Council Planning

13:37All right, good afternoon everybody.

13:39It is just after two o'clock.

13:41It is Tuesday, June the ninth, 2026.

13:44It's our planning meeting.

13:46So thank you very much for joining.

13:49Right off the top, if you can stand please,

13:52if you're able, as we recognize our national anthem.

15:27All right, thank you.

15:28And just as we continue to move forward in the agenda,

15:31just a moment of silent reflection please.

15:44Great, thanks everyone.

15:45And now our territorial acknowledgement.

15:47As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege

15:50to live and work here in Guelph, a city that's

15:53built over rigid indigenous histories.

15:55As guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility

15:58to care for this land, the people who live here today,

16:01and the generations to come.

16:03If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

16:06we should take pause and make those decisions

16:08with intention and gratitude.

16:10This place we call Guelph has served

16:13as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples

16:16over time, but more specifically, the Aniwaterok

16:18and the Holon of Shoney.

16:20This land is held as the treaty lands and territory

16:23with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

16:26And Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldiman track

16:28and is part of a long established traditional hunting

16:30grounds for the six nations of the Grand River.

16:34Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people

16:36who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

16:42Thanks everyone and disclosure of pecuniary interest

16:45for general nature thereof,

16:47for any of the items in front of us today.

16:50I don't hear or see anybody,

16:53so consider that matter closed.

16:56And I did get regrets from Councillor Klossin

17:00and I got maybe a little about an hour or so delay

17:04from Councillor Gibson, okay?

17:07But official regrets from Klossin.

17:11Right off the start, we have a consent agenda

17:14with a few items that I'll just read.

17:18Actually just one, it's McTag Street.

17:21Yeah, 65 McTag Street.

17:23It's a notice of intention to designate.

17:27It's the only one that's there for consent

17:33with someone be willing to move.

17:34Yep, Koran and Downer, thank you.

17:38And is there anything on that before I call the vote?

17:43No, okay, I'm gonna call the vote.

17:44Is there anyone against that designation?

17:48Okay, nobody, that's unanimous, thank you.

17:51Okay, and now we're just jumping right into

17:53the items for discussion.

17:56So the first one, we have a couple of delegations.

17:59This is the staff recommendation that's come back

18:03on 70 Fountain Street East,

18:05the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment.

18:09And so obviously we have the report in front of us,

18:12but we do have two delegations

18:14wanting to speak to the matter.

18:16David Gelbreth from Upp Consulting, are you here?

18:21Okay, you're standing up.

18:24I meant that pun too.

18:40Yeah, I think this is a CTV.

18:43The media's allowed here, right?

18:46Yep, that's later in our agenda.

18:50No, just kidding.

18:51Yeah, thank you.

18:53And Chris Van De Water and Renita,

18:58I'm gonna try my best.

19:00Shem Sudinavam, did I say that right?

19:04Okay, are you guys all coming up at the same time?

19:08Too late, you are now.

19:10Okay, so you have no more than five minutes.

19:13I had you down as two, okay?

19:16So David, you have five minutes

19:18and then for the two of you, you have five minutes.

19:20If you wanna share the 10 or whatever, that's fine,

19:24but okay, I think we'll just go by the rule book here.

19:27We'll do five minutes and we'll do five minutes, okay?

19:29So you'll hear a chime at the four minute and 30 second mark,

19:33which is your 30 second warning

19:35that you can't get ready to get your microphone cut off

19:38at five minutes, okay?

19:39So don't let us get there

19:40because we hate it when we have to cut off the microphone,

19:42okay?

19:43And then stick around just in case

19:44there's any questions or follow up.

19:46So David, over to you.

19:48Okay, and thank you for pulling up the presentation here.

19:52Good afternoon, my name's Dave Galbraith.

19:54I'm a planner and the president of Up Consulting

19:56based out of the region of Waterloo,

19:58here today on behalf of Fitzerovia Residential Development.

20:03Next slide, please.

20:05Or is there a?

20:08Big green button, there we go.

20:12There we go.

20:13So just a bit of a refresher,

20:14the subject property 70 Fountain Street,

20:17which has frontage onto Wyndham Fountain

20:19and Farquhar Street currently has a three story office building,

20:23which is vacant.

20:24It's listed on the municipal heritage register.

20:26And then just last month,

20:28this proposal was endorsed by the heritage committee.

20:32In terms of the broader context,

20:35you can see the site again highlighted in red there,

20:38very close proximity to the Guelph Central Transit Hub,

20:43where we are city hall,

20:45and other amenities in the downtown area.

20:50In terms of the proposal itself,

20:53an official plan amendment zone change application

20:55were submitted late last year

20:57to permit a 24 story, 420 unit apartment building

21:02on the subject property.

21:04This aligns with OPA 106,

21:06which contemplated 24 stories on the site.

21:11There's vehicular parking,

21:12which is accessed both by Fountain and Farquhar Street,

21:15as well as ample bike parking on the site.

21:19So in advance of this meeting,

21:21we haven't had an opportunity to review the staff report

21:24from prepared by Canshin and her team

21:26in the planning department,

21:27and we're pleased to see a positive recommendation.

21:31Having said that, there are four items

21:33that I'd like to speak to today,

21:35with respect to the recommended implementing bylaw.

21:40I'm going to skip over the next several slides

21:42because they show the design itself,

21:44and I'll just go to slide 19.

21:48Apologies for all the clicking.

22:04So again, we are supportive of the recommendation

22:06for approval, but there are four site-specific provisions

22:10that we are requesting modification to.

22:12Firstly, item one here is the minimum retail GFA.

22:17We believe this may have been a clerical issue

22:20in the report itself.

22:21430 square meters is proposed,

22:24whereas the implementing bylaw contemplates

22:27440 square meters.

22:28So we respectfully ask that this would be included

22:31in the final approval.

22:34The second provision relates to mechanical penthouse.

22:38The staff report recommends a cap of four and a half meters,

22:42whereas the parent zoning bylaw does not set

22:44a maximum height for mechanical penthouses.

22:48Third, this relates to,

22:51third and fourth relate to bike parking standards

22:53to be clear, the required number of bike parking spaces

22:56are proposed to be included in the development,

22:59but these really relate to locational and size requirements.

23:03So the first one being that bike parking is to be provided

23:07within 25 meters of the main entrance.

23:09Given that we have three frontages here

23:12with active uses and entrances along all corridors,

23:16we are requesting that that be increased to 100 meters,

23:19which is more of a technical detail

23:22just measured from the main entrance

23:23to allow for the siting of bike parking

23:26throughout the site.

23:27And finally, the last request is with regards

23:31to stack bicycle parking width requirements.

23:34The recommendation in the report is 0.6 meters

23:38and that comes from the recently approved bike standards.

23:41And our client is requesting 0.4 meters

23:44for the width of these spaces.

23:46And that's typical of what they've included

23:48in their previous projects.

24:02I'd like to focus a bit on the rooftop mechanical.

24:06At the bottom of the screen here, you can see

24:08this is an excerpt from the zoning bylaw,

24:11which generally provides that rooftop mechanical equipment

24:14is exempt from the calculation of height.

24:18And in our experience for buildings of similar sizes

24:23in the past, the four and a half meters

24:25doesn't mirror what would be required

24:28for a building of this size.

24:30So we are requesting the removal

24:32of this site specific regulation

24:34just to allow for a mechanical room

24:37that can be appropriately sized for the development.

24:40With that, I'm available for questions

24:42or if you'd like, we could move over

24:43to Chris and Renata as well.

24:47Thank you.

24:49I think we'll go one at a time.

24:50If you don't mind, no, look, if for some reason

24:52you have an answer for what a colleague asks,

24:54then so be it and we'll go to your five minutes,

24:56but we'll stop there and let my colleagues ask any questions

25:00if there are any.

25:01So are there any questions?

25:03We'll start with Councillor Busuttil, please.

25:05And then yet Gawr after that, and then Kate as well.

25:09All right, go ahead.

25:10Thank you very much for the presentation

25:12and through the mayor, just a question

25:13about the width for the bikes.

25:17As a parent, the kids called the bike choo-choo,

25:20is there, would the four meter accommodate

25:26a family's kind of bike or an accessible tricycle,

25:31safely to get it out?

25:32Can you comment on that?

25:33Yeah, through the chair, these are more standard

25:37bike parking spaces that are vertically hung.

25:40So accessible bike parking spaces would be wider.

25:45So that's not the focus of this ask in particular.

25:48I'm not sure if Chris has, okay.

25:54Great, thank you.

25:56Sorry, Gawr and then this town ain't big enough

25:59for two Boussatils.

26:02Gawr and then Kate.

26:04Thank you, through your worship.

26:06Thank you so much for the presentation.

26:08Regarding the mechanical, in speaking with staff

26:11about the recommendation, they've let me know

26:13that there are other buildings that are being built

26:16downtown that are able to fit all of their mechanical

26:20in the 4.5 meters.

26:21And their concern is the aesthetic that,

26:24all of a sudden we might end up,

26:25and if we remove the restriction,

26:27you could end up with like an eight meter, a 12 meter.

26:30So tell us, why does the 4.5 not work for your build?

26:36I might allow Chris to speak to this first.

26:40Thank you, through your worship.

26:43So this building is 24 stories tall, it has 420 units.

26:47We have a few buildings in our portfolio of a similar size.

26:52What we've found is the equipment that you're looking

26:54to put on the roof, generally speaking,

26:57needs horizontal and vertical space for ventilation,

27:00access, servicing, those sorts of things.

27:03In our experience, we've found the sweet spot tends

27:05to be between six and six and a half meters.

27:09When going through this process,

27:11we noted in the bylaw that the height

27:13of the mechanical penthouse was exempt,

27:15so that was our general understanding.

27:19I understand staff's concerns about a,

27:21we call it four and a half meter penthouse

27:23that you may have seen in other buildings.

27:24I would suggest that that's maybe more typical

27:26of smaller buildings with fewer units.

27:29I'll speak to the design and aesthetic aspects.

27:33We care very much about, I'll call it the overall architecture

27:36and the effect that this building will have

27:38on the city skyline.

27:40We will very much work with staff

27:42through the site plan process to ensure that

27:44whatever's going on the roof is appropriately screened

27:47so that any mechanical equipment does not,

27:49I'll call it detract from the overall impression

27:52of the building.

27:54Okay, I appreciate that.

27:56Thank you, Your Worship.

27:57And as a separate note, one of the other items

28:00that you raised about the amount of commercial space

28:03on the main level, could you help me understand

28:06why that changed?

28:08We looked through the application

28:09and it was actually, that number was included

28:11in previous documents and I believe that it was also included

28:14in the public meeting.

28:15So why that changed from 440 to 430?

28:20So I do believe that was a technical error

28:23in our very first submission.

28:25We had the number incorrect and so we're just looking

28:28to rectify, I'll say match the bylaw

28:30to what's on the current set of plans

28:32that was submitted to the city.

28:34Okay, okay, so the floor plans that we saw,

28:37those were 430 not 440 commercial?

28:41Correct.

28:42Okay, okay, thank you.

28:43Thank you, Your Worship.

28:45Thank you.

28:46Kate and then Karan, please.

28:50Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

28:52So all apartments are required to have

28:54about 15% accessible apartments, correct?

29:01By code yes.

29:02Yes.

29:03So just kind of a callback to what Councillor Bustel

29:06was talking about for the accessible bicycles.

29:09So I personally use a trike for balance

29:12and they're becoming way, way more common

29:15in terms for seniors and other folks

29:17and especially if you're trying to have a car free area

29:19with less car parking to get around the downtown

29:23for your grocery shopping and whatnot.

29:26So I'm very much in favor of the staff recommendation

29:29of the 0.6 and that also kind of speaks

29:32to having it closer to the entrance

29:33because a lot of people are using their bikes

29:35kind of as accessibility tools.

29:37So is there a way for you to manage that

29:40with the distance between the door

29:42and having some wider spaces?

29:45So thank you.

29:48A clarification that I'll offer

29:50is on these two points related to bicycle parking,

29:52both the size and the location are speaking to minimums.

29:56So on the alcoholic proximity

29:58to the principal entrance requirement,

30:01the bylaw reads as 25 meters.

30:05As David mentioned that we've got frontages

30:08and frankly entrances on three sides of our buildings.

30:10And so if we had to pick one entrance

30:14and have all of our outdoor bike parking

30:17within 25 meters of the entrance,

30:19that would actually detract from our ability

30:21to provide bike parking around the perimeter of the site

30:23and close to a number of different entrances

30:26to the building.

30:27That's purely the reason that we're asking

30:30for an exemption on that number.

30:34Related to the overall size and the minimum width

30:37of the bike parking stalls is what is standard

30:40in our portfolio is we'll provide a variety

30:42of bike parking options.

30:44So that pertains to trikes,

30:48that pertains to mountain bikes,

30:49that pertains to road bikes.

30:51We have a product in our portfolio

30:54that allows a number of bikes to be stacked

30:56on top of each other.

30:57And the provider and what we've used

31:00on a number of other projects has a minimum width of 0.4.

31:03By no means is that going to be the minimum

31:05across the board.

31:08It just allows us to use the,

31:11I'll say bike stacking option

31:13that we've used on other projects.

31:15Does that address your question?

31:17Yes, so what would be,

31:21what's the spread, right?

31:22How many are going to be 0.4?

31:24And then how many other ones would be 0.6 and larger?

31:29Yeah, off the top of my head,

31:30in terms of the long-term bike stalls,

31:33I would say about 75% in our experience

31:35are the more stacker type.

31:39And then we would provide additional larger

31:41bike parking spaces for those who require them.

31:44The nice thing about bike parking

31:46is it's fairly easy to move around.

31:48So, and it's really based on demand.

31:50So if we find that residents are looking

31:53for a certain type of bike parking over another type,

31:56we do have the flexibility to swap one type of rack

31:59for another.

32:00Again, this is just about securing the minimum dimension

32:02that we're allowed to provide.

32:05Okay, so there's no guarantee

32:07that you would have the wider ones?

32:10We absolutely would have the wider ones.

32:14We'd be willing to commit to a certain percentage

32:17of wider ones if that's what the request is.

32:21It is.

32:22So what would be the percentage?

32:28If we're looking for a certain percentage,

32:31I'll call it larger than 0.6, or sorry, at 0.6 or greater,

32:37I'd offer 15%.

32:40That sounds reasonable to me.

32:41Thank you very much.

32:42Okay.

32:45Thank you so much, Councillor Katelyn

32:46and last I have Councillor Caron.

32:49Thank you.

32:50Thanks for being here this afternoon.

32:52I know one of the things you talked about

32:53in our first meeting when the first proposal came to us,

32:56and I'd ask a question about community energy

32:58and a commitment to our net zero goals.

33:01You indicated that all of that would kind of come out

33:03during the process leading up to site plan.

33:06I know you talked about the rooftop mechanicals

33:08accommodating greater energy efficiency.

33:10And I wonder if you could talk to whether or not

33:12you've been able to achieve any greater commitment

33:15to those goals, because as a rental building,

33:18I think we all agreed that day that affordability

33:21isn't just the cost of rent, it's the cost of utilities,

33:24and that you would be doing everything in your power

33:26to lower the cost of utilities for your tenants.

33:29Yeah, absolutely.

33:30So as a purpose built rental owner, operator, and provider,

33:35we know that any dollar spent upfront

33:39related to the energy efficiency of the building

33:41pays off in spades down the road.

33:43So this actually came up this week

33:44when we were reviewing with our mechanical engineering team

33:46about how to make the building a little bit more energy

33:48efficient.

33:49And this actually ties into our mechanical penthouse

33:52request, because frankly, some of the mechanical units

33:55on the roof operate more efficiently

33:57if they have more room to breathe, so to speak.

33:59So I'll say that's one example of where we get greater energy.

34:04I'll call it energy utilization just

34:07by providing a little bit more room for our mechanical units.

34:11As I believe I covered last time,

34:13I mean, it's standard in our portfolio

34:15for our new buildings to target lead gold.

34:18We find that that additional effort

34:20that we put into the energy optimization

34:23and the overall performance of our building,

34:26it's also frankly a marketing piece that resonates especially

34:30well with students and young professionals that

34:32are looking to live in our building.

34:35Great, thank you for that.

34:36And will you, I know that not all technologies

34:40are fully developed.

34:41Will it be ready for new technology

34:44in terms of the engineering so that as cheaper and more

34:48effective energy solutions are available,

34:50you'll be able to quickly adapt in the lifecycle replacement

34:54cycle?

34:55Absolutely.

34:56I'll say specifically to the lead program,

34:59there's a lot of focus on future proofing your building,

35:03so that as different forms of energy come on board,

35:05you have the ability to tie into those.

35:07OK, that's great.

35:08One last question.

35:09Again, I know we don't get into site plan details here,

35:11but I'll ask it.

35:12I see in the rendering that the rooftop pool amenity is

35:15on the west elevation next to the single detached home

35:21to the east.

35:23And I just wondered whether you're

35:25committed to screening and light remediation

35:28for that amenity space so that it doesn't

35:31impact the neighboring adjacent dwellings for both noise

35:36and light pollution.

35:38So I'll clarify that.

35:41The plans are a bit confusing there.

35:42North is actually on the right side of the page,

35:44so we have ensured that there is sufficient screening

35:47between our building, anyone who's

35:49spending time on the roof, and our neighbors to the north,

35:52specifically directly to the north.

35:55We'll also have appropriate screening

35:57for both wind and shade around the perimeter

36:00of the rooftop amenity.

36:02OK, great.

36:03Thanks.

36:03I know that it was labeled west elevation.

36:05It's confusing.

36:05Yes.

36:06Great.

36:06Thanks so much.

36:09OK.

36:10That's it for questions for you.

36:14But did you want to still do your five minutes,

36:17or do you think everything's good?

36:18May we have two?

36:20You can have up to five.

36:21So we love two.

36:24That's fine.

36:24So come on up.

36:25And as soon as you start speaking, our timer will start.

36:28It's over to you.

36:30OK, perfect.

36:31I just wanted to say thank you to the planning team,

36:34to Kenchin specifically just for the time and effort

36:37and coordination throughout this process.

36:40As you know, this is our first survey building

36:43in the city of Guelph.

36:44So really excited to add new housing rental

36:47supply to the market.

36:49And as we serve the younger demographic,

36:51we are trying to make the building efficient, not just

36:54beautiful, but with mechanical penthouse

36:57at the functionality to the building.

37:00And yeah, thank you very much for getting those details

37:04right as we work through the process.

37:07And yeah, we are very excited to continue working

37:10through the SBE stage.

37:12But it was very a good experience working

37:15with the planning staff on refining those items.

37:18Thank you.

37:21You can have as many minutes as you want when you praise our staff.

37:25Can I have one more, then?

37:26OK, you still have probably three minutes left.

37:30I recognize that we are getting into a few,

37:34a little bit more into the details than you normally

37:36would at this stage of the process.

37:38That's because we're very much a details-focused company

37:41and developer.

37:43We care a lot about the details.

37:44We care a lot about design.

37:46And we care a lot about the communities that we operate in,

37:49which is why we're so excited about this project

37:52and about joining you in the city of Guelph.

37:55So our dealings with staff and council to date have been great.

38:00And we just want to say thank you for your trust in us.

38:04Is there any further?

38:05Oh, Councillor Caton just has a question.

38:07And then back to Boussatil.

38:08OK, yeah, go ahead, Councillor Caton.

38:11My apologies for the late question.

38:13Through you, Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering,

38:15I just seen that your bike parking is being shown on the city

38:19right away.

38:21But I don't see that in the application for zoning changes.

38:27So is that something that's new or is that something

38:29that you're asking for an exception for to have

38:32the bike parking on the city right away?

38:35So again, because we have active frontages on three sides

38:44of the building, including a generous landscape buffer

38:47on the east side of the site, we have requested that bike parking

38:52be permissible within the city property,

38:57or at least the city boulevard.

38:59It would not affect, I'll call it, the sidewalks

39:02or I'll call it the existing right of ways

39:06within or surrounding the building.

39:10And that's also really just to meet

39:11all the short and long term bike requirements

39:14that our site has.

39:16OK, I'll follow up with staff and see

39:17if that causes an issue with our accessibility advisory group.

39:20Thank you.

39:21Sure thing.

39:21I'll just add to that this was a point of discussion

39:24with planning that.

39:25And we really just wanted to clarify these two technical

39:29points at this stage.

39:30And we fully expected to go into more detail around bike

39:34parking during the site plan stage.

39:36Great.

39:36Thank you.

39:41Thank you.

39:41And through the mayor, there was something

39:43you just said a couple of minutes before that reminded me.

39:46The last time you presented, I asked for clarification.

39:49And you just said now that for the students and professionals

39:51living in our building, and my question is,

39:53you know where I'm going, is the building and the facilities

39:57welcoming to families, seniors, everyone of every ability?

40:03Thank you.

40:03So on the subject of future proofing,

40:06it is one of our theories that more and more families will

40:09look to live in buildings such as this, which

40:12is why we typically exceed minimum requirements for two

40:17and three bedroom units, units that are larger than studios

40:21or one bedrooms.

40:22That is the case here.

40:2335% of our proposed units are either two or three bedrooms.

40:26So that's whether that's a group of young professionals

40:29or someone with a young family that have the ability

40:31to live in our building.

40:33Thank you.

40:37Great.

40:38No further questions?

40:40All mine were asked.

40:41So you're good to go.

40:43Thank you very much for being here.

40:48Being a downtown, I'm more putting you on the spot,

40:51but being a downtown development,

40:54would you like to move receipt for approval,

40:56or would you like someone else to?

40:58Yes, I would like to your worship.

40:59The other delegate.

41:00Richardson and San went up beside you as a seconder.

41:04So the staff recommendation is on the floor.

41:06And the other delegate backed out.

41:10No, they were all there, I believe.

41:12Oh, OK.

41:13I don't think I skipped on anybody.

41:14There's just a letter then.

41:15No, we're good.

41:18May I ask questions of staff for your worship?

41:20Now anybody can ask questions.

41:21Go ahead.

41:22Thank you.

41:23Thank you to staff for the work that you've done

41:26to get us here with the applicant.

41:30Focusing on the request that they made,

41:33I did ask about this in the last couple of days.

41:36Could you let me know?

41:36I think you mentioned that some of these

41:38could be addressed down the road with a site plan

41:41or with a minor variance.

41:45Could you tell us what that process would look like

41:47in terms of does it come back to council,

41:50does it go to community of adjustment,

41:51or is it delegated authority for staff?

41:53What would that look like?

41:58Through the mayor to the counselor.

42:00So a couple of these site-specific requests

42:04we have not seen until today, and they've not been evaluated.

42:07And I guess that's our concern at this time.

42:10Councillor Caton mentioned the bike parking

42:12on the municipal right of way.

42:14It's not been evaluated.

42:15We've not talked about encroachment agreements yet.

42:17And certainly anything on the municipal right of way

42:19we would expect would meet municipal standards.

42:21So I think that's the concern at this point in the time

42:23that we haven't seen the details of their bike rack

42:26they're providing or anything to make it a judgment on.

42:29And that we have through this process

42:32ensure that they can go through the typical,

42:35through the OZS stage now

42:37and then go through the normal site plan

42:38as our downtown CPPS is under appeal.

42:42If that was in effect, they could have just done

42:44a quick staff approval in the 45 days.

42:47And that for site plan, minor variance, everything,

42:49but that is unfortunately been appealed right now.

42:53So they would have to go through a minor variance.

42:55So they'd have to make an application

42:56to the committee of adjustment.

42:57But as they go through the process,

42:58there may or may not be other items they need relief from.

43:03We always do caution council when they see renderings

43:07in particular that they're fabulous.

43:10And my hope is they're going to be that.

43:13And if they're not, they'll,

43:14we'll have lots of conversations with us.

43:16But it doesn't mean that is what's going to happen.

43:19As we know, the developer on this site

43:21has changed hands a couple of times

43:24from what we've council may have seen in the past,

43:26but it's not a guarantee that that's going to happen.

43:28And there was a lot of works

43:31in the municipal right of way on the renderings

43:33because the property is asked for a zero setback

43:37that would have to go through a different process

43:40and encroachment agreements.

43:41So they would have time to go through a minor variance

43:43if they do need to go through that process.

43:45But yes, that's a committee of adjustment process.

43:48Okay, thank you very much for that.

43:50I appreciate that.

43:50And your worship, I do have a motion

43:52to bring whenever you'd like

43:55with regards to the mechanical room height.

44:00Okay, I would suggest that that might be separate,

44:04like a standalone motion after these are considered.

44:07So just remind me to go back to,

44:11would it be an amendment?

44:14Yeah, to planning staff, that would be an amendment.

44:20Through the mayor, yes, that would be an amendment

44:21to the recommendations.

44:23Oh, by the way, I wasn't trying to say

44:25that the clerks were wrong or something.

44:27You're good, you're good.

44:29Okay, okay, well, why don't we just allow some of the questions

44:35just to continue, I'll come right back to you.

44:37Then you can move the amendment

44:38and then we can do the main motion as amended, okay?

44:41I'm really sorry, I saw another hand go up,

44:43Kate and then Alt, and then Pusatel, okay?

44:49Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

44:49I was just gonna let you know

44:50that I also am working on amendment

44:52for the commitment of the 15% bike parking.

44:56But I will need some time.

44:58So I'm just letting you know that it's in the works.

45:01Okay, no problem.

45:02Thanks.

45:03I'll go to Alt with the question.

45:05And thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie,

45:07through you two staff.

45:10After the comments, the remarks that you just made,

45:13I am wondering if you could please provide an opinion

45:16on the motion that is in front of us.

45:18Are the changes that you heard for the first time today

45:21substantive enough that that motion still stands or not?

45:28Sorry, just to be clear, Councillor Allt,

45:32there is no motion on the floor for any of those items

45:36that were brought forward by the delegates.

45:39So we're not talking about any of those at all.

45:45So I'm just saying that they're out of order

45:47if you're referencing your question

45:49about issues that aren't on the table as a motion.

45:52No, I'm referring to comments from Ms. Wolke

45:55as to the motion that is currently on the order paper.

46:01Is the motion still stand?

46:04So the motion is the staff recommendation.

46:06That's currently on the floor

46:07and clearly staff are in support of that.

46:13Okay.

46:14Councillor Bristol.

46:16Thank you.

46:17And through the mayor,

46:18I would really appreciate hearing from staff

46:20on the four requests, some feedback on each of those

46:25to help me understand that's a bit better.

46:31Okay, I'll, through the mayor, I'll start,

46:33but I might look at staffing in the middle,

46:35a little elbow as we go through.

46:39The first request was the commercial space

46:42from 440 square meters minimum to 430.

46:47Staff did take the 440 square meters

46:50from their planning justification report

46:52and from their plans.

46:53So that the typo, I think as was indicated, was on their end.

46:57But if it's a 440 to 430,

47:01staff would not have any concerns over that.

47:06When we see detailed drawings, it could be for 28,

47:09it could be 454.

47:10We don't have those details yet in front of us,

47:13but that one seems minor.

47:15And I believe them when they indicated it was a typo

47:18in their applications.

47:21For the 4.5 meters in mechanical penthouse,

47:29we are currently reviewing the 55 Baker Street application.

47:32It is 19 stories.

47:33It has a 4.5 meter mechanical penthouse.

47:37We have also, through this application,

47:40allowed in that space some usable amenity area

47:45for the rooftop common amenities,

47:48for the pool, et cetera.

47:49We've got change rooms and some public space up there

47:54that we have allowed.

47:55Typically that would be another story.

47:57So we have accommodated that within that

48:00without counting it as another story.

48:03So that's why we're also saying that 6.5 meters.

48:06In reality, that's two full stories of height.

48:09So an average story is three meters.

48:12So they're asking for two full stories

48:14of mechanical penthouse.

48:15We do have others who are able to make it.

48:17So staff are standing behind their recommendation,

48:21but while the will of council can decide

48:24on what is the appropriate height based on

48:26what the applicant has indicated to go forward.

48:29For the two bike parking regulations,

48:35that is where staff is not comfortable

48:39recommending that those changes.

48:40We've not seen the plans.

48:42We've not talked to them about encroachment

48:43where they're going to be.

48:45If they can accommodate them on their site,

48:47that's one thing.

48:49If they can accommodate them on their site

48:50in the miscible right of way,

48:51we'd certainly want to be able to meet our standards.

48:54We are just proud that we have settled those standards

48:58and we're able to implement them.

49:01So we don't know what those are going to look like.

49:05I don't know what particular rack he's proposing.

49:09So at this point, we would like it to meet our standards.

49:12And if they're on their private lands,

49:15then they do have a two meter setback on the east side,

49:19but the rest would appear certainly

49:22to be a zero meter setback based on the drawings

49:24they've submitted to you for review.

49:28Thank you.

49:29And just a supplemental through the mayor,

49:30just around the rooftop, the amenities,

49:34but also the, whatever, it's mechanical.

49:38Thank you.

49:39Can you comment on the justification of efficiency

49:43or you don't have any information?

49:44Can you just give us some indication of that?

49:47Yes, sorry to the councillor through the mayor.

49:50I can't comment on that.

49:52Okay. And just finally, if council says, no, this is,

49:56we're supporting the staff recommendation.

49:59What are the next steps for the developer

50:01who may through the process need some additional,

50:04is it through site plan?

50:06Is it through committee of adjustment?

50:07Can you just, you know, map that out for me please?

50:13Through the mayor to the councillor.

50:14So the next step in the process is site plan approval.

50:18And as part of the site plan approval,

50:21then they'd be certainly talking to us

50:23about encroachment agreements.

50:25If they do need variances,

50:27they can always go to the committee of adjustment

50:29and apply for variances or for relief

50:31for any of those items.

50:33And then staff would be able to comment

50:35through that recommendation to the committee of adjustment

50:38and whether we were supportive or not.

50:41So it is a separate process they would have to go through.

50:45Thank you. So just so I'm clear,

50:47if council says we're going to support

50:49the staff recommendations,

50:50there's still processes to facilitate

50:55the desired kind of outcomes.

50:58Through the mayor to the council, yes or no?

51:00Thank you.

51:02Great.

51:03I'm seeing no more questions,

51:05but I did have a couple and just going to follow

51:08with councillor Busuttil just asked.

51:10So I just wondered about timing.

51:13So I knew about the process of site plan

51:17and committee of adjustment.

51:18But from a timing perspective,

51:21do you know what the sort of scheduling is

51:24for committee of the adjustment right now?

51:26And I know that they can pay fees

51:27or maybe quicker processes or not,

51:30but what are we looking at here?

51:33Three months, six months, two months.

51:37So through to the mayor,

51:38typically committee of adjustment processes is 60 days

51:42and we'll be working with them for at least that first,

51:46if not longer for site plan

51:47and through certainly for the encroachment agreements

51:49will take some time to establish as well.

51:51Yeah. And that leads me to my last question,

51:53which was just, is it a parallel thing

51:57or does one have to go before the other?

51:58So does site plan have to be approved

52:01and then they can go to committee of adjustment?

52:03Could they go to committee of adjustment in 60 days?

52:06Hypothetically.

52:07And then still do site plan.

52:09And I think, and I'm so sorry,

52:11I maybe should have asked you when you were at the microphone,

52:13but I think last time we were here,

52:14either I or one of my colleagues asked,

52:17how quick can we see this building kind of go?

52:20And I think I remember it be about a year, I think.

52:23Am I right?

52:24I got a thumbs up there that it'd be about a year.

52:26So can you just talk to me about sort of what's in parallel,

52:30what has to go first or what can go first?

52:34Through the mayor.

52:35So through a, like a pre-con for site plan,

52:38we could identify the specific variances that we would need

52:41and we'd be able to look at the details

52:42and then they could go to committee of adjustment

52:44in advance of a formal site plan application or approval.

52:48So they can do that.

52:49They can run them concurrently

52:50if that's what they want as well.

52:53So we can do it that way as well.

52:56Okay.

52:57Great.

52:58Thank you very much.

52:59All right.

53:00So we do have the main motion,

53:02which is to recommend the approval from staff.

53:05It's on the floor.

53:06Councillor Gowar, you wanted to speak

53:08about a potential amendment.

53:11Councillor Caton, I hope I've talked slow enough

53:13to allow you to maybe get an amendment down as well.

53:17So we'll start with you, Councillor Gowar,

53:19and we'll do your amendment first.

53:21Thank you, Your Worship.

53:22If I could ask the clerks to please pull it up.

53:25And this amendment, what it does is it changes

53:29the restriction that was put in,

53:31and instead of capping the height of the mechanical

53:33at 4.5, it's capped at six.

53:38Although the developer has said

53:39that they usually go up to six and a half,

53:42they said they could make it work within six meters

53:45to give us a greater energy efficiency for the building.

53:49And I believe I may have a seconder for this one.

53:53Councillor Richardson.

53:55Great, thank you.

53:56May I, sorry, may I interject with just a simple request

54:01from me to get to approval?

54:04I don't know, I can't speak for anyone else,

54:06but for me, just wondering, I would prefer if the,

54:09because I want to approve, I want to try to get there,

54:11but I was wondering if you'd be willing

54:13to do up to six meters.

54:16Absolutely.

54:17Because as the developer then works with their engineer

54:20and works with staff, and if their engineer can figure out

54:24the mechanical at 5.2 or at five,

54:28then I'd rather say that than to just say you get six.

54:32So I would feel more comfortable if it said up to.

54:36Would you be willing to do that?

54:37Absolutely, and would the clerks be able to?

54:40Well, if the mover and seconder are shaking heads

54:44in improvement, could I just ask you to remove the motion

54:46and then we can just table the amendment with that language?

54:49Let's do that.

54:51Okay, so I have to formally ask.

54:54To the mover, are you okay to remove?

54:56Seconder, are you okay to remove?

54:58Counsel, are you okay with that?

55:01Okay, thank you.

55:01So technically it's off the table.

55:03So now you're gonna move it with the words up to six meters.

55:06I'll turn the microphone back over.

55:08Yes, your worship, I'd like to move a motion

55:10that changes the sentence, not with something

55:12of any other provision.

55:13And the Sonium Biler rooftop mechanical shall be

55:17up to six meters.

55:20And Richardson, you'll still second that then.

55:23All right, thanks everyone.

55:24Sorry, I jumped in there right away.

55:26But Councillor Allt just has a quick question of staff on it.

55:29Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie,

55:31through you to staff.

55:33I was wondering if you would have any comments

55:35related to this and the potential as a precedent

55:39with regards to anything else that is being considered

55:42in perhaps the downtown core or elsewhere.

55:50Through the mayor to the councillor,

55:52we do look at every application

55:54as an independent application

55:55and that would be our standard response for this.

55:58Thank you.

55:59Okay, thank you, Councillor Allt.

56:00I'd like to call the question then on the amendment.

56:03Is that okay?

56:05The general commenters.

56:06Just through the mayor, thank you for making

56:08that amendment or suggesting that amendment

56:11because I wouldn't be able to support it otherwise.

56:13I appreciate that.

56:15And with respect to the developers,

56:17thank you for working so greatly with our staff,

56:20really looking forward to this project.

56:24Thank you, Councillor.

56:25Okay, let me just call the vote on the amendment then

56:27to the up to six meters, okay?

56:29Is anybody against that?

56:33Okay, so nobody that's unanimous.

56:35Okay, did you have another one?

56:37Oh, okay, sorry.

56:38Councillor Caton, keep working on your motion.

56:42Councillor Goller, go ahead.

56:44Thank you, your worship.

56:45As the staff was answering other responses,

56:48I heard them accept that they had no significant concerns

56:53about the change from 440 to 430.

56:55So I just sent it off to staff if we could.

56:58And understanding that there's an opportunity

57:01to make these changes on the road,

57:03I think if we can remove a little bit

57:05of the bureaucracy from it and just do it now,

57:08I think that would be helpful to help the project.

57:11So this motion just changes the number 440 to 430

57:14to acknowledge that there was a typo

57:16in the original application and this corrects it.

57:19And if I could have a seconder for...

57:21Councillor Alder had whispered

57:23that he'd be willing to second that.

57:24So I'll confirm that.

57:28I think I can call the vote on this one, everybody.

57:30Yep.

57:31Okay, is anybody against this amendment?

57:34That's unanimous as well.

57:35That's great.

57:36Can I go to Councillor Caton now?

57:38Yeah, okay.

57:39Councillor Caton, over to you.

57:43Thank you.

57:44Just wait for clerks to bring it up.

57:46And this is thanks to the incredible

57:50multi-tasking skills of Miss Wauke.

57:53Who's able to talk and type at the same time,

57:55which is not my forte.

57:57So it is that the decision report,

58:0170 Fountain Street East proposed official plan

58:03and zoning bylaw amendments,

58:052026-310 be amended to include the following.

58:09That short-term parking have a minimum of 15%

58:12of the larger bike parking to accommodate

58:14the larger bikes and accessible bikes

58:16and that they be accommodated

58:17on the private development portion.

58:19And I believe Councillor Arlton was gonna be my seconder.

58:24Yep, whispered to me saying that he'd be willing

58:26to do that, so that's perfect.

58:28And thank you for that amendment.

58:30Is there any questions on that particular one?

58:33Okay, just Guller, go ahead.

58:35Thank you, Chair Worship.

58:37And if I could, if you could please help me

58:39understand Councillor, why are you asking

58:42that they be held within the private part of it?

58:45If there's a public boulevard

58:48and they may be able to have an encroachment agreement,

58:50could you help me understand the rationale

58:52for making that restriction here?

58:57Yes, because planning staff said

58:59that they haven't been able to evaluate that.

59:01So without their evaluation,

59:04I don't think that that's appropriate for us

59:06to be mandating as okay,

59:08because we haven't had the chance

59:10for the accessibility advisory council

59:11or any of those other groups to take a look at it.

59:14So that's something that they can request from staff later

59:18if there is going to be an encroachment agreement,

59:20but in the meantime, I don't feel comfortable

59:22saying that that's okay without the due diligence.

59:25Okay, perfect.

59:26And if I could just double check with that,

59:27I just wanna make sure that this doesn't prevent

59:29an encroachment agreement down the road.

59:33Through the mayor to note to the Councillor,

59:34and it does give us time to actually look at a site plan

59:38without just kind of making recommendations

59:40without having plans or details in front of us,

59:42which is always difficult.

59:46Okay, thank you.

59:47So I will call the vote on this,

59:51but just before I do, just 10 seconds.

59:53I actually think this is a good idea.

59:58When I went to some other cities and such like that,

1:00:02I actually heard other cities doing this type of work

1:00:06because 10 years ago,

1:00:09who would have thought that cargo bikes could be e-bikes?

1:00:13And so they're like much more easier now

1:00:16to buy like a cargo bike or a wider bike with the battery.

1:00:20And so many more people are buying these like larger style

1:00:24bikes because they wanna get around

1:00:26and be able to shop or do things without the car.

1:00:30And so then when it comes to the sort of the parking,

1:00:33it's slow, I get that it's slow,

1:00:35but it's a growing sort of sector.

1:00:38And I think it's probably wise to dedicate

1:00:41a certain percentage like this.

1:00:43So if any other developers are listening,

1:00:45you might wanna consider a similar approach here,

1:00:48but just because it is something that's a growing thing.

1:00:51The accessibility part is very real,

1:00:52but it's beyond the accessibility part

1:00:54that a lot of people are choosing sort of

1:00:57the larger bikes now.

1:00:58So okay, with that, I'll call the vote on this amendment.

1:01:03Is anyone against this amendment

1:01:05for the bicycle percentage parking?

1:01:10Okay, that's unanimous as well.

1:01:12So that's great.

1:01:13So is there any more amendments at all on this one?

1:01:18Doesn't look like it.

1:01:19So I'll just get ready to call the vote then

1:01:24on the main motion now as amended.

1:01:26Yep.

1:01:27And we heard some great comments from Councillor Busuttil

1:01:32already about thanking the developer

1:01:35with the work with staff.

1:01:37But is there any other comments just before I call the vote

1:01:40on the main motion as amended?

1:01:42I'll start with Councillor Kerron, please.

1:01:44Thanks, Mirka, three.

1:01:45And certainly this particular application,

1:01:48I think kind of demands some commentary

1:01:50because when we first saw it,

1:01:52there was a lot of visual shock for many of us.

1:01:54We've never had a building of this height before.

1:01:57And I for one was like, oh, we can't do this downtown

1:02:00on a hill and we heard a lot from the community

1:02:04about what an impact that this could have

1:02:06on our downtown negatively and positively.

1:02:08And over the course of this application,

1:02:12coming to us today,

1:02:13we've seen a lot of work on behalf of the builder

1:02:15and I thank them for that.

1:02:17I think we with setbacks and urban design,

1:02:21we've managed to alleviate a lot of the original problems

1:02:24that we perhaps anticipated in this project.

1:02:28I think also times have changed.

1:02:30And sometimes even planning decisions

1:02:32have to incorporate public benefit,

1:02:35the fact that this is rental housing.

1:02:37Regardless of who lives there,

1:02:38this is within our downtown and in our transit quarter.

1:02:41So I am going to support this application

1:02:43because there is a higher public benefit.

1:02:45We did pass the downtown height bylaw

1:02:48and that was all knowing that this application was coming.

1:02:52So I thanks to everyone involved

1:02:54in bringing it forward to us today.

1:02:57Great, thank you very much for those comments.

1:03:00Is there anything further before I call the vote?

1:03:03All right, you get me.

1:03:06I'm pretty excited about this.

1:03:09Our city is growing up.

1:03:13And I am very, very excited to see height

1:03:17in the downtown core like this.

1:03:20This speaks to everything that many of us

1:03:23speak about all the time.

1:03:25We want more people living in the downtown.

1:03:27It's better environmentally instead of sprawl.

1:03:30You know, it's promoting active transportation.

1:03:34It's right beside our transit system.

1:03:36It's in a strategic growth area.

1:03:39When you have more people living downtown,

1:03:40it supports businesses in the downtown.

1:03:43The public realm gets beautified.

1:03:45I think this is amazing.

1:03:48And this is the heavy lifting of work

1:03:50on a policy decision.

1:03:53I don't know how long ago it was, but many years ago,

1:03:57we made a policy decision to look at the heights

1:04:01in the downtown core because the original secondary plan

1:04:04for the downtown was getting stale dated.

1:04:06It was getting old.

1:04:08It was actually pushing the envelope many years ago.

1:04:11And we saw the uptake.

1:04:12And now we said we got to have sort of 2.0, right?

1:04:15We got to have more height in strategic areas

1:04:17within the downtown to try to attract

1:04:19the type of developments that our city needs.

1:04:22We did that policy work and now we have this.

1:04:25This is amazing.

1:04:27And you've never, you said you've never built here before,

1:04:29but in my interactions, hearing from staff and yourself

1:04:32and how you've delegated.

1:04:34And I think you're great.

1:04:36I have a lot of trust in you based on the interactions

1:04:40here that you're going to follow through and make

1:04:42a really great product.

1:04:44And I'm thankful that you've chosen our downtown.

1:04:47There's many cities you can go to.

1:04:49And you've chosen to come to GOLF and build this.

1:04:51This is fantastic.

1:04:53So thank you very, very much.

1:04:54I'm very excited to say yes to this build.

1:04:58And I really hope that that year comes around fast.

1:05:01And I can start to see a crane in the sky.

1:05:04We need more cranes in the sky in our downtown core.

1:05:06Big time.

1:05:07So thank you very much.

1:05:09With that, I'll call the vote.

1:05:10Is anyone against?

1:05:13You nannies.

1:05:15There you go.

1:05:18You can leave now.

1:05:22Thank you very much.

1:05:23OK, so we will go to, what's the next one here?

1:05:27Oh, me.

1:05:28OK.

1:05:30This one is the potential opportunity

1:05:31for advancement of affordable housing in the charitable hub.

1:05:35So it says that Mayor Guthrie will speak to this item.

1:05:38That is me.

1:05:39So there is a recommendation that

1:05:46is on the agenda for us to consider.

1:05:49And in speaking with my councillor colleagues,

1:05:51and I'll just give kudos upfront to councillor Downer,

1:05:57I would suggest that these will not be tabled today.

1:06:01The two that are there.

1:06:02And that something else will be tabled.

1:06:04I'll go to councillor Downer to do that later.

1:06:08And really what's happened here is that there is a what I am.

1:06:15What I believe is a pretty visionary plan for something

1:06:18that is very unique for a potential opportunity

1:06:23to have a charitable hub, a affordable housing,

1:06:31attainable housing, a park, and so on.

1:06:34But this vision can't be done in its entirety.

1:06:41And to me, it's sort of a package.

1:06:46There's no developer that's come forward at all

1:06:48within the city boundaries around that issue.

1:06:51But there is on the other side of the fence,

1:06:54literally on the other side of the fence, in the West End of Guelph.

1:06:58And so Guelph-Aremassa is where this land is situated.

1:07:04And we have this opportunity that I think

1:07:07is just worthy of discussion.

1:07:09It's worthy of discussion in my perspective.

1:07:12And with that, I think the intent here

1:07:17is still to have engagement with Guelph-Aremassa Township

1:07:21Council to see if there's any willingness.

1:07:25But there's also requirements from a process point of view,

1:07:29transparency point of view in regards

1:07:31to what the proponent and proposal would be.

1:07:37And so I'll stop there because it is very high level,

1:07:43because it just truly is high level.

1:07:46I'll stop there.

1:07:47And I know that we have a couple delegations that

1:07:50are here today, or maybe just one.

1:07:53Is Melissa in person, or is she joining us online?

1:07:58Oh, sorry.

1:07:58OK, come on down.

1:08:03And once you're done, Melissa, I will, well, first of all,

1:08:09there might be questions.

1:08:10So I'll let my colleagues ask questions or myself.

1:08:13And then after that, I'll go to Councillor Downer.

1:08:18So go ahead.

1:08:20Thank you so much.

1:08:21Good afternoon, Mayor and members of Council.

1:08:23I'm very grateful to be here today

1:08:25speaking about this opportunity.

1:08:28I know I did send a brief out earlier this or last week,

1:08:32I guess.

1:08:33But just I'm grateful for the opportunity

1:08:35to speak to it a bit more in detail.

1:08:37My name is Melissa Kwiatkowski.

1:08:39I'm the CEO at Guelph Community Health Center.

1:08:42I'm also here in partnership with Karen Kirkwood

1:08:45of the Children's Foundation of Guelph and Wellington.

1:08:48She's not able to be here today.

1:08:50And with the support of many organizations

1:08:52who are working every day to support the health and well

1:08:55being of our community.

1:08:58I want to begin with what I think

1:08:59is the most important place to start.

1:09:03The reality of what our community is facing right now.

1:09:06Today in Guelph, over 300 people are on the by-name list,

1:09:11which is people experiencing chronic homelessness.

1:09:14Approximately 3,500 people, households,

1:09:19are waiting for affordable or subsidized housing.

1:09:2225% of households, that's one in four households,

1:09:27are food insecure.

1:09:28And community programs across the city

1:09:30are operating at or beyond capacity.

1:09:35These are not abstract numbers.

1:09:36These are our neighbors, our clients, families, and children.

1:09:40And what we are seeing across housing, health,

1:09:42and social services is that these challenges

1:09:45are deeply interconnected.

1:09:47They cannot be solved in isolation.

1:09:50At the same time, we are facing a very real transition.

1:09:53The relocation of the seat and the Children's Foundation's

1:09:57programs create urgency, but it also

1:10:00creates something else, an opportunity.

1:10:03An opportunity to think differently

1:10:05about how we respond to these challenges, not one program

1:10:09at a time, but in a more coordinated and integrated way.

1:10:13In response, our organizations have

1:10:15been actively exploring multiple options for what comes next.

1:10:19And across those conversations, a shared vision has emerged.

1:10:24A purpose-built space for community services, food, health,

1:10:28and social supports working together,

1:10:31infrastructure that can operate at scale,

1:10:33that meets the needs of not just a neighborhood,

1:10:35but across Guelph and Wellington County.

1:10:38This is what integrated community infrastructure looks like.

1:10:42The opportunity in front of you today,

1:10:44this particular site, is one option that

1:10:47has surfaced through our collective work.

1:10:50And it does present some unique possibilities.

1:10:53The ability to deliver affordable and attainable housing

1:10:56at meaningful scale, the potential

1:10:59for in-kind contributions that significantly improve

1:11:03affordability, and the space required

1:11:05to support not just programs, but a regional system

1:11:09of delivery and support.

1:11:12I want to be very clear.

1:11:13We're not here today because this is the only option.

1:11:16We have explored, and we'll continue

1:11:18to explore multiple pathways.

1:11:21But we are here because this is an option

1:11:23that, at minimum, presents enough opportunity for community

1:11:27impact that it should be understood more fully.

1:11:31We know there are questions about infrastructure,

1:11:34about jurisdiction, about process.

1:11:37Those are valid, and they matter.

1:11:40But they are not reasons to stop a conversation

1:11:42before it begins.

1:11:44They are exactly the work that exploration is meant to do.

1:11:48So today, the question in front of you

1:11:50is not, do all the answers exist?

1:11:52Is every detail resolved?

1:11:54The question is, is this an idea with enough potential

1:11:57to help address real community need?

1:12:00And is it worth exploring further?

1:12:03Because the reality is, the scale of what we are facing

1:12:05as a community is only growing, and it is asking something

1:12:09more of all of us.

1:12:11It requires us to be open to new approaches,

1:12:14work across boundaries, and find enough common ground

1:12:17to move forward on ideas that could make a meaningful

1:12:20difference in people's lives.

1:12:23This is one of those moments, a moment where leadership

1:12:26doesn't require certainty, but it does require openness.

1:12:29Openness to possibility, openness to learning more,

1:12:34and openness to not turning away too early

1:12:36from something that could matter.

1:12:39We believe this idea has merit, not because it's perfect,

1:12:42and definitely not because it's simple,

1:12:45but because it is proportionate to the scale of need

1:12:48that we're seeing in our community right now.

1:12:51And today, what we are asking is that you allow

1:12:54the opportunity to be explored, that you create space

1:12:57to better understand what is possible,

1:13:00and that we collectively don't miss the chance

1:13:02to consider something that could make a meaningful

1:13:04difference for our community.

1:13:06Thank you for your leadership, your time,

1:13:08and your commitment to the city.

1:13:10Thank you.

1:13:12Thank you very much.

1:13:13Appreciate it.

1:13:14And Councillor Busuttil has a question for you.

1:13:21Thank you very much for the presentation, Malisha.

1:13:24And you and I have talked about this, I think,

1:13:26back to the taste of Guelph September 21st, 2025,

1:13:29when you approached myself and two other councillors

1:13:32with the exact same request of a charitable hub

1:13:37outside of the city of Guelph and Guelph-Aremosa Township.

1:13:40And my position is still the same,

1:13:42but I have a couple of questions about your presentation.

1:13:45Have you already presented this to Guelph-Aremosa Township?

1:13:49No.

1:13:50Okay.

1:13:51How long have you known about your tenancy?

1:13:54My understanding is about 10 years.

1:13:56You were new that you would be in the Huron Street Facility

1:13:59for 10 years.

1:14:00Can you comment on that?

1:14:02Yes, we've been in our current Huron Street location

1:14:05as has the Children's Foundation.

1:14:07I know we've been there for about six years now.

1:14:10And for many years, we've been on a year by year basis,

1:14:15just because of, as you know, all of the questions

1:14:17and planning and timing of the downtown development.

1:14:21Okay, so you've had some time to work on this.

1:14:24And you've referenced exploring multiple options,

1:14:27but I haven't heard, it's been almost a year

1:14:30and it's the same option.

1:14:31We want a big, huge, purpose-built facility

1:14:34in the brief that you sent on Friday,

1:14:37which would have been more helpful if it was in public.

1:14:40We want a purpose-built building

1:14:42out in Guelph-Aremosa Township.

1:14:45Are there any, you reference it?

1:14:46What are the other options?

1:14:48We have explored a number of options.

1:14:50One, we've had a commercial realtor

1:14:52look at market-based options,

1:14:55and obviously affordability is a real issue on that side.

1:15:00We have reached out to staff at both the city

1:15:02and the county to explore any and all options

1:15:05that might be available.

1:15:07And there haven't been any options available to us.

1:15:09So while we've looked at the market,

1:15:12we've looked at the possibility for city and county lands,

1:15:17we haven't been able to uncover anything yet.

1:15:20So I think the unique part about this is the scope and scale.

1:15:25I think many people don't understand the full scope

1:15:30of the work that both the SEED and the Children's Foundation

1:15:32do across Guelph and Wellington.

1:15:34We're not necessarily just a storefront location

1:15:37where people kind of walk in.

1:15:39We're a regional logistics and distribution system

1:15:42that supports a network across Guelph and Wellington.

1:15:45And so we need a significant amount of space.

1:15:48We need industrial logistics space as well,

1:15:51and we need affordability is really important to us.

1:15:54And with those kind of key principles,

1:15:56we haven't been able to find anything within the city

1:15:59that currently meets our needs.

1:16:01Thank you.

1:16:01And that was my question about working with the city of Guelph.

1:16:03In Ward 4, I looked at PV Mart,

1:16:06which is 30,000 square feet.

1:16:08That's an ideal location in the north end of the city.

1:16:11But that affordability, what you're saying to me is that

1:16:14the proposal that's here is also,

1:16:18there's going to be some subsidy from the developer

1:16:21or so on that the developer is going to offer

1:16:23land in kind or building or whatever,

1:16:26all these good kinds of things.

1:16:28And has your group talked about the infrastructure requests

1:16:32that would have to twin the,

1:16:34we're asking the city to support a development

1:16:38outside in Guelph Air Mosa Township,

1:16:40whether it's police, lighting, roads, sidewalks,

1:16:43bikes, sewage, water, bylaw,

1:16:46all those kinds of things that we don't collect taxes

1:16:49from Guelph Air Mosa Township.

1:16:51It would be city of Guelph taxpayers

1:16:53that now have to provide for all this on our tax bill.

1:16:59Have you talked about the logistics

1:17:00with the staff and your consultants and so on?

1:17:03And then I just have one more.

1:17:05I think these are all really excellent questions

1:17:08and I believe what is part of the work of exploration.

1:17:11So we're here today to share what the need is

1:17:14in our community, to share a little bit of an overview,

1:17:17high level of what the opportunity is before us

1:17:20to really take all of these needs,

1:17:22affordable housing, food, social infrastructure.

1:17:27We have this really interesting opportunity.

1:17:30My background is not in planning.

1:17:31So I think that's why we're here is to kind of look at,

1:17:34what would the next steps be?

1:17:36We definitely value and believe in going through

1:17:40the due diligence and all the processes that are required.

1:17:42And we would be really happy to partner

1:17:46with all involved to work through that process.

1:17:49Thank you.

1:17:50My last question, I've raised this even at the community

1:17:52benefit or community grant presentation we had recently

1:17:55once before is I'm really reticent to,

1:17:59you've referenced that, you know what the need is,

1:18:03where a city of Toronto, United Way,

1:18:05and they did a research study on the sector

1:18:10of not-for-profits and charitols

1:18:12that provide economic benefit jobs and so on.

1:18:14So I'm feeling very uncomfortable about,

1:18:19not the seed and children's foundation,

1:18:21which I'm involved with both of those,

1:18:23but just around the scope of this

1:18:25and the wide net that's being thrown out there

1:18:29when there's no research basis for this,

1:18:31whereas I can go to a city of Toronto report

1:18:34that talks about the land needs

1:18:35and the employment lands really is what this is.

1:18:38Have you done that work?

1:18:40We have done what I would say is a first draft

1:18:44of a needs assessment in partnership with Tord Common Ground.

1:18:48And that's where some of the numbers

1:18:49from the briefing that we sent out last week came from.

1:18:52We pulled the data from the public health

1:18:54neighbourhood-based reports and there is a lot of need

1:18:58in the surrounding communities around that area.

1:19:01If this idea were to go further into a process

1:19:05which I would imagine would include all the technical work

1:19:07that needs to happen, engagement,

1:19:09we'd be happy to further engage with public health

1:19:12and with Tord Common Ground

1:19:13to do a more comprehensive needs assessment.

1:19:15As you know, the United Way has one of their

1:19:18housing affordability groups and they have a food group

1:19:21and there's lots of local coalitions and committees

1:19:25that we can tap into to support this work.

1:19:31All right, thank you.

1:19:32Councillor Allt, please.

1:19:34Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie,

1:19:36through you to the delegate.

1:19:37And thank you, Ms. Kiatowski for coming.

1:19:41As you're aware, I am supportive of seed

1:19:44having both delivered for them

1:19:45and filled up the seed bags occasionally.

1:19:48But I am really struggling with this one

1:19:50and I'm gonna go to the fiscal conservative group,

1:19:55first of all.

1:19:57What do I say to the taxpayers of Guelph

1:19:59about developing infrastructure in another jurisdiction

1:20:03where that improves property in another jurisdiction

1:20:06at the cost of the Guelph taxpayer?

1:20:09I think we can do it in Guelph

1:20:10and I'm prepared to look at that option.

1:20:12I'm not certain I'm prepared to look at this one.

1:20:17Yeah, I think this is why we're asking

1:20:20to kind of go into an exploration process.

1:20:22I think both council and the community deserve

1:20:26to better understand the value

1:20:28of what this could bring to the community

1:20:30to determine is it worth going to the next step.

1:20:34And I get that, but I guess following up

1:20:36on much of what Councillor Boussetteel said,

1:20:39it strikes me that there is capacity in Guelph.

1:20:41And if I remember correctly,

1:20:43I think Councillor Boussetteel,

1:20:44you mentioned just casually to me

1:20:46that there are a number of different sites in Guelph

1:20:48that have been identified by economic development.

1:20:52So those would be amenable as well to you.

1:20:55We are willing to continue to explore any and all options.

1:20:59I think they have to meet those few criteria

1:21:02that I mentioned and affordability

1:21:04is one of the core needs that we have going forward

1:21:08to ensure operational sustainability

1:21:10of both the seed programming

1:21:12and the children's foundation programming.

1:21:18You done that, Councillor?

1:21:21I just wanna follow up on the affordability

1:21:24because that's really important, obviously.

1:21:28What do we mean by affordability?

1:21:30Free, subsidized, affordability can mean many, many things.

1:21:36Yeah, yeah, we've been very lucky for the past six years.

1:21:39We pay a very, very low rent at our current location.

1:21:44And it has allowed us to put all of the resources

1:21:47that we get from grants, our social enterprise,

1:21:51and fundraising directly into programming.

1:21:54So the more money we have to put into rent going forward

1:21:58means that our programs can't really keep pace

1:22:00with the scale of the need.

1:22:02And so this particular opportunity that is before us

1:22:06includes a partnership with the Children's Foundation,

1:22:10with some other partners and wood development group

1:22:13that would ensure the affordability element for us

1:22:16is maintained.

1:22:17And just a last point on the affordability.

1:22:23Are you expecting the same economic support

1:22:27from the developer?

1:22:29In other words, is your rent gonna be the same

1:22:31or are you expecting it to go up?

1:22:33What are we looking at?

1:22:34Yes, we have had those questions

1:22:36and we have been having conversations

1:22:39with other community partners as well.

1:22:42And that is the goal, for sure.

1:22:45It's the goal, but we're not certain yet.

1:22:47Yes, well we don't have a set rent amount

1:22:50because we're not in the building yet,

1:22:51but that we are kind of maintaining

1:22:54as to where we are.

1:22:55Just one last question, Mary Guthrie.

1:22:58When I was driving for the seed

1:22:59and for other food organizations,

1:23:02one of the concerns that often came up for me was,

1:23:06why am I driving?

1:23:07And the answer was very simple.

1:23:09There was no accessible, easily accessible

1:23:12bus transportation for people using

1:23:15the North End Harvest Market or the seed or whatever.

1:23:18And it's a big question here.

1:23:19I don't expect you necessarily know the answer,

1:23:23but what about if we come back and say,

1:23:26we can't put public transit into that area?

1:23:29What happens to this hub if we can't do that?

1:23:33I think that would be an important element and principle

1:23:36that would be part of the exploration process.

1:23:38We definitely, I mean, there would be 400 units

1:23:41of affordable and attainable housing there.

1:23:43We would definitely want public transit

1:23:46and also for the staff and volunteers

1:23:48that work at the seed and the children's foundation.

1:23:51That would be really important.

1:23:53Our model has changed a bit, I think, since you volunteered.

1:23:57We're no longer doing kind of deliveries to homes

1:24:00where we are more of a regional distribution network,

1:24:03bringing the things that people need to where they are.

1:24:06So schools, markets, other food emergency food providers,

1:24:11and we have trucks to do that as well and drivers.

1:24:14You just raised one last question for me.

1:24:17You said 400 units, is that correct?

1:24:19Yes.

1:24:20That's fairly concrete.

1:24:21Where did that number come from?

1:24:23That was the original concept that was put forward.

1:24:29So affordable and attainable units,

1:24:31a park and a charitable community-based hub.

1:24:36Thank you very much.

1:24:37Thank you.

1:24:39Great, thank you.

1:24:40Kate, please, I think that's it for my list.

1:24:44Thank you.

1:24:46Through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:24:48So we've had a conversation already

1:24:51and I've mentioned that I think that this is a great project.

1:24:55I think it is fantastic.

1:24:56I think it is fantastic.

1:24:57And I would love to support it if it was in Guelph

1:25:01because we've had a lot of other developments come through

1:25:05and we're concerned about water usage

1:25:09as well as the cost to create these utilities

1:25:13for an area that we don't get any property tax value for.

1:25:16And I know that you and I have had discussions

1:25:18about potentially talking to other developers

1:25:22who are currently building spaces.

1:25:23So I'm really hopeful and optimistic

1:25:25that some of that will pan out.

1:25:29And I was wondering about whether or not,

1:25:35like what was your process for kind of reaching out

1:25:38to other developers to look for other partners

1:25:41within the city limits?

1:25:44Thank you for the question through the mayor.

1:25:47We have, as I mentioned, did a bit of a market scan

1:25:52of what's out there.

1:25:54We haven't reached out to any specific developers yet

1:25:58other than the few that we have connections with.

1:26:01So there are a lot of developers

1:26:02that we don't have a relationship with.

1:26:04And as I've shared with many of you,

1:26:06we're open to exploring all possibilities.

1:26:09There are these kind of three principles or requirements

1:26:13that we need in order to make a development

1:26:17like this feasible.

1:26:18And so we would be looking through

1:26:21any potential opportunities through that lens.

1:26:23And I really appreciate the connections

1:26:25that folks are making for us.

1:26:27Thank you.

1:26:30That's great.

1:26:30Hopefully this is kind of a good advertisement

1:26:34for the developers out there who are looking to do some works.

1:26:36I know there's lots of groups

1:26:38who want to do some charity connections.

1:26:40So if you're out there, find Melissa.

1:26:44And we'll see what we can get

1:26:46within the city limits for you.

1:26:47Thanks.

1:26:49Thank you.

1:26:51Okay. And last, actually,

1:26:52I made a mistake as councillor Downer.

1:26:55Thank you.

1:26:56Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:26:57So this is, this would be,

1:27:00even if it was realized this vision,

1:27:02it would be a five to 10 year project.

1:27:05This is not next year.

1:27:07The hope, whatever process we did,

1:27:09if this was to be realized,

1:27:12or any other project in the city working with a developer

1:27:16would probably take that kind of time as well.

1:27:19What are you doing in the interim?

1:27:20What's happening?

1:27:22Thank you for the question through the mayor.

1:27:24We continue to look for interim options

1:27:29as well as building towards a future state ideal vision

1:27:33for where we want to be.

1:27:35The Children's Foundation

1:27:36and the Guelph Community Health Center

1:27:38are initiating a joint site selection process

1:27:41and we'll be doing some more public facing reach outs

1:27:45for both a short-term space

1:27:47and continuing to build out our vision for a long-term space,

1:27:50which includes the option we're bringing forward

1:27:53for your consideration today

1:27:55and any other options that might come forward.

1:28:02So what you just said,

1:28:04sort of just raises another question for me.

1:28:07So who is bringing forward this option?

1:28:11So is it you and the cohort or charity groups

1:28:16or is it the person, Woods Development,

1:28:19that owns that land?

1:28:22I'm sort of now, I'm sort of like wondering

1:28:24like I thought it was a proposal from the developer.

1:28:29Thank you for the question through the mayor.

1:28:31This is where my understanding

1:28:33of all the official parts of the process,

1:28:35so forgive me if we've not gone through the proper process,

1:28:39but this is a community-driven project.

1:28:42The Children's Foundation and the SEED need a new location.

1:28:46In our search for a new location,

1:28:48in talking to one of our partners,

1:28:50we uncovered what we think is a really

1:28:53high potential opportunity.

1:28:56And so, Woods Development Group is our partner in this.

1:29:00They are our current landlord

1:29:01and we have been talking with them about this option.

1:29:09Okay.

1:29:11Thank you very much.

1:29:12Okay, I have to say what I always say.

1:29:14We're circling.

1:29:15Back to you.

1:29:17Thank you very much.

1:29:17Just very quickly, and thank you for the document

1:29:20that you sent on Friday afternoon.

1:29:22My question is, is that a public document?

1:29:25Because I think back to almost a year ago

1:29:28where you approached me at the St. Joseph's Fundraising event

1:29:33with this initiative and it's almost a year later.

1:29:36So this isn't a new idea.

1:29:37It's been developing for a while.

1:29:39Is that document, because I asked clerks to check

1:29:42when you sent it to us if it can be public?

1:29:44Because part of my concern is,

1:29:46wealth taxpayers have no idea that this request

1:29:49is coming forward.

1:29:51So I have a request.

1:29:53Is that something that is a public document?

1:29:57So, Councillor Prusatil,

1:30:00you know what motion is coming for from Councillor Downer.

1:30:03She sent it a long time ago.

1:30:05It specifically asks for that to become public.

1:30:09So that's being tabled in literally 30 seconds.

1:30:13I think that's a little out of scope for our delegate.

1:30:16To be fair, my mailbox filled up this morning

1:30:19with all these motions and stuff,

1:30:20and I've been running around not able to read them all.

1:30:22So to be fair, that's the way the business has gone.

1:30:27Okay.

1:30:28Are you done with the delegate?

1:30:31Thank you very much.

1:30:32Thank you. Appreciate it.

1:30:33And your work.

1:30:35Okay, so before I turn it over to Councillor Downer,

1:30:40I forgot to tell the location of this.

1:30:43So when you hear Wellington County,

1:30:46you might think of like where, right?

1:30:48So it is at the dead end of Elmira Road and Fife.

1:30:53Elmira Road and Fife.

1:30:58Okay, so Elmira dead ends,

1:31:01and there's like literally a cul-de-sac,

1:31:04and it's there.

1:31:06So it's right there.

1:31:08Right at the dead end, cornered by Fife and White Law,

1:31:12if I could give you the exact kind of corner.

1:31:15All right, so we're not talking,

1:31:17you know, five kilometers down the road

1:31:20or something like that.

1:31:22It's Guelph, Guelph, Guelph, Guelph,

1:31:24dead ends and right there is Guelph-Aremasa.

1:31:27Okay, so I just want to make sure everyone was aware of that.

1:31:32The other thing that I just wanted to state was that

1:31:40both my colleagues, Bousatil and Alt,

1:31:45continued in their questions to bring up

1:31:48the cost to taxpayers of Guelph.

1:31:52So in the motion that has been public for quite some time,

1:31:58it specifically says that if this opportunity is explored,

1:32:03it would be cost-neutral to the city of Guelph.

1:32:06So that's already public and has been for quite some time,

1:32:10so not quite sure where the cost

1:32:13to taxpayers of Guelph is coming from.

1:32:16What else is public is, not public story,

1:32:19but a counselor downers motion, which she's about to table,

1:32:23which was sent to everyone earlier,

1:32:25also says the exact same thing.

1:32:28So anyways, I just thought I'd make sure

1:32:31that that was restated because it looks like

1:32:36there might be some, I don't know what's happening here,

1:32:38miscommunication or differences of opinion.

1:32:41I don't know what's happening,

1:32:42but no cost to the city of Guelph.

1:32:45It's on the agenda.

1:32:46No, it's right here, I'm gonna circle it.

1:32:49It's right there.

1:32:52So the other thing is, is that there was some narrative there

1:32:57from my colleagues around like annexation

1:33:01or boundary expansion.

1:33:03There is no language of that anywhere here.

1:33:08There's no language of that in the motion

1:33:10coming forward from council or downer either.

1:33:12That's also been public.

1:33:14No language around annexation.

1:33:17There is something called an MSA,

1:33:19a municipal service agreement, which can be done

1:33:21and has been done in the city of Guelph,

1:33:25where there's servicing that is provided,

1:33:29but it does not mean that the lands would actually be annexed

1:33:33or boundary changes would even happen,

1:33:35but I have no idea.

1:33:36That's what the exploratory kind of permission would be

1:33:41and to move this process further.

1:33:44So I think I've kind of addressed as the mover of this issue,

1:33:49some of the narrative and points that have come up

1:33:51from my colleagues, which they have every right to table,

1:33:54and I have every right to make sure

1:33:56that the facts are there on the table as well

1:33:59for people to hear back as well.

1:34:02So councillor Downer, over to you.

1:34:06Yes, thanks.

1:34:07So I don't know if their clerks could put up the motion.

1:34:14Maybe just keep it there for a few minutes.

1:34:16I'd need a seconder first.

1:34:18Councillor Allt?

1:34:20Yep, Ault.

1:34:21Okay, move by yourself.

1:34:22So the mayor presented this,

1:34:27and thanks to the mayor for putting this out there,

1:34:28because this discussion has been somewhat out

1:34:30in the community and raised here and there,

1:34:33but there's been, from my perspective,

1:34:36and sort of what I realized more about is

1:34:38we got closer to this meeting

1:34:39and people are saying to me,

1:34:40well, what is this?

1:34:41What is this about?

1:34:42There is no proposal in the package.

1:34:45There's nothing here that's showing exactly

1:34:49what this would look like and what it entails

1:34:52and who's the proponent or anything like that,

1:34:54and it is the Woods Development Group.

1:34:58And to me, that's been problematic.

1:35:01So it's not transparent to the public.

1:35:04It's not transparent to other developers

1:35:06that who may be interested in a similar,

1:35:09like being a host to this.

1:35:12And it's not transparent to other charities

1:35:14who may want to be involved.

1:35:15There's just sort of been this sort of rumor

1:35:18going around in the community.

1:35:19So I appreciate the mayor's son bringing it to us

1:35:22and saying, you know, that just sort of

1:35:28as a catalyst, I would say.

1:35:31So the motion is basically, you know,

1:35:35about creating a more transparent process.

1:35:37And it's asking for the proponent,

1:35:40who I'm not quite clear now who is.

1:35:42So it might be proponents to sort of bring forward

1:35:45a proposal.

1:35:46Now, I know that we received an email

1:35:49from Susan Frazin today with a PowerPoint presentation,

1:35:55eight pages.

1:35:56I mean, I'm expecting that if this comes,

1:36:00that it would be much more of a proposal than that

1:36:02for our staff to respond to.

1:36:05And so what I want is that proposal to be made public

1:36:08and I want, with this motion,

1:36:11I would like for once they've received it to make a public

1:36:16and also then to have staff come back with a full report

1:36:20on what the next steps might be,

1:36:22what are the, we've asked for it to be revenue neutral,

1:36:26but like what are the, what kind of potential costs

1:36:30would it incur?

1:36:31Because, you know, affordable housing is exempt

1:36:34from development charges.

1:36:36But that doesn't mean that the costs go away.

1:36:39Exemptions don't mean that costs go away.

1:36:41It means that the rest of the taxpayers

1:36:43in the city of Guelph pick up that cost.

1:36:46So I think we all have to be aware and eyes wide open

1:36:50about what the implications of developing something

1:36:56in outside the city boundaries are not developing it,

1:36:59but are having discussions around that.

1:37:01So the point is to have staff fully report back

1:37:05on what those are and what they can from a proposal

1:37:10because this isn't an application.

1:37:11And when what the next steps might be,

1:37:13I mean, council may say like, no, at that time,

1:37:16this is just too risky for us.

1:37:19Or in the meantime, maybe another developer has come forward

1:37:22because we've been very public about this and transparent

1:37:25who could do something in the city of Guelph.

1:37:27So that's sort of the point of bringing this forward.

1:37:33Okay, thank you very much.

1:37:34And again, just to reiterate what this is,

1:37:36the process with a proposal or a bit bigger

1:37:39than the proposal to come forward publicly.

1:37:43So that ball would be in the court of the developer

1:37:46and anyone else that's involved in it or whatever.

1:37:48And the second part is that, it would come back

1:37:52looking at any of the sort of more technical process issues,

1:37:55but also cost neutral is in there in that language.

1:37:59And I would also like our CAO, Tara Baker,

1:38:03to also respond to the motion to see

1:38:07whatever thoughts she might have on it as well.

1:38:12Sure, and through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Downer.

1:38:19Staff have had very preliminary discussions about this.

1:38:26And I think, share some of the,

1:38:29there's potential hurdles here that have been talked about.

1:38:35We can accommodate only so much growth

1:38:39with the capacity, the water capacity that we have.

1:38:42And we are making investments and there's sequencing

1:38:47of growth that has to happen to kind of match

1:38:50that water capacity and wastewater capacity sequencing

1:38:54over the next 30, 40 years.

1:38:56And so the report back, the motions as they are tabled,

1:39:02staff are comfortable with that.

1:39:04It gives us the opportunity to look into those things

1:39:08and report back to council about those concerns

1:39:12and explore more about this

1:39:17because the lands are not in Guelph.

1:39:19And so for city staff to explore this

1:39:24is also a bit delicate given that these lands

1:39:29are outside of our boundary.

1:39:30And so these are concerns that we have had

1:39:35in terms of how to progress this conversation, if at all.

1:39:40And so the motions here, I think give that space

1:39:45to have early conversations and come back with next steps.

1:39:53Thank you, Councillor Downer.

1:39:56Sorry, at Caron, please, and then alt.

1:39:58And then I think I can call the vote after that.

1:40:02Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:40:03And I really appreciate that answer

1:40:04because we know that there's some other information

1:40:12that we don't have here this afternoon.

1:40:14We know that the public

1:40:15hasn't also been presented with that information.

1:40:18The cost neutrality doesn't include staff time

1:40:22for exploration.

1:40:23And I just wonder what would be the estimate of time

1:40:26if we were to pass this?

1:40:27And let me be frank.

1:40:30Exploration of an idea that helps our charitable

1:40:33and our social benefit sector is something

1:40:35that's near and dear to something that I value.

1:40:38We all benefit when our local charities

1:40:41and community organizations are thriving

1:40:43and have the space to do their good work.

1:40:46So that's not the issue for me.

1:40:48It's about process and transparency.

1:40:51Cost neutrality, if we send you out to do work,

1:40:54that means other work isn't getting done

1:40:56and staff capacity is already maxed out.

1:40:59How long could this exploration take

1:41:03and what other work would be put on the back burner

1:41:05if you were out having those conversations

1:41:08and doing data collection, water supply collection,

1:41:13transit, transportation, all the different things

1:41:17that would play in all the components

1:41:18that would be required to truly explore this

1:41:21to the full extent.

1:41:24So through the mayor, I think that the level of detail

1:41:29that you just got into as it relates to data collection,

1:41:33transit routes, all like those types of considerations

1:41:36would actually be, I would say, step two.

1:41:39Like staff would likely not get to that level of detail

1:41:42in this kind of exploratory motion.

1:41:44I would say that if there is any requirement

1:41:49that needs budget in terms of studies,

1:41:53next legal advice, that would not occur

1:41:59before seeking that budget direction from council.

1:42:02And so at this point, the exploratory language for me

1:42:07is interpreting early understanding,

1:42:12exploring with the proponents and having staff time,

1:42:17not excessive, but staff time to be able to report back

1:42:22on the next steps.

1:42:23What could council foresee needing to be required

1:42:28to move further, including fiscal impact at that time?

1:42:34I think to, just in terms of timeline,

1:42:38so if this gets approved today,

1:42:41I completely agree with you that the staff capacity

1:42:45right now to do this work is limited.

1:42:50And the election kind of timing here with council meetings,

1:42:56the council meeting, there's not that many left

1:43:00before we're getting into that October period.

1:43:03And so this likely would come back from staff later

1:43:07or into the new term.

1:43:09Okay, so just to clarify, exploration city staff

1:43:13to township staff, as well as the proponents,

1:43:16but it doesn't include other stakeholders

1:43:18like other developers who might have land

1:43:20for charitable purposes.

1:43:22It doesn't include economic development,

1:43:23exploring land that could be used in lieu of this proposal.

1:43:27This is just the proponents plus city council,

1:43:31city staff going to Guelph or Amasa staff

1:43:33and what staff would be involved in that?

1:43:36Would it be you CAO to CAO or planning staff?

1:43:39Sorry, I'm just gonna jump in just cause I think you're,

1:43:42I think you're unfortunately jumping the gun

1:43:44a little bit here.

1:43:46The ball is in the proponents court first.

1:43:49Right.

1:43:50So however long the proponent takes

1:43:52to make the proposal public and have it become like,

1:43:57then staff act.

1:43:59So if we pass this today,

1:44:01staff actually don't do anything

1:44:03because the proponent has to act first.

1:44:06True.

1:44:06Okay, so I just wanna make sure

1:44:07that there's that awareness issue.

1:44:09Staff aren't gonna do a thing until the proponent.

1:44:11So if the proponent takes a week, so be it,

1:44:13but if the proponent takes three months,

1:44:15four months, so be it too.

1:44:16Like everything sort of relies on the proponent

1:44:18and the partners to do something publicly

1:44:22as the motion stated first, then staff will act.

1:44:25Just wanna make sure everyone knew

1:44:26the sequencing of the motions.

1:44:28Sure, and I appreciate that,

1:44:29Mary-Gathry for that clarification.

1:44:31I'm trying to scope clause two,

1:44:33which is when that proposal comes in,

1:44:36we are directing staff in clause two

1:44:39to go ahead and have those conversations.

1:44:41And I'm just trying to scope what staff would be involved.

1:44:45Is it just CAO to CAO?

1:44:47Is it planning staff?

1:44:48Would there be any other stakeholders involved?

1:44:52Trying to scope what amount of work clause two.

1:44:54If I vote in favor of clause two,

1:44:56I'd just like to know what the impact is.

1:44:58Yeah, so through the mayor, I'm interpreting it.

1:45:00So I'd also look to maybe the mover

1:45:04to make sure that this is satisfactory.

1:45:06But the way that I'm interpreting it

1:45:08would be more senior level staff

1:45:11that would be having conversations might be myself,

1:45:15maybe some of my colleagues here beside me.

1:45:19And that we would be having

1:45:21those kind of early exploratory conversations at that level.

1:45:25That helps, and hopefully that's also

1:45:26the understanding of the mover.

1:45:32Okay, Kateen, please.

1:45:34And then Alt, and then I'll, I'm so sorry,

1:45:37I messed up my order, it's Alt,

1:45:38and then I'll go to you to bring us home, Kateen, okay?

1:45:41So Alt first.

1:45:42Thank you very much, because we are throwing around

1:45:46something that's incredibly ambiguous,

1:45:47and not really certain what it is right now.

1:45:50Through you, Mayor Guthrie, to CAO Baker.

1:45:54First of all, just clearly and definitively,

1:45:57is this a planning proposal?

1:46:05Through the mayor, not yet.

1:46:06I think that what we're talking about is an idea.

1:46:10And so at this stage in the format that we have it,

1:46:14it is not a proposal.

1:46:17If it becomes, I guess, in step two, a planning proposal,

1:46:23my concern is how others within the community,

1:46:28how other developers in the community would respond.

1:46:31Is this potentially jumping the queue?

1:46:33I would say through the mayor,

1:46:36those are the things that we'd report back on.

1:46:37Like we're not getting into, when you say step two,

1:46:41I'm foreseeing step two would be after staff report back,

1:46:45would be step two.

1:46:46Yeah.

1:46:48Okay, with regards, I'm very concerned about governance

1:46:52and terminology.

1:46:54We've used the term cost neutral quite a bit,

1:46:56and I frankly don't see this as cost neutral at all.

1:47:00I don't see the proposal as cost neutral

1:47:02or anything going forward,

1:47:03because anything that we do will have an impact

1:47:05on anything that's currently budgeted.

1:47:07Am I correct in that?

1:47:09And it could actually lead to some things

1:47:11actually falling off the agenda.

1:47:13Is that correct?

1:47:18So through the mayor, I guess that really is,

1:47:20we have not evaluated everything at this point.

1:47:23And so I think that there is some concern on staff's part

1:47:27that there will be cost in though,

1:47:29but however the motion is very clear

1:47:31that you would like us to report back

1:47:34with that understanding that you're looking for cost neutral.

1:47:38And so then that gives staff the ability

1:47:40to respond back with that lens.

1:47:43And stating then it's not cost neutral.

1:47:45Okay, thank you.

1:47:52Councillor Caitlin, please.

1:47:53And then it looks like Gipps, then I'll call the vote.

1:47:58Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:48:00So in terms of process,

1:48:03if the groups that are looking for the charity hub

1:48:08come back in X amount of time

1:48:10and say we've found another solution

1:48:13and it's gonna be in Guelph or somewhere else

1:48:14and we're all covered,

1:48:17would that just be coming back to us

1:48:18an information report then

1:48:19to let us know that it's kind of concluded?

1:48:26Through the mayor, yeah, depending on the situation,

1:48:28I think we'd consider the need

1:48:32for and the right way in which to report back.

1:48:36But I think there's potentially many outcomes

1:48:41through the discussions that may occur.

1:48:43So it's hard to really commit at this point.

1:48:46Okay, I'm just wondering if it's like gonna go away

1:48:50into the ether or if we'll find out what happened basically

1:48:55if there isn't a report back.

1:48:57Yes, staff will report back in some form.

1:48:59Absolutely, thank you.

1:49:02Okay, thank you.

1:49:03And Councillor Gibson.

1:49:08Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:49:09push the wrong button there.

1:49:10Can I just ask for the motion to be put back on the screen

1:49:13one last time if you don't mind?

1:49:30Okay, thanks.

1:49:31I just wanted to prove,

1:49:32I just wanted to read it again

1:49:34in that second clause as well.

1:49:37I think council has done a really good job

1:49:40trying to lay out concerns from the outset.

1:49:46We've spent a lot of time around the horseshoes

1:49:48you're now hearing about ifs, answer, buts,

1:49:51but this is an exploratory motion.

1:49:54And I think that the way it's worded is exploratory

1:49:57and that it's simply really what it's asking for

1:49:59is to staff to spend some time coming back

1:50:02with answers to those questions,

1:50:04but to try and explore what the term cost neutral means

1:50:09at this point, this is a back and forth.

1:50:13So I think I'm happy to support,

1:50:15I'm happy to see where this goes.

1:50:17I think in general, it's an ambitious

1:50:19and it's worthy of exploration,

1:50:23but at the end of the day,

1:50:24we'll all see what it shakes out to be for our budgets

1:50:29and for our cooperation with the township.

1:50:32So happy to support and I like to just reiterate

1:50:37and refocus our conversation

1:50:38on the exploratory nature of this motion.

1:50:42It's not committing us to anything at this point.

1:50:45All right, thank you.

1:50:46And Billing, please.

1:50:49Through you, Mr. Mayor, to our CAO,

1:50:54have staff not already high level done

1:50:57some exploration on this issue?

1:51:04Through the mayor to council Billings,

1:51:07we have had a meeting,

1:51:10it was a while ago with the proponent,

1:51:13but we have not had any further conversations

1:51:16or engagement with the other proponent

1:51:21that was the nonprofit organizations

1:51:23or Guelph-Era-Massa township at this point.

1:51:28Okay, but then I thought the issue was water capacity.

1:51:34And if we don't have the water capacity,

1:51:36is this a moot point or do you still support

1:51:40exploring this matter?

1:51:44Through the mayor,

1:51:46I staff believe that water capacity

1:51:49is absolutely going to be the limiting factor for this.

1:51:55And so I don't believe though it's a moot point.

1:52:00I think that there's still value

1:52:01in having the exploratory conversations

1:52:04for the ability for staff to report back

1:52:06about those concerns.

1:52:08I think at this point we've had conversations,

1:52:12but there hasn't really been a mechanism

1:52:14for staff to report back

1:52:15because there hasn't been a public issuing of this proposal.

1:52:21And so I feel like the motions just enable

1:52:24this to those conversations to happen with the right people

1:52:30and offer the way to report back out to council

1:52:34for evaluation of next steps.

1:52:36Okay, thank you.

1:52:38Thank you for that, Tara.

1:52:42All right, thank you.

1:52:43Seeing nothing further,

1:52:45thank you, Councillor Downer,

1:52:47for the language in your motion.

1:52:49Thank you, Councillor Gibson,

1:52:51for in my opinion succinctly addressing

1:52:55what the motion is in front of us here.

1:53:00I believe it is incumbent upon me as the mayor

1:53:03that when you are aware of,

1:53:06and many around the horse who are aware of,

1:53:10this opportunity that it's imperative

1:53:16that we explore this.

1:53:18And much of my colleagues have talked a little bit

1:53:21about more of the charitable side,

1:53:23and I think by default we have one of the charitable groups

1:53:26as a delegate, so it kind of makes sense

1:53:28that you speak in that.

1:53:30But I just want to, before I call the vote,

1:53:32just remind everyone that we're talking about

1:53:34hundreds of affordable housing

1:53:36and attainable housing units here too.

1:53:38Okay, so as much as I hear,

1:53:40well, you could probably just go get a commercial space

1:53:42maybe somewhere else,

1:53:43or maybe you should explore over there or over there.

1:53:45That's all fair, I mean, not only have you said that,

1:53:48but even the delegate said that, that's fair.

1:53:50But are those other spaces

1:53:52going to have hundreds of affordable housing units there

1:53:54as well?

1:53:56No.

1:53:57And that's why this vision, I think,

1:53:59compels us to at least explore.

1:54:02At least explore, and I see some heads nodding

1:54:04in the audience, thank you.

1:54:06So I think this is worthy of that.

1:54:12And I appreciate the conversation and the willingness

1:54:17to maybe see if we can get the supportive vote here

1:54:20to have this continue in the process that's been laid out.

1:54:24I think it's a wonderful thing for our community

1:54:27to try to wrap around, and I'm glad that it's public now,

1:54:31which was my intent, which was fully my intent

1:54:34to bring this forward publicly,

1:54:37to see if we can explore this further.

1:54:40So I'm very, obviously very supportive of this,

1:54:42and hoping my colleagues will at least support exploring it.

1:54:47With that, I'll call the vote then.

1:54:49Is anyone against this motion?

1:54:54Unanimous, thank you very much.

1:54:56I appreciate that.

1:54:58Okay, let me keep going.

1:55:01We have, now, just one second, everybody.

1:55:13Okay, we are gonna do the next agenda item right away.

1:55:19It is an application for hearing what the application is

1:55:24and receipt, and then after that,

1:55:30we are going to take a break, everybody, okay?

1:55:33I'm telling that to everybody up front,

1:55:36so that, because the next item after that is the big one.

1:55:41Let's just call it what it is, right?

1:55:43So the Niska lands one.

1:55:46So I tell that to everybody here

1:55:49and anybody listening online,

1:55:52just to be up front about it,

1:55:53because I can see that the Niska one

1:55:57may not even start for about an hour.

1:56:02Okay, so I'm just wanting to be up front with everybody,

1:56:04just in case you wanted to get some fresh air

1:56:05or wanted to do something else or whatever,

1:56:09then to come back, I would say in about an hour.

1:56:13I just want to be up front about it,

1:56:14not surprise everybody about it later, okay?

1:56:16Just for your own time.

1:56:19So let's go to the next item, which is 220,

1:56:26Arkel Road, the proposed DPA and ZBA file.

1:56:31We have a presentation from our staff.

1:56:32We've got a couple of delegates here,

1:56:35and then we'll look to see if there's approval

1:56:38for the receiving recommendation on this one, okay?

1:56:41So I'll turn it over to our staff.

1:56:43Who's here from, Eric is here from our staff.

1:56:45Hello, Eric, thank you.

1:56:46Go right ahead.

1:56:48Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

1:56:49And good afternoon.

1:56:51Mayor Guthrie, members of council,

1:56:52and ladies and gentlemen,

1:56:54the city has received a draft,

1:56:56applications for a draft plan of subdivision

1:56:58and a zoning bylaw amendment from MHBC planning

1:57:02that permit the development of a residential subdivision

1:57:04with 32 single detached lots

1:57:06and a cluster townhouse block containing 48 dwelling units.

1:57:10The original statutory public meeting

1:57:12for these applications was held in May of 2020.

1:57:16As several years have passed since that initial meeting,

1:57:19this afternoon's meeting is an additional public meeting

1:57:22to bring council and the public up to speed

1:57:25with the application prior to any decision recommendation

1:57:27moving forward.

1:57:28So no decisions are to be made

1:57:30on this application this afternoon.

1:57:32So that being said,

1:57:33I would like to now briefly introduce the application

1:57:35and the site.

1:57:39So the subject lands are located on the north side

1:57:41of Arkle Road between Gordon and Victoria.

1:57:44The subject lands have an area of approximately seven hectares

1:57:47and currently the lands are zoned low density residential

1:57:51and natural heritage system in the city's zoning bylaw.

1:57:56Surrounding land uses include to the north,

1:57:58a new residential subdivision

1:57:59known as Victoria Park Village,

1:58:01to the east agricultural lands,

1:58:04to the south and existing residential subdivision

1:58:07containing semi-detached dwellings along Dawes Avenue

1:58:10and on street and cluster townhouses along Amos Drive

1:58:13and to the west,

1:58:14the Torrance Creek provincially significant wetland complex

1:58:17and an adjacent single detached lot

1:58:20that is not part of these applications.

1:58:26The subject property is designated low density residential

1:58:29in the city's official plan with a portion

1:58:32of the southwest really side of the lands

1:58:33designated significant natural area.

1:58:36The lands with the significant natural area designation

1:58:39apply to the portion of the lands

1:58:40that contain the Torrance Creek provincially significant

1:58:42wetland complex as well as the associated buffers

1:58:47and an ecological linkage along the north end

1:58:49of the property there.

1:58:51The low density residential land use designation applies

1:58:54to residential areas within the greenfield area of the city.

1:58:57Several land uses are permitted in that designation,

1:59:00including detached semi-detached and duplex dwellings

1:59:04as well as multiple unit residential buildings

1:59:06such as townhouses and apartment buildings.

1:59:09Residential development within these lands

1:59:11is permitted between intensities between 20 and 60 units

1:59:15per hectare.

1:59:23We'll skip on forward to the next slide here.

1:59:25So the applicant has proposed a residential draft plan

1:59:27of subdivision that would create 32 single detached lots

1:59:30and a cluster townhouse block for 48 units.

1:59:34Please note that this version of the draft plan

1:59:36on the screen labels that block as 70 to 94 units on block 33.

1:59:43This has since been reduced to 48 units

1:59:46in the materials submitted by the applicant.

1:59:51The proposed subdivision would extend Hutchinson Road

1:59:54south from the adjacent Victoria Park Village subdivision

1:59:57to service the single detached lots

1:59:59and the cluster townhouse block.

2:00:01The westerly portion of the subject lands

2:00:03is part of a wetland complex

2:00:05as well as an associated buffer.

2:00:07A stormwater management facility is proposed

2:00:09on the west side of the lands

2:00:12adjacent to the wetland buffer

2:00:14with a 50 meter wide ecological linkage

2:00:16along the Northern property line.

2:00:19Lands for a future North-South public trail

2:00:21are located along the western portion of the subject lands

2:00:23and connect Proposed Street A to Dawes Avenue to the south.

2:00:28Finally, a block for a public park is located on block 34,

2:00:32right where Street A is proposed to bend to the east.

2:00:40The applicant is requesting to change the zone

2:00:42on the subject lands

2:00:43from the current low density residential one RL one zone

2:00:47to a low density residential RL two zone along street A

2:00:51and to a site specific low density residential RL four zone

2:00:54at the southeast portion of the lands.

2:00:57In addition to these residential zones,

2:00:59the applicant is also requested to rezone a block

2:01:02in the central portion of the subdivision

2:01:03as neighborhood park

2:01:05and also the proposed trail and emergency access

2:01:08as well as a portion of the proposed

2:01:09stormwater management facility to open space.

2:01:13The remainder of the stormwater management facility

2:01:15would be rezoned to a site specific

2:01:18natural heritage system zone

2:01:20that would permit a stormwater management facility

2:01:23within that portion of the lands.

2:01:25The portion of the lands covered by the Torrance Creek Wetland

2:01:28and associated buffer would remain as part

2:01:30of the natural heritage system zone

2:01:32and would be unchanged from a zoning perspective.

2:01:39So two site specific provisions have been requested

2:01:42for the proposed RL four zone

2:01:43and that's for block 33,

2:01:45which you can see on the screen here.

2:01:46These provisions are for a reduced lot frontage

2:01:49of 10 meters to reflect the two 10 meter wide accesses

2:01:53from street A to block 33

2:01:56and to permit a reduced minimum buffer strip

2:01:58of 1.5 meters adjacent to the driveway accesses

2:02:01to block 33.

2:02:07And as of June 2nd of 2026,

2:02:10Ontario bill 98 is now in effect,

2:02:12prohibits municipalities from requiring

2:02:14electric vehicle parking.

2:02:16For this reason, the last two site specific provisions

2:02:18that are referenced on this slide

2:02:20are no longer required

2:02:22and are no longer part of this application.

2:02:25So ahead of a decision report,

2:02:27staff's review of these applications

2:02:28will address the following issues.

2:02:31Evaluation of the criteria to be considered

2:02:33for plans of subdivision,

2:02:34as per the planning act and the official plan.

2:02:37Evaluation of the proposals conformed

2:02:39to the 2024 provincial planning statement

2:02:41and the city's official plan.

2:02:43Review of the proposed zoning,

2:02:45review of the proposals land use subdivision layout

2:02:47and built form compatibility

2:02:49with adjacent established land uses.

2:02:52Review of any conditions for the proposed draft plans

2:02:54of subdivision, review of site servicing

2:02:57and grading requirements.

2:02:58And as well, staff will address all comments

2:03:01and issues raised during the review of this application.

2:03:04So once the applications are reviewed

2:03:06and all issues are addressed,

2:03:08a staff report with a recommendation

2:03:09will be considered at a future meeting of council.

2:03:12Any issues raised at tonight's public meeting,

2:03:15either by members of council or members of the public,

2:03:17will be noted by planning staff

2:03:19for future consideration

2:03:20as we continue to evaluate and review the application.

2:03:23Thank you.

2:03:26And thank you very much.

2:03:28Maybe some questions after we got a couple of delegates.

2:03:31So the first one is Dave Aston

2:03:34on behalf of the applicant.

2:03:36And then I have M Staples.

2:03:41M Staples here?

2:03:43Okay, great, thank you.

2:03:45You're gonna be in the wings, okay?

2:03:46You're up next.

2:03:48And you have no more than 10 minutes, okay, for each of you.

2:03:52So you'll hear the chime now at the nine minute

2:03:54and 32nd mark as your warning before the 10 minutes is up.

2:03:59Again, your microphone will unfortunately be turned off

2:04:02at the 10 minute mark, so let's not get there.

2:04:04And Dave, welcome and we'll turn it over to you.

2:04:07Great, thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:04:09Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council.

2:04:12And I'm here this afternoon

2:04:16on behalf of the landowner and Carson Reed is online.

2:04:21He couldn't be available this afternoon,

2:04:24but he is listening this afternoon for the public meeting.

2:04:28And I think I have a presentation here, just loading up.

2:04:33I want to thank Eric for his presentation.

2:04:36He covered off much of the detail

2:04:38on what's being proposed with the zoning bylaw amendment

2:04:43and proposed plan of subdivision.

2:04:46And you can see here really a bit of an idea conceptually

2:04:49of the potential building types or massing associated

2:04:54with the proposed development of the lands.

2:04:58I would suggest that, I'm gonna skip that.

2:05:01I would suggest that as what's being proposed

2:05:04really is a small infill component of the greenfield area.

2:05:11As mentioned, there's lands developed to the north

2:05:14and to the south and this plan proposes connections

2:05:19to existing infrastructure and then does propose a connection

2:05:23to the east to future development lands

2:05:26that are also planned for residential use.

2:05:29So the use of the lands for residential really isn't

2:05:33in question, they're designated their zone.

2:05:36And then as it relates to the natural open space areas,

2:05:40what's being proposed is the protection of the natural area

2:05:45and also the implementation of a 15 meter wide buffer,

2:05:50wildlife buffer on the north portion of the plan

2:05:53that's identified through the official plan,

2:05:56which is really a unique item.

2:05:58It's something that is identified.

2:06:01It's something that's providing that wildlife connection,

2:06:05but that's a lot of area being proposed for that.

2:06:09And we've worked with staff on implementing that

2:06:13and then working to use the remaining portion

2:06:16of the land efficiently,

2:06:18which is why there's some of the proposed site

2:06:20specific changes.

2:06:22So when you look at this plan

2:06:24and you look at the areas of development relative

2:06:27to the areas of protection,

2:06:29you see there's a significant amount of area

2:06:31that's protected for natural environment

2:06:34or that will be conveyed to the city

2:06:36for stormwater management purposes

2:06:38or park and trail purposes.

2:06:41So we think that's building on the planning

2:06:44that's been done in the community to the north

2:06:47and provides opportunity for connection

2:06:50in the longer term of trail to our co-road.

2:06:56So at the end of the day,

2:06:59we believe what is being proposed is a good fit

2:07:02to build on the community and the planning

2:07:06that's been done in the city.

2:07:11And the proposed zoning bylaw changes were covered,

2:07:15really nothing to add there.

2:07:17The site specific requests really relate

2:07:19to the best approach to get access,

2:07:23two points of access into the multiple residential block

2:07:28and 10 meters, we believe provides enough width

2:07:32for the appropriate driveway width for vehicles,

2:07:37emergency connection and the ability to provide sidewalk

2:07:43on the side of the street and some landscaping as well.

2:07:47So we believe the 10 meter reduction still achieves

2:07:51generally the objectives of what's being intended

2:07:54in the zoning bylaw.

2:07:58So these were the site specific provisions,

2:08:01the top two remain as requests related to the application.

2:08:08And really one thing I wanted to point out

2:08:11is when we talk about the timing

2:08:13and why we're back here with a public meeting

2:08:16is because the applications have been in process

2:08:19for some time, initial submission in 2019.

2:08:24So while we're here for a public meeting,

2:08:26looking to get additional feedback

2:08:28from what's now in front of council,

2:08:31I would suggest that a lot of work has been done

2:08:34in the background with technical reports

2:08:37and from staff review, providing comments

2:08:40and with our team responding to those comments.

2:08:43So while we're here this afternoon

2:08:44getting public comments to help us move forward,

2:08:47a lot of effort has gone into getting to where we are today

2:08:52with a plan that is before you that has,

2:08:55like I say, undergone a significant amount of review,

2:08:58environmental engineering, parks department,

2:09:02zoning review by staff.

2:09:04And generally my understanding is

2:09:07all of the larger issues have been addressed.

2:09:11And once we receive public comments

2:09:14and if there's any further comments

2:09:16we'll be addressing those.

2:09:18And our hope is to be back in front of council

2:09:21relatively quickly given the amount of work

2:09:24and effort that everyone has put into where we're at today.

2:09:30So with that, I'll ask if there's any questions

2:09:34and again, we'll continue to work with staff

2:09:38and respond to any public comments or questions

2:09:41that we receive today and through the process.

2:09:45Well, thank you very much, Dave.

2:09:47We appreciate that.

2:09:48Let me just see, I got Karan please and then Keaton.

2:09:54That looks like it's it.

2:09:56Thank you.

2:09:57One of my questions that I always ask

2:09:59at this stage of an application

2:10:01is your commitment to our community energy initiative.

2:10:04And I know that you submitted as part of your planning report

2:10:07and it talked about tree planting

2:10:10and cut off shields for lighting, that kind of thing.

2:10:14And we're looking for a commitment to net zero

2:10:16to help us meet our net zero to 2050 goals.

2:10:19I don't see that in your CEI commitment letter

2:10:23and I wonder if you could speak to that.

2:10:25Through the mayor to counselor.

2:10:28That's something that probably I need

2:10:31a little more discussion with the landowner

2:10:34and the builder on to come to a commitment on net zero.

2:10:39I know for sure there's a commitment like with everyone

2:10:43working through whatever requirements

2:10:46are associated with building code.

2:10:49And I think there's a lot of change happening

2:10:53with regard to building code

2:10:54and sustainable design elements

2:10:57and that with the planning act and municipalities.

2:11:01So I think that's something that we'll need to park

2:11:07until we return to council to provide a response on.

2:11:10Okay, thank you.

2:11:11And that was gonna be my next question.

2:11:12Is that something you can address

2:11:13before this comes back to approval?

2:11:16Or is that something that you would leave to site plan?

2:11:18So I'm glad to hear that commitment

2:11:20because I do think that this site is of the scale in size

2:11:23where you can actually do some really great things.

2:11:25And I know that you're,

2:11:27that the builder and proponent has done this type

2:11:31of net zero development in the past.

2:11:33So I'll be looking for that.

2:11:34Thanks.

2:11:36Okay, thank you.

2:11:37And Kate and please.

2:11:40Thank you.

2:11:41Through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:11:42I was just wondering about the lower amount

2:11:45of electric vehicle parking spaces,

2:11:48especially with the way gas prices are going.

2:11:52Like if I could afford to switch over, I know I would.

2:11:54So I'm just wondering why we're looking at a lower amount

2:11:59of electrical vehicles for parking.

2:12:04Through the mayor, I believe that Mr. Rampol responded

2:12:09to that and I think maybe I'll leave the response to that

2:12:13as far as the change to the bylaw is really a change

2:12:17associated with provincial changes and requirements.

2:12:23But from a marketability standpoint,

2:12:25just because it's not required as much,

2:12:29I would imagine that the market is going to require more.

2:12:33So I'm just wondering, do you have a plan for that?

2:12:36Through the mayor, again, I think similar to net zero

2:12:41as we get into a site plan process for that multiple block,

2:12:45if there's a market demand for electric vehicle parking,

2:12:49I think then there would be a response

2:12:52in a provision to electric vehicle parking

2:12:56or electric vehicle ready parking subject to that demand

2:13:00at the time of marketing that block

2:13:03of the proposed development.

2:13:07Thank you.

2:13:09Great, thank you.

2:13:10Just a quick follow up from a counselor, Karan, please.

2:13:14Sorry, it's a different question that I forgot.

2:13:15I've written down, it's a separate question.

2:13:18So if there was another line of thanks,

2:13:22just in terms of the site design, street A,

2:13:25you're not the adjacent landowner, I assume.

2:13:29Was the provision of street A in that design

2:13:32something that you and your client proposed

2:13:36or was that something that was requested by staff

2:13:40in terms of the design of the street layout?

2:13:45Through the mayor and maybe I'll let staff build on that,

2:13:48but my understanding, and I wasn't involved in 2019

2:13:53when this came forward,

2:13:55but my understanding now is that the location

2:13:58and design of street A is something that has been reviewed

2:14:03and is supported by staff from a design perspective

2:14:07and location and how that would integrate with adjacent lands.

2:14:15Great, thank you.

2:14:17Seeing nothing further, thank you very much.

2:14:19Thank you.

2:14:20Appreciate it.

2:14:22We're just gonna go to our last delegate that signed up.

2:14:25M Staples, I heard a voice saying that they are here.

2:14:34Thank you for coming, we appreciate it.

2:14:36And whenever you're ready,

2:14:40you as well have up to 10 minutes, okay?

2:14:43Yes, thank you. Go right ahead.

2:14:45My name is Staples.

2:14:46I own the property directly to the east of 220 Arco Road,

2:14:51and I spoke as a delegate at the initial public meeting

2:14:55in 2020.

2:14:56So I spoke on Friday with Mr. Rumpel,

2:15:00but I left him a message indicating,

2:15:03yesterday afternoon,

2:15:04indicating that I had additional questions,

2:15:06but I didn't receive a callback.

2:15:08So I'll raise those questions today.

2:15:12So my concerns are with respect to my property,

2:15:18and I want to ensure that a condition

2:15:21of the draft plan approval is a permanent fence

2:15:25between 220 Arco Road and my property

2:15:30to prevent unauthorized access to my property

2:15:33from the proposed development.

2:15:36And that until such time as a permanent fence is installed,

2:15:41temporary construction fencing needs to be maintained.

2:15:46So I have problems with trespassers entering my property

2:15:51from Arco Road.

2:15:53I don't need them to be also to have access

2:15:55to my property from 220 Arco Road.

2:15:58And this is a safety issue for me as a property owner.

2:16:03I had five break-ins at my home over a two-year period

2:16:05and had to have bars installed on my windows

2:16:09to prevent further break-ins.

2:16:11I also have a barn and need to ensure that no one has access

2:16:16to the rear of that barn

2:16:18from the 220 Arco Road subdivision.

2:16:23My second issue is around construction noise

2:16:25outside of times allowed by the noise control bylaw,

2:16:28and my experience to date from development

2:16:31on surrounding properties,

2:16:33most recently from the upper grand property,

2:16:37is that developers or construction companies

2:16:41do not comply with the bylaw.

2:16:44My only recourse is to call bylaw control.

2:16:48But when they do respond,

2:16:51they do not levy any fines so the behavior continues.

2:16:55A solution to this issue is to require the developer

2:17:01to post the noise control bylaw at all entrances

2:17:05to the development so that no one working there

2:17:08can claim ignorance of the bylaw.

2:17:11And then bylaw control should then be required

2:17:14to levy fines.

2:17:15I mean, this happened most recently

2:17:16with respect to the South End High School on a Sunday.

2:17:22First, they were working with,

2:17:24I don't know the name of the piece of equipment,

2:17:25but it had bucket on the front,

2:17:27big piece of equipment, which on a Sunday.

2:17:29So I called bylaw control, they came,

2:17:32they stopped doing it, within an hour,

2:17:35dump trucks started arriving.

2:17:37So I called bylaw control again, they came out,

2:17:39they stopped it.

2:17:40I asked for a follow-up from bylaw control,

2:17:44I asked if they were fined,

2:17:46and bylaw control said, we've dealt with it.

2:17:49And...

2:17:52I'm just wondering if you could,

2:17:55I'll make sure you have your full time,

2:17:56but we just need to make sure we're talking

2:17:58about the application and not sort of outside schools.

2:18:01This is about the application.

2:18:03Not quite, so I just wanna make sure you get back

2:18:05into the actual application of the development.

2:18:07But the construction size are around.

2:18:10Again, I'm not taking away your time,

2:18:11I'm not trying to be rude at all,

2:18:14but as the chair, I just wanna make sure

2:18:15that we are focused on what's in front of us here.

2:18:18So I'll still have to give you your time, you go ahead.

2:18:20The application before you will result in construction noise.

2:18:25And I wanna ensure that the noise from that construction

2:18:30does not occur outside of allowed hours.

2:18:34That is specific to this development application,

2:18:39because I share a, I don't even know how many meter

2:18:44boundary with this property.

2:18:47And I also have an issue with respect to garbage,

2:18:56because when the townhouses on the former

2:19:00Victoria West golf course were constructed,

2:19:02that's at the North Property Line.

2:19:05The developer threw the four by four cutoffs

2:19:08from the balconies onto my property.

2:19:11And there's garbage all along that property line,

2:19:15and I wanna ensure that council ensures

2:19:19that that doesn't happen with the development

2:19:22at 220 Arkel Road.

2:19:25So these are specific, these are concerns specific

2:19:30to 220 Arkel Road.

2:19:32And when I, one of the questions I had

2:19:37for Mr. Rumpel yesterday was with respect to changes

2:19:43from the 2020 application,

2:19:48the street in the former Victoria West golf course

2:19:55named Pool Street, which is a North South Street.

2:19:59In that application, it was shown straddling

2:20:02the property line between 220 and my property.

2:20:07In this application, that road has been moved

2:20:11to the east so that it no longer straddles

2:20:14that property line.

2:20:16So my question is, how was that change achieved?

2:20:20Did it, was it through changes to the zoning

2:20:26for the Victoria West golf course?

2:20:31Or that's it.

2:20:36So those are my issues.

2:20:39Okay.

2:20:40And my final question is, with respect to the notice

2:20:43of public meeting, which it said,

2:20:48residential subdivision is proposed

2:20:50with 31 single detached dwellings and 70 to 94 townhomes.

2:20:55And yet those numbers did not agree to any of the backup

2:20:59or to the actual proposal, which is for not 31

2:21:05but 32 single detached and not 70 to 94 townhomes,

2:21:10but 48.

2:21:11So I want to understand how that was allowed

2:21:14to be distributed by the city.

2:21:19Okay.

2:21:20Thank you.

2:21:21And the whole reason for the public meeting

2:21:23is for it to be captured.

2:21:25Our staff are absolutely capturing it.

2:21:27And you've also stated it in front of the applicant's

2:21:31representative.

2:21:32And I believe maybe the applicant might be listening online.

2:21:35So it's good that you did that so that everything

2:21:37can be captured and that can be looked into

2:21:39and investigated further for you 100%.

2:21:42Is there any questions from my colleagues

2:21:44just before I see if there's anyone else?

2:21:46Just Councillor Caron, please.

2:21:49Thank you, Ms. Staples.

2:21:50And I know you've been before Council

2:21:51many times before on similar issues.

2:21:54And so my question is just with related

2:21:56to the condition about fencing,

2:21:57because I know if I recall correctly,

2:21:59and correct me if I'm wrong,

2:22:01the Dawes Avenue stub road, you also requested a, sorry.

2:22:06I'm sorry, could you, could actually,

2:22:08could I ask you to speak up?

2:22:09Sure, I'm sorry.

2:22:10Thank you very much.

2:22:11Thank you for coming.

2:22:12I know you've been before on similar issues.

2:22:16You, in previous, I wanna get the fencing condition

2:22:19that you're requesting.

2:22:21I want clarity on that so that I can address it with staff.

2:22:24In previous applications, both for the high school

2:22:27and for the Dawes Avenue and the Victoria Park development,

2:22:33you have also requested fencing to protect

2:22:35your risk and liability to your property.

2:22:38I'm just wondering whether that fencing has been adequate.

2:22:40Has it been chain link?

2:22:42Has it been high enough?

2:22:42Because I know high school kids are gonna jump fences,

2:22:46especially if it's a-

2:22:47More path.

2:22:48So, and I just wanna know whether that the fencing

2:22:52specifically has been adequate to address your needs

2:22:55in the past for previous development,

2:22:57or are you looking for something a little more

2:23:01stronger and higher to reduce, again,

2:23:03your risk and liability on your property?

2:23:06Well, it has been between, it's 246 Arkel Road

2:23:11and my property.

2:23:12To the best of my knowledge, the fencing has never been

2:23:14installed along the north property line

2:23:17between the former golf course,

2:23:21and what is now has been designated by the city

2:23:24as a significant woodlot on my property.

2:23:28And have you, you have evidence seen that encroachment

2:23:33on your property or trespass on your property

2:23:36in the absence of that fencing?

2:23:38Well, I mean, I don't patrol the property,

2:23:43but I do get trespassers coming through from that direction.

2:23:47Okay, thanks.

2:23:47And with the upper grand high school opening this fall,

2:23:52I don't want anybody cutting across my property

2:23:55as a shortcut.

2:23:59And so my, also my question is,

2:24:01how will city staff deal with these issues with me?

2:24:07So yeah, you've stated it.

2:24:09It's on the record, it's staff are right there,

2:24:11they've heard you.

2:24:13And so they'll take it away.

2:24:16Anything in regards to the upper grand district school board

2:24:18needs to go to them, not to us.

2:24:20So you can contact your trustee

2:24:22or go right to the upper grand district school board

2:24:25to see if they can investigate that a bit further for you.

2:24:27Okay.

2:24:28I didn't raise anything about the upper grand.

2:24:30I raised it from trespassing from the 220

2:24:36Arco Road subdivision to the high school,

2:24:40not from the high school to the 220 Arco Road development.

2:24:45Okay, so my apologies if I misunderstood,

2:24:48but we captured it all, we hear you.

2:24:50Okay, but again, my question hasn't been answered.

2:24:54Will city staff contact me?

2:24:56Yeah, so I'm sorry, I'll contact you

2:24:59about the things that you've just addressed.

2:25:01Correct.

2:25:01So as you know, there's a sign up sheet here already.

2:25:04I mean, you're obviously already engaged,

2:25:06but anything to do with this file,

2:25:08if you want to be engaged through that email,

2:25:10or it looks like you already have a direct line

2:25:12to our staff, that you can definitely keep in contact

2:25:16with them, and then especially when the recommendation

2:25:19report comes back to us for consideration,

2:25:23you'll be notified in advance for that too,

2:25:25and you have the exact same ability to read that report,

2:25:28and then come back and address anything

2:25:29that you either like or don't like

2:25:31right before we do a final vote.

2:25:33Yes, but that'll take it to a vote,

2:25:35and I will only have approximately 10 calendar days

2:25:39to review that.

2:25:40That is correct.

2:25:42And so that's why I'm asking the staff contact me

2:25:46to address these issues with me.

2:25:49Yeah, so I believe that they are nodding yes,

2:25:51they're happy to speak with you.

2:25:52I can't look in both directions, sir, I'm looking at you.

2:25:57Yeah, so I'm not going to go back and forth with you now,

2:25:58and so you're getting me a little bit elevated here

2:26:00from a decorum point of view.

2:26:01I'm trying to be very respectful,

2:26:03and I know that you have some wanting

2:26:06to get some points across as well.

2:26:08I have repeatedly said that we have heard you,

2:26:11it's captured, our staff have heard you,

2:26:13there's ways to engage.

2:26:15I have heard from staff saying that they are more

2:26:17than willing to contact you, they will,

2:26:20and so I don't see anything here as being negative at all

2:26:23as you walk away from here.

2:26:24You've stated your issues, we've heard you

2:26:27and staff have heard you, and they will follow up.

2:26:29In fact, I'll make a promise to you now

2:26:31that I'll follow up with staff on your behalf

2:26:34to make sure that they have followed up with you.

2:26:37Okay.

2:26:38Am I done?

2:26:40Let me look around to my colleagues

2:26:41to see if there's any other questions.

2:26:44Okay, there isn't, and thank you very much.

2:26:47Okay, so with that, this is an opportunity

2:26:51if there's anyone else in the room

2:26:52that would like to speak to this applicant.

2:26:56This is application, sorry, or if there's anyone online

2:26:59that would like to speak as well,

2:27:02and there's gonna be a phone number

2:27:03that's gonna pop up on the screen.

2:27:05I know it's 519-837, can't quite remember

2:27:09the final four numbers.

2:27:14You'd think after 12 years, 5603.

2:27:19So 519-837-5603, all right?

2:27:25We're gonna lead that call number up there

2:27:27for a few moments, be two, three, four minutes kind of max,

2:27:31and we'll see if anyone wants to call in on that.

2:27:33As we're waiting to see if anyone wants to call in on that,

2:27:35is there anyone in the room that wants to speak

2:27:37to that application that we're talking about right now?

2:27:40No, okay, so everyone just take your breath

2:27:41for two or three minutes as we wait

2:27:42to see if anyone calls in, okay?

2:29:30Okay, this is a two-minute warning,

2:29:32just for everyone online and in the room,

2:29:34just to get ready.

2:30:48Okay, we're gonna come back here with one phone call in

2:30:52from Carmen Jandu.

2:30:55I hope I said that right.

2:30:57Carmen, are you gonna speak to us with your camera on

2:31:00or just over the phone?

2:31:01Just over the phone, I believe.

2:31:03Can you just try your phone out

2:31:04so we can make sure we can hear you?

2:31:09And if you can hear me, you just have to press

2:31:11star six on your phone.

2:31:16So star six.

2:31:17Good afternoon, can you hear me now?

2:31:18Yeah, we can.

2:31:19Thank you very much for joining us.

2:31:21And I hope I said your name right.

2:31:25You did an excellent job, sir, thank you.

2:31:27Okay, all right, tell us your thoughts on this.

2:31:29Go ahead.

2:31:31Oh, thank you.

2:31:32So good.

2:31:42Yeah.

2:31:43I think that I have, I'm just gonna pause this.

2:31:45Sorry, I thought that I was watching online as well.

2:31:46That would be good,

2:31:48because no one wants to hear me twice.

2:31:49That's good.

2:31:50Yes, thank you.

2:31:52And good afternoon, everyone.

2:31:53Mr. Mimir, members of council, staff and public.

2:31:56Again, my name is Carmen Jandu.

2:31:58I'm a land use planner with Arcadas.

2:32:00I'm based out of the Hamilton office.

2:32:02And I'm here representing Victoria Park Village,

2:32:05who are the developers I said earlier,

2:32:07to the Victoria Park Village subdivision

2:32:09located to the north.

2:32:12I'm here because of the draft plan of subdivision

2:32:14at 220 Arcale proposes to install a driveway

2:32:17to connect to Hutchison Road

2:32:19within our client subdivision.

2:32:21Our client subdivision is currently not assumed up

2:32:23this time by the city.

2:32:24As our last resident of block remains undeveloped.

2:32:27And I'm currently progressing through the site plan approval

2:32:29for that block.

2:32:31As a part of my site plan approval application,

2:32:33our client is currently working with staff

2:32:36for the design and the installation of traffic signals

2:32:39at the intersection of DeCorso and Victoria Park.

2:32:41As the subject line are directly benefiting

2:32:43from the intersection lights and infrastructure,

2:32:45our client requests that the city help facilitate

2:32:48a fair cost sharing for the design

2:32:50and or installation of those lights and infrastructure

2:32:54through a condition of draft plan approval.

2:32:56Admittedly, a cost sharing agreement

2:32:58or a front-ending agreement wasn't contemplated

2:33:01during the subdivision approval,

2:33:03which unfortunately I wasn't a part of at that time.

2:33:06This subdivision was about seven,

2:33:10the registration of the subdivision

2:33:11is about seven or so years ago.

2:33:13So the work proceeded that as well.

2:33:16But however, we asked that the lack of a condition

2:33:19not preclude the consideration for the review of cost sharing

2:33:23that we are asking for today.

2:33:25We recognize from our planner's presentation

2:33:29that there's no decision being made on this application today.

2:33:33However, we request that council consider

2:33:35our clients cost sharing request

2:33:37and direct staff to address our concerns as well

2:33:40and try to facilitate some of those meetings.

2:33:43Earlier today, my correspondence for this request

2:33:45was submitted to Mr. Rampal in the planning department

2:33:48and the clerks office,

2:33:49but I was admittedly a past the deadline.

2:33:52So our letter didn't make it to today's agenda.

2:33:55So through my delegation and speaking to the clerk,

2:33:57I'm hoping to bring your attention to our correspondence

2:34:00and ask that the clerk distribute the letter

2:34:02to the council for the review.

2:34:04And that's my request and thank you for your time

2:34:06and I'm available for any questions.

2:34:09Great, thank you so much for calling in.

2:34:11Is there a follow up at all on this one?

2:34:15There isn't.

2:34:15Just so you know, if you would like to send in

2:34:20any correspondence, if the clerks have it,

2:34:21they can forward it,

2:34:22but you can also send it to mayor at gulf.ca

2:34:26and I'll make sure my council colleagues get it.

2:34:29Okay, thank you so much.

2:34:30I'll do that.

2:34:32Okay, and I do have a question for you

2:34:34just before you hang up.

2:34:36As much as you've talked,

2:34:37you just said around site plan issues with our own staff,

2:34:40have you even reached out to this developer

2:34:42on this application to have any of those discussions

2:34:44before coming and delegating tonight?

2:34:48I believe that my client was reaching out to staff

2:34:52and I'm not sure if he reached out to AMHBC or the applicant.

2:34:57I was brought on to prepare the correspondence

2:35:01and delegate a little later on.

2:35:03So I do know that we have had some back and forth discussions

2:35:08through my client and the city,

2:35:09but I wasn't a part of those discussions.

2:35:11Okay.

2:35:12All right, well, I would also encourage just

2:35:14the neighborly thing to do, sort of knock on the door,

2:35:17just to see if there's a way that you guys

2:35:20can just chat things out without sort of

2:35:23also involving the city,

2:35:25but I also understand the why you're bringing it up.

2:35:28Yes.

2:35:29It's on record now.

2:35:30So thank you for doing that.

2:35:31There's no further questions.

2:35:33No, thank you.

2:35:34Yeah, there's no further questions.

2:35:35So again, thank you very much.

2:35:38All right, have a good evening everyone.

2:35:40You too, bye-bye.

2:35:44And there's no one else in the room that wanted to.

2:35:46So it is back to us.

2:35:48Councillor Houser, you've mentioned you wanted to

2:35:51at least move receipt for this and Alt,

2:35:53you're okay with seconding the receipt?

2:35:55Okay, thank you.

2:35:58And is there anything that you would like to speak

2:36:01to our staff about that has not already been brought up?

2:36:08Councillor Caron.

2:36:10It's kind of been brought up.

2:36:12So it's different.

2:36:16It's more of a historical discussion.

2:36:17We used to have a lot of applications in Ward 4

2:36:20and Councillor Guthrie at the time would have remembered

2:36:23this because they included stub roads to nowhere,

2:36:26stub roads to townships, stub roads to, yeah.

2:36:32And so we're seeing them in these applications

2:36:35on the adjacent agricultural land,

2:36:37which I might add has been in production

2:36:39for well over 150 years and has,

2:36:43and I believe still has that zoning.

2:36:45So when we see these applications with these roads

2:36:48and we know that they're privately owned,

2:36:50do we have any planning tools to ensure that there is no,

2:36:58like we're basically saying there will be a road here

2:37:01someday on land that we cannot ensure

2:37:05that will happen for who knows, decades, another 100 years.

2:37:09So my question is fencing and vegetation

2:37:14or something that we can ensure that this road ending

2:37:21does not adversely impact an adjacent property owner.

2:37:25What planning tools do we have other than conditions

2:37:27on site plan?

2:37:33Through the mayor to Councillor Caron.

2:37:35So we can certainly explore having a fencing condition

2:37:38along that property line.

2:37:40Additionally, these draft plan shows that street A

2:37:43will go up straight up to the property line.

2:37:45That being said, until such time as the property to the east

2:37:49is redeveloped, if it ever is,

2:37:51there will be a temporary turning circle at the end of that.

2:37:54So that way that road will not impact the neighboring property

2:37:58until or if they choose to redevelop that property.

2:38:02And if need be, it can remain as a,

2:38:07called the SAC and operate independently of the property

2:38:10to the east being redeveloped.

2:38:11So there's nothing forcing that property to redevelop

2:38:14against their will or anything along those lines.

2:38:16Okay, thank you for that.

2:38:18In the plan that we saw today,

2:38:20there's units that are there that would

2:38:24be in that turning circle.

2:38:26Is it possible to remove those two units

2:38:29to create that turning circle?

2:38:30Or again, is that something that you would have to speak

2:38:34to the owner about because we would want that cul-de-sac

2:38:39form to occur at the time of construction?

2:38:46Through Mr. Mayor to Councillor Caron.

2:38:48So yes, the few units on either side of street A

2:38:51would be held out until such time as the development

2:38:54of the neighboring property can proceed.

2:38:58And then the street can go straight on through

2:39:02past the property line.

2:39:03As long as that temporary turning circle is there,

2:39:05those lots will be held out from development.

2:39:07Great, thank you.

2:39:09Great.

2:39:11And look, I just want to make sure I have it on the record

2:39:13for that, that, that, that delegate that came up.

2:39:17I don't know if she's still here or not.

2:39:18I don't have my glasses on, but just to have it

2:39:22on the public record, I, I, you heard her concerns.

2:39:26You're good to reach out.

2:39:27You've got to call anyways, just to kind of walk her through

2:39:30what you can and can't do there.

2:39:32And also the opportunity to make sure she's aware

2:39:35when the application comes back.

2:39:39Through you Mr. Mayor, that is correct.

2:39:40Yeah, we'll absolutely reach out again.

2:39:42I've already spoken with Miss Staples last week

2:39:46and I'm happy to reach out again

2:39:47to discuss her concerns further.

2:39:50Perfect.

2:39:50And I think as we all heard, some of the issues

2:39:53are bylaw related in general.

2:39:55And so maybe just, if you're talking to her,

2:39:57just maybe give some of the, some of the ways

2:40:00in which bylaw can be engaged as well further on.

2:40:04Okay, that would help her out.

2:40:06Okay, with that, I see nothing further.

2:40:10So can I call the vote?

2:40:12Are we good?

2:40:13Yep.

2:40:14Okay, is there anyone against receiving this application?

2:40:18Okay, nobody, nobody's against.

2:40:19So that's unanimous as well.

2:40:22And so now we are going to do that,

2:40:27that break that I mentioned earlier.

2:40:30So I just want to confer with the clerks for one moment.

2:40:33Everyone just give me a second.

2:41:07Thanks everyone.

2:41:08I just wanted to understand sort of the bouncing ball here

2:41:10of what's happening.

2:41:12And so I'll just explain to you what I just had

2:41:13the discussion with the clerk on there.

2:41:15So we are going to take a break

2:41:18for approximately half an hour.

2:41:20So let's say, say, say for half an hour.

2:41:22So it's five o'clock is when we're going to come back.

2:41:25But we've had a request to go in camera for some advice.

2:41:32And so to do that, we're going to have a break

2:41:34for a half an hour.

2:41:36We're going to come back out here at exactly five o'clock

2:41:40and we will be moving to go into a closed session

2:41:43in regards to the Niska lands item.

2:41:47I would suggest that that item in camera

2:41:53will probably be about a half an hour at a minimum.

2:41:57Okay, so I'm just kind of trying to give a flavor

2:42:00of what to expect.

2:42:02So it's 4.30 now, break for a half an hour.

2:42:06Then we come back out here and all we do

2:42:08is immediately look to move to go in camera

2:42:10on the Niska issue.

2:42:12That's going to be half an hour.

2:42:14So I would suggest from a timing perspective,

2:42:17you might want to try to come back here

2:42:19if there's people waiting for the Niska issue

2:42:22or people watching online,

2:42:24that it probably won't start till 5.30.

2:42:26I'm just trying to make sure everyone's

2:42:28given a heads up, okay?

2:42:29So thank you.

2:42:32We'll take a break right now.

2:42:33As I said, we will come back out at five o'clock,

2:42:35but again, it will be to look to see if council

2:42:38wants to move into a closed session

2:42:39at that time on Niska lands.

2:42:41Okay, thank you very much.

3:15:05My colleagues online,

3:15:06if I could just have your cameras on please.

3:15:08Thank you.

3:15:15Okay, so as I stated earlier,

3:15:20we are at the statutory public meeting

3:15:22and decision meeting for the Southeast parcel

3:15:24of Niska lands city initiated OPA and ZBA.

3:15:28Right off the top council is going to be looking

3:15:33to go into a closed session

3:15:35and I'll read that out for everybody.

3:15:39So as per section 239, 2C and F and K

3:15:44of the municipal act regarding a proposed

3:15:47or pending acquisition or disposition of land

3:15:50by the municipality or local board,

3:15:52advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege,

3:15:55including communications necessary for that purpose

3:15:58and a position, plan, procedure, criteria

3:16:01or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on

3:16:06or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality

3:16:10or the local board.

3:16:13That's correct for the clerks, okay.

3:16:16And if I could have someone move to go in camera

3:16:19about the house or would be okay and boost the till.

3:16:22Okay, thank you.

3:16:24Anything further about that before I call the vote?

3:16:29No, okay.

3:16:30So I'll call the vote.

3:16:31Is anyone against moving in camera on these items,

3:16:34on this item, sorry.

3:16:37Nobody, that's unanimous.

3:16:38So I said earlier, I'm thinking about a half an hour.

3:16:45I think we will try for that as best as that we can.

3:16:49And I will, we will come out as soon as we are done, okay.

3:16:54Thank you.

4:01:31Okay, everyone, thank you so much for waiting for us.

4:01:35Apologize for the lateness of this meeting

4:01:41and how it's going and people are waiting around.

4:01:43So we acknowledge that.

4:01:45So thank you very much.

4:01:49So yeah, we'll call the meeting back to order out here.

4:01:52Just before we get right into the item,

4:01:54we did, as you know, move into a closed session

4:01:57just before we came back out here.

4:01:59And so as I normally do with the high level,

4:02:02sort of summary, we did receive legal advice

4:02:06and the other advice that we required,

4:02:07that we went in camera for,

4:02:09that we voted on before we went in camera.

4:02:11But we just received advice.

4:02:14We did not do any direction at all on any item,

4:02:18on that item, okay.

4:02:20So we just received advice.

4:02:22So with that summary out of the way,

4:02:26we are going to start then with this decision report.

4:02:32For the Southeast parcel of Nisga lands.

4:02:35And we're going to kick things off

4:02:37with a presentation from our staff.

4:02:40And then we have a few members that have signed up

4:02:42in advance from the public for our delegations.

4:02:46So William is here.

4:02:49William is from the city of Guelph

4:02:51for people who don't know, is our staff member here.

4:02:53William, thank you very much for waiting around yourself

4:02:56and getting ready to do your presentation.

4:02:59So we'll turn it over to you

4:03:01and walk us through this, okay.

4:03:03Thank you.

4:03:04Good afternoon, almost evening now.

4:03:07Mayor, members of council and members of the public.

4:03:11My name is William Turman.

4:03:12I am a planner to policy in planning and building services.

4:03:17And I'm here to present a recommendation report

4:03:19regarding the city initiated OPA and ZBA,

4:03:23official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment

4:03:25for the Southeast parcel of the Nisga lands.

4:03:29This meeting will serve as the statutory public meeting

4:03:31and decision meeting as required under section 17

4:03:35and 34 of the planning act.

4:03:40This presentation is broken into six sections.

4:03:43First, we'll discuss the specifics of the subject lands.

4:03:48Second will be a brief overview of the history

4:03:50of the subject lands,

4:03:52followed by a description of the city initiated OPA and ZBA.

4:03:58Next, I'll introduce Chris DeWauke,

4:03:59who will provide a summary of the public comments

4:04:01her previously related to the subject lands

4:04:04and give an overview of the planning considerations

4:04:06for the proposed OPA and ZBA.

4:04:09And finally, we will provide our professional recommendation.

4:04:15Sorry, meant to change this.

4:04:23At the February 10, 2026 council planning meeting,

4:04:28council approved a motion directing staff

4:04:30to report back to council with a city initiated amendment

4:04:34to the city's official plan and zoning bylaw.

4:04:37Pursuant to section 17 and 34 of the planning act

4:04:40to redesignate the parcel of land

4:04:43and to open towards open space and parkland.

4:04:50The subject lands for the official plan amendment

4:04:53and zoning bylaw amendment currently being considered

4:04:56are the approximately eight hectares of land

4:04:59shown in this aerial image.

4:05:02The lands are used for agricultural purposes

4:05:04and have been for at least the past 70 years.

4:05:08Even during the time when the Court Right Waterfowl Park

4:05:11was in operation,

4:05:12the subject lands were not open to the public.

4:05:15The subject lands are part of a larger land assembly,

4:05:18commonly known as the Niska lands or the Niska land holdings.

4:05:23And the Niska land holdings are currently owned

4:05:28by the Grand River Conservation Authority,

4:05:30also known as the GRCA.

4:05:35This slide, this aerial image shows the entirety

4:05:38of the GRCA's Niska land holdings.

4:05:42The GRCA acquired approximately 18 hectares of land

4:05:45on Niska Road in Guelph in 1971

4:05:49and an additional 47 hectares

4:05:52from the Ontario Waterfowl Research Foundation in 1977.

4:06:01Much of the information on the following slides

4:06:03is available on the GRCA's webpage

4:06:06for the Niska land holdings

4:06:08and also on the city's webpage related to the site.

4:06:12The chronology has been included here in this presentation

4:06:14to help understand how the lands came

4:06:16to have the current designation.

4:06:23In the early 1960s, the agency that is now known as the GRCA

4:06:28was considering the area for a reservoir for water control

4:06:32and in the 1970s began acquiring lands,

4:06:35making two separate purchases,

4:06:3717.4 hectares on Niska Road in 1971

4:06:41and the remaining 47 hectares in 1977,

4:06:45which were purchased from the Niska Wildlife Foundation,

4:06:47which operated what became the Corporate Waterfowl Park.

4:06:52Around this time, the GRCA was also contemplating a plan

4:06:56to establish a fee for use conservation area

4:06:59alongside the recommendation to construct a reservoir.

4:07:03The plans for a conservation area were revised several times

4:07:06and were not approved or funded by the province.

4:07:10The master plan for the Hanlon Creek Conservation Area,

4:07:13as it was proposed in 1982, did not include the subject lands.

4:07:19The recommendation to create a reservoir

4:07:22was removed around the same time

4:07:23that the plans for a conservation area did not proceed.

4:07:27The Corporate Waterfowl Park closed its doors

4:07:29to the public in 2005.

4:07:32The GRCA has remained the owner of the subject

4:07:35and surrounding lands of the Niska land holdings

4:07:38and has done some work to remove unsafe buildings

4:07:41that could not be maintained.

4:07:47According to public panflip maps

4:07:50from the Corporate Waterfowl Park in 1980,

4:07:53the subject lands were not open to the public.

4:07:56The portions that were open to the public

4:07:58were west of Pioneer Trail,

4:07:59which included a nature trail and parking area,

4:08:02which we can see on the bottom portion of the image on the left.

4:08:06And the main part of the former Corporate Waterfowl Park

4:08:09was located north of Niska Road

4:08:11and directly to the east of the Speed River,

4:08:13which we can see in the northern part,

4:08:14on the top part of that image on the left-hand side.

4:08:19The entire area of the former Corporate Waterfowl Park

4:08:22is included in the agreement with the GRCA

4:08:24to transfer 51 hectares of the Niska lands

4:08:27to the city of Guelph.

4:08:35The city's process to establish the current designation

4:08:38and zoning on the subject lands began in 2007

4:08:42with the commencement of a municipal comprehensive review,

4:08:45which would result in OPA's 39,

4:08:48that's Official Plan Amendment 39,

4:08:50which is 42 and 48.

4:08:53In 2009, Council adopted OPA 39,

4:08:57and the province approved it.

4:08:59OPA 39 amended the Official Plan

4:09:02to conform to the Ontario Growth Plan,

4:09:05which required municipalities to designate all lands

4:09:07within the settlement area boundary,

4:09:09which is the municipal boundary of the city of Guelph,

4:09:13as either a built-up area or a greenfield area.

4:09:16The subject lands were identified as a greenfield area.

4:09:20Official Plan Amendment 48

4:09:22completed the city's comprehensive review

4:09:24and conformity exercise,

4:09:26which through population growth forecasts

4:09:28and a land needs assessment,

4:09:31determined that the subject lands were suitable

4:09:34and required to accommodate the city's residential growth

4:09:37through to the planning horizon.

4:09:40This redesignation followed all practices

4:09:42for consultation with the public

4:09:44and with the GRCA,

4:09:45the property owner of the subject lands.

4:09:48OPA 48 was adopted by Council

4:09:50and approved by the province.

4:09:54Subsequently, Official Plan Amendment 48

4:09:56was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, OMB,

4:09:59which is now what we refer to

4:10:01as the Ontario Land Tribunal or OLT,

4:10:05and it was appealed specific

4:10:07to the designation of the subject lands.

4:10:10In 2018, those appeals were withdrawn

4:10:13through a minutes of settlement,

4:10:15which stated the settlement, quote,

4:10:17resolves all issues with respect to the subject site,

4:10:20end quote, which kept the land use designation

4:10:23as residential as it is today.

4:10:28Between the years 2020 and 2022,

4:10:31the city undertook another comprehensive review

4:10:34for growth management,

4:10:35completing another land needs assessment.

4:10:37Again, the subject lands were included

4:10:42in the residential land supply,

4:10:44which is needed to meet population projections

4:10:47to 2051.

4:10:49This amendment, known as Official Plan Amendment 80,

4:10:52OPA 80, was approved by the province and by the city.

4:11:05The direction received from Council

4:11:08was to redesignate the lands

4:11:09from medium and low density residential

4:11:11to open space and park.

4:11:13The current residential designations

4:11:15generally permits townhouses and apartments

4:11:18with detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings

4:11:21permitted only in the low density residential designation.

4:11:25The maximum height is six stories

4:11:27in the medium density residential designation

4:11:28and four stories in the low density residential designation.

4:11:32The proposed open space and park designation

4:11:35generally permits recreation uses in facilities,

4:11:38parks and conservation lands.

4:11:44The existing zoning versus the proposed zoning

4:11:47on the slide here,

4:11:49the direction from Council to re-zone the lands

4:11:53would result in a corresponding, sorry,

4:11:56the direction to re-designate the lands

4:11:57would result in a corresponding zoning amendment

4:12:00from RM6 and RL4,

4:12:03which is medium density residential six

4:12:06and low density residential four to open space zone.

4:12:11Both existing residential zones

4:12:13permit apartment buildings and townhouses.

4:12:16The maximum building height for RM6 is six stories

4:12:20and the maximum height of RL4 is three stories.

4:12:25The proposed open space zone

4:12:28permits conservation uses,

4:12:30stormwater management facilities and trails.

4:12:33The agricultural use would be permitted

4:12:36as a legal non-conforming use.

4:12:39Now I will turn it over to Krista Wachee.

4:12:48Thank you, William.

4:12:50As Council is aware,

4:12:52we have received a large number of emails

4:12:54and other correspondence on this file.

4:13:01In advance of the February 10th meeting

4:13:03where this item was originally discussed,

4:13:06Council and staff received about 500 emails

4:13:09regarding the designation and zoning of the NISCA lands,

4:13:12the emails were submitted through Get Involved Guelph

4:13:15and Email Petition Campaign.

4:13:17There were also 13 delegations registered to speak

4:13:20at the February 10th Council meeting

4:13:21regarding the subject lands

4:13:23and there has been a revised email campaign

4:13:27with this application coming forward tonight.

4:13:42Staff have responded to the key themes in the report,

4:13:45it's an attachment nine

4:13:47and several of the key themes we heard

4:13:49were regarding the current designation on the lands

4:13:53that William just reviewed.

4:13:55We heard that the public concerns of that process

4:13:58to designate the lands was not done correctly.

4:14:01As stated before, the process in 27 to 2012

4:14:06was completed according to provincial requirements

4:14:08in a transparent manner with drafts

4:14:10showing the current designation available

4:14:12to the public as early as April 2010.

4:14:14The designation was adopted by Council,

4:14:17approved by the province and then affirmed

4:14:20by the OMB in 2018.

4:14:24We've also had a number of comments

4:14:26regarding protecting the former court right waterfowl park.

4:14:31Members of the public are concerned

4:14:32that the residential designation

4:14:34will impact that former park lands.

4:14:37The subject lands that we're talking about tonight

4:14:40were not open to the public,

4:14:41were not part of the original court right waterfowl park

4:14:44and have been under cultivation for at least 70 years.

4:14:48Historical plans for the Hanlon Creek Conservation Authority,

4:14:52Hanlon Creek Conservation Area were contemplated

4:14:55and developed in the 70s and 80s

4:14:57but were never approved or funded.

4:15:00The city's financial contribution has also been raised

4:15:04and based on information,

4:15:05the GRCA purchased the lands in 1971

4:15:08as William indicated,

4:15:10without assistance from the city,

4:15:12the city contribute 30% of the funds to the 47 hectares

4:15:17from the Ontario Waterfowl Research Foundation in 1977

4:15:22and the GRCA has maintained sole ownership of those lands.

4:15:26There was no easements or covenants

4:15:28tied to that financial contribution.

4:15:32We agree, there are not enough parks in the city of Guelph.

4:15:37There is a parkland deficit in the city of Guelph.

4:15:40This land will not contribute to parkland

4:15:43as long as it's in the GRCA's ownership

4:15:46and is still maintained as agriculture,

4:15:48it is not a park and does not guarantee

4:15:50that it will be a park.

4:15:53We do value natural space in the city.

4:15:57The parcel is owned by the GRCA

4:15:59and they're not obligated to open this up.

4:16:07In developing a recommendation

4:16:09for the proposed Official Plan Amendment

4:16:11and Zoning By-law Amendment that you have before you tonight,

4:16:14city staff evaluated the proposed Official Plan Amendment

4:16:17through existing city's plans, policies and strategies,

4:16:20as well as the historical process,

4:16:22including the zoning that came into effect

4:16:25and the OMB minutes of settlement.

4:16:31The comprehensive review of the Official Plan,

4:16:34OPA 48, 80, both had a land needs assessment.

4:16:39These lands were not subject to change

4:16:41through those processes.

4:16:49The current Official Plan contains criteria

4:16:52when considering planning applications

4:16:53to amend the Official Plan.

4:16:55It enables the city to plan for growth to 2051.

4:16:58It sets out our vision goals of objectives for land use

4:17:01in which our amendments must be evaluated against.

4:17:05The overall interest of the city is very broad

4:17:07and most directly identified the city

4:17:09as having an interest in providing sufficient parkland

4:17:13as well as sufficient residential land.

4:17:16This would remain in the GRCA's land.

4:17:19OPA 80, our most recent update was approved

4:17:22by this council and by the province.

4:17:37So our summary of considerations

4:17:41is there is not enough justification

4:17:43to support an Official Plan Amendment

4:17:45or Zoning By-law Amendment.

4:17:46Our existing Council approved studies,

4:17:48plan strategies and priorities were considered.

4:17:51There is no strong rationale in existing city plans

4:17:55for this change.

4:17:57Additionally, the owner of the land

4:17:59has not supported the city initiated amendments.

4:18:02There is correspondence in the council package this evening.

4:18:05The current residential designation was litigated

4:18:10which was OLT Now, then it was the OMB.

4:18:13And the decision of the litigation

4:18:15is found on the city webpage for the Niskelians.

4:18:19And one of those delegates is going to be here this evening

4:18:21who had been party to that OMB decision.

4:18:26Within the middle of the settlement,

4:18:28the appellant withdrew the appeal

4:18:31for the designation to residential.

4:18:33This is when the rezoning occurred.

4:18:35It was not a mistake, it was litigated

4:18:38and the zoning is in place.

4:18:43So with that, our recommendation is that the report be received

4:18:47and that the redesignation be refused.

4:18:50And I will turn it over to CAO Baker.

4:18:57Thanks, Krista.

4:18:59I'm just gonna pause one moment here.

4:19:02Clers are just gonna bring up one final map.

4:19:07And I just wanted to speak before we move on

4:19:11into the decision-making process here

4:19:13about the other transaction that's occurring

4:19:19related to these lands.

4:19:22And some of the comments that have been made

4:19:25as Krista had mentioned.

4:19:26And so we've really carefully considered the recommendation

4:19:29that factors in our professional understanding

4:19:31of the property, its history

4:19:33and the planning best practices.

4:19:35It's important to stick to the facts.

4:19:37And the facts here is that there's good sound work

4:19:40that was done prior to and through

4:19:42the official plan amendment 48 and 2012.

4:19:45Work that has been tested by appeals to the OMB.

4:19:49Additionally, good work in this space

4:19:51has continued through the establishment

4:19:54and the processes underway with the GRCA

4:19:56that we're working our way through securing the lands

4:19:59of the former court right, Waterfowl Park.

4:20:03On the screen before you, on the left is the diagram

4:20:05from 1980 of the Waterfowl Park,

4:20:08including the space south of Nisgaroad

4:20:10that was the Waterfowl Park's parking lot and nature trail.

4:20:13Shifting to the right, you can see

4:20:16that the city is in the process

4:20:18of buying everything outlined in yellow,

4:20:21a total of 126 acres of land

4:20:24that will be in a future state park land,

4:20:28which encompasses the entirety of the Waterfowl Park.

4:20:33We recognize the historical significance of these lands

4:20:36and council has already actioned the preservation

4:20:40of this history in Guelph.

4:20:43The land outlined in red is the parcel

4:20:45that is on the agenda for rezoning today.

4:20:48It is a 20 acre field with no historical significance

4:20:51to Guelph and the staff's recommendation

4:20:53to council remains in line with the stance

4:20:57that the city's held for over a decade,

4:20:59a stance that was already tested through the tribunal,

4:21:03the property is zoned appropriately

4:21:05and it does not have environmental features.

4:21:08Given that we are reporting here today

4:21:11within a legislative planning at process,

4:21:14the staff report reflects that purpose

4:21:17and the staff report does not offer

4:21:19the implications of an alternative direction or options.

4:21:25And so I just really wanted to make my final comments here

4:21:28to respond to a number of the questions the staff received

4:21:31regarding the risks of an alternative direction

4:21:33to the staff motion or to the staff recommendation.

4:21:38And so I just wanted to say out loud

4:21:41that the financial risk of this type of decision

4:21:45is very significant to the city.

4:21:48This is a budget decision

4:21:52that is outside of the budget process

4:21:55and there's a real risk to the budget implications here

4:21:58in an alternative direction to the staff recommendation.

4:22:04These 20 acres of prime developable land

4:22:08are financially valuable to the land owner.

4:22:11And I can't speculate on what that value is

4:22:14but it's a material figure.

4:22:16There are legal repercussions of an unjustified decision

4:22:20to down zone or devalue these lands

4:22:22that extend beyond the OLT.

4:22:26And so I just want to quote and I'll draw your attention

4:22:29to the last sentence of the GRCA's legal correspondence

4:22:32that's on the open agenda,

4:22:34that if the city of Guelph proceeds with redesignating

4:22:37and rezoning the parcel contrary to the staff report,

4:22:41contrary to any land use planning rationale,

4:22:43contrary to provincial initiatives,

4:22:46contrary to the minutes of settlement

4:22:47and the tribunal decision

4:22:49and contrary to the GRCA's request,

4:22:52the GRCA of course reserves its rights

4:22:55to address any such action by all legal means

4:22:58at its disposal.

4:23:01And so I just want to say that the legal system

4:23:06in Ontario and more broadly in Canada

4:23:08is set up to protect the rights of property owners.

4:23:11Municipal governments don't have like an unchecked authority

4:23:14to make decisions.

4:23:17And so there are mechanisms through civil court

4:23:21that fall into the category of by all legal means

4:23:24at its disposal.

4:23:26And I believe based on the language in that letter

4:23:29and the magnitude of the financial impact

4:23:32that there is risk to the city and to financially

4:23:35for the city that would follow in a decision

4:23:40alternative to the staff's recommendation.

4:23:44And so I just in closing,

4:23:46I just wanted to say that also in that letter

4:23:51from the GRCA, there is mention

4:23:53and of a more constructive approach for council

4:23:57if you want to protect this land, if it's a priority

4:24:00and you do have a pathway,

4:24:02it's just that this rezoning pathway

4:24:04is not set up the right way to achieve that outcome.

4:24:08And so if you do want to protect this parcel of land

4:24:13in probably a more simple and cost effective way,

4:24:19you can purchase this land.

4:24:21It would then be within your ownership

4:24:23and then you would have the ability as the landowner

4:24:26to change the zoning as you wish.

4:24:29And so those are comments, they're in the public letter

4:24:34and so I just wanted to take this moment

4:24:36to point that out before we get into the rest

4:24:40of the meeting and I just really appreciate the opportunity

4:24:42to be able to speak here.

4:24:45This is an OPA and ZBA decision tonight

4:24:48with a much different risk profile than we typically see.

4:24:52And so just really want you to weigh the magnitude

4:24:55of those legal relationship and budgetary implications

4:24:59as you move forward tonight.

4:25:00Thank you.

4:25:03Great, thank you very much to our CAO and to staff as well.

4:25:09And I was told earlier that William,

4:25:12that was your first time in front of council,

4:25:16am I correct on that?

4:25:18Yes you are.

4:25:20Yeah, are you gonna stick around any longer?

4:25:22That was a big one, eh?

4:25:25I might.

4:25:26Yeah, yeah, good.

4:25:27I just want to recognize that that was your first time

4:25:29in front of us, you did a great job.

4:25:31So thank you very much for that presentation

4:25:33and wishing you all the best here.

4:25:36We have delegations that are signed up here in advance.

4:25:41We have five that have done so

4:25:43and each person would have,

4:25:51good, up to 10 minutes.

4:25:54And so you'll hear a chime at the nine minute 30 second mark

4:26:00which gives you the warning that there's only 30 seconds left

4:26:04and the microphone will get turned off

4:26:07at the 10 minute mark and nobody wants that.

4:26:10So just you listen to the chime and get ready to wrap up.

4:26:15If you, we fully respect and recognize

4:26:19that people have prepared a delegation.

4:26:23You have up to 10 minutes.

4:26:25However, if the person in front of you

4:26:29like says a lot of what you just wanted to say,

4:26:32we also accept Ditto.

4:26:33You can say Ditto at the microphone too.

4:26:36We recognize that too,

4:26:38just so that we can get through the meeting

4:26:40and get to the point where we have to sort of make decisions

4:26:42which is an important part as well.

4:26:46And then of course we can open it up

4:26:49to see if there's anybody further too.

4:26:52With that, I will turn it over to Cameron Shelley

4:26:56who I believe is here in person.

4:26:58That's what it says.

4:26:59Oh yeah, okay.

4:27:02And then in the wings, I have Ken Kiesmat is Ken here.

4:27:06All right, thank you, Ken.

4:27:08You're gonna be up next.

4:27:12And Cameron, welcome.

4:27:15I like your name.

4:27:17Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

4:27:18So do I.

4:27:19Yeah, yeah.

4:27:20I appreciate that.

4:27:21You go ahead.

4:27:22Excellent, thank you.

4:27:23Mr. Mayor, members of the council,

4:27:25I wish to point out an incorrect claim

4:27:29in the Niska Land Holdings Management Plan

4:27:31published by the Grand River Conservation Authority

4:27:34which pertains to the upcoming meeting of council

4:27:37which we're now in regarding the disposition

4:27:40of the former Corite Waterfellow Park.

4:27:43The management plan states that the property

4:27:45is acquired by the GRCA to quote,

4:27:47support the Hesbler Reservoir as a flood control project

4:27:51which occurs on page four of the Treasury Board report

4:27:54that's referred to.

4:27:56The statement is true but misleadingly incomplete.

4:27:59The report that the GRCA refers to

4:28:02in support of the statement is the review, quote,

4:28:04review of planning for the Grand River Watershed

4:28:09published by the Treasury Board of the Province of Ontario

4:28:12in 1971.

4:28:13On the matter of the Hesbler Reservoir,

4:28:15the review recommends against construction of a dam

4:28:18in Hesbler due to concerns about algae buildup

4:28:22because of being downstream

4:28:23of the Guelph Sewage Treatment Plant.

4:28:26It goes on to state that, quote,

4:28:29a flood retardation dam is a possibility in this location.

4:28:33Although no water would be stored for long,

4:28:36long periods behind the dam,

4:28:38recreation benefits would be gained

4:28:40from the large undeveloped area of land reserved

4:28:42for the flood waters, unquote, that's from page 17.

4:28:46In other words, the review does not recommend

4:28:48that upstream areas be reserved for flood control

4:28:50relating to a Hesbler Reservoir.

4:28:53Quite the opposite, it envisions those areas

4:28:55as being appropriate for recreational use.

4:28:59It's also worth noting that the preliminary report

4:29:02on Hanlon's Creek Basin from 1968,

4:29:06which was prepared by the Kilbourne Engineering Company

4:29:09at the request of the GRCA,

4:29:11addresses the Waterfowl Park explicitly.

4:29:15It states that, quote, with full development of the basin

4:29:18and with the Hesbler Reservoir in existence,

4:29:21the economics of investing funds

4:29:23for the survival of a waterfowl station reduced in size

4:29:26would require serious consideration.

4:29:29However, the operations in this park could be modified

4:29:31from being a purely waterfowl park

4:29:33to a general nature or zoological park.

4:29:37Those operations could be associated with operations

4:29:39in the larger conservation zone proposed

4:29:42in the central portion of the basin.

4:29:45This would provide the city of Guelph

4:29:47and its suburbs with excellent facilities for recreation

4:29:50and the appreciation of nature, end quote, from page 39.

4:29:54In other words, the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park

4:29:56would comprise part of an excellent park system

4:29:58within the GRCA's larger lands for Hesbler Reservoir.

4:30:02Should that come to pass, which it does not.

4:30:05The Hanlon Creek Conservation Area Master Plan,

4:30:08published by the GRCA in 1978 and revised in 1982,

4:30:13states in its introduction that further development

4:30:16of the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park

4:30:19and other resources in the area

4:30:21will undoubtedly promote visitation

4:30:23from the most densely populated areas of Ontario,

4:30:27which are within a two hour driving distance, page four,

4:30:31where development in this case refers to tourist attractions

4:30:34rather than housing.

4:30:36This statement expressly recommends

4:30:38recreational use of the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park.

4:30:41In its discussion of the park, the Master Plan states that,

4:30:45while continuation of waterfowl research in the site

4:30:47is not sustainable, a zoological park,

4:30:50as recommended in the preliminary report,

4:30:52should be considered.

4:30:54Quote, the concept envisioned is one of a zoological park,

4:30:57the city of wealth may or may not see a zoo

4:30:59as part of their recreational and cultural activities.

4:31:03However, if the proposal is adopted in principle,

4:31:05the zoological park idea should be maintained

4:31:09and limited to species that are relatively native to Ontario,

4:31:13those from pages 86 and 87.

4:31:16In other words, the Master Plan expressly contemplates

4:31:18recreational use of the lands.

4:31:22I'll conclude with the point that this concept

4:31:24regarding the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park

4:31:26was confirmed by the GRCA officials in this era.

4:31:30In the Guelph Mercury of February 2nd, 1977,

4:31:33Matt Coutts, the GRCA general manager, stated that,

4:31:36quote, for the GRCA, the purchase of the Quarrel Lake

4:31:39Waterfowl Park increases the size of its Hanlon Creek

4:31:42conservation area to 547 hectares, sorry, acres.

4:31:48Eventually, it hopes to have 800 acres along the creek

4:31:51to protect wetlands from encroaching housing developments.

4:31:54It will also provide parkland and open space

4:31:57for future residents of the area.

4:31:59In other words, the GRCA saw acquisition

4:32:02of the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park as part of its plan

4:32:04for the establishment of parkland in Hanlon Creek.

4:32:08So the intimation, sorry, in the GRCA's

4:32:12Nisqa Land Holdings Management Plan

4:32:14that the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park was acquired only

4:32:17for establishment of a Hesbara reservoir is not factual.

4:32:22It inaccurately makes it seem as though

4:32:23the zoning of the area for recreational use

4:32:25will be contrary to the GRCA's original plan.

4:32:29And this is simply untrue.

4:32:30Recreational use has always been an option,

4:32:33indeed an expectation for the ultimate disposition

4:32:36of the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park.

4:32:38So I urge the council, without delay,

4:32:41and in the most expeditious way possible,

4:32:43to secure the entirety of the Quarrel Lake Waterfowl Park

4:32:47as a public amenity, as was always the objective

4:32:50of its sale to the GRCA.

4:32:52And thank you for your attention.

4:32:54All right, thank you very much.

4:32:56And is there any questions for the delegate

4:32:57before we go on?

4:32:59There is none, thank you very much.

4:33:03And Ken, you're coming on up, and Susan Watson,

4:33:06you are here and in the wings next, okay?

4:33:10Welcome, Ken, good to see you,

4:33:11and go right ahead whenever you're ready.

4:33:14Great, well first I just wanted to take a personal moment

4:33:16and extend my gratitude to the planning department

4:33:18and our CAO for all the hard work they're doing

4:33:22on our behalf, and I'm glad I'm standing here

4:33:24instead of in the chairs.

4:33:26Dear Mayor and City Councils,

4:33:28I represent seniors for climate action now, Guelph.

4:33:31As seniors, we understand the responsibility

4:33:34we all hold for future generations.

4:33:36During our lifetimes, we have witnessed

4:33:38dramatic environmental change, disappearing wetlands,

4:33:41declining biodiversity, intensifying storms,

4:33:43and increasingly dangerous heat events like today.

4:33:47We also understand that the decisions governments make today

4:33:50will shape the safety, health, and livability

4:33:52of communities for decades to come.

4:33:55We join the many Ontarians concerned with Ontario government's

4:33:58weakening of conservation authorities,

4:34:00and this undermining means municipalities like Guelph

4:34:03have an even greater responsibility

4:34:06to protect local ecosystems.

4:34:08Open space reduces urban heat through shading

4:34:11and evapotranspiration, and acts as a carbon sink

4:34:15while managing stormwater.

4:34:17Designating the 20-acre parcel of Niska lands

4:34:20as open space parkland will protect an important

4:34:23ecological area for future generations,

4:34:27demonstrate leadership and environmental stewardship,

4:34:30preserve public green space for recreation,

4:34:33education, and wellness, and send a clear message

4:34:37that Guelph values long-term ecological sustainability.

4:34:43We ask Council to ensure the designation

4:34:46of the 20-acre parcel of Niska lands

4:34:48as open space parkland, reject any planning arguments

4:34:52that would permit ecological degradation of these lands,

4:34:55and publicly reform the City of Guelph's commitment

4:34:58to environmental stewardship and climate responsibility,

4:35:02as mentioned in our territorial acknowledgement today.

4:35:06Thank you very much.

4:35:07Great, thank you, Kent.

4:35:08And any follow-up for Kent?

4:35:11There isn't, and thank you again for sticking around,

4:35:13I saw you sitting there for a while, so thank you.

4:35:16Susan Watson is up next.

4:35:18And then is Ann Moore here?

4:35:22Okay, you're in the wings, okay, Ann?

4:35:24And go ahead, Susan, whenever you're ready.

4:35:26Just wanna see if you can stop the clock for a second.

4:35:28I just wanna figure out that this works forward

4:35:31and backwards, or this one is forward.

4:35:39What is this, not working?

4:35:47Yeah, and then if I wanna take me back.

4:35:52Okay, okay, thanks, I'll just leave it on that slide.

4:35:54Thank you.

4:35:56Can you start the clock for me now, Mayor Guthrie?

4:35:59Can you restart the clock for me, please?

4:36:00Yeah, I'm gonna start.

4:36:01Okay.

4:36:03Mayor Guthrie and members of council,

4:36:05I'm here to ask you to follow through

4:36:06on your unanimous commitment of February 10th

4:36:10to restore the designation of 20 acres

4:36:12of the former Court Right Waterfall Park conservation land

4:36:15back to Open Space and Parkland.

4:36:18I'm going to set aside my original presentation

4:36:20for the moment to address an issue

4:36:22which has come to light in the past couple of days.

4:36:25The circumstances around the change

4:36:27of the 20 acres of Court Right lands

4:36:29from Open Space and Parkland to housing

4:36:31as part of OPH 48 has always been murky, to say the least.

4:36:36No one seems to clearly understand

4:36:38how or why the change happened.

4:36:41Staff asserts that no error was made

4:36:43and that the change was part of a comprehensive review

4:36:45that included a public consultation process.

4:36:48However, Hugh Whiteley and Laura Muir have always contended

4:36:51that there was no staff justification report

4:36:54related to the 20 acre parcel.

4:36:56And if I misquoted them,

4:36:57they can make a correction when they're at the podium.

4:37:01I decided to do some fact checking myself.

4:37:03So I asked my 26 year old now engineer son who works with AI

4:37:07to run an AI scan of the 588 pages

4:37:10of the Envision Wealth document

4:37:12to look for any text that provided justification

4:37:15for changing the designation of these lands

4:37:17from Open Space and Parkland to housing.

4:37:20And when he ran that scan, nothing came up.

4:37:23He said, mom, I don't know,

4:37:24like you're gonna have to read the document.

4:37:27I wasn't up for 588 pages,

4:37:29so I reached out to Mr. Terman in planning

4:37:32and asked if he could share any text

4:37:35in the OPA documents related to staff's justification

4:37:39for this designation change.

4:37:40And Mr. Terman wrote back that quote,

4:37:43there are two documents related to public comments

4:37:47where the subject lands are raised.

4:37:50Staff provided rationale for their decision in response.

4:37:55Loram, you are submitted those comments in 2010 and 2012.

4:37:59In each case, the staff comments relating

4:38:01to the subject lands comprise one paragraph.

4:38:05So are those two paragraphs,

4:38:08the sum total of staff's rationale

4:38:11for the change to housing back in the day?

4:38:14It appears that the original staff generated materials

4:38:18for OPA 48 did not contain any mention

4:38:22of the 20 acres of Nisga Court-Wright land.

4:38:25And the only reason that there's anything

4:38:27in the materials in the comments section

4:38:29is because Loram your happened to catch designation

4:38:33on the map and understood what it meant.

4:38:37So even if I had sat down to read the more than 500 pages

4:38:40of this document as part of the public consultation process,

4:38:44there is no way that I or other citizens

4:38:47and even members of council could have known

4:38:50that these lands were proposed

4:38:51to have their designation changed

4:38:53unless they understood what the map meant

4:38:56and what the property was that was in question.

4:38:59In her comments, Ms. Muir refers to the lands

4:39:01of the Nisga lands and so did staff.

4:39:03So again, there was no way for any reader

4:39:07to understand that the lands in question

4:39:09were part of the former Court-Wright Waterfowl Park.

4:39:14Because this designation change appears

4:39:19to have been just a change on a map as part of an OPA,

4:39:23not a separate planning process,

4:39:25there was no context provided to council

4:39:27or members of the public for this parcel of land.

4:39:30There was no acquisition history.

4:39:32There was no identification or discussion

4:39:34of the existing zoning.

4:39:36There was no analysis or discussion of its potential role

4:39:40or in future parkland needs.

4:39:42There were no technical studies.

4:39:44Staff and citizens were not informed

4:39:46that the lands were part of a Hamlin Creek

4:39:48conservation area master plan

4:39:50approved by a previous council.

4:39:52In their exchange, Ms. Muir and staff

4:39:54used the word greenfield,

4:39:57but there appears to be no written reference

4:39:59in any material throughout thousands of pages

4:40:03of the OPA process that the existing designation

4:40:06of the 20 acres at that time was parkland and open space

4:40:11and that a loss of parkland and open space

4:40:13was at stake.

4:40:16The Canadian Institute of Planners Code of Conduct

4:40:19in regard to the public interest

4:40:21requires that planners provide opportunities

4:40:24for meaningful participation and education

4:40:28in planning processes to all interested parties.

4:40:32In my opinion, these criteria were not met

4:40:35in regard to the Court-Wright Property Designation Change

4:40:38in 2012.

4:40:40Don't insult Guelph citizens by lecturing us

4:40:44that a comprehensive public consultation process took place

4:40:49when it was nothing of the sort.

4:40:51Staff materials didn't even mention the property in question

4:40:56and it was just a fluke that one individual noticed

4:41:00a change on a map and made a comment.

4:41:03To pretend that this was a valid public consultation process

4:41:07is a sick joke.

4:41:10And now here's where the facts of the matter

4:41:12become even more disturbing.

4:41:15On page two of the letter from the GRCA's lawyer,

4:41:18Mr. Johnson states,

4:41:20to be clear, the redesignation of the parcel

4:41:23was done at the initiative of the city of Guelph,

4:41:25not the GRCA.

4:41:27However, schedule eight of the city staff reports

4:41:30says quote,

4:41:32the current residential designation of the lands

4:41:35in 2012 was determined in collaboration with the GRCA.

4:41:43In collaboration with the GRCA.

4:41:46This is the first mention I have ever heard

4:41:49of any involvement of the GRCA in this designation change.

4:41:53Clearly something was going on behind the scenes

4:41:56according to this statement,

4:41:57but there is no record of this collaboration

4:41:59between city staff and the GRCA in the public domain.

4:42:04Apparently the GRCA was operating in the background,

4:42:07but they were spared the hassle and publicity

4:42:10of having to come before the city of Guelph

4:42:11as a proponent to request a designation change

4:42:14of conservation land to housing.

4:42:17Riddle me this, for OPA 48, the health unit,

4:42:21the school board, Bell Canada,

4:42:24and the University of Guelph all weighed in

4:42:25with public comments,

4:42:27as is common for local institutions in OP updates.

4:42:30But as a property owner of lands

4:42:34for which the designation was about to change,

4:42:37why are there no public records,

4:42:39no comments on the public record from the GRCA?

4:42:42Why did they stay silent?

4:42:45Did they not want to draw attention

4:42:46to the fact that this parcel of land

4:42:48was about to have its designation changed?

4:42:51It looks to me like we had a situation

4:42:53where the GRCA knew full well that the designation change

4:42:57for the 20 acres of caught right land

4:42:59was in the works as part of OPA 48.

4:43:02But Guelph citizens, members of council,

4:43:05and even apparently some senior staff had no idea.

4:43:09I'm not sure what you call this in a planning context,

4:43:12but in a court of law,

4:43:13I would call this a miscarriage of justice.

4:43:16Councillor Busuttil talked earlier in the meeting

4:43:18about a need for transparency with citizens.

4:43:21But as far as the subject lands are concerned,

4:43:24the OPA 48 process was completely opaque.

4:43:29And now I'm gobsmacked that in the staff report,

4:43:32city staff is now parroting the false narrative

4:43:35put forward by the GRCA around the acquisition of these lands.

4:43:40And I don't blame Mr. Terman because he's just arrived.

4:43:43But Hugh Whiteley, Laura Muir, and myself

4:43:46have been sharing archival documents, FOIs,

4:43:50everything we've dug up with the GRCA,

4:43:53with council and with staff.

4:43:55And the historical research work, Professor Shelley

4:44:00has done is available online.

4:44:03The consolidated agenda for today contains a GRCA briefing,

4:44:07document to archival news clippings,

4:44:09the results of my FOI, including the letter

4:44:12from Minister Bernier, a planning study from Hugh Whiteley

4:44:15and a hyperlink to the treasury board report,

4:44:17cherry picked by the GRCA, court of see of Professor Shelley.

4:44:21A number of you in this room have personally

4:44:25heard the oral history of these lands directly

4:44:28from Ken and Eileen Hamill themselves.

4:44:31And three months ago, members of the Hamill family

4:44:34stood before you.

4:44:36Everyone knows the GRCA has been dealing in half truths.

4:44:40And half truths are worse than outright lies

4:44:42because they are more deceptive.

4:44:44If you read Professor Whiteley's presentation,

4:44:47you would have learned that the Hesbler Reservoir was

4:44:50delisted as a future project of the GRCA in 1975.

4:44:55That was two years before the purchase of the court right