As you know, the proposal for 180 Gordon Street is coming to Council again on Monday evening. And, as you also know, I have been quite vocal speaking for myself and for my neighbours in opposition to the proposal as it stands.
With all of the contention and controversy, I feel that one important commonality connecting the neighbours, other concerned Guelphites, the staff, the Council and the Developer might be overlooked. Everyone involved in this process agrees that there should be infill housing on this site. The question, and it is not an easy one, is what level and what form of infill is appropriate. What is the best way forward?
Council has seen this proposal several times now and it may appear that there has been due deliberation. I would like to point out, respectfully, that the repeated returns to Council were determined by errors and omissions in the proposal from the Developer and the report from Staff (no provision for snow storage on the site, no mention of the angular plane requirements, no mention of, or application for, the OP amendment). In addition, the neighbours and other concerned citizens feel they have been ignored, and that the normal process of meaningful consultation on a contentious development proposal has simply not been applied in this case. We have concerns, but we also have ideas; we are intelligent and committed citizens willing to compromise and to consider tough choices if we are dealt with respectfully. Unfortunately, the one public meeting between the Developer, the staff and citizens in no way constituted meaningful exchange. It was, as you heard from several delegations, nothing more than window dressing with no discussion – at all – of any compromise or potential changes to the proposal.You have heard, I know, from Dr. Whitely, who has compared the public process in the case of 180 Gordon to other proposals coming before the city. Dr. Whitely has also raised, as a basis for conversation, a version of the proposal that addresses many of the concerns of the neighbours, leaves a very substantial development, and protects the 30 m buffer. He has asked, and I second this request, that Council instruct staff to facilitate more fulsome negotiations between the Developer and citizens before voting on this proposal. I will admit, as I have before, that I am learning as I work through the proposal and development process, and I am unclear on the exact protocol for a motion to this effect. Could this be achieved through a deferral and an instruction to staff? Would it require Coucnil to vote down the current proposal?
A group of neighbours in Old University have engaged legal council to appear at the meeting on Monday, and present the case for a more enaged and meaningful consultation on this development, perhaps beginning with Dr. Whitely’s proposal. I urge you to support this approach and in so doing create space for a development at 180 Gordon Street that respects the neighbourhood, the park, the river, and the integrity of the bylaw system in the city. KB