The following article appeared in the June 7 edition of the Guelph Mercury:
The Guelph Sikh Society is expected to clear a zoning hurdle tonight that would give the go-ahead to erect a temple in the city’s south end.
Guelph mayor Karen Farbridge and all 12 city councillors were polled over the weekend in an effort to forecast the outcome of tonight’s vote on an application for a zoning bylaw amendment for 410 Clair Road East, the proposed site of a Sikh temple that would not exceed 1,972 square metres of gross floor area.
The building is proposed to be 11.2 metres in height, with an initial dome of 6.3 metres. The proposed building’s capacity is just over 700.
A number of city councillors reserved comment on how they will vote on the issue, and some didn’t respond. But others said they have no objection to the new community design and development services report on the issue, calling it thorough and collaborative, while carefully addressing neighbourhood concerns.
Over the weekend, Mayor Karen Farbridge said she has studied the report and is in support of it.
“At this point I am in support of the staff report,” she said. “Of course, you always need to hear the public input, but I think staff has done a fine job.”
John Valeriote, the lawyer for the Guelph Sikh Society, was impressed by the exhaustive staff report.
“It’s the comprehensiveness of it,” Valeriote said last week. “You don’t see staff reports this comprehensive. It’s really quite remarkable.”
City staff, the Guelph Sikh Society and Westminster Woods, the property developer, worked together to address the concerns and issues of people in the south end neighbourhood and looked at how to mitigate them, the mayor said.
In an email response, Ward 5 councillor Leanne Piper said she is “supportive of the conclusion that places of worship belong in residential neighbourhoods.” She also supports the report’s conclusions that “parking is adequate, that the design is complimentary, that the landscaping buffers are adequate, that the square footage is representative of a 400-member congregation.”
Minor amendments might still be necessary to address further neighbourhood concerns, issues such as access from Goodwin Drive or the height of the temple’s domes, she added.
“So until I see the full motion on the table with potential amendments, I can’t say that I will or will not support the current recommendation as it stands,” she added.
Vicki Beard of Ward 2 said she will vote in favour of the amendment.
“The planner has met all the requirements for the Sikh temple,” she said. “There are some questions I have to ask, but I will be in favour of it.”
“There’s certainly been a lot of chatter about the Sikh Temple,” said Ward 1 councillor Bob Bell. “And I think it has been fairly well analyzed by city staff. The original comments that it was this massive religious monolith seemed to be unfounded. There are lots of churches in town that are larger.”
Opponents of the temple, Bell added, initially argued that thousands of people would congregate once it was built. However, the structure is no monolith, and will fulfil the relatively modest space requirements of Guelph’s Sikh community. Bell is confident city staff’s rezoning recommendation will be approved by council.
The rezoning would apply to a 1.6 hectares plot of land north of Clair Road between Tolton Drive and Victoria Road, and would change the land use to permit a religious establishment in addition to the residential uses previously approved.
“I think there has been a lot of work done on the Sikh temple,” said Ward 1 councillor Kathleen Farrelly. “And I think, in time, it will be something different to see in that neighbourhood.”
Farrelly said new research shows that concerns over crowds of people pouring into the site during Sunday services were largely unwarranted. About 100 vehicles are expected on the site during the service, while the temple’s parking lot will be virtually empty throughout the week, and residents will be allowed to use it.
“They seem to want to be compatible with the neighbourhood with regard to their playing fields, which they want to share,” Farrelly added. “So I feel they will turn out to be a good neighbour.”
Farrelly said she supports the zoning bylaw amendment.
Others on council said delegations to tonight’s meeting may bring new information to light or new concerns for council to consider.
“I’m waiting to hear the delegations speak and have staff answer some of the questions that some of the councillors may have before I decide,” said Mike Salisbury of Ward 4. “I don’t really have a predefined opinion at this point.”
Salisbury said a recent study in a GTA community looked at parking requirements for Sikh temples, and he is eager to hear what the outcome of that study was. He hopes Guelph city staff will be able to shed further light on the subject.
“To me that was the most relevant information outside of the planning act that would perhaps indicate that we need to have less or more parking,” he said. “If they faced similar issues in other communities with similar facilities, I want to get that feedback.”
Ward 2 councillor Ian Findlay said in an email correspondence that perspectives can change as a result of delegation presentations. However he said he did not see a reason to turn the application down.
“(T) he staff report is very comprehensive and has addressed all of the issues raised by the residents and previous delegations to Council,” Findlay wrote. “As you are aware, this application is governed by the Municipal Planning Act which is very specific in what is permitted and what is not. Local Councils have very little wiggle room.”
Findlay thinks it is likely the proposal could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board where it “may be dismissed at pretrial unless more substantive issues are raised that I am not currently aware of.”
Both Ward 4 councillor Gloria Kovach and Ward 6 councillor Christine Billings declined to comment on the issue. Kovach said she has done much reading on the subject and has been meeting with people about it. Billings said delegations often raise new information, which is why she does not vote ahead of time on an issue.
Ward 3 councillors June Hofland and Maggie Laidlaw, as well as Ward 5 councillor Lise Burcher and Ward 6 councillor Karl Wettstein did not respond to the request as of deadline.