes of more units

3:19:54becoming available within the city have you looked at what a normal process would be versus

3:20:02if the as of right permissions are there you know how much days would save from someone

3:20:09getting a shovel in the ground from more taxes being paid to the city those types of things like

3:20:14you looked at that through the mayor so they would not have to go through a zoning bylaw amendment

3:20:21if they met the requirements of the zoning bylaw which is 90 day process but they still have to do

3:20:26their due diligence and storm water management reports and engineering reports would still

3:20:30take a couple of months to do before they could even come in for a building permit typically

3:20:34okay so at least several kind of months on average of a savings of time so in a housing crisis I mean

3:20:40that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing trying to save time trying to make things easier

3:20:45that's my position on that okay um finally I just want to say that there was a delegate that said

3:20:50that kinkst and I might I might be paraphrasing this wrong so I want to state that up front but

3:20:55kinkstown in London did not do four units as of right or something like that that that is incorrect

3:21:01both kinkstown in London did do four units as of right at the end of January a unanimous vote of

3:21:08the London council was to remove their bedroom limit uh within their within most of their community

3:21:14as well they had a five limit on their bedrooms that's now gone uh because these other cities are

3:21:21unanimously recognizing the housing crisis that we're in and we need to be allowing more choice

3:21:27and more availability of these types of options moving forward so as you go away and get all these

3:21:32answers um I think it's important that I just state that there is going to be this sort of

3:21:37knee jerk reaction to some that are finding out for the first time about what's happening here

3:21:42that it rightly it I respect this the rightly are like what is going on questions absolutely are

3:21:50valid for that I would encourage people to please actually read the reports to please actually ask

3:21:57more questions and to come out and engage as we go into the next phase of looking for approval

3:22:03of whatever this looks like but I will say as much as 12 set the forefront we're also lagging

3:22:09there's many others that are well ahead of us on this and so as we try to get to a yes whatever

3:22:15yes looks like in a few months please remember that we need to get this done because we need to get

3:22:21more permissions done within the community that's my position on that and to make it fit and work

3:22:27for all in a right way I don't I want to want to lose that as well but I hope that this moves

3:22:33forward quickly and we can get it back here as soon as possible so that we can we can get this done

3:22:38because we need more housing okay that's it so it's already been moved and seconded

3:22:44I'm going to ask for a vote on receiving only is anyone against that you still need to move

3:22:52in second or no I'm pretty sure yeah oh you're a clerk I'll be with you Guller and O'Rourke

3:23:00I'll now ask the question is anyone against nobody that's unanimous for receiving okay thank you

3:23:06all right I'm going to do a gut check here we have we have one more issue on our agenda

3:23:14I don't want to presume anything at all this is both a public meeting and a decision immediately

3:23:23on something that has often come before us before very similar I'm wondering what the

3:23:31is in the room because we only have one delegate for for moving this this issue forward and we

3:23:38probably would be I imagining maybe done within a 20 minute range and then we're done or would you

3:23:45like to have a break and then come back in a half an hour and then do this this report or would you

3:23:50like me just to try to attack this report right now my position is to actually just get this report

3:23:55done right now I just want to kind of look at my colleagues on the screen and I'm seeing some heads

3:24:01nod okay I'm going to make that choice that we just we just move ahead and we just do this report

3:24:06right now and so we're going to move to the statutory public meeting a decision report for

3:24:1135 and 41 Janefield Avenue with a presentation from one of our own development planners Eric