►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from September 16, 2021. For full meeting agenda, visit: https://bit.ly/3zjeGig
A
B
Joining
us
from
staff
are
tim
park,
director
planning
services,
james
barr
manager,
development
approvals,
chris
wicka
senior,
planner,
tim
fisher,
planner
myself,
elizabeth
fawcett
as
committee
as
committee
clerk
and
blair
johnson
is
our
host
for
this
evening.
We
also
currently
have
five
agents
and
applicants
who
are
here
to
support
the
two
files
this
evening,
and
we
currently
have
six
members
of
the
public
watching
from
the
gallery.
A
A
A
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum
and
to
give
the
public
an
opportunity
to
make
representations
in
respect
to
the
proposal
as
re
required
by
the
planning
act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant.
The
meeting
will
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Persons
speaking
at
the
meeting
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes.
Additionally,
interested
members
of
the
public
can
email
the
committee
clerk
or
the
assigned
planner
if
they
wish
to
be
notified.
Regarding
a
particular
application,
no
decisions
are
made
by
public
meetings
concerning
applications.
A
A
Public
meeting
reports
are
provided
to
inform
the
public
about
all
relevant
information.
After
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considered
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
applications.
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
comprehensive
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
by
the
this
committee.
A
The
recommendations,
the
the
recommendation
is
typically
to
approve
with
conditions
or
to
deny.
The
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
application
to
city
council
who
has
the
final
say
on
the
applications
following
council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
A
If
a
person
or
public
body
would
have
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
kingston
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal,
but
that
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
is
passed.
That
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal.
The
decision
our
first
order
of
business
tonight
is
in
regard
to
85
king
street
east
and
46
simcoe
street
I'll
turn
to
our
city
staff.
D
Thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
a
preamble
of
my
own
here,
so
notice
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
As
detailed
in
the
public
meeting
report,
we've
received
four
pieces
of
correspondence
via
email
for
this
application
to
date,
they're
provided
both
as
schedule
a
to
the
reports
and
also
as
an
addendum.
D
This
is
a
statutory
public
meeting
held
under
the
planning
act.
The
purpose
of
this
public
meeting
is
for
the
applicant
to
present
their
proposal
to
the
public
and
planning
committee
and
the
format
of
the
meeting
allows
for
members
of
the
public
and
planning
committee
to
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
regarding
their
proposal
and
gives
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
those
questions.
D
As
part
of
this
public
meeting
staff
planning
staff
have
prepared
a
public
media
report
summarizing
the
proposal.
It
should
be
noted
that
no
recommendations
or
decisions
are
being
made
this
evening
regarding
this
report
planning
staff
are
in
attendance
this
evening
to
record
the
questions
being
asked
to
the
applicant
or
to
address
technical
questions
regarding
the
planning
process.
D
The
questions
asked
by
the
public
complaining
committee,
along
with
any
written
submissions,
will
be
addressed
by
planning
staff
within
a
comprehensive
report
and
after
the
technical
review
and
assessment
of
the
proposal
by
the
city
has
been
completed,
planning
staff
will
bring
that
comprehensive
report
with
recommendations
to
planning
committee
at
a
future
date.
Thank
you.
E
Evening,
yeah
thanks
elizabeth,
my
name
is
mark
tau,
I'm
a
registered
professional
planner
with
ibi
group
and
representing
the
owner
steven
sorenson
with
respect
to
the
application
the
owner
is
here
tonight,
along
with
bruce
downey.
Who
is
the
project
architect
as
well,
so
bruce
will
be
able
to
help
answer
questions
at
the
end.
If
there
are
any
so
next
slide,
please.
E
E
The
subject.
Property
is
two
parcels.
Actually
one
address
is
85
king
street
and
is
the
large
house
in
the
middle
of
the
screen,
and
the
second
property
is
a
parcel
associated
with
the
former
carriage
house
at
46
simcoe
at
the
bottom
of
the
image
they
both
share
access
off
of
simcoe
street
there's
no
down
the
on
the
image
the
vehicle
entry.
E
E
E
The
subject:
property
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
king
street
east
at
the
corner
of
simcoe.
It's
located
just
west
of
the
downtown
on
the
cross
from
city
park
and
close
to
the
water,
particularly
kingston
yacht
club,
which
you
can
see
from
the
terminus
of
simcoe
street
down
in
the
water
next
slide,
please.
E
E
You
can
just
see
the
gates
in
the
stone
wall
that
round
most
of
the
property
and
access
is
to
the
left
out
onto
simcoe
street
next
slide,
please.
This
is
a
view.
Looking
from
the
west
to
the
east,
between
the
main
building,
the
85
king
street
dwelling
and
the
carriage
house
on
the
right
hand,
side
you
can
see
out
towards
the
streets
and
the
gate
between
the
walls
and
the
garages
or
the
sort
of
the
garages
would
basically
be
where
this
picture
is
taken
from
next
slide.
Please.
E
E
E
So
four
areas
of
relief
are
being
requested.
One
is
for
lock
coverage
for
the
accessory
building,
so
the
maximum
block
coverage
accessory
structures
is
typically
ten
percent.
The
proposed
attached
garages
are
12.5
percent
and
maximum
height
of
accessory
structures
is
proposed
to
be
increased
from
8
to
8.2
meters
from
4.6.
E
E
This
is
the
architects
hand-drawn
sketch
of
the
proposed
detached
garages
in
the
foreground
is
a
one-story
glass
arboretum
greenhouse
for
for
the
structure
and
then
beyond
that
you
can
see
the
three
bays
of
the
garages
and
then
upper
floor.
Private
amenity
area
associated
with
each
of
those
three
bays
next
slide,
please.
E
So
the
the
image
here
just
demonstrates
that
the
the
garages
in
the
upper
floor
amenity
area
are
meant
to
be
inward
focused
into
the
site
so
that
they're
not
oriented
outward
looking
and
that
those
views
come
into
the
common
space
or
into
the
driveway
areas
of
the
properties.
Primarily
next
slide,
please,
this
is
an
elevation.
So
this
is
what
you
would
see
if
you
drove
into
the
property
and
look
towards
the
garages.
E
So
there's
three
bays
each
20
foot
doors,
so
you
could
have
a
vehicle,
possibly
physically,
potentially
two,
but
there
are
no
sheds
or
other
accessory
structures.
So
the
intention
of
the
owner
is
that
each
of
the
units
would
be
able
to
store
lawn
furniture,
bicycles,
garbage
storage,
little
snow,
snow
removal,
machinery
etc.
E
So
this
is
a
view
looking
from
king
street,
so
you
wouldn't
really
see
this
view
because
there's
a
large
hedge
and
fence
along
the
property
boundary
with
king
street.
So
if
you're
looking
from
the
sidewalk,
you
probably
wouldn't
see
much
of
anything
because
of
the
the
height
of
the
hedge.
This
is
a
view.
Looking
you
looking
south
and
you
can
see
the
your
glass
arboretum
there
and
then
the
second
floor
beyond
the
next
slide,
please.
E
E
The
setback's
proposed
to
be
0.3
meters
and
that's
reduced
from
a
0.6
meter
requirement
for
a
detached
garage
and
that's
in
line
with
an
existing
concrete
wall
that
was
poured
with
the
intention
of
originally
having
cladding
stone,
cladding
on
that
wall
to
emulate
an
extension
of
the
original
stone
walls
of
the
property
and
then
on
the
south
side.
So
the
left
hand
side,
there's
a
large
about
four
meter:
12
foot
tall,
stone
wall,
it's
about
half
a
meter
thick.
E
This
is
similar
to
the
to
the
east
side
or
sorry
to
the
west
side
of
that
portion
of
the
garage.
The
garage
is
proposed
to
be
built
snug
up
against
that
wall,
but
with
no
interior
walls
such
that
that
stone
wall
is
essentially
the
interior
wall
of
the
garage,
and
this
would
allow
for
ease
of
access
for
maintenance
over
time
and
next
slide.
Please.
E
E
There
is
proposed
to
be
a
pergola
and
a
just
a
roof
covered
porch,
not
enclosed,
occupying
a
portion
of
that
flat
roof
on
the
second
second
floor,
on
the
left,
hand,
side
and
next
slide,
please
so
in
terms
of
site
context.
For
those
of
you
familiar
with
the
area.
You'll
know
it's
part
of
the
old
sydney,
heritage,
conservation
district,
these
really
two
and
a
half
blocks
from
emily
street.
Over
to
ontario
are
occupied
by
a
variety
of
original
many
designated
structures.
E
The
subject
properties
outlined
in
red
to
the
right
of
that
is
another
very
large
property,
with
a
designated
structure
or
designated
property
itself.
That
recently
has
gone
under
extensive
renovations
and,
in
addition,
and
then
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood
have
seen
some
change
over
time,
but
you
can
still
see
a
lot
of
original
coach
houses
and
other
structures
that
would
abut
original
or
existing
lot
lines
similar
to
what's
proposed
and
similar
to
what's
around
the
subject.
Property
next
slide,
please.
E
So
this
is
the
view
of
the
property
on
the
left
hand,
side
and
then
the
budding
large
dwelling
that
was
recently
renovated
and
expanded.
8183
king
on
the
right
hand,
side
next
slide
and
the
top
image
is
the
view
down
king
street
between
emily
and
the
next
street
over
to
the
to
the
east.
So
these
are
some
of
the
large,
larger
original
designated
properties.
E
The
bottom
image
is
one
of
the
side
streets
off
of
king
and
you
can
see,
for
example,
on
the
left-hand
side
side,
one
of
the
original
coach
houses,
one
and
a
half
stories
on
the
left
hand,
side
that
is
built
along
the
property
line
similar
to
the
subject
property
and
several
others
in
the
neighborhood
next
slide.
Please.
E
This
is
a
view
down
simcoe
street
towards
the
water
two
large
dwellings,
including
the
subject
property
on
the
right,
and
then
you
can
see
the
taller
apartment
building
just
beyond
the
trees
in
the
left-hand
side.
The
next
slide
please
and
further
down
the
street
again
the
apartment
building
left
so,
on
the
right
hand,
side
there's
the
opening
in
the
stone
fence
the
stone
wall
on
the
right
is
the
subject
property.
So
this
is
this
lines,
much
of
the
property
on
the
on
the
east,
south
and
west
sides
and
then
next
slide.
E
Please
would
show
three
row
house
units
immediately
south
of
the
subject,
property
and
next
slide.
Please
so
in
terms
of
site
context,
we
looked
at
you
know:
what's
the
range
of
lot
coverages
lot
areas
in
the
neighborhood,
and
particularly
really
these
three
or
two
and
a
half
blocks,
discounting
the
large
apartment
building
to
the
to
the
south
or
to
the
east
on
ontario,
so
the
subject,
property
and
the
one
immediately
next
to
it.
E
E
So
this
image
just
illustrates
a
number
of
existing
would
probably
would
have
been
formerly
carriage
houses.
Most
of
them
are
original
structures
or
or
older
structures,
and
these
are
all
built
along
current
lot
lines.
So
you
can
see
that
it's
quite
typical
in
the
neighborhood
to
have
large
larger
structures
along
the
property
lines.
Most
of
these
identified
have
garages
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
upper
floor.
Other
living
space
or
accessory
living
space,
most
of
them
are
one
and
a
half
to
two-story
structures.
E
There's
a
one-story
structure
immediately
to
the
south,
serving
the
town
houses,
which
is
garages.
So
you
can
see
this.
This
portion
of
king
street
has
this.
This
retained
heritage
with
these
various
accessories,
coach
house
structures,
garages,
etc
along
lot
lines,
often
associated
with
stone
walls
or
stone
original
stone.
Buildings
next
slide,
please.
E
So
in
terms
of
the
immediate
context.
I'll
just
take
you
through
some
images
of
the
properties
to
the
west
immediately
a
budding
so
to
the
west
is
81
king
street,
and
so
this
is,
if
you're
standing
in
the
rear
or
the
west
yard
of
the
subject,
property
looked
west.
So
this
large
building
or
large
house
was
maintained
for
a
number
of
years
and
recently
changed
hands
and
the
owners
as
part
of
that
put
a
did
a
large
investment
in
the
property,
including
rehabilitating
and
doing
an
addition
on
the
front
to
the
garages.
E
So
the
next
slide,
please
would
show
the
larger
garage
that
was
constructed
over
the
last
couple
of
years
towards
the
king
street
frontage.
So
this
is
the
foreground.
Is
the
yard
of
the
subject
property
and
then
the
garage
or
the
garage
extension
with
the
three
large
dormers?
That's
a
new
addition
to
the
adjacent
property
and
the
last
couple
of
years
next
slide.
Please
so
part
of
the
part
of
the
character.
I
guess
you'd
find
in
the
neighborhood.
Is
there
a
number
of
rooftop
decks,
balconies,
etc?
E
That
would
provide
views
particularly
to
the
water,
because
it
is
within
close
proximity
to
lake
ontario
and
into
the
yacht
club,
so
the
next
door,
property
81
king,
has
a
it's
called
the
crow's
nest.
I
understand
from
the
architect
providing
view
to
the
water
next
slide.
Please,
and
then
the
three
town
is
is
to
the
south.
They
all
have
rooftop
decks
at
the
second
floor
or
third
floor
level
again
providing
views,
you
know
into
their
yard,
but
primarily
presumably
to
the
water
to
the
south
and
next
slide.
E
E
So,
just
on
that
note,
as
identified
earlier,
the
proposed
garages
or
garages
on
the
south
ends,
so
this
would
be
next
to
the
stone
wall
and
next
to
the
town
houses
on
simcoe.
There
is
a
small
open
air
deck
on
the
second
floor
level,
which
would
provide
a
view
both
to
the
water
and
also
into
the
subject,
property
yard,
and
also
I
mean
it
would
provide
a
view
across
the
rear
yards
of
the
dwellings
to
the
south.
E
But
as
identified,
this
seems
to
be
a
fairly
typical
condition
in
the
neighborhood
where
there
are
these
upper
floor,
decks
providing
views
across
yards
to
the
water
and
around
around
the
neighborhood
next
side.
Please
so
again,
just
the
image
of
the
proposed
dwelling
in
proposed
garages
and
upper
floor
amenity
that
it's
it's
meant
to
be
kind
of
an
inward
inward
looking
design
with
really
windows
focused
towards
the
site
and
toward
the
yards.
E
E
So
quickly
go
through
the
policy
and
zoning
and
wrap
up
in
the
next
five
minutes,
or
so
so,
with
respect
to
the
pps.
The
detached
garages
are
permitted
in
terms
of
being
with
accessories
within
a
residential
area
and
we're
of
the
opinion
that
satisfies
the
policies
of
the
pps
next
slide.
Please,
with
respect
to
the
official
plan
it's
designated
as
residential
accessory
uses
such
as
detached
garages,
are
permitted
in
terms
of
a
use
within
the
residential
designation.
E
E
E
Garages
are
intended
to
provide
for
the
functional
needs
of
the
set
users.
There's
no
garages
currently
in
the
the
garages
would
be
intended
to
provide
parking
and
storage
for
permitted
three
units,
not
four
but
three
units
on
the
property,
and
it
also
satisfies
the
cultural
heritage
policies
as
considered
in
part
through
the
previous
heritage.
Approval
next
slide,
please.
E
So
we
also
looked
at
the
old
synonym
hcd
and
there
are
some
specific
policies
that
would
apply
there
and
the
proposed
garages
do
satisfy
those
in
terms
of
the
the
heights
and
the
locational
criteria
for
for
detached
garages
or
for
new
accessory
structures
and
next
slide.
Please,
with
respect
to
the
zoning,
as
I
said,
it's
located
in
a
site-specific,
a
zone
which
was
enacted
in
2016.
E
E
So
we
feel
that
the
proposed
amendments
are
appropriate.
We'll
note
that,
similar
to
the
the
expanded
attached
garage
that
was
built
next
door,
which
are
permitted
to
be
within
point
six
meters,
so
two
feet
at
a
height
of
up
to
10.7
meters.
You
know
this.
This
type
of
built
form
is
contemplated
even
at
a
reduced
setback
of
0.6
meters
or
even
less.
You
know.
We
saw
a
number
of
examples
of
zero
meter
setbacks
in.
E
Where
were
coach
houses
etc
were
built
on
the
lot
lines
and
even
the
original
garage
or
the
next
door
building
and
the
original
structure
at
46
simcoe?
The
coach
house
is
also
built
on
the
lot
line,
so
in
terms
of
the
the
built
form
and
we
feel
it's
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
we'll
avoid
negative
impacts.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
will
we'll
now
be
going
to
the
public
for
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
make
comments.
I
will
just
remind
the
public,
you
should
identify
yourself
and
your
address
and
then
you're
free
to
make
comments
or
ask
questions.
Those
will
be
collected
by
the
proponent
or
the
proponents.
Planner
and
they'll
be
addressed
on
mass
at
the
end,
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
elizabeth
our
clerk.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
We
do
have
at
least
one
hand
raised
before
I
go
to
them.
I'm
just
going
to
remind
members
of
the
public
that
we
do
rely
on
the
raised
hand
function.
Should
you
wish
to
speak
during
this
portion
of
the
meeting?
Therefore,
if
you
have
a
question
or
a
comment
for
this
application,
please
raise
your
hand
and
zoom.
This
is
located
in
the
center
of
your
screen
when
you
move
the
mouse
over
the
zoom
window,
mr
chair,
I'm
going
to
start
with
mark
and
do
and
julie
derbyshire.
G
You
hear
me:
yes,
we
can
loud
and
clear.
I
love
this
modern
technology,
so
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
this
evening.
I'm
mark
derbisher
and
I'm
here
with
my
wife,
julie
and
we're
the
owners
of
81
and
83
king
street
east,
the
neighbor
that
directly
adjoins
both
85
king
and
46
simcoe,
and
we're
here
tonight
to
oppose
their
neighbor's
application
to
build
a
six-car
garage
directly
along
our
shared
property
line.
Now
I've
submitted
a
letter
to
the
city
and
to
this
committee.
G
So
I'll
take
the
letter
as
read,
and
I
won't
go
off
all
those
points.
Well,
we
have
many
concerns
our
primary
concern,
our
setback
and
height.
We
object
to
reducing
the
setback,
to
almost
nothing
from
the
1.2
meters.
The
bylaw
calls
for
now.
I
know
the
applicant
is
suggesting
the
setback
requirement
is
0.6
meter,
but
that
requirement
needs
a
double
check.
I
think
section
5.17
of
the
viola
requires
a
setback
of
1.2
meters
for
a
rear
yard,
which
I
think
this
is.
G
The
requirement
to
return
them
should
be
high
and
with
the
support
of
all
affected
parties-
and
this
is
not
the
case
in
this
instance.
The
setback
requirement
to
us
is
for
our
privacy,
for
our
ongoing
maintenance
of
our
own
property
and
to
protect
the
value
of
our
home.
We
in
no
way
want
any
new
structure
to
be
attached
to
our
house
plain
and
simple.
G
During
our
own
recent
works,
the
city
was
very
clear
that
setback
bylaws
between
neighbors
was
an
important
to
be
maintained,
and
we
did
the
city
said,
among
other
things,
that
the
setback
allows
for
space
for
building
an
ongoing
maintenance,
while
having
extra
space
out
at
our
own
carriage
house
would
have
certainly
made
for
a
far
more
functional
space.
We
nonetheless
appreciate
the
subject
for
ongoing
maintenance
of
our
property,
and
this
has
never
been
more
relevant
than
in
recent
days.
G
Our
family
room
at
the
rear
of
the
of
the
back
of
the
house
that
was
built
in
1841,
has
no
setback,
and
mr
sorensen
refuses
to
allow
any
access
whatsoever
to
maintain
our
roof
and
siding
which
leaks
water
every
time
it
rains.
This
has
now,
unfortunately,
become
a
legal
matter.
So
to
me,
it
clearly
underscores
why
a
proper
setback
is
essential.
G
We
believe
our
neighbor's
desire
to
have
a
six-car
garage
in
downtown
kingston
doesn't
warrant
the
rezoning
of
the
property.
In
our
letter
we
suggest
some
possible
compromises,
including
reducing
the
size
of
the
proposed
new
garage.
Everything
from
width
to
the
size
of
the
double
doors
are
huge.
Everything
is
oversized
so
resize
proposal
to
something
smaller.
G
G
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
At
this
time
I
don't
see
any
other
hands.
Perhaps
we
could
give
a
final
call
to
those
who
are
still
with
us.
If
you
wish
to
speak
to
this
application,
please
raise
your
hand
and
zoom
so
that
we
may
call
on
you
again
that
is
located
in
the
center
of
your
zoom
window.
When
you
move
the
mouse
over
your
screen.
A
E
So,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
derbyshire,
for
the
comments.
Yeah.
We
have
received
a
few
comments
from
neighbors
or
three
three
comments,
including
one
for
mr
dervisher
there's.
Also
a
comment
letter
from
the
navy
immediately
to
the
south,
mr
mrs
baxter,
and
the
project
architect
met
with
the
baxters
this
morning
to
review
the
plans
with
them
and
go
through
them
and
discuss
their
concerns
so
happy
that
we've
been
able
to
have
that
conversation
with
them.
E
With
respect
to
the
comments
from
mr
dervisher
I'll
just
touch
on
a
few
of
them,
there's
obviously
some
some
some
history
there
in
terms
of
how
the
properties
have
been
developed.
So
in
terms
of
the
setback,
I
will
confirm
that
we
have
verified
with
staff
on
two
occasions
that
the
setback
that
applies
is
0.6
meters,
not
1.2
meters.
E
So,
in
terms
of,
I
guess,
a
concern
about
the
cantilevering
or
attaching
of
things
to
the
dwelling,
so
nothing
nothing
is
proposed
to
be
attached
to
the
dwelling.
These
will
be
stand-alone
structures
that
don't
rely
on
attachment
to
the
subject
or
the
adjacent
properties
building,
for
example,
so
they
will
be,
they
will
be
entirely
standalone
self-sufficient.
E
E
E
The
development
of
81-83
king
itself
took
seven
variances
that
were
approved
a
couple
of
years
ago.
So
you
know,
seven
variances
were
approved
there
to
make
adjustments.
We
are
seeking
some
changes
here
to
make
adjustments
as
well.
So
I
think
it's
just
kind
of
part
and
parcel
of
some
of
the
infill
and
redevelopment
happens
that
there
are
some
adjustments
needed
due
to
the
uniqueness
of
each
lot.
E
The
reduced
setback
along
the
west
property
line,
we
think,
is
appropriate
because
we're
still
allowing
for
maintenance
of
the
of
the
properties
in
terms
of
exposing
the
interior
of
the
walls,
the
stone
walls,
so
they
can
be
maintained
over
time.
I
would
say
it's
probably
arguably
easier
to
work
within
a
whole
garage
space
to
that
stone
wall
than
to
have
to
shimmy
between.
You
know
a
two
foot
setback
between
two
buildings
and
try
to
maneuver
with
tools
and
materials
and
everything
else.
E
E
A
F
Okay,
thank
you
thanks
mark
for
going
through
those
points.
The
the
one
point
about
the
bylaws
stated
and
the
size
of
the
garages
and
the
height
that
we're
asking
for
the
carriage
house
is
proposed,
so
that
garage
is
proposed
is
very
similar
in
massing
to
the
existing
carriage
house.
That's
on
the
property,
which
is
similar
to
the
variety
of
carriage
hoses
that
were
demonstrated
in
mark's
presentation,
so
the
bylaw
might
relate
specifically
to
a
garage
structure.
A
A
A
I
I
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Through
you,
I
read
in
the
letter
in
our
addeds
that
there
was
the
question,
though,
that
the
units
above
the
garage
are
blocking
the
views
from
the
next
door
neighbor
in
their
carriage
house
right
from
the
derbyshires,
and
so
I
just
mr
tao
and
your
response
says:
can
you
just
go
over
the
answer
again
with,
like
your
plan,
the
plan
as
it
is
right
now
it
is
blocking
the
view
of
the
windows
from
the
carriage
house
right
next
door,
or
is
that
not
true?
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
helpful
to
bring
up
an
image
on
the
on
the
plans,
but
that
the
proposed
garages
are
at
a
height
that
they
would
block.
I
guess
a
view
from
the
windows
of
81
king
into
the
yard,
the
private
amenity
yard
of
the
owner.
So
that
being
said,
even
if
they
met
the
setback
at
0.2
or
2.6
meters
and
the
view
would
still
be
blocked.
E
For
example,
if
this
were
an
attached
garage,
then
the
height
could
actually
be
10.7
meters
at
0.6
meters.
So
I
think
the
point
is
that
the
bylaw
doesn't
is
not
written
to
protect
the
view
of
a
neighbor
from
their
house
to
be
able
to
view
into
the
rear
yard
of
their
neighbor.
So
I
think
there's
still
access
to
light
light
would
still
come
in
through
those
windows,
but
it
wouldn't
create
necessarily
direct
sunlight
and
certainly
wouldn't
be
providing
a
view
into
the
rear
yard.
I
think,
if
you
saw
on
slides.
E
Just
see
here,
if
you
can
pull
the
slide
up
slide
24
you
can
see.
There
are
three
large
dormers
that
would
look
out,
and
so
those
will
still
be
exposed
in
terms
of
providing
access
to
light
into
those
windows,
and
there
are
also
three
large
dormers
on
the
opposite
side
of
that
roof.
That
would
also
provide
light
into
the
same
interior
space.
So
I
think
the
the
owners
of
the
adjacent
property
would
certainly
have
views
out
of
the
dormers
on
the
other
side
into
their
own
yards
in
the
proposed
garages.
E
K
Thank
you
so
just
to
staff,
because
I
know
we
don't
ask
to
have
questions
during
the
public
meetings,
but
that
could
be
noted
in
the
minutes
and
if,
if
it
can
be
addressed
in
any
way,
when
the
comprehensive
report
comes
back
to
planning
committee
or
if
that's
just
the
way
it
is
when
you
build
it,
you
know
like
when
you
build
a
condo
and
if
a
condo
goes
up
next
door
and
suddenly
you
don't
have
a
view.
That's
just
really
unfortunate.
I
wouldn't
be
happy
if
that
was
my
house.
Thank
you.
M
H
E
F
Yes,
it's
in
the
order
of
23
feet,
I
believe
in
height.
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
that
section
in
some
number
of
years
since,
since
I
worked
on
that
portion,
but
the
this
particular
character
was
meant
to
to
be
similar
to
in
that
form
it
it's
a
it's
a
little
bit
taller,
but
it's
very
close
to
the
existing
carriage
outside.
H
Guess
I'm
trying
to
get
on
if
you
could
just
confirm
either
way,
then
perhaps
mr
downey,
that
what's
proposed
is
similar
to
what's
already
existing
on
the
site.
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
fair?
That's
correct!
That's
correct!
Okay!
That's
helpful
for
me
to
think
through
this,
but
I'll
just
leave
it
on
that.
For
now,
thanks.
N
N
E
The
fsi
as
well
is
below
1.0.
Even
if
you
include
the
attached
garages,
so
our
detached
garages,
so
in
terms
of
you
know
an
overall
change
to
the
character
and
the
overall
massing
on
the
property.
I
think
it's
compatible
with.
What's
in
the
neighborhood
and
then
from
a
heritage
perspective,
maybe
bruce
we
just
want
to
just
quickly
speak
to
how
that
was
assessed.
F
Ward,
have
historically
have
a
rather
large
mass
and
that's
generally
because
stables
were
kept
below
and
feed
and
hay
was
stored
above
it,
the
carriage
house,
for
instance,
the
original
carriage
charge
for
8183
king,
which
is
in
the
south
east
corner
of
that
property,
is
the
same
height
as
the
structure
that
we're
proposing
and,
as
is
the
carriage
house
at
on
85
king
and
the
variety
of
carriage
houses
shown
by
mark
tau.
Now,
that's
that's
generally
very
similar
on
properties
of
this
scale.
F
F
N
F
The
carriage
house
on
85
king
is
has
less
height
than
the
carriage
house
on
8183
king
significantly,
less
actually,
but
it's
close
to
the
historic
portion
of
that
carriage
house
and
it's
even
a
little
lower
than
that.
So
so
we're
we're
similar
to
the
historic
carriage
houses
on
the
immediate
adjacent
property
which
has
a
new
garage
or
extended
attached
garage
carriage
house
that
is
taller
than
the
one
we
proposed.
E
Three,
mr
I'll,
take
that
one
and
then
so.
There's
currently
the
zoning
vial
only
permits
three
dwelling
units
and
in
a
because
it's
a
site-specific
zone,
the
way
it's
written,
I
believe
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
be
one
of
the
properties
that's
eligible
for
an
automatic
as
a
right
secondary
unit,
for
example,
but
I
think
that's
something
that
could
be
written
into
those
site-specific
zoning
or
added,
because
that's
certainly
not
the
owner's
intent
as
part
of
this.
So
I
think
that's
probably
the
short
answer
there.
N
A
E
E
So
there
is
an
upper
floor,
open-air
deck
that
does
provide
a
use
set
of
view
south
to
the
water
similar
to
the
other
rooftop
decks
in
the
area.
So
that
would
also
provide
a
view
if
one
wished
into
the
rear
yards
of
the
townhouses
to
the
south.
So
I
think
that
there
is
that
of
that
I
guess
opportunity,
but
in
looking
at
that
that
seemed
to
be,
I
guess,
a
type
of
view
found
in
the
neighborhood,
because
residents
wanted
to
create
views
to
the
to
the
water.
E
So
I
think
that's
that's
the
one
view.
Otherwise
all
the
windows
are
much
er
are
inward
facing,
I
guess,
and
we're
looking
to
the
property
and
bruce
I'm
not
sure
if
you
want
to
touch
on
that,
you
did
talk
to
the
neighbors
who
owned
the
property
to
the
south.
So
I
think
there's
some
dialogue
there
in
terms
of
helping
them
understand
what
that
design
looks.
Like
and
how
that
would
how
that
would
function
and
what
the
view
would
or
wouldn't
be.
F
They
know
that
they
have
a
series
of
balconies
and
upper
decks
that
look
down
into
their
property
they're,
aware
of
that,
and
they
they
did
share
and
express
concern
about
what
potential
this
might
have
in
in
looking
at
it,
though
the
deck
the
deck
presently
is,
is
there
or
is
created,
because
I
wanted
to
keep
the
second
level
the
mass
of
the
building
back
from
the
property
line,
so
it
didn't
have
a
window
directly
or
close
to
that
property
line.
Now
that
offered
the
opportunity
for
a
deck
that
is
true.
F
The
windows
from
the
from
the
interior
are
are
set
well
back
from
the
property
line,
with
really
no
opportunity
of
of
overlook
and
the
the
railing
will
itself
simply
because
of
the
0.5
meter.
Thick
stone
wall
and
the
space
that
will
need
to
keep
between
the
roof
deck
and
the
stone
wall
for
maintenance
will
all
will
automatically
be
two
to
three
feet
back
from
the
property
line,
which
is
the
south
side
of
the
stone
wall
so
that
it
it
doesn't
offer
the
opportunity
for
someone
to
lean
right
over
and
lock
into
that
into
that
property.
A
P
Right,
thank
you
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
like
from
a
historical
perspective.
I
guess
maybe
bruce
might
be
the
best
person
to
answer
this,
but
the
because
the
the
carriage
house
here
at
the
carriage
house
on
the
adjoining
property,
are
taking
up
a
lot
of
property
and
substantially
changing
kind
of
the
look
of
those
those
properties.
So
the
carriage
house
on
the
adjoining
property
was,
do
you
know
if
that
was
an
original
sort
of
rebuild
carriage
house,
or
was
that?
F
F
It
did
have
a
link
that
attached
it
a
one-story
link
that
attached
it
to
the
main
house,
so
it
once
upon
a
time
may
have
been
a
separate
structure.
The
front
portion
of
that
of
that
historic
cage
house
was
altered
in
order
to
make
the
connection
to
the
extension
of
the
carriage
hose.
That's
what
appears
to
have
happened.
It's
it's.
F
I
would
say
that
that
the
side
that
faces
85
king
is
probably
some
of
the
remaining
original
fabric
and
elevation
of
that
that
site
the
roof
has
changed
and
the
south
elevation
has
altered
and
the
north
elevation
has
been
added
to
and
the
west
elevation
has
altered.
But
the
carriage
house
is
still
very
much
evident
from
85
king
side
and
we'll
remain
silent.
P
Well,
yeah
it
does.
I
mean
it's
just
like
this
is
a
fairly
dramatic
change
to
a
pretty
important
historical
couple
of
historical
properties
in
our
area,
and
it
just
seems
timing
wise
just
seems
a
little
off
to
me.
So
I
mean
I
know,
that's
not
a
land
use
issue
I
mean,
but
it
does
kind
of
put
me
in
mind
to
send
jimmy
janno
or.
However,
you
say
that
in
italy
bruce-
and
I
know
you
probably
know
what
I'm
talking
about
so
just
seems
a
little
bit
odd
to
me
so
anyway,
that's
enough.
E
For
you,
yeah
go
ahead
just
to
quickly
supplement
that
just
to
help.
Maybe
answer
council
hill's
question
of
what's
old
versus
what's
new,
if
you
look
at
slide
23
and
then
slide
24
of
the
of
the
presentation
of
the
slide
deck,
you
can
see
the
the
new
part
of
the
garage
or
coach
house.
If
you
will
on
the
adjacent
property,
so
you
can,
you
can
see
there
just
fairly
clearly
what
the
difference
was.
A
Thank
you.
I
know
that
there
was
some
questions
or
comments
both
by
lettering
about
the
whole
issue
of
losing
a
view
and
I'd
like
staff
to
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
being
a
survivor
of
the
block,
great
block
deed
of
the
debates
of
the
90s,
it's
my
understanding
that
other
than
shade
and
overlook
that
losing
a
view
outside
of
your
property
is
not
a
land
use
planning
issue.
M
A
H
Thank
you
have
a
good
night
thanks
counselor!
Thank
you.
So
this
is
another
public
meeting,
meaning
we're
not
making
a
decision
on
this
file
just
to
be
very
clear
from
the
beginning,
but
are
providing
the
opportunity
for
folks
to
have
questions
answered
and
to
hear
directly
from
the
proponent
tonight,
and
the
address
is
before
are
just
pulling
this
up
to
make
sure
I
get
it
exactly
right,
237
mode
avenue
and
six
herbert
street
and
to
start
we'll
hear
from
the
proponents
planner.
So
I
can
turn
that
over
to
you
who's
here
tonight.
B
J
Yes,
hello,
so
notice
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
As
detailed
in
the
public
meeting
report,
we
have
received
correspondence
from
liz
shiel,
lia
de
paul
and
graydon
doolittle
via
email,
which
were
provided
after
the
preparation
of
the
planning.
Sorry,
the
public
meeting
report
each
of
the
correspondents
was
provided
to
the
committee
clerk
and
distributed
to
the
members
of
planning
committee.
J
This
is
a
statutory
public
meeting
held
under
the
planning
act.
The
purpose
of
this
public
meeting
is
for
the
applicant
to
present
their
proposal
to
the
public
and
planning
committee.
The
format
of
this
meeting
allows
members
of
the
public
and
planning
committee
to
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
regarding
their
proposal
and
gives
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
those
questions.
J
As
part
of
this
public
meeting
planning
staff
has
prepared
a
public
meeting
report
summarizing
the
proposal.
It
should
be
noted
that
no
recommendations
or
decisions
are
being
made
this
evening
regarding
this
report
planning
staff
are
in
attendance
this
evening
to
record
the
questions
being
asked
of
the
applicant
or
to
address
technical
questions
regarding
the
planning
process.
J
Q
Q
The
proper
properties
were
separate
parcels
previous
to
2005..
However,
once
the
owner
purchased
the
properties
they
merged
on
title,
and
so
now
the
two
properties
became
one.
So
that's
the
property
fabric
that
we're
looking
at
now
you
see
the
subject:
lands
outlined
in
red-
that's
just
one
parcel
as
it
is
today.
If
I
could
have
the
next
slide,
please
so
the
owner
has
made
an
application
for
consent
to
separate
the
two
properties
such
that
the
fabric
will
revert
back
to
how
it
was
pre-2005
conditions.
So
this
is
really
a
technical
application.
Q
The
rezoning
application
will
facilitate
the
consent,
application
and
because
we're
now
applying
to
separate
the
land,
we
have
to
bring
the
properties
into
conformity
with
the
current
zoning
bylaw,
and
that's
why
we
have
the
rezoning
application
before
the
city
tonight.
It's
important
to
note
that
no
new
development
is
proposed
on
either
the
severed
or
the
retained
parcel.
Q
Q
So
the
rezoning
application
was
submitted
january
2020
was
a
different
rezoning
application
and
that
asked
for
a
rezoning
for
six
herbert
street
to
permit
four
townhouse
units.
Now
the
owner
has
carefully
considered
all
the
feedback
from
that
public
meeting
and
the
neighbors
and
has
revised
the
application
accordingly.
Q
So
now
the
plan
has
been
modified
to
maintain
the
existing
a2
zone
on
six
herbert
street.
Only
a
single
detached
unit
could
be
accommodated
on
that
site.
The
lot
would
have
sufficient
area
and
frontage
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
No
development
of
the
site
is
proposed
at
this
time.
Q
Q
The
parking
spaces
shall
be
permitted
in
the
front
yard,
and
bike
racks
shall
also
be
permitted
in
the
front
yard.
The
maximum
parking
surface
shall
be
136
square
meters
and
the
side
yard
setback
for
the
landing
and
stairs
greater
than
1.2
meters
in
height
shall
be
0.3
meters,
and
that
is
on
the
north
property
line.
So
these
special
provisions
recognize
the
use
of
the
property,
as
it
has
existed
for
many
decades.
Q
Next
slide,
please
so
after
extensive
consultation
with
city
staff
over
the
last
several
years,
improvements
to
237
moet
are
proposed,
and
if
I
could
outline
those
improvements,
the
the
north,
gravel
driveway
will
be
removed
and
grassed.
Eight
swedish
aspens
will
be
planted
along
the
moet
avenue
frontage
to
buffer
the
parking
area
from
the
street
state.
Q
The
parking
area
will
be
moved
approximately
an
eight,
an
extra
three
meters
from
the
street
line.
The
parking
area
now
is,
I
believe,
about
point
six
meters
from
the
street
line.
So
now
it
would
be
three
roughly
three
point:
six
meters
bike
racks
would
be
added
under
the
covered
porch,
the
parking
spaces
and
driveway
aisle
will
be
designed
to
city
standards
and
meet
the
zoning
bylaw
in
terms
of
length
and
width.
Q
So
to
sum
up,
approval
of
the
rezoning
application
will
allow
the
consent
application
to
move
forward.
If
the
applications
aren't
approved,
then
no
changes
and
improvements
to
the
site
would
be
required.
So
this
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
city
to
request
the
lot
improvements
shown
on
this
parking
plan,
and
it's
also
an
opportunity
for
the
city
to
regain
a
building
lot
that
is
otherwise
lost
in
2005..
Q
H
H
Thank
you
so,
as
I
said,
we'll
have
an
opportunity
to
hear
from
members
of
the
public.
I
also
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
recognize
that
the
district
counselor
counselor
dougherty
is
here
it's
an
excellent
opportunity
to
her
for
her
to
hear
from
a
resident
so
glad
that
she's
here,
madame
clerk,
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak.
B
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chair.
At
this
time
we
do
still
have
six
members
of
the
public
in
the
meeting
with
us
and
we
do
have
at
least
one
hand
raised
before
going
to
that.
Member
of
the
public.
I
just
wanted
to
remind
those
who
are
still
with
us
if
you
wish
to
speak
at
this
time
to
this
application
application,
we
ask
that
you
please
raise
your
hand
and
zoom
again,
that's
located
in
the
center
of
your
screen
when
you
move
your
mouse
over
the
window.
First
to
speak.
Mr
vice
chair
is
siobhan
broken.
C
Oh
okay,
hello,
my
name's
siobhan
and
I
live
on
seven
herbert
I'm
the
only
person
on
that
street
because
the
street
is
actually
quite
narrow.
More
of
a
lane
actually-
and
I
was
just
wondering
at
the
a
couple
of
things
one
is
the
last
time
we
did
this,
which
was
2020.
There
was
an
awful
lot
of
letters
of
complaint
which
seemed
to
be
have
disappeared
from
the
application,
and
even
the
list
of
complaints
is
not
doesn't
even
have
half
the
people
that
objected.
C
I
was
wondering
if,
when
you
object
in
pers
like
orally
at
the
meeting,
is
that
recorded
or
do
you
have
to
write
a
letter
in
order
to
get
on
that
list?
That's
the
first
thing
I'm
wondering
and
also,
I
think,
there's
only
seven
apartments.
There,
15
years
ago,
jim
turned
this
basement
apartment
that
didn't
really
have
a
good
ceiling
height
that
probably
wouldn't
meet
the
standards
for
an
apartment
into
a
laundry
room.
So
I
think,
there's
actually
only
seven
apartments
or
dwellings
in
that
building
for
15
years.
C
So
I'm
kind
of
concerned
that
you're
gonna
approve
eight.
When
there's
really
only
seven
and
they
are
it's.
It's
supposed
to
be
only
one
dwelling
per
property,
so
for
me,
that's
just
way
out
of
line.
So
of
course,
I'm
objecting
to
removing
the
only
lawn
that
seven
or
eight
families
have
to
use,
and
for
me
this,
this
pandemic
has
really
demonstrated
that
everybody
needs
green
space.
C
It's
way
out
of
line
with
all
the
neighbors,
because
all
of
us
have
very
extensive
gardens.
It's
a
very
historic
neighborhood
and
I
think
we
would
be
changing
the
neighborhood
dramatically.
If
we
remove
that
green
space.
The
city
talks
about
a
canopy.
They
talk
about,
you
know,
biking
and
and
walking
to
work.
But
if
we
take
away
what's
beautiful
about
the
this
historic
area,
I
I
don't
think
that
helps
and
I'm
really
concerned
about
green
space
and
I'm
also
concerned
for
the
people
that
live
down
the
hill.
C
There's
flooding
issues
because
it's
a
hill
and
it
goes
down
and
if
that
is
all
paved
that
front
yard.
I
just
think
it's
gonna
make
it
worse
for
the
people
on
hatter
and
that's
that
these
were
things
that
I
addressed
in
2020
and
and
now
when
somebody
goes
to
the
site.
Nobody
can
actually
see
my
comments
or
anybody
else's
comments,
because
they've
all
been
removed,
and
this
is
the
same
application,
the
the
number's
the
same.
So
I
don't
understand
why
all
those
objections
were
removed,
that
people
can't
see.
H
H
R
Hello,
I'm
siobhan's
neighbor,
I'm
I'm
gonna
apologize
in
advance.
I
have
an
18
month
old
and
a
seven-year-old
with
me
here.
So
there
might
be
some
background.
Sounds
I'm
also
sharing
many
of
siobhan's
concerns.
The
multi-dwelling
is
actually
it's
a
converted
farm
house.
So
it
is
it's
not
a
conforming
multi-unit
place
and
I
think
it's
already
beyond
the
capacity
of
the
the
two
yards.
So
it's
an
illegally
created
multi-family
dwelling
and
it
has
more
people
in
there
than
you
should
have
on
the
two
lots.
R
I'm
also
concerned
with
the
the
images
of
the
changes
to
the
parking
lot.
I
can
see
it's
an
improvement,
but
what
we
already
have
is
not
an
ideal
situation
for
that
parking
lot.
So
it
might
look
better,
but
it's
still
problematic
that
it's
a
parking
lot
in
front
of
the
apartment
where
it's
not
supposed
to
be
and
it
it
doesn't,
leave
the
tenants
with
a
lot
of
green
space
compared
to
what
they
they
currently
have.
S
But
it
must
have
been.
Oh
okay.
I
thought
the
clerk
unmuted
me.
Okay,
I
have
written
a
letter
the
last
time
the
application
came,
and
I
still
have
the
same
objection.
The
major
one
is
the
parking
this
house
was
grandfathered
in.
It
was
converted
and
during
a
period
of
time
the
provincial
government
allowed
grandfathering
of
any
apartment.
Building
that
had
been
built.
S
That
is
that
true,
that
really
that
property
doesn't
have
to
revert
to
what
the
size
it
was,
it
could
actually
be
changed.
So
I
think
that's
that's
basically
it.
The
parking
issue
is
major.
On
a
on
a
street
on
a
suburban
street,
I
don't
object
to
a
house
being
built
on
the
what
winds
up
being
the
separate
portion,
but
I
do
object
to
the
parking
all
in
the
front
yard.
He
has
a
certain
amount
of
parking
that
is
allowed
already
in
the
front
yard
and
then
all
the
rest
of
it.
S
That's
there
is
not
permitted,
and
I
must
admit
now
that
I've
learned
so
much
more
over
the
years.
If
I'd
known,
I
could
have
objected
years
ago,
I
would
because
it's
always
been
an
eyesore
and
never
maintained,
but
mostly
it's
been
an
eyesore
having
all
these
cars
parked
in
the
front
yard,
plus
at
the
moment
a
big
commercial
vehicle
as
well
on
the
side,
I
think
that's
it.
Thank
you.
L
L
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
First
of
all,
she
said
there
were
seven
units,
but
they're
actually
eight
units,
and
we
also
are
neighbors,
so
I
can
take
her
over
and
show
her
if
she
would
like.
That
was
the
main
reason
that
I
raised
my
hand,
but
now
there's
a
couple
of
other
things,
because
there
is
an
existing
backyard,
be
it
shallow.
L
H
Nicos,
I'm
just
going
to
interrupt
you
for
a
second
here,
no
disrespect
at
all.
I'm
I'm
glad
to
have
your
perspective
on
committee
tonight,
but
perhaps
you
can
hold
the
responses
until
we
have
heard
from
all
members
of
the
public
that
would
just
make
things
a
bit
more
efficient
and
you
and
your
your
planner
could
tag
team
at
that
time.
Is
that,
okay
with
you?
Okay,
that's
fine!
Yeah,
we'll
come
back
to
you
for
sure,
madam
chair,
perhaps
another
member
of
the
committee,
or
rather
the
community
would
like
to
ask
a
question.
O
Yeah
as
a
lifelong
resident
and
owner
of
property
in
portsmouth
village,
ed
on
mowit
and
francis
street,
I
I'm
very
pleased
to
see
the
the
plan
of
changing
the
front
parking
lot.
I
I
think
it
it's
adding.
The
green
space
is
going
to
improve
the
view
from
portsmouth
or
sorry
from
mode
avenue,
making
it
much
more
pleasurable
to
to
see
when
you
walk
by
and
drive
by
the
the
location
and
like
it
said
in
the
in
the
initial
plan
this.
This
was
two
properties
15
years
ago.
O
So
so
I
don't
even
know
why
they
have
to
go
through
this
process
it.
It
should
have
been
just
a
rubber
stamp
going
going
forward,
but
it
was
always
a
two
two
two
properties
since
the
sixties.
When
my
uncle
lived
in
the
building-
and
I
lived
on
francis
street-
so
so
I
I'm
in
favor
of
the
the
rezoning.
Thank
you.
H
H
O
B
H
Perfect,
thank
you,
madam
clerk.
So
mr
nick
is
yes
back
to
you
and
your
planner,
and
you
can
feel
free
to
respond
to
any
of
the
the
comments
made
tonight
and
we'll
also
turn
it
to
city
staff
when
you're
done
for
some
questions
that
I
think
relate
directly
to
city
processes,
around
posting
of
concerns
and
and
such
but
over
you,
mr
nicus.
Q
Q
If
the
parking
lot
was
to
be
paved,
but
it's
the
intention
that
it
would
be
a
a
gravel
surface,
so
it
would
be
permeable
and
also,
I
believe,
initially
with
the
first
application.
A
couple
of
years
ago,
there
were
no
issues
raised
from
municipal
staff
regarding
stormwater,
so
that's
that
will
be
fine
in
terms
of
green
space.
Q
We're
adding
green
space,
the
probably
about
a
thousand
800
square
feet,
maybe
with
the
fact
that
we're
closing
the
north
driveway
so
there'll
be
that
much
more
green
space
added
to
the
front
compared
to
what's
currently
there
and
also
with
what's
proposed
the
landscaped
area,
the
percentage
of
landscaped
area
exceeds
the
minimum
requirements
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
again,
there'll
be
more
green
space
than
what
the
zoning
bylaw
actually
allows
in
terms
of
the
parking
in
the
front.
It's
what
has
existed
for
decades.
Q
We
are
improving
it
so
that
the
streetscape
is
much
more
aesthetically.
Pleasing
there'll,
be
trees.
More
grass,
and
also
the
official
plan,
does
allow
for
parking
in
the
front
of
a
multi-unit
building
and
that's
partly
what
also,
what
prompted
these
this
front
yard
parking
plan
to
basically
bring
that
area
the
parking
area
into
conformity
with
the
policies
of
the
official
plan.
It
sets
out
a
number
of
policies
and-
and
you
have
to
make
sure
that
the
parking
is
not
a
hazard.
It
doesn't
cover
the
entire
yard.
Q
And
I
saw
siobhan
when
she
spoke.
I,
my
internet
connection
was
cutting
out
substantially.
I
probably
missed
about
half
of
what
she
said.
Unfortunately,
so
I'm
not
100
clear
on
on
what
her
concerns
were.
I
would
note
that
the
lot
exceeds
the
minimum
requirements
for
a
single
detached
dwelling
in
terms
on
herbert
street
in
terms
of
frontage
and
area,
so
it
can
easily
accommodate
a
single
detached
dwelling.
H
All
right,
thank
you,
so
if
I
could
then
I'll
just
I'll,
let
you
know
what
I
have
in
my
notes
from
her
comments.
Learn
about
whether
or
not
past
complaints
on
this
file
have
been
registered
as
part
of
this
process
and
maybe
miss
ross.
We
could
actually
turn
that
to
city
staff
to
answer
how
that
works.
I
think
that
would
be
more
appropriate.
So
do
I
have
a
member
of
staff
who
could
speak
to
that?
H
H
H
H
H
B
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Actually,
that
would
be
the
special
meeting
that
is
going
to
be
public
notice
will
be
provided
to
the
public
on
when
the
special
meeting
for
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project
will
be
heard
by
the
committee.
The
next
committee
meeting
will
then
be
its
regular
meeting
on
october
5th.
Not
that's
not
right
october
7th.