►
Description
Committee of Adjustment from March 22, 2021. For full meeting agenda visit https://bit.ly/3f89hEC.
A
A
So
we
have
four
agenda
items
this
evening
and
I'd
like
to
share
with
you
the
format
that
I'm
going
to
be
using
to
navigate
through
each
application,
I'll
start
by
introducing
the
application
and
then
I'll
give
an
app
the
applicant
or
their
agent
an
opportunity
to
add
anything
further.
If
you
are
the
applicant
or
the
agent-
and
you
have
nothing
further
to
add,
then
just
simply
say
so
next
I'll
invite
members
of
the
committee
to
ask
questions
of
either
the
applicant
or
the
staff
and
then
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
A
If
you
do
have
a
question
or
if
you
wish
to
make
a
comment,
please
don't
expect
an
immediate
answer,
because
it's
during
this
public
portion
of
the
meeting
that
we'll
be
recording
your
questions
and
comments
and
only
after
I
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting.
Will
the
questions
and
comments
be
addressed
by
the
applicant,
their
agent
or
staff,
and
then
next
I'm
going
to
invite
the
applicant
or
staff
to
address
the
public
comments,
after
which
I'm
going
to
turn
back
to
the
committee.
A
Ask
them
to
make
a
motion
and
then
we
will
deliberate
on
the
application
at
that
time.
If
you're
the
applicant
feel
free
to
leave
the
meeting
now,
I'm
going
to
be
using
the
same
format
for
each
application
this
evening
and
that's
pretty
much
it
in
a
nutshell.
Now,
if
you
have
a
personal
interest
in
any
particular
application
and
you'd
like
to
receive
written
notice
of
tonight's
decision,
then
please
send
an
email
with
your
name
and
address
to
our
secretary
treasurer
lindsay
staman.
Her
email
address
is
l-s-t-h-a-m-a-n-n
at
cityofkingston.ca.
A
A
A
A
A
No,
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
there
are
none.
There
are
no
delegations
this
evening.
We
also
have
no
requests
for
deferral
and
therefore-
and
we
also
have
no
returning
deferred
items
so
now,
we'll
move
on
to
the
first
item
of
business
for
this
evening,
which
is
item
number
eight
a
and
can
I
have
that
read
into
the
record.
Please.
F
A
G
H
D
D
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please
all
right.
So
the
purpose
and
effect
of
this
application
is
to
replace
the
existing
front
porch
and
set
of
stairs
with
a
new
deck
on
the
front
of
the
existing
single
family
dwelling.
The
total
area
of
the
proposed
deck
would
be
21.3
square
meters,
so
229
square
feet.
The
proposed
deck
would
project
approximately
2.44
meters
or
8
feet
from
the
front
of
the
existing
dwelling,
and
the
proposed
deck
would
increase
the
projection
into
the
front
yard
by
approximately
0.23
meters
when
compared
to
the
existing
porch
and
stairs.
D
All
right,
this
proposal
necessitates
a
variance
for
the
minimum
setback
from
the
front
lock
line
for
decks
more
than
0.6
meters
and
less
than
1.2
meters
in
height
above
finish
grade.
So
the
requirement
for
that
is
3.5
meters
and
the
proposed
is
1.22
meters,
so
the
variance
requested
is
2.28
meters.
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please?
D
So,
as
you
can
see
here,
this
is
the
where
the
subject
property
is
located.
So
it's
a
966
old
front
road.
So
it's
right
by
horsey
bay
on
lake
ontario,
so
the
subject
property
is
facing
the
water
and-
and
it
is
located
just
south
of
I'm
forgetting
the
name
of
the
road
right
now,
I'm
terribly
sorry,
but
it's
located
just
a
bit
east
of
the
kingston
airport
and
south
of
a
major
road.
D
That
yeah,
so
it's
south
of
the
front
road
and
bay
ridge
drive.
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please
all
right
and
here's
the
site
plan
that
has
been
provided
by
the
applicant.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
deck
would
project
eight
feet
from
the
front
of
the
house.
So
the
front
of
the
house
is
before
you
know
see
how
there's
bump
outs
for
the
window.
D
So
it's
even
further
back
than
that,
so
it's
starting
there
and
going
eight
feet
and,
as
you
can
see,
it
is
27
inches
above
ground
level
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
dotted
line
here
for
the
picket
fence,
which
is
not
on
the
subject
property,
but
on
the
road
allowance
for
the
subject,
property
and
there's
a
lot
line
here.
So
everything
is
contained
within
the
subject
property
all
right.
D
We
can
go
to
the
next
slide
all
right,
so
this
application
has
been
submitted
in
consultation
with
the
crca,
so
the
crca
is
not
having
any
concerns
with
this
proposal.
So
it's
in
compliance
with
the
recommendation
set
up
by
crca
all
right
next
slide.
Please
all
right!
So
the
requested
variants
maintains
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
both
the
city
of
kingston
official
plan
and
zoning
by
lumber
zoning
bylaw
number
7626.
D
A
I
Well,
no,
I
am
trying
to
improve
the
outside
of
my
house.
It's
a
very,
very
old
house,
and
in
conjunction
with
that
I
wanted
I
need
to
do
something
with
the
existing
front
porch
it's
in
not
very
good
condition.
So,
rather
than
just
replace
the
existing
small
porch
and
steps,
I
wanted
to
make
an
improvement
to
enjoy
the
lakefront,
which
is
right
in
front
of
the
house,
so
that
that's
everything
I
don't
think
it's
a
major.
A
D
Yes,
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
the
nature
of
the
complaint,
or
the
comment
this
afternoon
that
I
received
was
in
regard
to
concerns
over
sight
lines,
concerns
over
potential
maintenance
of
the
property
of
the
subject,
property
and
the
they
were
unsure
of
what
the
appearance
of
the
deck
would
look
like.
So
just
concerns
that
it
would
fit
in
aesthetically
with
the
neighborhood.
A
I
Do
have
a
comment,
and
that
is
that
I
have
been
working
with
the
designer
to
make
sure
that
the
design
and
the
construction
materials
and
so
on,
on
the
deck
and
as
well
as
the
other
improvements
to
the
outside
of
the
house,
are
aesthetically,
pleasing
and
yeah.
So
it
won't
just
be
slopped
up.
Okay,
very
in
a
way
that
doesn't
look
proper.
K
There
was
a
little
clip
in
my
internet
there.
My
apologies
through
you,
mr
chair,
just
for
mary.
I
went
out
and
looked
at
the
property.
It's
not
so
much
a
question,
but
that's
a
beautiful
set
of
land
out
there,
and
I
just
wanted
to
comment
and
say
thank
you
for
doing
something
with
your
porch
and
for
working
towards
putting
a
nice
deck
up.
Congratulations!
A
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
thanks
very
much
any
other
questions
from
the
committee
to
the
applicant.
I'm
seeing
none
other
okay.
So
at
this
point
I'll
open
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
I'm
going
to
ask-
are
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
this
evening
who
wish
to
speak
to
the
application
for
966
old
front
road.
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
in
zoom
and
I
do
see
one
in
the
attendee
section.
It
would
be
timothy
walk,
mr
welk.
If
you
want
to
unmute
your
mic,
we'd
be
happy
to
hear
from
you.
L
Hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
I
can.
Thank
you
all
right.
We
have
a
two
neighbors
here
this
evening,
there's
myself
and
jack,
and
sandy
weller,
who
are
immediate
neighbors,
and
we
had
a
few
questions
and
concerns
that
we'd
like
to
raise
with
the
committee
sure
just
to
speak
to
the
very
first
point
of
this
being
a
minor
variance.
It
may
be
minor,
but
it
actually
has
a
fairly
significant
impact
from
what
I
see
on
the
plans
in
terms
of
my
sight
lines
to
the
water.
L
So,
as
you
know,
old
front
road
is
located
directly
across
from
lake
ontario.
We
choose
to
live
here.
For
that
reason,
this
deck,
as
proposed,
will
obscure
my
view
of
the
water.
Looking
out
of
the
front
window
of
my
house.
Now
the
house
was
located
back
another
20
or
30
feet.
I
wouldn't
be
here
this
evening.
Neither
would
my
neighbors
that's
a
that's
a
concern
for
us.
A
A
M
M
A
N
M
F
E
Hi,
yes,
I,
my
name
is
laurie
van
manen.
I
live
at
974
old
front
road.
I
agree
with
the
concern
about
the
blind
spot
having
two
children.
One
of
them
is
still
in
public
school
and
it
is.
It
is
a
very
busy
street
now,
so
I'm
worried
about
the
deck
extending
too
far
out
and
posing
additional
restrictions
for
sight
lines.
A
A
Great,
thank
you,
and
so
mr
walk
anybody
else
with
your
team,
or
is
that
that
that
is
that?
That
is
that?
Okay?
So
I'm
now
going
to
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
we're
going
to
turn
this
over
to
the
applicant
or
staff
to
address
this,
and
I
saw
tim,
you
actually
had
your
hand
up
for
a
bit
tim
park.
O
O
Our
building
services
would
look
for
something
like
a
septic
system
that
wouldn't
be
issued
for
construction
over
a
septic
system,
and
then
I'm
just
going
to
ask
sarah
to
clarify
the
actual
what
what
the
existing
deck
depth
is
now
and
what
is
being
proposed
by
the
applicant
and
the
the
delta
between
the
two.
I
think
that'll
help
clarify
a
lot
of
questions
that
have
been
raised.
Thank
you.
M
D
B
D
Okay
understood,
thank
you
very
much,
elizabeth
all
right,
so
I
yeah
so
the
difference
in
projection
from
the
house.
So
right
now,
there's
currently
a
porch
and
a
set
of
stairs
which
project,
seven
and
a
half
feet
and
what's
being
proposed,
is
eight
feet
projection.
So
the
difference
is
quite
minor.
It's
only
yes
looks
like
someone's
sharing
it.
Yeah.
D
Oh
wonderful,
so
the
difference
here
from
what's
existing.
If
you
include
the
steps,
as
it
is
right
now,
it's
it's
a
half
a
foot,
and
so
that
should
address
in
terms
of
how
much
further
out
it
is,
and
the
width,
as
you
can
see
here,
is
28
feet
and
seven
and
a
half
inches
so
spanning
the
front
of
the
house.
D
In
terms
of
the
the
concern
over
the
blind
spot,
I
had
prepared
for
you
to
share
what
it
looks
like
from
google
street
view.
So
you
can
see
the
the
front
of
the
house,
but
basically
in
front
of
the
house.
There
is
a
white
picket
fence
and
the
proposed
porch
would
be
set
back
or
proposed.
Deck
would
be
set
back
quite
far
from
the
existing
picket
fence,
so
it
wouldn't
project
and
cause
any
visual
concerns
over
blind
spots
on
the
road.
D
Absolutely
so,
as
you
can
see
the
white
and
black
dotted
line,
it
will
be
inside
of
that,
so,
as
you
can
see
so
to
the
north
of
that
or
yeah
to
the
north
of
that
white
and
black
dotted
line,
the
proposed
deck
will
be
inside
of
that.
So
it'll
be
very
far
set
back
from
the
front
of
the
road
and,
as
you
can
see
here
just
now
that
you've
got
this
image
up
for
me,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
very
generous
eastern
site
setback
with
the
from
the
house
with
the
red
roof.
P
A
D
And
through
you,
mr
share,
thank
you
for
that
so
because
this
porch
is
or
this
deck
is
only
projecting
nine
inches
further
than
the
current
steps
and
porch
there
shouldn't
be
any
issues
with
causing
issues
backing
up
and
as
you
can
see,
the
driveway
is
continues
past.
The
lot
line
where
the
black
and
white
dotted
line
is
so
the
person
should
be
able
to
check
their
blind
spots
while
exiting
their
driveway
without
any
issues.
A
A
D
D
Oh
wonderful,
okay,
so,
as
you
can
see,
there's
the
porch
and
then
the
steps
so
that
projects
seven
and
a
half
feet
from
the
front
of
the
dwelling,
so
the
proposed
deck
will
only
be
nine
inches
further
or
half
a
foot
when
compared
to
what's
their
existing.
So
it
is
very
it's
a
very
small
change,
that's
being
proposed,
but
it
will
add
a
lot
of
functional
amenity
space
since
the
deck
will
provide
an
outdoor
extension
of
the
indoor
living
space
and
will
be
very
useful
for
the
the
resident
of
the
dwelling.
Q
K
K
I
don't
really
see
where
the
the
sightline
issues
really
would
be
unless
they're
more
of
a
peripheral
than
out
through
the
front,
the
direct
front
of
the
house
next
door,
but
nonetheless
I
do
believe
timothy
in
what
he
says
now,
I'm
for
the
deck
is
there
anything
that
could
be
further
done
or
once
the
deck
is
built
just
to
verify
or
or
anything
like
that,
that
staff
could
just
kind
of
lay
to
rest.
What
what
timothy
is
saying,
because
I
do
believe
him
from
the
sound
of
his
voice.
K
R
K
O
Through
you,
mr
chair,
in
terms
of
sight
lines,
if,
if
transportation
traffic
becomes
an
issue,
if
all
of
a
sudden,
there
is
a
increase
or
a
number
of
accidents
that
take
place,
and
certainly
that's
something
that
we
would
go
out
and
investigate,
but
unless
there
was
something
that
would
prompt
us
to
do
that,
we
don't
really
feel
through
the
analysis.
We've
done
at
this
point
that
there
are
any
traffic
or
transportation
concerns
in
terms
of
personal
sight
lines.
O
There's
no
real
control.
One
has
over
that
from
the
property
through
another
person's
property.
It's
not
something
that
planning
can
control
or
monitor
so
in
terms
of
sight
lines
to
the
lake
that
that
is
nothing
that
we
can
control,
but
we
do
review
it
when
we're
looking
at
the
proposed
application
for
things
like
overview
and
shadowing
and
as
sarah
has
clearly
pointed
out,
it
was
assessed
on
that
basis.
P
F
D
I
R
I
The
deck
itself
is
27
inches
off
the
ground,
which
is
one
step
down
from
my
front
door.
Okay,
so
just
on
the
height
alone,
and
I
guess
it
would
just
be
the
death
posts
that
would
be
a
you
know,
do
anything
to
obstruct
any
visual
from
either
the
road
or
or
from
my
neighbor.
I
would
hope
it
wouldn't
in
looking
at
the
sight
lines.
I
A
I
That's
fine,
that's
yeah,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
I
am
working
with
a
design
firm
to
come
up
with
something
to
address
laurie's
concern
about
it,
fitting
with
the
nature
of
the
house
and
that's
my
concern
as
well.
Okay.
So
now
this
is
an
artist's
rendition
done
by
tim,
torgerson
at
read
and
siemenson
and
yeah.
That's
his
his
visual
of
what
he
thinks
it
may
look
like:
okay,
no
again
that
isn't
to
scale
or
anything
else.
That
was
just
an
artist's
rendition.
R
A
G
G
G
I
There
are
some
shrubs
in
each
side
of
the
existing
porch
and
they
would
have
to
be
removed,
but
that's
actually
a
good
point,
because
that
is
the
location
of
where
the
deck
would
be
so
yeah
in
terms
of
actual
measurements
or
whether
they
project
out
as
far
I'm
not
sure
but
they're,
pretty
healthy,
shrubs,
so
yeah
they,
the
yeah
they're
large,
though
so.
The
sight
lines
might
not
be
all
that
different.
When
you
bring
that
down.
Okay.
A
F
A
F
C
O
Q
Perfect,
so,
as
ms
stayman
indicated,
this
is
a
presentation
for
minor
variants:
d,
13,
0,
6,
8,
20,
20,
4,
9,
birch
avenue
next
slide.
Please,
the
purpose
and
effect
of
the
application
is
to
increase
maximum
permitted
building
depth
and
reduce
the
minimum
width
for
driveway
and
pedestrian
access
aisle
to
facilitate
a
two-story
rear
edition.
That
would
contain
a
second
residential
unit.
Next
slide,
please.
Q
Q
This
slide
shows
the
existing
context
of
the
the
block
and
immediately
surrounding
portion
of
the
neighborhood.
The
subject
lands
are
highlighted
in
the
dashed
border
there
and
we
can
see
that
the
rear
yard
of
the
existing
property
is
approximately
50
landscape,
open
space
and
approximately
fifty
percent
gravel
parking
area
in
the
rear.
Q
This
slide
also
helps
to
illustrate
the
number
of
rear
additions
that
have
been
constructed
onto
the
original
building
stock
over
the
years,
and
so
it's
it's
fairly
common
for
rear
editions
within
this
portion
of
the
neighborhood
specifically
the
subject.
Well,
sorry,
specifically,
the
two
budding
parcels
to
the
subject:
lands
at
7,
birch
and
11
birch
have
already
been
enlarged,
with
large
rear
additions
in
the
past
next
slide.
Please.
Q
The
applicant
would
provide
two
vehicle
parking
spaces
in
tandem
within
the
existing
driveway.
The
northern
portion
of
the
existing
driveway
and
both
of
those
vehicle
parking
spaces
would
be
situated
north
of
the
proposed
entrance
to
the
second
residential
unit,
which
is
proposed
for
the
east
side
of
the
structure.
At
approximately
the
halfway
point,
the
midpoint
of
the
structure,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
convert
the
remaining
portion
of
the
gravel
parking
area
that
we
saw
in
a
previous
slide.
Q
Q
The
elevations
that
were
submitted
with
the
application
indicate
the
rear
addition
would
maintain
a
similar
roof
line.
It'll
be
a
slightly
lower
roof
line
to
the
existing
structure,
and
also
that
the
rear
addition
would
be
slightly
narrower
than
the
existing
dwelling.
These
two
attributes
will
help
to
minimize
the
impact
of
the
proposed
development
on
the
existing
streetscape
of
birch
avenue,
and
these
slides
are
also
helpful
to
illustrate
that
the
window
placements
have
been.
Q
The
windows
have
been
placed
along
the
eastern
elevation
in
the
northern
elevation,
so
the
eastern
side
and
the
rear
of
the
proposed
addition.
These
windows
along
the
east
side,
which
is
noted
as
the
right
side
elevation
on
this
slide.
These
windows
will
look
out
onto
a
blank
facade.
That
is
the
side
of
seven
birch
avenue.
It's
a
red,
brick
facade.
Q
Q
The
existing
roof
is
a
a
a
hift
roof
at
the
rear
and
it
will
be
converted
to
a
gable
roof
and
there's
a
new
dormer,
that's
being
proposed
on
the
eastern
side
there,
which
is
quite
modest
in
in
size
and
scale,
and
conforms
with
the
zoning
bylaw
next
slide.
Please
the
floor
plans
that
were
submitted
with
the
application
confirms.
The
second
residential
unit
would
contain
a
total
of
five
bedrooms.
Q
Q
The
proposal
is
desirable
for
the
appropriate
development
or
use
of
the
land
building
or
structure,
and
the
requested
variances
are
minor
in
nature.
As
such,
the
proposed
application
meets
all
four
tests
under
section
45
1,
the
planning
act
and
the
application
is
being
recommended
for
approval
subject
to
the
conditions.
Q
I
would
like
to
note
that
there
was
an
addendum
put
forth
for
this
application,
which
provided
some
revised
wording
on
the
recommended
conditions
for
this
application
and
with
that.
That
concludes
my
presentation
this
evening,
mr
chair
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
L
S
Thank
you,
mr
chair
jason
sands,
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
for
you
this
evening.
I
quickly
just
would
like
to
confirm
that
the
five
conditions
that
have
been
recommended
for
consideration
this
evening,
one
of
which
being
the
amended
wording
to
the
development
agreement
as
as
mentioned
by
planner
od.
S
A
G
So
my
question
is
really
concerning
variance
two
and
variance
three.
It
appears
to
me
that
the
current
driveway
is
going
to
be
serving
as
the
new
driveway,
as
well
as
the
required
access
aisle.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
understood
that
correctly.
So
that's
a
question
to
either
jason
or
or
the
owner.
S
Through
you,
mr
chair
yeah,
thank
you
for
pulling
that
sketch
up
the
site
plan.
Drawing
member
babin
does
confirm
that
that
existing
driveway
on
the
east
side
of
the
existing
development
is
the
access
to
for
vehicular
access
to
the
site
and
the
rear
yard
parking,
or
the
rear
and
interior
parking
at
the
rear.
S
That
I'd
like
to
note
that
both
of
those
parking
stalls
are
located
beyond
the
entrance
to
the
proposed
second
residential
unit,
as
well
as
beyond
the
primary
residential
unit
entrance.
So,
although
they're
shared
with
respect
to
vehicles
and
and
pedestrians
should
two
vehicles
be
located
within
the
existing
and
proposed
driveway,
there's
still
opportunity
to
get
garner
access
into
each
of
those
buildings
each
unit
as
a
pedestrian.
Thank
you.
Okay
and.
S
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
don't
believe
that's
a
specified
condition,
but
by
all
means,
as
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
we're
more
than
happy
to
ensure
that
the
placement
of
a
sign
is,
is
erected
on
site
to
ensure
that
that
continuous
ingress
and
egress
is
maintained.
That's
it's.
It's
not
a
concern.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Any
other
questions
from
the
committee
members.
I
actually
have
one
for
you,
mr
sands.
I
guess
my
question
is
or
or
this
could
even
be
for
the
the
planner.
Why
are
we
getting
rid
of
the
rear
yard
parking
and
imposing
tandem
parking
in
a
driveway?
It
seems
I
think
it
might
be
a
better
quality
of
life
and
therefore
a
better
quality
application
if
the
parking
were
in
the
rear.
Q
To
you,
mr
chair,
the
initial
version
of
this
proposed
application
did
did
seek
to
extend
the
driveway
farther
into
the
rear
yard
and
to
locate
two
parking.
Spaces
saw
parking
spaces
at
a
90
degree
angle
to
the
driveway
through
technical
review.
A
comment
was
provided
to
the
applicants
requesting
a
turning
radius,
drawing
to
ensure
that
a
vehicle
can
make
a
sharp
90
degree
turn
into
the
provided
parking
spaces
within
the
width
of
the
driveway
and
within
the
the
confines
of
the
width
of
the
law.
Q
An
option
was
so
that
was
that
was
requested
information,
but
another
option
that
was
flagged
for
the
applicant
was
or
you
can
consider
a
different
form
of
parking
either
angled
parking
or
the
zoning
violet
does
permit
tandem
parking
as
of
right
in
sections
5.3
and
in
section
4.
or
sorry
5.45,
which
is
the
specific
requirements
for
second
residential
units.
A
G
Q
Q
A
A
T
T
We
have
seen
applications
such
as
this
go
forward
and
then
the
number
of
bedrooms
grow.
So,
first
of
all,
I
would
like
that.
Second
of
all,
I'd
like
you
to,
as
this
is
an
observation,
as
you
know,
going
to
the
planning
committee
this
week
is
a
limitation
on
the
total
number
of
bedrooms
which
is
well
below
12
or
13.
Whichever
this
will
be,
the
reason
you
don't
get
comments
is
because,
as
you've
pointed
out,
there
are
a
lot
of
students
there
and
these
developments
are
going
on
on
streets
that
are
not
corridors.
T
A
U
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
committee
of
adjustment-
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
to
you,
I'm
the
current
vice
chair
of
the
sydney
district
association
and
in
that
capacity
I
was
contacted
yesterday
by
a
member
of
another
community
association
to
address
this
application
again
generally,
we
feel
that
the
committee
of
adjustment
is
not
the
proper
forum
for
this
type
of
planning
application,
with
implications
that
extend
beyond
mere
value.
Minor
dimension
based
decisions
is
less
than
24
inches
appropriate
value
for
people
access.
U
Should
the
zoning
bylaw
value
be
reduced
dimensionally
by
half
to
roughly
shoulder
width.
We
feel
generally
that
matters
that
involve
changes
to
the
right
of
access.
Safety
for
a
diversity
of
people
is
a
planning
decision,
it's
about
values
and
is
not
by
nature.
A
minor
consideration,
section,
2.6
2.6.7
of
the
official
plan
earned
term
control
relating
to
the
passing
of
an
interim
control.
By-Law
is
likely
the
most
appropriate
manner
to
address
this
type
of
application.
U
As
you
may
be
aware,
later
this
week,
city
staff
are
recommending
amendments
to
the
op
and
zoning
bylaw.
That
planning
committee
will
consider
simply
put,
if
approved
an
application
like
the
one
before
you
would
only
permit
eight
bedrooms
on
its
lot
by
those
amendments.
It's
my
understanding
that
it's
been
nearly
four
years
since
the
opa
50
schedule.
13
was
vastly
expanded
during
one
of
its
late
draft
iterations
and
planning
area.
13
of
that
schedule
was
created
seemingly
from
the
idea
of
another
much
smaller
scoped
planning
area
8
for
queens
university
housing
interests.
U
Our
residential
neighborhoods
across
three
districts
became
suddenly
unfairly
characterized
as
near
campus
neighborhoods,
since
no
meaningful
guidance
or
control
has
been
applied
through
the
zoning
bylaw
secondary
plans
or
even
interim
guidelines,
bylaws
or
enforcement
with
viable
execution.
Despite
the
increasing
permissions
of
accessory
dwelling
units
or
additional
residential
units,
continued
investment,
housing
pressure
for
12-plus
bedroom
sites
and
impacts
of
ineffective
bylaw
enforcement
alongside
safety
and
security
issues
and
other
concerns
for
residents
in
core
areas
have
left
some
neighborhoods
inappropriately
exposed
to
an
unnecessary
state
of
flux
or
transition.
U
We
recognize
and
appreciate
the
work
of
staff
and
the
applicant
to
have
accomplished
what
they
have
with
this
application
and
yet,
for
example,
I
offer
that
removing
the
requirement
for
site
parking
and
provisioning
an
appropriate
pathway
of
travel
without
safety,
hazard
of
a
shared
vehicle
and
person
route
would
be
more
in
line
with
other
important
op
directions.
Council,
priorities
of
climate
and
sustainability
and
universal
accessibility,
and,
incidentally,
this
terminology
is
misleadingly
applied
in
the
staff
report.
U
Did
universal
accessibility,
intend
universal
design
principles
or
merely
diversity
of
shared
access,
route
for
modes
bike,
walking
car
fire
response,
etc?
We're
hopeful
the
committee
of
adjustment
considers
that
this
application
does
not
safely
or
equitably
meet
access
needs
for
all
people.
Nor
does
it
even
attempt
to
provision
diverse
housing
for
all
people.
U
Evidence
online
advertising,
it's
ableist
with
an
entrance
on
a
shared
drive
and
constrained
walkway,
and
yet
it
needn't
be
with
a
wider
scoped
planning
consideration
informed
from
comprehensive,
updated
policy
objectives
that
deliver
more
equitable
community
values,
granting
minor
variances
two
and
three
shut
down
that
opportunity.
This
is
the
wrong
thing
better.
U
U
A
A
And
I'll
call
one
last
and
final
time
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak
to
the
application
for
nine
birch
avenue?
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
in
zoom,
so
I'm
not
seeing
any.
So
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
I'm
going
to
come
back.
I
actually
see
tim
park
tim.
You
have
your
hand
raised.
I'm
assuming
you
might
want
to
address
some
of
these
concerns.
O
Yes,
thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
going
to
address
a
couple
of
points
raised
by
his
boy
and
mr
mitchell.
Just
this
is
a
minor
variance
application
and
it
was
brought
forward
as
a
minor
variance
application
because
it
met
the
intent
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
the
policies
of
the
op.
That's
that's
what
minor
variances
are
for
that.
The
four
tests
are
of
the
opinion
that
they
need
before
tests,
the
report
that
has
been
mentioned,
that
is
going
to
planning
committee
on
thursday
regarding
second
residential
units.
O
Unfortunately,
we
can't
limit
the
bedroom
count
through
a
variance
because
it
has
to
be
linked
to
an
actual
variance
for
yard,
depth
or
width,
so
it
can't
be
linked
to
that,
and
I
think
at
that
I
will
leave
it
and
then
I
will
hand
it
over
to
nile
to
finish
off
any
of
the
other
questions
that
were
raised.
Thank
you.
R
Q
The
official
plan
does
note
that
second
residential
units
are
an
appropriate
form
of
intensification
within
the
stable
areas
that
the
official
plan
has
identified
and
outlines
that
they
are
appropriate
and
even
if
they
are
requiring
minor,
variances
appropriate.
If
the
section
2.7,
the
compatibility
criteria
can
be
satisfied
here.
Q
We're
providing
space
for
bicycles
to
deal
with
the
intensity
of
residential
use,
that's
being
proposed
here
and
also
providing
space
for
garbage
recycling.
Bins,
which
we
know
is
a
is
a
common
concern
among
neighborhood
residents
that
there
isn't
enough
space
for
for
garbage
and
recycling,
and
it
creates
property
enforcement
issues
and
property
standard
issues.
Those
types
of
things,
so
we
certainly
are
trying
to
ensure
that
the
land
use
compatibility
criteria
are
being
addressed
by
by
this
application.
Q
The
intent
with
this
application
is
to
locate
the
two
parking
spaces
north
of
the
entrance
to
the
unit
and
we've
reduced
the
width
of
the
driveway
down.
So
the
intention
is
absolutely
that
that
driveway
is
free
and
clear
of
vehicles,
vast
majority
of
the
time,
the
only
time
that
a
vehicle
needs
to
be
in
that
that
space
south
of
the
entrance
to
the
unit
is
for
coming
and
going,
and
so
the
intent
is
for
the
pedestrian
access
aisle
to
to
use
the
extra
space.
That
is,
the
driveway
on
a
temporary
as
needed
basis.
Q
So
the
yeah,
absolutely
the
intent-
is
not
to
create
an
access
at
0.6
meters.
Solely
that's
that
wouldn't
be
appropriate
or
or
safe,
and
I
think
if
I'm,
if
I'm
mistaken,
but
I
it
looks
like
all
of
the
the
comments
that
are
all
the
questions
that
were
raised
have
been
addressed.
But
if
I've
missed
one
please
let
me
know
mr
chair.
A
A
A
K
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
just
wanted
to
mention.
I
know
that
the
sydney
district
association
has
been
been
at
a
few
meetings
over
a
few
developments
and-
and
I
really
appreciate
everything
I
just
wanted
to
note
on
this
application-
that
I
was
very
happy
to
at
least
see
that
was
mentioned
about
the
the
garbage
and
recycling
bits.
That's
just
what
I
wanted
to
mention.
A
A
I
don't
believe
it
gives
a
very
good
quality
of
life
and
I
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
at
least
they
couldn't
have
proposed
or
or
moved
the
parking
into
the
rear,
and
I
I
I
know
that
the
entire
driveway
is
going
to
be
used
at
times,
even
if
it's
for
somebody
stopping
in
to
go
to
the
back
unit,
just
to
say,
hi
or
drop
off
some
books
and
they
stay
20
or
30
minutes,
and
you
know
it
happens,
and
it
happens
if
not
on
a
daily
basis.
Certainly,
on
a
weekly
basis,
so
on.
A
For
those
reasons,
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
this
at
all.
I
also
really
like
joan
bowie's
recommendation
that
the
committee
we
I
know
we
can
put
conditions
as
we
see
fit
on.
You
know,
conditions
to
minor
variance
applications,
but
hearing
from
mr
fisher
that
we
cannot
limit
the
number
of
bedrooms,
because
it's
not
the
number
of
bedrooms
that
is
the
subject
of
any
of
these
variances.
A
A
I
asked
him
my
question
I
sort
of
fished
and
I
did
not
get
the
sense
that
there
was
a
flavor
for
that
that
the
flavor
was
to
go
with
stacked
parking
unless
another
member
of
the
committee,
you
know,
wants
to
amend
the
motion
or,
if
you're
able
to
amend
the
motion
to
approve
based
on
tandem
parking
in
the
back,
but
I
think
we'd
have
to
have
niall,
maybe
chime
in
on
that
or
tim
chime
in
on
that
to
see
if
that
would
be
possible
niall.
Did
you
want
to
comment
on
that.
Q
You,
mr
chair,
I
I
would
have
to
defer
to
mr
park
or
miss
damon
procedurally
on
on
what
might
need
to
occur
there.
I
I'll
leave
them
to
to
comment
procedurally,
but
I
I
will
just
let
the
the
committee
know
that,
within
the
a
zone
parking
within
the
rear
or
side
yards,
there
is
a
limitation
on
40
square
meters
can
be
used
for
for
parking,
driveway
and
and
that
type
of
thing
can
be
on
on
top
of
that.
Q
Otherwise,
there
was
a
concern
at
the
staff
level
that
on
paper,
it
would
be
approved
as
one
thing,
but
in
practice
it
would
turn
into
something
something
different,
such
as
a
rear
yard,
full
of
full
gravel
and
countless
parking
spaces
which
isn't
isn't
something
that
we
were
looking
to
see
out
of
this
application
is
something
that
we
were
trying
to
correct.
Actually.
K
K
A
R
Q
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
offer
a
point
of
clarification
for
your
yourself.
If
the
parking
were
shifted
to
the
rear,
you
you
might
consider
support
for
it
as
it
it
might
get
rid
of
variances.
Two
and
three.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
variances,
two
and
three
are
are
required
because
the
driveway
and
the
pedestrian
access
aisle
need
to
be
essentially
co-located.
Q
So
the
only
way
for
variances,
two
and
three
to
be
relocated
is
to
completely
reconfigure
the
existing
structure
to
bring
the
the
existing
dwelling
to
bring
the
entrance
to
the
second
residential
unit
to
the
front
of
the
structure
so
that
it
can
be
accessed
without
the
need
of
a
1.2
meter
access
aisle.
So
whether
or
not
the
parking
spaces
are
at
the
north
end
of
the
driveway
or
in
the
rear
yard,
there's
still
a
reduction,
that's
required
there.
So.
S
You,
mr
chair,
I
I
just
wanted
to
echo
planner
od's
comments
with
respect
to
that
clarification.
The
first
submission
that
was
made
to
the
city,
respecting
this
proposed
development,
incorporated
two
parking
stalls
in
the
rear
yard.
I
think
chairperson
skivosd,
what
you're
envisioning
and,
at
that
time
the
request
for
the
relief
regarding
access
for
vehiculars
and
for
pedestrians
was
incorporated
to
ensure
that
that
could
still
or
as
it
was
still
required.
S
For
for
that
reason,
we
believe
that
the
in
tandem
parking,
which
isn't
as
of
right
permission
within
the
zoning
bylaw
and
not
subject
to
to
the
variants,
was
a
was
a
more
applicable
or
appropriate
consideration.
Given
this
lot
configuration
and
the
existing
side
yard
that
exists
between
the
existing
dwelling
on
and
that
eastern
interior
side
lot
line,
so
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
for
clarification.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
G
Okay,
mr
sands
mentioned
a
few
other
applications
that
we've
had
quite
recently,
and
one
of
them
was
the
driveway
with,
as
well
as
the
access
aisle
access
for
pedestrians,
and
that
was
my
concern
a
few
weeks
ago
when
we
had
a
similar
application.
It
is
today
it's
around
variants,
two
and
three,
and
I
know
we
can't
ask
for
a
signage
for
no
parking
in
the
driveway.
But
if
the
applicant
wants
to
put
one
in,
I,
I
would
value
that.
G
Okay,
the
the
issue
that
was
raised
by
the
district's
sydney
association
is
around
the
the
density
in
this
area
and
that's
something
beyond
the
scope
of.
I
think
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
and
we
have
to
look
at
what
the
actual
bylaw
is
and
the
variances
that
were
put
forward
to
us
and
vote
on
those,
so
whether
it
has
a
bad
taste
in
your
mouth
or
not,
I
think
in
my
mouth
it
does
and
but
I'm
going
to
support
it.
Based
on
the
staff
report,.
P
Q
And
mr
sands,
if
he
wants
to
jump
in
afterwards
the
the
structure
to
the
west
at
11,
birch
avenue,
it
does
have
two
units
in
it.
Now
I
don't
know
how
many
units
are
sorry.
I
don't
know
how
many
bedrooms
are
are
in
that
structure
now,
but
it
is
the
same
building
depth
as
the
subject
application
the
the
structure
to
the
east
at
seven
birch
avenue.
I
believe
it
has
one
unit
in
there
now
again.
A
A
A
A
C
H
H
One
and
a
half
story,
single
detached
dwelling
and
rebuild
a
new
two-story
single
detached
dwelling
with
two
units
on
the
existing
basement
foundation.
So
what
the
applicant
is
is
wanting
to
do
is
to
more
or
less
remove
the
existing
dwelling.
That's
there
use
the
existing
building
footprint
and
build
a
full
two-story
dwelling
with
two
units.
One
unit
would
be
in
the
upper
portion
and
the
main
unit
would
would
actually
be
on
the
first
story
and
basement
next
slide.
There.
Please.
H
H
On
the
left
hand,
side
you
see
the
existing
building
footprint
and
also
the
existing
detached
garage
and
the
two
parking
spaces
in
front
of
the
garage
and
on
the
right
you
see
the
proposed
two-story
dwelling.
If
you
look
at
the
measurements,
you
actually
see
that
they're
keeping
the
existing
setbacks
that
are
currently
in
place
and
also
the
existing
footprint,
and
I
want
to
stress
that
they
are
keeping
the
existing
footprint
here.
The
only
thing
that
is
changing
are
the
actual
stairways
and
entrances.
H
So,
as
you
can
see,
there
are
two
entrances
that
are
proposed
for
each
of
the
units
and
again
the
two-story
dwelling
is
going
to
be
built
on
the
existing
footprint,
so
the
building
isn't
going
to
be
enlarged
at
all,
based
on.
What's
there
now,
it's
only
going
to
be
higher
than
what's
there,
and
the
height
of
the
proposed
dwelling
is
actually
actually
complies
with
the
the
maximum
height
requirement
of
the
particular
zone.
Next
slide
there
please.
H
H
H
H
So
in
order
for
the
the
reconstruction
here,
the
variances
are
technical
in
nature,
because
we
are,
they
are
as
of
right,
able
to
demolish
the
existing
building
and
rebuild
a
one
and
a
half
story
building
now,
because
they
are
building
this.
A
full
second
story:
that's
what
triggers
the
minor
variance
here
and
that's
why
they
actually
require
the
variance
for
the
front
yard
setbacks.
So
the
front
yard
set
back
along
force.
H
H
Are
considered
minor
as
reconstruction
of
the
dwelling
and
the
full
second
story
will
be
constructed
on
the
same
foundation
as
the
existing
one
and
a
half
story
dwelling.
The
proposal
will
not
be
any
closer
to
lot
lines
than
what
currently
exists.
Now
the
height
of
the
dwelling
will
comply
with
the
maximum
height
requirement
of
10.7
meters
and
the
variances
to
reduce
the
maximum
projection
into
yards
will
provide
safe
access
into
the
principal
units
and
the
secondary
unit.
H
And
allow
for
a
secondary
residential
unit
to
be
located
within
the
dwelling.
The
proposal
will
maintain
the
existing
setbacks.
As
we
said,
access
to
parking
will
be
maintained
along
the
southern
property
line,
with
its
road
access
from
fort
smith,
avenue
two
parking
spaces
are
maintained
within
the
driveway,
and
the
existing
detached
garage
will
provide
storage
of
household
items
and
bicycle
storage
if
needed.
H
H
So
the
recommendation,
the
requested
variants
or
variances
maintain
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
city
of
kingston
official
plan
and
is
only
by
law
number
849.
The
proposal
is
desirable
and
appropriate.
Development
for
the
use
of
land
building
or
structure
and
the
requested
variances
are
minor
in
nature.
As
such,
the
proposal,
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
in
the
notice
of
decision
which
is
attached
to
the
report.
H
A
R
Hi.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
name
is
paul
doherty
from
25
grange
street
in
kingston,
and
I
am
the
applicant
thank
you
for
hearing
and
considering
my
application
tonight.
I
don't
really
have
anything
additional
to
add,
but
I'd
like
to
say
that
the
existing
structure
is
in
much
need
of
an
overhaul,
and
my
application
proposes
just
that.
I
also
believe
it
supports
smart
infill
on
a
corridor
as
it's
right
across
from
lawrence
college
and
the
providence
care
hospital.
It's
also
right
on
an
express
bus
route.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
here
this
evening
to
speak
to
the
application
for
124
baden
street?
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
and
I'll
call
one
third
and
final
time.
Is
anybody
here
this
evening
to
speak
to
the
application
for
124
baden
street?
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand,
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
I'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting,
and
I
guess
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
committee
for
a
motion
so
moved
by
jordan
and
seconded
by
paul.
A
A
C
V
This
will
allow
the
about
50
square
meter
building
to
expand
in
in
volume
the
owners
wish
to
stabilize
the
existing
foundation
so
they'll
be
pouring
in
a
new
foundation,
thus
elevating
the
building
slightly
and
requiring
some
of
these
permissions.
This
the
setback
productions
for
the
side
and
rear
is
to
accommodate
a
new
board
and
batten
profile,
siding
which,
as
you
may
know,
has
a
bit
of
a
thick
profile
to
it.
So
they
need
that
extra
space
next
slide,
please
yeah!
V
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
property
is
in
the
berryfield
heritage
conservation
district.
It
is
south
of
wellington
street
and
on
the
west
side
of
george
street,
you
can
see
the
blow
up
here.
I
would
point
out,
while
we're
looking
at
this
slide,
the
location
of
412
wellington,
which
is
just
to
the
north
west
of
subject
property.
V
V
V
V
So
this
slide
is
shown
from
george
street
as
as
looking
at
the
property
with
the
six
two-story
dwelling
to
the
left
and
the
enlarged
accessory
building
on
the
right.
Some
of
this,
the
ghosted
in
lines
show
the
current
pitch
of
the
accessory
building,
which
is
proposed
to
be
increased.
To
allow
some
storage
space
on
the
upper
floor
of
the
upper
space.
V
V
The
current
owners
value
their
open
space
a
little
more
and
chosen
not
to
encumber
it
with
a
large
addition.
They
simply
would
like
to
allow
their
existing
building
a
bit
more
usable
space
and
our
app
are
choosing
to
to
renovate
that
building.
Instead
of
enlarging
it
with
a
big
addition.
So
next
slide,
please.
V
V
So
our
recommendation
is
for
approval.
With
of
this
permission,
application
with
the
conditions
that
are
in
your
agenda
package.
The
application
is
consistent
with
the
general
intent
of
the
official
plan,
particularly
section
9.5.13,
which
are
the
eight
criteria
for
the
expanding
of
a
legal
non-conforming
building
and
the
general
intent
of
the
zoning
by-law.
The
particular
building
predates
the
existing
zoning
bylaw.
V
A
W
A
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
So
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
with
us
this
evening
who
wish
to
speak
to
the
application
for
seven
george
street?
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
in
june
zoom
there,
any
members
of
the
public
here
with
us
this
evening
to
speak
to
the
application
for
seven
george
street.
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
and
the
third
and
final
call
are
there
many
any
members
of
the
public
to
speak
to
the
application
for
seven
george
street.
Please
raise
your
virtual
hand
and
I'm
not
seeing
any.