►
Description
Special City Council meeting from April 26, 2022. For full meeting agenda visit https://bit.ly/3xRZ08D
A
B
Yes,
mayor
patterson,
we
have
quorum
at
this
time.
I
would
like
to
confirm
that,
in
addition
to
yourself,
we
have
the
following
members
of
council
president
councillor
chappelle
councillor
hill
councillor,
hutchison
councillor
kiley,
councillor
mclaren
and
councilworld
sanik,
president
from
staff
for
lanny
hurdle
chief,
administrative
officer,
paige
agnew,
commissioner
community
services,
peter
hughinboss,
commissioner,
business
environment
and
projects,
desiree
kennedy,
chief
financial
officer
and
city
treasurer,
john
bolanone
city
clerk,
jenna,
morley,
director
of
legal
services
and
city
solicitor,
tim
park,
director
of
planning
services,
secretary,
agarwal
manager
of
policy
planning,
james
barr
manager,
development
approvals.
B
Derek
o'shea
committee
clerk,
our
tech
support
tonight
is
chris
sabrin
and
colin
taylor.
We
also
have
the
following
staff
from
the
planning
department:
laura
flaherty
manager,
policy
planning,
nia,
lottie
senior
planner,
mike
silagi
planner
and
joining
us
is
brent
totter
and
from
totter
in
urban
works.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Next,
we
will
move
to
the
approval
of
the
addeds.
We
have
four
sets
of
addeds
all
with
communication
related
to
our
agenda
tonight.
Can
I
have
a
mover
and
a
seconder
for
those
additives.
Please
move
by
council
mclaren
seconded
by
councillor
kylie,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
that's
carried.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
then
we
will
we'll
move
through
our
agenda.
Obviously,
is
a
special
counsel
meeting,
there's
a
number
of
agenda
items
that
will
not
apply,
so
we
will
move
right
to
reports
for
first
up,
we
have
oh,
what
are
we
going
to
do?
We'll
do
the
briefing
with
the
report.
So
that's
fine.
So
when
we
put
the
the
we'll
move
to
report
42
and
then
we'll
introduce
the
briefing.
C
Thank
you
and
good
evening,
everyone,
mayor,
patterson
and
counselors,
and
certainly
all
of
you
in
the
community
that
may
be
tuning
in
tonight
via
youtube.
It's
really
my
pleasure
to
be
here.
We've
been
on
a
long
road
to
get
to
where
we
are
tonight
seven
years
and
that's
a
long
time
in
the
life
of
it's
actually
two
city
councils,
not
just
one,
so
we're
we're
really
happy
to
be
here
this
evening
and
certainly
happy
to
present
to
you
what
is
staff's
final
version
of
kingston's
new
zoning
bylaw.
C
Firstly,
a
heartfelt
thank
you
to
the
community
for
all
of
your
patience
and
tremendous
contributions
to
the
final
draft.
That's
before
council
this
evening,
I
think
from
a
staff
perspective
and
we've
said
it
before.
We
truly
believe
that
the
quality
of
the
final
version
of
what
we're
presenting
to
you
this
evening
is
certainly
a
reflection
of
the
thoughtful
and
challenging
feedback
that
we
received
along
the
way
and
and
there's
been
hundreds
of
submissions.
C
Thousands
of
hours
of
work
that's
gone
into
this
evening
and
a
lot
of
contributions
from
the
community
which
takes
a
lot
of
time
and
dedication,
because
oftentimes
the
packages
of
information
are
quite
dense
in
detail
and
long
in
nature
and
there's
been
multiple
throughout
the
process
of
the
life
of
this
project.
So
thank
you
so
much
to
the
community
as
a
whole.
C
Secondly,
I
really
wanted
to
extend
also
sincere
gratitude
sense
of
gratitude
to
all
of
city
council,
most
importantly
for
the
advice
that
we've
received
from
you
along
the
way.
Certainly
your
willingness
to
give
us
more
time
to
make
the
final
version
what
it
is
today
I
believe,
and
then,
most
importantly,
I
think
the
the
inspiration
and
the
aspiration
of
your
your
leadership
and
your
confidence
and
bold
decision
making
around
climate
change
and
smart
growth
certainly
were
beacons.
C
That
led
us
through
the
final
version
of
what
we've
presented
to
you
this
evening
and,
I
think,
are
a
real
step
forward
for
kingston.
So
thank
you
for
your
leadership
and
finally,
and
certainly
not
not
least,
of
all,
a
real
expression
of
sincere
gratitude
to
our
current
generation
of
planning
professionals,
whose
unwavering
dedication
to
professional
excellence
has
led
to
the
work.
C
That's
before
you
this
evening,
in
particular,
I'd
like
to
highlight
the
leadership
of
laura
flaherty,
who
will
be
talking
to
you
tonight
in
terms
of
some
of
the
details
as
the
project
manager
and
security
agarwal?
Who
is
our
manager
of
policy
planning
and
help
to
lead
the
central
kings
and
growth
strategy,
which
has
been
folded
into
the
final
version
of
kingston's
new
bylaw?
C
Also,
you
know,
as
we
worked
a
lot
on
the
policy
planning
which
has
taken
literally
hundreds
of
hours,
we
have
a
whole
department
that
is
also,
at
the
same
time
received
the
highest
number
of
development
approval,
applications
that
the
city
seen
on
record
and
without
the
dedication
and
support
of
james
barr
in
tim
park,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
have
kept
the
department
operating
while
we
were
doing
this
fundamental
policy
work.
So
thank
you
to
them
as
well.
C
Jordan,
rogers
is
a
new
manager
in
our
group
and
he's
in
charge
of
the
gis
group
and
as
part
of
the
delivery
of
the
zoning
bylaw
tonight.
What
we've
been
able
to
create
internally
is
a
new
innovative
mapping,
application
that
really
helps
to
provide
the
community
with
a
whole
new
resource
with
respect
to
the
zoning
bylaw
and
thank
you
to
jordan
and
his
whole
team,
because
they
really
delivered
some
innovative
solutions
and
did
it
in
a
very
timely
manner,
especially
in
time
for
the
third
draft
that
we're
presenting
to
you
this
evening.
C
I
think
that
this
this
project
overall
is
really
demonstrated
excellence
in
teamwork
and
collaboration,
especially
with
a
number
of
other
departments.
This
isn't
just
a
delivery
of
planning
services,
but
in
addition
to
gis,
which
I've
talked
about,
the
heritage
services
group
formed
an
important
part
of
this
conversation
and
the
overlay
information.
That's
part
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
transportation
services.
Certainly
the
conservation
authority
has
been
there
with
us
the
whole
time
and
advising
us
on
changes.
C
So
thank
you
to
brent
for
joining
us
this
evening
and
your
support
along
the
way.
So
without
further
ado
planning
services
is
proud
to
present
kingston's
new
zoning
bylaw,
which
we'd
like
to
consider
a
made
in
kingston
solution,
authored
by
kingston
city
builders.
So
without
further
ado,
laura
flaherty
is
going
to
present
to
you.
The
contents
of
draft
three
and
we'll
be
here
with
you
for
the
rest
of
this
evening
to
take
any
questions
that
you
may
have
ready
laura.
Thank
you.
D
D
D
Okay!
So
thank
you
paige
good
evening,
your
worship
and
members
of
council.
So
obviously
my
name
is
laura
flaherty,
I'm
a
project
manager
in
planning
services
and,
as
you
know,
my
responsibility
right
now
is
the
city's
new
zoning
bylaw
project.
So,
first
and
foremost
before
I
get
into
the
details
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project
on
tonight's
agenda,
there's
obviously
a
supplementary
report
with
new
recommend
new
recommendations
from
staff
that
are
intended
to
replace
the
previous
recommendations
that
were
on
the
planning
committee
agenda.
D
So
this
report
includes
all
of
the
responses
to
the
questions
that
were
raised
at
the
planning
committee
meeting
on
april
7th.
It
also
includes
an
updated
recommendation,
which
removes
the
right
crescent
intensification
area
from
our
work
at
this
time,
which
means
that
it
would
be
considered
through
a
separate
process
and
a
separate
report
in
the
future,
so
secrety
agarwal,
the
manager
of
policy
planning
will
speak
to
the
ckgs
and
the
right
crescent
component
of
this
later
in
the
presentation
next
slide,
please.
D
So
the
work
presented
here
tonight,
through
both
the
supplementary
report
and
the
comprehensive
report
integrates
recommendations
of
two
really
important
projects
for
the
city,
so
the
central
kingston
growth
strategy,
which
you'll
hear
us,
call
the
ckgs
and
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project.
So
on
the
screen
in
front
of
you,
I
have
a
very
simple
diagram,
showing
the
five
main
recommendations
and
how
the
work
of
these
two
projects
has
led
into
these
five
main
recommendations
recommendations.
D
So
the
ckgs
has
contributed
both
components
of
the
official
plan,
amendment
and
specific
sections
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw,
and
then
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project
itself
has
proposed
amendments
through
a
proposed
opa
bylaw,
the
actual
kingston
zoning
bylaw
itself.
It
also
includes
a
proposed
brand
new
cash
in
lieu
of
parking
bylaw
and
an
amendment
to
the
fees
and
charges
bylaw
related
to
that
cash
in
lieu
of
parking
bylaw,
and
also
some
proposed
amendments
to
the
delegated
authority.
D
So
we're
going
to
try
to
focus
the
presentation
on
some
of
the
bigger,
more
strategic
policy
moves,
and
obviously
we
do
have
a
number
of
staff
here
that
are
happy
to
answer
any
of
your
detailed
questions
following
the
presentation,
so
the
zoning
bylaw
itself.
The
final
version
includes
a
five-part
text
document,
as
well
as
a
series
of
maps
that
correspond
with
the
text
and
the
open
house
presentation
from
march
30th.
D
We
did
a
pretty
deep
dive
into
the
breakdown
of
each
section
by
section
and
all
of
the
various
information
that's
available
on
all
of
the
schedules,
and
we
also
kind
of
did
a
primer
on
how
to
use
the
interactive
mapping
tool.
So
if
you
want
a
little
bit
more
detailed
information,
I
do
recommend
going
back
and
checking
out
that
presentation
next
slide.
Please,
as
you
all
know,
we
currently
have
five
main
zoning
bylaws
in
some
instances,
they're
upwards
of
45
years
old.
D
They
don't
protect
resources,
they
restrict
certain
types
of
housing
and
employment
opportunities
and
they
also
don't
prior
to
prioritize
appropriate
forms
of
transportation.
So
the
main
purpose
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
is
to
implement
the
official
plan
policies
and
to
really
connect
the
vision
for
future
growth
in
the
op
with
our
zoning
bylaw.
So
we're
required
to
do
it
by
the
planning
act
and
it
hasn't
been
done.
So
it's
really
time
for
the
new
zoning
by-law
to
really
implement
those
op
policies
on
the
ground.
D
The
final
draft
includes
some
standards
that
really
are
still
reflective
of
the
original
project
scope,
which
had
focused
on
a
consolidation
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaws.
There
was
a
turning
point
about
18
months
ago,
where
you
know,
instead
of
just
consolidating
the
existing
provisions,
there
really
became
this
sense
of
urgency
and
a
different
ambition
that
shifted
this
project
more
towards
a
tweak
and
a
rethink
of
a
number
of
different
provisions
and
fundamental
components.
D
So
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
that's
attached
to
the
report
represents
a
really
good
mix
of
all
three,
the
consolidation,
tweak
and
rethink,
and
it
certainly
has
given
us
the
ability
to
really
embrace
a
lot
of
the
council's
strategic
plan
and
priorities
and
the
broader
op
policies
next
slide.
Please.
D
So
obviously,
this
project
dates
way
back
to
2016.
The
first
draft
was
released
or
the
the
first
draft
was
created
by
an
outside
consultant
and
released
to
the
public
in
october
of
2016,
and
we
did
extensive
public
consultation
and
outreach
at
that
point
in
time
we
attended
a
number
of
events
all
across
the
city
and
held
a
whole
slew
of
coffee,
chats
and
and
pop-in
conversations
with
staff.
D
So
the
project
was
put
on
hold
in
2017
when
we
were
completing
the
op
update
and
the
newly
directed
ckgs
work
began
so
really
fast
forward
to
september
of
2020,
so
actually
less
than
18
months
ago,
and
as
staff
we
really
took
hold
of
the
zoning
bylaw
itself.
The
only
outside
consultant
who's
participated
in.
It
has
been
brent
tottering
and
specifically
on
the
power
of
parking
discussion
paper,
but
all
of
the
mapping
and
all
of
the
work
that's
been
done
on
the
text
of
the
bylaw
itself
has
been
done
in-house
by
city
staff.
D
So
we've
got
undergone
extensive
public
consultation
over
the
course
of
the
last
18
months
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
screen
in
front
of
you,
you'll
see
a
number
of
public
events
and
stakeholder
opportunities.
They
all
happened
during
covid,
so
the
majority
of
them
have
been
virtual.
All
of
the
events
that
are
bolded
have
been
archived
and
are
publicly
publicly
available
for
anyone
who's
interested
in
watching
those.
D
So
obviously,
what's
not
on
the
side
are
the
thousands
of
emails
phone
conversations,
individual
meetings
with
property
owners
and
interested
people
who
have
participated
through
the
process.
There
have
been
extension,
extensive,
individual
conversations
covering
a
whole
spectrum
of
public
and
stakeholders
who
have
engaged
with
us
on
this
project
next
slide,
please
and
as
paige
had
mentioned
earlier,
I
think
it's
really
important
for
me
to
say
thank
you
to
every
member
of
the
public
who
has
participated
in
this
project,
reviewing
the
documents
providing
comments,
attending
meetings
and
having
conversations
with
us.
D
I
know
it
takes
an
immense
amount
of
time
and
and
personal
energy.
So
I
I
really
think
the
recommendations
that
we've
made
are
truly
reflective
of
the
feedback
and
respond
to
the
feedback
that
the
public
has
provided
and
that
they
are
better
documents
because
of
that
feedback.
So
thank
you
in
the
agenda
package
this
evening.
There
are
literally
thousands
of
pages
of
emails
on
the
project.
D
If
the
requested
change
made
sense-
and
it
was
in
the
scope
of
the
project,
we've
made
every
effort
to
reflect
that
comment
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
for
those
of
the
for
the
you
know,
the
small
number
of
comments,
relatively
speaking,
that
haven't
been
addressed.
We
explain
directly
to
the
people
why
they
haven't
been
addressed
to
properly
close
loop,
so
there
have
been
a
number
of
more
recent
comments
that
have
been
provided
on
the
addendum
for
this
evening.
We've
reviewed
all
of
the
comments.
We
have
no
outstanding
concerns
from
a
staff
perspective.
D
All
of
the
feedback
has
been
properly
considered
through
this
process
and
actually,
in
many
cases,
is
already
proactively
planned
for
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
on
this
really
large
project
where
I've
been
in
communication
with
you
know
hundreds,
if
not
thousands
of
people.
I
think
the
few
comments
that
we
are
receiving
now
are
are
really
reflective
of
the
the
vast
majority
of
those
who
have
participated
are
happy
with
the
way
that
we've
presented
their
feedback
and
reflected
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw.
D
I've
included
a
couple
bullet
points
on
this
slide
to
reflect
some
of
the
remaining
concerns.
They
include
proposed
minimum
densities
on
the
pre-zone
subdivision,
lands,
riparian
corridors,
caring
for
bedroom
limitations
and
maximum
rv
lights
from
the
2019
work.
We've
considered
this
feedback
and
we
continue
to
think
that
our
proposed
zoning
bylaw
is
appropriate.
D
I
do
think
that
there
are
some
pieces
of
work
that
we
are
pretty
proud
of
as
staff
that
I
just
wanted
to
flag
here.
We've
completely
overhauled
the
project.
In
the
last
18
months,
we've
given
parking
a
complete
rethink
and
has
really
been
a
game-changing
conversation
about
parking
we've
completely
overhauled.
The
mapping
created
a
new
interactive
mapping
website
we've
effectively
dealt
with
exceptions,
changed
the
conversation
about
how
residential
uses
are
treated
in
the
zoning
bylaw
and
really
created
a
document
that
is
more
user
friendly.
D
Next
slide,
please
I'll
try
to
quickly
walk
you
through
the
eight
big
moves
that
we've
made
in
the
zoning
bylaw
that
I
think,
really
reflect
the
strategic
priorities
of
council
and
the
vision
for
future
growth
in
the
city.
So
the
zoning
bylaw
will
help
new
businesses
and
industries
thrive.
Sorry
in
commercial
employment
zones
with
simplified
definitions
and
we've
expanded
the
home
occupation
provisions,
we've
also
added
in
new
commercial
provision,
permissions
for
places
of
worship.
Next
slide.
Please.
D
I
said
this
a
couple
times
now,
but
I
think
it's
worth
restating
tonight.
The
bylaw
is
called
the
kingston
zoning
bylaw
we've
left
out
the
word
city
to
truly
reflect
that
kingston
is
comprised
of
rural
areas
and
urban
areas
and
they'll
all
be
subject
to
the
same
unified
zoning
bylaw.
So
we
have
taken
a
rural
lens
with
our
review
of
the
zone
standards
and
the
provisions
that
apply
in
the
rural
area,
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
the
new
zoning
bylaw
helps
to
create
a
more
vibrant,
healthy
and
diversified
rural
area.
D
So
we've
implemented
new
prime
agricultural
area
zone
and
expanded
uses
that
are
considered
in
agricultural
use.
We've
added
in
new
agri-tourism
uses
rural
uses
on
vacant
lands
and
food
truck
permissions,
we've
added
in
a
new
hamlet
zone
and
created
what
we
expect
that
the
car
share
program
will
actually
be
expanded
to
provide
rural
options
for
rural
residents
next
slide.
Please,
fundamentally,
we've
changed
the
focus
of
the
residential
use,
definition
to
make
sure
that
it
is
inclusive
and
equitable.
It
does
not
focus
on
the
people,
the
type
or
term
of
the
ownership
or
the
rental
agreement.
D
It
focuses
really
on
the
fundamental
land
use.
The
zoning
by-law
will
help
to
ensure
that
housing
opportunities
are
treated
equally
across
the
community.
Next
slide,
please,
the
zoning
buy,
will
help
to
support
new
housing
construction
with
new
additional
residential
unit
permissions
that
have
been
very
carefully
crafted
to
ensure
that
these
units
are
compatible
in
existing
neighborhoods
across
the
city.
D
Portable
tiny
houses
have
been
planned
for
in
the
context
of
the
current
op
policies,
and
both
of
these
topics
were
just
covered
in
a
discussion
paper
and
and
were
the
subject
of
a
public
meeting
in
june.
Some
subdivision
lands
have
been
pre-zoned
with
new
minimum
residential
densities.
The
permissions
do
allow
for
a
wide
range
of
appropriately
scaled
housing
types
that
will
be
compatible
in
these
neighborhoods
and
will
ensure
that
the
future
build
out
of
these
lands
really
helps
to
meet
the
minimum
densities
that
are
established
in
the
op.
D
D
So
the
power
of
parking
discussion
paper
really
transformed
the
conversation
about
parking
policy
and
created
a
framework
that
eliminates
minimum
parking
requirements
for
non-residential
uses,
reduces
the
minimum
requirements
for
residential
uses.
The
bylaws
supports
alternative
transportation
modes
like
car
share,
cycling,
active
transportation,
public
transit
through
really
innovative
and
interconnected
zoning
provisions
that
have
been
carefully
crafted
to
work
together.
The
new
approach
continues
to
require
accessible
parking,
supports
the
creation
of
affordable
housing
and
the
conservation
of
heritage
resources.
D
D
So
we
did
a
detailed
discussion
paper
about
the
natural
heritage
elements
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
will
be
protected
through
a
new
epa
zone
and
a
30
meter
separation,
distance
from
water
bodies.
We've
also
created
three
new
heritage
zones
and
for
the
three
designated
heritage
conservation
districts.
So
the
provisions
align
with
the
heritage
district
plans
in
those
areas
next
slide.
Please,
the
source
water
protection
policies
align
with
the
source
protection
plan.
The
floodplain
overlay
has
been
updated,
based
on
the
most
recent
information
available
from
the
crca.
D
The
airport
noise
exposure
implements
the
nef
contour
of
the
official
plan
and
the
mds
provisions
implement
the
provincial
minimum
distance
separation
requirements
for
livestock
facilities,
railways,
rail
yards
pipelines,
mineral
aggregate
resource
operations
are
all
subject
to
updated
separation
distances
that
are
appropriate
and
reflect
best
practices
for
these
uses.
Next
slide,
please
so.
Finally,
the
last
big
move
in
the
zoning
bylaw
is
really
recognizing
the
existing
permissions
in
an
appropriate
way.
D
So
I
think
we
found
a
way
to
make
an
incredibly
complex
system
work
through
the
application
of
the
not
subject
to
this
bylaw
component
for
the
old
red
exceptions
that
we
had
talked
about
at
the
november
meeting.
What
we
proposed
makes
sense
and
was
done
in
a
manner
that
has
been
broadly
supported
by
the
community.
So,
most
importantly,
we
did
it
in
a
way
that
makes
sure
that
the
zoning
by
law
applies
to
as
much
of
the
city
as
possible,
with
plans
to
continuously
pull
more
of
those
lands
into
the
new
zoning.
D
Bile
over
time,
I
think
in
the
end,
the
lands
that
are
not
subject
to
the
bylaw
make
up
less
than
three
percent
of
the
total
properties
in
the
city.
So
since
the
project
was
fundamentally
formatted
as
a
consolidation,
it
maintains
the
existing
permissions
as
much
as
possible,
where
it's
appropriate,
based
on
the
op
policies
and
it
limits
the
creation
of
legal
non-conforming
uses.
So
with
that
I'll
hand
it
over
to
secreti
for
the
ckgs.
Thank
you.
E
E
Oh
I'm
sorry
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
The
ckgs
was
initiated
in
late
2017
in
response
to
council
consideration
of
an
interim
control
bylaw
that
would
have
had
the
effect
of
prohibiting
new
development
or
alterations
to
residential
development
within
the
sydney,
portsmouth
and
williamsville
electoral
districts.
E
The
study
area
is
shown
in
yellow
on
this
map
and
includes
the
residentially
designated
areas
in
central
kingston
that
are
currently
regulated
by
zoning
bio
number,
8499,
wsb,
canada
group
limited,
was
retained
to
undertake
this
study
and
the
intent
of
the
study
was
to
create
a
policy
and
zoning
framework
to
guide
infill
and
intensification
and
to
identify
locations
and
forms
of
intensification
for
accommodating
future
residential
growth.
The
final
recommendations
report,
prepared
by
wsb,
was
presented
at
a
planning
committee
meeting
on
august
12
2021.
E
So
the
ckgs
was
a
separate
private
project,
but
still
connected
to
the
new
zoning
bylaw.
The
ckgs
included
recommendations
for
the
residential
zones
in
central
kingston
that
have
been
integrated
into
the
new
zoning
dialogue.
These
included
the
existing
low
density,
medium
density
and
high
density
residential
zones,
as
well
as
new
intensification
areas
that
have
been
identified
through
the
study
which
I'm
going
to
talk
about
in
a
minute.
Additionally,
proposed
policies
for
the
intensification
areas
are
included
in
a
new
section
10g
of
the
official
plan,
which
is
part
of
the
proposed
official
plan.
E
The
ckgs
study
was
carried
out
over
four
phases,
which
included
a
background
analysis
and
initial
identification
of
intensification
areas,
followed
by
directions
for
the
policy
and
zoning
framework
and
then
final
recommendations.
All
of
these
reports
were
posted
on
the
project
website
and
there
were
a
number
of
engagement
events
held
throughout
throughout
the
course
of
the
study.
As
you
can
see
on
the
slide,
the
ones
that
are
bolded
on
the
on
the
slide
are
available,
as
recorded
videos.
E
So
there
were
two
intensification
areas
that
are
proposed
to
be
implemented
through
the
new
zoning
bilo
and
the
proposed
official
plan
amendment
and
are
shown
on
this
map.
These
include
the
johnson
and
brock
street
corridors,
west
of
division,
street
and
portsmouth
avenue
corridor
north
of
king
street.
There
were
two
other
intensification
areas
identified
in
in
previous,
which
were
presented
at
previous
public
meetings
which
have
since
been
removed
in
response
to
the
public
feedback
received,
which
I
will
mention
discuss
later.
E
E
A
minimum
2
meter,
landscape
buffer
is
also
proposed
next
slide.
Please
next
is
the
portsmouth
avenue
corridor,
so
this
area
previously
also
included
a
portion
of
johnson
street
at
the
intersection
with
portsmouth
avenue,
which
has
been
removed
in
response
to
the
feedback
received
at
a
public
meeting
that
was
held
in
december
of
last
year.
This
area
is
proposed
to
be
further
reviewed
through
the
official
plan
update
for
the
portsmouth
avenue
corridor.
E
The
recommendations
in
the
zoning
bilo
and
in
the
official
plan
are
for
four
stories
or
12
meters
in
height,
whichever
is
lesser
and
the
end.
These
could
accommodate
walk-up
apartments
or
back-to-back
town
houses
or
stacked
downhouse
type
of
developments
for
some
properties
that
have
frontage
on
both
portsmouth
avenue
and
woodstone
crescent.
The
recommended
zoning
looks
to
have
development
address
both
of
these
frontages
next
slide.
E
Please,
the
observing
of
these
areas
to
allow
for
additional
housing
reflects
council
priorities
and
artificial
plan
aspirations
related
to
climate
change
by
allowing
for
intensification
within
the
urban
boundary
reducing
parking
requirements
within
these
areas,
encouraging
transportation
model
shift
encouraging
sustainable
design,
elements
and
heights
that
would
allow
for
wood
frame
construction,
as
the
ckgs
study
was
advancing.
There
were
a
number
of
other
city
initiatives
that
had
been
undertaken
and
the
ckgs
is
meant
to
work
alongside
these
other
initiatives
as
well
in
terms
of
integrating
the
lessons
learned.
E
E
Staff
have
received
a
number
of
questions
and
comments
on
the
ckgs
recommendations.
The
comprehensive
report
included
written
comments
received
as
well
as
a
comment
and
response
matrix,
which
included
staffs
responses
to
those
comments
and
staff
have
endeavoured
to
provide
individual
responses
to
com
comments
received
since
the
april
7th
planning
committee
meeting
as
appropriate.
The
additional
comments
received
are
included
in
the
addendum
for
tonight's
meeting.
E
This
slide
includes
some
of
the
input
received
since
the
april
7th
planning
committee
meeting,
which
have
been
primarily
primarily
around
inclusion
of
an
intensification
area
along
right
crescent,
which
has
since
been
removed,
and
I
will
be
talking
a
little
bit
more
about
that
area
in
my
next
slide.
Additionally,
comments
have
been
received
requesting
some
of
the
policies
that
are
proposed
for
the
intensification
areas
in
section
10b
10g.
E
So
the
right
crescent
intensification
area
includes
four
properties
with
frontage
on
right
crescent
and
either
bathroom
or
sir
johnny
mcdonald
boulevard.
The
previous
recommendations
had
proposed
maximum
heights
of
12
stories
along
bath.
Road
and
sir
johnny
mcdonald
boulevard
and
six
stories
along
right
crescent
on
these
properties,
as
shown
on
the
slide
and
as
I
mentioned
in
response
to
the
feedback
that
we
received,
staff
have
removed
the
right
crescent
intensification
area
from
the
new
zoning
dialogue
and
the
official
plan
amendment
at
this
time
to
be
considered
through
a
separate
process
in
a
future
report.
E
After
the
public
meeting
on
april,
7th
staff
held
an
engagement
session
with
area
residents
on
april
14th
and
I've
committed
to
additional
consultation
with
the
residents
in
the
coming
months,
and
this
area
will
now
be
dealt
with
through
a
separate
future
amendment
to
the
zoning
barlow
and
the
official
plan.
In
the
meantime,
the
equivalent
zone,
as
the
existing
zoning
bilo,
is
proposed
for
these
properties.
E
I'm
now
going
to
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
proposed
official
plan.
Amendment
amendments
are
proposed
to
the
op
to
better
enable
the
new
zoning
by-law
to
implement
the
intent
of
the
existing
op
policies
and
also
to
implement
the
final
policy
recommendations
of
the
ckgs
with
respect
to
identified
intensification
areas
next
slide,
please.
E
The
proposed
official
plan
amendment
can
be
summarized
into
general
themes,
as
shown
in
the
slide,
and
they
include
amendments
related
to
additional
residential
units
and
tiny
houses
which
propose
to
replace
second
residential
units
with
additional
residential
units,
replacing
garden
suite
terminology
with
tiny
house
and
removing
servicing
constraints
maps
from
the
op
and
bringing
it
into
the
zoning
bilo.
Instead,
amendments
to
establish
complementary
uses
for
places
of
worship
and
removing
funding
distinctions
between
schools,
amendments
related
to
transitioning
liberian
corridors,
which
are
the
lands
within
30
meters
of
a
water
body.
E
From
a
map
designation
to
a
text-based
requirement.
Amendments
to
establish
a
simplified,
simplified
process
for
on-farm
diversified
users
and
agriculture
related
uses
amendments
to
provide
greater
clarity
and
establish
simplified
processes
to
establish
a
complementary
use
in
locations
for
outdoor
storage
within
our
employment
areas.
Our
new
policies
to
enable
council
to
delegate
its
authority
to
make
decisions
on
various
minor
technical
amendments
to
the
zoning
bylaws.
E
Some
technical
house
speaks
housekeeping
amendments
that
do
not
affect
the
intent
of
the
existing
policies
and
amendments
related
to
the
ckgs.
That
would
create
a
new
central
kingston
specific
policy
area.
In
section
10g
of
the
official
plan,
along
with
a
new
map
showing
the
proposed
intensification
areas,
next
slide,
please
and
I
will
hand
it
back
to
laura.
D
D
So,
first
and
foremost,
the
first
three
recommendations
are
really
those
that
you
would
expect
at
the
conclusion
of
these
projects.
The
first
recommendation
is
the
approval
of
the
two
projects,
including
the
zoning
bylaw,
and
the
proposed
official
plan
amendment,
with
the
exception
of
the
right
crescent
intensification
area
which
has
been
removed
for
a
separate
process.
D
The
second
recommendation
speaks
to
the
proposed
official
plan,
amendment
bylaw
that
would
implement
both
the
ckgs
and
the
new
zoning
bylaw,
and
those
would
be
the
recommended
amendments
to
the
official
plan.
The
third
recommendation
is
related
specifically
to
the
new
kingston
zoning
bylaw,
so
the
enactment
of
our
final
version
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
including
all
of
the
schedules
next
slide.
Please.
D
The
fourth
fifth
and
sixth
recommendations
are
directly
connected
to
the
cash
move,
parking
bylaw,
so
the
first
recommendation
would
establish
the
fund,
that's
required
to
deposit
any
of
the
money
that's
collected
through
the
bylaw,
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
The
fifth
recommendation
would
actually
pass
the
proposed
cash-and-load
parking,
bylaw
and
repeal
the
existing
bylaw,
which
only
applies
in
the
downtown
area.
D
So
it's
really
an
idea
to
help
integrate
the
ideas
of
alternative
modes
of
transportation
by
allowing
that
money
to
be
used
to
support
a
viable
alternative
and
then
the
sixth
recommendation
is
actually
a
reduction
in
the
application
fee.
We
charge
for
those
cash
and
loan
parking,
bylaw
applications.
It's
really
just
to
reflect
the
simplified
process
that
we
would
expect.
D
As
a
result
of
the
bylaw
next
slide,
please
recommendation
7
is
an
amendment
to
the
delegated
authority
bylaw
for
planning
services.
So
right
now
there
are
already
a
number
of
applications
that
are
delegated
to
the
director
of
planning
services
and
through
this
work,
we've
identified
a
number
of
future
amendments
that
we
would
anticipate
would
have
to
happen,
and
that
would
be
technical
and
very
minor
in
nature.
So
these
include
amendments
to
the
floodplain
overlay
when
the
crca
provides
us
with
updated
floodplain
regulation
information,
the
removal
of
constrained
areas
from
additional
residential
unit
overlay.
D
D
That
would
be
a
specific
amendment
that
we
would
be
delegating
to
the
director
of
planning
services,
because
it
is
very
technical
in
nature
and
then
amendments.
I
would
bring
red
exceptions
that
are
currently
not
subject
to
the
new
zoning
bylaw
into
the
new
zoning
by-law,
where
they
conform
with
the
official
plan.
So
this
new
authority
in
the
planning
act,
I
think
it's
it's
really
important
to
note
that
it
does
not
remove
the
public
notice
or
the
public
meeting
requirements.
D
What
it
does
is
actually
just
delegate
the
decision-making
authority
on
these
types
of
applications,
including
the
passage
of
the
bylaw.
So
any
applications
that
would
fall
under
these
minor
delegated
authority
would
actually
be
required
to
proceed
through
a
normal
public
meeting
with
the
normal
public
notification.
D
It
would
really
just
alleviate
the
required
time
and
staff
resources
that
go
into
actually
preparing
the
final
comprehensive
report
and
getting
those
bylaws
onto
a
council
agenda,
because
those
agendas
do
get
quite
backed
up
when
we
look
at
the
overall
timeline
on
on
when
we
need
to
finalize
the
information
next
slide,
please
so
the
final
two
recommendations
on
this
slide
are
number
eights
related,
actually
to
a
two-year
moratorium.
That's
automatically
established
in
the
planning
act
when
we
pass
new
city-wide
zoning
bylaws.
D
So
council
has
the
ability
to
pass
a
motion
that
would
allow
for
individual
applications.
Classes
of
applications
are
all
applications
in
general,
so
the
two-year
moratorium
actually
prohibits
any
zoning
bylaw
amendments
within
two
years
of
passing
the
new
zoning
bylaws.
So
what
we're
recommending
is
that
all
zoning
bylaw
amendment
applications
be
permitted
within
that
two-year
period.
So
that's
what
is
reflected
in
that
recommendation.
D
D
So,
as
stated
in
the
comprehensive
report,
the
final
draft
of
the
new
kingston
zoning
bylaw
and
the
proposed
official
plan
amendment
implements
and
conforms
with
the
city's
official
plan.
It's
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
has
regard
for
all
matters
of
provincial
interests
that
are
set
out
in
the
planning
act.
The
the
recommendations
represent
good
land
use
planning
and
they
certainly
reflect
the
diverse
public
feedback
that
has
been
provided
through
the
extent
of
consultation
on
these
two
projects
I'll
hand
it
over
to
brent.
For
some
final
remarks
to
end
the
presentation.
Thank
you.
F
Good
evening,
mr
mayor
members
of
council,
I
was
invited
or
asked
if
I
had
any
additional
thoughts
to
share
with
council
at
this
final
stage.
In
the
presentation
of
this
remarkable
piece
of
work
and
and
perhaps
not
surprising
to
you,
I
did
have
a
few
thoughts
that
I
wanted
to
share
next
slide.
Please,
madam
clerk.
F
It's
fair
to
say
that
this
is
by
far
the
largest
planning
work
program
that
has
ever
had
to
connect
those
dots
in
the
face
of
this
new
culture
of
the
planning
department,
you've
heard
from
us
in
previous
work
programs.
How
overtly
we've
tried
to
connect
the
dots
it
is.
It
is
absolutely
true
to
say
that
the
creation
of
a
new
zoning
by-law
is
probably
the
single
hardest
thing
for
any
planning
department
to
do
so.
F
F
So
this
has
been
a
staggeringly
complex
piece
of
work,
and
I
wanted
to
put
some
of
that
into
context
and
to
start
with
the
idea
that
this
plan
doesn't
just
operationally
significantly
improve
your
zoning
picture
in
the
city,
but
it
allows
the
zoning
bylaw
to
be
a
deliberate
tool
in
the
realization
of
council's
objectives.
Council
strategic
goals,
whether
those
are
goals
around
affordability,
climate
change,
mitigation,
leadership,
public
health,
transportation
and
walkability,
or
indeed
economic
development.
F
You
at
least
consider
me
not
your
typical
outsider
at
this
point,
as
as
laura
noted
by
far
the
deepest
level
of
involvement,
I've
had
in
this
work
program
is
in
the
creation
of
the
parking
work,
the
power
parking
document
which
I
co-authored
with
staff
and
that
strategy,
but
I've
also
been
helped
requested
to
help
with
strategic
decisions
throughout
the
last
year
and
a
half
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
the
completion
of
the
central
kingston
growth
strategy.
And
I
have
these
series
of
observations
that
I
wanted
to
share
with
council.
F
The
first
is
that
I,
I
hope
everyone
understands
the
the
fact
that
this
document
to
my
eye
has
become
a
badly
needed
game
changer,
not
only
in
the
legibility
and
organizational
structure
and
manageability
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
was
not
a
good
zoning
bylaw.
To
be
perfectly
blunt
in
all
those
definitions
of
success,
it's
not
only
now
a
a
a
brand
new
document
in
terms
of
its
organizational
competency,
but
it
has
made
some
very
important
city
building
decisions
that
will
position
the
city
very
well
in
terms
of
going
forward
to
address
its
strategic
priorities.
F
Secondly,
as
I've
said
an
unprecedented
vision-driven
connecting
of
all
the
dots-
and
that
is
something
that
I
think
given
the
scale
and
complexity
of
these
work
programs
is
something
that
is
certainly
worth
noted.
The
decision
to
not
just
consolidate
but
to
tweak
and
indeed
rethink
many
parts
of
the
exercise
has
been
incredibly
important
and
I
want
to,
as
I
have
done
in
the
past,
compliment
staff
and
the
leadership
team
at
city
hall
for
having
the
culture
and
willingness
to
do
that.
F
Imagine
if
you
will
staff's
position
when
they
had
already
had
years
of
process
towards
trying
to
consolidate
this
zoning
bala
to
suddenly
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
decide
that
consolidating.
It
was
not
good
enough,
even
though
the
almost
figurative
gun
was
to
their
head
to
get
this
work
done
and
instead
fully
embraced
the
idea
of
changing
the
content
from
a
tweak
to
a
rethink
perspective
in
a
way
that
was
badly
needed
for
the
city.
F
I've
told
council
before
that
most
cities
have
the
culture
that
fights
aggressively
to
protect
from
what
is
called
scope
creep.
The
idea
that
new
expectations,
adding
on
to
an
existing
work
program,
is
something
to
be
protected
from
on
the
part
of
staff
ins.
Instead
of
resisting
this
idea
of
scope
creep
your
staff,
your
leadership
has
leaned
into
the
idea
that
we
frankly
can't
afford
to
do
a
project
that
doesn't
actually
meet
your
own
needs
and
and
connect
those
dots
to
council's
objectives.
F
So
rather
fearlessly
went
ahead
and
in
the
course
of
just
a
year
and
a
half
transformed
a
process
that
had
taken
years
and
hadn't
yet
completed.
Even
a
consolidation
and
managed
in
a
year
and
a
half
to
not
only
conceive
complete
that
consolation
consolidation,
but
also
as
a
substantial
and
fundamental
tweak
and
rethink.
That
is
something
I
have
to
say
that
I
have
not
seen
that
many
planning
departments
try
to
do
or
accomplish
in
the
context
of
all
the
work
that
I
do
around
canada
and
and
indeed
globally.
F
F
This
is
going
to
be
a
strange
thing
to
say,
but
I
do
consider
this
piece
of
work
to
be
a
model
for
fast
creation
of
zoning
bylaws.
There
are
many
many
cities
in
canada
right
now,
council
that
are
in
the
process
of
trying
to
redo
their
zoning
bylaw
and
not
just
consolidate
but
rethink
them.
It
easily
takes
four
to
six
years
easily
and
so
the
seven
year
time
frame
that
miss
agnew
suggested
is
not
at
all
unusual.
F
It
is
remarkable
to
think
that
this
piece
of
work
has
been
achieved
in
such
a
short
period
of
time
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
at
the
same
time
as
unprecedented
approval
application
pressures,
which
I
certainly
know
how
hard
that
can
be
at
the
same
time,
is
creating
a
significant
culture
change
amongst
staff
at
the
same
time
as
essentially
recrafting
the
planning
department
management
team
and
getting
new
people
up
to
speed.
The
significance
of
that
accomplishment,
I
hope,
is
not
lost
on
council
from
my
own
perspective.
F
As
someone
who's
seen,
this
work
done
in
many
cities
over
my
last
30
years.
I've
come
away
extremely
impressed
and
I
will
complement
staff
in
the
way
that
staff
usually
don't
feel
allowed
to
compliment
themselves,
but
I
also
complement
the
leadership
team,
miss
hurdling
council
for
really
leaning
in
on
these
challenges
and
encouraging
staff
to
do
their
best
work.
I
think
I
certainly
have
been
proud
to
be
part
of
the
staff
team.
That's
created
this
piece
of
work
and
been
able
to
bring
it
to
you
tonight.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
G
D
It's
it's
not
a
review
against
the
zoning
by-law
itself.
It's
really
the
tests
are
established
in
the
official
plan.
So
I
don't
I
when
we
say
that
the
new
zoning
bylaw
is
coming
into
effect.
It's
certainly
not
staff's
expectation
that
it
would
all
of
a
sudden,
halt,
rezoning
applications
or
or
limit
the
recommendations
from
a
positive
perspective
of
rezoning
applications
that
come
in,
because
I
certainly
think
that
there
would
be
many
opportunities
where
rezoning
application
could
conform
with
the
official
plan.
D
The
zoning
bylaw
really
is
only
one
way
to
implement
the
intent
of
the
official
plan
and
the
official
plan
policies
are
written
at
a
much
higher
more
broad
scale,
so
they
can
be
implemented
in
different
ways
on
different
properties,
and
I
think
that
it
isn't
a
failure
of
the
zoning
bylaw
if
the
rezoning
is
applied
for
and
staff
recommend
approval,
it's
an
expected
outcome
that
it's
just
the
nature
of
the
the
planning
process
and
the
tests
that
are
established
in
the
planning
act.
Thank
you.
H
H
I
know
that
there
are
some
houses,
even
in
my
district
along
safari
drive
that
are
right
now,
their
backyards
or
in
some
cases
the
entire
house
is
within
that
30
meter
ribbon
of
life
buffer
and
they
they
might
want
to
put
a
shed
in
their
backyard
and
they'd,
be
prevented
from
doing
that.
But
is
this
what's?
What
is
a
part
of
it
like
we
don't
have
a
map
of
which
areas
are
would
be
affected.
So
how
can
we
answer
that
question
back
to
the
public?
Thank
you.
A
D
Through
you,
your
worship,
thank
you,
counselor
osanic,
so
certainly
the
riparian
corridor
discussion
is
something
that
we've
talked
about
extensively
on
the
final
phase
of
this
project.
We
did
have
a
discussion
paper
that
went
to
the
april
29
meeting
so
almost
a
year
ago
of
planning
committee,
we
did
have
a
public
meeting
about
it
and
we
have
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
the
intent
of
the
existing
official
plan
policies
and
ensuring
that
the
new
zoning
bylaw
best
implements
the
intent
of
those
policies.
So
you're
correct.
D
The
riparian
corridors
are
proposed
to
be
moved
from
the
natural
heritage,
a
features
which
are
shown
on
schedule
7
to
the
natural
heritage
b,
features
which
are
shown
on
schedule.
Eight
of
the
official
plan,
and
the
effect
of
that
amendment
means
that
they're
removed
from
the
epa
land
use
designation
and
the
the
proposed
tech
text
changes
actually
change
that
from
a
mapped
protection
to
a
text-based
protection
in
the
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
what
that
really
means
is
they
are
mapped
right
now,
they're
on
schedule.
D
D
So
the
work
that
we've
done
actually
recognizes
that
water
bodies
are
something
that
change
over
time
and
it's
important
that
our
our
zoning
approach
is
flexible
and
recognizes
that
they
aren't
static
features
in
the
landscape,
so
change
them
to
the
text-based
protection
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
We
think
actually
improves
the
protection
for
riparian
corridors
because
it
doesn't
actually
need
to
be
mapped
on
schedule,
eight
to
receive
that
protection.
D
The
the
question
related
to
sheds
on
existing
residential
properties.
So
certainly,
we've
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
residents
on
on
this
exact
topic,
because
in
the
first
draft
all
of
those
properties
were
proposed
to
be
in
the
epa
zone.
So
the
whole
intent
of
the
work
of
the
discussion
paper
was
to
be
able
to
apply
the
underlying
zoning
permissions
to
those
existing
properties
that
are
already
developed.
D
So
within
the
the
text
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
that's
in
front
of
you
this
evening
we
actually
have
a
recognition
for
existing
residential
lots
in
the
urban
areas
of
the
city
that
they
can
actually
have
a
shed
within
that
30
meter
setback,
a
small
shed
so
less
than
10
square
meters,
so
about
108
square
feet.
I
believe-
and
it
has
to
just
have
a
setback
of
7.5
meters
rather
than
the
30
meters.
So
we
have
made
adjustments
to
the
language
and
direct
response
to
that
feedback
that
we've
received
from
the
public.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you
and
another
question
is
the
holding
provision
on
the
epa
like
a
holding
provision?
That's
usually,
you
know
to
hold
until
development
occurs,
and
so
that
just
seems
a
little
bit
unusual
to
have
a
holding
provision
on
the
epa
like.
I
want
epa
to
be
epa
forever,
and
so
I
don't
understand
the
holding
provision.
D
Through
you,
your
worship,
thank
you,
councilor
seneca.
We
we
completely
agree
with
that
sentiment
there.
There
are
no
holding
provisions
that
are
proposed
in
the
epa
zone,
so
I
think
there
was
a
little
bit
of
a
some
miscommunication
about
that
from
a
member
of
the
public,
and
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
very
clear
that
we
agree
that
the
the
whole
intent
of
the
epa
zone
is
is
really
to
protect.
Those
features
from
development
and
a
holding
condition
would
mean
that
some
form
of
development
might
be
appropriate.
H
Thank
you
for
confirming
that.
So
my
next
question
is
through
you.
Your
worship
is
not
about
riparian
corridor
surprisingly,
but
it
is
about
pipelines.
So,
like
there's
four
of
us
at
council,
maybe
even
more
going
back
to
I
don't
know
if
it
was
two,
I
think
it
was
back
in
220
and
2020
at
the
beginning
of
covet.
We
started
hearing
a
lot
about
pipelines
and
some
of
us
had
a
tour
of
the
pipelines
that
run
through
kingston,
and
we
learned
a
lot
about
pipelines.
H
We're
just
wondering
if
we
just
for
institutions,
so
this
would
be
for
any
new
hospitals,
new
schools,
new
prisons,
new
long-term
care
homes,
something
of
that
effect
right,
like
we
know,
through
the
the
supporting
documentation
that
was
prepared
tonight.
The
supplemental
information
that
right
now
the
setbacks
are
30
meters
from
pipelines.
H
If
we
were
like
as
a
council,
if
we
agree
to
increase
that
to
60
meters,
let's
say
right:
we've
seen
in
correspondence
talked
about
200
meters,
but
if
we
just
increased
it
instead
of
30
to
60
what
would
be
the
implication
because,
right
now
we
don't
have.
I
don't
think
the
school
in
woodhaven.
That
is
close
to
a
pipeline
that
wouldn't
be
affected
because
the
development
application
has
already
started
so
it
wouldn't
affect
that
school.
H
You
know,
fortunately,
for
the
school
board,
unfortunately
for
any
counselor
who
wants
to
give
more
protection
to
the
kids
at
that
school,
but
it
would
just
be
future
development
applications
that
you
know
we
don't
even
have
right
now.
So
is
this
going
to
create
a
hardship
to
do
a
setback
of
60
meters
rather
than
30
meters
for
future
applications?
H
I
Thank
you
and
for
your
worship.
Thanks
for
the
question
counselor
osanic,
we
do
have
two
schools
in
the
west
end
near
the
pipeline.
You
are
correct.
There
is
one
the
french
catholic
school
which
has
their
development
applications
approved.
So
any
zoning
amendment
changes
that
wouldn't
affect
them,
but
there
is
an
additional
school
property
located
across
the
street.
I
Pipelines
and
major
infrastructure
is
something
to
take
very
seriously
when
we're
looking
at
appropriateness
and
setbacks
and
regulation
to
govern
these
uses
in
the
city
and
the
regulations
that
we
have
for
schools
directly
come
from
our
official
plan
and
through
and
then
that's
through
consultation
with
the
actual
pipeline
companies
themselves.
In
implementing
the
federal
regulations
that
govern
pipelines,
the
30
meter
prescribed
area
around
pipelines
and
use
two
two
different
terms
here,
so
the
prescribed
area
is
what
the
regulation
says
that
they're
allowed
to
kind
of
review
uses.
I
But
then
it's
30
meters
from
the
center
of
the
pipe,
but
with
the
way
our
zoning
is
actually
set
up,
is
that
it
applies
to
the
edge
of
either
the
owned
area
or
right-of-way
area
of
a
pipeline.
So
our
setbacks
are
actually
above
and
beyond.
What's
actually
required
for
the
federal
regulation
that
the
pipeline's
implemented
and
through
their
review
of
these
applications
and
through
the
zoning
bylaw
work,
they've
said
that
what
we're
doing
is
sufficient.
We
can
continue
on
with
it.
I
If
we
look
at
where
the
pipelines
are
in
the
city,
the
areas
that
they
currently
run
through
are
north
in
the
rural
area,
and
then
the
trans-canada
are
sort
of
trans
northern
pipeline
kind
of
buy
sacks
west
end
and
then
cuts
up
across
the
city
from
the
employment
lands.
Any
new
proposed
use
for
something
like
a
prison
or
a
hospital.
I
J
Thank
you,
mayor,
patterson
and
through
you
thanks
to
staff
for
this
great
work
and
all
the
correspondence
over
the
number
of
years
in
question.
I'm
wondering
tonight
about
the
holding
symbol
as
well,
not
specifically
to
riparian
corridors
but
more
in
concern
to
their
use
in
general,
and
I
have
three
lines
of
thought
on
that
or
three
three
kind
of
inquiries
about
that.
The
first
is
in
the
report.
It
talks
about
a
move
towards
holding
overlays
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
hear
what
the
difference
between
an
h
symbol
and
an
overlay
is.
D
Three
year,
worship,
thank
you,
counselor
kylie.
Certainly
I
think
it's
a
great
question.
So
traditionally
zoning
bylaws,
obviously
our
existing
zoning
bylaws,
which
are
45
years
old,
which
were
probably
drafted,
maybe
by
hand
initially
and
then
transferred
over
to
a
cad
file
and
then
slowly
transitioned
into
a
gis
file.
So,
as
you
can
imagine,
they
were
traditionally
all
on
one
flat
map.
So
all
of
the
zoning
information
was
presented
on
one
map.
D
There
is
no
change
in
in
the
approach
it
functions
in
the
exact
same
way
in
the
text
of
the
zoning
by-law
h-lift
applications
will
be
will
be
go
through
the
exact
same
process
that
they
currently
go
through.
It
just
looks
different.
It's
a
lot
of
it's
a
much
cleaner
set
of
maps
to
have
it
separated
out
onto
its
own
overlay,
and
it
also
allowed
us
to
create
a
lot
of
data
in
the
background
on
those
interactive
maps.
D
So
that,
when
someone's
using
the
interactive
map,
they
can
actually
click
on
the
the
shape
that
the
holding
condition
is
and
a
window
will
pop
up
with
the
actual
text
of
the
conditions
that
need
to
be
met
before
the
h
can
be
lifted.
So
the
data
just
works,
a
lot
better,
breaking
it
out
into
an
overlay
but
functionally
it
works.
The
exact
same
way.
Thank
you.
J
Sure,
thank
you
and
through
you,
mayor
patterson,
just
following
up
on
that,
then
I'm
glad
to
hear
first
of
all
that
it's
the
same
feature
but
just
a
technical
difference,
I'm
wondering
in
the
supplemental
report.
Then
this
is
on
page
17..
It
talks
about
holding
symbols
and
I'll
just
quickly
read
it.
It
says
the
implementing
zoning
bylaw
may
include
a
holding
symbol,
a
to
ensure
the
availability
of
servicing
and
b
for
the
purposes
of
requiring
a
transportation
impact
study.
J
D
I'd
have
to
double
check
the
exact
reference
or
sorry
three
year,
worship
I'd
actually
have
to
double
check
the
exact
reference
in
the
supplemental
report
at
a
high
level.
No,
those
are
not
the
only
conditions
that
can
be
applied
through
an
h
there.
There
certainly
are
a
wide
range
of
conditions
that
are
applied.
We
have
general
age
conditions
which
are
are
a
lot
more
generalized
based
on
the
existing
h
conditions
and
the
existing
zoning
bylaws.
D
I
think
over
the
years
through
site-specific
rezoning
applications,
we've
become
a
lot
more
specific
in
the
specific
requirements
that
must
be
met.
So
h,
conditions
are
applied
for
a
broad
number
of
reasons,
and,
and
certainly
the
approach
in
the
new
zoning
by-law
will
continue
to
allow
a
broad
range
of
reason,
reasons.
J
J
Okay
yeah,
I
apologize
for
putting
you
on
the
spot
with
that
particular
reference.
Maybe
if
you
don't
mind
if
we
come
back
to
it
in
debate,
I
might
ask
again
just
to
be
very
clear
because
it
you
know
I'm
reading
it
there
and
just
want
a
bit
more
clarity
and
then,
finally,
I
believe
I
asked
you
this
before,
but
for
the
benefit,
perhaps
of
those
watching
in
terms
of
new
provincial
legislation
on
h,
symbols
and
the
ways
in
which
queen's
park
has
said,
we
can
delegate
h
symbols
to
staff.
D
Through
you
worship,
I
I
can
jump
in
on
this
question
as
well.
Thank
you.
Yes,
that's
correct!
So,
through
the
the
work
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project,
we
did
do
a
discussion
paper
about
additional
residential
units,
tiny
houses
and
shipping
containers.
So
we
did
have
a
public
meeting
about
that
in
june
of
2021,
the
legislation
and
the
planning
act
changed
in
2019.
D
D
So
there's
no
changes
proposed
to
the
bedroom
limitation.
There's
a
maximum
of
eight
bedrooms
per
lot,
regardless
of
whether
it's
one,
two
or
three
units
we
do
have
a
restriction
on
the
additional
residential
units.
So
a
maximum
of
one
of
those
units
can
be
detached
in
the
the
backyard
and
a
maximum
of
one
can
be
attached
to
the
main
building
so
either
as
an
addition
or
within
the
basement
of
that
building.
D
Within
the
detached
unit
in
the
backyard,
there
are
specific
restrictions
on
the
size
and
scale
of
that
building,
so
there's
a
one-story
height
limit,
which
is
also
set
at
4.6
meters,
a
10,
lock
coverage
and
there
are
specific
setback
requirements
from
lot
lines
for
those
detached
units.
So
there
are
a
series
of
restrictions
that
apply
specifically
to
those
detached
units
to
ensure
that
they're
compatible
in
in
the
neighborhood,
so
they
would
fit.
K
D
Through
your
worship-
yes,
certainly,
I
think,
that's
correct,
I
think
you
know
initially
the
the
second
residential
unit
permissions
that
are
currently
in
our
existing
zoning
bylaws.
They
they
were
implemented
originally
in
2019
and
over
the
course
of
the
actual
last
year.
So
I
believe
in
early
2021
we
had
proposed
a
series
of
amendments
to
those
existing
second
residential
unit
permissions.
So
what
we
found
was
in
our
experiences
with
seeing
the
detached
second
residential
units
being
constructed
in
neighborhoods.
D
We
we
felt
that
a
number
of
amendments
were
required
to
ensure
that
the
zoning
bylaw
really
ensures
that
they're
compatible
within
those
neighborhoods.
So
the
work
that
we've
done
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
very
much
is
consistent
with
those
updates
that
we
proposed,
and
I
think
that
when
we
look
at
the
restrictions
that
are
in
place
and
the
way
that
we've
implemented
the
zoning
for
the
additional
residential
units,
we've
done
it
very
thoughtfully
and
intentionally
with
with
our
experiences
already
with
the
second
residential
unit.
K
D
Through
you,
your
worship,
thank
you
for
the
the
question.
I'm
just
double
checking
the
additional
residential
unit
overlay
on
our
interactive
zoning
map
here
for
strathcona
park.
If
you
could
just
give
me
one
second,
so
we
do
have
actual
overlay
schedule.
D1
and
d2
to
the
new
zoning.
Bylaw
includes
a
number
of
constraint
areas
where
there
are
different
servicing
or
infrastructure
constraints
that
are
known,
so
we've
consulted
with
utilities
kingston
all
these
constraint
areas
and
I'm
just
double
checking
to
see
if
strathcona
park
is
in
any
of
those
constraint
areas.
D
L
Thank
you,
mayor
patterson,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
all
the
amazing
work.
The
question
I
have,
I
guess
it's
a
good
follow-up
to
counselor
mclarens.
It
is
in
relation
to
king's
court
and
the
one
of
the
themes
main
themes.
I
mean
this
was
through
density
by
design,
I
suppose,
but
also
in
the
ctgs,
on
proportionality
and
and
with
intensification.
L
E
E
However,
for
kingston
sorry
short
kings
court,
we
did
create
a
new
zone
category
specifically
to
address
the
build
form
of
the
area
with
and
specifically
related
to
the
front
yard.
So,
as
you
may
be
aware,
the
front
yard
setbacks
within
the
area
are
quite
varied,
so
we
have
specifically
crafted
the
zoning
category
for
that
area.
That
addresses
that
and
then
also
as
as
miss
flaherty
mentioned,
there
are
permissions
for
additional
residential
units
that
would
apply
to
that
area
as
well.
M
Thank
you
very
much,
a
quick
follow-up
to
councillor
osanac's
questions
regarding
pipelines
and
proximity,
so
this
would
probably
be
for
mr
barr.
I
know
when
we
do
a
plan
of
subdivision.
We
often
insist
upon
a
piece
of
property
being
identified
as
a
potential
school
site,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
creates
in
the
process
a
right
to
build
or
if
we
adjust
the
pipeline
setbacks,
would
they
have
a
for
right
to
build
on
that
site
or
not.
A
I
Thank
you
and
through
your
worship,
the
countless
secondary
plan,
which
is,
I
think,
we're
talking
about
the
most
has
been
in
the
works
since
2003.
It's
been
a
long
time
coming.
You
know
it
was
first
contracted
as
a
secondary
plan.
I
created
its
whole
own
official
plate,
a
plan
layer,
zoning
came
into
effect
for
it
and
the
lands
that
are
currently
there
are
zoned
for
the
use
of
a
school,
the
specific
location
that
is
identified
as
that.
I
I
was
in
the
prescribed
timeline
and
the
passing
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
but
additionally,
while
the
use
might
still
be
permitted,
the
zone
regulation
might
make
it
a
challenge,
so
it
would
either
necessitate
them
to
rethink
their
their
building
strategy
or
to
walk
away
from
it
or
to
submit
an
application
for
a
minor
variance
or
zoning
biology,
depending
on
what
that
regulation
would
say.
So
it
kind
of
opens
up
the
box
a
little
bit
further
to
a
couple
other
reactions
potentially
from
landowners
in
that
area.
M
M
I
I
I
The
person
who
owns
that
site
would
have
to
figure
out
whether
or
not
those
regulations
work
for
them
in
their
development
portfolio,
and
if
it
didn't,
then
they
would
necessitate
the
need
for
an
application
to
try
and
come
in
for
because
the
use
would
still
be
permitted
on
the
property.
It
would
just
be
the
regulations
that
might
have
to
change.
M
D
N
N
You
have
asked
the
million
dollar
questions
of
what
will
be
appealed
and
how
long
will
we
be
delayed
for,
unfortunately,
I
can't
really
answer
those
questions
of
any
degree
of
specificity
other
than
to
say
that
under
the
planning
act,
once
there
has
been
an
appeal,
the
bylaw
does
not
come
into
force
until
all
of
the
appeals
have
been
disposed
of.
However,
there
is
a
mechanism
under
the
planning
act
for
the
city
to
bring
a
motion
to
have
all
of
the
unappealed
portions
of
the
zoning
viola
brought
into
force,
while
certain
issues
are
being
appealed.
O
Thank
you.
Your
worship
and
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
incredible
work
that
they've
done,
what
a
complex
file
and,
obviously
you
know
incredible
amount
of
time
and
energy,
and
you
put
a
lie
to
the
adage
that
you
can't
fight
city
hall,
because
you've
been
really
responsive
to
some
of
the
things
that
folks
have
been
asking
for.
So
we
really
appreciate
that.
O
But
you
know
there
is
criticism
right
and
and
and
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
is
that
we
are
planning
to
be
a
city
that
we're
not
so
a
lot
of
the
particularly
around
density
that
that
kingston
really
is
a
small
city
and
we've
relied
on
on
expertise
from
and
very
good
expertise.
I
might
add,
from
people
like
mr
tadarian
who
come
from
a
large
city
and
would
plan
for
a
large
city.
So,
for
example,
you
know
in
in
a
city
like
vancouver.
O
If
you
wanted
to
live
in
a
low-rise
residential,
well,
you
you
need
to
move
to
abbotsford
or
you
need
to
to
move
to
maple
ridge
and
that
for
a
lot
of
folks,
that's
not
really
convenient
to
do
so
intensity
or
density
increases.
There
may
make
a
lot
of
sense,
but
in
kingston's
a
small
city
that
is
bordered
by
by
folks
like
communities
like
amherst
view
or
ganon
awkway,
that
don't
have
the
same
restrictions
that
we
have
around
density.
O
So
if
we
implement
all
of
this
density,
the
density
provisions
do
we
run
the
risk
of
of
driving
developers
out
of
our
city
and
into
neighboring
municipalities.
They're
only
really
about
15
to
20
minutes
away,
so
so
that
convenience
is
is,
is
not
as
much
of
a
factor
as
it
might
be
in
a
larger
city.
So
I
I'm
going
to
give
a
I'd
like
you
to
just
sort
of
respond
to
that
in
general
in
broad
terms,
and
then
I
want
to
give
you
kind
of
an
example
of
what
I'm
talking
about.
C
Thank
you
and
through
your
worship,
great
question,
counselor
hill
and
it's
certainly
a
question
or
some
feedback
that
we
have
heard
through
various
stakeholders
throughout
the
process.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
this
council
in
itself
has
sort
of
answered
that
question
for
us
or
redefined
how
we've
seen
ourselves
as
a
city.
We
we
may
be
a
mid-sized
city,
certainly,
but
we're
also
one
that
we've
also
seen
in
the
last
number
of
years
and
then
the
last
census
period
in
particular,
have
seven
percent
growth,
which
is
one
of
the
fastest
in
the
country.
C
C
That's
claimed
a
climate
change
emergency
and
we're
trying
to
be
responsive
to
that,
and
we're
also
trying
to
be
responsive
to
the
city's
overall
goal
of
being
very
smart
growth
oriented
and
taking
into
consideration
all
of
the
work
that's
led
to
where
we
are
today
in
terms
of
some
of
the
life
cycle
analysis
and
as
we
get
prepared
to
have
our
next
discussions
on
development
charges
and
asset
management.
These
are
all
interrelated
topics.
C
So
I
think
I
think
what
we're
seeing
is
is
some
of
the
density
requirements
that
we're
looking
at
trying
to
implement
through
pre-zoning.
These
lands,
in
particular-
and
I
think
that's
what's
drawn.
Some
of
the
the
questions
of
concern
is
that
we're
actually
looking
for
neighborhoods
to
be
more
mixed
and
to
have
a
variety
of
housing
forums
so
that
there
is
greater
opportunity
for
different
types
of
people
to
all
reside
within
the
same
area
with
different
ranges
of
affordability
in
particular,
but,
most
importantly,
on
the
climate
change
front.
C
We're
looking
at
how
to
create
you
know
a
higher
yield
of
housing
within
the
same
stretch
of
land
than
maybe
what
was
important
to
the
city
10
or
15
years
ago,
prior,
to
being
aware
of
some
of
the
aspirational
pieces
on
climate
change
and
its
commitments,
but
also
more
so
even
in
terms
of
the
commitments
the
city's
already
made
on
transit.
Some
of
the
densities
that
we're
looking
to
try
to
incorporate
through
the
zoning
really
represent
our
way
of
achieving
sizes
of
neighborhoods
that
are
actually
transit,
supportive.
C
So
the
the
numbers
that
we,
even
that
we've
incorporated,
come
directly
as
minimum
densities
to
be
able
to
support
transit
ridership
in
those
neighborhoods
and
that
wouldn't
even
be
rapid
transit.
That
would
be
some
transit.
So
again,
I
know
there
there
can
be
difficulty-
and
certainly
mr
tolerance
for
this
this
as
well.
He
is
a
resident
of
vancouver,
he's
he's
worked
in
big
cities
and
certainly
there
there
is
some
of
his
thinking
that
has
challenged
us
but
again
made
in
kingston
solutions.
C
A
F
I
can
say
honestly
and
completely
non-defensively
that
I
always
remind
folks
in
kingston
that
I'm
not
from
a
big
city,
I'm
from
perth
ontario.
I
just
now
live
in
a
big
city
and
I
plan
for
cities
of
all
sizes
and
scales,
and
that's
super
important
in
the
context
of
work
like
this.
I
particularly
like
working
in
small
cities
or
smaller
cities.
F
The
hard
parts
around
making
that
statement
of
climate
emergency
declaration
a
reality,
for
example,
but
there's
nothing
in
this
document
that
I,
in
my
opinion,
goes
beyond
a
made
in
kingston
solution
and
nothing
that
takes
the
city
into
a
bleeding-edge
scenario.
That
is
quite
deliberate
in
terms
of
certainly
the
advice
I've
given.
But,
more
importantly,
it's
it's
it's
in
keeping
with
the
with
the
vision
and
the
direction
that
your
leaders
have.
So
this
has
been
very
much
a
council
vision,
driven
exercise
and
a
city
leadership
exercise.
F
I
say
that
because
I
want
to
dissuade
any
notion
that
this
is
some
big
city,
planner
thinking.
This
is
a
fellow
who
grew
up
very
close
to
you
in
kingston,
in
perth,
who
is
working
in
cities
of
every
scale
and
and
can
confirm
without
reservation,
that
this
solution
is
an
ambitious
solution,
an
ambitious
piece
of
work,
but
completely
in
the
context
of
council's
own
stated
aspirations.
A
P
Thank
you
and
through
you,
mr
mayor,
so
my
comments
actually
are
going
to
be
in
the
context
of
our
current
zoning
situation.
So
members
of
council
are
all
aware
that
we
are
already
seeing
single
family
homes
being
built
in
amherst
view
or
south
front
neck,
etc,
and
that's
with
our
current
zoning
situation,
this
zoning
is
not
going
to
change
what
we
are
seeing
or
what's
been
happening
for
a
number
of
years.
P
I
would
offer
that
what
has
been
happening
for
a
number
of
years
is
in
part
due
to
the
fact
there
there
is
limited
ownership
of
the
land
that
we
have
remaining
greenland,
that
we
have
remaining
in
in
the
city
of
kingston
boundary
urban
boundaries,
so
that
has
definitely
pushed
some
developers
to
look
outside
because
they
do
not
currently
own
land
that
are
located
within
the
urban
boundaries.
So
it
it's
something
that's
been
happening
for
a
number
of
years.
This
bylaw
will
not
change
that
or
increase
the
number
of
developers
going
outside
of
our
city.
O
Thank
you
thank
you,
and
I
I
certainly
I
hope
I
didn't
suggest
to
anything
other
than
that
mr
toleran
was
doing
tremendous
work,
but
that
we
have
heard
that
criticism.
So
I'm
going
to
dive
down
a
little
bit
deeper
and
look
at
just
a
couple
of
specific
examples.
In
the
west
end,
we
have
some
long
standing
low-rise
residential
developments
that
are
happening.
O
O
O
J
C
Yeah,
thank
you
and
through
you,
and
certainly
I'll
start
and
then,
if
some
of
my
colleagues
have
any
additional
information
to
offer
in
terms
of
lens,
I
think
we're
talking
about
the
the
cataract
way
west
secondary
plan.
That's
now
it's
really
been
renamed
over
time
to
be
called
woodhaven
and,
as
mr
barr
indicated,
the
secondary
plan
for
woodhaven.
C
I
believe
it
started
in
2003
started
before
I
moved
to
kingston
and
it
was
in
development
at
that
time
and
that
was
creating
a
secondary,
planned
document
that
was
a
collaboration
of
multiple
property
owners
and
sort
of
working
through
things
with
the
city
of
kingston,
and
there
was
a
plan
that
went
forward.
That
was
that
high
level
secondary
plan
thinking.
That
became
a
subset
of
the
official
plan,
as
mr
barr
indicated.
C
So
what
you've
seen
over
the
last
number
of
years
is
that
that
vision
for
that
area
breaking
out
in
a
phase
by
phase
basis,
so
it
comes
forward
by
way
of
plans
of
subdivision
draft
plans.
You
know
at
the
rate
that
the
property
owners
wish
to
bring
them
forward
and
that's
not
something
that's
in
the
control
of
the
city.
C
I
think,
with
respect
to
the
lands
that
we're
talking
about
here,
we
we
made
the
decision
from
a
staff
perspective
looking
at
where
we
were
with
respect
to
housing
pressures
and
challenges
overall
and
realized
that,
by
taking
a
couple
of
extra
months
in
delivering
you
the
work.
That's
there
tonight
we
could
pre-zone
lands,
which
is
not
something
that
we
did
widely
through
this
project,
but
because
these
lands
had
gone
through
a
secondary
plan.
C
But
in
doing
so
we
were
utilizing
the
policies
of
the
secondary
plan,
which
give
density
ranges
that
the
area
is
supposed
to
achieve
within
the
life
of
its
build
out.
So
we're
not
superimposing
anything
new
we've
asked
for
them
to
be
more
in
the
the
higher
end
of
the
range
than
what
the
property
owners
previously
had
been
building
out
at
and
some
of
the
inspiration
for
this
also
came
council
mclaren
in
the
room.
C
We
all
wanted
to
ensure
reciprocally
that
what
was
going
to
be
developed
there
was
reflective
of
you
know:
a
higher
utilization
of
the
land,
given
the
fact
that
we're
trying
to
you
know
work
within
the
existing
boundary
of
the
city
and
the
finite
amount
of
land
that
remains
in
cataract
way
west,
but
while
working
within
the
provisions
of
the
secondary
plan
policies,
so
that
we
were
still
in
conformance
with
this
with
the
official
plan.
So
from
that
standpoint
you
know
we're
not
creating
anything
new.
C
I
think
there's
been
a
concern
that
we're
somehow
permitting
high-rise
buildings.
That's
not
the
case.
We've
proposed
two
categories
of
zoning.
One
is
a
lower
density
that
allows
some
additional
housing
forms,
single
semis
townhouses
and
in
particular
what
we've
said
to
those
property
owners
is
that
some
of
the
density
requirement
we
thought
they
could
meet
more
easily
by
the
addition
of
additional
residential
units.
C
So,
instead
of
just
developing
with
one
home,
there
would
be
the
opportunity
to
have
a
secondary
unit
or
potentially
a
tertiary
in
the
back
as
an
option
if
they
wanted
to
explore
that
or
a
greater
mix
of
uses.
That
would
look
at
singles,
semis
and
townhouses
to
help
get
up
the
density
or
even
small
unit
apartment
buildings
that
would
have
a
maximum
of
four
units.
There
is
a
height
restriction
that
already
exists
in
the
secondary
plan
for
that
area.
C
So
all
of
the
zoning
provisions
that
we
brought
forward,
you
know
as
a
city
initiating
that
for
the
developer,
instead
of
doing
it
themselves
was
all
within
the
parameters
of
the
policy
framework.
That's
already
been
established
or
well
established
for
this
for
this
land.
With
respect
to
the
fact
if
the
developer
has
drawn
draft
plans
for
lands
that
weren't
pre-zoned,
I
can't
speak
to
that.
It's
potentially
true
that
they
have
done
that.
C
However,
the
city
in
this
process
has
taken
a
major
development
hurdle
off
the
table
for
them
and
done
so
in
a
manner
that
should
help
to
expedite
the
process
if
they
need
to
make
modifications
to
their
design
plans.
Again,
that's
more
of
an
operational
detail
that
I
can't
speak
to,
but
the
policy
that
we've
put
in
place
is
in
respect
to
the
approvals
at
the
official
plan
level
that
the
city
put
in
place
in
2003
and
we
worked
within
those
confines
because
we
have
to.
C
Q
Thank
you
see
your
worship
just
a
quick
question.
I
asked
the
question
at
the
planning
meeting
about
trailer
length
for
parking
in
residential
areas
for
that
period,
where
you
know
someone's
prepping
their
trailer
for
the
long
weekend
and
moving
it
off
site
and
it
was
proposed
to
be
8.7
meters
and
I
requested
to
be
nine
meters
and
then
the
answer
that
came
back
in
the
supplemental
report
was.
Q
D
Through
your
worship,
thank
you,
councillor
chappelle,
so
the
parking
of
the
recreational
vehicles
and
the
commercial
vehicles
was
specifically
pulled
out
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project
when
it
was
put
on
hold
to
ensure
that
that
work
could
be
expedited
in
2019,
because
there
was
a
desire
to
get
the
existing
zoning
bylaws
updated
to
before
the
new
zoning
bylaw
came
into
effect.
So
the
provisions
and
the
new
zoning
bylaw
that
we're
proposing
are
the
exact
same
standards
that
were
approved
in
2019
as
a
result
of
that
detailed
technical
review
and
public
consultation
process.
D
When
we
had
scoped
the
new
zoning
bylab
project,
the
third
and
final
phase
of
this
we
we
had
tried
to
really
focus
our
staff
resources
on
work
that
hasn't
recently
been
updated
and
recently
been
subject
to
a
full
public
consultation
and
council
approval.
So
the
the
request
to
arbitrarily
change
the
the
number
from
8.2
to
9.0.
D
We
don't
have
the
technical
review
done
at
a
staff
level
within
the
context
of
this
project,
because
we
haven't
focused
our
resources
on
that
element
because
it
has
been
recently
reviewed.
So
the
our
response
in
the
supplementary
report
is
to
confirm
that
the
standard
that
we're
proposing
in
the
zoning
bylaw
that's
proposed
for
council
tonight
maintains
that
8.2
meter
length
for
those
recreational
vehicles
because,
as
staff,
I
think
it's
really
important
that
there
there
was
a
very
specific
rationale
for
including
the
8.2
meters
in
2019
and
and
to
to
change.
D
It
could
have
a
significant
impact
that
we
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
review.
It
might
be
something
that
we
we
could
support
at
some
point
in
time
if
we
reviewed
the
implications
of
that,
but
in
in
the
less
than
one
week,
including
the
four-day
easter
holiday,
to
complete
the
supplementary
report.
Following
the
planning
committee
meeting,
we
certainly
didn't
have
the
ability
to
do
a
fulsome
technical
review
of
that
type
of
change.
In
this
context,
thank
you.
A
C
Sorry,
a
private
driveway
without
hanging
over
onto
the
municipal
right-of-way,
but
more
so
a
function
of
being
able
to
at
all
times
maintain
appropriate
sight
lines
so
that
when
people
are
are
driving
through,
if
there's
an
extra
long
trailer
hanging
out
onto
the
municipal
right-of-way
would
people
be
able
to
move
in
and
out
of
their
property.
If
there's
you
know
children
or
pedestrians
walking
and
be
able
to
have
the
sight
lines
to
be
able
to
to
look
at
that.
C
So
I
know
that
that
was
a
primary
reason
that
was
factored
into
the
regulation
of
of
of
the
maximum
vehicle
lengths
as
part
of
those
amendments
that
were
done
in
2019,
but
recognizing
in
this
circumstance
there's
a
particular
resident
that
feels
that
that
the
length
that
has
been
imposed
is
is
too
short
relative
to
maybe
his
personal
circumstance
or
what
he
thinks
is
more
of
a
standard
size.
Recreation
vehicle
in
the
community.
Q
That
I
I
I
would
have
thought
that
it
was
council
that
recommends
the
length
in
addressing
these
items.
So
I
would
have
preferred
to
have
amended
that
to
nine
meters
that
that
planning
committee
meeting
but
anyways
my
next
question.
It
relates
to
this
particular
draft
zoning
bylaw,
and
that
is
when
it
comes
into
effect,
because
I
do
have
a
resident
that
is
anxiously
waiting
on
highway,
15
to
open
up
a
commercial
business
and
was
advised
to
wait
till
the
new
zoning
bylaw
came
into
effect.
Q
C
Thank
you
through
you
and
that's
a
difficult
circumstance
counselor.
I
would
say
that
what's
presented
to
council
this
evening,
if,
if
council
is
happy
to
make
a
decision
based
on
the
staff,
recommendations
are
before
you
that
the
bylaws
all
the
enacting
bylaws
be
giving
three
readings
tonight,
which
would
mean,
if
that
proceeded,
they
would
approve,
and
then
we
would
go
into
the
20-day
appeal
period.
C
That's
mandatory
in
ontario
under
the
planning
act,
so
it
would
depend
on
if
we
receive
any
appeals
within
the
20
days
and
the
nature
of
them,
whether
they're
you
know
all
encompassing
as
mismorally
indicated
or
if
they're
specific,
that
would
determine
the
length
of
time
that
the
the
bylaw
would
essentially
be
in
advance,
but
we're
hopeful
that
there
won't
be
any
appeals,
but
in
all
likelihood
I
think
we
may
receive
something.
So
I
it's
going
to
be
at
least
a
couple
of
months.
C
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
it!
I'm
not
sure
how
to
answer
that
question
like
completely
accurately,
because
it
would
depend-
and
I
guess,
in
the
circumstance
of
the
property
owners
looking
to
take
advantage
of
some
of
the
new
zoning
provisions,
and
that
is,
is
what
they're
waiting
for
relative
to
filing
their
application
is.
That
is
that
the
case
counselor
chapelle.
Q
Yes,
it
was
advised
that
the
zoning
application
would
have
taken
probably
six
months
to
get
the
amendment
that
was
already
being
proposed
in
this
new
bylaw
new
zealand's
owning
bylaws,
so
wait
till
the
new
zoning
viola
was
passed,
but
now
I'm
learning
that
there's
these
extra
complexities,
so
I'm
trying
to
be
supportive
of
the
new
business
owner
that
wants
to
get
started.
That's
already
been
delayed
substantively.
So
that's
really
what
I
was
trying
to
coach
on
how
I
help
physician
to
be
most
effective.
As
a
representative,
that's
all.
C
I
think
perhaps
what
I
could
suggest
counselors
is
that
I'm
happy
to
or
mr
park
to
offline
this
with
you
and
connect
with
that
individual
and
help
guide
them
through
that
conversation
post
meeting
tonight.
I
know
that
doesn't
give
you
an
answer
directly
right
now,
but
that
would
probably
be
the
best
just
so
we
can
know
the
nuances
of
the
situation
and
then
and
to
help
to
to
do
whatever
we
can
to
help
guide
the
situation
appropriately.
Q
Q
So
I
I
don't
understand
how
we
can
sort
of
change
the
rules
of
the
game
towards
the
end
of
their
development
cycle,
and
you
know,
certainly
knowing
the
rules
going
forward
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
But
when
you've
gotten,
you
know
the
development
that's
happening,
it
makes
it
very
difficult.
So
I'd
like
to
understand
where
in
the
city
is
the
densest
community,
that
is
still
that,
has
you
know
greater
than
you
know
of
70
or
sorry
37
units
per
hectare.
Where
do
we
have
that
currently
existing
in
the
city
of
kingston.
C
Thank
you
and
for
you,
mr
mayor,
if
it's
all
right
for
me
to
to
begin
and
then
I'll
invite
anybody
else
into
the
conversation
in
terms
of
my
colleagues.
If
I've
missed
any
details
in
terms
of
actual
numbers,
the
most
recent
example
I
can
think
of
would
be
west
village,
which
is
in
behind
the
rio,
can
center
the
big
box
development
there,
and
that
was
actually
a
conversion
of
employment
lands
that
counselors
may
remember.
C
There
was
some
old
industrial
there
and
a
brownfield
site,
so
that
is
the
most
recent
newer,
large-scale
development
that
we
were
able
to
kind
of
craft
from
the
from
the
very
beginning,
in
terms
of
more
recent
thinking
on
planning
versus
some
of
the
existing
secondary
plan
areas.
As
you
can
imagine
our
priorities
from
like
2003
as
a
city
to
where
we
are
now
in
2022.
C
In
order
to
secure
staff
support,
we
had
originally
looked
to
try
to
have
a
density
of
around
50
units
per
net
hectare
overall,
and
that
was
a
blend
of
different
types
of
uses,
and
there
are
some
high
density
blocks
that
are
factored
into
that
development
approval
they
haven't
been
built
out
yet,
but
that
was
that
was
built
into
the
approval,
as
well
as
the
school
site
and
there's
a
long-term
care
facility.
So
it
was
really
planned,
as
as
a
mixed,
complete
community
other
than
that.
C
C
Multi-Residential
development
versus
low
density,
so
west
village
would
be
the
most
recent
example
that
I
can
point
to
of
of
where
again
through
the
zoning,
we
were
we're.
Looking
into
the
official
plan
policies,
we
passed
there
to
secure
minimum
densities
for
all
the
same
reasons
that
we're
trying
to
apply
to
the
the
pre-zone
woodhaven
lands
that
we're
discussing
tonight.
As
part
of
the
recommendations.
Q
We've
got
the
new
school
of
being
being
developed
in
that
area
and-
and
you
know,
you're
right
at
the
ground
level,
getting
rolling
with
a
with
a
project
that
basically
started
much
later,
probably
a
few
years
ago
and
is
now
moving
forward
versus
woodhaven
that
started
well
over
a
decade
ago
and
was
rolling
out
in
phases.
So
I'm
just
perplexed
as
to
why
he
would
you
know
we're
talking.
You
mentioned
many
times
tonight
about
a
mix
of
different
different
frames,
forms
of
a
building
for
affordability.
Q
You
know,
and
this
land
is
pre-zoned
already
and
we're
changing
it.
So
I
just
I
just
find
it
complex,
because
when
I
look
at
areas
where
they
had
increased
density
substantively
in
woodhaven
and
I'm
thinking
of
like
jeanette
street
and
other
areas,
that
really
I
get
a
lot
of
calls
about
issues
with
parking
or
what
have
you
that
greater
flexibility
to
have
a
mix
of
single
semis
and
towns?
To
me,
it
allows
for
greater
opportunity
for
road
parking,
greater
opportunity
for
for
stuff
and
keep
in
mind.
Q
Transit
is
only
arriving
this
september
and
and
that
northern
part
is
still
you
know,
that'll
be
eventually
a
future
expansion.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
staff
would
feel
if
that
was
removed
and
allowed
to
retain
its
existing
density
requirements
rather
than
imposing
the
speed
density
requirement
on
them.
C
Thank
you
and
through
you,
so
so
just
for
clarity.
The
lands
we're
talking
about
right
now:
they're
they're,
not
they're,
not
zoned,
they're
zoned
in
in
a
holding
category,
but
they
actually
don't
have
the
detailed
zoning
on
them.
That's
what
we
are
proposing
to
do
for
the
property
owner
through
this
process
to
expedite
the
housing
development.
I
think
to
your
your
key
question:
counselor
chappelle,
where,
from
a
staff
perspective,
the
only
difference
of
what
we're
doing
here
again
we're
we're
not
imposing
anything
higher
than
what
the
official
plan
already
says
for
this
area.
C
That
shows
you
know:
relative
efficient
use
of
the
land
and
a
consideration
of
a
mixed
housing
form
so
that
there's
various
price
points.
The
other
challenge
that
we've
seen
too
our
official
plan
policy
for
new
greenfield
development
that
applies
to
cataract
way
west
is
that
it
requires
all
new
greenfield
development
to
have
a
minimum
of
25,
affordable
housing
and
that's
the
cmhc
version.
C
However,
I
will
say
that
the
use
of
of
this
type
of
density
requirement
in
lower
density
forms
of
housing.
We
do
often
use
it
in
higher
density.
It
is
a
newer
practice
for
the
city
and
one
that
that
I
know
that
is
probably
giving
council
some
pause.
But
I've
tried
to
explain
the
reasons
of
what
we're
trying
to
do.
C
Why
we're
trying
to
utilize
that
to
achieve
what
our
official
plan
already
says
and
to
make
sure
that
we
can
actually
realize
that
through
the
zoning
as
opposed
to
having
no
control,
which
is
typically,
what
what
we
have
in
in
other
circumstances
of
the
unit
mix.
That
gets
built
out
in
a
particular
area.
And
we
tried
to
learn
from
that
mistake,
quite
frankly
as
a
city
and
implement
a
bit
of
a
revised
process.
As
a
result,
particularly
on
the
unit
mix
and
the
affordability
front.
Q
D
Through
your
worship,
thank
you
for
the
question,
so
the
additional
residential
unit
provisions,
the
consultation,
started
with
our
additional
residential
unit
discussion
paper,
so
it
would
have
started
in.
I
believe
the
meeting
was
on
june
23rd.
The
discussion
paper
would
have
been
released.
You
know
the
week
prior
to
that,
so
we're
looking
at.
D
So
when
we,
when
we
are
looking
at
the
tests
that
have
been
established
by
the
province
when
we're
implementing
the
new
citywide
zoning
bylaw,
we
are
required
to
have
official
plan
policies
that
implement
the
additional
residential
unit
provisions
of
the
planning
act
and
have
zoning
bylaw
provisions
that
allow
for
for
those
additional
residential
units.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
through
your
worship,
just
to
echo
what
miss
flaherty
said
pursuant
to
the
planning
act.
It
is
an
obligation
of
the
municipality
to
include
policies
in
its
official
plan
that
authorized
two
additional
residential
units
in
a
detached
house,
semi-detached
house
or
row
house,
plus
one
additional
residential
unit
in
a
building
or
structure-
that's
ancillary
to
that
house.
So
it
is
not
discretionary
for
the
municipality
to
permit
additional
residential
units.
We
are
required
to
do
so
under
the
planning
act.
N
Through
your
worship,
it
would
certainly
be
open
to
anyone
to
appealed
municipalities,
failure
to
include
required
provisions.
Official
plan
amendments
are
also
approved
by
the
minister,
so
the
minister
has
the
ability
to
refuse
the
official
plan
if
it
doesn't
contain
the
policies
that
it's
required
to
contain.
K
K
J
Thank
you,
mayor,
patterson,
just
a
few
comments
from
me
and
follow-up
question
from
the
the
briefing,
so
the
first
is
on
the
resolve
clause
that
we
remove
right
crescent.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
that
was
a
courageous
move
by
staff.
From
my
perspective,
there
was
a
number
of
opportunities
for
public
consultation,
but
the
fact
that
staff
are
looking
to
build
community
and
not
just
push
through
policy,
I
think,
is
really
something
that's
commendable.
So
I
want
to
recognize
that
and
encourage
the
public.
J
This
is
your
opportunity
again
to
come
out
and
have
your
voice
heard
so
yeah
not
to
school
or
be
paternalistic
there,
but
I
think
it's
worth
mentioning
that
there
it
is
there's
opportunity
for
consultation,
follow
up
on
my
questions
about
the
provisions
for
the
holding
symbol.
That
was
in
the
supplemental
report,
and
I
now
have
come
to
understand
that
it
was
under
the
central
growth
strategy.
So
perhaps
miss
agarwal
could
clarify
why
we're
only
having
servicing
and
transportation
recognized
for
the
h
symbol.
E
Thank
you
and
through
your
worship,
so
so
that's
correct,
kylie.
Those
two
holding
conditions
are
included
within
the
ckgs
intensification
areas.
Only
and
those
were
identified
through
the
technical
review
of
the
ckgs
work
by
utilities,
kingston
and
transportation
services
and
more
detailed
conditions
are
included
within
the
actual
body
of
the
zoning
bio.
I
believe
it's
section
22,
which
includes
those
conditions
in
more
detail
as
to
what
exactly
is
included
within
a
servicing
study
and
what
needs
to
be
specifically
included
within
the
transportation
study.
E
So,
however,
I
would
like
to
note
that
that
that
is
those
are
not
the
only
two
studies
that
we
could
require.
After
the
holding
application,
lift
has
been
approved
by
council
staff
still
have
the
ability
to
require
additional
studies
through
the
site
plan
control
process
if
needed.
However,
like
I
mentioned
at
the
time
of
the
ckgs
study
through
the
review
of
of
the
ckgs
work
in
which
included
a
servicing
component
and
a
transportation
component,
those
were
the
two
conditions
that
were
identified.
J
E
So
the
way
the
holding
conditions
have
been
drafted
for
the
intensification
areas,
there
are
only
two
conditions
included,
so
one
is
the
servicing
study
and
one
is
the
the
transportation
study.
So
at
this
time
we
cannot
include
other
studies
within
the
holding
condition.
Unless
I
mean,
unless
council
wishes
to
amend
that
today,.
J
J
So
when
we
hear
that,
for
example,
at
right
crescent,
we
could
have
up
to
12
stories
that
doesn't
mean
that
that
will
happen,
and
I
think
that
when
we
remember
that's
the
framework
that
we're
operating
and
just
the
potential
and
that
can
hopefully
put
some
folks
at
ease,
so
I
would
say
this
is
very
well
done
and
I'm
happy
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
Q
Are
you?
Are
we
expecting
condos
to
be
developed
up
there,
but
so
far
away
from
princess
street
and
transit,
because
I'm
not
sure
that
at
this
section
it's
not
in
the
it's
not
on
a
main
corridor,
that
that
is
the
best
location
to
have
substantively
increased
density?
And
so
my
question
is:
is
that
the
intent
of
the
planning
committee,
as
a
planning
department,
is
to
have
high
density
up
at
that
north
end
of
that
development
that
it's
almost
completely
phased
out
now
miss
30.
D
Through
you,
your
worship
and
thank
you,
counselor
chapelle,
for
your
questions.
I
think
maybe
I'll
I'll
start
with
the
the
response
to
this,
and
certainly
invite
my
colleagues
to
jump
in
who
have
been
involved
in
this
conversation
as
well.
So
the
the
lands
that
are
proposed
to
be
pre-zoned
are
are
currently
not
developed
and
we
haven't
received
any
draft
plans
or
or
information
about
the
future
development
of
these
lands.
D
There
are
two
different
areas
within
these
future
subdivision
lands
that
are
designated
differently
within
the
secondary
plan,
so
there's
a
low
density,
residential
designation
and
there's
a
medium
density,
residential
designation.
So
within
the
it
kind
of
looks
like
a
backwards
p
that
we're
that
we're
actually
talking
about
within
woodhaven.
So
within
those
areas
there
are
three
smaller
areas
that
are
within
the
medium
density,
residential
designation
and
then
there
are
two
areas
that
are
within
the
low
density.
D
So
in
the
medium
density,
the
secondary
plan
calls
for
a
density
range
of
25
to
75
units
per
net
hectare
within
the
low
density
range.
The
secondary
plan
calls
for
14
to
45
units
per
net
hectare,
there's
also
a
general
provision
in
the
official
plan
that
requires
a
minimum
density
of
37
and
a
half
in
the
greenfield
subdivision
areas.
So
when
we
looked
at
those
provisions,
we
implemented
minimum
densities
that
are
within
the
ranges.
D
So
in
the
low
density
the
range
is
14
to
45,
with
a
general
op
policy
at
37
and
a
half
we
established
the
minimum
at
37
and
a
half
in
that
area.
In
the
medium
density
area,
where
the
range
is
25
to
75,
we
went
right
for
the
middle
at
50.,
so
the
location
of
those
densities
that
we've
established
on
this
map
aligns
with
the
vision
that's
established
already
by
that
secondary
plan.
D
So
when
we're
talking
about
location
of
potential,
condos
or
or
you
know,
mid-rise
apartment
buildings
at
like
a
lower
scale
or
walk-up
apartment
buildings
or
triplexes
or
duplexes
or
townhouse
townhouse
units
or
stock
town
houses
or
back-to-back
townhouses.
The
the
the
range
of
housing
opportunities
that
we've
provided
within
these
pre-zoned
subdivision
lands
doesn't
require
the
developer
to
provide
a
tall,
condo,
building
and
a
location
to
meet
the
density.
There
are
certainly
a
wide
range
of
housing
types
and
typologies
that
align
with
the
areas
that
are
contemplated
for
development
within
within
the
secondary
plan.
D
So
I
really
wanted
to
ensure
that
you
know
we
haven't
just
taken
these
numbers
out
of
the
blue.
They
very
much
are
directly
connected
to
those
op
density
ranges
and
they
they
very
much
do
align
with
that
low
density,
designation
and
medium
density,
designation
for
those
residential
lands,
and
that's
in
that
secondary
plan.
Q
I
Apologies,
I
was
just
having
a
hard
time
meeting
myself
and
then
I
turned
my
camera
off.
So
thank
you
and
through
your
worship,
we've
looked
at
the
the
densities
across
that
area.
Certain
phases
have
definitely
built
out
at
higher
lower
densities,
all
within
the
larger
phase
of
itself,
but
the
average
for
the
area
is
coming
in
at
25
to
26
units
per
that
hectare
through
that
subdivision
process.
Q
Q
I
Thank
you
through
your
worship.
The
the
regulations
that
have
come
forward
by
the
through
staff
for
the
new
zoning
bylaw
include
a
variety
of
housing
types.
So
predominantly
all
we've
seen
in
cad
west
so
far
are
single
semi-town
for
the
new
area
north
of
the
existing
development
that
is
currently
undeveloped,
unzoned
but
designated
for
medium
density.
We've
included
alternative
housing
forms
for
for
townhouses
for
low-rise
apartment
buildings.
You
know
triplex's
quad,
flexes
small
apartment
buildings
that
can
actually
achieve
those
densities
through
those
areas.
I
Q
Okay,
thank
you.
I
I
think
I
badgered
this
one
enough.
I
appreciate,
as
as
my
fellow
counselors
have
commented
on,
it's
certainly
been
a
lot
of
work
that
went
into
this
over
the
last
seven
years
and
it's
nice
to
see
that
it's
coming
together.
I
mean
amalgamation,
took
place
over
21
years
ago
and
to
finally
have
this
coming
forward,
I
think
is
a
great
stride
for
the
city
of
kingston.
A
G
G
If
we
didn't
make
priorities,
they
could
have
done
whatever
the
heck
they
wanted,
so
relative,
the
provincial
policies
so
but
they
didn't
and
they
went
further
and
I
think
we
have
to
congratulate
them
on
that
and
because
it's
all
about
what
kind
of
city
you
want
to
live
in
and
with
climate
change,
it's
all
about
the
type
of
city
you
can
live
in,
so
I
think
they're
trying
their
best
to
move
us
along
in
that
direction,
and
I
thank
them
for
that.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
Okay
with
that
and
again
on
behalf
of
all
of
council,
thanks
to
the
great
work
by
our
staff,
an
enormous
amount
of
work
over
the
last
months
over
the
last
years.
Congratulations-
and
thank
you
to
everyone
involved
with
that.
I
will
call
a
motion
to
adjourn.
Please
move
by
cancer
hill
second,
by
councillor
hutchinson,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
we're
adjourned
thanks
very
much.