Council Planning

0:54All right, good morning everyone.

0:56It is Tuesday April 9th, 2024.

0:59It is 9.30 in the morning,

1:00so I'll call the planning meeting to order.

1:03Thank you for joining us.

1:05I may have regrets today from Councillor Richardson,

1:10just to put that on the record.

1:11She might maybe join us online,

1:13but if not, we got the official regrets in there.

1:17Right off the top,

1:19we're looking to move into closed session only under one item.

1:22It's titled Housing Development Financial Request.

1:26It's under Section 2392K of the Municipal Act

1:30relating to a position, plan,

1:32procedure criteria or instruction to be applied

1:35to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on

1:38by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.

1:43Before I call the vote on that,

1:46is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest

1:48or any general nature thereof for that item

1:51before we move into closed that you want to disclose?

1:53Don't hear or see anybody saying any issues.

1:57So we'll get past that.

1:59And now I'm looking for Council to move a motion

2:03to move in to closed on that one item.

2:06Clawson and Boussatil will second.

2:09Thank you.

2:11Is there anything further on that?

2:13Nothing further.

2:14So I'll call the vote.

2:15Is anyone against moving into closed on that item?

2:19Again, hearing and seeing nothing.

2:20So that's unanimous.

2:22We will move into closed session.

2:24And as usual, when that is done,

2:26I can come back out and give a high level summary if required.

2:30So we'll be back soon.

2:32Thank you.

34:33Okay, good morning everybody.

34:35It is Tuesday, April the 9th, 2024.

34:39It is just after 10 o'clock in the morning.

34:42And we are gonna continue with our meeting.

34:44We did have a closed meeting of Council

34:48that was an item on our agenda.

34:50It was titled Housing Development Financial Request.

34:53And for my summary for that,

34:56we received information from our staff,

34:58asked lots of questions, had a conversation about it,

35:01and then we gave direction to staff

35:03in regards to that matter.

35:05And that was the only issue talked and discussed

35:07about in closed session and that's done.

35:10So with that, let's start with our open meeting

35:12and please stand if you are able

35:14to acknowledge our national anthem.

36:45Great, and as we continue,

36:46I just take a moment for a silent reflection.

37:00Great, thank you, and our territorial acknowledgement.

37:02As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege

37:05to live and work here in Guelph,

37:06a city built over rich indigenous histories.

37:09We're guests here and we should reflect upon

37:11the responsibility to care for this land

37:13and the people who live here today

37:14and the generations to come.

37:16If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

37:19we should take pause and we should make those decisions

37:21with intention and gratitude.

37:24This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

37:26and a place of refuge for many people over time.

37:30But more specifically, the Aniwanderach

37:32and the Honanashoni.

37:34This land is held as the treaty lands and territory

37:37with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

37:39And Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track

37:43and is part of the long established

37:45traditional hunting grounds

37:46for the six nations of the Grand River.

37:49And many nations, Inuit and Métis peoples

37:51who have come from across Turtle Island

37:53call Guelph home today.

37:56And with that, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest

37:59or any general nature thereof

38:01for the remaining items on the agenda today

38:03from any member of council?

38:05I am not hearing or seeing anyone jump up and down on that.

38:08So consider that matter closed.

38:10We are jumping right in to the first of kind of two items

38:15that are on our agenda.

38:16The first one is the public meeting

38:19to hear a report, gentle density for dwelling units

38:23on a lot proposed zoning bylaw amendment.

38:27Just before we kick things off,

38:28I just wanna make things very, very clear

38:31because there's been some communications,

38:33not only to me, but maybe to some others.

38:36There is no decisions being made today.

38:40This is a receive only document, okay?

38:45So this is part of the process.

38:47There's a public meeting, which we're having right now.

38:50Public information was given out.

38:52We now hear from our staff in a public setting

38:55about a presentation.

38:57We hear from the public.

39:00We hear from us and myself.

39:03And we look to receive the information

39:06and send it back to staff for further work, okay?

39:09And then it comes back later on in the future

39:12for us to actually look to actually approve something, okay?

39:16So I just wanna make sure everyone understands

39:19foundationally what we're doing here today,

39:22which is receiving information only listening

39:25and hearing from everyone on this topic.

39:28So with that out of the way,

39:30we're gonna have this presentation from our staff first,

39:34if you wanna come up and get ready.

39:36And then we have some people that have signed up

39:39for delegation and we had just over 20,

39:42I think 22 or 23 pieces of correspondence

39:46accompanying this agenda item,

39:47which I can guarantee you, my colleagues and I,

39:50we've read and thank you for doing that.

39:52And I'm sure between now and whenever the report comes back

39:55in the future, some more opportunities for dialogue,

39:58engagement, correspondence can be had.

40:01So with that, I'll turn it over to Kushla Matthews

40:05and Katie Nasswater.

40:07Kushla is our development advisor.

40:09Thank you for being here.

40:10And Katie is our project manager on one particular item.

40:14We have Crystal Wauke, our manager of planning

40:18and building also with us as well.

40:21And so I will turn it over to you

40:23and we'll go from there.

40:24Thank you for being here everyone.

40:28Great.

40:29Good morning, Mayor Guthrie and members of council.

40:31As mentioned, my name is Kushla Matthews.

40:34So we are here today to hold a statutory public meeting

40:37on the draft regulations to permit four units as of right

40:42on a lot where single detached, semi-detached

40:46or street fronting townhouse dwellings

40:48are current permitted use.

40:50So my colleague Katie Nasswater and I would like

40:52to take five, probably 10 minutes or so

40:55to walk you through the proposed changes

40:58to the existing zoning regulations.

41:01So as described in the staff report,

41:04gentle density can be considered an approach

41:06to urban development that explores maximizing

41:08the use of land, focusing on modestly increasing

41:13the number and variety of homes

41:14in existing low density residential neighborhoods.

41:18In Guelph, about 85% of our low density residential lots

41:23contain a single dwelling unit.

41:27The development of gentle density in communities

41:30typically occurs through an incremental

41:32and dispersed pattern leading to gradual changes

41:36within neighborhoods spanning years

41:38which enables communities to adapt

41:40and evolve more seamlessly.

41:42This is what we have been seeing in Guelph over the years

41:45and we currently have approximately 4,000 registered

41:50additional dwelling units.

41:52And to provide more context, 14 detached ADUs,

41:56I'll be calling them ADUs were built in 2023.

42:03So in terms of why we've brought forward

42:05these draft zoning regulations,

42:07there are several important dates and directions

42:09that need to be highlighted.

42:11So to demonstrate first, to demonstrate the city's commitment

42:14to facilitating the provision of new housing units,

42:17the city submitted a housing pledge in February of 2023

42:21to the province and that housing pledge was due

42:22in March of 2023, that outlined strategies

42:26that the city will or has adopted

42:28to prioritize and accelerate housing supply.

42:32In April of 2023, as part of the discussions

42:35around the adoption of the city's comprehensive zoning bylaw

42:37which is currently under appealed,

42:39council directed staff to consider as of right permissions

42:43for greater than three units on residential lots in Guelph.

42:48In October of 2023, there was further direction

42:51from council to staff whereby we were to immediately prepare

42:55a zoning bylaw amendment that would permit up to four units.

43:00Finally, in January of 2024, the city partnered

43:04with the federal government to deliver wealth,

43:06wealth housing accelerator funds action plan.

43:09As part of this action plan, there is a commitment

43:12consistent with council's direction to permit to four units

43:17on low density residential lots.

43:23So there are quite a few municipalities

43:25that have either finished this process

43:27or are currently going through the same thing as we are.

43:30For example, Hamilton, Kitchener, St. Catherine's,

43:33Berry and London.

43:35Again, as directed by council, we are moving quite quickly

43:38through this process, but we also recognize

43:41that we needed to use this as an opportunity

43:43to get some feedback on where we might,

43:45there might be some flexibility or not

43:48in terms of better enabling four units

43:50on these low density residential lots.

43:53We had five scheduled sessions,

43:54four of which were structured information sessions

43:57with the home building community

43:58and neighborhood and community associations.

44:01We then kept these sessions off

44:03with a public open house at the end of February.

44:06The invitations to the informations were sent twice

44:09to all neighborhood associations across the city

44:12and home building and development community associations

44:17and equity deserving groups.

44:20With respect to the public open house,

44:22a notice was published on the city's website

44:24on February 16th, followed by social media posts.

44:27The public open house date was also published

44:29in an article initiated by the Guelph Today.

44:33We heard a wide variety of thoughts on four units

44:36and that was captured in the attached what we heard report.

44:40The repeated specific feedback we heard

44:43were under the following themes.

44:46So requests for further simplification

44:48and less restrictive zoning permissions

44:51and openness to exploring a reduced parking requirement

44:55and requests to enable a greater variety

44:57of unit configurations.

45:00So we took this feedback along with a scan

45:02of what other municipalities are doing or have done

45:05and we got to work crafting the proposed draft regulations

45:10which Katie will walk us through right now.

45:21Good morning everyone.

45:23So I'm going to get into the key changes

45:26in the proposed zoning regulations.

45:29There are additional minor changes

45:31that I won't mention in the presentation

45:33but they are all shown in attachment

45:35one of the staff report.

45:38So first of all, what could this look like?

45:40So currently we do permit three units on a lot.

45:44So you could have one building with a primary unit

45:49and two additional residential dwelling units

45:52or a primary unit with one attached ADU

45:56and one detached in a separate building.

45:59We considered what four units on a lot could look like

46:02and we've proposed that a lot could have up to three units

46:05attached to the primary dwelling

46:07or up to two detached units which could look like

46:11some of the diagrams in front of us.

46:13So two additional units together with the primary.

46:16So three units in one building and one detached.

46:20One unit together with the primary unit and two detached

46:25and that could be side by side.

46:27That could be stacked one above the other

46:29or in two separate buildings.

46:31Or three units together with the primary dwelling.

46:34So four units in one building

46:36which could either be one primary and three ADUs

46:39or a four plex which would be three equal units.

46:48We then looked at what would need to change

46:50but also what could stay the same in the current zoning.

46:55Through testing various configurations of four units

46:57on standard lot sizes across the city

47:00we found that we were able to keep the same building envelope

47:03that a single detached dwelling has today

47:06but provide for more flexibility

47:08for how many units are permitted within it

47:10and how that space is divided up.

47:13So for instance there's no changes proposed

47:15to zoning regulations for things like minimum lot sizes

47:18and furnitures, setbacks, maximum height

47:22of the main building, landscaped open space,

47:26lot coverage or driveway widths.

47:33We've introduced a proposed new definition for four plex

47:37where we'd permit four units of any size

47:40in any configuration within one building.

47:43We propose that it be permitted in both RL1 and RL2 zones

47:48and we've proposed that three parking spaces

47:50be required for a four plex.

47:53Those spaces would not be stacked.

47:56Otherwise a four plex would need to meet

47:58the same regulations for physical space

48:00as other dwelling types in these zones.

48:09We've also looked at changes

48:11to additional dwelling units or ADUs.

48:15So first off we've proposed removing,

48:20changing the definition by removing residential.

48:23So previously we referred to them

48:24as additional residential dwelling units

48:27and we've just shortened that up to ADUs

48:29to be consistent with other municipalities in the province.

48:33Up to three ADUs would be permitted

48:36within a primary dwelling unit.

48:38So up to three in the same building

48:41as a main dwelling unit or up to two detached ADUs

48:45for a maximum of four.

48:47So we no longer, we're also proposing

48:50to no longer regulate the maximum number of bedrooms

48:53but rather control the size.

48:56We're proposing changes to parking.

48:58So requiring one space for the primary dwelling.

49:02No additional space would be required if you had one ADU.

49:06One additional space would be required for two ADUs

49:10and two additional spaces for three ADUs.

49:15We proposed to permit ADUs in all singles,

49:17semis and on street townhouses

49:19to a maximum of four dwelling units on a lot.

49:27Four ADUs within the primary dwelling,

49:30as I mentioned before, up to three are permitted.

49:33One of the key changes is that we'd no longer require

49:36an interconnection between the ADU

49:39and the primary dwelling unit.

49:40So before we required a locked door on each side

49:44that would be removed from the zoning regulations

49:46and it would be controlled instead

49:48by building code requirements.

49:52The each ADU would still be required to be smaller

49:56than the primary dwelling unit

49:58that we're not regulating the exact size

50:01for those that are attached

50:02because again it would be controlled

50:04by the size of the overall building envelope

50:06that's permitted on the lot.

50:09We're also adding a regulation

50:11that exterior stairs to upper stories

50:15be prohibited in the front and exterior side yards,

50:17though permitted in the interior and rear,

50:22in interior and rear yards.

50:28For detached ADUs, we would permit up to two per lot

50:32with this amendment and those, as I mentioned earlier,

50:35could be stacked, they could be side by side

50:37in one building or in two separate buildings.

50:41They could be up to two stories in height

50:43but to a maximum of 6.1 meters.

50:47So we've also removed the regulation requiring

50:50the detached ADU to be shorter than the main dwelling.

50:55Previously there was also a regulation

50:57that permitted an ADU above an existing garage

51:00to a maximum of 6.1 meters.

51:03So we've just removed the garage components

51:06so you could have the ADU to be 6.1 meters,

51:09either one unit of two stories or one on top of the other.

51:15Right now we're proposing that each detached ADU

51:18could be a maximum of 80 square meters in size.

51:22And if there's a second story with a window

51:24facing a lot line, as well as any balcony

51:28or exterior stair to a second story,

51:31that it'd be set back a minimum of three meters

51:34from a lot line and that we'd prohibit rooftop amenity area

51:38to address concerns about overlook.

51:46So that's a brief summary of the regulation changes.

51:50Our next step is to hold,

51:52our next step is to listen to the feedback today

51:56and look at any refinements we need to make

52:00to the proposed regulations.

52:03We anticipate that we're bringing back a report to council

52:07with a recommendation for a decision in June of 2024.

52:11So in two months time.

52:15In the fall, we'll be going back out to the community

52:18for feedback on what five or more units

52:20on a lot could look like.

52:22Similarly, expect to hold a public meeting

52:25on any further proposed changes

52:28and then a recommendation on a bylaw amendment

52:30by the end of the year.

52:33Also, because this is a public meeting today,

52:35we ask that any interested persons

52:38provide us with their contact information

52:40so they can be notified of any future meetings

52:42or decisions on these amendments.

52:45We ask that that information be provided

52:47to the clerks department via email at clerks at gwealth.ca

52:51or by calling the clerk's office at 519-837-5603.

52:57We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

52:59Thanks.

53:00Great, thank you so much for the presentation.

53:03I'm gonna just jump right into delegations at this time

53:06and we're gonna kick things off here.

53:09Is Andy Donlan here?

53:13Or is, okay, okay, that's okay.

53:18So you're good for listening for now?

53:20Okay, I appreciate you being here, thank you.

53:23I will find my pen.

53:27Cross you off my list, there it is.

53:29I got one, sorry.

53:32Okay, so next is Andrew Arcley.

53:38Is Andrew here?

53:40Yes.

53:49And is Ania here?

53:51Okay, perfect, sorry, yeah, I said hi to you earlier.

53:54So you're in the wings, okay?

53:55You're gonna be after, okay, thank you.

53:58And just so everyone knows, at this type of a meeting,

54:01there's no more than 10 minutes allotted, okay?

54:04So you don't have to take the whole 10 minutes.

54:07You can take the whole 10 minutes,

54:08it's totally up to you.

54:10And then just when you're done,

54:12there could be some questions asked of either myself

54:14or my colleagues, so just stick around.

54:17And if there isn't any, then we'll just go to the next one.

54:21And if there is some people ahead of you

54:24that are saying some of the exact same things

54:27that you're gonna say, we don't mind ditto,

54:28you can say that as well,

54:30and we can continue to move along.

54:32But we also respect the fact that you may have

54:34completely prepared for today as well

54:37with whatever your presentation is, okay?

54:39So Andrew, thank you for being here.

54:41Oh, by the way, one extra thing,

54:43you'll hear a chime in the room and online

54:47with only 30 seconds left.

54:50So that's your 30 second warning.

54:52Please don't make me interrupt you at 10 minutes

54:54to cut you off, I hate doing that.

54:56So please make sure that you adhere to the time limit,

54:59even if you need the whole time allotment, okay?

55:02So sorry about that, Andrew, go right ahead.

55:04I'll be well under that, so thank you so much.

55:07Hello, everyone, my name is Andrew Arkley,

55:08I'm co-founder of Spruce Living.

55:10I've been a Guelph resident for almost 20 years,

55:12attended the University of Guelph,

55:14lived two blocks from downtown,

55:16and I'm raising my family of three young children here

55:18along with my wife, Christina.

55:20Real estate development and construction and management

55:22have been my passion my entire adult life.

55:25In a recent Global Mail article,

55:26it was stated that in Canada,

55:27we have the fewest homes per capita,

55:29the lowest affordability, the highest population growth,

55:32the lowest production of new housing,

55:34and the highest cost to build.

55:35At the same time, the development industry is hobbled

55:37by some of the heaviest regulation and taxation

55:40among the G7 countries.

55:42Moving toward four units as of right in the city of Guelph

55:44is a step in the right direction to reduce this regulation.

55:48I applaud the hard work that went into this project

55:50and look forward to the results it will bring.

55:53At Spruce Living, we're trying to answer the call

55:54for what is needed in our city, infill rental housing

55:57that uses the existing infrastructure and services,

56:00and actually meets the demand from the rental community.

56:02Traditionally, rental units in our city have been comprised

56:05of bachelor, one, and two-bedroom apartments.

56:07Due to construction costs exploding during the pandemic,

56:10it's been difficult to make economic sense

56:11of larger units.

56:13However, we are breaking that mold

56:14and are pushing forward with the majority of units

56:16being two, three, and four-bedroom.

56:18Our most recent development has three fully accessible units

56:22in the rear yard.

56:23As far as we are aware,

56:24these are the first of their kind in Guelph,

56:26and we look forward to continuing this trend.

56:28Further to this, we have taken the necessary steps

56:30for all future developments to be net zero.

56:32High efficiency electric heat pumps,

56:35increased insulation, air sealing, and solar-ready designs

56:38mean that we are reducing our reliance

56:40on fossil fuels to zero.

56:44In order to make way for housing

56:45in mature neighborhoods, trees need to be cut.

56:47This is regrettable, but unavoidable.

56:50However, we have saved as many trees as possible

56:52on our projects and plan to exceed the expectations

56:54of the city with respect to replanting.

56:56In addition, cutting trees for infill lots

56:58is far preferred over clear-cutting forests

57:00or using arable farmland for urban sprawl.

57:03Unfortunately, our projects are still met

57:04with NMVs and MNASA errors,

57:06but we've also been met with compliments

57:07from neighborhood residents and associations.

57:09We appreciate the viewpoints of both sides

57:12as we bring more infill developments

57:13to our neighborhoods and community.

57:15So far, we have pushed projects forward

57:17with unanimous support from council.

57:19This has been encouraging to see

57:20and hope to be a partner with the city

57:22and the community for years to come.

57:24I'd like to thank you, Mayor Kam Guthrie,

57:25City Council and city staff

57:27for their support of this housing initiative

57:29and their assistance in bringing

57:30much-needed rental housing to our community.

57:32I truly do love the city of Guelph

57:34and I'm excited for what the future has to hold.

57:37Thank you.

57:38Great, thank you for your presentation.

57:40I'm just gonna go to Councillor Al Rourke for a question.

57:44Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

57:45Through you to Mr. Oakley.

57:46Thanks very much for your presentation.

57:49So as these developments, even with three units,

57:53are starting to go into, say, a street

57:56with a number of bungalows,

57:57the residents aren't so concerned

57:59about one development like this, right?

58:02They're concerned about the probability

58:06that a number of lots, adjacent lots,

58:09would all have, you know, up to 40 bedrooms

58:12or would all have three units on each lot.

58:16And so I'm just wondering what the reflection is

58:19because this is your bread and butter,

58:22this is your business model.

58:24What do you say to communities that are concerned about that,

58:27about a big concentration of that?

58:29Because the goal of the gentle density

58:31is to create a mix.

58:33So how do you maintain that mix?

58:35And sort of what would you say to the folks

58:38who are concerned about that domino effect?

58:41That's a good question.

58:42I mean, the lots that make the most economic sense

58:45and these projects have to make economic sense

58:48to be viable are the ones that are the larger lots

58:52that can be subdivided into several units,

58:55whether that's two or three or four or more,

58:57for that matter.

58:59We understand that that is a significant change

59:01to a community.

59:03You know, we have a number of projects planned

59:05that there will be similar changes.

59:09I've been in real estate for almost 20 years.

59:12I've managed properties, my own rental stock.

59:14I can say that these will be professionally managed

59:18with proper grounds, maintenance,

59:20with proper regulations, with proper oversight.

59:24Again, I do understand that there is a stark change,

59:27but I think that that change is needed.

59:30Again, it has to make economic sense

59:32and the larger the lot, the more infill that is available.

59:37Not sure if that answers your question.

59:39There's a follow up there.

59:41Thank you.

59:42I'm gonna ask the staff the same question.

59:43So that's all right.

59:44Thanks.

59:46And Councillor Allt, please.

59:49Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

59:51And thank you to Councillor O'Rourke

59:53for asking that question,

59:54because I was gonna ask the same question to staff as well.

59:58And it goes something like this.

59:59Thank you, Mr. Erkel, for presenting.

1:00:02And I was wondering, because I have you here

1:00:05with your professional capacity,

1:00:07I was wondering if you could please differentiate

1:00:09the potential difference between fourplex

1:00:12and four additional dwelling units.

1:00:15In other words, we have a main unit

1:00:16and the potential for two or maybe even three

1:00:19additional dwelling units on the same property.

1:00:21Strikes me that one has a more positive impact

1:00:27on general density than the other.

1:00:29And you being in the business,

1:00:30I was wondering if you could comment on that.

1:00:32Could you clarify the question?

1:00:34A fourplex is a fourplex.

1:00:36Right.

1:00:37Additional dwelling units are separate.

1:00:39On one lot, they would have a significantly different impact

1:00:44on density and also on density on the lot, in my opinion.

1:00:48And I was wondering from your perspective,

1:00:50whether there's anything I should be concerned about.

1:00:53And I will ask the same question to staff.

1:00:56Right.

1:00:57We have not explored the four units per lot

1:01:00in great detail as of yet,

1:01:02just because it has not been yet approved.

1:01:04So we've only been pushing forward the three units per lot.

1:01:08We have changed our model on some future developments

1:01:14instead of having sort of a main floor,

1:01:17a basement and a rear yard ADU.

1:01:19We've been trying to shift that away from that

1:01:22to then have a basement unit, a main floor unit

1:01:24and an upper unit.

1:01:26There's a few different reasons for that,

1:01:28but it's a bit easier to construct

1:01:32for a variety of reasons.

1:01:33So again, I'm not sure that answers your question,

1:01:35but we've only really explored the triplex model.

1:01:37It actually raises more.

1:01:38And it strikes me that there's a cost benefit as well

1:01:41to what you've just said about building

1:01:43in the same building, which reduces affordability,

1:01:46which creates more affordability.

1:01:48I might be wrong on that.

1:01:49And you might be able to correct me.

1:01:52Correct.

1:01:52I mean, obviously the construction cost goes down.

1:01:54You have one less structure on your property.

1:01:56The other piece to that is there's stormwater criteria

1:01:59that has been difficult to meet those requirements

1:02:03and having a structured backyard

1:02:05with the regulations around stormwater

1:02:08has been quite a hurdle to overcome.

1:02:10So we think we can actually create slightly better models

1:02:15and units and a variety of floor plans

1:02:18under one roof, which actually creates

1:02:22more attainable housing.

1:02:23We think we can actually fit three bedroom units

1:02:25in all of those models, where right now

1:02:27we're restricted to two bedrooms in the rear yard

1:02:29as an example.

1:02:31So we think it makes sense for a variety of reasons.

1:02:33Okay, and thank you.

1:02:35There is one more question, Mayor Guthrie, through you.

1:02:38As I was listening, I was struck by the difference

1:02:41in the character of neighborhoods.

1:02:43I live in an older neighborhood in Guelph or houses.

1:02:47Oftentimes, two stories high with 10 feet ceilings

1:02:52and an attic attached.

1:02:54And I'm wondering if you have any concerns

1:02:57about the height restriction being removed.

1:02:59It seems to me that in newer areas,

1:03:03we would be applying the height restriction

1:03:04significantly differently.

1:03:07Again, we are only looking at two-story structures.

1:03:10So we have not explored going to a third story,

1:03:13so I don't think that would affect our model.

1:03:18Councillor Pucitil, please.

1:03:19Yes, thank you, and through the mayor,

1:03:21I thank you for your presentation.

1:03:23There's something you just made a comment about.

1:03:26You think you can get three bedroom units

1:03:28in existing kind of structures.

1:03:30And I'll be asking this of the staff as well.

1:03:33There was reference to no longer regulation

1:03:35of the maximum number of bedrooms.

1:03:38Can you comment on that?

1:03:40What you've done in the past

1:03:41and how this changes what you're doing?

1:03:44Yeah, I mean, the restrictions previously have been

1:03:46there was a two-bedroom limit on basement apartments

1:03:49as an example, which has then been increased

1:03:51to three bedrooms.

1:03:52To my point earlier, the majority of rental stock

1:03:56that's built in Southwestern Ontario,

1:03:59the smaller units, the better.

1:04:00It makes more sense on a per square foot basis

1:04:03to build small units to get the most per square foot

1:04:05you could possibly get.

1:04:06And so unfortunately, this results in

1:04:08bachelor's ones, junior ones, one plus dens,

1:04:11and those types of developments,

1:04:14which really doesn't benefit large families

1:04:17or groups of people that are looking to live together.

1:04:20So we're trying to break that mold, like I mentioned.

1:04:23Under our model, adding another bedroom

1:04:25or sort of extending the structure out to the back

1:04:28does not add a significant amount of cost to us.

1:04:30Obviously our land base is still the same.

1:04:32So we feel that removing that restriction

1:04:35on the number of bedrooms for basements ADUs

1:04:38is a wonderful thing.

1:04:40Families moving to our community

1:04:42are not looking for one bedroom.

1:04:45Obviously, maybe two bedrooms do work,

1:04:47but the more bedrooms, the better for families.

1:04:50And again, people looking to live together,

1:04:51to house together.

1:04:52So we think that that is a great initiative.

1:04:56Thank you.

1:04:58Great, Councillor Gibson.

1:05:01And I think that is it.

1:05:04Thank you.

1:05:04Councillor Corrine after you, Councillor Gibson.

1:05:07And then that's it.

1:05:08Yeah, thank you, through Mr. Mayor.

1:05:10Great presentation.

1:05:10I hope you like this video as well.

1:05:12And thank you.

1:05:13I'm just going to finish the audio and

1:05:15wrap up.

1:05:16So I just wanted to ask you,

1:05:17Councillor, I know we have a lot of

1:05:18lleas and joy insights from the development

1:05:20community, especially on a project like this,

1:05:22where you will be telling us what

1:05:24the landscape will look like after we pass a by lock.

1:05:26We can try our best,

1:05:27but you're the ones who are going to tell us

1:05:29what it looks like.

1:05:30So my focus here is not always,

1:05:31it's not the large single detached at home

1:05:35on a large lot that was built in the 50s, 60s, 70s.

1:05:39Do you see this type of bylaw penetrating the home neighborhoods that have been built since the 2000s?

1:05:46So like the tight through parking space, semi-detached or townhome units,

1:05:53do you see problems with it being as of right for these neighborhoods that were built a lot tighter

1:06:00without the size of the lots? Like thinking of triplexes in a townhome unit, yeah, it kind of scares

1:06:07me a little bit. So like, can you help me understand the target market or the target property that

1:06:12the development community would be looking at? Again, I'm concerned about the easiest point

1:06:16of entry. So the person who wants to invest and create these triplexes or foreplexes,

1:06:22what are the properties they're going to be targeting? Yeah, I think the smaller properties

1:06:26in, you know, I'm going to sort of generalize here, like the south end or the east end are going to

1:06:30be very difficult. Obviously, the larger the lots, again, the more you can subdivide into smaller

1:06:35parcels. That being said, the reduction of the parking requirement for adding an ADU could be a

1:06:42big needle mover for people in those areas. Obviously, adding a basement apartment and not

1:06:46having to have parking. If you have a single lane driveway as an example, that's been a hiccup in

1:06:51the past of not wanting to do that. So I think that specifically, and that is the lowest hanging

1:06:56fruit for people looking for as an example, affordable home ownership. If you can have an

1:07:02as of right basement apartment in your townhouse or single detached home or semi-detached home,

1:07:08and you do not require parking, I think that is a needle mover in itself.

1:07:14Yeah, I feel the same way. I'm going to ask the same questions to staff, but I appreciate your

1:07:19insight. Thank you. Thank you. And last I have is Councillor Caron. Yes, thank you. And thank you

1:07:25to the delegation for being here because I've seen some of the work you do and

1:07:29and understand your business model. So I just want to clarify that what I heard is that

1:07:37adding a second structure is more costly than conversion of a primary dwelling.

1:07:45And that in an ideal situation, if adding four units to a lot, the pro forma for that is

1:07:54is that it would be one structure and not two structures that if you were to have an empty lot

1:08:01and you were building from scratch that a four plex, so four units in one structure would

1:08:10makes a better pro forma than two separate structures with two units per structure.

1:08:17It's kind of what I heard, but you're in the business of Arduce. So you're working with the

1:08:24second structure for a third unit because of the current regulations, but with future regulations,

1:08:31it's actually a better pro forma to have one structure. Can you just clarify that?

1:08:37Yeah, that's generally correct. Anytime you can have the more units under one roof, obviously,

1:08:42you're not having to have another roof and another, you know, foundation port in the backyard, it makes

1:08:47more sense to have it inside of one structure. It doesn't always work based on the lot layout and

1:08:52the dimensions and setbacks and different things. So I can't say it'll work all the time, but again,

1:08:58we think that the model going from two units in the main house and one in the rear yard to

1:09:04three under one roof or again four under one roof, which again, we haven't

1:09:08explored that in great detail yet just because it has not been passed. But we are certainly

1:09:14trying to switch away from the ARDU rear yard model to get all of the units under one roof.

1:09:19We do think that that is more economical. Okay, thanks. Great, Andrew. Thank you very much for

1:09:26being here. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time. All right, Ania, you are we're in the

1:09:32wings here. We're making your way down and Dylan, Dylan Fraser is right there. So you're in the wings.

1:09:45Ania, welcome and thank you for joining us. And you heard me give the drill on everything. So I'll

1:09:51just turn the mic over to you. So my name's Ania. So just it's it's okay. Okay, so thank you for

1:09:58having me. Thank you for allowing me to speak today concerning the gentle density of four dwellings on

1:10:03a lot. As well, I'd like to thank our local newspapers, the Guelph Tribune and the Guelph today

1:10:08for reporting on this important issue that will impact all communities in Guelph.

1:10:14From my understanding, the federal government is offering funding for infrastructure to

1:10:19municipalities that allow the development of four unit residential dwellings. This is part of an

1:10:24incentive to help build affordable housing in Canada. Just last week, Premier Doug Ford told

1:10:32reporters communities would lose their minds and won't wouldn't stop screaming if four plexes were

1:10:37permitted as of right province wide. Those comments hit close to home for me. Three units on a lot have

1:10:44been permitted in Guelph for a little over a month. And personally, I have to admit I'm kind of losing

1:10:49my mind over this, along with many other residents as communicated in the very well written letters.

1:10:57Don't get me wrong. This idea has the potential to help the need for more housing.

1:11:02There's one critical problem that needs to be addressed. There are no rules and regulations

1:11:08to address how many of these complexes are permitted in any one neighborhood.

1:11:13Bylaws have been relaxed and loosened to the point that developers can get away with anything

1:11:18without considering the taxpayers of the community. If these complexes are constructed on mass in a

1:11:25quiet residential neighborhood, then the idea of gentle intensification is lost.

1:11:32You would be effectively promoting the degradation, liquidation, all by the eradication of those

1:11:40neighborhoods. In an article addressing the construction of four plexes published in the Guelph

1:11:47Mercury October of last year, Krista Wauke, the city's chief planner and general manager for planning

1:11:53and building services noted, not every street will have the capacity to accommodate this.

1:11:59She said maybe it could accommodate one four unit building, but if there was 10 on a street,

1:12:04the three quarter inch water main that's been there since 1950 isn't going to allow for fire

1:12:10suppression. Okay, so what if a quiet residential neighborhood had the proper infrastructure to

1:12:17accommodate 10 four unit buildings? So it has a proper water main, sidewalk, street with storm

1:12:24sewers. Let's consider some of the numbers. So there isn't any restriction in the number of

1:12:29bedrooms. Apparently the the city can't control this. So each lot would accommodate about 12 people.

1:12:3512 people multiplied by the 10 lots. That's 120 people. That could easily equate to 60 cars added

1:12:43to this quiet residential neighborhood. That is a 600% increase in traffic. Can you imagine the

1:12:49traffic not only from the cars, just imagine all the delivery trucks cruising up and down the street?

1:12:55And how about the impact this may have on emergency vehicles being able to access homes?

1:13:02We cannot underestimate the impact this intensification would have on our roads, on our safety,

1:13:08on our lives and on the lives of our children. And to my understanding, these are rentals.

1:13:15This is a university city. So are we accommodating students? Are we actually building affordable

1:13:20housing for young families? This is unclear. So in this case, an existing quiet residential

1:13:26community is basically destroyed. This is not gentle intensification who is benefiting other

1:13:32than the developer and the rental company skyline. We see this kind of proposal today with cluster

1:13:39building of three plexes and the city is allowing this. Intensification is relative. You need to

1:13:45look at the surrounding community and ask yourself, does this fit with the current density level?

1:13:51And maybe this plan will fit in a specific neighborhood with similar housing density,

1:13:56but it's not going to fit in every neighborhood. And in such a case, this clustering of buildings

1:14:00can no longer be defined as gentle. There needs to be rules and regulations in place to protect

1:14:06the current taxpaying residents. There needs to be thoughtful urban planning of three plexes

1:14:12in existing residential neighborhoods before you can consider four. We don't see that today.

1:14:19The purpose of a residential developer is to create a plan to build a community that works best for

1:14:25the area and the residents. The purpose of a planner is to take a broader viewpoint and see

1:14:31how the different elements of a community fit together like pieces of a puzzle. These two need

1:14:37to come together and work with the current taxpayers of the community. For the success of three units

1:14:42on a lot, we need to have rules and regulations to limit where these complexes are built and the

1:14:48amount of these complexes that are built in a neighborhood. And we have not seen that yet.

1:14:54Money is being waived at us. And if the city of Guelph wants to accept building four plexes,

1:14:59we need to respect our current community members. We are taxpayers and deserve a voice in this

1:15:04matter. The safety and social well-being of the current residents must be considered.

1:15:09We need to build new homes with strategic city planning and developers who can work with the

1:15:15residents to preserve the current communities. Thank you for your time. Great. Thank you for

1:15:21your presentation and being here today. Is there any follow-up? There isn't. So thank you very much.

1:15:27Thank you. Dylan Fraser is next. And is Philip Carr here? Sorry, I've got to put my glasses on.

1:15:36Is Philip here? Okay, you're in the wings. Okay, Philip. Thank you and over to you.

1:15:41Good morning, Mayor Guthrie and members of the Guelph City Council. My name is Dylan Fraser and

1:15:55I'm the 2024 president of the Guelphan District Association of Realtors or GEDAR. For those of

1:16:01you who may not know, GEDAR is one of the region's largest professional associations with over 600

1:16:07Realtor members living and working in Guelph and the surrounding area. Our members are proud to work

1:16:13with elected officials of all levels of government to help all residents find attainable houses.

1:16:19I'm honored to present today in strong support of the proposed bylaw amendment

1:16:24to permit up to four dwelling units on low density zoned residential lots.

1:16:29This proposal is a pivotal moment in the history of our city and represents strong leadership

1:16:34demonstrated by Mayor Guthrie and City Council. It represents a forward-thinking approach to

1:16:40housing, one that acknowledges the urgent need for increased housing supply and diversity in Guelph.

1:16:47As we all know, Guelph made a municipal housing pledge to construct an additional 18,000 units

1:16:53by 2031. The ability to permit up to four dwelling units per lot is a cornerstone of this pledge

1:17:01facilitating gentle intensification that respects the character of our existing neighborhoods

1:17:06while addressing our growing housing needs. The draft regulations presented today, based on

1:17:12comprehensive community engagement and feedback, are designed to support this gentle density.

1:17:18Allowing four units, as of right, across approximately 4,000 lots in Guelph is a game changer.

1:17:24This policy will help small builders and average homeowners generate more duplexes,

1:17:29triplexes, and fourplexes without the need for cumbersome zoning variances.

1:17:34These housing types are affordable entry points to the market for young families and desirable

1:17:40options for downsizing seniors who may not want to move into an apartment.

1:17:44Giving seniors more options to downsize has the benefit of getting more single family homes

1:17:50onto the market. In other words, by sanctioning four units, as of right, we unlock a double

1:17:55dividend of increasing the local supply of new and resale homes. That's great news for existing

1:18:02and would-be residents of the city. One of the most commendable aspects of these regulations

1:18:08is the thoughtful approach to parking requirements.

1:18:12These parking considerations in the proposal directly address one of the major barriers to

1:18:16creating secondary suites. This sensible approach acknowledges the changing dynamics of

1:18:22transportation and car ownership in our community and aligns with broader environmental and

1:18:26sustainability goals. Furthermore, the decision to scrap the 45% size restriction based on the

1:18:33host unit size for additional dwelling units, as well as the required capacity for additional

1:18:40units, is a significant step towards flexibility. This change recognizes the diverse needs of our

1:18:49residents and removes unnecessary restraints on homeowners and developers, encouraging the

1:18:55creation of a range of affordable housing options within our city. It also aligns with the city

1:19:02building theme of future Guelph strategic plan by improving our housing supply and ensuring that

1:19:08Guelph remains a welcoming and accessible place for everyone. In conclusion, I urge Council to

1:19:15consider the broad support from the community, the housing industry, and stakeholders like the

1:19:21Guelph and District Association of Realtors for these proposed regulations. By approving this

1:19:27bylaw amendment, we can take a bold step toward meeting our housing goals, encouraging innovation

1:19:32and housing solutions, and making Guelph a model for gentle density and sustainable city living.

1:19:38While some municipalities continue to pander to NIMBY forces, Guelph is a shining light

1:19:44of what is possible when our leaders come together to solve complex challenges like our

1:19:49housing affordability crisis. Thank you. Great. Thank you. It looks like Councillor Alden or Rourke

1:19:54have questions for you. So we'll start. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, through you too,

1:20:00Mr. Fraser. And again, I'm certainly going to be asking similar questions to staff.

1:20:08I heard you say very clearly that you support four dwelling units. And I was wondering if you

1:20:14could please explain when you say four dwelling units, do you refer to four dwelling units

1:20:20independent of fourplexes, or do you mean it together, or do you see one as better than the other?

1:20:28I think flexibility is the key here. Depending on the needs of the area, the use case, if we have

1:20:35multi-generational home uses, then they may want to have separate dwellings, or there may be a desire

1:20:43as purpose-built fourplex. I think flexibility is the key.

1:20:48And thank you. The reason I'm asking, and you might want to comment on this,

1:20:52I wholeheartedly agree with you that sustainability and the environment are very important.

1:20:57My challenge that I'm trying to get around right now is that separate units on the same lot actually

1:21:03have a more significant environmental impact than one unit under one roof. And so I was wondering

1:21:11if you could perhaps comment on that. We end up using far more land, for example, taking green

1:21:17space, even a lawn or a garden out of production as a consequence of that. And also, in my opinion,

1:21:24does compound density in a neighbourhood? I could certainly appreciate that viewpoint.

1:21:30I feel as though flexibility for the actual needs of homeowners and potential,

1:21:36or just housing in general, is the key need. Ultimately, lot coverage requirements cover off

1:21:45too much intensification with regulations at 30%. And thank you very much. Yeah, absolutely.

1:21:52I'll work them boosted till please. Thank you, Marigot 3.

1:21:56Through you to Mr. Fraser. I'm trying to understand what the market forces are. Okay, so you said

1:22:04four units as of right can create affordable entry points and giving seniors more options to

1:22:09downsize. The neighbours that I'm talking to, they're concerned that actually allowing four

1:22:15units as of right on a property invites investors and real estate investment trusts, for example,

1:22:22to purchase that for rental stock and that then it would actually drive up the price of a lot that

1:22:28would have a single family home on it. And so I'm wondering if you have any evidence or any

1:22:35economic data that shows whether the four units or the potential for four units is actually driving

1:22:40up the price as opposed to sort of creating a new competition for people trying to get into the

1:22:47market. That's the one thing. And then the rental piece is slightly different. What's the data on

1:22:52this? And I wish I had hard data, but I don't. I think ultimately, yeah, without speaking off the

1:23:01back of hard data, it's hard to articulate too much. But I think flexibility and ultimately

1:23:05supply and demand is the biggest issue that we have. And if we have more supply, then naturally it

1:23:13sort of opens up affordability. So through you to America three. So what the concern is an individual

1:23:21home buyer is looking to buy a bungalow on a street, right? And they're young family and maybe they'll

1:23:28put in a basement apartment and maybe they'll put in an ARDU just to help them carry that property

1:23:33is one thing. And the concern is then in that scenario, that first time home buyer or that

1:23:39home buyer is competing with real estate investment trust that's got a whole lot more capital behind

1:23:46them. So do you have any evidence of that happening? Do you have any concerns in that regard? Because I

1:23:53hear you talking about, you know, it's affordable entry points, but the concern in the community is

1:23:57that it could be the opposite. Yeah, and certainly we saw that more in peak low interest rate markets.

1:24:05It starts to become less economical in higher interest rate markets and an individual can

1:24:11leverage the same efficiencies in terms of if they wanted to create multiple units, as you mentioned,

1:24:18for themselves, they would get those same economies to be able to compete with investors,

1:24:23if that kind of tracks. Okay. And three America three, just another question. I think that the

1:24:29fourplex or the four units as of right is a fairly new model in Canada. But do you have any

1:24:35data from any jurisdictions that have this model that that explains what happens to the housing

1:24:41prices when this model is introduced? Is and are there any impacts on resale? Right? So if you have

1:24:48a semi that's got a basement apartment, it's got multiple units, and it's got ARDU is in the back.

1:24:53Whoever wants to sell that, do we know if there's any resale impacts?

1:24:59We're certainly looking into it. So I'm happy to get back to you, but at this time I don't have

1:25:03hard data. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. And Boussette, please. Yes, thank you for your delegation and through the

1:25:11mayor. Thank you, Councillor O'Rourke. I was going to ask staff the same question, but this is great.

1:25:17Can you comment at all? You mentioned pandering to NIMBYism. The

1:25:25the consents consistent concerns are around rules of where this is permitted from your association

1:25:32or from your experience. Do you see a middle ground there or is it just open season? It can be

1:25:40wherever. What is your thoughts on that? It's my understanding that the tools that are available to

1:25:46staff kind of limit being able to section it off piece by piece. And I think that it gets challenging

1:25:55and maybe makes it a little bit short-sighted to at one point in time narrow things off to a

1:26:03certain community. It kind of loses sight of the longer and more widespread need.

1:26:10Yeah. And I think that the visual that was created was the dominant fact of

1:26:15me and so on and so on and that intensification. So that is a concern. The second one was around

1:26:22the number of bedrooms. If you can comment on that and anything that you've heard from home

1:26:28purchasers or these corporations that are purchasing the individual family homes, they're

1:26:34thinking around the intensification or the removal of the number of bedrooms.

1:26:38Yeah. Thank you so much for that question. The two-bedroom cap has been a large challenge

1:26:45for our rental stock. I don't have the numbers today, but historically even going back as

1:26:51recently as a couple years ago, the vacancy rate on three bedrooms was significantly lower

1:26:57than one bedroom and two bedrooms. Certainly one bedroom and two bedrooms have been pushed from

1:27:01upper levels of government. And as the previous delegate mentioned, there's economies of scale

1:27:08for a larger investor to create one and two bedrooms. So if we can open up three bedrooms,

1:27:15maybe it's not the large investor, it's the small investor who's creating them more widespread,

1:27:20but it caters to the need of families. Because ultimately what we see now under the current

1:27:26regulations is that we have a larger availability of two bedrooms and we have families who have

1:27:32a need for three bedrooms living in two-bedroom units. Thank you. And the last one is parking.

1:27:38And I hear a lot from developers saying, yes, zero, one minimal amount of parking, and yet

1:27:45the number one phone call that I get from people in residential areas is parking problems. And so,

1:27:52your thoughts around this. So if you're advising a developer who's purchasing on a residential area,

1:27:58no requirement perhaps for parking. But I think you're going to hear from some of the

1:28:04delegations around the change to the nature of the neighborhood and parking, the intensification.

1:28:10Just from the work that you do in the community, what are your thoughts on parking?

1:28:15I feel like, so the way that it's structured under the draft amendment is that it would mainly

1:28:22open it up for the secondary unit. And again, going back to the small investor, the individual

1:28:30homeowner, the second unit is most accessible to them. It's easiest to finance. The third unit

1:28:37gets a little bit more challenging. But the second unit, it's also most commonly used for

1:28:43multi-generational uses. And so the need to add that second parking space immediately for the

1:28:51second unit has been very restrictive. So I think that it'll open up the abilities for the smaller

1:28:57investor and for the multi-generational user. Thank you. If I might just to supplement,

1:29:02twinning it with the number of bedrooms and the comment around the context of

1:29:08developers and corporations buying single-family residences and increasing the number of bedrooms

1:29:14and parking. Do you have evidence or comments and concerns? Yes, I understand about the

1:29:22granny flats or things like that. But it's more around, again, the university students or, you

1:29:27know, a number of individuals sharing accommodation that all have cars. Yeah. And I, unfortunately,

1:29:33I don't have any hard numbers to fall back on for that. Great. That's it for you. Thank you, Dylan.

1:29:41That's great. Appreciate it. And next we have is Philip, Philip Maher, who's coming up. Thank you.

1:29:50And is Susan Ratcliffe here? No? Okay. How about, oh, it looks like, yes, Dave Grun here. Okay, Dave,

1:30:00you're in the wings. Okay. Thank you. And over to you. Thank you for being here.

1:30:04Appreciate being here. Am I using that timer? Okay. We met with Dominique, met with Ken. Great

1:30:12to see you here. Glad to be here. So, you know, I want to start, unless those of us speaking today

1:30:19are mischaracterized, let me start by saying that the people, many people here who are against this

1:30:26are not against intensification. But four units as a right goes too far in our view.

1:30:33We accept that existing lots in older neighborhoods could be subdivided and provide space for two

1:30:40homes, maybe a triplex, something like that. But this proposal suggesting gentle density in fills

1:30:47is in reality extreme density in our view. There's nothing gentle about it all. I will explain.

1:30:54First off, let me remind folks that not all cities have accepted four units per lot as a right.

1:31:01And these cities are bigger than us. They include Windsor, Kingston, Brampton, North Toronto,

1:31:08Richmond Hill, I guess, and London. Mississauga Council voted against the change, but the then

1:31:15mayor Cromby, now the head of the provincial liberals, used her strong mayor powers to override

1:31:21what council wanted. And with pressure from Ottawa, according to CBC News, she overrode what

1:31:28council wanted. I get it, Ottawa is offering an incentive to encourage builders to push things

1:31:34like four and five as a right forward. However, the average citizen does not understand this change.

1:31:41They see this change to four as part of a process to perhaps use up empty lots. But few seem to

1:31:48understand the implication. In part, this is because you are using the wrong metric and therefore

1:31:54they do not understand the rapid shock these units bring when built in many communities.

1:32:01To count units is an optical illusion. You should be counting bedrooms. This is not three or four

1:32:07units as a right. It's actually 15 or so bedrooms as a right. And I remind council that you have

1:32:14completely removed the number of bedrooms permitted from the long standing bylaws. There seems to be

1:32:19no limit to the number of beds a unit can contain or the number of these buildings that can sit beside

1:32:25each other, essentially invading a community of single family homes. This presentation is not

1:32:32about the development on Ridgeway, but let me use it as an example, just an example to show you what

1:32:37can happen elsewhere if this motion goes forward. Given its proximity to the university and other

1:32:44features, the Ridgeway development is mostly for student rentals with the proposed five bedrooms

1:32:49upstairs, three downstairs and two in the back. That is 10 bedrooms on one property. Because of the

1:32:57newly minted three units as a right, it is very difficult to change the number of units, though

1:33:02restricting the number of bedrooms is up for debate. This development will have 40 bedrooms on

1:33:09what was previously one property. These kinds of units can be built elsewhere in the city and we

1:33:17cannot stop them. You have lost power and four as a right reduces your power even more. Again,

1:33:26just using Ridgeway as an example of what can happen elsewhere in the city, these changes from

1:33:32three to four as a right would significantly increase the number of units in a development,

1:33:38like this, from the current 12 to potentially 20 when approval comes for the five units

1:33:46per property as you hope to have in the future. In this example, the number of bedrooms goes from

1:33:54the current 40 to potentially 48 or more. Imagine the number of bedrooms when other properties are

1:34:01bought by developers in single family communities. Realistically, this could place 200 or more

1:34:07bedrooms on a residential street with newer homes. How can this be gentle intensification?

1:34:14Furthermore, we're using the wrong metric when it comes to counting vehicles. You're proposing the

1:34:20addition of a fourth dwelling while not adding parking. Three parking spaces for four units is

1:34:26inadequate, especially when you consider that cramming this number of people on a property will

1:34:32surely mean that the garage will contain storage for bikes, suitcases, boxes, etc., not cars.

1:34:40At the very least, you need one parking spot or more for each unit and realistically more

1:34:46since the garage is likely to be full. Listen, it's common in our society to beat up politicians

1:34:54and city officials. I've often defended counsel. You have a tough job with part-time salary and

1:34:59full-time hours. I'm naive perhaps, but that's my view. However, I feel as though somehow,

1:35:07perhaps, city officials are abdicating the responsibility by wanting to bypass

1:35:12current processes through the bylaw change. We already have a system in place where a developer

1:35:18can go through a procedure to ask for more buildings on a space through rezoning. This

1:35:24allows for a sober second thought from city officials, planners, and the community to ensure

1:35:31the neighborhood is suitable. Is this too much to ask when considering a major change to our most

1:35:37valuable asset, our home and our community? Once four is the right passes, you lose power to manage

1:35:47this aspect of our amazing city. I do not suggest that four units is impossible. Simply, the developers

1:35:54can go through the regular process to allow for a full review. I want to speak to the notion of

1:36:02gentle density. Although there is no metric as to where gentle density is appropriate, there is a

1:36:08strong guideline in your proposal that states, and I summarize, gentle density is an approach to an

1:36:14urban development that focuses on slightly increasing the number and variety of homes in a neighborhood

1:36:20that typically accommodate only low density single detached homes. Again, this is the wrong metric.

1:36:27You're counting buildings or homes, not the number of people living in them. Most citizens would see

1:36:33the addition of a dozen bedrooms or more as less than gentle and more akin to dumping them on their

1:36:39heads. This is not gentle density to the average citizen. It sure does not fit the definition

1:36:45I've read from your documents. I mean no unkindness to anybody, but it's somewhat disingenuous for the

1:36:52city to increase from two to three, now four units per lot without highlighting loudly that the city

1:37:00wants to go to five units. One had asked for three, then five units up front. I would suggest

1:37:07the jumping from three to five would cause unwanted attention from citizens. Perhaps this was

1:37:13unintentional. I honestly believe that, but this is another reason many people have not noticed this

1:37:19radical change and are shocked when they understand the implications of this policy. It's time to

1:37:25draw a line in the sand at these three units and not proceed to four, then five as a right. Again,

1:37:33I emphasize that the current system still allows for four units or more, but not as a right. This

1:37:40does not prevent any of the large developments now taking place in our great city, but it provides

1:37:46more safeguards and reviews each case in a measured manner, which is what we expect from our democratic

1:37:52system. Other respected professionals are skeptical of this move to four as a right. Dr. Paul Crayling,

1:38:00a retired and respected member of the Canadian Planners Institute and a university professor

1:38:05here in Guelph, said in his submission to council, I'm concerned with the blanket permissions being

1:38:11provided for the proposed ZB amendment on lots across the city. Unintended consequences as a

1:38:19possibility can be the ghettoization of certain streets or neighborhoods by investors trying to

1:38:25maximize a buck by cramming four units per lot in an area. In closing, we have a housing problem.

1:38:34I'm inviting you on this issue to do your job for both new and old residents. Retain your power and

1:38:40invite developers to apply for increased density when asking for more than three units on a case

1:38:46by case basis, which now exists, but not as a right. This does not prevent any of the significant

1:38:52building projects now taking place. In addition, provide proper parking. Any lot for any lot with

1:38:59four units should provide at least one parking lot space per unit, if not more, since garages

1:39:06will be used for bikes and other items, not cars. Also replace the limit on the number of bedrooms

1:39:12in a unit, a limitation that was removed for this proposal. This is not four units as a right. This

1:39:19is 15 or 20 bedrooms as a right. Also limit the number of these four or three as a right buildings

1:39:28in neighborhoods. Retaining your powers allows you to do this. Calling this gentle intensification

1:39:35is misleading. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Thank you.

1:39:43Thank you. Are there any follow-up questions? Okay, I have a question for you. Thank you for

1:39:49sticking around for me. So I'm trying to nail down what your biggest issue is. Is it four units

1:39:57or is it the amount of bedrooms? So let me give you a hypothetical. If you've got three, three are

1:40:03allowed as of right now. That's provincial planning policy. Done. Yep. Okay. And if there's no bedroom

1:40:09limit on that, we could have 10 bedrooms in each of those. Are you okay with that? Or is it four

1:40:16units that you're not okay with? If we had four units and less bedrooms, would you be okay with that?

1:40:22Or three units and more bedrooms? I think both. I think four units is a problem,

1:40:29but I also think 10 bedrooms is a problem. I mean, it's not necessarily a binary choice.

1:40:35I think the thing is if you have four, you lose power. You can't evaluate which somebody wants

1:40:43to build something in a particular community seems to me. You don't have the ability to talk to the

1:40:50community. I mean, you can still do all that and you will. I'm sure I respect you. I'm not, you know,

1:40:54saying developers are just going to dump this, but if they can apply individually, it's going to be

1:41:00slower admittedly, but it allows council and the community to evaluate each community and each

1:41:07submission from the various developers. Okay. And we'll disagree on some of that. But that's okay.

1:41:16I'm going to park that. No offense to the parking issue. I'm going to park that issue,

1:41:20but I do want to try to understand where is the threshold for you? Where is the line that's crossed?

1:41:26Is 10 bedrooms too much? Is four bedrooms too much? Is seven bedrooms okay? Is two bedrooms okay?

1:41:34How would you, if you had the power, how would you limit it then? And I'm trying to get back to my

1:41:41same question. If it's three, if it's three units as of right now that's allowed under provincial

1:41:46policy and there's, and there's 30 bedrooms, I'm exaggerating a purpose here to make a point, but

1:41:5230 bedrooms, are you okay with that? And, and, or would you rather four units that still fit

1:41:59within the regulations on the same piece of property, but with less bedrooms? Right. I'm trying to

1:42:04understand what your pressure, what your pressure point is. Is it units or is it bedrooms? It's the,

1:42:10it's the philosophical argument how many hairs make a beard. So I think if you have a development

1:42:18with a fourplex and let's say there's two bedrooms in the basement and three upstairs,

1:42:25I could see that as acceptable. But it's when you've got 10 bedrooms on one property,

1:42:34I see that as a problem. And in part, because it basically becomes whatever you want to call it,

1:42:39a rental house, a rooming house, I realize there's specific definitions, but that's kind of what it

1:42:44ends up. So I'm in a triplex, a fourplex, personally, I'd be okay with that. But it's when you start

1:42:51packing people in because all of a sudden you're bringing in a lot of people to the community

1:42:56and the question goes back to how many of those are you going to allow on a street? So one,

1:43:01listen, I'm okay with 10 if there's only one on the street. But it's when you start stacking them

1:43:06together where you've got now 40 people, you know, 100 people, whatever it happens to be, right? So

1:43:13part of what I think is about how many of these are you going to allow on a street? What's the limit?

1:43:19I think that, that to me is kind of the challenge. You answered my question. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no,

1:43:23no pushback from me at all. No, we got there. I appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure I

1:43:28actually understood. Yeah, sort of that. What is the threshold for you where you're like,

1:43:33I feel comfortable with this, but not with that. So and I'm just trying to give the scenarios of

1:43:37what is allowed, what we're considering right now and how those both play together, right? So I

1:43:43appreciate that. I saw Councillor Busuttil and then Guller's hand go up. I shouldn't have started

1:43:47questions. No, just kidding. Go ahead, Councillor Busuttil. Thank you, and through the mayor,

1:43:51thank you for asking your questions because I wanted to make sure that I'm taking the correct

1:43:56message away. And for me, it wasn't the unit's number of units or the number of bedrooms. What

1:44:02I circled here is that you want us to use the regular process. It's about the process and that

1:44:10takes into consideration the context and the control in there. And so for me, it's, you know,

1:44:17because every situation is different, but if you have a process, it can take those things

1:44:22into consideration. I just want to make sure it's not about numbers, it's about the process.

1:44:27Well, I mean, it's about numbers as well. Obviously, I mean, yeah, we don't want 30 people living

1:44:33on one, you know, property, but it seems to me, if we go through the process, it allows Council

1:44:40and community to say, okay, somebody wants to put, you know, four, you know, units on this property

1:44:47or a 380 use or whatever it happens to be. All right, fine. Then that allows the community to

1:44:52decide, it allows to Council to go through, because there's some areas where that might be

1:44:56appropriate. I'm not saying four is never good. I'm just saying there may be areas where it's not

1:45:01good. But if it becomes a right, like it's pretty hard to argue. I mean, you know, we've been told

1:45:07like three can go relatively speak and go anywhere, right? So if it goes to four, you lose power.

1:45:15You don't have the capacity to evaluate. There's, you know, not willy nilly, but there's still

1:45:21engineering and all that stuff. So, you know, if that makes sense, you know, allow the system to

1:45:25continue. People can still build four, but they just need to go through a process.

1:45:31Great. Thank you. And to, yep, to finish off, Councillor Lohr.

1:45:37Thank you, and through your worship. Thank you for the presentation.

1:45:41Hoping to better understand what the concern is with having more people on the street.

1:45:49So in my street, if all of a sudden next door to me, they built a, say,

1:45:56a six unit little apartment, it would have so many people, versus having some homes converted. So in

1:46:03my mind, I'm thinking I would rather have a couple of four plexus in my street rather than a couple

1:46:08of medium density buildings because of the look of the streets. But something that I'm not too

1:46:14concerned about is the number of people living in my street. So help me understand, how does that

1:46:19negatively impact? Is it on street parking? What is it about having more people on the street that

1:46:25changes the neighborhood? So this goes back to individually evaluating each one of these, you

1:46:32know, four unit, you know, proposals. So in some streets, it might be fine, but in other streets,

1:46:37that may be in a quiet neighborhood, maybe they only have one entrance. All of a sudden, you're

1:46:43now adding 10, 15 cars. You're adding, and it's not about the people per se, but it's about adding

1:46:50the cars, adding the traffic, you know, the visitors in some areas, if it's going to be students,

1:46:55you're going to have visitors, you know, visiting the students, parents. So now you're into a traffic

1:47:00safety issue. So now you're needing controls on the street to slow people down, all of that. So

1:47:06you know, as you add people, you add other problems. And so that's part of the issue. And again,

1:47:13when you're doing multiple units, one or two of these on a street might be fine.

1:47:20But when you start putting five or six of them, it's a problem. And what about people that have

1:47:25nice single family homes, maybe new homes that they've just built, and now all of a sudden,

1:47:30you're putting one of these right beside them? You know, to me, that's a problem. And it takes

1:47:35away from the quality of the neighborhood, may not take away from the valuations, but actually,

1:47:41it increases the valuation, which now makes homes less affordable. So I hope that answers.

1:47:47Okay, okay. So just so that I'm clear, the traffic and the parking are two big components,

1:47:52as well as the aesthetic change of the neighborhood. Traffic and parking is a huge issue.

1:47:58And yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, worship. Thank you.

1:48:03Thanks for sticking around. Thanks, folks. Appreciate it. And you are right.

1:48:10Councilors are getting part time pay for full time work. I can attest to that.

1:48:14I already had to answer someone else about that question this week. So I can attest to that.

1:48:20Susan Ratcliffe, just want to make sure Susan is not here. No, okay, we're nearing the end here.

1:48:26Dave, obviously you were in the wings when you're coming up. So thank you for being here.

1:48:30And then is Paul Samanski here? Yes. Okay. So you're your last on our list. Okay.

1:48:39Thank you. Over to you. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and then counselors. My name is Dave Grun

1:48:46and I've been a Guelph resident for over 20 years as well. I've worked in the construction industry

1:48:50during that time and the company I work for has completed many types of projects in this city,

1:48:55from residential to commercial to industrial as well as products for the university.

1:49:01As a resident, I've seen the city grow dramatically since I've lived here. The city planning

1:49:05department has executed on this growth with responsibility of ensuring the resources and

1:49:09environment it creates for its residents aligns with the city's goals and objectives.

1:49:13The city's vision statement is to provide an inclusive, connected, prosperous city where we

1:49:17look after each other and our environment. While the mission statement similarly states to work

1:49:22together to deliver responsible, responsive and professional public service to Guelph's growing

1:49:27and diverse community. I realize I don't have to say that to you people, but just for everyone.

1:49:32I'm against the current proposal that has been reviewed today to increase the number of units

1:49:36on a single property from three to four as of the right. I believe in the creation of more

1:49:41affordable housing. However, this needs to be done with the involvement of a planning department

1:49:45in line with the mission statement of our city and not at all costs. The current economics of

1:49:50this country following the pandemic have created a once in a lifetime unique situation where house

1:49:55prices are very high and affordable housing is not available. Quickly rising interest rates over

1:49:59the last two years are currently slowing the demand for new home purchases and immigration

1:50:03is being utilized to stimulate the economy to try and obtain a soft landing versus an economical

1:50:07crash. These occurrences are creating a demand for affordable housing that currently do not exist

1:50:12in the market today and is well below the CMHC target that they feel is required for our current

1:50:17population. As well, City Planning Department, the demand to create more housing units is being

1:50:22felt and now mandated by our current government. Creating a bylaw that gives all property owners

1:50:27a right to have four units on a single property without planning consideration does not take

1:50:32into account the environment of each neighborhood and it's not called responsible planning.

1:50:37This bylaw, in my opinion, is a knee-jerk reaction to provide a band-aid solution that is a once for

1:50:43a once in a lifetime unique situation. This knee-jerk bylaw will forever change the City of

1:50:51Guelph without the ability of the Planning Department to guide where high density can occur

1:50:54and cannot occur as it will be the right of any land order to maximize their space.

1:50:59After all the City's proper development and planning over the years with oversight from

1:51:02this council, we are now willing to allow developers and builders to provide density where they see fit

1:51:08and just for the record, I don't, I don't, I work for developers, they're my clients sometimes.

1:51:13However, I think we need to understand that they will see fit in any opportunity where a

1:51:18profit can be realized regardless of how it contrasts to the vision and mission statements I

1:51:22previously read. We were up here and and and Ms. Councillor O'Rourke asked how will sprawling stop

1:51:30and the answer was really it won't if it's financially viable. They will select the properties

1:51:34that are financially viable and they will do that and I don't hold anyone accountable. If it's not

1:51:39one developer and builder, it'll be a different one. There is no, there is no specific developer

1:51:45that that will do this and not do this. Neighborhoods with character type homes and larger lot sizes

1:51:50such as near the university or exhibition park as examples will be altered, severed into multiple

1:51:55lots and redesigned to maximize profits with an ad hoc approach that compromises our community's

1:52:00livability. With a proposed limit of 10 bedrooms per lot or no limit of 10 bedrooms or any number

1:52:07of bedrooms, a single lot subdivided into four new lots can potentially take a four bedroom

1:52:11home and turn it into 40 bedrooms. This will be done without any consideration of the services

1:52:16and requirements for that space from parking, garbage collection, storm water will generally be

1:52:21will be protected however. Life safety, traffic and general environmental issues. We will have

1:52:28removed our ability to have a planning department's oversight involved in such actions. The number of

1:52:33bedrooms in a residential unit also does not count towards the number of housing units Guelph needs

1:52:37to create in the new mandate. Therefore, a limit on the number of bedrooms per lot should be put

1:52:41in place to control and protect neighborhoods from previously mentioned issues. As well without this

1:52:46control, we should be prepared when developers and landlords begin to sell and consolidate these

1:52:50rental units as we already see in south of the border and maximize the rental fees across the

1:52:55province. We may have more housing units created but they will come without ownership and without

1:53:00affordability while potentially creating a rental monopoly. Please as individuals here today,

1:53:06think about how in 20 years when we look back at decisions made in this time, which is a crisis,

1:53:12of unprecedented times and realize our economy and the pressure of our governments created an

1:53:17environment where there was an overreaction and due to that the city of Guelph changed for the worse.

1:53:22With bylaws that removed planning actions, the vision of the city was thrown out the window.

1:53:27Entire historical neighborhoods were lost forever, landscapes were changed and the only people

1:53:32who profited were the developers and the landlords who control a significant portion of the housing

1:53:36units. As I made clear, I'm opposed to allow four plexes as of right. However, the city wishes to

1:53:43adopt this bylaw, I would ask that there be controls put in place and that this bylaw be strictly

1:53:48circumscribed and only allowed where a predetermined number of bedrooms is prescribed based on lot size,

1:53:54where the four plex meets a strict requirement minimum lot size in the frontage of 15 meters in

1:54:00RL1 zones, even in the case of semi-detached dwellings, where requisite setbacks can be met,

1:54:06where the ADUs are constrained by floor space vis-a-vis the main building and the building

1:54:11height of these ADUs match the neighborhood aesthetics, where the four plex can be serviced

1:54:16with adequate rates, size and placement of parking and where city infrastructure including sidewalks,

1:54:21roadways are adequate to properly support the four plex. I would ask that this cancel

1:54:26not band data solution for a once in a lifetime event and forever change the city on their watch.

1:54:37Thank you. Thank you so much. It looks like Councillor Allt has a question for you.

1:54:41Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. Through you to the delegate, Mr. Grown. Mr. Grown,

1:54:47there was one aspect of your presentation that I really hope that you can develop,

1:54:52but before I do that, just a clarification, I do take exception with the notion that this is

1:54:59knee-jerk. I think that we are grappling constantly with issues of density and development and a

1:55:05provincial mandate that requires that we grow significantly over the next little while.

1:55:12That said, I appreciate concerns from anybody who might have concerns for their neighborhood

1:55:17and their living environment, and that gets to the question. You may mention of the environment of

1:55:22each neighborhood. I think I know what you mean, but I was wondering if you could please

1:55:26clarify that with some specific examples from your understanding of Guelph.

1:55:32Yes, I think for me living in Guelph and thinking of Guelph, I think of certain conditions. I think

1:55:38in an environmentally conscious space, obviously, we did vote for a Green Party as a unique community

1:55:48who believes in putting the environment first. I think as of right removes the planning department's

1:55:56authority and oversight in the process and doesn't take the environment into account.

1:56:00And when we look at four plexus being built, we'll really be looking at the neighborhoods

1:56:06where lot size can accommodate the maximum return on investment, and that's where it'll be executed

1:56:11regardless of environmental impact, the community impact, and the impact of the current residents.

1:56:16Thank you. Actually, you've given me another question for staff, which is the as of right

1:56:21question, but thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. All right, thank you.

1:56:29And Paul Samanski? Do we have Paul here? I didn't think... Oh, sorry, Paul. I'm sorry,

1:56:37I didn't want to put my glasses on. I cannot see. Sorry, what did you say? Yeah, you don't have to speak.

1:56:45Is that what you just said? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Yeah, you don't have to speak if you

1:56:48don't want to. That's fine. Okay, what's going to happen now is we're going to take about a five

1:56:54minute break before it comes back to us. Just before I do, there's some people in the audience here

1:57:00that might be some online as well or that were interested. Is there anything here that someone

1:57:05else needs to add to this discussion before we come? Did I see one hand go up? Okay.

1:57:13Okay. Well, why don't we... Come on up. Yep. If you don't mind, I'll just do it in four,

1:57:21four, five minutes. Okay. Yeah, so that's fine. And then the phone number can come up on the screen

1:57:25just in case someone else wants to jump in. I'll read that number out loud. I know it's 519837,

1:57:31but I can't remember the rest. I think it's 837. Oh, that's right. 519837, 5603. Okay. Four, five

1:57:42minutes tops. And then we'll come back. We'll hear from you, Lyle. And then we'll see if anyone

1:57:47called in. Okay, thank you. All right. I'll call the meeting back to order if you don't mind. Thank

2:03:00you. This is your 30-second warning. Okay. Lyle, just... I happen to know you, so that's why I'm

2:03:28calling you up by your first name. But for the record, if you could just state your first and

2:03:32last name for us. We've had no call-ins. Again, you have up to 10 minutes if you need it as well.

2:03:38I'll turn the mic over to you. Just state your name and continue from there. Okay. My name is

2:03:42Lyle McNair. I live in Ward 4. I think it is on the west side of the city. I've been there for 27

2:03:48years now. And I'm in real estate. I've been in real estate for 26 of those years. And I have been a

2:03:56committee of adjustment member for 11 years, as a matter of fact. A couple things I wanted to bring

2:04:02this morning, and I don't want to necessarily conflict with other presentations we've heard,

2:04:08but I would like to challenge the planning department at some point in time, as well as

2:04:14council, to think in terms of what they want the city to look like in 50 years or 75 years,

2:04:20because we're probably going to be challenged on a non-stop basis to keep on increasing the density

2:04:27and increasing the population of this municipality. So I think there's a need to have a really long

2:04:33term vision at some stage of the game. And neighborhoods evolve. I mean, we can't get a

2:04:42locked in perception of a particular neighborhood and say, well, we need to keep that neighborhood

2:04:47as whole as it is for the next 50, 60 years. It won't happen, but it's going to change. There's

2:04:54going to be, the homes are going to deteriorate over time. There's going to be new construction

2:04:58coming along. And so I think this by-law or this proposed change to the by-law will help to address

2:05:05that, but it's not going to be the end. We're going to continue to see growth and we're going to

2:05:10continue to see development over time. There's a couple things though we talk about, home affordability.

2:05:18And what we're talking about in some respect here is the affordability of renting, of rental

2:05:25properties. I want to emphasize the fact that if you put four units on a lot, they're not going to

2:05:34be individual ownership unless you decide to condoize the property. And if you decide to condoize it,

2:05:40the province needs to make some major changes to the current condominium act that's going to allow

2:05:47people with a four plex or a six plex on a particular lot to condoize it so the individual

2:05:54owners can have ownership of that dwelling unit they've got that is not feasible today. I mean a

2:06:00condo development with four units, the administrative burden the province has put on condos is so

2:06:08enormous that you just simply can't do it. So a lot of people are going to be wanting to own the

2:06:14property or own their own residence and they won't be able to do that. The other thing is that I think

2:06:19in the in the current bylaw we refer to a town home and we prefer to how you can put three town

2:06:26homes on a lot. But a town home by definition in the bylaw is an owned unit. You cannot put a town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:24:18Rumpel and it looks like we have one delegate on this Jeff is in the wings there so Eric I'll turn

3:24:25it over to you excellent thank you mr. mayor I believe there's a presentation so good afternoon

3:24:41mayor Guthrie members of city council staff and members of the public my name is Eric Rumpel and

3:24:46I'm the development planner reviewing this application and I know we've had a long morning

3:24:50so far so I'll try and make my presentation brief so the city has received an application for a

3:24:55zoning bylaw amendment from Jeff Buisman of van Hart and land surveyors on behalf of 27

3:25:00Janefield Incorporated to rezone the properties known municipally as 35 and 41 Janefield Avenue

3:25:06to permit the development of four semi-detached dwellings and associated additional dwelling

3:25:12units the land would be severed into four separate lots each lot would have a semi-detached

3:25:18dwelling unit a basement adu and a rear yard adu today's meeting is both the statutory public

3:25:24meeting required under the planning act as well as the decision meeting for the proposed application

3:25:35the subject site is 1868 square meters in size located on the west side of Janefield Avenue just

3:25:41south of mason court the subject site currently features one existing single detached dwelling

3:25:46and one recently removed single detached dwelling that front onto Janefield Avenue the site's immediate

3:25:52surroundings are comprised of townhouses to the east existing semi-detached dwellings to the north

3:25:57and west and two single detached dwellings to the south I'm sorry I'm not sure what happened here

3:26:08so last December a similar zoning bylaw amendment was passed by council for 27 Janefield Avenue

3:26:14and the northern portion of 35 Janefield Avenue to permit six semi-detached dwellings with

3:26:19associated adus these lands are located directly to the north of the subject site for this application

3:26:26there we are so the subject property is designated low density residential in the city's official

3:26:38plan the low density resident residential designation applies to lower density residential

3:26:43neighborhoods and permits detached semi-detached and duplex dwellings townhouses and apartment

3:26:49dwellings the subject lands are currently zoned residential single detached r1b in the 1995 zoning

3:26:58bylaw and the applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the subject lands from the current

3:27:02r1b zone to a specialized residential semi-detached duplex r2 35 zone the specialized regular

3:27:11population for the r2 35 zone would permit semi-detached dwellings and would permit a maximum

3:27:16driveway width of five meters other than that five meter driveway width it would already conform

3:27:22with the r2 zone that has been in existence for several years in the 95 bylaw the subject lands

3:27:31are also zoned a low density residential rl1 in the 2023 comprehensive zoning bylaw and the applicant

3:27:37is also requesting to change the zoning of the subject lands from the current rl1 zone to a site

3:27:41specific low density residential rl1-25 zone so this zone would be identical to the standard rl1

3:27:49zone as approved by council last april this site specific zone is necessary as the adu provisions

3:27:56parking provisions and driveway provisions in the 2023 zoning bylaw are currently under appeal

3:28:01with the Ontario land tribunal so if these provisions are not captured in a site specific

3:28:06zone under the 2023 zoning bylaw the development would be delayed until the appeal to these provisions

3:28:12are resolved as such the specialized regulations for the rl1-25 zone would bring the adu provisions

3:28:18outlined in section 4.12 and relevant residential parking and driveway width provisions from section

3:28:24five of the 2023 zoning bylaw into effect for the subject lands on the screen now you can see the

3:28:34proposed severance plan as proposed all four parcels would front onto janefield avenue

3:28:39shown on the right of the screen and would contain one semi-detached dwelling unit one basement adu

3:28:44and one detached rear yard adu each a portion of the semi-detached units approved last december

3:28:51can be seen near the top of the screen directly north of parcel one just to orient yourself

3:28:56so staff's review of this application has included evaluation of the proposal's conformity and

3:29:01consistency to the 2020 provincial policy statement and the growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe

3:29:07as well as evaluation of the proposal's conformity with the official plan review of the proposed

3:29:12zoning and review of supporting documents submitted with the development application

3:29:16through consultation two comments from the public have been received regarding the proposed

3:29:21application the comments have raised concerns regarding increased traffic and parking demand

3:29:26on janefield avenue regarding these concerns each of the proposed parcels conforms with the

3:29:32parking requirements outlined in the 1995 and 2023 zoning bylaws and the proposed semi-detached

3:29:38lots provide three parking spaces two in each driveway and one in each attached garage traffic

3:29:44engineering staff have reviewed the application and in their professional opinion the proposal

3:29:48will have an insignificant impact on traffic in the neighborhood as such a traffic impact study

3:29:54was not deemed necessary and was not requested as part of this application as outlined in the

3:29:59staff report staff recommend approval of the proposed application with a holding provision

3:30:04to ensure that development of the subject lands does not proceed until an updated storm water

3:30:08management storm water management report an updated site servicing plan are provided to

3:30:13the satisfaction of the city engineer due to recent revisions by the applicant engineering staff

3:30:20are satisfied with the submitted noise study and have removed the requirement for revised

3:30:24noise study as a requirement of removal of the holding provision other than that everything

3:30:29is as presented in the in the staff report thank you very much and i would be pleased to answer

3:30:34any questions council may have thank you we have one just one delegate so we'll we'll jump to the

3:30:40delegate and then we'll we'll go back to questions just in case unless there's other delegates

3:30:44which i'll ask for but please come on down jeff you're here on behalf of the applicant and

3:30:56i'll turn over to you yes i am thank you mayor and council um eric did a great job of presenting

3:31:02i'm really here to answer questions i think the application is very straightforward and as mentioned

3:31:07it's very similar to the one that was recently approved to the north a little bit of history

3:31:12these lots are very very large i think that because they had septics in the past when they were first

3:31:17built that's why they're so large um it is interesting it's kind of a good example of the

3:31:22long discussion you just had as to where this this will go um and andrew who was one of the

3:31:29speakers earlier is is behind this project here um i think it's a a great project and um the you

3:31:37know the two things left in the uh rl the ad used in the driving width it's only because if the whole

3:31:44new zoning viola was approved in its entirety then those little special provisions wouldn't be needed

3:31:50okay so we're good in in that respect i'd be happy to answer any questions i'd like to keep it brief

3:31:56thanks sure i'll go councillor or work then goer then karan please thank you mayor guthrie through

3:32:03you to our delegate um i just had a couple questions from the reports that we received

3:32:07so our staff comments indicate on water capacity assumptions um it's assumptions of two bedrooms

3:32:14per unit and two occupants per bedroom so i'm just wondering what's the number of bedrooms

3:32:19in this project because we have elevations and we have you know um conceptual drawings but we

3:32:26don't have a bedroom count four on the main two in the basement two in the backyard or four in three

3:32:47four three two how's that okay so i'm just i'm just trying to um understand how the staff assumptions

3:32:54align with this and completely understand that should our comprehensive zoning bylaw have passed

3:33:00that this would be clear to go i'm just trying to answer all my own questions right um so through

3:33:05you may i got through my other question is about um the ardu in the yard uh and the request from a

3:33:14in the correspondence looking for a privacy fence i'm just wondering what are the efforts to

3:33:18minimize impacts on the rear yard neighbors can you can you move the unit closer to the main dwelling

3:33:25can can there be plantings or fencing or something like that the proposal is to put

3:33:29privacy fencing along the whole perimeter that's the proposal right now to put privacy

3:33:34fence along the whole perimeter excellent okay thanks thank you goer then karan please

3:33:43actually you worship my questions were asked thank you okay no problem uh karan please

3:33:49thanks and i know that the decision can't be based on this but i think in terms of full

3:33:55transparency for the neighborhood um given the location uh and its proximity to other rental

3:34:02and and to the university are these 36 bedrooms intended for rental by bedroom are they intended

3:34:10for ownership by semi-detached unit uh what is what is the intended um ownership model

3:34:19versus rental model for the 36 bedrooms on this on these sites i think the neighbors are

3:34:27interested in the answer to that question but each unit is intended for rental the people who own

3:34:32it now we're going to use the owner for a number of years and each unit is intended for rental

3:34:36rental by unit or rental by bedroom per unit that's what it's for unit yeah okay thank you

3:34:48nothing further thank you very much thank you is there anyone else here that wants to speak

3:34:52to this particular item no okay and oh i was just okay christa did you want to jump in

3:35:02yeah to the to the clerk i believe this is the public meeting as well so i do think we have to do the

3:35:08two-minute call in uh or maybe that was done i was literally about to say that okay sorry no it's

3:35:13okay no we're on the same page i just was asking in the room first and then i was going to say

3:35:17we're going to take a four or five minute just to pause uh the number's going to come up on the

3:35:20screen five one nine eight three seven at some point i'll memorize this 5603 five one nine eight

3:35:30three seven 5603 we'll be back in just a few moments to see if anyone wants to speak specifically

3:35:35to this item thank you okay i'm just going to give a 30 second warning before we call it back

3:37:55okay i'll call us back to order then and uh we the clerks have confirmed that no one had called

3:37:59in at all and and there's nobody here that i asked to ask to speak to it so we'll consider

3:38:04that matter closed for delegations councillor Goller is is willing to move the application and

3:38:11and busatil is willing to second for us so thank you uh now it technically over to us if there's any

3:38:17follow-up questions to our staff seeing none i actually just have one quick question i'm sorry

3:38:25i just very quick why why was a noise study required for this like there's there's all there's all

3:38:31like a ton of homes and stuff all along there is it a mto issue it is okay i'll stop i'll stop

3:38:38guessing you answer through you mr merits due to the proximity to the to the handlin expressway

3:38:43if it was further away from the expressway there would be no requirement for a noise study

3:38:49okay it is what it is okay oh a follow-up question i shouldn't have started not getting

3:38:55councillor bark thanks mayor go through through you to our planning staff can we have as a follow-up

3:39:01an answer to my question i'm just curious in that staff comments document about the water

3:39:06capacity assumptions i just like it to be clear in my own mind um whether those assumptions are

3:39:13lining up with uh with the number of bedrooms and and i know like our water assumption for a

3:39:19three bedroom house might be there'll be six people there and suddenly people are empty nesters

3:39:23and all the children are gone so i know it's not a perfect thing but just for my own ongoing

3:39:29edification if uh if somebody could get back to me just to understand what those assumptions are in

3:39:33terms of the number of bedrooms and the number of occupants thanks great thank you is there anything

3:39:40further on this okay and this is again uh combining sort of both meetings into one the public part

3:39:48and the approval part so i just want to make sure everyone's aware of that and so is anyone against

3:39:55nobody that's unanimous thank you very much and i think a big takeaway there other than councillor

3:39:59orork's uh point is if we didn't have ongoing appeal issues on this matter uh this could have

3:40:06been done even faster so with that councillor Goller over to you for bylaws thank you your worship

3:40:16and and in my my haste i closed my uh my laptop i'll read it out for you uh that bylaws 2024-20931

3:40:25through to 2024-20935 are approved subject to section 284.114 of the municipal act are you okay

3:40:33with moving that thank you um looking for somebody uh let's see here alt thank you very much as

3:40:39willing to second those bylaws is anyone want to speak to those no okay i'll call the vote is everyone

3:40:45okay is anyone against those um bylaws as presented hearing and seeing none that's unanimous as well

3:40:53great discussion today excuse me good opinions we'll see what happens as stuff comes back thank you

3:40:59and a motion to adjourn excuse me i'm breaking up councillor Busuttil and billings would be willing

3:41:08to do that uh is anyone against adjournment no thank you to staff and to the uh to everyone else my

3:41:14colleagues and community here have a great rest of the day thank you very much bye bye