Council Planning

9:52it is 6pm on December the 9th and we are in a Guelph City Council planning meeting this evening.

9:58If those who are at home could turn their cameras on, we'll make sure that we have quorum.

10:03So one, two, three, yep, it looks like we have quorum.

10:07No regrets for this evening, but we have many of our Councillors joining online

10:12and including Mayor Guthrie, which explains why I'm here in the chair this evening.

10:17We have participants attending on behalf of the City of Guelph for our Strong Cities initiative

10:23and they're out of town representing the city this evening.

10:26So we'll start with O'Canada and ask you to stand if you're able for our national anthem.

11:58Thank you, and if you'll please join me for a moment of silent reflection. Thank you.

12:16We're going to have our Indigenous Territorial Acknowledgement and

12:20do things a little bit differently. I know on one of the other boards that I sit on,

12:24we have a rotating acknowledgement. So I've asked Councillor Hauser to give our Indigenous

12:29acknowledgement this evening. Councillor Hauser. Thank you. As we gather, let us take time to reflect

12:35on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich Indigenous histories.

12:39We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land,

12:43the people who live here today and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us toward

12:48reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

12:53This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge

12:57for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Atawandronk and the Haudenosaunee. This land

13:03is held as the tree lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

13:08Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract and is part of a long-established traditional

13:12hunching ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations, NUI, Métis people

13:18have come from across Turtle Island called Guelph home today.

13:24Thank you, Councillor Hauser. Do we have any disclosure of pecuniary interest for the

13:28agenda items this evening? Seeing none, we'll move right into our public meeting. This evening we

13:34have one item for discussion and one item for a public meeting under section 1734 and 51 of the

13:41Planning Act. So we'll call on our city planner, Brittany Manley, regarding decision on affordable

13:51housing CIP and the ADU grant program amendment. Welcome. Good evening Mayor and members of Council.

14:31This evening I'm here to present the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan

14:35Additional Dwelling Unit Grant Program Amendment. Tonight is a statutory public meeting and I will

14:40be presenting the amendment for receipt and decision. In January 2024 the city was awarded

14:5021.4 million through the Housing Accelerator Fund by the federal government. Guelph's Affordable

14:54Housing Community Improvement Plan or CIP was created as an initiative under the city's Housing

15:01Accelerator Fund Action Plan. The Affordable Housing CIP was approved in February 2025 and

15:07launched March 6th and applies across the city of Guelph. A Community Improvement Plan is a tool

15:12under the Planning Act for municipalities to incentivize development to meet the local needs

15:17and priorities of a community. The Affordable Housing CIP aims to increase the supply of primary

15:22rental units, increase the supply of smaller units and increase non-market rental housing options.

15:28The CIP programs support the development of new homes to meet the unit target set out by the

15:33Housing Accelerator Fund Action Plan, the 2024 Housing Affordability Strategy, and the city of

15:39Guelph's Housing Pledge of 18,000 new homes by 2031. There are three programs under the Affordable

15:46Housing CIP, one of which is the Additional Dwelling Unit Grant Program, which is funded by the

15:51Housing Accelerator Fund. The changes to the Additional Dwelling Unit Grant Program being

15:56brought forward are expected to facilitate building more affordable housing faster by opening

16:01eligibility criteria and opportunities for more funding. The Additional Dwelling Unit Grant Program

16:09or ADU Grant Program was launched in March 2025. The program ends in December 2026. There are two

16:17streams under the program. The Homeowner Stream currently provides funding for one ADU where the

16:22property is the owner's primary residence up to a maximum $50,000 grant. The Project Stream

16:28targets developer-led projects that may include multiple ADUs and currently provides funding

16:34for up to six ADUs with a maximum $140,000 grant. The program provides funding for construction,

16:42funding to add accessibility features to a unit beyond the building code requirements for the

16:46project, and funding for upgrades to municipal infrastructure if required to accommodate the

16:52new unit or units. Municipal infrastructure includes water and wastewater infrastructure

16:58within the public realm and the city right of way or street. Currently, an interested party who

17:04has already received funding under the ADU Grant Program cannot receive funding for an additional

17:09project. Units must remain affordable for 15 years and meet affordability thresholds as set out in

17:16the Provincial Bulletin on Affordable Residential Units for the purposes of the Development Charges

17:21Act. The affordable rental rates are set to be updated annually and do not remain static.

17:26While the program has been designed to provide funds that can have an impact on projects,

17:31the objective of the ADU Grant Program is to increase units in the city and affordable housing

17:36while meeting the unit commitments of the city's Housing Accelerator Fund Action Plan. The amount

17:41of funding offered is not intended to cover all costs associated with building an ADU and may not

17:47cover the total rent loss when renting at the affordable rental rate instead of a market rental

17:52rate in all situations. Because of this, the program may work best from a return on investment

17:57perspective for internal units. Initial interest has remained high for the homeowner stream

18:07with 83 inquiries as of end of October 2025. Interest in the project stream has been limited

18:14with 12 inquiries. As of the end of October, 11 units had been incented. Since then, two more

18:20units have been incented for a total of 13 units all under the homeowner stream. One unit is for

18:26a detached ADU and 12 for internal ADUs. Almost all, they're almost all basement conversions.

18:33At a minimum, five more units are anticipated to be incented in the near future and are at various

18:39stages of approval. Two of these are for detached units and two would be dependent on the approval

18:44of this amendment. One of these units would be the first fourth unit on a low-density residential

18:49property in the city since the OPA and ZBA were approved by council last year to prevent four units.

18:56If current allocated funds are exhausted by the program's conclusion in December,

19:002026, it's estimated that up to 28 units could be incented, inclusive of already approved units,

19:07with the current program criteria in place. The ADU grant program is nearing the halfway mark.

19:16As staff had received inquiries about the increased flexibility within the program,

19:20staff felt a review of the program was beneficial to determine what changes could be made to the

19:26program criteria to increase applicant interest without impacting existing approved applications.

19:32In August 2025, staff initiated a comprehensive review of the program.

19:38Feedback received from potential applicants included interest in funding for more than one

19:43unit on a property under the homeowner stream. Feedback received suggests funding caps in combination

19:49with existing affordability terms could be contributing to lack of uptake in the project

19:54stream. Feedback indicated that increases to funding for infrastructure upgrades may help

19:59support interest in the project stream, but the current economic climate is challenging for

20:04building units, even with incentives. Feedback received also included interest in funding for

20:09more than one project on different properties. Changes are proposed to increase uptake in the

20:17program and aim to provide more flexibility for potential applicants while not making changes

20:22that would be out of line with already approved applications. Proposed changes were informed

20:28by inquiries and feedback received from potential applicants. Changes have been targeted to the

20:33project stream and homeowner stream, and changes aim to make eligibility requirements more flexible

20:39across both streams and to increase funding in specific scenarios with limited uptake.

20:45A draft of the ADU grant amendment was circulated to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

20:50for comment. Comments were received from the ministry and these administrative changes have

20:54also been reflected in the amendment. First, I will go through the changes proposed to the

21:01homeowner stream of the program. There are no changes proposed to the funding amounts for the

21:06construction grant. This amount is proposed to remain at the current 20,000 per unit. There are

21:11no changes proposed to the funding amounts for the accessibility features grant. This amount is

21:16proposed to remain at 10,000 per unit. Proposed changes include changing the municipal infrastructure

21:22upgrades grant by removing the set amount of 20,000 per project and replacing it with a tiered

21:28funding approach that also includes funding for private utility service upgrades in certain scenarios.

21:35As well, increasing the number of units eligible for funding on a property from one to three.

21:40This is to support interest in funding for more than one unit and permitting an applicant to

21:46receive funding for multiple projects under the ADU grant program. For example, this means a homeowner

21:51could receive funding for a second or third ADU after already receiving funding for an ADU on the

21:57same property or a homeowner could receive funding for a project on the property in which they live

22:02under the homeowner stream and funding for projects on one or more rental properties under the project

22:08stream. This proposed change supports interest in receiving funding for more than one project.

22:17Next, I will go through the changes proposed to the project stream of the program.

22:22Staff propose to increase the funding amount for the construction grant from 10,000 per unit to

22:2715,000 per unit. This change aims to make the project stream more advantageous with more funds

22:33for upfront costs of construction and to provide funding more comparable to that of the homeowner

22:39stream. The funding levels in the homeowner stream remain higher to support circumstances where

22:44there might be limited familiarity with the permitting process and the potential for unforeseen

22:49financial costs. There are no changes proposed to the funding amounts for the accessibility

22:54features grant. This amount is proposed to remain at 10,000 per unit. Staff propose to change the

23:00municipal infrastructure upgrades grant by removing the set amount of 20,000 per project

23:05and replacing it with the tiered funding approach that also includes funding for private utility

23:10service upgrades and certain scenarios. Staff propose to remove the current cap of six units

23:16as eligible for funding under a single project. There would be no cap on number of eligible units.

23:22This change aims to provide funding for projects with a larger number of units.

23:27Finally, as discussed earlier, staff are proposing to allow an applicant to receive funding for

23:32multiple projects under the ADU grant program. While the criteria for what is considered a

23:37single project or property or project for the ADU grant program is not proposed to change,

23:43staff have included clarification. This clarification includes that at the time of a CIP application,

23:50an applicant may be concurrently applying to subdivide their property so that what was originally

23:55one property can result in more than one property. Each of these properties can be considered as part

24:00of one project under the project stream. For both streams, there is currently 20,000 in funding

24:12available per project if municipal infrastructure upgrades to the public realm within the city right

24:17of way or street is required for a project of any scale. Municipal infrastructure for the purposes

24:23of this grant includes water and wastewater infrastructure. A tiered funding approach is

24:28proposed to replace the flat amount of 20,000 per project. The tiered funding approach adds

24:34additional funding for projects where the ADU proposed is the third or fourth unit on the property

24:40or where there are multiple ADUs being added as part of a single project. The table on the screen

24:45shows the amount of funding available per projects that add one ADU where the unit will be the second

24:51unit on the property. There are no proposed changes to funding available for these types of projects

24:56with 20,000 remaining available for municipal infrastructure upgrades. In some instances,

25:04when multiple ADUs are added to a property, proponents may be faced with the need to upgrade

25:09hydroelectric utility services. This includes work to be completed within the city's right of

25:14way or street and on private property. Private utility service upgrades can come as unexpected

25:20with high cost, which can increase with the number of units being added to a property.

25:24A funding approach has been designed to provide a grant for these costs when jumps and costs are

25:29anticipated to occur, as well as additional funding for municipal infrastructure upgrades

25:34for larger projects. The funding approach is designed to reflect the potential increased costs

25:39associated with adding additional units beyond a single ADU to a property, as well as to provide

25:45financial incentive to add multiple ADUs as part of a single project at once. The table on the screen

25:52shows the amount of funding available for infrastructure upgrades for projects that add one ADU,

25:57which will be the third or fourth unit on the property, and projects that add multiple ADUs

26:02as part of a single project. In these scenarios, funding is available for private utility service

26:07upgrades within the city, right of way or street, and on private property, up to including the meter

26:12base if required for a project, in addition to funding for municipal infrastructure upgrades.

26:18If an applicant is adding one ADU that is the third or fourth unit on the property,

26:2320,000 is available. If a proponent is adding two ADUs as part of a single project, then 40,000

26:29is available. And for a project of three or more ADUs, 60,000 is available. That concludes my overview

26:38of the proposed amendment. City staff are recommending that the amendment to the Affordable Housing

26:44Community Improvement Plan, additional dwelling unit grant program, be received by council, and

26:48that the amendment be approved. If the amendment is approved by council, then changes will be

27:00incorporated into the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan program document. And if the

27:04amendment is passed, the changes proposed will be in effect in January following the statutory

27:09appeal period. Thank you, and I'm happy to take questions. Fantastic. Ms. Manley, thanks for the

27:16presentation. I'm sure we have a lot of questions, and we do have a delegation, but any questions

27:22of clarification or would my fellow councillors prefer to have the delegation first, then we'll

27:29ask and answer questions. Okay, we have one delegation on this item. Mr. Eric Martin. Mr.

27:35Martin, because this is an item under the Planning Act, you have 10 minutes to speak at the 32nd

27:44mark before the end of the 10 minutes. You'll hear a ding, and the mic will be turned off at 10

27:48minutes. And then I'll remind anyone watching this evening or in the gallery that at the conclusion

27:54of this delegation will take a pause. And if you are interested in delegating on this item,

28:00please identify yourself. The floor is all yours. Thank you. I'm here to speak in favor of the

28:08amendment, and I want to recognize that the efforts the staff have put into this, it certainly seems

28:15like they initiated this review. And as a result, this amendment's coming forward. So credit to the

28:21staff. I'm going to do a little case study here. Not my problem, is it? Yeah, the microphone's on.

28:39Oh, it just turned off. There we go. Okay. So I've built, I've completed two ADUs in Guelph.

28:49The first one on the left was over a year ago, and then in September I moved into the one on the

28:55right. So I've had some experience dealing with the staff and and the reviewing the requirements

29:03of the eligibility. This one's under construction right now. It's a two-bedroom. So the first two

29:11were one bedrooms, 425 square feet each. And this one is a two-bedroom, and it's under construction.

29:18Should be ready in February. I should say I haven't, I haven't accepted any or I haven't

29:28signed any documents for any any incentives yet. This is the layout of the two-bedroom.

29:36I had another slide in here for Councillor Allt, but my presentation was too big, so I had to take

29:41it out, but it showed how the efforts we had gone through to save mature trees on the property.

29:46And also for the next agenda item, this is on one of the streets that's in the orange color,

29:53so it could have held, it could have held four or five units. Okay, so this is a case study that

30:03it's a real, it's my place. So it's the two-bedroom and what costs go into it, and so you'll see as

30:10we go through, hopefully I'm making a clear case. So it starts out, the contractor wins $300,000,

30:19and then the upgrade in the public realm on the on the city street is $27,000. When you add an

30:25HST to that, you're up over $30,000 to increase the size of the water pipe from the middle of the

30:31street to the unit. So that's a huge cost. Then of course there's HST, there's no development charges

30:38except there are for the school, and then you might have to repair the fence or things, so

30:44there's other stuff. Anyway, the total cost to build that 850 square foot house is $400,000.

30:53Let the comments begin about cost per square foot. And what would you rent it for? So in Guelph,

30:59a two-bedroom apartment, now this is just an apartment in Guelph. We typically cost between

31:04$2,200 and $2,700 per month. Many things influence that price. The location of the apartment, the

31:11neighborhood, there's up, you know, different rates, the size of the apartment, and then what's got

31:18parking, or it's got utilities, or it's got laundry, or the age of the unit. So this one that

31:27will be completed in February, it's an entire detached house, everything will be brand spanking

31:32new. There's going to have six appliances, one parking spot, custom designed kitchen,

31:38all electric heat and cooling, utilities aren't included. So what would that rent for? So I break

31:46even at $2,300. So that's what I set the rent at, because I've been doing this since 1981. I don't

31:55need to put money in my pocket, but I'm not going to take money out of my pocket to do it either.

32:03So the operating costs, you'll see the $2,300 is highlighted. So this is the operating costs

32:07without the grant. So you've got a $400,000 mortgage, you've got property taxes, insurance,

32:14and that's pretty much it, because the tenants are going to pay the utilities. So at $2,300,

32:21I have $75 a month for maintenance, or about $900 a year for maintenance, and that's pretty much

32:27break even. Then if I accept the grant, the only thing that changes is the mortgage now is $365,000,

32:36same interest rate, the payment goes down, but the property taxes, insurance are all the same.

32:43Now the rent's $1740, which is the amount in the schedule. So I'm losing $315 per month,

32:51or $3775 per year to accept that grant. So if you put them side by side, in the first case,

33:00if I don't accept the grant, I'm making $900 a year for maintenance, so I'm breaking even,

33:09but if I accept the grant, I lose $3,775 in a year. But it's not just for one year, right? It's for

33:1815 years. So the total cost to me to accept the grant is $70,000, and I think that's why

33:27there hasn't been much uptake. And so the staff changes that are proposed will improve that,

33:32but these are the grant amounts that, this is the updated grant amount. So then the last slide is

33:42that it would cost, if I was to be in the same position, these are where the comments are going

33:51to really go crazy. If I was to be in the same position, it was $75 a month for maintenance,

33:56the incentive would need to be $115,000. Now I know the staff presentation did remark that

34:05there's costs. I don't know exactly how it was worded, but yeah, that's kind of what I've got here.

34:15And I think that's the last slide. One thing I would like to slay, does it go back?

34:21Oops. So the city made a change in 2025. Oh, did it go off? I blew it up. It doesn't need a slide.

34:32The city made a change in 2025. So the first unit I built was the simplest,

34:37easier to follow rules. Everyone has gotten more and more complicated. So there are more and more

34:42barriers. Sometimes the city is just the messenger saying the province has required this or whatever,

34:47but one that could be so easily fixed, I think. The first house I built had a three-quarter inch

34:56waterline from the street. I miss it. It doesn't really matter. You don't need this slide. I had a

35:08three-quarter inch waterline from the street and there it is, upgrade water on city street. So I

35:14had three-quarter inch waterline on the city street. It was a bungalow, three-bedroom up, two down,

35:22and they said, okay, you just put a one-inch pipe out to the curb and when we upgrade the street,

35:28we'll take care of that. It was like, great. So that cost zero and the people have been living

35:35there now since October of a year ago. So we're up to 14 months. No problems with the water,

35:41but somebody in the city decided no more three-quarter inch pipes. Flat out, doesn't matter.

35:48Got to be upgraded to one inch. So that's between $27,000 and $33,000 for that pipe.

35:57And I just wanted to raise that because I'm here. Okay. I'm done.

36:04Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. A very informative presentation. Are there any

36:08questions from members of council? Councillor Goller?

36:12Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Martin, and thank you for building the Sheldon Units

36:16here in the city. Could you help me understand? You said that you supported the staff recommendation.

36:22So could you help me understand that would the additional units allowed on the same lot? Would

36:28that make the difference? Because you showed what the dollar amount for a grant to make you whole,

36:36but is the staff recommendation, does that get closer to making you whole?

36:39Yeah, I'm not. I was showing you that, but I'll go ahead. So I had applied with staff,

36:45working with them. We put it all on hold when the review started. So I could have gotten one.

36:51I could have gotten the homeowner one in the summer and they said wait and see. So it turns out

36:58that was a good decision because I can still get the homeowner one and it won't change anything.

37:03So that'll probably go ahead this week. And then the other one I'll qualify for. So it'll end up,

37:13that'll get up to, it's always up to 40,000 for the homeowner one and now up to 35 for the

37:24two bedroom one. And I don't know, I didn't quite understand the rules about stacking up. If I

37:31change the hydro base, I'll have to go back and talk to staff. So there could be a little bit more.

37:35But so I am going to go ahead and, you know, the $70,000 out of my pocket one,

37:42I'm going to do it anyway. But if you could raise it to 115,

37:50I just don't know where the other 20 million went. So if you're hoping to get 20 units,

37:55I bet, I could bet of 10 of those 11 that are finished got up to 20,000. So there's 200,000.

38:02And then the 11th detached one could have gotten up to 40,000. So you're only at 240.

38:09I don't know. I'll be asking stuff about that. But thank you.

38:12Ask them about the pipe too. Thank you very much. Thank you.

38:16Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We had a question as well from Margot three.

38:23Thank you madam chair and through you to the delegate.

38:27Thank you very much for showing us your pro forma. You know, I wish actually more people would do

38:32that. I think it is a good education lesson for us to understand sort of the economies of scale

38:39that are into these types of projects and what people like yourself and others are up against

38:45in this type of a market. But I just wanted to say like on a flip side,

38:53you are giving us your pro forma based on this kind of larger ad you that you're building a

38:58detached ad you. And I guess as the staff presentation said of the, I think many, the

39:07majority of the ad use that were used in the last year with the grants, they were mostly

39:15basement apartments. And what I'm trying to get at is that a basement apartment probably won't

39:21cost $398,000 to build, right? So a basement apartment might be $80,000 to $100,000 maybe

39:32depending like a third or a quarter of the cost of what yours is as a separate detached ad you.

39:39So do you, so my question is, do you think that what staff are presenting today

39:45will incent more of the ad use that you are trying to build the detached actual backyard

39:53sort of tiny homes? Or do you think that what is being proposed is still going to favor

39:59from a pro forma point of view the basement apartments that are getting built at the date?

40:07It's the basement apartments. Awesome. Have a good day. Thank you very much.

40:13I have a question from Councillor Downer. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So this is just

40:18more of a curiosity thing looking at your case studies. So when you're doing a separate ad you

40:25in the backyard, like you've completely 100% mortgaged it. You don't need to put a downpain.

40:31You don't need to. It has to be 100%. Right. But even if I did, I would want a 4% return, wouldn't I?

40:39Yes. Yes. No, that's, I'm just curious about that. Yeah. But an investment perspective. Yeah,

40:45it's all leveraged job. Thank you. But it's creating housing and it's not taking money out of my pocket.

40:50So are there any further questions from members of council? Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much for

40:58your delegation. We will put a number up on the screen. If anyone at home would like to comment

41:05on this agenda item, please call in. Is there anyone in the gallery that would like to speak

41:12to this agenda item? I'm seeing none. So we're just going to take a few minutes pause,

41:18wait for any phone calls that might arise. While we're waiting for any phone calls to come in,

42:05I just want to note that agenda item 2.2, which was a public meeting and decision on the Hanlon

42:12Creek Business Park phase three, housekeeping amendments, this item has been removed from

42:17the agenda. So if there is anyone here or at home who's waiting for that agenda item to come,

42:22it will not be on tonight's, on tonight's docket. Okay. We did not have any phone calls. So we're

43:18going to move forward on this agenda item. We have a staff recommendation. If we could get

43:22that placed on the floor and then we're going to open it up for questions. So moved by Councillor

43:26Gowler. Do we have a seconder? Seconded by Mayor Guthrie. Questions and comments. Councillor Goller

43:32and we'll start a speakers list. So put up your hand. Okay. Great. Councillor Goller. Thank you.

43:38And through you, Chair, to staff, thank you for the presentation and thank you for coming forward

43:43with these changes. I would love to hear a little bit about those 11 units that have been

43:49incented. Could you tell us, you know, like what sort of, what type of units they are and that if

43:55they have been built and are they providing affordable rental housing at this time?

44:02Through the chair to Councillor Goller. So of the 11 now 13 actually units that we have

44:10approved. One of those units is for a detached ADU and the rest are internal ADU. So a mix of

44:17basement units as well as some just internal on the main floor of the unit itself. A few are built

44:25and are now being rented out at an affordable rental rate. Okay. That's fantastic to hear.

44:31Thank you. Thank you so much. And with regards to some questions that I had previously when

44:39this was came forward and also does the delegate mentioned, there is certainly a gap in what the

44:46funding provides to make the property owner whole. So could you help me understand with these changes

44:55how many more units are you expecting based on what you've heard that will be applying

45:00based on these changes? Through the chair to Councillor Goller.

45:07It will depend. We do know of some instances where the changes are depend or what we're proposing.

45:15Units could move forward and the amendments that we're proposing are required to move forward in

45:19order for those units to be approved. What we are seeing though is that what we want to do is increase

45:25the potential and the number of pathways for which a project can proceed and which it makes

45:30financial sense to do so. And that's what we're proposing here. Okay. Okay. No, I appreciate it.

45:36And will there be a threshold at which you may review the program and come back with more changes

45:44or do you expect that these changes will be sufficient to sort of use up the rest of the funds?

45:52Through the chair. We are limited on time. So that is the major factor here. We have until

46:00the fall, if not the winter to make sure that the money is spent, the building permits are issued

46:05and illegal agreements are signed. So we are limited by that factor. If the program is of

46:12interest, we can of course look to do further amendments, but time is a limiting factor here.

46:18Okay. Okay. I really appreciate it. And just one last question to you, Madam Chair.

46:24The applicants, have they all been private individuals or have some of them in nonprofit

46:29organizations operating in the city just to understand who is applying for these?

46:36Through the chair. At this time, it has been primarily homeowners who are applying. We have

46:42had interest from not-for-profit organizations. They've had various intake meetings, but of the

46:47approved applications we have are all homeowners. Thank you. This is fantastic. Thank you so much

46:53for this work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Our accounts are down next and then Mayor Guthrie.

46:59Thanks for you, Chair. So the question I have, the rental rates, the affordable rental rates,

47:06so the one bedroom of 1598, does that include, I forget, does that include utilities or is that

47:13just the rent? It's up to the owner if they would like to have that amount include utilities or not,

47:24but there is the option to charge utilities on top of that affordable rental rate. So that's the

47:29base, right? Okay. So that's the base and okay. So they couldn't charge more than that and have

47:37utilities in? No, that's the maximum amount they could charge. So they could charge utilities on

47:42top of that. So and I understand these are registered on title. So if somebody sells the

47:50property, it goes with the property. What happens if the, so say you, they get into the

47:58the homeowner grant as a homeowner and they decide to move out of that house and rent out the primary

48:05dwelling unit that they were living in, say what happens in that situation? So they can just rent

48:10out their primary, but see then they wouldn't be the homeowner. So I'm just trying to think

48:14how does that work? Through the chair. So there is a requirement that the homeowner live on the

48:22property for the duration of the 15 year affordability term. Okay. So they have to stay there for 15

48:30years on the property if they get in under that grant. So the monitoring that how are we going to

48:38monitor these? I mean, it's, you know, I'm just curious about, I'm just worried about over the

48:45years, over five or six years, like the programs done with and how are we going to continue to

48:50monitor these and have accountability? So through the chair, as part of the legal agreement, there's

48:57a requirement that the property owner submit an annual declaration letter to the city,

49:02stipulating that they are charging the rent at the affordable rate for that specific year.

49:07And as part of that legal agreement, the city can ask for a rental receipts or a copy of

49:12the lease agreement as well, just to confirm that the rents are at the appropriate rate.

49:16So we ask for the declaration, but we don't ask for that supporting documents to come with the

49:21declaration? Through the chair, we can ask for it if we have concern that the that the rental

49:27rate is, is not. But it's not, they don't have to do that. They don't, it's just a declaration they

49:32provide every year. At the outset, yes. Just my thought, I would think that you would ask for

49:40those automatically, the copies of the rent receipts or the leases on an annual basis too.

49:47You could go a long time with just putting in a declaration and rents going up, right? So I just,

49:56seeing how some of these things happen, I would be very concerned about the

50:00accountability and monitoring of this program over the years. Just, just a suggestion.

50:08I'll leave that you're doing the implementation. So I would leave that up to you and that's fine.

50:14That's all my questions. Thanks. Mayor Guthrie. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and through you.

50:25I just, I appreciate that staff have reviewed this. I think that's healthy. And I think it was

50:33raised, I think at the outset several months ago when we started the program that we were,

50:37you know, maybe a little bit concerned just about what the uptake was going to be. So your

50:42monitoring of this program was very wise because that's why we're here today. I just wanted to

50:50ask though, you did in the report show that you were looking at maybe some other municipalities

50:57and seeing what they were doing. And I'm just wondering, there are some that are sort of in

51:04the same realm as us and what's being proposed today, but there are others that are seeing

51:11what I'm hearing is a lot of uptake and it's because the grants are more. So I'll just give an

51:17example like Burlington is $95,000. Like, you know, there's lots that are getting more uptake

51:27because the incentive is higher. So we got this 21 million bucks from the Housing Accelerator Fund.

51:34We do have to spend the money. What is your, what was your work to qualify and quantify that

51:45what's proposed today is going to drastically increase more ADUs with the incentive today

51:54versus what might be more in, more of them built if there was a larger incentive such as Burlington

52:02or another city that is doing a lot more with a tight timeframe to get these additional units done.

52:10Sorry, just excuse me on the, and by the way, I'm not suggesting we change anything here. I don't

52:15know. I'm just giving an example, but Burlington's a 10-year commitment, not even, not a 15-year.

52:22So you can get almost $100,000 from Burlington with a 10-year commitment. And so I'm just wondering

52:28why did you find this sweet spot today for us and do you really think we're going to see a huge

52:36uptake compared to what others are doing? Through the chair to the mayor. So through this amendment,

52:45we are limited to what we have on title already, the existing legal agreements we

52:50have registered with other applicants on title. So if we're to go outside the bounds of that,

52:54it could affect those, those legal agreements. We could potentially have to go back and review

52:59them. For example, if we were to increase the funding amounts, we would have to go back and

53:04potentially give those units and those homeowners opening up those legal agreements and looking at

53:10those already awarded applications already. So that's why that's what we're operating under

53:16and the kind of confines that this program amendment is coming to council under.

53:21And sorry, through the chair, if I may add too to the mayor. So on this came to council for the

53:26first time, council actually had some discussion about having this at 25 years and our staff

53:32recommendation was 15 years. So we, we did stand strong on that at the previous one and we ended

53:39up with 15 years. And that was contrary to some of the comments we did here from council that evening.

53:46Yeah, thank you. Okay, I appreciate the sort of legal and reopening agreements

53:53answer from staff, Madam Chair, but I am just still just trying to kind of squeeze out an

54:00answer. If there is one, what do you think is actually going to be given for incentives?

54:06Is there a crystal ball moment here where you think, hey, council, we're going to get 50 more

54:11of these affordable housing units done? Or is it a completely unknown based on what you're proposing

54:18today? What I'm supportive of, by the way, 100%. I just want to know, is there, is there some feedback

54:24and numbers where you think we are going to actually start to see these being built?

54:31Through the chair to the, to the mayor. So for the half funding, we had targeted 40 units. So that

54:37is, that is the amount of half funding that was allocated to this particular program. So we're at

54:4113 now. With the project stream being opened up a little bit, I know we're going to be making some

54:48calls if this gets approved and talk to some of those folks to see if we can push that a little bit.

54:53And the intent is to continue with the homeowner's stream because that really does make an impact

54:57and across, across the city and then push some of the projects as well to see if we can get to that 40.

55:03Okay. Thank you. Two more quick ones. You can still stack.

55:08For you, Madam chair, you can still stack like the Guelph-Greener homes incentive program on top

55:12of this one. I'm just putting it out in the public so everyone knows. Through the mayor, or through

55:17the chair to the mayor. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. And my final one, I think I have now forgotten.

55:25So I don't think everyone's probably pleased about that. So yeah, I forgot my third one. But

55:32other than that, I appreciate you answering my questions. Thank you, Madam chair.

55:37Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Are there any further questions or comments on this item?

55:42I don't see any hands up. I have a quick question. I'm picking up where councillor Downer left off

55:46about the homeowner, the owner occupied bit. 15 years is a long time for an owner occupied

55:54commitment. If a homeowner were to sell a property where this affordable housing was built using

56:01this grant money and the new owner did not live on site, what would that do to the grant? Would

56:08there be a rollback or a percentage where that break the contract? Through the chair. So there is

56:15a sliding repayment schedule that's included as part of the legal agreement. So depending on the

56:20particular year that a homeowner or a new property owner wanted to exit the program, they would repay

56:26at least some portion of the grant back. It is sliding. So for example, if that homeowner were

56:31to exit the program in year two, it would be more punitive than if the homeowner were to exit the

56:37program in year 12 or year 13 as an example. Okay, that's great. And then building on Mayor,

56:44Guthrie's question, I too was going to ask about stacking the Guelph-Greiner Homes grants on top

56:48of that because we know that utilities and rising energy costs is part of the affordability equation.

56:55When an applicant approaches you, are you encouraging the net zero, the building of renewables,

57:03so that utility costs over that 15-year period are lowered and increasing the affordability

57:09calculations? Through the chair, yes, we are. And we, and all of our intake meetings, tell the

57:15applicants about the Guelph-Greiner Homes program and encourage them to go to the city's website to

57:19find out more information and to apply. Wonderful. Thank you so much for that and thank you to the

57:23planning team that put these recommendations together. Seeing no more questions or comments,

57:28we'll call the vote. Is there anyone opposed to the motions on the floor? I'm seeing none,

57:34so that motion is carried. Thanks so much. We'll move on to the next item, which is a discussion

57:39item. This is exploring the potential for five-plus units, and we have a presentation,

57:46Kush LaMathues and Emily, I don't know if you're doing a joint presentation or tag teaming, but

57:52welcome to the podium. We'll wait for you to get settled. Okay, everything's queued up for you.

58:08The floor is yours. All right. Good evening, Chair Kron, Mayor Guthrie, and members of council.

58:27My name's Kush LaMathues, and I'm here with my planning colleagues today tonight to provide some

58:33updated information on exploring the potential for five-plus units on low density residential

58:39lots in Guelph. So for this brief presentation, we'll first go over a bit of a refresher about

58:57scope of the work and why we're bringing you new information today. Ultimately, it is to

59:03fulfill a commitment the city has made through our Housing Accelerator Fund Action Plan. So in April

59:13of 2023, council approved the comprehensive zoning bylaw, and included in that was direction to staff

59:20to consider as-of-right permissions for greater than three units on a property. And this direction can

59:27and has been interpreted as not only looking at the possibility of four units, but also five,

59:34six, or even more. In October of 2023, council provided more scoped direction to draft a zoning

59:42bylaw for four-unit permissions, which was approved almost exactly one year ago today.

59:49As work began on drafting the four-unit zoning permissions, the city was also the recipient

59:55of the Housing Accelerator Fund, which complemented council's April 2023 direction

1:00:01and also included a commitment to explore the feasibility of five or more units.

1:00:08As with any city work, there are differing external perspectives on ultimate goals,

1:00:14and this piece is no different. From staff's perspective and a perspective that aligns with

1:00:20Guelph's corporate strategy, potential for advancing five-plus units is similar to the work done on

1:00:28four units. It's about providing a policy environment with guardrails that enables a

1:00:35greater variety of options for housing using one of the limited tools that we have available to us

1:00:41as municipalities. It's about becoming more housing ready at a time when significant challenges exist

1:00:48for increasing housing supply. It's about understanding that this is a building block

1:00:55that will take time to generate units. It's not an instant quick fix. The approach that we took

1:01:03to explore feasibility rests with the preliminary criteria that were selected and builds off the

1:01:09results of the four-unit work. That work identified 14,250 lots as having the possibility of supporting

1:01:21four units. We used this as a starting point for then scoping these lots down further using the

1:01:27criteria, which is now going to be shared with you by Ms. Irvine. Next slide. Good evening,

1:02:09check around, Merica 3, and members of council. My name is Emily Irvine from Planning Services,

1:02:17and I will be presenting the findings of our preliminary review. As mentioned, this review

1:02:23follows from the analysis of the four-unit work and further refines a series of criteria to determine

1:02:29the potential for five-plus units in the city. The criteria used to select unsuitable lots

1:02:37was infrastructure capacity that included water and transit services, as well as lot configuration

1:02:43that includes lot size and frontage. Oh, excuse me. There we go. Now we're in line.

1:02:55The findings of this preliminary review are summarized in the table. The four-unit project

1:03:02found that lots sown low density residential one and low density residential two, RL1 and RL2,

1:03:10of which there are a total of 32,000 in the city, represented the greatest opportunity to support

1:03:16additional residential units and concluded that 14,250 lots were suitable for four units.

1:03:23The first criteria that was reviewed for the potential for five-plus units

1:03:27was water servicing capacity. Lots were scoped to exclude properties that did not have very high

1:03:34water main and servicing capacity. This reduced the suitable properties to 10,100 or 32 percent

1:03:41of the lots. Transit services followed. Properties that were greater than 400 meters from transit

1:03:48were removed. This further scoped the suitable properties to 9,530 or 30 percent of the lots.

1:03:56Finally, lot configuration, including property size and frontage, were reviewed and reduced the

1:04:02suitable lots to 5,900 units or 13 percent of the lots in the city that could be suitable for five-plus

1:04:10units. The maps illustrate the location of the lots identified in the four-unit work

1:04:20and preliminary review that was conducted for five-plus units and are presented side by side

1:04:24to allow for comparison. The map to the left identified in purple illustrates the potential

1:04:30for four units. The map to the right with lots identified in yellow illustrates the findings

1:04:36of the preliminary review and location of the lots that could be potentially suitable for five-plus

1:04:41units. The scoped review removed clusters in the northeast part of the city and south of the downtown.

1:04:48Potential for five-plus units was found in clusters south of Speedvale across the northern part of

1:04:54the city as well as west and east of Hanlon Expressway and Gordon Street in the southern part of the

1:05:01city. Additional review would be needed to move forward with a review of the potential for five-plus

1:05:10units. Considerations in this review would include further refinement of lot size and

1:05:16characteristics. Minimum parking standards would be included. Compliance with official

1:05:21plant policies would be assessed. Public engagement would be undertaken and financial implications

1:05:28could also be considered. Should the project proceed the potential number of suitable lots

1:05:38for five-plus units would be refined with further analysis. This project could advance the city's

1:05:44housing residents as additional residential units have been a source of new housing and wealth.

1:05:50The review undertaken and summarized in this report fulfills the half commitment

1:05:54to explore the potential for this type of housing. Staff are seeking direction from council on

1:05:59moving forward with this project. This concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention.

1:06:07Great. Thank you Ms. Matthews and Ms. Rippein. We have a delegation on this item so I think we'll

1:06:14follow that protocol as well and then we'll have questions for staff afterwards. So our

1:06:20delegate Chris Bonnet and I believe for this item there's a five-minute limit and again 32nd

1:06:32ding and then the mic will go off at the five-minute mark so welcome to our delegate. The floor is

1:06:38yours. Thank you Madam Chair. I'd really like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you

1:06:46this evening about City Staff's proposal to pursue five and up to 12 dwelling units per lot.

1:06:53I am responsible for my own words and mistakes in this but several neighbors in the Mayfield Park

1:06:58Community Association have read and endorsed my written comments submitted earlier.

1:07:02There's high local interest in this current proposal and unanimous opposition. For reference

1:07:07Mayfield Park is two south of the University and included as an unwelcome target for the five to

1:07:1312 unit buildings. I want to start by highlighting that five plus seems to us to be misleading.

1:07:20The plus implies addition but this proposal is really all about multiplication and what do I mean

1:07:25by that? Here's a real world example. Excuse me. A local developer recently bought a four bedroom

1:07:32bungalow on my street. The City's Committee of Adjustment approved severing that into four lots.

1:07:37The former well-maintained family home will be demolished and two semi-detached buildings will

1:07:42replace it. That's fine on its face but those residences will be purpose-built, student housing

1:07:48and big. Student housing is not excluded from this five plus proposal as far as I can see although

1:07:54perhaps it isn't the prime objective. So this example is relevant to tonight's debates and

1:08:00vote on up to 12 units and here's the math that I've used. One bungalow actually becomes two

1:08:05semi-detached buildings. Those two buildings will become at least 10 and maybe 12 dwelling units

1:08:12primary and additional. The four bedrooms that are standing today will be multiplied by 11

1:08:19to become 44 bedrooms by September 1st next year if the plan proceeds and maybe eight more bedrooms

1:08:25on top of that. So describing this as five plus is misleading. This is how intensification multiplies

1:08:32with just four primary units the same as a fourplex. Now I couldn't find how many ADUs in any

1:08:38sized plex would allow. That's because as I understand no fourplexes have yet been built

1:08:44or approved. So the big question tonight is how much more intensity we're actually facing.

1:08:48It's a big question around that. The uncertainty about intensity is really important to us and I

1:08:54will like to expand on that. The staff report for council's April 9th 2024 meeting staff use words

1:09:00like gentle density and minimally build out these lots and conclude that and I quote here

1:09:07the ultimate sign of a successful gentle density is that it is gentle enough that one hardly notices

1:09:14end quote the 12 plex proposal before you today also speaks of gentle density. So the language is

1:09:21the same whether we're talking about four primary units or five or 12. My second point slows it

1:09:28is to emerge is that residents have been sold unresponsible and compatible intensification

1:09:34that is sensitive to surrounding homes and quite frankly neighborhood issues. Our experience is

1:09:39exactly opposite so we feel to be blunt betrayed. No one in our area believes that a five plex or

1:09:47a 12 plex will be gentle or barely noticeable. Anything so large is absurd to make that conclusion.

1:09:55So I also stayed another limitation. The missing middle mentioned in the proposal suggests this

1:09:59work will support the city's housing affordability strategy. However staff do not promise that in

1:10:05the documents far as I have read. You should not assume that five plus intensification will actually

1:10:11solve another very significant problem. None of us understand the urgency to denigrate existing

1:10:17neighborhoods whether for purpose-built student housing or for large multi-unit buildings that

1:10:22are incompatible with established low density residential areas. In fact forcing five and up

1:10:28to 12 unit buildings or dwellings I'm sorry the terminology here I keep tripping over.

1:10:39In fact forcing those five and 12 plexes to be shoehorn between existing homes seems exactly

1:10:44counterintuitive to us. Why isn't vacant service land the target? Why not intensification corridors

1:10:51or the RL3 medium density zones which considering the proposed density of these new buildings would

1:10:57seem to be a better fit. We also don't understand why consulting with residents waits until after

1:11:03staff have already made up their minds to make a recommendation to counsel and effectively against

1:11:09the neighborhood. To be clear our goal is not to refuse sorry was this a count? I'm sorry yes okay.

1:11:18Our goal is not to refuse any kind and all development but to ensure what happens is visually

1:11:23and practically compatible as the official plan defines this term. To summarize first five plus

1:11:30is not the whole story. Second our experience the real world implicate intensification has left us

1:11:35very frustrated and third the whole premise of intensification done as proposed leaves us and

1:11:41we hope you with many important questions to accept or approve. Perfect timing right on the mark well

1:11:49done. Do we have any questions for the delegation? I don't see any second any questions so thank you

1:11:56very much for your thoughts on this. Okay so we do have a staff recommendation in the report

1:12:04but we also know that we have a potential resolution another potential motion that is contrary to the

1:12:13motion in the report. So I think what we'll do is if we have any questions of staff first and then

1:12:19we'll ask whether there's any interest in putting that first that staff recommendation on the floor.

1:12:25So in terms of questions of staff I have councillor Allt, councillor Downer, Mayor Guthrie.

1:12:31Thank you very much chair Caron. Through you through you to staff and it's two questions I think

1:12:40they are quite simple one of them might be perceived as rhetorical but it's not.

1:12:47Reference was made to water servicing capacity and I want to take the servicing out of there and

1:12:54just address water capacity. I have concerns for water usage and the limits that we have on water

1:13:02and how this might affect such areas as Plurimulti and other greenfield developments that are

1:13:09currently proposed. I'm very concerned that as we increase density and increase water usage in the

1:13:17targeted areas that we are actually diminishing our ability to extend to the areas that we have

1:13:23accepted or developed and if staff could answer that I'd appreciate it. Through the chair to the

1:13:33councillor so with the changes that have come about to increase three units as a right and the four

1:13:41units of right and some of the changes that the province made with our Official Plan Amendment

1:13:44number 80 we are undertaking our water supply analysis again we're bringing forward policies

1:13:50they use it or lose it policies I think we've talked about it a couple times it's coming

1:13:56but we are going to be tracking our water supply very closely and ensuring that we have a very good

1:14:05idea of exactly how much we have left and when we need to do potential upgrades to systems we have

1:14:10we need to potentially look at new wells or other sources and use it or lose it so

1:14:17there is a limited time and you know as we said with even with ADUs or with individual streets

1:14:23not all sites can have five units not all sites can have an even 180 U if you are on one of those

1:14:31streets with a three-quarter inch water main it will reach capacity at a point and we've been

1:14:38sharing that as much as we can that it cannot go everywhere and we'll continue to monitor that as

1:14:43we go forward. Thank you very much it unfortunately it raises another question for me please don't

1:14:50perceive this as rhetorical either but through your words what I heard and please correct me if

1:14:58I'm wrong that this whole suggestion could actually be academic based on our water capacity in other

1:15:06words we could be in a position where whether we approve this or not it becomes moot because we

1:15:14just can't achieve it is that correct am I reading that right? Through the chair to counselor so

1:15:23maybe a nuance to that is that over time we could have capacity issues but certainly right now if

1:15:30the objective is to get housing in the ground as quickly as possible we'll take a look at it and

1:15:35consider it and we'll monitor our water supplies so there might be a time limit when we have capacity

1:15:39issues but right now we know we have capacity in the system individual streets may not but we do

1:15:46have capacity in the system right now and that's why we're doing the use it or lose it policies as

1:15:51well but for right now it's not a currently an issue today. And I do appreciate the use it or

1:15:57lose it I wanted to clear on that the question that really I don't want to be perceived as rhetorical

1:16:03I think it's very important and the delegate brought this up in one sense we're really focusing on

1:16:10our one and our two zoning here and my question is if we are why do we have zoning at all

1:16:17because we're going beyond our one and our two in this proposal are we not? Through chair Caron to

1:16:27Councillor Alde um you know I think the the the foundation of this work is that you know cities

1:16:38like Guelph um the majority um of our zoning like RL1, RL2 are single detached lots and there are

1:16:46opportunities that are available you know you know 70 percent um are zoned RL1 and RL2 possibly 80

1:16:54percent so there's opportunities there that we need to be exploring given the again as I mentioned

1:17:01in the presentation the limited amount of tools that we have to bring on um more housing supply

1:17:09in our city there's only so many places that increased housing supply can go and this is one

1:17:14one area that we can continue to look at so zoning still continues to be important and it's sort of a

1:17:23tiered kind of approach to zoning so we're looking at opportunities that may exist in RL1 and RL2

1:17:28areas for a limited amount of intention the intensification to occur. Thank you very much and I

1:17:37guess through chair Caron to you again then the question then becomes how broadly do we interpret

1:17:46limited as well and I see the map but the map in some sense the devil is in the detail um what do

1:17:53we mean by limited is my question uh through chair Caron to councillor alts so again that would be part

1:18:04of the work and the further should this um work um be advanced that would be part of the conversation

1:18:11that would be um had is what does limited mean what does you know what do what do the communities

1:18:18think about limited and and again it also speaks to the constraints though of of the properties

1:18:24and that's why some you know we did a limited scoped review going from four units to the potential

1:18:31for what could be possible for five or more but more of that scoping would need to be done through

1:18:37further exploration and further analysis. Thank you very much. Okay on the speaker's list I have

1:18:45councillor Downer, Mayor Guthrie, councillor Goller and councillor Gibson. Thank you it's

1:18:51through you Madam Chair um so I just want to confirm again that um there hasn't been no you'd

1:18:58say extremely limited uptake in the four units that there has been zero uptake is that what that

1:19:04means there's been some inquiries but through chair Caron to you uh councillor Downer that's

1:19:12correct there's been nothing the other thing too that if we decide uh not to move forward at this time

1:19:19does that impact our half um funding and can that be used elsewhere if we don't use it here

1:19:29through chair Caron to councillor Downer uh so this effectively this report effectively fulfills our

1:19:33our housing accelerator fund commitment and it could it would not risk um further funds that

1:19:41may be available to us and it could the amount could be reallocated to other housing half initiatives.

1:19:47Okay thank you. Um Mayor Guthrie. Thank you very much Madam Chair and through you.

1:19:56Um and and I think this is a pretty healthy uh discussion I think I think we were all sitting

1:20:02here two or three years ago I think it would maybe even be a little bit different but I think I

1:20:08think it's uh it's timely now um my question is did you at all parcel out the ability for the lands

1:20:21on sort of like like corner lots that that corner onto an arterial road or corner onto

1:20:32um a collector road where um you know I don't want to speak to like Gordon Street as an example

1:20:41because that's an intensification corridor and we all understand that but were there other areas in

1:20:47the city that that you looked at that weren't embedded you know 15 20 30 houses deep into an

1:20:55established neighborhood um and instead you looked at sort of these other corner lot sort of abilities

1:21:03and if not is direction for continuing to look at this is it allowed to be scoped to just something

1:21:15like that so still the same criteria you know bus transit coverage water coverage infrastructure

1:21:24etc um but limit the scope would be be able to give that type of direction to see how that could

1:21:32come back or do you think it would be so limited in numbers that it's just not worth it through you

1:21:42chair karantam er got three that is sort of the next step um these are discussions we have had

1:21:48we have not scoped it to that extent um to date um it would it would be what we would consider

1:21:56moving forward and it it has been discussions that we considered but we we wanted to get

1:22:02direction from council before because site and lot characteristics are one of the principal barriers

1:22:08that we would see or the other principal boundaries where we would we would we would set yeah okay um

1:22:16so in the through you madam chair so in the map that you've already created for us with the filters

1:22:22in place um is it easily is it easily parceled out the corner lots throughout the city is that

1:22:31something that can be can be done um because it's not like you'd be having to add more I think you've

1:22:38done that work you would just be eliminating sort of everything that's embedded inside these already

1:22:45built up subdivisions and neighborhoods you'd only be focusing on the ones that would be as I said

1:22:52collector arterial um you know main roads through you um council chair karantam er got three yes we

1:23:04could that would be difficult to parcel out okay thank you so much madam chair thank you staff

1:23:11that's all my questions for now I appreciate it okay councillor Goller you're up next and then

1:23:16councillor gibson um thank you three chair karantam to staff um first of all thank you for this report

1:23:23and thank you for doing the work to explore these um gentle densification um one of the the points

1:23:31that delegate made um is that we really have not seen the impact of the of the four units so could

1:23:37you let me know will there be a reporting as the four units on the lot get built when might we see

1:23:44those the feedback of what that the impact is to our community through chair karantam

1:23:55councillor Goller um yes we can provide reporting through our annual growth management and affordable

1:24:01housing report um and um I would just point out to that um council also um on five normandy and seven

1:24:10east you there there could be potential for four plexus on that as well perfect perfect um and if

1:24:17council today chooses to hold off uh and and say we give direction to take no further action

1:24:23um would there be an opportunity for us to come back say in a year or two years once we've seen

1:24:28some of the four units and say you know we we gave direction to maybe stop doing this work

1:24:34can we now continue it because we you know we like what we've seen with the four units per lot

1:24:42through the chair to councillor Goller um so I think there isn't it should that be the direction

1:24:48of council to bring it back um uh beyond 2026 of course that's up to council um I think where

1:24:57in terms of there would then need to be a budget consideration for that given that this is tied

1:25:01this work is tied and there's funding allocated through the housing accelerator fund okay okay

1:25:07and and if we gave direction to to not proceed tonight uh you know that would free up some funding

1:25:14where would that funding possibly go if not to do this work um through chair uh to councillor Goller

1:25:26so that would be something that would need to be discussed and internally in terms of how it could

1:25:30be reallocated through the housing accelerator fund initiatives that currently exist in our action

1:25:35plan okay and just so that I understand would that be a staff the operational decision or would

1:25:40something need to come back to council uh through the chair to councillor Goller at this point it

1:25:47it would be as it has been an internal uh discussion um however uh through through the

1:25:57chair I just maybe jump in here too um as budgets change so if if the um if if the money is reallocated

1:26:06within the the eight initiatives that were already approved um as the budget changes those

1:26:12adjustments come through the quarterly variance reports and so council does see them in terms of

1:26:17at the point in time when the budget is changing um if there are brand new initiatives or or pieces

1:26:24of initiatives like you've seen last month with with the property files specifically those are

1:26:29coming um to council in uh in kind of peace decisions so there there are um many ways in

1:26:36which we're navigating these projects given the varied nature of them um but uh council is

1:26:42informed um at certain points with decisions okay okay thank you thank you very much for the work

1:26:48you're doing on this thank you chair uh councillor Gibson up next thank you for your check karan um

1:26:54thanks to staff it was a intriguing read I appreciate the report I I had a question as I was

1:26:59reading the report I just I kept on coming back to lot size so when you think about five units on

1:27:04uh on a property I thought to myself where in the world would this fit in my ward like I don't

1:27:08know where this would fit and then sure enough I see the map and that it doesn't it doesn't fit

1:27:11just simply because we're already pretty compact out here but my question is um I just want to talk

1:27:16about lot characteristics so what makes a lot uh an attractive or even a possibility for something

1:27:22like this can you give me like a standard characteristic like is it are we talking about

1:27:2755 frontage you know 150 depth are we talking like I know in in ward one anyway if you get a 50

1:27:35foot wide frontage in a 150 and 120 depth that's a pretty big lot but like what are the lot

1:27:40characteristics for what would be like a a four or five unit I can only assume it's going to be

1:27:47probably 50 wide 75 feet wide and probably 150 feet deep is that is that a wrong estimate do you

1:27:54guys have any sorry I shouldn't say guys do you have any sort of large characteristics for thoughts

1:28:00that are lots that are sort of ideal um through chair Caron to councillor Gibson we did have

1:28:09discussions on on this very matter and in terms of the preliminary review we did a quick scan of

1:28:15where units were existing with where buildings were existing with sort of five plus units

1:28:22and and we can't we had a range we looked at and we came up with a a minimum size of 560 now that is

1:28:30quite preliminary square meters and that is quite preliminary we didn't do detailed review of of

1:28:36length and depth we took the minimum depth because that eliminated so many lots but that is something

1:28:44that we would really look at building typologies and what fits on a lot and and and how that's

1:28:50configured so I'm just thinking about that in the context of some of the properties that I can

1:28:55picture I'm correct if I'm wrong but are some semi-detached properties or even town home properties

1:29:03in Guelph are some of them 18 feet wide and a hundred and is it 18 is the minimum and then a

1:29:09hundred and 110 feet deep um through uh you through um uh chair Caron to councillor Gibson yes

1:29:23we believe it's 18 feet six meters six meters so just to just to put things in context I'm not

1:29:28being smart here but to put things in context currently right now in the east end you said 500

1:29:33some meter property 500 some square meter property would be a candidate for a four or five unit

1:29:40adu property currently that is the density that exists in the east end we've got 18 foot wide

1:29:45properties with 100 feet deep you can fit five houses on one of these lots so um I'm less sympathetic

1:29:51when it comes to the like the density argument from some of these neighborhoods these neighborhoods

1:29:56are extremely low density huge properties with one single house on it if we wanted to really

1:30:02capitalize on um intensification uh this gets back to the age-old argument of do we only intensify

1:30:09new new builds and new greenfield sites or do we actually try and intensify some of our

1:30:14mature properties that's my comment now I again I'm not bringing this back to drive waste because

1:30:20we had this argument for years on this council but what I do want to say is this somewhere in the

1:30:24report can you help me understand if I was to go with a four unit property from a one unit

1:30:31property with three parking spaces to a four unit property am I obligated to provide a parking

1:30:36space for each unit I think I know the answer but could you just help me understand through

1:30:49chair crown to councillor Gibson so sorry can you just clarify for me are you are you asking about

1:30:54no problem four units total primary plus three yes i buy a i buy a property and I decide i'm

1:31:04going to go for it and I'm going to take that original house down and build a four five units

1:31:09on the one lot am I obligated to provide parking uh for all four units a single parking spot for all

1:31:16four or even for all five units so in the circumstance uh through you chair crown to

1:31:21councillor Gibson throw so in this situation of four units total um on a property you would need

1:31:29three parking spots um because we have currently if it was five units you would need five parking

1:31:36spots okay in that situation and so this is where I will align with my fellow counselors I I'm I'm

1:31:43less sympathetic on the density because when we brought density forward a years ago and needing

1:31:48more parking spaces there wasn't a lot of sympathy but I am sympathetic to the fact that you are

1:31:54having to like if we go to five we're having to provide a parking spot on each lot for every

1:31:59single unit and I can appreciate how chaotic that would look like and the chaos that that would bring

1:32:05so I just wanted again I want to separate my sympathies but I also want to acknowledge that

1:32:12creating this kind of parking for me is just is too much too much intensity uh for for five units

1:32:19and although I know I bled in some of my comments there councillor crown I apologize but I do appreciate

1:32:24staff answer my questions okay great thanks we have one more question and then I think we'll

1:32:31start to look for a motion to to lay on the floor uh councillor downer thank you so um I was just

1:32:38thinking about the affordability thing and and what we monitor I mean because this is under that

1:32:44that envelope from the you know trying to achieve and the outcome is affordable housing uh correct

1:32:51more supply more affordable housing so as we get more supply so what we're seeing what we've seen

1:32:58and what we're seeing with the units that have been what we heard described earlier that they're not

1:33:06particularly affordable so like in in terms of what you presented us in our previous report so

1:33:13these rooms are renting for a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a piece I know councillor

1:33:18goller and I were looking at one the other day that was a four bedroom unit in one of these new

1:33:23you know semis and whatnot that was five thousand uh dollars first and and geared to students so we're

1:33:30not seeing it as what we're achieving is not affordable units but so far what I can see when

1:33:37we've done some of these some of the ones the 80s in the basements maybe I don't know but that's just

1:33:42it are we monitoring the the rents that are being charged for all these new units that were

1:33:49supplying now I understand that a bigger supply may bring down the rents but are we even monitoring

1:33:55what the units are all renting for um uh in the new units that we're providing not that it's wrong

1:34:04or bad I mean the three units are really we've had a really good uptake in the three units

1:34:09excellent there seems to and actually somebody told me who was a builder who said

1:34:13three units is a sweet spot for it not so much and I'm not quite sure why but

1:34:21so do we monitor that can we ever monitor that because if if we've got this funding to achieve

1:34:28affordable housing um how are we demonstrating that and how how can we get that monitoring on an

1:34:36annual basis as well uh through chair crown to councillor downer so at this point we are not able

1:34:45to um collect information or monitor um what ad use are rented for okay so we really have no

1:34:53way of monitoring whether the extra supply is bringing down the costs of rent we know that

1:35:00there's just more supply which is it's good we're getting more students more people living in the

1:35:05city and you know it's more difficult to purchase but we really don't know what these rents are

1:35:10and whether they ever come close to that so that um is there any and we don't have an ability to do

1:35:17that to follow up and once these permits have come in to see what they're renting for to collect

1:35:24that data uh through chair crown to councillor downer at this point no we do not except for the

1:35:31ones that we are incenting through our um CIP program okay okay great thanks thanks is there

1:35:41anyone who has questions of staff um I have two quick questions um if a property could accommodate

1:35:50a five or a six or a 12 plex today uh and this doesn't pass and doesn't move forward those property

1:35:57owners have other options do they not uh zoning amendment for example uh yes chair crown that is

1:36:08correct they can come through an individual zoning amendment okay um and then I think what we heard

1:36:13from the delegate is that um it isn't just a matter of one property um converting to four units or

1:36:20five units it's this it's it's one property being severed and then each of those severed properties

1:36:25becoming four units and within each of those four units three or four bedrooms per unit and that um

1:36:32in today's affordability crisis what we're seeing uh in the community is two persons per bedroom so

1:36:41potentially one single family four bedroom home severed turned into a four plex and then four

1:36:48bedrooms and two persons per bedroom we could take a single family lot and it could turn into 72

1:36:54bedroom 72 persons and so that's where the my question is about water and servicing is uh whether

1:37:06or not we're calculating our ability to service uh these severances and these these this densification

1:37:14with the number of people versus the number of units and I guess without any uptake on four plex

1:37:22is being built we really don't have a way of quantifying the the water impact at this time

1:37:27until they start getting built is that is that an accurate description of our current data collection

1:37:35ability uh council crown so we do do um capacity analysis for the sites that commit to determine

1:37:45if we have capacity on the street and in the system for individual development so that is looked at

1:37:50um prior to building permit being granted so we are looking at that individually okay great thanks

1:37:58very much so um without further questions I think it's up to the will of council at this point we

1:38:02do have a staff recommendation if there isn't any appetite for putting the staff recommendation

1:38:07on the floor uh then we do have an alternate um motion that counselor downer is prepared so

1:38:13is anyone willing to move the staff recommendation uh and uh mayor guthrie moving the staff

1:38:21staff recommendation and uh any seconder for that I don't see a seconder so I'm going to

1:38:29call in counselor oh last minute hand up counselor gibson you're seconding the staff recommendation

1:38:35okay so um as the mover um mayor guthrie will speak to that and then we'll have a commentary

1:38:42from anybody who wants to speak to the staff recommendations mayor guthrie thank you chair

1:38:50and to council I appreciate that um so I'd like to immediately table an amendment um and then you

1:38:58know it's kind of a yes or no move forward or not um and I did send it to you chair and to clerks

1:39:05and I have no idea if there's a seconder at all so uh we'll see but I I I I well maybe if we could

1:39:17just have my amendment put up on the screen I won't get into it too much I'll just read it and

1:39:24I'll see if there's a seconder and I won't call any further if there's no seconder but it is it

1:39:30aligned you could read that while clerks is preparing it for the screen that would be oh

1:39:33sure yeah no problem it is so it's it didn't I I think I put it in the right spot and maybe maybe

1:39:44staff could help me if I did it wrong but um it's it's under a uh which is refine the criteria used

1:39:52to assess suitability for increased residential and then here's the amendment that would only apply

1:39:58to corner lots that are adjacent to arterial and or collector roads and so like I'm trying to I'm

1:40:07trying to give a little bit on the ability to get more housing built I'm also balancing recognizing

1:40:15that I understand that even with the even what um the delegates said and what we've heard from

1:40:20others like I want to recognize that too these sort of you know in the deep part of these neighborhoods

1:40:28and subdivisions and these built up areas I get the angst like I I understand that

1:40:34but I'm just trying to see if there's something along these arterial or collector roads where we

1:40:38could have permissions for those types of things to to have maybe more housing get built I'll stop

1:40:45there because it's not up on the screen yet I don't I don't want and they don't I don't have a

1:40:48seconder so I'll stop there just to respect the process yeah let's wait until we can read it on

1:40:54the screen yeah it's on its way and then we'll see if there's interest from a seconder so there it

1:41:14is everybody under a that would only apply to corner lots that are adjacent to arterial and

1:41:19or collector roads so you know I have no idea if that's 20 in the city or 50 or 100 I have no idea

1:41:27but I think I think that that would be more balanced to see about some more density without you

1:41:35know really rocking the boat for for things that the these existing neighborhoods have been bringing

1:41:43to our attention and and I would imagine that there's more review that would go even further a

1:41:49little bit around those corner lots whether it makes sense or not from staff if we were to give

1:41:54this direction so yeah you're in the room chair you'll see are you or I don't know if there's a

1:41:59seconder let's see if there's a seconder a councillor Goller is seconding that

1:42:06so discussion just on the amendment councillor Goller then councillor gibson then councillor Allt

1:42:11councillor hauser thank you and through you checker on I would like to ask staff on under thoughts

1:42:17on this whether you think that the the volume of work that is required may be worthwhile given that

1:42:26if it only applies to corner lots that are adjacent to unarterial or collectors

1:42:32plus all the other restrictions that would go on do you think it would be a viable

1:42:39number of lots to to warrant the amount of work that would be required

1:42:46through chair chronic health or galler I think it is it is a viable option and it provides a balance

1:42:53between trying to become more housing ready and providing a bit more of a flexible policy

1:43:00environment and an ability to do that work at this point I don't know how many

1:43:08units or parcels it would highlight through that work and if we go down this road to

1:43:16explore allowing the five to twelve units on those very specific lots and then we find out that

1:43:23you know in a couple years it does work would there be an opportunity to expand it at that point

1:43:29down the road through chair chron to councillor Goller yes there would be an opportunity to do that

1:43:38okay if I make make comments chair chron well thank you to staff for the quick answers I think that

1:43:47as Mayor Guthrie mentioned this would be an opportunity to get some more much needed housing

1:43:51stock respecting the needs of neighborhoods and this would really narrow it down to more accessible

1:44:00parts of the city that would be on transit routes so yeah I would be happy to see this move forward

1:44:06so that we can continue to advance the city's response to the housing crisis that we're experiencing

1:44:13thank you okay we have councillor Gibson alt and then hauser thank you chair chron

1:44:21councillor Goller asked my question was mainly around what is the opportunity here like well

1:44:25how many how many lots would this unlock but I think that would have to wait on staff to get

1:44:28back to us with that so thank you councillor Allt did you know I didn't was that a ditto okay councillor

1:44:43hauser um I just had a question about oh sorry through the chair to the staff um question about

1:44:51like corner lots and I know that these um have minimal setbacks so corner lots and visibility and

1:44:58sightlines I'm just concerned about those large structures blocking visibility on arterial roads

1:45:04and corners I don't know if you can speak to that at all yeah through the chair to the councillor

1:45:11so the minimum setbacks and including daylighting triangles we would be maintaining that in the

1:45:16zoning they typically are larger lots as a whole but we would be absolutely maintaining those

1:45:21daylighting triangles for for safety reasons thank you and councillor downer uh so I won't be

1:45:29supporting the amendment um I think I would caution council I don't think they realize

1:45:36what's in arterial and what collectors how many there are in the city and if you look at that

1:45:40you know I just know on my ward you look at streets like water harvard court right there would be

1:45:45nisca there would be starwood there would be all of these roads that you don't realize that a

1:45:50collector and arterial which we sort of discovered through the traffic calming process that there

1:45:55are more streets that are identified as arterial and collector that you actually think of so um

1:46:02and I think if we're going to stop it we should just stop it and um and take our time with the

1:46:09four plexus and see how they're working out before we start heading down the road to five I have more

1:46:14comments but I still prefer the emotion that I hope to bring forward later if this uh fails thank you

1:46:21okay speaking just to the amendment any further comments um

1:46:26mayor mayor guthrie second time oh thank you just as the mover just to wrap up uh just before the vote

1:46:32uh councillor Caron um I I just wanted to say that uh you know this isn't direction to go and do

1:46:41this is direction to investigate further it's like we're filtering we're filled you know is it

1:46:45near a bus route is there water supply is it and what now corner lots it gets filtering down it's

1:46:52not to actually action it so I think uh some of the um some of the commentary uh is I think valid

1:47:01from my colleagues but but this is exactly why we would send staff away to filter down a little

1:47:08bit more and then and then let that come back and then we can we can say oh don't not water street

1:47:13or not Harvard or what I mean we can we can see what's available to me not seeing what's available

1:47:20I don't think would would be appropriate um I I just want to be more informed by seeing what's

1:47:26available in this type of a situation but that did thank you for letting me just to speak one more

1:47:32time as the mover I appreciate it yep no worries and in the meantime we've had a question from

1:47:36councillor Chew I threw you madam chair uh just to staff like I can I kind of foresee this as maybe

1:47:45like a pilot so we can really ground truth like a very specific and unique typology um

1:47:53the can you kind of foresee us doing this with the direction that mayor Guthrie has

1:48:01tabled because I I do think like we have a new manager of urban design and I think there

1:48:08there could be a lot of opportunities to enhance the four units work so we can actually look at

1:48:15the uh this is the nuances beyond just lot size configuration because I feel like that's a lot of

1:48:22what's the map has been prefaced on so I just want to see if like you could entertain more modeling

1:48:31more more in depth look if we just gave you this one configuration which mayor Guthrie is tabled

1:48:43through the chair to the counselor so if if that is the direction of council tonight we'll

1:48:47follow it I guess that's the the answer to the first part of the question um urban design is

1:48:52not applicable if it was five units or six units or seven units or eight units or nine units or

1:48:57ten units or 50 units so that is been removed from a lot of our processes we can look at

1:49:05massing if it's over 10 units but anything under 10 units we cannot review anymore as a result of

1:49:11provincial changes and just to follow up through you madam chair I guess like for me I'm not so

1:49:21concerned about looking at architectural treatment and urban design standards it's more so can you

1:49:27provide more accurate precedence based off of what we see in Guelph because I don't I think the context

1:49:36is very important for us to e politicize some of these conversations because I do think there are

1:49:42applicable lots out there that can merit homeowners um transforming their properties however I do get

1:49:49the concerns with parking especially in my end of town um and I think there's a lot of concerns with

1:49:57the with um the rental uh uptake within the university population I think those are all fair

1:50:05but I do think we have a very unique stream block pattern in the city and there are very

1:50:11unique configurations that could warrant uh some of this work being considered so for me it's not

1:50:18like I understand you can't do architectural treatment you can't do landscape uh uh treatment

1:50:24you can't apply those policies but I think we can provide better visualization for people and

1:50:31I'm just wondering if there's an appetite and a willingness to do that type of work

1:50:43through the chair to the counselor so um we can take a look at it if we if this motion moves forward

1:50:49and on the corner lots and then we certainly would bring back examples of what it looked like we did

1:50:54that with the four units and where how they'd be stacked and where they would be but we are limited

1:50:58in our ability to do other items and require other items yeah and I would just end this by saying

1:51:05it wouldn't hurt I think it could enhance the current four units uh work that has already been

1:51:12done just so we have more examples that are a product of Guelph rather than a product of

1:51:19Toronto or barrier or other places because I think that's in my opinion that's where the

1:51:24conversation gets diluted a lot of times and so I appreciate what Mayor Guthrie has put forward

1:51:30Any further questions or comments? I do have some comments on on the amendment I won't be

1:51:38supporting the amendment um as we said if if there are lots corner lots on arterial and

1:51:43collector roads there's another way to develop them and that's a zoning amendment that what's on

1:51:48the table today is anywhere from five to 12 units per lot and we took a significant leap when we

1:51:55went from three units as of right to four units as of right and if we're now talking five to 12

1:52:01units as of right on corners or arterials those property owners can pursue a zoning amendment

1:52:07to a higher zoning category that would kick in a lot of other different controls like lighting and

1:52:14and grading and and some other studies that would be required under a zoning amendment so

1:52:20I won't be supporting the the amendment that's on the floor um so we'll call a vote on the amendment

1:52:25could we have the amendment back on the screen just as one last flash before we vote on the

1:52:31amendment okay so is there anyone opposed to the amendment? Councillor Downer, Councillor Allt,

1:52:44Councillor Caiten, Councillor Billings and Councillor Curran so that is six that is five

1:52:52so the amendment carries okay so we're back to the main motion are there any additional

1:52:58questions or comments on the main motion? Councillor Downer, yes I hope this motion does

1:53:06the main motion does not pass I think um well Councillor Curran has just mentioned it I hope

1:53:12we have got an opportunity to vote on the other one of stopping this for now we've got as we've

1:53:18said they've gone from three units and that took two public that went through two public

1:53:23meetings and first time we did the three units they were just the ADUs who maxed out two bedrooms

1:53:29and when it came back with the four units it went up to three bedrooms that were allowed so we've

1:53:34done all that in a very short period of time um we haven't really had time to monitor um whether

1:53:41the the three units and the four units certainly we're not sure whether we're we're leading to

1:53:47affordability or not certainly we are developing more units and there does seem to be a significant

1:53:53uptake in ADUs which is is good and a lot of homeowners that we've heard earlier are doing

1:53:59that as well so I I think um I I would like to have us just pause and monitor for now really

1:54:09that's basically the bottom line I don't know that we're we're particularly getting the outcomes that

1:54:15we want and I I would like to thank staff for the work that they've done on this so far and to

1:54:21bring it to us to this point so we can decide whether we want to move forward or not personally at

1:54:28full disclosure I live across from a nine plex in the old university neighborhood contrary to what

1:54:34councillor Gibson says there's a lot of density in parts because and behind that is a 24 plex

1:54:40and these were converted buildings the one across from me was from a church

1:54:44and there's lots of green space around it and and the parking is is very adequate and and it is not

1:54:50a problem so I that's sort of not the issue it's just how we're going about these units now and

1:54:55this how we need to really monitor this in a much better way thanks councillor Dyer any any

1:55:03further comments uh councillor chun through you madam chair um I would just say like I agree

1:55:11in whole to what councillor um downer has put forward and this is in and part of

1:55:17listening to my constituents I don't think we're quite there yet in the in our conversation as a

1:55:24city I would just say though if we don't take some ownership in this conversation at any point

1:55:31we're going to see more escalations to all t and we're going to see more of those nine plexes

1:55:37that are going to be put forward because OLT has allowed that to allow those uh typologies to be

1:55:44put forward and I think there's an opportunity to help facilitate these conversations in a more

1:55:48wholesome way so it stays local um but again like I I I don't think there's appetite in the room at

1:55:55the moment but I just hope that in the future that we can uh be able to ground truth some of these

1:56:01community conversations in a way that helps demystify some of the fears that some people have

1:56:08and address the pertinent issues like traffic and parking which are serious considerations that my

1:56:14part of town needs some uh uh answers rectified for so just some comments that I'd have thanks

1:56:23councillor chun um mayor guthrie thank you chair and through you um I was just wondering through

1:56:30to staff and I just I I do want to maybe try to continue to balance the conversation with my

1:56:36colleagues and and into the public too on this um can we just maybe not would you be okay by us

1:56:45not approving B in the motion which is for you to actually prepare official plan zoning amendments

1:56:53and all the necessary implementation work you know we just passed the amendment about you know

1:57:00going and refining going and investigating more about these corner lots ideas maybe it would be

1:57:06better for us just to get that information back before you do all the other heavy lifting on

1:57:13official plan amendments and all zoning amendment wording to actually implement and instead bring

1:57:19it back just as another checkpoint before we move to implementation at all and that might allow all

1:57:25of us to have a little bit of breathing room on this to get another kick at the can and then I would

1:57:31also ask our staff if um see uh which is to report back in q4 2026 um could you know be a part of

1:57:42just sort of the the reporting but again not not pushing towards implementation it's just

1:57:48more information for us to come forward would staff be comfortable with with uh with us not

1:57:55voting on B and uh and C is more just relevant to bringing back information uh through chair

1:58:04chron to margherita three uh yes staff would be comfortable with um okay that type of checkpoint

1:58:09okay gary would you like those clauses separated then yeah so chair that's where I was going I was

1:58:14just saying if we want to all be a bit more comfortable some of us some of us not and I

1:58:18appreciate that um why don't we just separate them madam chair and uh that way you know even

1:58:24myself I can vote against B and we don't have to get have staff do all that work and we can um

1:58:33yeah we can maybe still keep C in there and then we if it's the will of council on the amended

1:58:38main motion then so that way there's no no pressure we still have one extra checkpoint

1:58:42okay thank you very much okay uh councillor goller question um through your chair um seen us and

1:58:50mayor got through us the mover if I could ask the clerks would it be possible for just for us to

1:58:55just remove B so that only A and C have been moved hold on I'll defer to the clerks on that

1:59:04question since the motion is on the floor and it is a three-part motion through three separate

1:59:09motions through you chair Caron um council can vote on distinct clauses of motions individually

1:59:16but A B and C are not distinct clauses they're effectively sub-elements of the one clause so I

1:59:21would say if if council's desire is to not approve B then an amendment to remove it would be the most

1:59:27appropriate way to do that's what I'm thinking as well because it is clause one uh so we would need

1:59:32an amendment to remove B in that case I would like to move an amendment to remove clause B

1:59:38and we have a seconder we have count that we have mayor guthrie seconding that

1:59:43all right is there any commentary or questions on the amendment to remove clause B

1:59:47we don't need that put up on the screen everyone understands what the amendment is do we have

1:59:52any objections to the amendment anyone against the amendment to remove clause B okay seeing number

1:59:59one now we have an amended motion which is uh the amended clause A and uh and one C so now we

2:00:10are voting on that doubly amended motion any further comments um point of order uh chair Caron

2:00:18yes councillor old have the amended motion on screen sure thank you very well we'll give uh we'll give

2:00:24our clerks uh just a few seconds to take off that clause B there it is the new B is the old C

2:00:32and uh and I won't be voting in favor of this one either for me timing is everything we are

2:00:38less than a year from the time council approved for units as of right and we just have not had the

2:00:45time to get the take up and the impact data that we need to move forward on this if this was a year

2:00:51from now I might actually be supportive because at least we'd have some data to collect as we go

2:00:56through this exercise but we haven't even had four units as of right for a full year at this time so

2:01:03so I'll be I'll be voting against this motion and and hoping that we can put an alternate

2:01:07motion on the floor I will call the vote on this motion that's on the screen is there anyone against

2:01:13this motion so we have councillor downer councillor Allt councillor caton councillor billings

2:01:20councillor caron so that again is five and the motion carries so that is the end of our agenda

2:01:31tonight we have some bylaws can I have a mover for the bylaws and a seconder for the bylaws

2:01:38that bylaws 2025

2:01:41uh dash 21175 2025 dash 21178

2:01:48to 2005 21181 and 2025 21183 be approved section subject to section 284.114 of the municipal act

2:02:00moved by councillor Richardson and seconded by councillor Gibson is there anyone against moving

2:02:05the bylaws seeing none the bylaws are hereby passed and we are on to any announcements from the

2:02:14mayor uh mayor Guthrie I didn't receive any from you I'm you're you're shaking your head so we have

2:02:19no announcements so we need a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn councillor hauser seconded by

2:02:24councillor Richardson anyone against adjournment we are adjourned