April showers with new planning concerns this week! You can click here for the amended agenda from City Hall, and you can click here for the Politico preview. For the complete blow-by-blow of today’s council meeting, you can follow along on Twitter, or follow the tweets below. You can also watch the City’s own live-stream of the meeting here.

Mayor Guthrie calls the open session to order.

Two items were discussed in closed session: 895 and 919 York Road – Ontario Land Tribunal Update, and Proposed Employment Land Acquisition – Update. Guhthrie says they gave direction to staff on both items.

No Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof. Regrets from Cllrs Richardson and O’Rourke.

To begin, there are several heritage designations on the consent agenda:
52 Paisley Street: Notice of Intention to Designate
54 Paisley Street: Notice of Intention to Designate
56 Paisley Street: Notice of Intention to Designate
136 Glasgow Street North: Notice of Intention to Designate
30 Eramosa Road: Notice of Intention to Designate
32 Eramosa Road: Notice of Intention to Designate
9 and 13 Paisley Street: Notice of Intention to Designate
15 and 17 Paisley Street: Notice of Intention to Designate

Caron/Allt move consent approval and it’s approved!

First item: Statutory Public Meeting and Decision Downtown Heights Study Official Plan Amendment.

Presentations are:
Stacey Laughlin, Downtown Revitalization Advisory
Jonathan Tinney, SvN Architects and Planners

Laughlin begins. This project began in December 2024, the draft was released in January along with community engagement. It’s had to fit in with Housing work, downtown renewal and the planning for the Heritage Conservation District.

Based on feedback, they made some changes that are “quite a bit different” from what was received earlier this yea, which is why this is also a statutory meeting. This is not about creating more density but helping to locate it, and the height is spread throughout the downtown area.

Tinney takes over. He says that the principles were to respect retail streets and culture landmarks, ensure transition of taller buildings, shadow impact, the protection of view corridors, and to create both a visually appealing skyline as well as a strong street level experience.

He says the approach is different in Guelph, this was a designed focused exercises since Guelph is already seeing demand for growth; they’re not trying to create it.

Design thinking: They looked at topography, which is unique to downtown with the slope towards the river. They looked at buffers too, a variety of boundary types like the railroad tracks and certain streets. They also looked at the clusters of heritage buildings in the main core.

What came from the analysis is the “urban amphitheatre”, the idea that the Basilica of Our Lady sits on a stage, creating a civic core and then moving the taller buildings around that. See below:

Red areas are locations for taller buildings, and the lighter it gets the less tall.

The aim is to get to 200 persons and jobs per hectare by 2051, but there’s a lot of flexibility on how the City can get there.

Current max height vs original draft vs the current proposal:

Laughlin is back. The recommended OPA, she says, aims to place tall buildings where their impact on public spaces and common areas are limited. It also aims to allow “context sensitive” height will protecting cultural heritage resources, especially the Basilica with five main viewing corridors.

Laughlin warns that they have made some allowances for what’s been proposed as alterations from a couple of property owners, and we will hear from them in a minute, but bigger changes may require a delay in final passage of this OPA.

Next Steps
-Built Form Standards for Tall Buildings
-Community Planning Permit System for Downtown.

First delegate: Andrea Sinclair from MHBC Planning. She’s here for the owner of 159-169 Woolwich, the property Laughlin just mentioned could be allowed to go to 12 storeys if council so wishes. It’s certainly the desire of her client to see that happen.

Caron asks if they’re looking at the same rendering that Sinclair’s client had in mind for OPA 80. Sinclair says she doesn’t know because she wasn’t involved with that, but there’s no set concept she’s aware of.

Next is Tim Smith, which you will see in the following…

BEGINNING OF THREAD:

https://x.com/adamadonaldson/status/1909707090345578932

END OF THREAD:

https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1909765104297443603

READ THE PDF VERSION OF THE THREAD BY CLICKING HERE!

Picking up from the end of the thread, we resume with the one designation separated from the pack: 328 Victoria Road South (Frost Building) – Notice of Intention to Designate.

No presentation, but one delegation: Dave Aston and Ryan Scott from Fusion Homes, which owns the property. Aston says they wanted to request that council defer or refer the designation.

He says they’ve been working with staff on the block plan and are looking to submit applications. They want a dialogue on preservation of the Frost building, the uses and opportunities of it. They want to bring the whole thing back to council as a package.

Aston also wants staff to bring the block plan to council for review. They feel that it’s ready and would like to see that before summer break.

Questions? Allt asks if discussion could occur after designation. Aston says they can always occur, but would like a comprehensive approach makes more sense.

Busuttil asks if a delay or deferral would affect the state of the building. Aston says no.

Staff Recommendation:
That the City Clerk be authorized to publish and serve notice of intention to designate the Frost Building at 328 Victoria Road South pursuant to Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

That the designation bylaw be brought before Council for approval if no objections are received within the thirty (30) day objection period.

Allt/Busuttil move the recommendations.

Goller asks about the timeline for the block plan. GM of planning Krista Walkey says they got it on March 14, and they have 60 days to comment and then 60 days to bring into council after that. Goller moves deferral of the designation till March 2026.

Allt asks if staff might be able to bring it back by July like the delegate asked. Walkey says she’s not sure what comments they’ll have, and they will bring it back as quickly as they can.

Downer says she’s not sure what a deferral will do, how it gets incorporated into development is a choice made afterward. Walkey says council has the endorsement of Heritage Guelph and staff, and that’s not going to change, but they’re okay with consideration with the block plan.

Guthrie interjects to say that he just realised that there’s no debate on deferral so he calls the vote. It passes with Allt, Caron and Downer against.

Guthrie asks if staff can get something by July. Walkey says it’s possible, but they can’t be sure. Guthrie says we’ll leave it at that.

Last item: Stone Road and Edinburgh Road Community Planning Permit Decision Report. Presenting are: Dawson McKenzie, Planner II, and Justine Giancola, Dillon Consulting.

McKenzie begins noting that this one of eight commitments as part of the Housing Accelerator Fund. Developers say that there are a lot of barriers and this aims to resolve some of those by taking two timelines and making them into one. (This is the first of two CPPS, the other will be focused downtown.)

The research and policy for the Housing Affordability Strategy showed a need for 33 per cent of all future development to be affordable, and that’s the number the CPPS aims to hit by offering additional height and density.

Some concerns were raised that projects would need to go through a permit process when presently they’re exempt. So any as-of-right allowance and reviews for plans of 10 units or less are now part of the CPPS.

Giancola takes over to review how this works:

PS: You still need a building permit and draft plan for a subdivision, but this accelerates approval and allows more predictability. Revisions made since Jan include new notification requirements for class 2 and 3 permits, the Watson and Associates financial analysis was included (feeding the 33 per cent affordable number), the inclusion of 4 units as-of-right, and the need to include legal non-conforming uses.

The Classes of a CPP By-law”
• Class 1: permitted use meets all provisions of the by-law and does not require any variations; approved by GM of Planning and Building Services.
• Class 2: development application generally meet provisions of the by-law but require a variation within an established threshold; approved by GM of Planning and Building Services.
• Class 3: development application proposes a variation outside of the Class 2 threshold; requires approval by Council.
(Each class contains individual notification requirements)

Benefits? It will combine three applications into one and make the approval process faster, and it will get more bang for the community by getting affordable units in exchange for more density or height. There’s also a new community charge that will be similar to the Community Benefit Charge, which will see 4% of the land’s worth by applied to that charge This could go to affordable housing, which has been identified as a specific community benefit.

McKenzie’s back. Notes that some properties in the area have been “up designated” to allow for more development opportunities. These are identified in “precincts” so that no changes to the zoning bylaw is necessary.

A number of bylaw amendments are needed to make this work and there will be a 20-day appeal period. Staff are working on educational materials to make the public more aware of the changes. They know that the status quo isn’t working right now, so this aims to provide more tools to cut through the red tape.

Gibson/Downer move recommendations:
1. That the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment to enable a Community Planning Permit System for the Stone Road/Edinburgh Road Strategic Growth Area be approved, as shown in Attachment 1 of report 2025-128 dated March 27.
2. That the City-initiated Community Planning Permit By-law for the Stone Road/Edinburgh Road Strategic Growth Area be approved, as shown in Attachment 2 of report 2025-128 dated March 27.
3. That the comprehensive zoning by-law 2023-20790, and where applicable, Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as applied to the Stone Road and Edinburgh Road area as shown in Attachment 1, be repealed and replaced with the community planning permit by-law.
4. That the amendment to the Delegation of Authority by-law Number (2024)-20994, as shown in Attachment-3, be approved.
5. That the amendment to the Planning Fee by-law Number (2025) – 21054, as shown in Attachment-4, be approved.
6. That in accordance with Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act, City Council has determined that no further public notice is required related to the minor modifications to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Community Planning Permit By-law.
7. That the General Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy be updated to reflect the updated policy terms for the Complete Community Charge reserve fund (307), Cash-in-lieu of Affordable Housing reserve fund (308), and Alternative Facilities, Services, and Matters reserve fund (309), as outlined in report 2025-128 Stone Road and Edinburgh Road Community Planning Permit Decision Report, dated April 8, 2025

Questions? Busuttil asks about UGDSB letter about move from low to medium density on Scottsdale, what can any member of public do to engage on a specific site? Giancola says there is a provision that approval authority may work with any interested parties. McKenzie says they engaged with the Board and the intent is to front load a lot of engagement, if there’s a 2 or 3 permit, notification would be circulated.

Busuttil: But what about the remedy?
McKenzie: Like now, they would review the comment and try and find accommodation.
Busuttil: Is this appealable to the OLT?
Giancola: Only applicant has appeal rights on an application.

Guthrie says he’s concerned about correspondence from SV Law on behalf of the Homebuilders Association and asks about the concerns they raised. McKenzie says staff feels this does streamline applications, also this is a pilot project. Walkey adds that the intention is to sand off the edges as they go through this process and doesn’t expect that they’ll be beating down the door right away.

McKenzie: Mention of unclear need for the CPPS? They heard that the approval process timeline is a barrier so they’re trying to reduce that. Giancola adds that a lot of municipalities are already using this to augment their affordable housing needs, and at least one has even applied it city-wide.

Also:
Site control for less than 10 units? Fixed.
Comment about EV parking requirements? This will be updated as CZBL appeal gets resolved.
Revised ADU provisions? 4 units as-of-right was carried over.
Removed definitions? Staff reviewed and they had no specific application in the zoning geography here.
Typographical errors? This is a pilot project and the GM of Planning has authority to make changes due to formatting issues.

Guthrie asks for comment from CAO. Baker says she read the letter and staff are united in their opinion. They want to put together shorter timelines and give staff the flexibility in their decisions to get units done faster. Lots of education left to do, inside and out, but they went with the pilot because they need time to shake things down.

Guthrie asks how council will get that feedback. Guthrie says he likes the delegated authority, but wants oversight. Walkey says look to the next semi-annual housing report, delegated authority report, and HAF reporting.

Guthrie says he’s really looking forward to seeing how this works in the real world. Asks developers to be patient and work with staff to make tweaks. He has a vision of using this across the whole city and getting all development done faster.

Recommendations approved with only Busuttil against.

Bylaws of the week approved as amended.

9.1 By-law Number (2025) – 21037
A by-law to amend By-law Number (2024) – 20994, being a by-law to delegate certain administrative powers and duties to City staff, to govern the execution of documents.

9.2 By-law Number (2025) – 21062
A by-law to amend By-law Number (2025) – 21054, as amended, A By-law to establish a tariff of fees for the processing and approval of development applications pursuant to the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13, Subsection 114 as amended, and to repeal and replace By-law number (2024)-21003, as amended.

9.3 By-law Number (2025) – 21063
A by-law to amend By-law Number (2024) – 20994, as amended, being a by-law to delegate certain administrative powers and duties to City staff, to govern the execution of documents.

9.4 By-law Number (2025) – 21064
A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of Guelph to enable the Community Planning Permit System.

9.5 By-law Number (2025) – 21065
A by-law to establish the City of Guelph’s Community Planning Permit System.

9.6 By-law Number (2025) – 21066
A by-law to adopt Amendment Number 106 to the City of Guelph Official Plan to implement the findings of the Downtown Building Heights Study to permit revised building heights within the Downtown Secondary Plan area.

9.7 By-law Number (2025) – 21069
A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of Guelph as it affects lands municipally known as 132 Clair Road West (Block 2, Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-15501) and legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 7 (Geographic Township of Puslinch), City of Guelph (File#OZS25-002).

9.8 By-law Number (2025) – 21070
A by-law to amend By-law Number (2023)-20790, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Guelph as it affects lands municipally known as 132 Clair Road West (Block 2, Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-15501) and legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 7 (Geographic Township of Puslinch), City of Guelph (File#OZS25-002).

9.9 By-law Number (2025) – 21071
A by-law to confirm the proceedings of a meeting of Guelph City Council held April 8, 2025.

MEETING ADJOURNED!