►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from December 3, 2020. For full meeting agenda visit https://bit.ly/39QfXV8
A
A
C
A
All
right,
indeed
I'll
close
nominations
then
and
call
the
question
that
counselor
kneel
be
appointed
as
chair
of
the
playing
committee,
all
those
a
favor
opposed,
and
that
carries-
and
oh
would
you
like
me
to
do
the
vice
chair
process
or
do
you
want
to
take
over?
Please
do
all
right
if
we
can
get
a
motion
to
appoint
someone,
as
vice
chair.
Please.
A
A
D
Thank
you
very
much
and
we
have
one
public
meeting
for
tonight.
I
will
read
the
notice
of
collection,
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing
and
process
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
collection
should
be
forwarded
to
the
director
of
planning
services.
D
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
planning
act.
The
following
presentation,
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee
members,
will
be
afforded
at
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification
or
further
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
an
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes.
D
D
D
This
business
practice
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
is
received
by
the
applicants
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.
D
D
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
city
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.
The
decision
of
the
council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
kingston
to
the
local
planning
appeal
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.
D
A
E
Yes,
thank
you
and
good
evening
hi.
My
name
is
yuko
leclair,
I'm
a
registered
professional
planner
with
photon
planning
and
design.
I'm
here
representing
the
applicant,
which
is
a
numbered
ontario
company
owned
in
part
by
mr
vishal
vasadiya,
with
respect
to
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
for
3028
prince's
street
next
slide.
Please.
E
What
this
is
showing
is
that
the
property
is
located
in
just
south
of
the
cataract
way
west
secondary
plant
area,
it's
on
the
north
side
of
princess
street
east
of
woodhaven
drive
and
west
of
bay
ridge
drive
it's
in
an
area,
that's
predominantly
residential
with
building
heights,
ranging
from
one
to
two
stories.
There
are
some
taller
buildings,
two
and
a
half
and
there's,
I
think,
there's
a
three-story
building
in
cataract
way
woods
in
cataract
west,
but
the
general
prevailing
building
height
is
in
the
one
to
two
story
range.
E
The
subject
site
is
in
proximity
to
some
some
public
parks,
some
open
space
and
schools
that
are
identified
on
this
plane
here.
So
there
are
a
couple
of
parquets
in
cataract
west
to
the
north.
There's
a
larger
community
park,
that's
planned
in
a
future
phase
of
woodhaven.
That
phase
is
actually
final
approved,
so
that
park
is
is
getting
closer
to
being
built,
and
then
there
are
some
green
spaces
on
the
south
side
of
princeton
street.
But
of
course
there
aren't
currently
sidewalks
on
princess
street.
Oh
not
quite
yet.
E
Thank
you.
So
there
are
not
currently
sidewalks
on
princess
street,
but
there
are
planned
to
be
some
sidewalks
in
the
near
future.
The
active
transportation
implementation
plan,
for
example,
sets
out
the
goal
of
achieving
sidewalks
on
both
sides
of
princess
street
from
roseanne
avenue
to
bay
ridge
drive,
so
that
would
include
the
subject
site
at
this
location.
E
Now
I
don't
know
if
that's
been
affected
by
covet,
but
that
was
scheduled
in
the
master
plan
to
be
built
in
developed
in
2022,
there's
also
public
transit
in
proximity
to
the
site,
but
it's
right
now
within
600
meters
of
the
site.
The
only
bus
route
is
on
woodbine
avenue.
So
it's
again,
it's
south
of
princess
street.
It's
not
the
most
accessible
route.
E
Next
slide,
please
thank
you
on
this
slide.
We
have
another
aerial
image,
but
showing
the
property
a
little
bit
more
closely
and
and
more
clearly
identifying
the
property
itself
what's
on
it
today
and
then
sort
of
the
surrounding
uses.
So
you
can
see
from
this
image
that
there's
there's
sort
of
a
mix
of
of
uses
in
in
the
in
the
immediate
proximity
to
the
site,
but
it's
it's
not
particularly
developed.
E
E
It
is
a
large
lot
at
this
time.
It's
a
just
under
an
acre
in
size.
It's
just
under
4.
000
square
meters
has
about
30
meters
of
frontage
on
princess
street,
about
132
meters
of
death.
But
what
I'm
showing
on
this
slide
is
that
there
has
been
a
conditional
approval
from
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
sever
off
the
rear
portion
of
the
site
and
add
it
to
an
adjacent
property
to
the
west,
so
those
the
property
that
includes
those
townhouses
is
950
to
956
woodhaven
drive.
E
The
rear
portion
of
this
subject
site
is
planned
to
be
added
to
that
other
property.
The
committee
of
adjustment
has
already
granted
approval
for
that
we're
in
the
process
of
clearing
conditions
to
finalize
that
conveyance,
so
that
that
conveyance
actually
aligns
with
the
current
zone,
boundaries
and
I'll
speak
to
those
in
in
a
little
bit.
But
the
resulting
lock
fabric,
which
is
the
portion
that's
proposed,
to
be
rezoned
through
the
application
that's
being
presented
this
evening,
is
the
southern
portion
of
the
site
where
the
current
house
is
located.
E
E
Regular
shaped
lot,
one
of
the
items
that
was
a
little
bit
unexpected
that
came
up
as
part
of
the
the
the
lot
edition
application
is
that
we
discovered
that
the
property
was
actually
had
a
septic
system,
that's
still
functional,
so
it's
it's
a
property,
that's
actually
currently
on
on.
What's
called
partial
services,
so
it
has
municipal
water,
but
it
has
a
private
septic
system.
One
of.
E
Of
the
of
the
consent
is
that
that
septic
system
be
removed
so
that
the
property
can
be
properly
serviced
and
make
use
of
the
existing
infrastructure
on
princess
street
here
and
then
all
of
the
additional
structures
along
the
rear
of
the
property
in
that
that
portion
that's
proposed
to
be
conveyed,
are
also
proposed
to
be
removed.
So
the
sort
of
the
whole
rear
part
of
the
property
would
be
clean
up
and
and
and
those
structures
and
materials
that
are
there
would
be
taken
away
as
part
of
the
conditions
of
consent.
E
This
is
a
broad
designation
in
the
official
plan
that
deals
with
that
allows
a
whole
range
of
residential
uses,
everything
from
single
attached
houses
and
secondary
suites
triplexes
to
multi-family
dwellings,
neighborhood
commercial
uses
that
sort
of
thing
it
supports
a
wide
range
of
forms,
with
the
strategic
intent
of
meeting
the
city's
housing
goals
mandated
by
the
provincial
policy
statement.
So
the
official
plan.
When
I
speak
to
this
slide,
I
often
just
refer
to
the
land
use
designation,
but
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
it's
it's
more
than
that.
E
Be
the
last
time
that
I
speak
to
it
zone
d:
that's
not
proposed
to
change
it's
a
zoning
that
allows
whatever's
there,
but
it's
intended
that
any
redevelopment
and
that
portion
of
the
site
would
trigger
a
rezoning.
So
the
r1
portion
of
the
site,
which
is
at
the
front,
allows
single-detached
houses,
converted
houses,
home
occupations,
public
uses
secondary
suites,
including
detached
secondary
suites,
but
it
doesn't
allow
the
the
nature
of
the
proposed
application,
the
the
triplexes
that
we're
proposing
on
the
site
today
next
slide,
please
so
that's!
E
The
intent
of
the
application
is
to
is
to
rezone
the
site
to
allow
two
triplex
dwellings
on
the
property
and
remove
the
existing
single
attached
dwelling.
You
can
see
this
on
this
slide.
I've
got
an
image
showing
sort
of
a
colorized
version
of
the
conceptual
site
plan
and
I'll,
just
very
briefly,
speak
to
that.
So
the
the
dark
brown
is
the
main
building
footprint.
The
lighter
brown
is
things
like
stairs
their
front
and
rear,
decks,
etc.
E
The
intent
of
the
application
is
to
allow
these
two
buildings
to
be
built
and
the
site
to
be
developed.
This
way
it's
also
intended
to
allow
to
address
performance
standards,
so
the
site
doesn't
meet
our
all
of
the
provisions
of
the
r3
zone,
so
we're
proposing
to
change
it
to
the
r3
zone
and
then
address
some
of
the
performances
performance
standards
on
the
site.
E
We're
also
intending
to
allow
for
the
future
severance
of
the
property
along
the
center
sort
of
along
the
middle
of
that
driveway,
which
is
effectively
more
of
a
an
ownership
issue.
So
the
the
proposed
zoning
would
allow
two
triplexes
on
the
site
in
that
city.
Wouldn't
allow
anything
more
than
that,
and
then
they
would
be
subject
to
the
site
plan
control
application
and
then
the
lot
would
be
severed,
which
would
provide
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
to
the
owners
with
respect
to
making
the
property
a
little
bit
more
saleable
a
little
bit
more
appealing.
E
I
also
want
to
note
before
moving
on
to
the
next
slide,
just
some
of
the
details
on
the
site,
so
the
built
form
that's
been
proposed
has
been
guided
in
large
part
by
the
current
zoning,
and
my
next
slide
will
speak
to
that.
The
way
that
the
site's
going
to
function
it's
intended
to
function
is
that
the
driveway
there's
currently
one
driveway
on
the
site.
That
would
remain,
but
it
would
be
shifted
over
and
centered
on
the
property
such
as,
what's
shown
on
the
slide
here.
E
E
Each
of
the
units
would
have
a
front
access
and
a
rear,
so
they
they're
parking
at
the
rear.
They
would
have
a
nice
convenient
access
to
the
front,
but
in
the
future,
when
sidewalks
get
get
developed
on
princess
street
and
there's
a
little
bit
more
opportunity
for
front
access,
it'll
be
a
little
bit
more
desirable
for
for
users
to
take
advantage
of
the
front
portion
the
front
accesses
to
their
property
or
to
their
units.
E
There
are
some
details
that
are
not
shown
on
here.
This
is
a
conceptual
site
plan,
so
I
acknowledge
that
there
are
some
technical
requirements
that
aren't
shown
here.
Things
like
garbage,
snow,
storage
and
so
on.
These
are
items
that
are
intended
to
be
worked
out
in
detail
through
sci-fi
control,
things
like
fences
and
privacy
and
so
on.
So
at
this
time,
they're
not
shown,
but
obviously
we
welcome
feedback
from
the
committee
in
the
community
in
terms
of
helping
to
identify
where
certain
things
should
go
to
help
alleviate
any
compatibility
concerns.
E
E
So,
setting
aside
that
we're
proposing
two
triplexes
two
three
unit
buildings,
the
built
form
itself,
the
the
size
of
the
buildings,
the
height
the
footprint
and
so
on.
The
setbacks
and
so
on,
are
very
much
in
line
with
what
the
current
zoning
allows.
So,
the
the
zoning
the
r1
zone
allows
you
to
build
a
single
attached
house
and
build
a
detached
secondary
suite,
so
a
detached
second
residential
unit.
That's
the
same
size
at
footprint
gross
floor
area
as
your
existing
as
the
single
detached
house.
E
So
it
allows
you
to
build
effectively
two
buildings
that
are
the
same
scale
that
we're
proposing
some
of
the
performance
standards
that
we
don't
meet
are
the
front
yard
depth
and
that's
primarily
because
the
current
zoning
requires
a
20-foot
setback
and
we're
asking
to
just
convert
that
to
metric
to
go
to
six
meters.
Rather,
just
it's
more
for
for
keeping
in
line
with
the
direction
of
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
more
than
anything
else.
There
is
enough
dimension
there
that
if
we,
if
it
was
necessary
to
keep
it
at
20
feet,
we
likely
could.
E
The
r1
zone
also
has
two
requirements
for
side
yards
that
if
you
have
to
have
a
four
foot
side
yard
on
one
side
and
an
eight
foot
side
yard
on
the
other.
If
you
don't
have
a
garage
so
we're
proposing
just
about
five
feet:
1.5
meters
on
either
side
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
we're
proposing
that
two
way
driveway
in
the
middle.
That's
six
meter
wide
driveway.
If
we
were
proposing
a
three
meter
wide
driveway,
we
could.
E
The
built
form
could
align
with
what
the
current
zoning
allows,
but
we're
we're
proposing
that
two-way
traffic
to
to
allow
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
but
all
of
the
other
provisions
of
the
r1
zone,
the
size
of
the
building
and
so
on.
The
size
of
the
driveway
et
cetera,
are
are
already
allowed
by
what
the
zoning
the
r1
zone
permit
so
the
size,
the
height
of
the
building,
the
footprint,
the
amount
of
landscape
to
open
space.
E
So
this
slide
and
the
next
few
slides
I'm
just
going
to
walk
the
committee
and
the
public
through
the
build
the
houses,
the
triplexes
that
are
proposed
here.
So
this
is
an
elevation
showing
the
front
of
the
triplexes.
This
is
the
the
if
we
recall
the
the
conceptual
site
plan
I
was
speaking
to
a
few
minutes
ago.
This
is
the
unit
on
the
left,
so
the
west
ham,
the
west
unit.
E
E
Okay.
So
if
I
take
you
back
to
the
porch,
so
at
the
very
front
there
was
the
two
doors
the
door
on
the
right
recall
leads
to
the
main
unit,
the
second
door
on
the
left,
there's
a
little
arrow
there
indicating
unit
three
that
would
lead
to
another
sort
of
foyer
and
then
a
set
of
stairs
leading
up
to
the
second
floor.
E
Next
slide.
Please
thank
you.
So
this
is
the
basement
floor
plan
on
the
left
is
the
set
of
stairs
leading
down
into
the
basement,
so
those
stairs
would
lead
into
sort
of
a
common
area.
This
would
also
be
a
two-bedroom
unit
and
then
directly
at
the
very
back
is,
would
be
sort
of
a
an
exterior
set
of
stairs
a
little
landing
and
stairs
leading
up
to
the
parking
area
at
the
back.
E
You
can
see
on
the
top
right
of
the
slide.
There's
also
proposed
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
little
deck
for
amenity
space
at
the
back
and
then
stairs
leading
down
to
the
parking
area.
So
this
these
floor
plans
just
illustrate
how
the
units
would
function.
They
would
each
have
two
entrances
one
at
the
front,
one
at
the
back.
The
idea
is
to
try
and
provide
them
with
a
little
bit
of
amenity
space,
particularly
the
upper
floor
units,
but
there's
a
bit
of
variation.
E
We
are
proposing
some
performance
standards
so,
for
example,
the
minimum
lot
area
we're
asking
to
recognize
the
thousand
square
meters
or
so
and
providing
a
little
bit
of
a
wiggle
room
there
by
asking
for
990
square
meters
asking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
depth,
as
I
spoke
to
earlier
from
six
from
20
feet
down
to
six
meters,
we're
asking
to
amend
the
interior
side
yard
so
earlier
I
was
speaking
to
four
and
eight
feet.
Those
are
the
r1
zone
provisions.
The
r3
zone
does
have
more
stringent
provisions.
E
E
We
are
asking
to
allow
two
triplexes
on
a
lot
and
then
as
a
as
sort
of
a
technical
language
term
that
this
last
provision
says
speaks
to
treating
the
entire
property
as
one
lot
for
the
purposes
of
zoning.
That's
that's
sort
of
the
technical
language
that
we
often
use
when
we're
asking
for
semi-detached
houses.
For
example.
It's
it's
it's
sort
of
a
term
that
allows
the
whole
property
to
be
treated
as
one
so
that
it
can
be
severed
in
the
future.
E
In
this
case,
along
the
sort
of
the
central
axis
of
the
property,
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
can
then
do
two
new
triplexes
on
the
site.
It
would
limit
you,
you
would
be
limited
on
to
a
maximum
of
two
triplexes
overall,
for
example.
It
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
grant
any
more
permissions.
It
doesn't
get
us
out
of
cycling
control
just
because
we're
doing
this,
we're
still
having
to
go
through
cycling
control
and
that
exercise
for
for
approval
with
the
city
of
kingston.
E
So
there
are
it's
really
a
technicality
to
allow
that
additional
lot
severance
to
occur
in
the
future
and
I'll
note
at
this
point.
This
is
these
are
the
provisions
that
we
we
requested
in
our
in
our
submission.
We've
received
technical
comments
from
city
staff
and
there's
been
some
feedback
from
the
public.
We
acknowledge
that
there
are
additional
provisions
that
we
likely
need
to
seek
amendment
for.
E
In
the
zoning
bylaw
and
those
are
items
that
will
work
through
as
part
of
the
technical
review
in
detail
with
city
staff,
identifying
which
provisions
we
need
an
additional
and
which
ones
are
supportable
and
which
ones
are
not
and
and
that
may
affect
the
the
plan
a
little
bit
and
that'll
be
described
in
detail
at
a
later
date
at
a
time
of
a
comprehensive
report.
Coming
back
to
the
committee
next
slide,
please.
E
And
with
that
I'll,
just
note
again
that
this
is
a
site,
that's
in
proximity
to
some
schools
parks,
it's
on
a
it's
on
an
arterial
road.
It's
in
an
area!
That's
intended
for
intensification,
it's
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
It's
a
built
form
that
is
consistent
with
and
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area.
It
represents
a
an
efficient
land
use
of
a
property.
That's
in
the
service
area
of
the
city.
E
It
conforms
to
the
official
plan
strategic
objectives
of
the
official
plan,
as
well
as
tests
for
the
proposed
medium
density,
residential
land
use,
and
it's
our
opinion
that
this
represents
good
land
use
planning
and
next
slide.
Please
with
that.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
welcome
any
questions
or
comments
through
mr
chair.
D
G
Good
evening,
so
you,
mr
chair,
my
name-
is
waleed
alvarke,
I'm
a
planner
with
the
city,
a
notification
for
the
public
meeting
was
completed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
planning
act.
We
received
a
total
of
six
public
comments
and
they
are
attached
as
an
addendum
to
the
meeting.
The
main
concerns
are
related
to
the
number
of
units,
as
well
as
the
building
form.
G
There
were
also
other
comments
that
we
received
about
the
measures
shown
on
the
site
plan.
The
comments
received
now
and
any
comments
that
we
are
going
to
achieve
in
the
future
are
going
to
be
addressed
in
the
future
comprehensive
report
which
we
don't
have
a
specific
date
for
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chicken.
Thank.
D
H
E
So
three,
mr
chair,
the
front
ditch.
I
know
there
was
some
commentary
about
stormwater
management
and
concerns
around
the
measures
there.
There
is
no
implant
change
to
the
municipal
infrastructure
along
the
front,
so
the
the
ditch
stormwater
management
along
the
front
is
not
there's
no
changes
proposed
there.
E
It
is
proposed
to
drain
out
to
the
front
of
the
property,
so
storm
water
flows
would
would
continue
to
drain
to
the
front
as
they
do
today.
There
is
a
bit
of
a
ditch
that
sort
of
a
drainage
ditch
that
runs
along
the
western
side
of
the
property
line
and
through
consultation
with
our
civil
engineer,
there
are
a
few
different
options
of
dealing
with
that
particular
feature.
E
H
H
H
The
front
of
the
house
is
facing
south
princess
street
and
the
back
of
the
house
you're
facing
north
right
so
like
you're,
making
it
really
wide
sideways,
and
then
that
is
why
there's
no
side
yards
anymore,
whereas
if
you
had
one
you
know
like
along
princess
street
and
then
the
other
one.
You
know
that
then
goes
to
the
north
to
like
the
north
of
that
it
would
be
skinnier,
and
it
would
probably
fit
better
on
the
lot
and
you
might
be
able
to
save
some
of
the
trees
at
the
front.
E
And
if
I'm
understanding
the
comment
that
it
would
result
in
a
configuration
where
one
building
is
behind
the
other.
So
the
the
guidelines
that
we're
working
with
encourage
this
particular
form
and
layout.
It
does
also
allow
for
this
shared
driveway
in
the
shared
parking
arrangement
at
the
back.
So
this
having
the
sort
of
symmetry
to
the
site
facilitates
that
there
are
a
number
of
trees
that
are
proposed
to
be
removed.
E
The
the
goal
is:
there's
a
tree
preservation
plan
that
was
prepared
as
part
of
this
submission
that
identifies
which
trees
are
proposed
to
be
removed
and
which
ones
are
proposed
to
be
maintained.
The
ones
that
are
proposed
to
be
removed
are
the
ones
sort
of
along
the
driveway
and
in
the
central
portion
of
the
site,
a
little
bit
at
the
back
of
the
site.
The
trees
that
are
along
the
property
lines
to
the
east
and
west
are
proposed
to
be
maintained
and
there
are
as
much
as
possible
it's.
E
The
goal
is
to
keep
trees
along
the
front
because
there
are
some
mature
trees
there
and
they
provide
a
little
bit
of
a
nice.
They
provide
a
nice
screening
to
the
front,
but
we,
I
also
note
that
the
there
hasn't
been
a
landscape
plan
prepared
because
we
haven't
submitted
for
site
plan
control,
so
the
it's
a.
E
There,
mr
chair,
we
we've
provided
or
proposed
one
parking
space
per
unit,
so
we
are
not
proposing
dedicated
visitor
parking
at
this
time.
We
did
have
a
traffic
study
prepared
that
looked
at
this
particular
this
site.
In
the
proposal
layout,
the
traffic
study
didn't
recommend
it.
The
size
of
the
units
are
such
that
they
didn't
sort
of
trigger
that
that
desire
and
demand
from
the
study,
but
it's
certainly
something
that
we
can
look
at
rearranging
the
site
a
little
bit
to
provide
that
additional
parking
area
at
the
rear.
E
We
have
quite
a
bit
of
landscape
open
space
to
work
with.
I
know
we're
proposing
a
lot
of
hardened
surface
here,
some
buildings
and
and
driveway
and
walkways
so
as
much
as
our
goals
are
often
to
try
and
reduce
parking
in
line
with
you
know:
cities
the
city's
goals
for
transit
and
active
transportation.
E
There
there
is
opportunity
here
to
provide
additional
parking
space,
given
the
the
green
space
that
we
have,
it
would
require
we're
reconfiguring
the
rear
portion
of
the
site,
certainly
because
we
couldn't
fit
additional
parking,
obviously
to
the
north,
from
what
we
were
showing
today.
But
I
think
it's
something
that
we
could
certainly
look
at.
H
You
through
you,
mr
chair
parking,
is
a
concern
right
because
just
like
it's
identified
in
all
those
letters
and
that
you
touched
on,
you
cannot
park
on
princess
street
on
the
north
side
there
and
when
they
build
a
sidewalk.
Whenever
day
that
comes,
there
definitely
will
not
be
any
parking
on
princess
street.
H
So
if
you
can't
park
on
princess
street,
you
have
to
park
in
this
complex
and
it's
going
to
be
like
how
many
units
off
is
the
two
units
and
what
three
floors
are
or
two
floors
like
those
people
that
are
living
in
each
one
of
those
units
on
each
one
of
those
floors
are
going
to
have
visitors
and
there's
no
bus
like
it's
not
like
they
can
say.
Oh
visitors,
you
know
my
parents
coming
for
a
visit
or
friends
coming
for
a
visit,
just
take
the
bus
and
then
take
the
bus
home.
H
There
is
no
bus
there
right
now
and
even
then,
when
there
is
a
bus,
it
will
probably
be
a
bus.
Every
hour,
like
it's
not
going
to
be
convenient
like
when
you're
living,
downtown
living
on
princess,
like
there's,
got
to
be
visitor
parking
for
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
living
in
these
side-by-side
duplexes
triplexes,
side-by-side
triplexes
there's
got
to
be
visitor
parking
available.
H
That's
not
relying
on
princess
street
because
that's
just
too
unsafe
and
when
they
put
a
sidewalk
in
there,
it
wouldn't
be
possible
for
to
have
anything
any
parking
on
princess
street
and
then
I
suppose,
snow
removal.
That
seems
to
be
another
factor
in
the
addeds
which
I
guess
will
have
to
be
worked
out
at
site
plan.
E
Mr
sure,
that
is
the
intent
that
snow
removal
lighting
was
another
comment
that
was
raised
and
privacy
related
to
that.
Those
are
factors
that
will
be
looked
at
as
part
of
the
site
plan
control
application.
There
was
some
concern
about
privacy
as
well,
and
one
of
the
items
in
particular
at
the
parking
area
at
the
rear.
I
think
there
was
some
concern.
One
of
the
one
of
the
neighbors
to
the
west
had
indicated
a
concern
that
they
have
some
bedrooms
that
face
out
onto
that
parking
area.
E
What's
not
shown
on
this
particular
concept
plan,
but
is
shown
on
one
of
the
documents
as
part
of
the
supporting
material.
So
there's
there
was
a
noise
study
that
was
prepared
as
part
of
this
project
and
that
noise
study
identified
a
need
for
the
rear
portions
of
the
site,
so
the
basically
the
side
yards
behind
the
rear
wall
of
the
house.
E
The
noise
study
identified
a
need
to
put
a
sort
of
taller
fences-
seven
foot
fences
along
those,
those
property
lines
for
as
an
acoustic
barrier,
which
is
also
going
to
have
the
benefit
of
providing
a
little
bit
of
privacy
to
those
two
properties
on
either
side
and
that
that
fence
would
actually
extend
along
the
rear
property
line.
So
it
would
provide.
It
would
provide
a
little
bit
of
enclosure
at
the
back
and
a
little
bit
more
privacy
for
for
both
residents
of
this
of
this
site,
as
well
as
as
the
neighboring
property
owners.
E
Three,
mr
that's
correct,
so
the
rear
portion
of
the
property
there's
about
three
quarters
of
an
acre
at
the
back,
that's
zone
d
for
development.
That
portion
of
the
site
does
not
have
road
frontage
and
there
was
a
severance
that
went
through
the
committee
of
adjustment
earlier
this
year
to
convey
that
land
to
an
adjacent
property.
So
it
was
severed,
but
it
wouldn't
be
its
own
standalone
law.
It
would
be
severed
and
one
of
the
conditions
of
that
severance
is
that
it
be
merged
with
the
adjacent
property.
E
H
Thanks
well,
the
only
way
I
can
see
it,
I'm
not
a
planner,
but
the
only
way
I
can
see
that
there
could
be
parking
for
visitors
is
to
make
this
lot
bigger
and
make
that
separate
lot
smaller,
so
it
this
this
lot
to
me
should
be
bigger,
extending
further
to
the
back
to
provide
more
parking
for
those
visitor
parking
spots
anyway.
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Through
you,
a
few
questions
from
me,
a
few
of
them
are
not
for
me,
though.
I
will
convey
them
they're
from
the
correspondence
the
ones
for
me
to
start,
though,
I'm
wondering
had
the
conceptual
drawing
and
right
before
that
you
had
a
slide
showing
the
overall
site
image
had
what
appears
to
be
a
stream
cutting
from.
I
guess
the
southwest
corner
across
of
the
northeast
corner.
E
Through
mr
sure,
it
would
not
so
the
stream
along
this
along
this
portion
of
the
site
so
along
the
southern
portion
of
the
site,
it
runs
very
much
along
the
property
line
and
then
it's
at
the
very
back
of
this
portion
of
the
site.
It
starts
to
cut
northeast
and
it's
it's.
The
portion
that's
proposed
to
be
severed
is
where
that
stream.
I
mean
stream.
It's
it's
it's
a
bit
of
it's
a
water
course.
E
It's
I'll
speak
about
that
in
a
moment
as
well,
so
that
that
watercourse
sort
of
runs
northeast
across
that
severed
portion
at
the
rear.
So
one
of
the
aspects
of
this
proposal
early
on
was
we
had
an
ecologist
look
at
that
watercourse
and
identify
that
it
doesn't
actually
have
it's
not
an
ecological
like
ecological
watercourse.
It
has
hydrologic
function,
certainly
so
it
carries
water
for
stable,
stormwater
management,
but
it's
not
like
habitat
for
species
at
risk
or
any
other
type
of
species.
E
So
we
that
was
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
did
as
part
of
this
was
look
at
that
the
ecology
of
that
watercourse
and
determine
the
ability
to
move
it.
So
there
would
be
on
this
on
this
portion
of
the
site
that
the
watercourse
would
have
to
be
relocated
and
either
put
into
a
culvert
or
or
moved
into
a
swale
and
then
along
the
rear
portion.
B
E
B
E
The
height
of
the
triplexes
are
are
at
a
height
that
complies
with
what
the
maximum
height
of
the
r1
zone
is,
but
I
believe
the
houses
on
either
side
are
sort
of
in
the
one
to
one
and
a
half
story
range,
so
they're,
certainly
taller
than
what's
there
but
they're
within
the
height
that
you
could
build
today
on
the
r1
zone.
Okay,.
B
B
Okay,
that's
what
I
thought,
but
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
thanks
and
then
a
quick
question
for
me
or
from
me
from
the
residents
who
wrote
wondering
about
sidewalks
and
the
lack
of
walkability
in
that
neighborhood
and
just
the
increased
density
on
the
site,
adding
a
number
of
people
living
in
ability
to
move
around
easily
other
than
to
drive,
which
only
serves
to
further
accounts
for
sonic's
point
about
the
need
for
more
more
parking.
So
could
you
speak
to
walkability
and
movement
on
and
off
the
site.
E
And
thank
you
to
you,
mr
chair,
so
walkability
of
the
site
is
is
limited
at
this
time.
There
aren't
any
sidewalks
along
this
portion
of
princess
street.
There
is
a
signalized
intersection
at
woodhaven
drive
which
allows
pedestrians
to
cross
there,
but
there
aren't
sidewalks
on
either
side.
So
currently,
walkability
is
is
a
is
a
known
challenge
here.
E
Now
it's
possible
that
that
timeline
has
been
impacted
by
kobit.
I
I'm
almost
certain
that
it
has
been,
but
I
don't
have
their
updated
timelines
in
front
of
me.
So
what
I
can
say
is
that
this
process,
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
the
subsequent
sci-fi
control
application.
If
the
zoning
is
approved,
subsequent
building,
permit,
subsequent
construction,
marketing
and
and
occupancy
is
likely
going
to
take
one
to
two
years.
E
So
it's
very
realistic
and
very
reasonable
to
assume
that
there
may
be
a
year
or
two
from
the
time
that
people
move
in
that
where
there
isn't
that
sidewalk
infrastructure
along
princess
street,
but
it
will
be
coming
soon
and
it'll
improve
that
walkability
along
this
portion
of
princess
street,
though
that
also
aligns
well
with
the
the
planned
transit
infrastructure
on
catwoods
drive.
So
right
now
there
isn't
any
any
any
bus
routes
there,
but
there
is
plan
to
be
some
bus
service
up
along
cataract.
E
Woods,
drive
sort
of
consistent
with
the
typical
level
of
service
that
we
see
in
this
area
of
the
city,
so
kind
of
in
the
15
to
30
minute
range.
I
believe,
although
I'm
I
can't
say
for
sure,
if
there's
any,
if
there's
any
plans
for
an
express
bus
route,
I'm
really
relying
on
my
memory
of
the
transportation
master
plan
there
and
that
bus
route
is
planned
to
start
about
a
year
before
the
sidewalk
would
be
built
on
princess
street.
In
this
location.
G
Okay,
so
yo
mr
chair,
so
I
don't
have
much
to
add
to
what
has
been
mentioned.
I
know
from
contact
here
with
different
departments
that
we
had
planned
in
the
next
two
years
or
so.
However,
I
know
that
in
the
process
of
re-evaluating
the
feasibility
I
mean
the
timeline
based
on
the
covet
and
basically,
oh
everything
has
been
postponed
a
little
bit,
but
from
what
I
know
it
should
happen,
but
the
the
exact
timeline
we
don't
know
yet.
E
C
C
Here
I
mean
we're
well
out
into
the
suburbs
here
and
there's
no
bus
service,
and
I
don't
know
what
are
you
thinking,
there's
going
to
be
a
a
couple
and
one
or
two
kids
and
in
each
unit
and
one
of
them
doesn't
work-
I
mean
it's
done
in
1957.,
so
I'm
really
concerned
about
that.
I'm
not
sure
this
works.
C
E
E
E
Three,
mr
chair,
I
can
speak
to
that
to
some
degree
there
there
was
a
like,
as
part
of
the
cataract
west
master
plan
and
the
secondary
planning
exercise
that
went
there.
There
was
a
water
course,
I
believe
it's
called
highgate
creek
that
was
relocated,
and
it
was
a
fairly
substantial
exercise
of
relocating
the
the
water
course
itself
kind
of
redirecting
drainage
throughout
the
entire
secondary
plan
area.
E
As
part
of
that
exercise,
there
were
some
other
tributary
sort
of
water
courses
that
were
either
redirected
or
otherwise
completely
affected
by
that
that
that
those
changes
that
took
place
so
there
are,
if
you
look
at
a
land
use
plan
of
this
stretch
of
princess
street,
there's
these
three
sort
of
prongs
of
epa
that
that
run
to
princess
street.
Some
of
them
are
just
cut
off
straight
at
princess
street.
E
Some
of
them,
such
as
the
one
that
runs
across
the
neighboring
property,
are,
are
a
little
or
sort
of
artifacts
and
have
been
left
there,
reflecting.
I
think
the
they
must
have
reflected
that
the
water
course
that
we
were
speaking
to
earlier
so
as
as
part
of
the
consultation
exercise
and
that
natural
heritage
exercise
that
I
was
speaking
to
there.
E
There
was
epa
shown
on
this
property,
so
we
had
our
ecologists
look
at
that
water
course
and
determine
if
it
is
actually
an
environmentally
protected
area
and
and
consult
with
the
conservation
authority
who
was
sort
of
the
arbiter
of
whether
or
not
this
is
an
epa
and
in
as
part
of
that
exercise,
the
conservation
authority
determined
that
it's
not
in
fact
an
epa.
It's
it's
it's
it's
a
hydrologic
feature,
but
not
an
inv,
not
not
a
of
environmental
sensitivity,
certainly
not
from
a
planning
a
planning
perspective
or
under
the
provincial
policy
statement.
E
So
because
we
were
going
through
a
planning
exercise
with
the
consent
and
the
lot
addition
that
boundary
was
adjusted
it.
So
it
remains
on
the
adjacent
property
because
they
haven't
been
through
a
planning
exercise
that
that
would
sort
of
remove
that
boundary,
which
is
allowed
under
the
official
plan
for
those
types
of
technical
adjustments
of
epa
boundaries
through
consultation
with
the
conservation.
C
I
mean
there's
a
letter
there
from
from
a
neighbor
indicating
that
you
need
multiple
sump
pumps
to
make
keep
the
water
in
that
area
out
of
your
basement,
so
I
think
that
staff
should,
I
see,
staff
start
waking
their
hand
up
we'll
get
to
that
when
we
have
a
moment,
maybe
you
know
I
just
think
I
should
be
looked
at
carefully,
and
so
that's
my
my
questions.
I
will
come
back
to
it
again.
I
suppose
thank.
A
G
Missed
you
thanks
james,
so
you,
mr
chair,
so
thanks
very
much
for
the
comments
about
the
water
feature.
Actually,
we
do
have
a
confirmation
from
crca,
and
I
have
it
open
here
that
this
does
not
present
any
significance
and
as
it
doesn't
have
any
it
doesn't
represent
fish
habitat.
This
is
in
terms
of
what
we
know,
but
definitely
we
can
follow
up
again
with
crca
and
just
to
confirm,
but
we
were
already
aware
of
what's
going
on
from
crca
great.
F
E
F
I
removed
my
question
is:
is
that
you
know
if
this
goes
ahead
and
some
of
the
other
things
aren't
completed?
You
know
where
they
have
access
to
that
property,
but
you're
saying
that
that's
going
to
come
down
anyway.
So
I
do.
I
do
share
the
same
concerns
that
I've
heard
expressed
tonight,
so
I
think
a
lot
of
work
to
do
on
this
one.
My
estimation.
D
H
Chair
through
you
just
some
more
comments
about
that
stream,
so
yeah
like
I
know
it
doesn't
have
any
fish
habitat
like
it
doesn't
have
significance
that
way
where
it
has
significance,
is
that
the
high
gate,
cr
creek
stream
bed,
all
in
wood
haven.
You
know
area.
So
that
would
be
this
house,
because
you're
on
the
north
side
of
princess
street
is
spring
fed,
and
so
it's
really
really
hard
to
divert
that
water
through
there,
because
it's
spring
fed
and
water
wants
to
come
where
it
goes.
H
So
I'm
not
surprised
that
the
crca,
if
they
were
only
looking
at
it
from
fish
habitat
standpoint,
you
know
if
it's
you
know
like
good
habitat
for
wildlife.
That
they're
saying
no
concerns.
Like
that's
not
an
issue,
what
the
issue
is
is
that
it's
spring
fed
and
that
there's
so
much
water
as
as
outlined
in
the
letter,
some
of
the
next
door
neighbors,
so
water
issues
is
something
that,
once
it's
built,
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
lot
of
sump
pumps.
Probably
thank
you.
E
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
do
as
part
of
the
I
guess
the
building
permit
exercises
is
is
undertake
a
geotechnical
analysis
and
what
that
geotechnical
analysis
would
do
is
provide
some
very
detailed
guidance
about
how
the
house
is
going
to
be
built
and
drained
to
ensure
that
that
sort
of
groundwater
flows
that
are
problematic
for
the
neighbors
are
not
carried
forward
to
these
new
buildings.
So
that's
something
that
I
think
is
is
helpful
and
we
will.
E
The
owners
are
on
the
the
applicants
on
the
call
this
evening
and
is
hearing
this.
So
that's
something
that
we'll
we'll
have
a
conversation.
It's
not
necessarily
captured
as
part
of
the
planning
process
generally,
but
it's
certainly
something
that
can
be
done
to
ensure
that
there's
a
little
bit
more
confidence
to
to
yourselves
and
and
to
the
public
that
the
the
homes
that
are
gonna
be
built
here
are
not
gonna
face.
Some
of
those
traditional
problems
and
historical
problems
that
have
faced
others.
D
Yes,
please
do.
Thank
you
very
much
yeah.
I
guess
we
always
allow
for
site
plan
questions
through
this
process,
and
I
I
recognize
that
a
lot
of
the
questions
and
the
questions
I
have
are
indeed
related
to
site
plan,
but
I
want
I
want
to
make
sure
that
these
get
addressed
because,
of
course,
when
they
aren't,
the
district
counselor
can
request
a
bump
up,
and
that
slows
the
process
down
because
there's
another
public
meeting
that
comes
to
planning.
D
So
I
share
some
of
the
concerns
about
parking
units.
My
first
question
would
be
to
our
staff
as
the
province,
and
I
support
this
generally
as
the
province
moves
towards
secondary
suites
by
by
right
moving
towards
tertiary
suites,
I
have
some
real
concern.
Given
the
parking
limitations
and
the
overall
footprint
of
this
development,
would
it
be
in
the
zoning
that
there
will
be
no
for
that
there
will
only
be
six
six
units
on
this
site.
G
G
G
Staff
would
totally
agree
with
the
comment.
Actually,
we
try
to
resolve
a
lot
of
the
our
own
comments
before
we
go
to
public
meeting,
but
it
was
the
applicant
decision
to
go
forward
understanding
that
there
will
be
another
layer.
I
mean
another
step
being
the
comprehensive
report
where,
where
we
are
going
to
be
actually
able
to
speak
and
resolve
all
the
issues,
I.
D
E
Three,
mr
chair,
so
the
bicycle
parking
scenario
here
is
very
similar
to
the
parking
in
that
the
bylaw
requires
one
space
per
unit
for
vehicles
and
it
doesn't
require
any
bicycle
parking.
So
we
haven't
shown
any
thus
far
because
it's
not
required
by
the
zoning
by-law,
but
it
is
certainly
something
that
can
be
provided.
There
is
room
on
the
site
to
provide
bicycle
parking.
There
aren't
any
provisions
in
this
particular
by-law.
This
is
in
the
kingston
township
by
law.
E
So,
unlike
the
urban,
the
bylaw
that
deals
with
the
city
of
kingston's,
the
former
city
of
kingston,
where
there
are
standards
about
what
the
sizes
of
bicycle
parking
spaces,
there
aren't
any
such
provisions
in
this
bylaw
for
us
to
comply
with.
So
we
are
not
showing
any.
We
do
expect
that
some
would
be
provided
and
as
part
of
the
circulation
and
the
site
plan
review,
even
as
part
of
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
standards
can
be
implemented
in
the
site-specific
zone
for
this
site.
D
Thank
you.
I
look
forward
to
seeing
some
provision
for
bike
parking,
whether
it's
in
the
30
year
old,
kingston,
township,
bylaw
or
not.
I
think,
given
the
limited
parking,
it's
something
that
that
we
definitely
need
on
this
site.
The
other
question
I've
been
a
long
time,
member
of
mac,
which
is
the
municipal
accessibilities
committee.
D
E
Through
mr
chair,
we
I
think
we
can
rearrange
the
parking
to
make
that
happen.
It's
not
currently
shown
because
accessible
parking
spaces
are
not
typically
required
for
triplexes
so
because
we're
proposing
two
triplexes
they
haven't
triggered
that
requirement,
but
I
think
there's
room
there's,
certainly
room
there
for
us
to
make
accessible
parking
a
reality
on
the
rear
of
the
site.
D
I
would
again,
I
would
appreciate
that
my
final
comment,
because
this
is
the
21st
century,
and
I
somebody
usually
counselor
kylie,
beats
me
to
this
question,
but
is
there
a
provision
or
could
you
include
an
ev
charger
station
at
in
at
least
one
of
these
parking
spaces
within
eight
years?
It's
anticipated
that
the
majority
of
cars
on
the
road
will
be
ev.
E
Through
you,
mr
chair
again,
the
owners
are
on
the
call
this
evening
and
we
will
have
a
conversation.
It's
not
difficult
to
do
at
this
stage,
and
I
understand
this
is
if
we're,
if
it's
going
to
be
done
it
better
to
do
it
now
than
retrofit
later.
So,
certainly
we'll
look
at
that.
I
mean
the
ideal
scenario
is,
of
course,
to
make
all
of
the
units
ev
charging,
but
at
a
minimum
I
think
we
can.
Probably
we
can.
B
I
Yes,
thank
you
through
your
chair,
counselor,
with
respect
to
this
area.
I'm
somewhat
start
my
video
start,
my
video
start
with
you,
okay,
but
this
this
area,
I'm
somewhat
perplexed
as
to
the
the
intensification
that
we're
looking
at
there's
no
sidewalk,
I'm
sure
it's
already
been
mentioned,
there's
no
public
transit
and
there
isn't
any
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Regardless
of
what
you
hear
we
heard
tonight,
we
have
woodhaven,
which
is
right
beside
it,
which
is
nothing
but
a
problem
for
the
residents
to
live
on
that
street.
I
I
think
that
the
intensity
is
great
for
this
area.
Considering
you
have
two
single
family
bowlings
on
both
sides.
I'd
like
to
understand
that's
pictured
on
page
34.
Is
that
easement
intended
to
be
a
future
slot
or
what
is
the
easement
itself?
And
if
there
isn't
an
easement
of
that,
easement
is
not
for
a
sidewalk.
E
Through
mr
chair,
the
easement
that's
shown
is
a,
I
believe,
it's
a
sanitary
easement.
It
may
be
storm
water.
It's
some
some
type
of
service
engagement
that
belongs
to
the
city
of
kingston
that
crosses
along
the
frontage
of
a
number
of
these
different
lots.
So
the
my
understanding
certainly
is
that
the
expectation
is
that
the
the
sidewalk
that's
planned
for
this
area
would
be
within
the
road
allowance
that
exists,
given
the
timelines
that
are
that
are
in
play
with
respect
to
the
implementation,
the
active
transportation
implementation
plan.
E
I
E
E
I
E
Thank
you
three,
mr
chair.
There
are
a
total
of
seven
bedrooms
per
triplex
proposed,
so
the
triplexes
are
proposed
to
have
a
unit
in
the
basement,
with
two
bedrooms,
a
unit
on
the
main
floor
with
two
bedrooms
and
then
a
unit
on
the
upper
floor
with
three
bedrooms,
so
that
would
be
in
each
one
they
would
be
mirrored,
so
they
would
be
the
same.
E
To
to
be
completely
frank,
and
through
mr
chair,
I
I
do,
I
think
there
are
some
active
transportation
goals
here
that
are
being
met
through
the
plan
changes
coming
from
the
city
of
kingston.
Do
I
think
it's
tight?
Do
I
think
visitor
parking
is
something
we
should
look
at.
I
do.
I
agree.
I
think
those
are
some
very
helpful
comments
and
feedback
that,
and
one
of
the
you
know,
most
valuable
elements
of
these
types
of
public
meetings
is
receiving
that
feedback
that
make
our
plans
better.
E
We
don't
have
all
the
answers
as
a
consultant,
so
we've
put
forward
a
plan
that
proposes
some
changes
from
the
zoning
bylaw
and
to
meet
some
other
elements
of
the
zoning
bylaw
going
above
and
beyond.
The
zoning.
Bylaw
is
certainly
something
that
we
can
do.
I
do
expect
that
the
the
applicant,
so
my
client
has
has
done
development
in
other
in
other
areas
and
and
has
an
awareness
of
sort
of
the
marking
conditions
and
and
sort
of
controlling
for
demand
of
parking
for
individual
units
through
those
types
of
measures.
E
So
they
obviously
wouldn't
be
renting
to
individuals
that
would
be
looking
for
more
than
one
car
or
parking
space.
So
there
are
ways
outside
of
the
planning
process
to
control
for
that.
But
there
are
ways
that
we
can
maximize
the
utility
of
the
units
by
providing
additional
parking-
and
that's
that's
been
clear
this
evening.
I
E
E
I
Well,
that's
fair,
that's
fair,
that
that
was
just
trying
to
understand,
because
and
then
the
city
has
a
requirement
for
green
space,
and
I
I
don't
see
where
the
green
space
is
really
allocated
here.
I
think
we
what's
the
minimum
threshold
for
green
space
for
these
type
of
units
and
that
might
be
more
directed
to
stack.
E
Three,
mr
maybe
I'll
start,
and
if,
if
staff
want
to
jump
in
or
correct
me,
I
would
appreciate
that
so
their
minimum
requirement
in
the
zoning
bylaw
is
30.
We
are
proposing
39
and
a
half
percent
and
that's
the
landscaped
open
space.
The
landscape
to
open
space
in
the
zoning
bylaw
includes
green
space,
but
it
also
includes
walkway.
G
Thank
you,
so
you,
mr
chair,
so
to
add
on
to
the
landscape
the
requirement.
Yes,
it's
30
percent
and
the
site
plan
shows
that
exceeds
that.
However,
for
some
of
the
comments
that
were
sent
by
staff
to
the
applicant,
for
which
we
didn't
receive
the
feedback
yet
is
about
us
not
being
sure
that
what
is
shown
on
the
side
plan
is
actually
reflective
of
the
future
conditions.
D
C
D
E
In
each
case,
I
believe
the
great
rooms
provide
access
to
something,
that's
communal,
so
in
the
basement,
for
example,
the
great
room
is
needed
for
access
to
the
rear
and
then
on
both
the
main
floor
and
the
upper
floor.
The
great
rooms
are
needed
for
their,
so
you
walk
through
the
great
room
to
get
into
the
unit.
So
it's
kind
of
the
you
know
the
space.
That's
that
has
a
function
that
a
bedroom
would
conflict
with.
D
A
I'm
sure,
mr
chair,
there
are
two
or
three
members
of
the
public
present
tonight.
If
any
of
them
wish
to
address
the
committee,
I
would
ask
if
they
use
the
raise
hand
function
within
zoom
to
do
so.
To
raise
your
hand,
click
on
the
participants
icon
in
the
lower
menu
of
zoom.
Well,
once
you
do
that,
on
the
right
hand,
side,
you
should
see
a
small
button
that
says
race
hand.
J
J
So
I
just
think
that
this
development
is
way
way
too
intense
for
that
property
and
that's
and
because
of
that
it
violates
all
these
zoning
bylaws
and
the
parking
spaces
shown
on
the
drawing
don't
meet
the
kingston
township
parking
standard
that
I
looked
up,
and
so
I
guess
it's
all,
because
it's
too
intense
a
development
for
a
hundred
foot
by
a
hundred
foot
lot
and
there
are
storm
water
management
issues
that
I
think
severely
have
to
be
addressed.
So
those
are
basically
my
comments.
Thank.
D
D
J
A
D
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so,
as
mentioned
by
mr
lowe,
there's
a
zoning
amendment.
Currently
the
existing
zone,
which
is
a
type
r,
allows
only
for
a
single
detached
home.
The
proposal
is
to
have
a
zoning
amendment
to
change
it
to
type
theory
which
would
allow
for
the
proposal.
However,
within
the
type
c,
which
is
r30,
they
are
also
proposing
site
specifics,
site-specific
provision
to
accommodate
for,
and
I'm
actually
looking
here
at
the
port,
what
the
exact
site
specific
requests
are
related
to
the
minimum
lot
area.
G
The
minimum
lot
vantage
how
deep
the
lot
is,
the
side
yards
and
they
are
also
proposing
to
have
two
cherry
plexes,
instead
of
only
one.
So
all
in
all,
as
we
speak,
there
are
five
different
deviation
deviations
from
the
rce
provisions
and
also
as
we
speak,
we
identify
to
the
applicant
that
some
other
provisions
will
also
need
to
be
included
so
such
as
the
one
you
were
talking
about
about
a
cab
on
the
number
of
units,
as
well
as
also
potentially
the
dimensions
for
the
parking
spaces.
G
Also,
some
of
the
buoyants
that
were
identified
in
a
previous
email
with
one
of
the
neighbors
included
the
dimensions
about
basically
the
distance
between
the
building
and
the
center
line.
We
bought
that
to
the
attention
of
the
applicant
and
the
applicant
is
looking
into
it
so
in
the
future,
when
we
come
to
the
comprehensive
report
stage,
we'll
be
able
to
speak
to
these
comments
in
more
detail.
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
just
to
echo
mr
albacri
with
respect
to
the
zoning
performance
standards,
so
there
were
some
additional
items
that
were
noted
by
staff
that
we
are
working
through
our
technical
response
to.
So
that's
the
response
that
we
would
be
providing
to
the
technical
comments
that
have
been
received
thus
far.
E
Zoning
items
that
were
noted
in
that
and
then
certainly
there
have
been
more
that
have
been
brought
forward
by
by
mr
larue,
and
I
think
mr
lure
for
bringing
forward
his
comments,
both
in
writing
and
for
taking
the
time
this
evening
to
to
express
those
concerns
and
and
and
those
comments.
So
some
additional
zoning
matters
that
we
are
looking
into,
in
particular
the
center
line
setback.
So
that's
an
item
that
we
are
exploring
with
our
surveyor
to
confirm
those
dimensions
with
respect
to
the
stormwater
management
issues.
E
I'm
not
sure
if
the
member
of,
if
mr
was
available
was
here
earlier
in
the
meeting,
but
there
were
some
discussion
about
stormwater
management
concerns
as
part
of
the
council.
The
counselors
questions
and
I
believe,
was
raised
on
behalf
of
the
members
of
the
public,
including
some
concerns
about
stormwater
management.
Some
additional
clarity-
that's
needed
there.
So
as
part
of
our
ongoing
efforts
in
responding
to
technical
comments,
both
from
staff
and
from
the
public
and
council,
we
will
be
providing
more
clarification
on
the
stormwater
management
design
and
plans
for
this
site.
D
G
I
F
K
Through
you,
mr
chair,
this
is
a
the
report
is
still
going
through.
Technical
review
staff
have
not
made
a
recommendation
on
the
report
at
this
time.
That
will
be
done
when
the
comprehensive
report
is
brought
forward
if
staff
field
can't
support
it
at
that
time.
Based
on
the
policies
of
the
op,
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
zoning
by
law,
we
will
make
a
recommendation
to
that
effect.
D
D
D
No
seeing
none
I'll
move
on
to
delegations,
we
have
none
briefings.
We
have
none
I'll,
just
read
the
brief
business
comment.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
The
city
has
initiated
a
new
process
in
which
members
of
the
public
will
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
up
to
five
minutes
on
comprehensive
reports
presented
before
the
planning
committee.
D
Those
wishing
to
provide
oral
comments
at
this
meeting
will
be
invited
to
do
so.
A
persian
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
kingston
to
the
local
planning
appeal
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
buy-off
this
past.
A
L
L
This
is
an
image
showing
the
existing
heritage
designated
structure.
The
proposed
development
would
be
the
upper
three
stories:
internal
conversion
into
17
units.
The
ground
floor
is
proposed
to
be
retained
as
commercial.
Only
minor
exterior
modifications
are
proposed
to
this
structure
and
a
heritage
permit
has
already
been
issued
for
those
minor
exterior
modifications.
L
L
These
mechanical
units
will
largely
be
screened
from
from
view
and
certainly
from
pedestrian
view.
Next
slide,
please,
with
respect
to
public
correspondence.
A
letter
of
support
has
been
received
for
this
application.
The
respondent
is
favorable
in
in
favor
of
the
application
and
feels
that
the
additional
density
within
the
central
business
district
will
be
helpful
for
local
businesses
and
the
construction
of
these
units
will
be
helpful
for
local
trades.
L
L
L
The
proposed
development
will
contribute
to
the
conservation
and
adaptive
reuse
of
a
heritage
designated
building
and
the
associated
permit
has
already
been
issued.
For
those
minor
modifications,
the
proposal
contributes
to
increasing
the
total
residential
density
within
the
urban
boundary,
and
it's
thought
that
the
additional
residential
density
and
associated
population
within
the
central
business
district
will
help
to
support
local
businesses
and
local
economy.
L
D
D
C
D
I
have
a
just
a
quick
question.
Vice
chair
kylie,
thank
you
just
very
quickly,
and
this
seems
fairly
intense,
doubling
the
density
requirements,
but
perhaps
staff
could
speak
to
this
is.
Is
this
likely
to
be
the
norm
going
forward
when
we
get
our
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
before
us,
because
there
does
seem
to
be
very
limited
density
allowed
under
the
earlier
provisions?
M
Hello,
thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
my
short
answer
to
that
is.
Yes,
I
think
the
old,
the
old
zoning
densities
were
were
really
quite
restrictive
and
they
they
amount
in
very
low
unit,
counts.
Now,
we've
through
the
through
the
new
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
that
laura
flaherty
is
working
on.
As
far
as
I
know,
she
we're
we're
not
going
to
change
the
density
calculation
at
this
point,
because
it
requires
a
lot
of
changes
in
the
official
plan.
M
D
M
L
Sorry
button
through
you,
mr
chair,
that
that
is
correct.
The
the
number
of
biking
bike
parking
spaces.
They
are
required
to
provide
17
one
per
unit.
They
are
actually
proposing
to
provide
18
spaces,
so
one
extra
but
the
variance
the
reduction
is
on
the
width
and
that
that
is
owing
to
the
type
of
racking
system
that
is
being
proposed.
It's
it's
multi-tiered
and
and
every
other
bike
is
actually
set
slightly
above
the
the
other,
so
the
handlebars
are
not
anticipated
to
interact
with
each
other
and
conflict.
L
A
C
C
Public
discourse
shall
we
call
it
that
something
more
flammable
than
that
about
density
downtown
and
how
it's
expressed
in
the
building
form
and
location
and
and
so
on,
the.
But
this
as
we
can
see,
there's
no
public
comment
here
tonight
and
and
one
letter
and
that
lender's
in
support
and-
and
I
think
this
is
the
thing
that
both
sides
of
the
whole
high-rise
debate
has
been
about-
that
both
sides
have
agreed
that
density,
intensification.
C
Thing
it's
just
how
much
where
and
how
high
and
and
how
compatible
to
the
downtown.
So
this
is
a
retrofit.
It's
ms
como
pointed
out.
So
it's
already
existing
already
is
heritage
value
and
the
you
know
the
density
will
support
and
give
support
to
the
downtown
business,
district
and
the
economy.
So
frankly,
I
don't
see
anything
to
oppose,
since
the
very
minor
changes
are
taking
place
are
acceptable
to
me.
So
I
thank
the
developer
for
the
way
I've
gone
about.
This
and
staff
have
done
their
jobs.