Before yesterday’s Committee of the Whole, we had a city council rerun. Sort of. Addressing a procedural snafu concerning a planning project that came to council back in July, we had to go through it all over again. Was there the same result? You can click here for the amended agenda from City Hall, and you can click here for the Politico preview, and for the full recap of the meeting, check out the thread below…

===

Mayor Guthrie calls the meeting to order. Regrets for Cllr Caron for this one.

One item for this meeting: Public and Decision Meeting – 343 Waterloo Avenue, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Ward 3. Guthrie calls it “Groundhog Day” and says there was an accident, nothing purposeful, with the notice of the time of the meeting, and when the City became aware of it, they knew they had to do this all over again. Guthrie apologizes to the neighbourhood and the proponents.

Martha and Morgan Adams, the proponents of this project, take the podium again to talk about the project. (Everybody will get 10 minutes like always.)

Morgan thanks council for the strong support and hopes they get it again. Martha reiterates that their building was a community and not just separate business owners, and then the building was burned down in an act of arson. The loss of the building though is an opportunity to take the lead with a new project that would re-build the office space along with nine new units, two if them meeting the provincial definition of affordable.

Martha says they’re focused on accessibility, barrier-free units and grounds, plus accessible bike parking and easy access to transit. They’re also focused on fostering wellbeing with greenspace, and reducing costs.

Morgan notes again that they are seeking to partner with the City through the CIP grant, and through a couple of grants though the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to help fund the project. Martha says they could have just built back the commercial space, but they wanted to give back with this project.

Community concerns? Morgan says they’re promoting the idea that this is a building for people who don’t want a car or have a car, they’re working on concerns about stormwater and loss of trees, and the fact this is a major street on a transit route makes it prime for gentle density. Martha adds that they will yield to the directions of the City planning office.

Councillor Allt asks about rent affordability. Martha says that its set by the Ontario government and they want “truly affordable units”. Meaning? Morgan says that means meeting the criteria laid out by Queen’s Park and the 30-year time frame.

Next delegate is Claire Braden, she lives a few doors down and offers her full support for the project. She says it’s important to offer people an option for car-free and car-light and Waterloo Avenue is perfect between distance to Guelph Central Station and its relative flatness. She says the add is pretty walkable for all her chores. She doesn’t want to dismiss concerns about parking, but in her experience that’s quite rare.

Natalia Crewson is next and she first raises parking concerns with a chart comparing various car sizes in relation to the size of the parking spots. She also has StatsCan data that shows that 90 per cent of Guelph residents have one or more vehicles. She believes overflow parking will be inevitable, and that travel in the area is not as easy as we’re led to believe without an private automobile.

Crewson asks council to defer this application, or strike it down so that it come back through a proper process with staff input.

Next is John-David Buchanan, who says that it was nice to hear a “neighbour” was in favour of the project even though it’s an auto mechanic shop and not a resident (he says he’s sure that slipped the mayor’s mind). Since his lives adjacent to the property, he’s concerned about construction debris and noise. He says a four-storey building is bigger than you think and will limit the amount of sunlight they get.

Buchanan says he’s not a NIMBY, and understands the importance of housing, but he found out about this after getting a text from a neighbour with the Guelph Today article about the project and how it was being brought to council with Strong Mayor Powers. He says he wants an answer why this was done, which was, admittedly, answered in the last meeting, because it’s a timing issue to secure potential CMHC funding.

Last, but not least, is Johanna Geraci. She lives in the area, and notes that zoning bylaws exist for a reason and that’s to set standards. She knows that council almost unanimously approved the proposal last time, and has some concerns about accessibility and affordability as defined by this project. She says there’s a lot of compromise here just to get two affordable units.

We now pause to see if there are any additional speakers.

In chambers, Sally Humphries, a resident from Hearn, says that the manner by which this project was brought forward obscures the issues with this project. Of special concern for her is the increased traffic and parking, plus speeding down side streets.

Also in chambers, is Sheila Holidge (sp?) who wants to talk about community partnerships, which she says is a big buzz word right now. She says that the flub about the timing caused unexpected issues when it comes to sharing concerns and information. She also notes the lack of City planning staff taking part in the meeting. She asks council to reconsider their support for his project until staff weigh in with a report.

Nothing further.

Goller/Richardson move the recommendations:

1. That the application for an Official Plan Amendment to change the designation from the current “Low Density Residential” designation to a site specific “Low Density Residential” designation, and a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning from the current “Convenience Commercial 3” (CC-3) Zone (2023 – 20790) to a site-specific “Convenience Commercial 12” (CC-12) Zone to permit the proposed development on the lands municipally known as 343 Waterloo Avenue, legal describes as Part of Lots 11 and 12, Registered Plan 274, City of Guelph be approved in accordance with Attachments 1 and 2 of the City Council Report 2025-421, dated September 3, 2025
2. That a complete site-plan application be submitted to the satisfaction of the City chief planner and City engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
3. That permit approvals are contingent upon the applicant entering into an affordable housing agreement with the City of Guelph.
4. That the applicant pays all applicable planning and development fees associated with the project as determined by the City of Guelph.

Cllr Caton asks about rec #2, are they approving this plan as is, or will there be further back-and-forth between staff and developer? Guthrie says that because this is multi-residential, it has to go through site plan. Scott Patterson, the project’s planner, confirms that this will go through site plan, council is approved the general framework. The bylaw will limit the spaces to eight, but if it’s determined that more accessible parking is needed, that will be addressed through site plan.

Cllr Allt asks if this application subject to Committee of Adjustment or the Ontario Land Tribunal. Guthrie says it could go to appeal at the OLT.

Cllr Busuttil asks Patterson if he encourages clients to go beyond public outreach. He says that’s tricky and irregular; typically that engagement is done through the City’s engagement process. Guthrie says he’s sure the proponents are willing to hear from the community.

Allt says that he’s still a no-vote on this and laments the lack of analysis and commentary from staff. He believes that council is not qualified to approve this plan without that feedback and are opening themselves up to establishing a precedent. He does appreciate the owners efforts, but this is about professional expertise. due intelligence, and a process that was “fraught from the start.”

The project is approved, again, with Allt being the lone dissenter.

Meeting adjourned!