►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Committee - March 21, 2019
Description
Planning Committee meeting from March 21, 2019. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2JHzdqt
A
Collection,
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing
and
in
the
form
on
the
forms
provided
at
the
back
of
the
room,
is
collected
under
the
authority
of
the
Planning
Act
and
will
be
used
to
assist
in
making
a
decision
on
this
matter.
All
names
addresses
opinions
and
comments
may
be
collected
and
may
form
part
of
the
minutes
which
will
be
available
to
the
public
questions.
Regarding
this,
this
collection
should
be
forwarded
to
the
Director
of
Planning
and
Development.
A
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification
or
further
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes.
There
is
also
a
sign-in
sheet
for
interested
members
of
the
public
at
the
back
of
the
room.
No
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications.
Unless
otherwise
noted
the
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion.
An
exception
to
this
rule
is
a
combined
report
which
consolidates
the
public
meeting
and
comprehensive
reports
this
app.
These
applications
are
deemed
by
staff
as
straightforward
and
routine.
A
The
this
business
practice
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
is
received
by
the
applicants
as
the
as
efficient
customer
service
and
effective
use
of
committee
time.
Please
note
that
staff
use
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
Public
meeting
reports
are
provided
to
inform
the
public
of
all
relevant
information.
A
Information
gathered
is
then
referred
back
to
planning
and
development
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
planning
committee.
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
applications.
A
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee.
The
recommendation
is
typically
to
approve
with
conditions
or
to
deny.
This
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
City
Council
City
Council
has
the
final
say
on
the
applications
from
the
city's
perspective,
following
Council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
If
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal.
A
The
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
local
planning,
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston.
Before
the
bylaw
has
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal.
The
decision
and
our
only
public
meeting
before
us
tonight
is
regarding
809
and
847
Development
Drive.
So
we'll
begin
with
that,
is
there
a
presenter.
B
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public,
my
name's
Josh
berry
I'm,
a
planner
with
ibi
group.
We
were
acting
as
the
authorized
planning
agent
for
809
development
drive,
Inc,
the
owner
of
the
properties
municipal
known
as
809
development
drive,
an
847
development
drive
in
the
city
of
Kingston
I'll,
provide
a
brief
overview
of
the
proposed
development
and
my
powerpoint
pation
four
members
of
the
committee
and
the
public.
We
look
forward
to
receiving
comments
from
members
of
the
public
and
the
committee
to
help
inform
our
applications
moving
forward.
B
So
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
construct
a
four-story
residential
apartment,
building,
comprised
of
158
apartment
glowing
units
and
a
three-story
building,
comprised
of
18
stacked
townhome
units.
Now
there
may
be
a
revision
to
the
apartment,
building
to
increase
it
to
a
hundred
and
sixty-eight
units
to
provide
for
more
affordable
housing
options.
This
is
based
on
a
discussion
that
we
had
with
City
of
Kingston
housing
staff
and
that
would
involve
the
conversion
of
two-bedroom
units
into
1-bedroom
units.
There's
no
proposal
to
increase
the
building
footprints
or
the
height
of
the
building.
B
As
a
result
of
that
conversion,
the
image
of
the
subject
lands
for
the
committee
and
the
public's
reference,
an
image
of
the
site,
so
the
development
is
going
to
be
confined
to
the
areas
that
are
already
zoned
as
residential
as
part
of
the
previous
development
application
on
these
lands.
The
environmental
protection
areas
will
remain
as
such.
They
will
main
protected
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
subject
lands
are
located
between
in
existing
low-rise
residential
subdivision.
B
There's
commercial
retail
uses
on
the
other
side
of
the
street,
and
there
is
employment
lands
further
to
the
east,
including
the
vacant
studio,
801
lands
which
are
designated
for
industrial
uses
for
the
time
being
so,
as
mentioned
earlier,
proposing
158
dwelling
units
in
a
5,
that's
right.
It's
a
typo.
It's
a
four-story
residential
apartment
building
and
18
stacked,
townhouse
units
parking
provided
on
site
for
a
townhouse
and
apartment
block.
The
parking
will
be
located
in
the
rear
and
side
yard.
B
The
bicycle
parking
will
be
provided
in
every
single
unit
for
a
ratio
of
1
to
1
and
calming
amenity
areas
comprised
of
a
library,
a
gym,
rooftop
patio
outdoor
space
will
be
provided
as
part
of
the
development
there's
an
image
of
the
site
plan
for
the
apartment
building.
Of
course,
there
are
full-size
copies
of
these
drawings
available
online
through
the
system
or
with
staff.
B
We
also
have
the
site
plan
for
the
townhome
development.
As
you
can
see,
there
are
six
units
which
will
have
three
units
in
each
of
those
buildings,
for
a
total
of
18
parking
will
be
provided
on-site
and
will
meet
the
requirements
of
the
bylaw
there's
some
elevations
of
the
apartment
buildings
as
well.
Again,
these
drawings
are
available
on
elevations
for
the
townhomes.
B
Our
team
has
done
quite
a
bit
of
work
on
this
project.
We've
submitted
supporting
studies
in
support
of
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application,
as
well
as
the
site
plan,
control
application
for
the
apartment,
building,
we've
prepared,
planning
justification
report,
conceptual
site
plan
and
architectural
plans,
servicing
and
stormwater
management
report,
a
traffic
impact
study
to
evaluate
traffic
in
the
area,
a
noise
impact
assessment
to
evaluate
any
noise
associated
with
adjacent
uses,
including
the
CN
Rail
Line,
a
natural
heritage
evaluation
to
evaluate
the
sensitive
features
on
the
property.
B
There
was
a
natural
heritage
evaluation
done
as
part
of
the
previous
zoning
approval.
We
had
asked
for
ecologists
to
provide
an
addendum
to
that
EIS,
which
has
been
provided
to
staff
and
the
CRC
a
for
the
review.
An
archaeology
impact
assessment
was
done,
which
was
cleared
by
the
Ministry
of
Culture
sport
and
tourism.
As
a
tree,
inventory
and
preservation
plan
was
done
and
is
available
on
was
part
of
the
site
plan
control
application.
There
was
an
arborist
report
done
in
support
of
that
tree
inventory
and
preservation
plan.
B
So
now
I'm
going
to
provide
a
planning
overview.
The
proposed
development,
in
our
opinion,
is
consistent
with
the
intent
to
the
2014
provincial
policy
statement.
It
redevelops
and
underutilized
lot
located
within
the
settlement
area
of
Kingston.
The
PPS
requires
planning
authorities
to
ensure
that
there
is
an
efficient
pattern
of
land
use.
There
is
a
coordinated
approach
to
arriving
at
land-use
decisions
and
that
the
developing
contributes
to
long-term
economic
prosperity
of
the
municipality.
B
Pps
supports
healthy
and
livable
communities
by
redeveloping
and
underutilized
lot
within
the
urban
boundary.
The
proposed
development
will
accommodate,
arrange
and
mix
of
residential
uses
by
introducing
an
alternative
housing
option
to
the
west
end
of
Kingston
proposed
development
will
contribute
to
the
city's
housing
supply
by
adding
an
additional
158,
possibly
168.
If
we
do
end
up
doing
the
conversion
and
the
proposed
development
will
intensify
and
underutilized
lot.
Therefore,
helping
the
city
mediate
intensification
goal
of
increasing
the
urban
residential
density
by
a
minimum
of
9%
by
2026.
B
B
B
The
opie
identifies
high-density
75
units
per
net
hectare.
The
development
is
approximately
87
to
89
units
per
net
hectare.
There
are
criteria
tests
that
are
identified
in
the
City
of
Kingston
official
plan
to
evaluate
high-density
proposals.
It
is
our
opinion
that
we
are
consistent
with
that
criteria.
The
property
is
located
on
a
periphery
of
a
low
or
medium
Betsy,
residential
neighborhood.
B
The
subject
lands
are
located
within
walking
distance
or
commercial
areas,
and
include
applies
located
directly
across
street
from
the
development
and
is
within
a
short
distance
of
the
real
can
center
and
the
gardener's
town
center.
The
subject
lands
are
also
located
within
close
distance
of
several
parts,
including
Ashton
Park
Hudson
Park.
The
open
space
lands
are
not
proposed
to
be
developed
and
could
serve
as
an
amenity
area
to
future
residents.
Visitors
and
the
existing
neighborhood
development
drive
is
classified
as
a
local
Road.
B
Land-Use
compatibility
matters
include
shadowing
the
proposed
four-story
apartment
building
and
three-story
townhouses
are
sufficiently
setback
in
our
opinion
from
the
adjacent
low-density
residential
neighborhood
and
the
three-story
townhouses
was
officially
set
back
from
the
nearby
residential
neighborhood
and
the
street
to
ensure
there
are
no
get
negative
impacts
in
terms
of
shadowing
on
adjacent
development
loss
of
privacy
due
to
intrusive
overload.
The
proposed
development
is
not
anticipated
to
create
a
loss
of
privacy
due
to
intrusive
overlooked.
B
Appropriate
screening
and
setbacks
will
be
used
to
minimize
potential
for
intrusive,
overlooked,
appropriate
for
needs
and
setbacks
will
be
used
to
minimize
potential
for
bad
overlooked
and
the
rooftop
amenity
space
is
oriented
to
face
towards
the
away
from
the
residential
neighborhood
increased
levels
of
light
pollution,
noise
order,
dust
or
vibration.
Noise
study
was
undertaken
which
has
identified
mitigation
measures
for
mechanical
equipment,
satisfying
provincial
requirements.
A
photometric
plan
and
sternal
lighting
plan
was
also
submitted
as
part
of
the
site
plan
control
application.
That
document
is
available
for
the
public
to
review
on.
B
B
Increased
level
of
traffic.
The
proposed
number
of
parking
spaces
has
increased
from
the
existing
zoning,
we're
providing
more
parking
than
what
the
zoning
bylaw
actually
requires.
The
traffic
study
concluded
that
the
proposed
development
will
produce
a
minimum
quantity
of
additions,
traditional
traffic
flows,
and
that
the
existing
network
has
sufficient
capacity
to
accommodate
this
development.
This
report
has
been
reviewed
by
city
engineering
staff
and
have
agreed
with
his
conclusions.
B
B
The
proposed
driveway
has
been
designed
in
a
manner
that
provides
efficient,
ingress
and
egress
to
and
from
the
apartment,
building
and
townhouse
building,
and
has
been
reviewed
by
engineering
staff
to
be
located
in
the
proper,
proper
spot
building
height.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
increase
the
height
for
both
the
townhouse
building
and
apartment
building.
B
The
proposed
development
has
been
designed
and
placed
in
the
manner
that
one
sure
the
increased
height
does
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
streetscape
or
adjacent
low-density
residential
neighborhood,
although
it's
not
the
same
as
the
predominantly
two
storey
buildings
in
the
adjacent
low-density
neighborhood
compatibility
is
not
defined
by
sameness,
but
rather
to
exist
in
harmony
with
the
existing
neighborhood
Rose
apartment
building
will
not
be
intrusive,
tui
jacent
development.
In
our
opinion,
it's
also
important
to
note
that
the
subject
lands
do
have
a
lower
elevation
than
the
existing
subdivision.
That's
adjacent
to
it.
B
B
We're
gonna
mend
a
zoning
bylaw.
It's
primitive
parking
area
for
the
apartment
block
and
was
technically
considered
the
front
yard.
However,
the
parking
area
will
be
screened
from
development
drive
by
the
townhouse
block.
A
children's
area
will
not
be
provided
as
the
amenity
space
will
be
provided
in
common
in
any
areas.
Instead,
it's
common
amenity
areas
include
a
library
party,
room,
rooftop
patio
and
an
outdoor
amenity
area.
These
areas
can
be
used
by
residents,
including
families,
front
yard,
depth
or
request
to
reduce
the
front
yard.
Setback
is
also
being
requests
for
the
townhouse
block.
B
Conclude
the
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
It
conforms
the
Official
Plan
policies
to
encourage
development
of
an
underutilized
lot
in
settlement
area.
The
Rose
Development
is
compatible
with
the
existing
neighborhood
and
serves
as
an
appropriate
transition
between
the
low-density
residential
neighborhood
to
the
west,
and
the
industrial
uses
to
the
east
is
our
opinion
that
the
proposed
development
constitutes
good
planning
is
within
the
public
interest.
If
that
concludes
my
presentation
for
this
evening,
we
look
forward
to
receiving
comments
from
the
committee
end
of
public.
C
You
for
chair
I
can
confirm
that
the
application
was
noticed
for
the
requirements
of
the
Planning
Act.
There
has
been
signage
posted
on
site,
I
related
to
tonight's
meeting,
as
well
as
the
active
site
planning
consent
applications,
as
the
applicant
alluded
to.
In
addition
to
that,
the
notification
was
mailed
out
to
the
79
property
owners
that
are
located
within
120
metres
of
the
site.
C
A
D
D
E
Through
you,
I
have
a
number
of
questions.
I'll
ask
some
now
and
I'll
come
back
to
some
after
residents
have
spoken
to
this,
because
I've
met
with
many
of
the
residents
as
their
counselor
to
discuss
their
concerns
on
this
development.
The
first
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
talk
a
bit
about
the
lighting
plan
for
the
site,
particularly
along
the
southwestern
border
of
the
property,
where
the
proposed
parking
lot
will
go.
That's
in
the
backyard
of
many
of
the
residents
who
have
mentioned
and
in
what
way
will
the
light
not
go
beyond
the
property
line.
B
So
we
have
planned
a
photometric
plan
was
prepared
by
an
engineer.
Support
of
the
site
plan
control
application.
Members
of
the
public
are
able
to
review
that
plan.
The
calculations
that
were
done
by
the
engineer
indicated
that,
beyond
the
property
line,
it
won't
be
more
than
0.1
plus
the
lighting
is
more
located
in
a
central
portion.
You
can
see
where
it
is
on
the
lighting
plan,
but
it
is
an
acceptable
level
to
ensure
that
there's
no
impact
on
neighboring
properties,
I.
E
Mentioned
the
potential
for
a
screen
and
lessen
that
further
on
the
diagram
that
I'm
looking
at
on
page
50
of
the
report,
I,
don't
see
any
indication
between
the
backyards
of
the
residents
and
the
parking
lot
of
trees
or
a
berm
or
anything
that
would
prevent
further
light
flow.
Is
that
a
possibility?
Is
that
something
that
could
be
changed
through.
B
You,
mr.
chair,
yes,
so
this
ring
buffer
provided
between
the
parking
area
and
the
residence
we
are
currently
working
through
the
site
plan
control
application.
As
part
of
that
there's
going
to
be
a
landscape
plan
and
the
landscape
plan
will
likely
speak
to
vegetation.
We
can
certainly
explore
further
measures
if
the
public
has
some
concerns
regarding
that
to
be
incorporated
into
the
landscape
plan.
E
Excellent,
so
two
more
for
now,
I
want
to
pick
up
on
my
colleagues,
questions
concerning
size
and
height
and
the
bulking
of
the
building
you'd
mention
that
a
lot
of
the
neighborhood
nearby
our
two
stories
and
some
of
them
are,
but
actually
the
majority
of
the
properties
that
abut
the
proposed
development
are,
in
fact
bungalows.
So
the
four
to
five
stories
of
this
building
is
four
to
five
times
taller
than
most
of
those
properties.
B
Valuates,
whether
something
is
compatible
based
on
not
a
numerical
value,
but
rather
based
on
whether
it
has
an
adverse
impact
or
not.
We
believe
the
way
that
the
building
has
been
set
back
and
as
design
has
been,
is
appropriate
and
can
exist
in
relative
harmony
with
the
adjacent
one-story
to
two
storey
buildings
in
the
area.
E
All
right
I'll
leave
that
for
now
and
then
my
final
question
at
this
point
is
about
the
request
to
waive
the
children's
play
area.
You
would
mention
that
perhaps
they
could
enjoy
the
library
in
the
building
or
other
family
spaces.
In
my
estimation,
the
ability
to
play
outside
is
much
different
than
to
recreation
that
has
its
own
value
and
I'm
glad
that
there
will
be
a
library
space
should
it
go
forward,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
speak
further
to
your
rationale
for
wanting
to
waive
this.
B
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
thank
you
physician.
Yes,
I'm
glad
you
raised
that
the
children's
in
any
of
the
area
we're
removing
that
provision,
because
it
was
more
of
a
technical
requirement.
There
is
going
to
be
outdoor
amenity
space,
provided
in
fact,
the
revised
site
plan
that
we
have
worked
on
as
part
of
the
site
plan.
B
E
C
You
three
mr.
chair,
I
just
was
hopeful
that
I
could
jump
in
and
add
something
to
the
applicants
response
to
me.
Councillor
Kylie's
inquiry
as
it
relates
to
planting
or
berming
along
the
adjacent
property
line
that
butts
up
to
the
rear
yards
of
boxwood
staff
have
had,
as
mentioned
conversations
with
neighbors
in
the
area
and
in
the
draft
bylaw
that
accompanies
your
report
in
front
of
you
tonight,
staff
have
included
the
requirement
of
a
planting
strip
along
that
Western
property
line
per
the
definition
of
the
bylaw,
so
as
alluded
to
by
the
applicant.
C
F
C
G
Thanks
your
chair,
a
three-year
question
about
Trudell
Road
and
thanks
very
much
for
now
a
my
name,
this
development
with
true
Dao,
because
when
we
saw
this
come
forward
with
a
different
applicant
in
2013,
that
was
one
thing
that
the
members
like
the
residents
in
that
area
had
wanted
was
not
to
be
out
of
alignment
if
they
thought
it
would
be
better.
So
did
your
traffic
on
study?
G
B
G
Think
how
I
stopped
would
because,
if
you're
gonna
have
any
children
living
in
your
development,
they'll
probably
go
to
trudells
school
they'll
have
to
cross
over
development
Drive
and
to
have
a
four-way
stop.
That
will
be
the
legal
crossing
way
without
the
city
having
to
hire
a
crossing
guard
and
so
great
when
it
was
owned
by
the
other
applicant
for
the
lands
just
south
of
you.
You
know
how
the
creeks
rate
has
been
gonna,
be
going
along
the
the
east
side
and
then
the
south
of
you
I'm.
G
B
Conversation
with
the
parks,
division,
Department
about
establishing
an
active
transportation
trail,
a
north
self
active
transportation
trail
between
the
rail
line
and
development
drive
is
a
lot
of
local,
kids
and
and
members
of
the
public.
You
use
that
as
a
shortcut,
and
so
we
are
evaluating
that
further
and
the
applicant
making
sure
if
there's
any
crossings
in
the
creek
that
it's
done
in
accordance
with
CR
CA
regulations.
B
G
You
and
let's
see
when
I
just
looked
on
so
when
the
EIS
was
done
in
2013,
the
conservation,
the
CRC
a
they
had
some
recommendations
to
improve
the
EIS.
Then
in
tonight's
I,
see
how
there
is
like
an
addendum
by
ecological
services
submitted
in
the
fall
of
2018
building
on
the
EIS.
But
they
don't
see
the
CRC
a
comment.
G
So
we
don't
have
the
CRC
a
comments
back
then
a
because
one
of
their
recommendations
was
to
keep
some
of
the
trees
right
in
the
buffer,
because
the
CRC
a
believed
that
the
trees
could
help
with
the
erosion
that
the
trees
right
at
the
creek
when
it
all
have
to
be
removed.
And
the
other
thing
the
Conservation
Area
had
said
about
the
2013
he
is
was
to
have
a
bigger
setback
from
the
creek.
They
were
talking
about
15
meters
from
the
edge.
G
B
Three
ministers
I'll,
be
honest
with
you:
I'm,
not
fully
aware
of
everything
that
was
done
as
part
of
the
previous
application.
I
know,
staff
had
worked
with
CRC
a
as
well
as
previous
applicants
to
build
in
special
provisions
and
setbacks
to
address
their
comments.
So
the
open
space
zone
that
you
see
on
the
subject
lands
is
actually
in
a
corporation
of
the
floodplain
setback
as
well
as
the
toll
roads
and
setback
and
the
wetland
setback.
B
We
can
certainly
have
that
conversation
of
ecological
services
to
make
sure
that
those
comments
are
addressed
with
respect
to
the
trees.
The
city
of
kingston
tree
by
law,
does
not
allow
you
to
remove
trees
in
the
in
viral
protection
area.
So
we
we
do
plan
on
maintaining
those
trees
within
the
environmental
protection
area.
B
G
G
This
up,
for
maybe
some
members
in
the
audience
right,
but
I
know
that
some
people
at
that
very
last
Planning
Committee
that
we
had
said
that
because
they
live
there,
they've
seen
Turtles,
and
so
the
EIS
addendum
again
did
not
have
any
mention
of
turtles,
which
is
rather
disappointment.
But
thank
you.
C
You
mr.
chair,
through
you,
I,
just
wanted
to
provide
very
quick
comment
as
it
relates
to
the
question
of
the
revised
he
is
addendum
that
was
received
in
2018
and
how
that
relates
to
commentary
from
the
CR
CA
and
the
absence
of
that
commentary
on
its
standard
practice
through
the
processing
of
zoning
amendment
applications
where
technical
commentary,
internal
to
the
organization
and
with
external
advisors
such
as
the
CRC
a
are
not
made
public
via
the
dash
system.
That
said,
the
application
is
still
subject
to
technical
review.
C
H
B
H
I'm
looking
here
at
8:48
Trudel
and
which
would
be
across
the
road
from
the
building,
presumably
when
they
moved
in
there,
they
had
an
their
expectation,
would
be
for
about
a
two
to
three
story.
Building
and
really,
when
you
look
at
this
height
of
the
tower,
it's
almost
six
storeys.
That
would
be
a
pretty
significant
difference
to
what
people
might
have
expected
when
they
moved
into
that
area.
Would
you
agree.
B
H
B
We
will
maybe
what
will
be
helpful
for
members
of
the
public
in
the
comitia,
so
we
provide
further
details
on
the
rooftop
area
where
that's
going
to
be
oriented
and
that
information
can
be
shared
and
offloaded
through
and
we're
happy
to
entertain
dialogue
and
how
that
can
be
better
designed
to
be
more
compatible.
Thank.
H
A
C
Yes,
absolutely
it's
not
a
requirement,
that's
prescribed
in
zoning
bylaw
number,
seventy
six,
twenty
six,
for
example!
That's
why
you
wouldn't
necessarily
see
it
on
my
page,
seven,
the
site
statistics
tableware,
proposes
or
shows
the
relief.
It
is
a
requirement
of
our
parks,
Division
and
the
applicant
previous
in
the
conversation
tonight
made
reference
to
a
trail
connection
north/south,
which
is
generally
in
conformity
with
the
active
transportation
master
plan
to
establish
that
desire
line
and
connection
through
which
is
active.
Currently.
I
A
C
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
our
amenity
space
requirements
recently
updated
2017
are
on
a
per
unit
basis.
It's
eighteen
point:
five
square
metres
per
dwelling
unit
across
the
city,
with
the
exception
of
the
Williamsville
Main
Street
corridor,
which
is
ten
square
meters
per
dwelling
in
it.
So
it
is
in
fact,
on
a
unit
basis
as
opposed
to
a
bedroom
basis.
A
A
B
3
mister
charity,
children's
play
amenity
area
is
a
very
specific
divine
term
in
the
City
of
Kingston
zoning
bylaw
that
we
feel
would
not
meet
the
needs
of
what
we're
providing
in
terms
of
amenity
area.
It's
not
to
say
that
there's
not
going
to
be
outdoor
amenity
space
for
children
to
enjoy,
and
we
would
be
happy
to
share
more
information
or
amenities.
Space
would
look
like,
but
we're
happy
to
talk
to
staff
about
that.
Maybe
there's
a
more
appropriate
way.
We
can
treat
that.
C
Through
you,
mr.
chair
a
minute
ago
and
I
made
reference
to
the
updates
to
the
on-site
amenities
that
the
city
undertook
in
2017
during
that
modification,
the
City
of
Kingston
citywide
through
that's
five
zoning
bylaws
removed
the
requirement
for
children's
play
space,
specifically
as
defined
children's
play
space.
The
18.5
square
metres
of
on-site
amenity
area
that
was
deemed
to
be
the
most
appropriate
number
on
a
per
unit
basis
across
the
city
was
said
to
include
what
would
have
been
previously
considered.
C
Children's
play
space,
so
we've
essentially
taken
those
two
requirements
that
were
previously
separated
out
as
amenity
and
children's
play
space
and
consolidated
that
into
one
you
numeric
number
of
18.5
of
on-site
amenity
space.
Why
you're
specifically
seeing
the
relief
sought
in
this
application
is
the
2013
approval
that
was
for
the
big
house.
Quote-Unquote
was
then
needed
to
comply
and
conform
to
those
previous
provisions
that
included
play
space.
Children's
play
space.
C
A
A
I
I
We
were
aware
at
the
time
that
there
would
be
development
in
the
area
behind
our
property,
but
we
were
under
the
impression
it
would
be
townhouses.
Our
main
area
of
concern
pertained
to
the
parcel
known
municipally
as
847
Development
Drive.
Here,
are
our
concerns
regarding
the
new
development,
the
plan
indicates
that
a
snow
storage
area
will
be
situated
behind
our
property
against
the
fence.
I'm
concerned
that
this
will
be
a
considerable
amount
of
snow
from
two
parking
lots.
I
I
The
height
of
the
apartment
building
is
a
concern
we
feel
we
will
be
overlooked,
creating
a
loss
of
privacy
and
reducing
our
quality
of
life.
We
also
feel
that
the
pitched
roof
on
the
apartment
building
unnecessarily
adds
to
the
height
of
the
building.
Another
concern
is
the
noise
from
the
parking
lot,
such
as
car
doors,
closing,
locking
and
unlocking
of
vehicles
headlights
at
night
and
idling
cars.
This
could
be
a
problem
at
all
hours
of
the
day
and
night.
Reducing
our
quality
of
life
lighting
in
the
parking
area
is
also
a
concern
for
us.
I
I
Will
there
be
any
landscaping
next
to
the
fence
between
the
properties
on
boxwood
street
and
the
parking
lot
for
8
for
7
development
drive
to
screen
the
view
for
privacy
concerns?
Would
it
be
possible
to
see
the
landscaping
plan
when
it
is
available?
Will
there
be
a
perspective
drawing
of
the
property
being
built
at
8
for
7
Development
Drive?
Would
it
be
possible
to
see
that
also
I'm
also
concerned
about
how
well
the
property
might
be
maintained
in
the
future
and,
finally,
what
is
the
height
of
the
proposed
garages?
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
should
have
mentioned
that
all
of
the
questions
are
gathered
and
then
responded
to
either
by
our
staff
or
by
the
proponent
at
the
end.
So
if
there's
another
person
that
wishes
to
speak
and
anybody
from
this
side,
if
you
want
to
just
wave
at
me
and
grab
one
of
these
mics
here,
if
you
choose
to.
F
Sit
back
and
shout
so
my
name
if
you
did
not
yet
catch
it,
it's
chris
hargreaves,
I'm,
the
and
I
shout
I
am
the
chair
of
the
Conservation
Committee
for
the
Kingston
field.
Naturalists
I
have
listened
with
interest
and
a
lot
of
sympathy
to
the
concerns
expressed
by
councillors
and
the
neighbor.
But
I
will
confine
my
comments
to
those
which
relate
to
the
environmental
protection
area,
as
this
is
the
area
of
concern
and
expertise
and
in
this
case
experience
of
the
Kingston
field.
F
What
are
the
setbacks
for
the
current
development
and
not
only
have
they
not
been
mentioned.
There
was
a
comment
from
the
applicant
that
he
didn't
know
if
the
15
meter
setback
was
being
respected.
I
am
concerned.
Having
spent
two
previous
hearings
here,
that
what
was
passed
by
the
council
as
a
compromise,
then
is
being
respected.
Or
is
we
been
asked
for
another
compromise
compromise
compromise?
A
second
concern
is,
with
regard
to
stormwater
management.
F
F
F
It
seems
given
the
natural
of
gravity,
it
is
either
going
to
go
into
that
lady's
backyard
or
is
going
to
the
creek
and
the
environmental
protection
area.
Nothing
has
been
said
about
that
and
what
also
concerns
me
given.
What
is
missing
from
this
application
is
the
comment
that
if
we
look
at
page
12,
the.
F
F
Was
deemed
complete
on
November
the
5th
2018,
at
which
point
the
clock
for
approval
by
council,
starts
ticking
and
council
has
a
hundred
and
fifty
days
to
approve
it.
That's
up
on
April
the
fourth.
There
are
14
days
left.
There
is
no
stormwater
management
proposal,
and
so
my
questions
the
planners
is:
why
was
this
application
deemed
complete
on
November?
The
5th,
when
is
obviously
missing,
information
and
council
is
now
in
a
position
of
having
to
make
a
decision
within
14
days.
Why
not
wait
until
an
application
is
really
complete
and
then
start
the
top
clicking?
A
K
K
Gonna
omit
the
ones
that
have
already
been
covered,
so
I'll
just
hit
the
new
ones,
I'm
wondering
what
was
the
previous
development
on
the
site
if
there
was
any
and
then
going
on
from
that,
if
there
are
any
brownfield
considerations
that
are
resulting
with
the
this
proposal
and
it's
interaction
with
what
has
been
there,
okay,
I'm
gonna
fall
from
it.
Mr.
Hargraves
was
talking
about
with
the
drainage,
environmental
aspects,
the
slopes,
firm
water
management
and
so
forth
and
I
don't
see
any
topographic
information
provided
in
the
agenda
package.
Tonight.
K
K
I'm
gonna
fall
on
to
again
what
mr.
Berger's
was
talking
about.
Since
this
is
a
new
proposal
right.
Does
it
fall
under
the
revised
official
plan,
which
was
brought
through
by
Council
after
extensive
consultation
and
then
passed
by
the
province,
I
believe
in
2017,
and
that's
with
respect
I
guess
if
eclis
to
the
ribbon
of
life,
which
was
discussed
extensively
during
those
consultations
and
Lisa
was
30
meters?
So
mr.
Herger
he's
talked
about
that
as
well
and
I
guess
one
hasn't
been
covered
yet
is.
K
Me
the
possibility
of
having
some
of
the
parking
to
be
included
inside
the
buildings.
That
is
an
awful
lot
of
asphalt
there.
Mr.
Hargraves
spoke
very
well
about
the
rainfall.
That's
coming
there
of
the
snow
as
well.
The
neighborhood
neighbor
was
talking
about
that
and
well
what's
there
now,
if
you
have
basically
soil,
that's
absorbing
rainfall
and
snowfall
and
then
that's
going
to
be
covered
over
either
with
the
building
itself,
which
is
large
and
the
apartment.
That's
gonna,
be
there.
So
it's
a
very
big
change
for
the
sector.
K
That's
there
and
I
really
think
that
has
to
get
more
detailed
examination
and
again
mr.
herger
has
hit
the
deadline.
That's
coming
up,
that's
very
important
information
for
this
committee
and
for
council,
it's
really
creating
what
amounts
to
an
emergency
situation.
In
my
view,
council
has
declared
a
climate
emergency
in
Kingston
and
a
couple
of
years
ago
we
had
a
hundred
year
summer
rainfall
situation
getting
more
extreme
events
with
climate
change
occurring.
K
So
we
need
to
coordinate
the
high
level
thinking.
The
council
has
bravely,
in
my
view,
passed
with
the
on-the-ground
development
that
this
proposal
is
part
of
so
I'll
just
say:
I'm,
supportive
in
principle.
It's
a
complex
project
and
we
definitely
need
more
housing
in
Kingston,
so
I'll
let
to
see
something
go
ahead,
but
I
think
more
care
has
to
be
taken.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
J
That's
right,
yeah,
my
name
is
les
Lafferty
I
am
an
elder
at
the
kingdom
hall
of
Jehovah's
Witnesses,
8:49,
Development,
Drive
and
first
off.
We
have
no
objections
to
the
residential
units
that
are
going
in
there.
People
need
a
place
to
live.
What
our
concern
is,
the
security
element
are
the
full
east
portion
of
our
building
or
our
property,
and
the
southern
are
all
exposed
to
the
new
development
area.
We
have
no
fences
there,
and
so
our
concern
is
once
the
properties
are
developed.
J
Is
there
going
to
be
fences
put
in
to
give
our
properties
security?
Otherwise,
with
the
number
of
people
there
and
young
people,
there
could
spill
over
onto
our
property,
and
we
have
experienced
over
the
years
the
32
years
we've
been
here,
a
cases
of
vandalism,
we're
concerned
about
that
or
people
spilling
over
young
people
spilling
over
onto
the
property.
For
example,
we
have
a
large
parking
lot.
J
A
Thank
you
much
both
our
staff
and
the
proponent.
Unless
there's
somebody
else
that
wishes
to
speak,
that
has
it
I,
don't
want
to
cut
anybody
off,
seeing
none
I'll,
give
our
staff
and
the
proponent
an
opportunity
to
address
those
questions.
Then
we'll
go
back
into
the
committee
for
further
questions.
B
Thank
you,
everyone
for
the
comments.
We
really
appreciate
the
feedback
that
we
received
tonight
we'll
certainly
be
evaluating
that
as
we
go
forward
with
our
revised
submissions,
so
I'm
gonna
respond
to
the
comments
by
individual
as
best
as
I
can
so
I
will
start
with
the
resident
of
3:21
boxwood
Street
first,
so
you
have
expressed
some
concerns
about
the
snow
storage
area
next
to
your
rear
yard,
your
backyard
and
you're
concerned
about
the
snow
that
would
be
stored
from
that
parking
lot,
potentially
melting
and
and
causing
issues
with
your
backyard.
B
So
there
will
be
a
draining
and
drainage
and
stormwater
management
plan
to
ensure
there
are
no
adverse
impacts.
We'll
also
go
back
to
our
architect
in
our
engineering
team
to
see,
if
perhaps
there's
another
spot,
we
can
put
that
stormwater.
Sorry,
it's
no
storage
area
with
respect
to
the
height
and
the
specific
concerns
regarding
the
pitch
roof
we'd
be
happy
to
maybe
explore
that
further.
B
I,
don't
have
an
answer
for
you
on
that
this
evening,
I
will
go
back
to
our
client
and
see
if
he
still
has
an
interest
in
preparing
those
garages.
They
were
identified
as
optional.
If
he
does
indeed
decide
to
go
forward
with
those,
we
can
certainly
share
that
information,
including
elevations
of
what
those
garages
would
look
like
with
the
public
and
be
uploaded
to
for
their
review.
B
With
respect
to
the
field
matchless,
you
have
noted
the
concerns
with
the
natural
heritage
features
on
the
property.
With
respect
to
the
setbacks
of
the
development,
I
will
be
clear.
We
are
not
amending
or
revising
anything
beyond
what
was
approved
as
part
of
the
previous
development.
So
you
had
correctly
mentioned
the
six
point,
one
plus
nine
plus
fifteen
there's
also
a
PSW
setback.
If
you
have
any
other
comments
specifically
regarding
the
natural
heritage
elements,
we
would
be
happy
to
hear
those
from
you
and
perhaps
take
a
look
at
them
further.
B
The
stormwater
management
plan
there
has
been
a
stormwater
management
report
submitted
as
part
of
the
zoning
and
as
well
as
part
of
the
site
plan,
approval
application,
which
is
a
much
more
detailed
stormwater
management
report.
That
plan,
including
any
drawings,
including
grading
which
does
identify
contours,
is
available
on
for
the
public
to
review
and
be
happy
to
see
any
comments
they
may
have
on
that,
and,
of
course,
pre-development
will
match
post
as
accordance
with
good
stormwater
management
principles.
B
With
respect
to
the
question
of
previous
development
on
the
site
in
terms
of
brownfields
I'm,
certainly
glad
you
asked
that
question
I
took
a
look
at
that
as
well.
We
actually
did
have
a
phase
two
ESA
prepared
as
part
of
the
previous
development
application.
This
as
far
as
the
phase
two
identified,
it
was
previously
used
for
residential.
B
At
one
point,
Phase
two
ESA
indicated
that
the
property
is
safe
to
go
forward
for
residential
uses
again
with
respect
to
topographical
information,
the
grading
servicing
reports
and
stormwater
management
reports,
including
the
detailed
site
plan
drawings,
are
available
on.
Does
this
application
have
to
conform
with
the
most
recent
version
of
the
Official
Plan?
Yes,
it
is
a
new
application
on
a
Planning
Act,
so
it
must
conform
with
the
most
recent
legislation.
Our
planning
justification
report
does
speak
to
that.
If
you
have
any
comments
on
analysis,
we
could
at
B
add.
B
We
were
happy
to
look
at
that
further
and
possibility
parking
to
be
included
inside
the
building.
That's
something
that
we
can
explore
further.
If
our
client
see,
if
he
may
be
interested
in
that
or
not
and
with
guards
to
climate
change,
so
I
had
asked
the
applicants
before
attending
the
meeting
this
evening.
What
green
measures
would
he
be
incorporating
into
the
development?
So
this
will
be
a
wood
frame
building,
so
wood
frame
does
have
a
lower
carbon
footprint
than
traditional
steel
and
concrete
construction
measures.
B
As
respect
to
our
neighbors
to
the
east,
the
witness
hall.
Yes,
we
would
certainly
be
happy
to
hear
any
comments
or
thoughts
you
have
on
perhaps
maybe
putting
fencing
or
landscaping
measures
in
there.
Please
send
us
your
comments,
and
perhaps
we
can
have
a
dialogue
on
that.
Some
of
the
things
you'd
be
looking
to
include
on
there,
and
that
concludes
my
responses.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
You,
mr.
chair,
further
to
the
commentary
and
responses
provided
from
the
applicant
I,
just
wanted
to
add
two
or
three
quick
things
from
a
from
a
staff
point
of
view
and
to
specifically
address
that's
the
comment
around
lighting
in
addition
to
the
photo
metrics
plan
that
is
outlined.
What's
it
anticipated
to
occur
on
the
site
and
on
the
adjacent
sites?
C
It's
it's
common
practice
within
the
city
of
Kingston
is
that's
a
plan,
that's
registered
on
title
through
our
site
plan
control
agreement,
and
we
also
have
specific
conditioning
within
the
agreement
that
should
any
adverse
impacts
that
were
not
anticipated
through
that
photo.
Metrics
analysis
result
after
the
fact
the
applicant
bear
and
bears
the
cost
and
the
responsibility
to
address
any
of
those
to
ensure
that
that
spillage
is
not
adversely
affecting
any
of
the
neighbors
I.
C
Also,
the
the
the
second
point
that
I'd
like
to
provide
some
clarification
on
was
a
specific
regarding
the
applications
completeness
date
dating
back
to
2018,
and
only
allowing
the
committee
or
council
that
matter
14
days
from
now
to
make
a
decision
that
is
correct,
with
respect
to
November
2018
November
5th
2018
as
to
when
the
application
was
deemed
complete.
Municipalities
in
Ontario,
under
our
provincial
guidance,
are
required
to
deem
applications
complete
when
an
application
has
been
made.
That
requires
all
of
the
required
submitted
material
as
prescribed
through
pre-application,
etc.
C
C
Some
members
of
the
community
will
recall,
through
some
of
the
conversations
I
had
early
on
with
an
alternative
development
plan
at
the
front
of
the
site
that
was
adjacent
to
development
drive
on
the
8:09
site.
It
was
not
always
proposed
to
be
three-story
townhomes
that
were
18
units.
It
was
a
little
less
dense.
From
that
perspective,
there
was
a
canoe
concept
that
included
retaining
that
existing
single-family
dwelling.
C
So
until
the
full
understanding
provided
from
the
applicant
as
to
what
the
overall
plan
was
moving
forward
with
both
809
and
847,
this
meeting
was
was
essentially
held
until
that
time,
so
that
another
statutory
public
meeting
would
not
then
be
required.
Should
a
modification
to
a
plan
be
needed.
Hence
the
reason
of
delay
between
November
and
to
date.
E
You
mr.
chair,
through
a
few
more
questions
on
the
far
southern
end
of
the
development
we've
heard
mention
of
the
garbage
enclosures
or
the
optional
garages.
So
let
me
actually
back
that
up.
There
are
optional
garages
which
may
or
may
not
happen.
Will
the
garbage
enclosure
happen
for
sure?
Should
it
go
for
it
as
proposed
yeah.
B
We
have
to
provide
a
garbage
enclosure,
because
a
number
of
units
will
be
privately
service
to
pick
up
the
garbage
that
will
be
appropriately
screened
through
site
plan
control.
It
will
be
lightly
fenced
if
members
of
the
public
or
committee
have
comments
on
what
they
would
like
to
see
there
or
further
details
would
be
happy
to
provide
that
alright.
E
B
E
C
Through
mr.
chair
to
answer
that
question
at
this
date
and
time,
no
because
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
a
full
technical
review
that
includes
our
colleagues
in
engineering
who
specifically
have
stormwater
engineers
on
staff,
have
not
provided
full
commentary
and
confirmation,
so
until
I
have
that
confirmation.
C
B
Threw
you
mr.
chair,
I,
don't
know
the
specific
number.
There
is
an
arborist
report
and
it
does
identify
the
number.
What
I
can
tell
you
is
we're
not
removing
any
of
the
trees
in
the
environmental
protection
area,
which
is
where
the
majority
of
the
trees
are
located.
There
were
some
Cedars
and
things
planted
as
part
of
the
existing
home
on
809
development
drive.
Those
will
have
to
be
removed
to
accommodate
the
townhomes.
B
D
D
C
C
If
the
question
is,
will
you
be?
Will
you
have
confirmation
with
respect
to
stormwater
management
before
being
brought
or
require,
or
or
asked
to
vote
and
make
a
decision
on
this?
The
answer
is
yes,
is
that
would
be
holistically
reviewed
through
our
technical
analysis
and
income
and
built
into
an
accompany
our
staff
recommendation
in
the
zoning
in
the
zoning
stages.
C
D
C
C
D
That's
good
now,
there's
probably
a
technical
answer.
This
question-
I
just
don't
perceive
it
myself
here
and
that
is
how
far
is
the
the
block
part.
The
the
25
meter
peaked,
roof
block
of
the
development.
How
far
is
that
from
development
drive,
and
then
my
following
question
was:
how
far
is
it
from
the
boxwood
back
for
backyard
fence.
C
Okay,
sorry
about
the
delay,
the
building
is
essentially
a
Z
shape
or
Zed
shape,
where
the
in
the
midpoint
of
that
Zed
is
the
highest
point
of
the
building.
That's
the
boxy
part
that
I
think
we're
referring
to
that's
approximately
62
meters
from
development
drive
from
the
rear
property
line
of
the
parcels
that
front
boxwood.
That
is,
that
midpoint
is
approximately
18
meters.
C
C
E
C
That's
a
great
question
and
I'm
gonna
answer
it,
starting
with
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
as
that's
what
we're
discussing
today,
but
this
property
has
multiple
other
applications
and
you've
probably
received
notifications
in
your
mail
and
seen
signage
on
site.
So
I'll
speak
to
those
after
tonight's
meeting
as
it
relates
to
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
a
statutory
public
meeting
in
which
we're
looking
to
obtain
input
from
the
members
of
the
community
and
council
or
planning
committee
and
and
and
those
that
can
take
shape,
to
amend
the
project
as
needed.
C
Moving
forward
staff
will
compile
technical
comments
from
all
of
internal
and
external
applicable
departments,
including
the
CRC.
A
engineering
group
from
stormwater
management
perspectives,
planning
comments
to
ensure
compatibility
and
overlook
and
provide
those
comments
to
the
applicant
through
technical
review
process.
C
C
Granting
council
makes
a
decision
there's
a
20
day,
appeal
period,
if
all
falling
out
of
that
decision,
which
is
a
opportunity
for
the
members
of
the
community
or
anyone
at
that
to
appeal
to
the
local
planning
Appeals
Tribunal,
should
they
disagree
with
such
decision
granted?
It
would
make
it
through
that
whole
process.
The
zoning
would
then
be
potentially
in
place
depending
on
the
way
it
unfolded.
C
C
So,
as
we've
differentiated
here
tonight,
there's
two
separately
convey
able
parcels
ones,
809,
Development
Drive,
the
other
of
which
is
847
Development
Drive,
currently
809,
Development
Drive,
which
is
a
smaller
parcel
with
the
most
frontage
on
on
the
public
street,
is
quite
large,
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
convey
a
portion
of
that
rear
yard
to
the
other
site
to
accommodate
some
of
the
surface
parking
lot,
as
well
as
portions
of
the
large
apartment,
larger
apartment
building
at
the
rear.
So
it's
a
lot
line
adjustment
to
facilitate
that
transfer
of
ownership.
C
That
application
is
essentially
been
held
in
abeyance
at
this
time
until
further
detail
such
as
the
location
of
the
buildings,
the
parking
etc
has
been
more
refined.
So
it's
not
yet
complete,
as
the
applicant
has
mentioned
earlier,
applications
for
site
plan
control
have
also
been
submitted
for
this
applicant.
C
A
You
very
much
a
couple
of
comments
since,
as
we've
all
heard,
I
hope
we've
declared
a
climate
emergency,
and
that
means
that
every
time
something
comes
through
planning
or
whatever,
we
should
look
at
it
through
a
climate
change
lens
so
and
we
have
a
number
of
things
in
our
official
plan
that
are
recommendations,
saying,
though
you
should
do
this,
but
they
don't
necessarily
say
yet.
You
shall
do
this
and
that's
something
that
we
need
to
review
a
couple
of
things
that
come
to
mind
here.
A
One
of
them
is
the
whole
question
of
the
hard
surface
and
concerns
about
stormwater
management
and
one
of
the
recommendations.
I
believe
in
the
opie
recognizes
that
there
are
porous
hard
surfaces
that
are
available
that
cost
slightly
more
to
install,
but
they
indeed
reduce
they
allow
water
not
just
to
flow
off
the
hard
surface,
but
to
actually
stay
on
on
the
site.
A
fairly
large
percentage
of
that
water
I
would
strongly
recommend
and
I'll
ask
at
the
comprehensive
rapport
stage
weather
that
has
been
implemented.
A
The
other
thing
is,
with
the
ever
increasing
number
of
electric
cars
it
it's
my
understanding
that
it
costs
less
than
a
hundred
dollars
to
install
at
the
time
of
construction,
and
it
costs
hundreds
of
dollars
to
retrofit.
That
and
I
would
hope
that
a
number
of
those
in
fact
are
installed
at
the
time
of
construction,
quick
question
for
staff.
A
It's
my
understanding
that
one
of
the
considerations
for
storm
management
is
none
of
the
adjoining
properties
should
receive
any
additional
water
flow
from
a
development,
and
that
typically
is
insured
either
by
a
peer
review
or
by
a
city
consultant.
Will
that
be
taking
place
on
this
site
once
we
get
the
final
stormwater
management,
yeah.
C
Through
you,
absolutely
it
it's
a
it's
that
detailed
stormwater
analysis
report
that
we're
referring
to
earlier
on
in
the
evening
that
would,
it
would
be
included
as
part
of
the
site
plan,
control
submission.
It
is,
in
this
case,
a
technical
document
that
would
be
reviewed
internally
by
our
engineering
group
and
our
stormwater
engineering
staff,
and
not
a
peer
review
through
an
external
agency,
but
it
would
most
definitely
be
reviewed
by
a
qualified
professional.
Thank.
B
So
the
proposed
development
will
be
designed
to
meet
in
compliance
with
the
Ontario
Ontario
ins
of
disabilities.
Accessibility
act,
so
we've
actually
provided
the
type
A
and
type
B
accessible
parking
spaces,
as
required
by
the
aurait,
which
are
much
more
stringent
than
the
zoning
bylaw
standards
which
are
out
of
date
and
that
provides
for
van
accessible
parking
spaces
with
appropriate
signage
and
1.5
meter
aisle
in
between
them.
So
people
can
get
their
wheelchairs
and
things
out
like
that.
B
C
Mr.
chair,
if
I
could
just
just
two
further
commentary
from
the
applicant
pain,
accessible
parking
spaces
that
are
proposed
on
the
site,
which
does
comply
with
the
AODA
requirements,
which
I
will
politely
point
out,
that
our
bylaws
have
been
updated
to
include
the
newest
provisions
and
policies
of
AODA
parking,
that
four
of
which
are
type
a
which
are
the
larger
3.7
meter
wide
spaces
and
five
of
which
are
the
type
B
spaces.
A
Thank
you.
My
final
comment
is
that
this
is
a
fairly
complex
development
and
there
is
indeed
a
lot
that
of
things
that
have
been
brought
up,
whether
its
offense
snow
removal
parking
all
of
those
things.
Our
site
plan
issues
which,
on
routine
applications
are
delegated
to
staff
and
staff,
do
a
good
job
of
addressing
those
issues.
A
But
there
is
a
process
called
a
site
plan
bump
up
and
it
usually
happens,
I'm
looking
to
staff,
so
I
don't
misspeak
here,
but
it
usually
happens
at
the
comprehensive
report
stage
not
usually
beforehand
and
what
it
is
is
a
motion
gets
moved
and
seconded
goes
to
Council,
and
if
it's
passed
and
in
my
living
memory
it's
never
not
been
passed.
Then
the
site
plan
report
is
bumped
up
back
to
planning
and
it
gives
the
public
an
opportunity
to
see
democracy
at
work
and
us
addressing
those
concerns.
Is
that
fairly
accurate
through.
L
You,
mr.
chair,
typically,
we
see
a
lot
of
applicants
going
through
the
full
rezoning
process,
first
prior
to
submitting
a
site
plan
application
to
ensure
that
their
detailed
design
work
isn't
advancing
too
far
ahead
of
what
is
approved
through
the
rezoning.
So
often
those
bump
up
motions
are
separated
because
we
aren't,
we
don't
have
the
benefit
of
having
the
concurrent
applications
running
at
the
same
time.
L
So
in
in
this
scenario,
certainly,
since
we've
received
the
application
for
site
plan
of
control
on
this
property,
members
of
council
would
have
the
opportunity
to
bump
it
up
to
Planning
Committee
for
approval
at
any
point
in
the
approval
process.
It
can
certainly
happen
at
the
time
of
a
future
comprehensive
report
if
we
get
to
that
stage
on
this
application-
or
it
could
happen
prior
to
that
or
following
that
any
time
prior
to
the
approval
of
that
site
plan
application
Council
certainly
has
the
opportunity
to
bump
it
up
great.