►
Description
Committee of Adjustment meeting from November 21, 2022. For full agenda details visit https://bit.ly/3TZmctc
A
Welcome
everybody
to
our
committee
of
adjustment
meeting.
We
have
10
items
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
First
off.
If
you
have
a
cell
phone
with
you,
can
you
please
take
this
opportunity
to
ensure
the
ringer
is
turned
off
and
if
it
does
in
fact
ring
while
you're
in
here,
please
don't
start
talking
until
you've
left
the
room
now,
members
of
the
public
with
a
particular
interest
in
any
file
this
evening,
please
be
sure
to
fill
your
name
and
address
in
on
the
sign
up
sheets
that
are
at
the
very
back
of
the
room.
A
So
if
you
are
following
along
remotely
this
evening
and
you'd
like
to
be
notified
of
the
decision
or
any
appeals
that
may
result,
then
please
send
an
email
to
our
secretary
treasurer
Lindsey
stamen.
Her
email
address
is
l-s-t-h-a-m-a-n-n
at
cityofkingston.ca
and
be
sure
to
include
your
name,
your
address
and
the
file
number
of
the
application.
A
So
I
now
like
to
share
with
you
the
five
part
format
that
I'll
be
using
as
we
navigate
through
all
the
applications
this
evening
now,
in
the
first
part,
I'll
start
by
introducing
the
application.
Now,
if
you
are
the
applicant,
please
come
up
to
the
speakers
area,
which
will
be
in
just
my
immediate
right
in
the
first
section
of
seats,
be
prepared
to
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
feel
free
to
add
anything
additional
to
the
application
we
have
before
us.
A
If
you
feel
that's
necessary
and
the
Second
Step
I'll
be
inviting
members
of
our
committee
to
ask
questions
of
either
the
applicant
or
the
staff
and
then
in
the
third
step,
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Now
members
of
the
public
can
line
up
at
the
speaker
station,
which
will
be
to
my
right
as
well,
but
in
the
second
grouping
of
of
of
seats
and
or
if
you're,
following
from
home,
raise
your
virtual
hand
in
zoom
and
when
I
recognize.
A
You
please
be
prepared
to
State
your
full
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
make
your
presentation
or
ask
your
questions
or
make
your
comments
in
respect
of
the
application.
Each
speaker
will
be
allowed
five
minutes
and
I'll
be
sure
to
give
a
warning
at
the
four
minute.
Mark
and
it'll
be
helpful
if
speakers
do
not
repeat
the
same
issues,
so
if
somebody
already
has
covered
a
pointy
that
you
also
feel
is
important,
please
don't
feel
compelled
to
repeat
it.
That's
just
not
helpful.
A
Now
during
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting,
please
don't
expect
an
immediate
response
to
your
questions
or
comments,
because
what
we're
going
to
do
is
physically
record
your
questions
and
comments,
and
it's
only
after
I
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Will
the
questions
and
comments
be
addressed
by
the
applicant,
their
agent
or
staff
I'll
be
calling
three
times
for
public
comments
before
I
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting?
Okay,
so
we're
here
to
gather
information
to
make
a
decision.
A
We
don't
encourage
a
debate
in
this
public
forum
and
the
fourth
step
I'll
give
the
applicant
or
their
agent
or
staff
an
opportunity
to
address
those
public
comments
and
then,
in
the
fifth
and
final
step,
I'll
turn
it
back
to
the
committee.
I'll
ask
them
to
make
a
motion
and
we'll
deliberate
on
the
application
in
this
public
forum
and
then
that's
it.
We
make
an
ultimate
decision,
I'll
be
using
the
same
format
for
every
application
this
evening.
B
Good
evening,
everyone
through
you
Mr,
chair
I,
can't
confirm
we
do
indeed
have
Quorum.
Currently
absent
from
the
committee
is
somnath
Sinha.
We
do
also
have
a
number
of
members
of
the
public
here
in
person,
and
I
can
just
confirm
quickly
on
Zoom.
Give
me
five
seconds
that
there
are
three
people
in
the
public
Union
gallery
on
zoom
and
happy
to
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
Mr
chair
thanks.
A
Very
much
okay,
so
I'll
Now
call
the
meeting
to
order
at
5,
34
pm
and
I'll.
Refer
you
to
the
agenda.
So
committee
members,
there
were
two
addendums
that
came
out.
One
was
last
Friday
and
one
was
today
so
can
I
call
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
with
the
addendum
so
moved
by
Vincent
and
seconded
by
Paul
and
any
discussion,
so
all
in
favor
raise
your
physical
hands
and
that
is
unanimously
carried.
A
A
Any
discussion
so
all
in
favor
raise
your
physical
hands
and
that
would
be
carried.
That's
unanimous.
We
have
no
delegations
and
no
requests
for
deferral
and
we
have
no
returning
deferred
items.
So
the
first
piece
of
new
business
is
an
application
for
minor
variants
for
597
Davis,
Drive
and
Lindsay
can
I.
Have
you
read
this
into
the
record?
Please.
C
D
Good
evening
and
through
the
chair
I'm
here
to
present
the
minor,
very
application
for
597
Davis
Drive,
the
applicant
is
seeking
relief
for
the
requirement
to
provide
a
parking
stall
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
for
a
second
dwelling
unit.
We
could
go
to
my
slide
deck
and
proceed
to
the
second
slide.
Please
you
see
here.
The
key
map
illustrates
the
property
on
Davis
Drive,
which
is
located
north
and
east
of
the
intersection
of
Gardner's
Road
and
Taylor
kit,
Boulevard,
cataracti,
Center
being
slightly
north
and
west.
D
This
picture
here
illustrates
the
surrounding
neighborhood
context
illustrating
sort
of
the
neighborhood
in
which
it
belongs.
If
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
please,
as
outlined
here,
the
requested
variance
is
to
reduce
the
required
one
parking
stall
for
a
second
dwelling
unit
that
would
effectively
bring
the
required
parking
from
Two
for
the
dwelling
plastic
second
dwelling
unit
to
one
as
currently
exists
on
the
site.
D
It
also
identifies
the
requirements
for
walking
to
being
in
approximate
walking
distance
to
Parkland,
open
space
or
Community
facilities.
Here,
Parkland,
open
space
and
Community
facilities
are
all
within
320,
280
and
450
meters,
respectively.
All
meeting
the
official
plan
criteria
or
walking
distance,
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please.
D
This
picture
here
illustrates
the
existing
property
and
the
proposed
layout
that
has
a
1.2
meter
wide
walkway,
a
budding,
a
single
parking
stall.
I
note
that
as
Illustrated
on
the
zoom
in
of
the
lot
Dimensions,
the
site
can
truly
only
accommodate
one
parking
stall
in
accordance
with
the
zoning
regulations.
Given
that
the
lot
Narrows
out
to
2.64
meters
in
width,
where
it
flanks
the
building
and
the
abutting
fence,
this
is
insufficient
Pistons
to
meet
either,
and
certainly
both
the
requirement
of
an
a
walking
path
and
a
parking
stall.
D
A
D
Throughout
the
minor
variants,
application
notice
was
provided
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act,
namely
the
mailing
was
delivered
to
53
properties
within
60
meters
of
the
property,
and
a
posting
notice
was
posted
on
the
property.
Throughout
this
period
we
received
two
pieces,
of
course,
on
this,
outlining
concerns
related
to
additional
parking
and
Associated
impact
on
traffic,
Public,
Safety
and
emergency
access,
garbage
collection
and
preference
towards
allowing
two
stalls
in
the
front
yard
and
ensuring
proper
permit
and
inspections
do
take
place.
D
I
highlight
that
both
the
full
correspondence
is
attached
as
the
addendum
to
the
tonight's
agenda.
I
highlight
that
many
of
these
concerns
are
addressed
through
bylaw
enforcement,
such
as
parking
off
Street
I,
highlight
also
that
the
fire
department
was
circulated
and
had
no
issue
with
the
application
and
I'm
happy
to
address
any
further
questions.
We
could
move
to
the
next
slide,
please.
A
Great
thanks
very
much
for
that
Ian.
Okay!
So
do
we
have
the
applicant
or
their
agent
into
yes?
So
if
you
could
come
up
to
the
speaker's
chair
and
just
identify
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
yeah
either,
one
of
those
is
fine
and
just
push
the
little
button
on
the
speaker
and
it
will
turn
red
there.
You
go.
It's.
A
A
F
So
my
question
is
so
legally
only
one
car
could
fit
on
there
and
that
second
made
up
driveway.
That
would
have
to
go,
and
if
two
cars,
because
in
the
correspondence
I
mentioned
that
the
people
that
lived
upstairs
had
two
cars.
So
what
would
they
have
to
do
with
the
second
car
park
on
the
street
and
yeah?
Thanks.
D
3
.
the
zoning
bylaw
in
Force
at
the
time
when
this
subdivision
came
to
fruition,
it
did
set
out
the
maximum
width
of
a
driveway,
sorry,
the
minimum
width
of
a
driveway
and,
together
with
regulations
surrounding
the
maximum
Frontage
in
which
a
driveway
can
allow
for
really.
There
was
only
one
parking
stall
that
has
evolved
into
what
is
essentially
servicing
two,
if
not
three
part
viable
places
to
park
a
vehicle,
but
not
parking
stalls
in
accordance
with
the
zoning
bylaw.
D
It
does
also
require
0.8,
which
is
rounded
up
to
one
parking
stall
for
dwelling
unit,
one
parking
stall
for
a
second
residential
unit
and
recognizing
that,
in
certain
situations,
it's
not
needed
to
provide
parking
at
the
zoning
bylaw
as
of
right
would
require
zero
parking
for
a
third
dwelling
unit
and
really
setting
the
direction
that
people
will
self-select
in
terms
of
what
residential
units
they
make
available
and
what
tenants
they
take
into
those
residential
units.
I
just
wanted
to
highlight,
basically,
the
intent
of
the
zoning
there.
A
D
Through
the
chair,
unfortunately,
the
depth
of
the
lot
itself
is
just
larger
than
six
meters
in
in
depth
before
the
face
of
the
building
starts.
I
believe
that
measurement
is
6.5,
so
it
could
functionally
serve
two
cars,
but
we
would
consider
it
I
mean
very
small,
smart
cars
type
thing,
but
no,
the
zoning
bylaw
would
really
only
consider
it
one
parking
stall.
I
Through
you,
Mr
chair,
Mr
Foster
in
the
addendums
people
are
talking
a
lot
about
the
parking,
obviously,
and
first
and
foremost,
is
what
they're
stating
true
does
that
occur
on
the
property,
and,
if
so,
do
you
notice
anyone
else
on
the
street?
Have
you
noticed
anyone
else
in
that
community?
That
does
the
same
thing
that
Parks,
like
that
anything
like
that.
E
Well,
I'm
not
going
to
say
whether
it's
all
true
or
all
false,
because
there's
a
number
of
different
claims.
What
I
will
say
is
that
they
currently
are
parking
two
cars
in
tandem,
which
does
cause
problems
because
it
is
a
narrow
space
between
the
car
and
the
fan,
the
new
fence
that
just
was
put
up
this
year
and
and
the
side
of
the
house
for
the
for
the
tenants
in
the
basement
to
to
leave
the
property.
E
There
had
previously
been
a
car,
a
third
car
parked
in
the
front
that
hasn't
been
there
for
a
while,
but
originally
the
previous
owners
had
put
a
space
there
as
well
for
for
the
third
third
spot,
I
I.
Frankly,
I,
don't
I
haven't
driven
around
to
look
at
whether
there
are
a
number
I
mean
there
are
definitely
other
secondary
Suites
on
the
street
for
sure
whether
they
are
you
know,
official
ones
or
not,
I'm,
not
sure
I
haven't
inquired,
whether
they're,
legit
or
not.
E
In
terms
of
parking
on
the
street
there,
it
there's
actually
no
parking
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street.
It's
you
are
allowed
parking
on
this
side
because
it
is
a
fairly
popular
bus
route
and
the
street
is
plenty
wide
and
I
parked
there.
Yesterday,
like
there's
still
cars
flying
by
me,
it's
like
with
no
East.
So
you
know,
while
parking
on
the
street
is
not
a
permanent
solution,
it's
it's
definitely
a
temporary
one,
we'll.
J
E
J
E
J
E
D
K
D
D
That
is
an
issue
that
would
happen
essentially,
regardless
or
I
should
say
it's
something
that
the
fire
department
contends
to
whether
or
not
it's
a
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
not.
But
that
said
I
do
recognize
the
parking
concerns
yeah
just
wanted
to
say
that
they
did
not
visit.
The
fire
department
did
not
visit
the
site
specifically
because
of
this
minor
variance
application.
They
did,
however,
review
it.
D
H
J
D
Yes,
I
did
not
do
an
exact
calculation,
but
I
could
visually
determine
that
it
was
greater
than
the
30
required
you'll.
Note
that,
as
a
recommendation
for
a
condition
should
the
committee
choose
to
approve
this
is
that
the
unofficial
parking
stall
at
the
front
of
the
lot
would
be
essentially
remediated
or
re-vegetated.
Instead
of
sort
of
the
gravel
that
that
now
has
being
placed
there.
A
Okay,
thanks
all
right,
one,
more:
okay,
okay!
So
at
this
point,
I'd
like
to
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting,
so
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
in
person
or
online
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
597
Davis
Drive?
Please
raise
your
hand
or
raise
a
virtual
hand
and
zoom
we've.
Anybody
with
us
this
evening
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
597
Davis
Drive.
A
E
A
A
It
says
condition
for
occupancy
that
prior
to
occupancy
of
the
secondary
dwelling
unit
being
granted,
including
under
any
permit
under
the
OBC
act,
the
owner
applicant
shall
remove
any
portion
of
the
driveway,
which
occupate
occupies
a
greater
width
than
40
percent.
So
I
don't
should
that
be
changed
to
kind
of
reflect,
what's
actually
happening.
D
D
L
L
Oh
children
yeah,
so
we
do
have
an
order
of
operations
to
follow
here.
So,
even
though
the
unit
is
occupied
when
we're
working
with
someone
on
legalizing
a
unit,
we
proactively
work
with
them
to
bring
it
up
to
standards.
So
the
first
step
we
need
to
do
here
in
order
for
permits
to
be
issued
for
this
to
legalize,
the
dwelling
is
get
through
the
minor
variance
process
so
that
this
can
be
Zone
compliant.
L
That's
what
set
up
before
us
tonight
dealing
with
both
the
parking
and
the
demonstration
of
the
1.2
meter
wide
walkway
from
the
second
residential
unit
to
the
street.
So
if
you
look
at
the
drawing
on
exhibit
I
had
it
open
a
moment
ago,
exhibit
f
granted
it's
not
to
scale,
but
this
is
to
demonstrate
that
the
kind
of
hatched
area
that
looks
like
a
waffle
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
dwelling-
is
the
walkway
that
would
connect
the
dwelling
unit
to
the
street
with
the
parking
space
located
adjacent
to
it.
L
So
once
we
can
move
through
the
minor
variance
process,
they
can
then
obtain
permits
in
the
fire
inspections
in
order
to
move
forward
with
the
legalization
of
these
units.
So
that's
kind
of
the
step
process
here.
Yes,
the
wording
could
have
been
a
little
clearer,
but
I
don't
think
it
really
misses
the
intent
of
what
we're
looking
to
do
tonight.
Okay,.
A
A
F
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
make
sure
I
know
what's
going
on
so
the
pathway.
Will
that
be
something
that's
built
separately
or
will
it
still
just
be
the
driveway?
Will
it
be
something
that's
specifically
different
where
a
car
can't
actually
physically
go
park
there?
Is
it
going
to
be
like
different
type
sure.
A
I
I
interpreted
that
it's
the
existing
driveway,
that's
that
was
always
meant
to
be
with
the
property
and
that
the
the
part
that's
been
added
on
in
front
of
the
house.
It
will
be
removed,
so
it
would
just
be,
and
correctly
am
I
correct
in
that
it
would
just
be
the
original
driveway
as
it
was
meant
to
be.
E
A
D
Yes,
absolutely
and
maybe
giant
James
will
chime
in
with
the
specific
wording
of
the
zoning
by
a
lot,
but
basically
the
zoning
bylaw
2022
62
requires
a
separately
delineated
path.
Now,
typically,
people
will
install,
say
patio
stone
versus
asphalt,
I
know
in
say
makeshift
cases,
they've
painted
lines
to
meet
the
letter
of
the
law.
It
is
separately
delineated.
Okay,.
A
A
M
N
M
And
again
this
relates
to
walking
distance,
which
is
defined.
As
you
know,
greater
than
600
meters
and
the
three
conditions
are
for
the
properties
within
walking
distance
of
an
Express,
Kingston
Transit
bus
route
that
the
properties
is
in
within
walking
distance
of
commercial
uses
and
that
the
properties
within
walking
distance
of
Parkland,
open
space
or
Community
facilities,
and
in
this
instance
there
is
an
express
bus
route
that
runs
along
a
palace
road
with
route
701
702,
and
there
are
commercial
uses
to
the
north
within
600
meters
and
also
to
the
north.
M
M
So
this
is
the
proposal.
Currently,
there
is
a
parking
space
in
front
of
the
dwelling,
and
there
is
also
currently
a
walkway
there's,
a
paved
pathway
that
leads
to
the
front
door
and
there's
currently
a
gate
along
the
side
of
the
of
the
dwelling,
and
what
is
proposed
is
for
an
entrance
off
the
rear
for
a
second
unit.
M
The
property
is
approximately
12
meters
in
width,
and
the
biolog
does
state
that
driveway
can
be
six
meters
or
40
percent
of
the
prop
of
the
the
width
of
the
lot,
whichever
is
less,
and
so
in
this
instance.
That
would
be
a
4.8
meter.
Maximum
width
for
a
driveway
which
is
insufficient
to
accommodate
a
second
part
of
space
as
such,
the
applicant
has
opted
to
reduce
the
number
of
required
parking
spaces
to
one
I.
Do
want
to
know
that
a
1.2
meter
parking
a
1.2
meter
pathway.
M
Now
one
comment
has
been
received
to
date,
and
there
were
concerns
raised
regarding
additional
parking
and
on
street
and
a
potential
for
adding
traffic
to
the
street.
There
were
comments
regarding
the
number
of
residents
and
the
nature
of
the
tenancy
of
this
property
or
comments
about
noise
issues,
concerns
about
the
plumbing
and
the
maintenance
of
this
property,
specifically
I
did
receive
correspondence
from
both
Building
Services
and
from
licensing
confirming
that
Building
Services
would
confirmed
that
they're
satisfied
that
there
was
no
rooming
or
boarding
house,
and
there
was
an
enforcement
case
there.
M
So
the
recommendation
in
this
instance
is
that
the
the
requested
proposal
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
official
plan.
The
request
is
minor
in
nature
and
that
indeed
it
meets
it's
good
planning.
So
the
minor
variants
in
this
instance
will
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
required
parking
spaces
for
this
proposed.
Second
residential
unit
for
one
space
to
zero,
which
will
permit
the
establishment
of
the
second
residential
unit
I.
A
Welcome
your
questions,
great
thanks
very
much
for
that.
So
at
this
point,
I'd
like
to
call
on
the
owner
or
the
applicant
or
their
agent,
do
I
come
up
and
identify
Yourself
by
name
and
address.
We
have
them
virtually
okay,
okay,
so
Pablo
Morse.
We
recognize
you
if
you
could
I
just
get
you
to
say
your
full
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
F
O
So
with
regards
to
that
question,
I
was
recently
made
aware
that
there
would
only
be
one
legal
parking
space,
so
that
was
an
error
on
my
part
and
I
informed
my
tenants
that
there
should
only
be
one
car
at
the
lot
and-
and
the
issue
has
been
resolved.
There
will
only
be
one
car
currently
parking
there.
F
A
O
A
A
Okay,
so
you're
renting
sort
of
the
house
out
to
three
people,
so
three
people
are
named
jointly
and
severally
on
a
lease
for
three
of
the
rooms
and
then
the
fourth
room
is
is
where
you
stay.
Is
your
room
and
you
were
you
were
away,
so
you
were
letting
that
up?
Okay,
that
that
gives
me
clarification.
Thank
you.
A
Any
follow-up
questions
committee,
members.
Okay.
So,
at
this
point
I'd
like
to
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting,
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
338
Palace
road
yeah
yeah?
If
you
just
would
like
to
come
and
sit
yep
right,
there
is
fine
and
make
yourself
comfortable
yeah.
P
Course,
good
evening,
everyone,
my
name,
is
Karina
Murray,
and
this
is
my
husband
Danny
Murray.
We
live
at
336,
Palace
Road.
We
also
forward
an
objection
to
this
minor
violence
through
email
which
I
don't
I,
want
to
be
sure
that
you
receive
it
okay,
so
we
are
not
just
representing
ourselves,
we're
also
representing
three
other
neighbors
that
they
are
living
in
front
of
338
Palace,
Road,
We,
Are,
The
Neighbors
at
336,
so
we
live
in
the
semi-detached
house.
P
Beside
this
neighbor
first
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
this
person
doesn't
live
in
338,
Palace
Road.
It's
not
that
he
was
out
on
the
trip.
So
it's
it's
given
if
it
falls
statement
which
is
actually
quite
deceiving,
so
the
other
thing
that
I
want
to
say
is
that
I
sent
all
those
pictures
with
all
those
cars
that
is
constant.
They
are
not
just
blocking
they're
doing
something
illegal.
P
That
is
costing
the
city,
because
if
I
have
to
call
the
city
every
day
to
tell
them
that
they
are
breaking
the
law,
how
much
money
is
that
for
the
city?
That's
correct:
can
you
reason
with
me
right?
The
other
thing
is
that
they
are
not
just
doing
something
unlawful,
but
they
are
also
blocking
a
walkway.
The
sidewalk
is
totally
blocked.
P
That
is
an
impediment
for
all
the
wheelchair
people,
handicapped
and
children.
We
have
a
daycare
at
the
ysmca
and
all
those
kids
is
a
problematic
situation.
They
can
occur
less.
It's
common
sense.
It's
part
of
our
community
of
commitment,
all
our
families.
We
live
there
for
the
last
almost
18
years,
so
we're
very
much
well
known
in
our
community.
We're
all
neighbors
we're
good
neighbors
were
committed
to
one
to
each
other.
P
So
since
this
person
moving,
it
had
been
a
problem
after
the
other
one,
not
just
not
fulfilling
a
problem
with
a
dwelling
wall
and
a
plumbing
problem
that
just
the
plumber
itself
that
he
hired
told
them
that
they
really
have
to
fix.
So
for
over
two
years
we've
been
awaiting
until
nothing
had
happened
and
or
what
we
could
hear
is
that
he
doesn't
have
any
money,
but
now
hello,
he
has
money
to
do
some
renovations
to
rent
more
rooms.
P
The
other
part
that
we're
we're
going
to
have
to
go
in
a
private
way
regarding
the
rooming
house
is
totally
illegal.
We
have
to
now
do
work
with
our
lawyer
in
order
to
find
out
what
papers
the
city,
the
planning
I,
got
just
to
fulfill,
that
they
are
not
running
a
short-term
rental
which
they
are
I
have
proof
in
pictures.
P
So
that
part
we
have
to
work
with
our
lawyer,
because
we
look
and
we
for
help
to
the
city
and
planning
says
that
they
don't
have
any
problems
whatsoever
with
that.
So
we
have
to
really
follow
up
on
that.
We
know
it's
not
true.
At
the
point
that
this
summer
we
were
looking
at
the
cars
were
rotating
in
a
way
that
there's
new
cars
in
a
few
weeks
and
so
on.
So
we
were
wondering
about
that
and
it
happened
in
all
in
August.
P
P
Sure
so
they
don't
even
have
fun
so
these
people
they're
coming
they
don't
know
the
law.
They
don't
have
anywhere
to
go
they're
already
paid,
so
we
had
to
lend
funds
to
to
these
people.
We
never
saw
them
back.
So
we
find
that
this
owner
is
breaking
the
law
in
so
many
ways
and
now
he's
asking
for
not
given
a
dedicated
parking
to
a
tenant
that
he
might
abuse
and
also
we
live
on
balance
Road,
where
there's
a
fire
a
station
and
there's
an
ambulance
station.
So
Palace
road
is
very
important.
P
If
you
can
see
in
the
pictures,
they
are
not
just
parking
on
the
driveway,
but
there
are
cars
that
from
their
rentals
their
room
rentals.
They
are
parking
also
on
the
on
the
street,
plus
the
new
building
coming
on
Park
Street.
This
is
going
to
be
a
disaster,
so
we
are
objecting
is
not
just
us,
but
also
337,
333
and
334.
Palace
Road
are
objecting
okay,.
A
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
to
the
application
for
a
338,
Palace
Road,
please
raise
your
physical
hand
or
your
virtual
hand
in
Zoom,
and
my
third
and
final
call
do
we
have
anybody
with
us
this
evening
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
338
Palace
Road.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
I
see
none
so
I'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
come
back
to
the
applicant
or
to
staff
to
maybe
address
some
of
these
comments.
O
Yes,
yes,
dressed,
that
we've
been
having
significant
problems
with
the
neighbor
with
the
semi-detached
unit.
However,
all
of
the
issues
presented
being
the
noise
from
a
fan,
a
ceiling
fan
the
noise
from
showers,
air
conditioning,
we're
all
rectified
and
verified
to
be
lawful.
So
we
had
the
police
come
on
one
occasion
and
they
had
no
no
issues,
particularly
with
our
the
way
our
house
is
set
up.
O
Additionally,
we
had
a
emergency
air
conditioner
being
used
in
place
of
the
in
place
of
the
air
conditioner
that
had
temporarily
not
worked
and
moving
forward
as
I
was
away.
I
had
expected
everything
to
be
good
in
terms
of
the
parking
situation.
However,
I
wholeheartedly
apologize
that
that
wasn't
the
case
and
I
will
definitely
be
making
sure
that
it
could
be
a
condition,
perhaps
that
there
will
be
no
such
parking
infractions
in
the
future.
Okay.
M
M
I'd,
also
like
to
note
that,
as
was
noted
earlier
as
well,
so
in
the
diagram
that's
provided
there
is
one
parking
space
indicated
and
if
there
was
to
be
a
second
car
park
next
to
that,
it
would
effectively
be
parked
on
top
of
the
walkway,
which
would
not
be
permitted
and
ticketing
by
enforcement
would
certainly
be
possible,
be
on
that
parking
on
street
is
permitted
most
times
of
the
year.
So
it
would
be
legal
for
renters
who
are
in
this
accommodation
to
be
parked
on
street.
At
certain
times
of
the
day.
A
F
So
you
mentioned
that
a
second
car
would
have
to
be
parked
on
the
part
on
the
pathway,
but
in
the
picture,
there's
like
three
cars
parked
and
it's
not
even
on
the
part
on
the
pathway
on
the
left.
I
mean.
Are
they
encroaching
onto
the
other
parking
lot
from
the
neighbor
in
these
pictures
that
were
provided.
M
A
F
I
think,
though,
that
approving
this
would
probably
make
the
problem
worse,
because
obviously,
there's
people
parking
there's
people
with
cars
living
there
already
and
then
you're
going
to
have
more
people
living
there.
You
have
more
cars
and
there's
nowhere,
and
then
it
is
a
the
street
is
an
emergency
Street
for
for
fire
and
ambulance.
I
There
are
already
a
fair
amount
of
cars
parked
there
there's
some
building
developments
down
towards
the
Canadian
Tire
at
the
end,
I
just
I,
don't
there's
something
about
the
idea
of
reducing
a
parking
spot
on
a
property
and
just
making
getting
rid
of
it
so
more
cars
park
on
that
street
it
just
it.
It
doesn't
quite
feel
right
to
me,
but
nonetheless,
I
will
vote.
R
Events
to
adjudicate
I
think
a
lot
of
the
comments
were
Irrelevant
in
terms
of
what
what
we
can
rule
on
here
today.
I
think
it's
a
desirable
variance,
I
think
there
is
parking
of
the
road
and
we've
heard
from
the
the
owner
that
the
parking
situation
would
be
rectified
in
future.
I
believe
it
does
maintain
the
intent
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
it
also
fits
the
official
plan.
So
you'll
have
my
vote
in
favor.
A
No
we're
about
in
our
committee
deliberation
at
this
point,
but
my
apology
yeah,
but
is,
from
my
perspective,
I
really
empathize
with
the
neighbors
I
mean
I've
been
there.
It
sounds
like
there's
some
there's
been
a
lot
of
there's.
You
know
increasing
activity
that
hasn't
Blended
well
in
with
the
neighborhood
and
I,
always
a
little
worried
when
we
have
an
absentee
owner
who
really
doesn't
know
what's
going
on,
but
yet
collecting
rents,
and
you
know
when
I
heard
indications
that
it
had
been
operating
as
a
rooming
house.
A
My
knee
jerk
reaction
was
I,
mean
I,
can't
support
this
I
understand
it
might
satisfy
the
four
tests,
but
you
know
I
think
we're
taking
a
bad
situation,
making
it
worse,
but
I
did
hear
information
tonight
from
the
applicant
that
he
seems
to
have.
He
seems
to
be
on
top
of
it
and
I
think
he's
aware
that
you
know
they're
that
the
kind
of
walls
have
closed
in
on
what
you
sort
of
can
and
can't
do
and
get
away
with
so
yeah
I
I
from
a
planning
perspective.
A
I'll
certainly
be
voting
in
favor
of
it,
but
I
think
this
should
be.
This
whole
experience
this
evening
should
serve
as
a
shot
fired
across
the
bow
of
any
kind
of
property
owner.
Who,
you
know
thinks
that
they
can
just
turn
a
blind
eye
to
a
lot
of
stuff
going
on
in
their
property.
Anybody
else
before
I
call
a
vote.
Yeah
Lane.
J
I
totally
agree:
I
I
think
that
what
Jordan
said
there
is.
We
need
to
to
look
at
that
and
remember
that
I
kind
of
grappled
with
the
same
idea,
but
I
think
we
have
made
a
bit
of
a
point
here
that
we're
expecting
a
little
bit
more
and
yeah
we're
being
told.
So
we
need
to
make
our
decisions
based
on
what
we're
being
told.
Unfortunately,.
A
S
A
C
T
Perfect
through
Mr
chair,
we
have
an
application
sent
at
2
30
Street.
This
application
was
initially
processed
through
the
delegated
authority,
as
it
previously
was
part
of
a
zoning
bylaw
Amendment.
We
did
receive
comments,
so
we
have
it
coming
to
the
public
meeting
with
the
community
of
adjustment
to
make
its
its
decision.
T
So
the
property
is
designated
as
residential
in
the
official
plan
and
zone
urban
residential,
seven
or
you
R7.
Sorry,
with
the
Legacy
exemption
l450
in
the
New
Kingston
zoning
bylaw
number
2022-6-2,
the
subject:
property
is
developed
with
a
two-story
apartment,
building
containing
a
total
of
eight
residential
units.
The
subject
property
is
located
in
the
Portsmouth
neighborhood
and
is
surrounded
by
residential
land
uses
consisting
primarily
of
one
and
two
unit,
dwellings,
triplexes
and
small-scale
apartment
buildings.
T
T
So
there
will
be
one
parking
space
for
each
individual
unit,
so
Council
approved
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
through
through
bylaw
two
zero,
two
two
two
eight
and
on
February
or
actually
on
February
4th.
The
bylaw
was
subsequently
appealed,
which
was
later
dismissed
at
the
Ontario
land
tribunal
on
September
17th.
T
These,
the
site-specific
provisions
were
also
approved
under
the
new
cases.
Zoning
by
law,
which
you
can
see
through
the
Legacy
exception
layer,
which
is
l450
next
slide,
so
initially
the
applicant
applied
for
severing
the
lot
on
Herbert
and
they
were
originally
proposing
to
construct
a
four-unit,
townhouse
Row
House
on
the
subject
property
during
the
initial
public
consultation
through
the
Sony
bylaw
Amendment
we
or
the
applicant
herd
the
concerns
that
were
raised
and
then
revised
their
application
to
just
construct
a
single
family
dwelling
on
the
property
itself.
T
So
the
revised
proposal,
as
you
see
on
the
right
hand,
side
shows
the
proposed
lot
or
the
severed
lot
with
a
building
envelope,
so
the
yellow
area
is
where
potentially
a
house
could
be
located
subject
to
the
setback
requirements
now.
I
do
want
to
note
that
the
setback
requirements
in
this
proposal
is
based
on
bylaw
8499.
However,
the
new
zoning
bylaw
has
a
7.5
meter,
front
yard
setback,
which
is
greater
than
the
six
meter,
which
is
shown
here.
T
So
this
slide
here
shows
the
proposed
retained
lot,
which
will
have
the
eight
unit
apartment
building,
so
the
severance
will
provide
residential
intensification
within
the
urban
boundary
on
full
Municipal
Services.
The
services
are
located
along
Herbert
Street
for
the
severed
lot
and
the
existing
Services
for
the
existing
dwelling
is
on
lowood
Avenue.
T
The
area
will
be
reinstated
with
green
space,
which
will
provide
additional
landscape
open
space
and
provide
further
separation
between
the
parking
area
and
the
residential
uses
to
the
north.
A
single
six
meter
wide
driveway
will
be
maintained
along
the
southern
portion
of
the
lot,
which
will
maintain
its
Road
access
on
mode
Avenue.
The
applicant
proposes
to
plant
eight
Swedish
Aspens
along
along
mullet
Avenue,
which
will
provide
additional
visual
screening.
T
Outdoor
amenity
space
will
be
maintained
in
the
rear
yard
and
the
additional
landscape
open
space.
The
subject
lot
has
a
Total
Landscape
open
space
of
60,
while
the
retained
portion
will
have
approximately
46
percent,
this
will
comply
with
the
minimum
percentage
of
landscape
open
space
of
30
percent.
T
No
additions
or
external
changes
are
proposed
to
the
existing
apartment.
Building,
as
such
no
impacts
in
regards
to
privacy
or
Overlook
are
anticipated,
while
the
existing
eight
unit
apartment
building
represents
a
medium
density
development.
The
dwelling
and
its
front
yard
parking
have
existed
in
its
current
form
and
use
for
approximately
50
years,
with
no
negative
impact
on
the
abutting
residential
uses
and
streetscape.
T
T
I
can't
see
this
here
there
we
go
so
public
notice,
so
I
noticed
the
statutory
public
meeting
was
provided
by
advertisement
in
the
form
of
two
signs
posted
on
the
subject:
property
14
days
in
advance
of
the
meeting
I
confirmed
that
one
sign
was
posted
along
the
Moet
Street
Frontage
and
the
other
along
the
Herbert
Street
Frontage.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
a
total
number
of
32
Property
Owners
within
60
meter
radius
of
the
property.
T
A
courtesy
notice
was
also
placed
in
the
Kingston
wig
standard,
as
courtesy
notices
were
also
mailed
to
all
residences,
which
submitted
comments
or
had
objections
through
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
next
slide.
Please,
we
have
received
public
correspondence.
The
report
number
22079
provides
correspondence
submitted
through
the
application
for
zoning
by
law.
Amendment
this.
That
information
was
provided
to
Enlighten
the
committee
members
of
the
concerns
raised
during
that
application
process.
T
T
T
T
The
consent
application
will
in
essence
recreate
the
historic
Loft
Fabric
and
we'll
be
in
keeping
with
the
existing
Loft
fabric
of
the
neighborhood
and
you,
as
you
can
see,
within
the
key
map.
There
are
a
number
of
severances
within
the
area
or
smaller
Lots
within
the
area,
and
particularly
there
is
another
lot
across
the
street
from
the
severed
property
which
may
have
gone
through
this
this
process
a
long
time
ago,
foreign
there
are
no
sidewalks
along
Herbert
Street
and
that
will
have
impacts
on
the
streetscape
So.
T
Currently,
yes,
the
sidewalks
are
not
located
along
Herbert,
Street
or
Hatter
Street.
The
severed
lot
will
maintain
the
existing
streetscape,
so
there
will
not
be
any
changes
to
the
existing
streetscape
residences
are
are
encouraged
to
speak
to
their
counselor
in
regards
to
the
need
for
sidewalks
within
the
neighborhood.
T
Whether
the
setbacks
meet
the
safety
requirements
of
the
multiple
family
dwelling
units,
both
Building
Services
and
Fire,
and
Rescue
Services
have
no
objections
or
concerns.
Regarding
the
continued
use
of
237
moat
Avenue,
it's
important
to
note
that
any
new
alterations
or
additions
or
development
on
the
pertained
lot
would
require
a
building
permit
and
will
be
reviewed.
Then.
T
Neighbors
are
unhappy
of
the
existing
multiple
family
dwelling
in
the
storage
of
a
commercial
truck.
The
site.
Improvements,
as
recommended
as
conditions
of
the
consent,
will
eliminate
the
second
driveway
where
the
truck
currently
Parks.
So
this
would
initially
remove
the
the
truck
in
the
the
trailer
itself
or
the
commercial
vehicles.
T
The
eight
parking
spaces
that
will
be
provided
would
be
for
the
residential
units
that
that
are
there,
the
the
0.3
meter
setback
along
the
northern
lot
line
will
hinder
access
to
to
two
of
the
existing
units.
So
the
staircase
along
the
portion
of
the
northern
lot
line
was
addressed
through
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment.
It
was
reduced
to
0.3
meters
and
the
proposal
as
it
it's
shown
today
to
create
the
several
law
will
comply.
It's
important
to
note
that
access
will
still
be
provided.
T
The
staircase,
which
leads
to
a
deck
at
the
rear
of
the
dwelling.
The
staircase
provides
safe
access
to
the
rear
yard
and
access
to
means
of
egress.
For
the
dwelling
crashes
for
the
units,
access
to
the
rear
yard
is
maintained
along
the
southern
side
of
the
multiple
family
dwelling
next
slide
there
and
the
final
two
comments.
Heritage
concerns
as
Heritage
buildings
are
located
in
the
neighborhood,
the
resident
that
that
provided.
This
comment
did
provide
some
pictures
of
local
Heritage
buildings
along
that
street
or
within
the
neighborhood.
T
However,
as
I
noted
before
the
subject,
property
is
not
a
designated
structure
and
it
is
not
adjacent
to
any
designated
property
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
Therefore,
a
historic
impact
study
is
not
required
as
part
of
this
application
process
and
a
Heritage
permit
is
not
required
at
the
time
of
building
permit
for
six
Herbert
Street
front
yards
and
its
uses,
Severance
will
remove
front
yard
from
Herbert.
T
The
existing
lot
will
have
Frontage
on
or
actually
each
resulting
lot
will
have
Frontage
on
a
maintained,
Municipal
Road,
a
front
yard
will
be
provided
for
the
retained
lot
and
additional
Landscaping
proposed
will
provide
additional
Landscaping
and
the
new
parking
layout
will
provide
dedicated
parking
spaces
to
the
multiple
family
dwellings.
So
improvements
will
be
happening.
T
T
So
the
recommendation.
The
proposal
has
regard
to
the
matters
under
subsection
5124.
The
planning
Act
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
It
conforms
with
all
applicable
policies
of
the
official
plan
and
is
in
keeping
with
the
general
intent
and
purchases
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
The
planet
subdivision
is
not
necessary,
but
the
proper
and
orderly
development
and
the
consent
application
is
recommended
for
provisional
approval
and
subject
to
the
conditions
of
consent
that
are
proposed
next
slide.
T
So
the
final
slide.
What's
next,
the
committee's
decision
is
subject
to
a
20-day
appeal
period
from
the
date
of
mailing
of
the
notice
decision.
The
law
is
not
officially
created
until
the
captain
has
satisfied
all
conditions
of
consent
within
two
years
from
the
date
and
mailing
of
the
notice
of
decision
and
the
certificate,
and
that
the
certificate
official
is
registered
on
title.
So
there
is
a
bit
of
work
that
is
required
by
the
applicant.
If
the
committee
chooses
to
approve
the
application
today,
I
leave
this
in
your
hands
and
available
for
any
questions
or
comments.
T
A
U
V
B
W
U
For
consent
was
filed
in
in
2017
and
through
extensive
consultation
with
City
staff
and
public
input.
The
consent
application
is
before
you
this
evening,
as
City
staff
that
asked
us
to
proceed
first
with
the
rezoning
application
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
zoning
bylaw
and
the
official
plan
prior
to
presenting
the
consent
application.
So
the
zoning
has
already
been
addressed
and
has
been
approved.
U
U
The
retained
lot
is
237
and
it's
shown
in
green.
It
accommodates
an
eight
unit
dwelling
and
the
parking
area.
The
proposed
severed
lot
is
shown
in
red
and
is
known
as
Herbert
Street,
it's
vacant,
with
the
exception
of
a
small
metal
shed
and
it's
sufficient
in
size
to
accommodate
a
single
detached
unit
in
accordance
with
the
the
you
are
seven
Zone
recently
approved
by
the
city
next
slide.
Please.
U
So
this
is
the
the
zoning
sketch
and
I
realize
this
is
for
the
consent
application,
but
it's
important
I
think
to
get
a
handle
on
the
zoning,
because
I
think
some
of
the
neighbors
concerns
relate
more
to
zoning
than
the
than
the
consent
application.
So
six
Herbert
did
not
require
a
rezoning,
it
maintained
the
A2
Zone
and
it
can
accommodate
a
single
detached
unit.
U
The
rezoning
was
only
for
237
a
moment
and
it
was
rezoned
with
special
Provisions
to
recognize
the
existing
use,
the
building
location
on
the
lot
that
also
addresses
the
front
yard
parking.
As
Tim
mentioned,
city
council
approved
the
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
on
February
1st
2002,
the
zoning
by
Lemon
that
was
subsequently
appealed
to
the
Ontario
land
Tribunal
and
the
tribunal
dismissed
the
appeal
at
its
hearing
on
September,
the
17th
of
2022.,
so
the
Zoning
for
Moen
is
now
in
effect,
next
slide.
U
Please
so
again,
this
this
slide
is
really
for
background
only
and
it
outlines
the
special
Provisions
that
were
approved
by
the
city
and
upheld
by
the
Ontario
land
tribunal.
Eight
units
are
permitted
in
the
multi-family
dwelling.
One
parking
space
per
unit
is
required.
Parking
is
permitted
in
the
front
yard.
U
Maximum
front
yard
parking
area
is
limited
to
136
square
meters,
parking
area,
minimum
step
back
from
the
front
lot
line
is
3.6
meters
and
the
side
yard
set
back
on
the
North
property
line
to
the
stairs
is
0.3
meters.
That's
to
the
stairs,
that's
not
to
the
wall
of
the
existing
structure.
Again,
this
was
all
approved
and
is
in
effect,
next
slide.
Please.
U
This
is
a
sketch
you've
already
seen
it's
the
site.
Improvements
for
237
moment
recommended
condition.
Number
eight
in
planning
staff's
report
addresses
the
site
improvements
and
the
plan
was
done
in
consultation
with
the
city
of
Kingston
planning
staff,
the
north
gravel
driveway
will
be
removed
and
landscaped
eight
Swedish
Aspens
will
be
planted
along
the
frontage
and
buffer
the
parking
area.
A
concrete
sidewalk
will
be
constructed
across
the
frontage
of
the
building
and
connect
the
sidewalks
at
the
North
and
South
End
of
the
property
bike.
U
Racks
will
be
installed
under
the
porch
one
for
each
unit
and
parking
spaces
in
the
driveway
will
meet
the
city
standards,
so
the
application
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
street
escape
to
be
improved,
while
at
the
same
time
regaining
a
lot
that
the
city
has
otherwise
lost
for
technical
reasons.
The
application
conforms
to
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
city's
official
plan.
H
U
A
Thanks
very
much
so
committee
members:
do
you
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
their
agent
alone,
I'm,
seeing
none
so
I'll
open,
I'll,
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting?
Now?
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
this
evening
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
237,
moat,
Avenue
and
6
Herbert
Street?
Please
raise
your
hand
yup,
and
you
can
come
up
over
here
to
the
Speakers
Corner.
X
X
There
was
an
initial
thing
to
have
four
row
houses
there
and
and
to
change
the
zoning
to
a
b
zone.
Now
I
know
that
b
doesn't
exist
anymore,
but
my
my
question
was
how
sorry,
maybe
I'm
I
gotta
rephrase
this.
When
we
have
a
a
zoning
bylaws
for
multi-family
dwellings,
they
have.
They
need
extra
Green
Space
around
them,
because
there's
not
just
one
person
in
there
there's
eight,
but
so
how
was
that
looked
at
when,
when
you
you
have
this
.3
from
the
the
front
entrance
of
an
apartment
upstairs?
X
A
A
X
Normally,
when
you
sever
a
property-
and
you
have
like
a
little
space
on
both
sides
like
this
0.3-
that's
usually
because
all
the
the
front
door's
face
in
One
Direction
and
it's
okay
to
have
a
little
skinny
bit
between
places,
but
in
this
particular
dwelling,
there's
two
apartment
doors
that
access
from
that
North
Side.
So
they've
only
got
point
three
one
foot
to
get
into
their
main
entrance
and
that
also
the
the
it
what
it's
described
as
a
staircase
up
to
a
balcony
is
actually
the
main
entrance
for
an
apartment.
X
It's
the
only
entrance
for
the
apartment,
so
I
just
don't
think
that
the
city
has
ever
cut
off
the
the
front,
Green
Space
for
a
main
entrance
and
there's
two
entrances
on
Herbert
and
only
one
on
Moet.
So
this
is
actually
the
more.
This
is
the
main
entrance,
there's
more
people
that
are
entering
the
property
from
the
Herbert
Street
side.
Okay,.
K
X
So
that's
a
big
concern
for
me
that
three
are
impacted
right,
there's,
one
upstairs
apartment
that
can
no
longer
get
into
the
backyard
from
that
side.
They
would
have
to
take
their
laundry
and
walk
three
sides
of
that
apartment,
building
to
be
able
to
do
their
laundry
every
week
forever
and
I.
Just
think
that
that's
a
a
big
change
for
the
existing
people
for
just
having
one
additional
house
so
I
just
think
it
should.
In
the
spirit
of
the
law.
X
Why
is
the
bylaws
not
enforced
here
like
that,
should
have
been
addressed
and
that
commercial
vehicle
should
have
been
gone
because
it
doesn't
meet
the
standard
and
there's
lots
of
other
people
that
get
bylaw
infraction
notices
and
it's
enforced?
But
I
don't
understand
why
it's
not
being
done
for
this
property.
That
vehicle
should
have
been
gone
two
years
ago
and
so
I'm
yeah
I'm,
worried
about
the
sunlight
and
I.
Do
think
that
the
provincial
policy
statement
also
does
talk
about
Heritage
neighborhoods
like
we've
got
Kingston
is
a
Heritage
Town.
X
We've
got
two
berryfield
Villages
now
Incorporated
in
Kingston,
where
I
live,
is
the
1700s
right?
It's
part
of
the
Crawford
purchase.
So
these
this
is
a
section
of
town
that
people
come
to
Kingston
to
see.
We
are
a
tourist
town
and
we
have
to
be
very
careful
about
these.
Older
neighborhoods
and
intensification
is
fine.
Additional
lots
are
fine,
but
not
too
much,
and
this
with
eight
with.
Q
A
A
S
S
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
put
my
two
dips
in
and
my
my
concern
really
is
for
the
neighborhood,
which
is
a
quiet
neighborhood,
and
that
little
Herbert
Street,
which
is
little,
has
a
constant
stream
of
mothers,
pushing
prams
and
people
walking
their
dogs
and
people
cycling
there,
and
this
is
going
to
change
the
whole
atmosphere
for
danger
for
people
driving
out
of
that
property.
If
it
is
built-
and
that
is
my
concern-
I
mean
I
love,
the
neighborhood
I
think
it's
it's
just
Priceless
and
it's
part
of
the
heritage
of
Kingston.
S
Y
Z
Fantastic,
thank
you,
so
I
live
at
58
Hatter
and
my
driveway
goes
out
on
Herbert
Street
I'm.
The
only
other
driveway
on
this
on
this
very
tiny,
Street
and
I
have
a
number
of
concerns,
including
with
what
Tim
said
in
the
description
of
things.
He
said
there
weren't
concerns
from
the
neighbors,
but
there
was
an
incredible
amount
of
disagreement
with
the
application
for
237
Moet
and
the
the
current
counselor
also
said.
Z
That
he's
encountered
a
lot
of
comments
when
he
was
doing
canvassing
around
people
not
being
happy
with
the
existing
multi-unit
dwelling
and
the
parking
lot,
and
even
with
the
changes
it
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
there's
a
parking
lot
at
the
front
of
237
Moet
Avenue,
the
the
property
is
already
well
beyond
the
capacity
for
a
residential
dwelling.
By
severing
it
and
I
I
listened
to
the
Lisa
Capper
casing.
Z
So
I
don't
understand
when
you
already
have
eight
dwelling
units
on
a
property,
why
we
would
be
allowing
a
severance
when
there
wasn't
actually
even
sufficient
space
to
provide
that
Severance
like
it
would
be
one
thing
if
the
yard
to
to
begin
with
had
sufficient
space
to
accommodate
the
setbacks
required
for
a
multi-dwelling
unit,
but
they
don't
so
another
thing.
I
I
took
issue
with
what,
with
what
Tim
said
is
it
has
fire
and
rescue
been
brought
in
and
asked
that
if
the
property
was
severed,
an
offense
was
put
up?
Z
Would
they
be
able
to
get
to
the
tenants
who
are
on
the
north
side
of
the
building,
as
well
as
at
the
back
of
the
building?
There
is
no
laneway
in
this
area
and
the
the
eager
for
the
people
at
the
back
in
an
emergency
would
be
jumping
someone
else's
six
foot
fence
and
escaping
through
their
yard.
So
that
doesn't
sound
like
a
a
very
suitable
plan
to
me.
So
I'd
like
to
see
a
little
more
investigation
into
that.
Z
Tim
also
said
that
they
don't
look
at
precedence,
but
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
precedent.
There
are
reason
why
we
allow
intensification
in
some
situations
and
not
others,
and
in
this
case
I
find
it
highly
unusual
that
we
are
severing
looking
at
severing
a
yard
in
which
we've
eliminated
the
the
required
setbacks
to
allow
that
severance
and
where
the
overall
property
is
already
well
over.
The
allowance
for
for
the
dwelling
units
on
two
properties
and
I
think
that's
something
that
the
committee
of
adjustments
needs
to
take
into
consideration.
Z
I
also
want
to
note
that
Mr
nukis
does
not
follow
existing
bylaws
around
his
commercial
vehicle.
He
does
not
live
at
that
home,
yet
he
Parks
his
residential
truck
there
and
trailer,
which
seems
to
be
above
the
allowances.
He
knows
that
that's
been
a
concern
for
neighbors
for
a
long
time.
He
also
perks
that
truck
and
trailer
in
spaces
that
create
a
great
deal
of
unsafety,
for
others
like
in
t-junctions
and
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
the
fire
hydrants.
A
A
K
U
Siobhan
had
had
noted
or
had
inquired
about
whether
we'd
looked
at
the
amount
of
Green
Space
for
237,
moat
Street
and
the
landscaped
open
space
is,
was
calculated
to
be
approximately
47
for
the
multi-unit.
That's
well
over
what
most
I
would
say.
Typically
you're,
going
to
ask
for
about
40
for
a
multi-unit
blowing
landscape
open
space,
so
it
is
in
keeping
with
a
typical
amount
in
the
zoning
biology
requested
for
for
a
multi-unit
and
I
think
for
a
single
it's
35.
U
U
U
A
H
U
T
Through
your
chair
yeah,
so
the
city
runs
on
a
complaint-driven
basis.
So
if
we
receive
a
complaint
in
regards
to
a
commercial
vehicle
or
a
legal
parking,
a
a
ticket
would
be
open
and
a
bylaw
officer
would
go
out
on
site
and
assess
assess
what
is
happening
there
I'm
unaware
at
this
time,
if,
if
there's
any
existing
or
Open
tickets
for
the
site,
but
again,
if
there's
any
illegal
parking
going
on
it,
it
is
up
to
the
residents
to
to
contact
us
and
to
voice
their
concerns.
T
L
Thanks
and
through
you,
chair,
I
do
just
want
to
add
a
couple
more
points
to
what's
been
said
and
raise
tonight.
So,
looking
at
the
questions
and
building
off
what
Miss
Ross
has
said,
if
you
look
at
exhibit
just
if
you
want
to
familiarize
yourself
exhibit
H
in
the
report
is
the
site
plan
for
the
retain
parcel
that
would
be
the
apartment
building.
If
you
look
at
the
top
side
of
the
apartment
building,
there
is
the
part
that
is
further
away
from
the
lot
line
as
you
head
towards
the
right
on
the
drawing.
L
It
gets
a
little
bit
more
narrow
and
it
is
like
a
gray
Cobblestone
area.
That's
the
walkway
to
the
back
of
the
building.
That
demonstrates
that
the
building
is
1.5
meters
set
back
from
the
lot
line
and
then
there's
almost
like
a
brown
section
at
the
very
right
hand,
side
of
the
building.
Those
are
stairs
that
step
up
back
to
the
board.
L
Thinking
ahead
as
well
to
the
Heritage
aspect
of
the
neighborhood,
so
this
building
isn't
adjacent
to
any
listed
or
designated
buildings
adjacent
means
a
contiguous
lot
line,
which
would
then
trigger
a
Heritage
impact
statement.
There
are
buildings
within
the
area
that
have
Heritage
significance,
but
there
was
no
trigger
for
that
additional
review.
L
Looking
towards
the
aspect
of
enforcement,
so
a
planning
act,
application
is
an
Omnibus
way
is
not
an
Omnibus
way
to
solve
all
matters
of
a
property.
So
we
have
spoken
with
the
individual
before
about
speaking
to
enforcement,
should
they
wish
to
have
the
commercial
vehicle
looked
at
additionally,
I,
don't
know
if
that
conversation
has
happened
or
not,
but
that
would
be
the
appropriate
mechanism
to
follow
up
and
then
in
terms
of
fit
with
the
neighborhood.
L
If
we
look
at
exhibits,
I
think
this
is
the
one
that
displays
it
the
best
it's
the
official
plan
schedule
that
would
be
exhibit
sorry
they're,
not
all
labeled
exhibit
d.
It's
a
big
yellow
map
in
your
package.
If
you
look
around
the
neighborhood
on
either
side
of
Herbert
Street
on
the
North
side,
you
have
a
257
Moet,
seven
Herbert
and
58
hater
Street,
hater
Hatter,
mad
I
just
was
corrected.
It's
the
Mad
Hatter
Hatter
street
right.
L
Those
three
lots
follow
a
very
similar
pattern
of
development
as
to
what's
being
proposed
here
on
the
south
side
of
the
street,
with
243
Moet.
What
is
to
B6
Herbert
and
then
48,
Hatter,
Street
and
looking
up
mode
as
well.
The
261
MOA
there's
a
larger
parcel
there
too.
So
this
proposal
is
in
keeping
with
the
fabric
of
the
neighborhood
by
proposing
a
Zone
compliance
single
detached
drawing
for
the
zone.
That
would
be
there.
Okay,.
L
Yeah
through
you,
chair,
neighborhoods,
are
always
changing
every
single
detached
dwelling
within
this
area
and
row
dwelling
and
semi-detached
trial
and
can
actually
have
up
to
three
units
now
in
accordance
with
the
city's
zoning
bylaw,
because
we
do
allow
for
second
residential
units
and
third
residential
units
in
a
detached
accessory
building
at
the
rear,
subject
to
all
the
applicable
Zone
Provisions.
We
don't
see
the
addition
of
one
new
lot
here
to
accommodate
another
single
detached
dwelling
as
upending
or
destroying
the
fabric
of
this
neighborhood.
L
A
L
Yeah
through
you,
the
parking
issue
out
front
of
the
building
is
an
interesting
one.
We
do
have
policies
within
the
official
plan
which
contemplate
scenarios
where
we
can
be
supportive
of
front
yard
parking.
This
front
yard
parking
area
has
existed
but
will
be
amended
and
modified
as
approved
if
this
application
is
approved
tonight
because
of
the
requirements
for
those
streetscape
improvements
between
the
building
of
the
multi-unit
building
and
the
roadway,
so
they
specifically
have
to
implement
the
improvements
to
that
front
yard
area
in
order
to
gain
the
certificate
of
officials.
A
L
Herbert
Street
will
definitely
be
large
enough
to
accommodate
a
single
detached
dwelling.
We
don't
have
any
minimum
unit
sizes
in
the
new
zoning
Viola.
We
have
done
away
with
that
regressive
policy
in
all
of
our
new
zoning
bylaws.
With
regards
to
237
the
moment
even
accommodating
one
parking
space
per
dwelling
unit,
the
parking
area
and
the
building
itself
in
the
drawing
that's
specifically
appended
to
the
application.
A
L
L
Thanks
and
through
you
chair,
this
is
a
really
interesting
one
when
the
application
originally
came
in.
What
really
predicated
the
need
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
was
the
fact
that
they
were
proposing
for
townhouse
style
units
on
six
Herbert
Street.
Okay,
this
property
enjoys
legal
non-conforming
status
because
of
when
it
was
billed.
L
So
if
the
original
application
didn't
start
with
that
proposal,
I
would
have
directed
the
applicants
to
apply
for
a
consent
in
minor
variants,
because,
even
when
you
sever
off
a
parcel
from
something
that's
legal
non-conforming,
the
existing
property
doesn't
lose
its
status
as
a
legal
non-conforming
status.
So
what
we
could
have
actually
done
is
apply
to
minor
variants,
to
reduce
the
interior
side
yard
setback,
which
was
ultimately
approved
through
a
zoning
bylaw
Amendment
and
conditioned
The
Works
to
happen
in
that
front
yard
through
that
process
as
well,
and
then
just
sever
off
the
existing
parcel.
L
A
And
this
final
one
really
touched
a
new
with
me:
I
did
drive
by
the
property
today
to
get
a
good
close.
Look
at
the
commercial
vehicle
parked
out
front,
I
mean
which
one
of
these
doesn't
go
with
the
other.
It
completely
doesn't
belong.
What's
the
story
on
that,
I
mean
the
comment:
was
the
commercial
vehicle
is
not
even
related
to
the
building?
Apparently
they
don't
even
live
there
like.
What
do
we
allow
that.
L
Through
you
chair,
where
someone
has
their
own
business
or
works
for
a
company
they're
allowed
to
park
their
own
vehicle
within
their
own
driveway,
if
that
is
their
company
vehicle.
So
if
someone
works
for
Wentworth
Landscaping,
it
has
a
Wentworth
Landscaping
truck.
They
can
park
that
in
their
driveway,
because
that
is
their
vehicle
of
choice.
We'll
have
to
take
a
look
in
an
enforcement
manner
to
deal
with
this
truck,
which
seems
to
be
lingering,
even
though
I
don't
know.
L
A
Thank
you
and
if
I
get
understand
this
correctly,
when
I
look
at
the
new
plans,
new
site
plan
that
driveway
that
the
truck
is
currently
on
now
is
going
to
be
eliminated.
Correct,
it's
going
to
be
seated
over
intrigued,
so
nobody
can
park
there
is
that
well,
I
mean
reading
that
I
see
Carolyn,
that's
okay,
yeah.
L
A
F
H
A
A
A
There
I
mean
I
owned,
another
property
just
around
the
corner,
on
Young
Street
and
so
I'm
familiar
with
the
area
quite
intimately
and
I
just
see
this
as
being
a
a
good
example
of
good
planning,
so
I
think
staff
they've
done
a
good
job.
Certainly
you
know,
and
Carolyn
you've
done
a
great
job
as
well.
A
A
C
T
T
As
you
can
see,
the
subject
property
is
adjacent
to
residential
dwellings.
This
is
a
newer
area
of
of
Kingston
in
Cataract,
going
north
or
karaoke
West.
Sorry,
and
the
majority
of
the
houses
here
are
Bungalows.
The
the
properties
along
Frank
Street
happen
to
be
a
little
lower
than
the
properties
on
Kendall
Avenue.
So
this
subject,
property
actually
has
almost
a
walkout
basement.
T
If,
if
you
stand
back
there-
and
actually
you
can
see
in
the
photos
that
are
upcoming,
how
the
grade
actually
changes,
the
the
main
level
extends
quite
a
ways
from
from
finished
grade
in
the
rear
yard.
So
it
appears
that
it's
quite
an
elevated
deck,
but
that
is
only
as
a
result
of
of
degrading
itself.
So
next
slide
here,
please
so
the
variants
that
we're
looking
at
is
the
minimum
rear
setback.
T
The
requirement
is
six
meters,
so
the
house
does
comply
with
the
the
six
meter
setback.
However,
the
the
sun
room,
which
is
considered
an
addition,
regardless
of
it
being
heated
or
non-heated,
we
look
at
a
room
that
is
going
to
be
enclosed
as
an
addition
to
the
dwelling,
and
this
is
if
it's,
if
it's
a
roof
structure
with
Windows
or
screens.
T
So
this
is
an
aerial
photo
or
an
aerial,
drawing
type
of
thing,
and
you
can
see
in
the
photograph
what
I
meant
by
almost
a
walkout
basement.
The
elevation
where
the
deck
is
located
is
right
along
the
header
of
where
the
main
floor
is
so.
You
could
tell
there
there's
actually
quite
a
bit
of
drop
from
the
front
of
the
house
to
the
rear
of
the
house,
the
site
plan
itself.
You
could
see
the
area
of
the
proposed
unheated
sunroom.
T
T
T
So
notice
of
the
public
meeting
was
provided
by
advertisement
in
the
form
of
signs
posted
on
subject
property
10
days
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
a
total
number
of
50
Property
Owners.
According
to
the
last
assessment
role
within
60
meters
of
the
property
here
and
a
courtesy
notice
was
placed
in
the
Kingston
wig
standard
next
slide.
T
I
do
want
to
note
that
we
did
receive
one
piece
of
Correspondence
from
a
neighbor
and
their
concerns
were
in
regards
to
compliance
with
the
setbacks
and
how
they
feel
that
any
new
development
should
be
complying
with
the
existing
setbacks
because
of
the
smaller
rear
yards
and
the
development
that's
currently
there.
The
comments
were
provided
to
the
applicant
and
also
provided
to
the
committee
members
prior
to
this
meeting
as
well
too.
T
So
the
recommendation,
the
question
variance,
maintains
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
both
the
city
of
Kingston
Fisher
plan
and
Zoning
bylaw
202262
The
Proposal
is
desirable
for
the
appropriate
development
or
use
of
the
land
building
or
structure,
and
the
requested
variance
is
minor
in
nature.
As
such,
the
proposed
application
meets
all
four
tests
under
subsection
45
1
of
the
planning
Act
and
the
application
is
being
recommended
for
approval
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions.
I
leave
this
in
your
hands
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thanks.
A
AA
I
was
just
curious,
I've
never
gone
to
him
like
this
before
I
was
speaking
and
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
you
people
and
to
the
planning
department,
who
were
outrageously
helpful
for
me,
I,
don't
understand
a
lot
of
things
like
this
I
worked
in
medicine.
My
whole
life
I
never
dealt
anything
like
this.
AA
The
last
thing
there
was
a
man
named
Chris
and
Tim,
and
then
the
head
of
the
Department's
Chris.
He
came
down
and
spoke
with
me.
They
all
took
their
time
their
fantastic,
regardless
of
the
outcome.
I.
Thank
you
and
I.
Thank
them,
but
what's
confusing
to
me,
was
Chris
sat
down
with
me
at
the
at
the
planning
department
and
said
that
the
existing
deck
was
permitted
and
we're
building
inside
the
deck,
and
the
only
reason
I
want
this
deck
is
I.
AA
AA
Quite
confused
as
to
why
I
got
a
bad
letter,
but,
like
I,
say
everybody
has
a
voice
and
I'd
like
to
hear
everything
I
like
to
have
it
explained
to
me:
I
understand
everything
but
I'm
just
confused
as
to
why
the
engineers
said
that
it
was
being
built
on
a
permitted
structure.
I'm,
not
arguing
anything
I'm,
not
trying
to
fight
or
be
you
know,
invoke
any
bad
feelings,
but
my
neighbors,
who
I've
talked
to
are
all
very
happy
for
me.
I've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
the
house.
AA
I've
come
to
Kingston,
I
retired
back
here.
I
was
I,
grew
up
here
and
all
my
neighbors
have
said
the
same
thing.
The
rental
was
a
horror.
The
property
management
did
not
do
their
jobs.
I
only
found
out
about
this
I
did
Rectify
everything
that
the
neighbors
had
complained
about.
I
built,
Lawns,
I,
built
fence,
I,
put
up,
Gates
I
I,
put
up
railings
on
the
front
potty
where
there
were
none
all
the
neighbors
spoke
to
me.
AA
What
problems
they
had
I
went
and
did
everything
as
soon
as
I
could
and
spent
a
bundle
on
this
I
just
want
to
keep
everybody
in
the
neighborhood
happy
I
love
my
neighborhood
I
love,
my
neighbors.
We
got
along
fantastic
and
with
her
without
a
sunroom
I'm,
not
moving,
but
that
just
limits
what
I
can
do
as
her
conditions.
Okay
and
I'm
really
hoping
people
understand
that.
A
Okay,
great
well,
thanks
for
that,
okay,
so
committee
members,
do
you
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff
I'm,
seeing
none
so
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting?
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
this
evening
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
1445
Kendall
Avenue?
Please
raise
your
yep
head
and
Sir.
If
you
want
to
come
up
to
the
third
chair
closest
to
you
and
just
yep,
that's
fine
and
tap
the
button
and
just
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
H
My
name
is
Michelle
lordki
I'm
on
my
address
is
1449
Kendall,
Avenue,
okay
and
it
will
be
short.
I
was
just
coming
here
to
be
in
support
of
the
variants
of
1445
and
the
reason
why
it
doesn't
do
anything
you
know
like
to
disturb
the
environment.
You
know
like
no
trees
are
being
attacked,
the
grass
is
staying
there
and
everything
and
it's
a
upgrade
the
value
of
the
houses
in
the
area
and
also
the
appearance.
You
know
like
of
all
the
backyard
and
everything
okay.
A
Great
thanks
very
much
good.
Okay.
Do
we
have
any
other
members
of
the
public
with
us
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
1445,
Kendall
Avenue
and
there's
nobody
in
the
gallery
and
no
okay,
everybody's
shaking
their
heads?
No
so
I'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
come
back
to
the
committee
for
yeah,
so
moved
by
Blaine
and
seconded
by
Vincent
any
discussion.
A
C
Y
Thank
you
and
through
the
chair,
my
name
is
Sarah,
and
this
is
a
minor
variance
application
for
636
McDonald
Street.
The
purpose
and
effect
of
this
application
is
to
replace
the
existing
covered
or
uncovered
front
porch
and
exterior
stairs
with
a
new
covered
front,
porch
and
exterior
set
of
stairs
next
size.
Please.
Y
Y
A
variance
is
required
to
replace
the
existing
non-compliant
uncovered
front,
porch
and
exterior
stairs
with
a
new
covered
front
porch
and
uncovered
exterior
stairs
as
the
existing
front.
Porch
does
not
meet
the
minimum
front.
Setback
for
a
porch,
the
new
front
porch
would
be
the
same
length
and
width
as
the
existing
porch.
However,
it
will
be
covered
with
a
roof,
so
a
variance
is
required
to
put
to
facilitate
the
proposal.
Y
The
variance
requested
is
1.1
meters.
Next
slide,
please
shown
here
is
a
site
plan,
drawing
that
shows
the
proposed
4x8
foot
front
porch
and
a
5
by
10
front
foot
roof
and
his
own
compliant
exterior
stairs.
Their
current
proposal
only
includes
the
front
porch
and
does
not
include
the
rear
Edition,
as
shown
on
the
site
plan.
Y
The
owner
is
looking
into
doing
that
at
a
later
time,
but
does
not
wish
to
include
it
in
this
proposal
next
slide,
please,
the
elevation
showed
the
e-spacing
covered
front,
porch
and
exterior
stairs
again,
as
mentioned
on
the
previous
Slide.
The
application
does
not
include
any
rear
Edition.
So
just
look
at
the
parts
highlighted
in
red
next
slide.
Please.
Y
Y
Y
The
Proposal
meets
all
course
tests
under
the
planning
act
and
it's
being
recommended
by
staff
for
approval,
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions,
in
exhibit
a
I
believe
that
the
owner
of
Sam
Brown
is
here
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
this
application
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
as
well.
Thank
you
great.
Q
A
Oh
any
questions
at
all
any
questions
for
the
applicant.
No,
no
for
me,
okay
and
so
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
to
speak,
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
636
mcdonell
Street,
raise
your
hand,
there's
nobody
in
the
Gallery,
so
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
course
in
the
meeting
and
come
back
to
the
committee
for
motion
so
moved
by
Greg
seconded
by
Paul
any
discussion,
it's
all
in
favor,
raise
your
physical
hands
and
that
is
unanimously
carried.
Thank
you.
Thank.
Q
A
Y
During
the
history
to
expand
the
existing
single
detached
one
and
a
half
story
house
through
the
construction
of
a
second
story,
a
two-story
Edition
a
covered
front,
porch
and
uncovered
set
of
stairs
an
exterior
door
and
a
company
set
upstairs
on
the
south
elevation
and
an
uncovered
Earth
and
two
uncovered
rear
decks.
Next
slide.
Please,
the
subject:
property
is
located
on
Helen
Street,
which
is
north
of
Mack
street
and
south
of
Caruthers
Avenue,
with
Compton
Park,
located
just
north
east
of
the
property,
as
shown
on
the
images
on
the
slide.
Y
Y
Shown
here
is
the
site
plan,
drawing
which
is
also
included
in
exhibit
F
of
the
report.
The
site
plan
shows
the
addition
of
two
rear
decks:
a
covered
front
porch
and
uncovered
exterior
stairs
the
exterior
stairs
and
Landing
to
the
South
and
a
328
square
foot
rear
Edition
next
slide,
please
so.
Here's
the
East
Elevation,
which
details
the
Second
Story
Edition
the
covered
front
porch
and
uncovered
exterior
stairs.
This
elevation
also
indicates
the
extent
of
the
current
house
in
dark
gray.
Y
It's
a
little
bit
tricky
to
see
on
the
slide,
but
hopefully
you
can
tell
just
a
little
bit
taller
on
the
roof
there.
Next
slide,
please
shown
here
on
the
south.
Elevation
is
the
Second
Story
Edition
the
rear,
two-story
Edition
covered
front
porch
and
stairs
South
exterior
stairs
of
landing
and
rear
deck.
So
this
slime
more
clearly
shows
the
difference
in
the
extent
of
the
current
house
in
dark
gray.
Y
The
U.S
elevation
shows
the
Second
Story
Edition,
the
two-story
rear
Edition
index,
and
the
elevation
also
shows
the
current
house
in
dark
gray.
Next
slide.
Please,
the
north
elevation
shows
the
Second
Story
Edition,
the
rear,
two-story
Edition
again,
and
the
rest
of
the
elements
in
the
back.
This
elevation
also
shows
the
extending
current
the
current
house
in
Darkrai
as
well.
Next
slide.
Please
right
here
are
the
floor
plans.
Y
These
are
which
would
be
proposed,
so
this
would
be
for
the
main
floor,
the
second
floor
and
the
basement,
and
they
detail
the
proposed
changes
to
the
dwelling,
which
would
remain
a
single
detached
house,
but
these
changes
would
increase
the
interior
living
space
and
the
functional
outdoor
amenity
area
on
the
property
for
the
current
residents
next
slide.
Please.
Y
Two
signs
were
posted
on
the
property
and
42
notices
were
mailed
out
and
an
ad
was
placed
in
the
Kingston
week
standard.
No
comments
have
been
received
regarding
this
application.
Thanks
I,
please,
The
Proposal
meets
all
four
tests
under
the
planning
act
and
is
being
recommended
by
staff
for
approval,
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions,
in
exhibit
a
I
believe
that
the
applicant
Ashley
Osmar
from
NBS
Design
Group,
is
here
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
application,
as
well
as
I,
am
to
thank
you
so
much.
A
A
A
AB
I
Q
Y
So,
just
to
clarify
there
are
no
variances
being
requested
for
the
height
of
the
building
nor
the
building
depth.
So
the
only
variances
that
are
being
requested
are
for
the
exterior
setback,
which
would
be
for
the
building,
as
well
as
the
porch
and
the
decks,
and
the
the
rest
of
the
structure
would
be
zoned
to
apply
it.
Y
So
staff
are
not
concerned
because,
basically,
the
rest
of
the
structure
is
completely
Zone
compliant
and
it
would
be
along
the
line
of
the
existing
house.
So
visually
speaking,
it
would
not
not
be
too
distinct
from
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
what
we
could
Zone
compliant
as
of
right.
Okay,.
L
Yeah,
thanks
and
through
YouTube,
just
to
build
off
what
Ms
walderberger's
been
saying.
The
variances
before
you
tonight
don't
really
change
the
building
envelope.
The
existing
the
exterior
side
yard
setback
is
existing
they're,
just
expanding
along
that
exact
same
line
and
every
other
Home
in
the
neighborhood
does
have
the
ability
to
expand
up
to
have
a
two-story
building.
So
the
zoning
in
this
area
isn't
specific
to
the
one
one
and
a
half
story
structure
that
there
is.
So
there
is
a
natural
Evolution
that
can
happen
in
this
neighborhood.
Given
the
existing
Zone
standards.
AB
A
Thanks
committee
members,
any
other
questions
of
the
applicant
or
staff
I
see
none.
So
I'll
go
to
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us?
There
are
none
so
I'll
bypass
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
come
back
to
the
committee
for
emotion,
so
moved
by
Greg
and
seconded
by
Blaine
any
discussion
so
all
in
favor
raise
your
physical
hand
and
that
is
unanimously
carried.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
AC
For
9
Edward,
Riley,
Drive,
monteverance
application
type
can
I,
please
represent
the
fact
of
the
minor
variance
application
is
to
request
relief
from
the
requirements
regarding
the
rear
yard
setback,
provision
to
construct
a
one-story,
three-season
sun
room
addition
resulting
new
rear
yard.
Three
season:
sunroom
editions
will
be
10.78
square
meters
in
size
and
complies
with
all
minimum
height
landscape
landscape,
open
space
requirements.
AC
AC
So
he
is
located
in
Cataract
right,
North
subdivision.
It
would
be
today,
east
of
Centennial
and
west
of
Road
and
just
north
of
prince
princess
street
right
in
the
middle
next
slide.
Please.
So
this
is
I
plan.
917
is
the
main
structure
in
the
picture
and
the
rear
yard.
Edition
preseason
sun
room
is
noted
on
the
drawing
below
next
slide.
Please
requested
variance,
maintains
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
city
of
Kingston
official.
AC
Zoning
by
law,
number
2022-c2,
The
Proposal
is
desirable
for
their
appropriate
development
or
use
of
the
land
building
or
structure
and
requested
variances
as
a
minor
in
nature.
As
such,
the
proposal
application
meets
all
four
tests
under
subsection
45
and
one
of
the
planning
Act
and
the
application
is
being
recommended
for
approval
subjects
of
the
proposed
conditions.
Approval
of
this
application
will
prevent
the
construction
of
a
rear
yard,
three-season
sunroom
Edition.
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
also
important
to
note.
There
was
no
public
comments
received
through
the
planning
department,
great.
K
A
Thanks
very
much
committee
members,
you
have
any
questions
for
Mr,
Ahmed
and
I,
see
none
so
I'll
turn
to
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
917
Edward
Riley
drive
and
we
have
no
members
of
the
public
President,
also
I'll
bypass
that
income
right
to
the
committee
for
a
motion
moved
by
Blaine
and
seconded
by
Vincent
any
discussion.
A
A
C
AC
For
you,
Mr
chair,
that
was
an
application.
Minor
variance
application
for
30
Stanley
Street
next
slide.
Please
represent
effects
of
the
minor
variance
application
is
to
request
relief
from
the
requirements
regarding
the
minimum
front
yard
setback
and
exterior
stairs
in
other
Zone
setback
requirements
to
construct
a
front
yard
addition
with
new
stairs
the
resulting
new
front
yard
addition
with
stairs
will
be
3.5
square
meters
in
size
and
complies
with
all
minimum
height
and
Landscape
open
space
requirements.
Next
slide,
please
so
there's
two
minor
variants
being
requested
here:
one
is
for
the
stairs.
AC
The
variance
Number
One
requirement
is
0.5
meters
from
the
lot
line
proposed
to
zero
meters,
and
the
variance
requested
is
0.5
meters.
Second
variance
is
for
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
requirement
is
1.9
meters.
The
pros
is
1.4
meters.
The
variance
preset
is
0.77
meters
next
slide,
please
so
30
Stanley
Street
is
to
the
west
of
Division
Street
and
to
the
east
of
the
memorial
Center
just
right
about
in
the
middle.
There
next
slide
please.
AC
So
this
is
my
plan
associated
with
30
Stanley
Street
minor
variants
in
the
dark
black
coloring.
It's
the
Edition
and
it's
3.5
square
meters
in
size
and
the
stairs
also
in
the
front.
It's
also
important
to
note
the
stairs
do
encroach
onto
city
property.
The
engineering
department
has
been
circulated
and
the
notice
of
decisions
as
reflect
that
they
will
need
an
encroachment
permit
through
the
building
permit
process.
AC
They've
noted
no
concerns
about
that
next
slide.
Please
requested
variance,
maintains
a
general
intent
and
purpose
of
both
the
city
of
Kingston
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaws
number
in
22
2022-62
The
Proposal
is
desirable
for
the
appropriate
development
or
use
of
the
land
building
or
structure
and
requesting
variances
is
minor
in
nature.
As
such,
the
proposal
application
meets
all
four
tests
with
subsectional
45,
one
of
the
planning
act
and
applications
being
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions.
Approval
of
the
application
will
permit
the
construction
of
a
front-carat
Edition,
the
stairs
30
Stanley
Street.
A
A
Thank
you,
committee
members,
do
you
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff?
Can
I
see
none?
So
we'll
look
at
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting?
Is
anybody
with
us
this
evening
to
speak
to
30,
Stanley
Street
and
we
have
no
members
of
the
public,
so
I'll
bypass
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
come
back
to
the
committee
members
for
emotion,
moved
by
Greg
and
seconded
by
Blaine
any
discussion
all
in
favor
raise
your
physical
hands
and
that's
unanimously
carried
thanks.
Mr
Nelson.
A
C
W
Hello
good
evening,
good
evening,
chair
members
of
the
committee
staff
and
members
of
the
public,
a
permission
application
has
been
received
for
42
Lower
Union
streets.
The
purpose
and
effect
of
this
application
is
to
request
permission
to
construct
a
front
Dormer
shed
and
a
rear
Dormer
shed
onto
the
roof
of
the
existing
dwelling.
Next
slide.
Please
subject:
property
is
located
on
lands
that
are
not
subject
to
the
New
Kingston
zoning
bylaw
2022-62
as
such,
the
application
will
only
be
considered
through
the
site-specific
b-179
Zone
under
zoning
bylaw
8499.
W
This
site-specific
Zone
indicates
that
consent
is
required
from
Council
or
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
make
any
alterations
to
the
existing
building.
As
the
proposed
Dormer
sheds
are
considered
an
alteration
to
the
existing
dwelling.
A
permission
application
is
required
next
slide.
Please
subject:
property
is
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
and
is
within
the
old
sydenum
Heritage
Conservation
District
Heritage
approval
is
necessary
prior
to
altering
the
property
on
June
7
2022
Council
approved
a
Heritage
permit
for
the
proposed
rear
Dormer
shed
only
a
separate
Heritage
application
for
the
front.
W
Dormer
is
currently
in
review
and
requires
Council
approval.
The
Heritage
permit
is
anticipated
to
be
presented
to
Council
on
December
6
2022
and
the
owner
applicant
is
required
to
obtain
a
council
approval
for
the
Heritage
permit
for
the
front
Dormer.
This
has
been
included
in
a
condition,
as
indicated
in
exhibits.
A
of
this
report
next
slide.
Please
subject:
property
is
located
near
Ontario,
streets
and
Gore
streets.
W
Please,
the
subject:
property
is
designated
residential
in
the
official
plan
and
the
site,
as
I've
mentioned,
is
located
on
lands
that
are
not
subject
to
zoning
bylaw
2022-62
the
site
is
located
within
a
site-specific
b-179
three
to
six
family
dwelling,
Zone
inserting
bylaw
8499,
and
it
should
be
noted
that
there
are
no
Zone
that
there
are
no
Dormer
Provisions
contained
within
three
to
six
family
dwelling
b-zone
or
the
site-specific
b-179.
Zone
next
slide,
please.
W
W
Notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
a
total
number
of
18
properties
within
60
meters
of
the
subject.
Property
notice
was
placed
in
the
Kingston
wig
standard
and,
to
date
no
correspondence
has
been
received
next
slide.
Please
requested
application,
for
permission
is
consistent
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
both
the
city
of
Kingston
official
plan
and
Zoning
bylaw
8499,
and
for
post-construction
of
the
Dormer
sheds
onto
the
existing
dwelling
represents
appropriate
and
desirable
developments
of
the
subject
property.
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval
and
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions.
W
A
G
G
I
guess
just
we
considering,
we
want
to
move
back,
and
so
we
kind
of
moved
away
in
our
mid-20s
to
work,
and
now
we
want
to
move
back
and
the
Dormers
we
bought
into
Sydney
Ward,
because
we
wanted
we
just
loved
the
area
and
we
want
to
make
a
little
it's
a
one
of
those
Cottage
ones.
So
it's
not
super
large.
So
we
just
want
to
admit
some
extra
room
to
you
know,
so
our
kids
can
come
back
and
visit,
hopefully
or
our
grandkids
at
one
day,
potentially,
okay,.
A
Great
stuff,
all
right
committee
members,
you
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff
I,
see
none
so
I'll
look
to
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
42
Lower
Union
Street,
and
there
are
none
in
the
gallery,
so
I'll
bypass
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
call
for
a
motion.
So
it's
moved
by
Vincent
and
seconded
by
Blaine,
Vincent's
and
then
Blaine
and
any
discussion
I,
don't
see
any
sole
in
favor,
raise
your
physical
hands
and
that
is
unanimously
carried.
A
C
A
V
Thank
you
through
the
chair.
The
purpose
and
effect
of
this
application
is
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
and
minimum
water
body
setback
of
the
Kingston
zoning
bylaw
to
permit
the
enclosure
of
a
portion
of
a
second
story:
elevated
rear
deck
for
use
as
a
three-season
sun
room
at
4016,
Bath
Road
next
slide.
Please.
V
So
the
property
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
Bath
Road
along
the
shoreline
of
Collins
Bay.
It's
currently
developed
with
a
single
detached
house.
The
existing
dwelling
has
a
walk-out
basement
at
the
rear,
with
a
small
sun
room
at
grade
which
will
be
retained,
the
property's
designated
residential
and
it's
located
in
the
ur-1a
zone
of
the
Kingston
zoning
bylaw,
the
properties
adjacent
to
single,
detached
dwellings
to
the
East
and
the
West
next
slide.
Please,
these
images
illustrate
the
location
of
the
Second
Story
rear
deck
and
a
covered
area
proposed
to
be
enclosed.
V
The
elevated
deck
received
a
previous
minor
variance
approval
in
2021
for
relief
from
zoning
bylaw
7626.
In
effect
at
that
time,
since
this
approval,
the
owner
decided
that
they
wish
to
enclose
the
area
shaded
in
Black
for
a
three
season
sunroom,
which
does
require
relief
from
the
Kingston
zoning
bylaw.
V
It's
important
to
highlight
that
the
sun
room
will
not
project
closer
to
the
rear
of
the
property
or
the
water
than
the
existing
at
grade
sun
room
that
was
shown
on
the
previous
slide
and
I
wanted
to
highlight
also
that
the
dimensions
and
the
support
design
of
the
elevated
deck
have
not
changed.
The
building
area
is
subject
to
the
minimum,
rear
yard
setback
requirements
for
the
main
building,
which
is
7.5
meters
in
the
UR
one
zone
and
a
greater
setback
than
is
required
for
an
elevated
deck.
V
In
addition,
since
the
2021
minor
variants
was
approved,
the
Kingston
zoning
bylaws
come
into
effect,
and
it
includes
a
30
meter,
minimum
setback
from
a
water
body
to
protect
the
ribbon
of
life
in
accordance
with
the
official
plan.
Next
slide,
please
so
these
elevations
there's
at
the
top
there's
the
elevated
deck
that
was
previously
approved
with
a
covered
area
and
Below.
There's
an
elevation
illustrating
the
enclosed
portion
under
the
roof
as
part
of
this
application
next
slide.
Please.
V
There's
these
are
the
two
variances
required
and
with
respect
to
the
second
variance
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
the
proposal
upholds
the
policy
objectives
in
3.9.2
of
the
official
plan
for
the
ribbon
of
life,
including
objectives
such
as
minimizing
soil
erosion
staff
and
the
conservation.
Authority
have
reviewed
the
proposal
and
similar
to
their
conclusion,
with
respect
to
the
2021
variance
they've
released
so
sunroom
is,
is
not
anticipated
to
have
any
impact
on
the
overall
health
of
the
shoreline
ecosystem.
Next
slide.
Please.
V
The
staff
recommendation
is
summarized
here:
the
application
meets
the
four
tests
of
a
minor
variance
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report.
The
application
will
provide
for
additional
amenity
for
the
single
detached
house
on
the
property,
without
resulting
in
any
adverse
effects
on
the
waterfront
or
adjacent
properties.
V
A
A
Okay,
thanks
very
much
committee
members,
you
have
any
questions
for
Mr,
Somerville
or
staff
and
I
see
a
bunch
of
no
shaking
heads,
so
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
wishing
to
speak
to
the
application
for
4016
Bath
Road
and
there
are
no
members
of
the
public
present
so
I'll
bypass
that
come
back
to
the
committee
for
a
motion
so
moved
by
Blaine
and
seconded
by
Jordan.
A
A
All
right
moving
along
our
agenda.
We
have
no
motions
this
evening
or
notices
of
motion
no
pieces
of
other
business.
There
was
one
piece
of
Correspondence
received
from
D
Workman
regarding
1445
Kendall
Avenue,
and
that
I
think
we
all
saw
that
was
part
of
the
schedule.
Date
of
the
next
meeting
is
Monday
December
12th.
A
N
B
Through
you
Mr
chair,
yes,
that
is
a
bit
of
a
a
weird
one
because
of
the
way
the
election
took
place
and
when
the
new
council
is
being
sworn
in.
So
the
new
Council
comes
into
effect
tomorrow
in
this
very
room
and
as
there
isn't
quite
enough
time
between
the
coming
end
of
the
new
Council,
the
formation
of
new
committees
and
then
the
appointment
of
new
new
committee
members,
the
current
committee
will
continue
until
the
December
meeting.