Decisions, decisions. It’s all about the decisions for this planning meeting of Guelph City Council, the third-to-last council meeting for this term. A lot of stuff that’s been on the backburner has now been moved up to the front as council has a lot of business to get done before the serious campaigning really begins. Get ready for some project approvals, some new heritage designations, and dare we say, a few surprises? Here’s the preview!
NOTE #1: Delegates will be able to appear at this meeting in-person or via tele-presense but you do have to register with the clerks office before 10 am on Friday September 4. You can also submit written delegations and correspondences for agenda items.
NOTE #2: In addition to meeting in-person, this meeting will also be live-streamed on the City of Guelph’s website here.
NOTE #3: Due to the Labour Day long weekend, this meeting will take place on Wednesday.
CLOSED MEETING:
Comprehensive Zoning By-law Appeals: Ontario Land Tribunal Update – Although it was recently reported that there was a partial settlement in the appeal of Guelph’s new zoning bylaw, which was approved way back in 2023, it seems that council’s going to get another update on what’s left. Because this is a matter of “litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals,” under Section 239(2)(e) and (f) of the Municipal Act.
35 McTague Street: Notice of Intention to Designate – This old house dates back to the 1890s, a one-storey, pressed red brick cottage with a hipped roof and a long brick tail, which is a unique design then and now. According to heritage staff, and endorsed by the Heritage Advisory Committee, this building meets four of the nine prescribed criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest as described in Ontario Regulation 9/06, and the property owners volunteered it for designation.
41 Norwich Street East: Notice of Intention to Designate – This is the original Royal Knitting Company building and while it’s presently an apartment building, it was once an important part of Guelph’s industrial past and owned by former Guelph Mayor Samuel Carter. According to heritage staff and the heritage committee it meets three of the nine prescribed criteria for
designation under Ontario Regulation 569/22.
55 Baker Street including 152 and 160 Wyndham Street North: Heritage Permit – Earlier this year, council approved the plan to build two towers at the site of the old parking lot on Baker Street, *and* the Downtown Heritage Conservation District at the same meeting. Both of these decisions converged on this file because new development is only permitted downtown as long as it respects and supports the district’s heritage character. There’s good news here though because heritage staff agree that the design is reflective of downtown’s architectual character, and that the protected view of the Basilica of Our Lady will remain intact. In other words, the proposal meets the Heritage Conservation District’s policies and guidelines.
Decision Report: 132 Clair Rd W, Official Plan Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision – It was almost a year ago that council heard the details of this plan on two plots; on the portion north of the extension of Poppy Drive were apartment towers between 10 and 14 storeys tall, while on the south side they were seeking to develop 24 low-density residential lots, one multiple dwelling block, and an open space/natural heritage block. Staff are recommending that council approve the plan which will now see the construction of 458 apartment units in three buildings of 6–12 storeys, plus 56 stacked townhouses, 16 back-to-back townhouses and 59 lower-density units.
Decision Report: 210, 214 and 222 College Avenue East, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments – Back in April, council heard this proposal for a 10-storey building with 153 units of two- , three-, and four-bedroom units plus a courtyard, a rooftop terrace and nearly 2,500 square metres of shared amenity space all geared towards students across the street at the University of Guelph. Concerns about height, massing, shadows, wind, parking, stormwater and compatibility with neighbouring properties has revised this project to max out at 117 units, but otherwise staff are recommending to council to endorse this proposal.
Decision Meeting: 220 Arkell Road Proposed DPA and ZBA File OZS19-017 – This past June council heard about this proposal to build a new neighbourhood containing 31 or 32 single detached homes and between 70 and 94 townhouse units as well as a neighbourhood park and other land uses off an an extension of Hutchison Road from the Victoria Park Village area. Well, the number of detached homes is the same, but the total number of proposed townhouses is now 48. Staff are supporting the application with conditions.
Designation of Ward Heritage Conservation District – Before summer break, council heard the draft plan and guidelines for the Ward (formally Ward West) Heritage Conservation District, the third and final HCD developed this term. Very little has changed in terms of the substance of the plan or guidelines, but there have been revisions to make the rules more flexible and clearer for property owners like more exemptions for non-contributing properties, more flexibility for additions to old worker cottages and clearer minor-permit rules. Once approved, there will be a 30-day appeal period, and if there are none, then the HCD rules for this area of The Ward will go into effect.
Decision Report 266-280 Clair Road West, 950 Southgate Drive-OPA and ZBA- File OZS25-018 – This was a massive development whose application was also heard at the July planning meeting, and despite the public enthusiasm for it at that meeting, staff are recommending that council refuse the application. Why? Mostly, staff are concerned about how this would convert designated employment/industrial land to residential use, and that the applicant has not demonstrated how the land is no longer needed for employment or that there is enough employment land elsewhere to accommodate future growth. There are also significant environmental concerns especially around the replacement of the existing 100-metre-wide ecological linkage with a 60-metre-wide linkage on another part of the site. Staff say the application has not demonstrated that the narrower, relocated linkage would maintain or improve ecological connectivity. Staff also believe that the developer’s proposal for affordable units on this site will not meet the City’s or Province’s stated benchmark for affordable housing.
Guelph Politico 