After first rejecting a development agreement to allow two houses on a single lot, Guelph-Eramosa council accepted a new development agreement at a subsequent meeting.
On April 23, councillors rejected a development agreement they had requested at a previous meeting.
David and Luella Gorgi applied for the zoning bylaw amendment in December. Originally they asked to allow two houses on a single lot for at least three years.
“There is an existing tenant living in the dwelling on the property right now and they are elderly,” said township planning consultant Rachel Martin at the Dec. 4 meeting.
“They’re hoping that they can build a new house for themselves and allow their existing tenant to remain in the existing house.”
They sought relief because the Planning Act doesn’t allow two dwellings on the same property. However it does allow for a zoning bylaw amendment to allow the two houses for three years, with the option to renew for another three years.
In a Feb. 26 interview Mayor Chris White explained the township only allows two houses on one lot for up to 90 days, the purpose being to allow homeowners to move from one house to the other. When the 90 days are up, the old house must be demolished.
At the Feb. 20 meeting council requested a development agreement, which was brought to council on April 23 and specified that:
– two houses will be permitted for one year from the time occupancy is granted in the new building;
– the owners must demolish the old house within one year of taking occupancy of the new house;
– the owners are not permitted to find new tenants in that one-year period;
– the existing tenancy must proceed on a month-to- month basis; and
– the owners post a security deposit of $75,000 to ensure the demolition of the existing building.
“It’s a legal agreement between the township and the applicants and their mortgagee and was prepared by the township staff in consultation with the township’s solicitor,” township planning consultant Dan Currie said at the meeting.
“The Gorgi’s also reviewed the development agreement and find it acceptable to them.”
Councillor Louise Marshall was in favour of the development agreement.
“When we saw it … months ago it was three years and this agreement says one year,” she said. “I’d rather see one year than three years.”
However, the other councillors still had reservations about the extra nine months (beyond the standard 90 days) of occupancy in the existing house.
“I confess I have some issue with the fact that we’re setting a precedent here,” said councillor David Wolk.
Councillor Mark Bouwmeester also questioned the one-year time frame, asking if it could be reduced further.
“I wasn’t 100 per cent moving forward just to draft this so … I’m not on board on this,” he said.
Councillor Corey Woods agreed that entering the development agreement could set a precedent.
“I understand the 90 days and I have no problem with that,” he said. “To say ‘I need to have two houses because I need one as a rental income,’ I don’t think that’s what we should be doing.”
Luella Gorgi, one of the applicants, explained she and David are asking for the one-year time frame to make up the $8,000 they spent on producing the development agreement.
“We had no idea this was going to be such a big deal,” she told council. “So we’ve come down from three years to one year just to recoup the money we’ve lost paying planners and lawyers, getting this development agreement to one year. We are not trying to screw you.”
The motion to enter into a development agreement failed with only Marshall voting in favour.
On May 7, the Gorgi’s came to council with a new development agreement.
The agreement had two differences.
It says that two houses will be permitted for 90 days from the time occupancy in the new building, after that the existing dwelling must be demolished in 90 days and there is no caveat specifying the existing tenancy must proceed on a month-to-month basis.
Bouwmeester said he was still uncomfortable.
“To me 90 days, one day, would be too much from where I sit,” he said.
“If I want to give occupancy to you guys, the existing house should be demolished.”
However, White said traditionally the township has given the 90 days.
“The reason we do this is to accommodate for somebody building a new home,” he said. “So they can move their stuff over and do the rest of the stuff.”
Council voted in favour of entering into the new development agreement with the Gorgis. Only Bouwmeester was not in favour.
