►
From YouTube: Kingston, Ontario - Planning Committee - April 16, 2020
Description
Planning Committee meeting from April 16, 2020. For full meeting agenda visit https://bit.ly/2Z9U918
A
Meeting
protests
to
order
and
I'll
read
the
meeting
public
meeting
introduction
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing
and
on
the
forms
provided
at
the
back
of
the
room.
In
fact,
that
would
be
people
just
sending
in
by
email
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.
A
Questions
regarding
this
collection
should
be
forwarded
to
the
Director
of
Planning
and
Development.
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
at
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
clarification
or
further
information
meeting
then
will
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes,
there's
also
a
sign-in
sheet
for
interested
members
of
the
public.
At
the
back
of
the
room.
Again,
you
can
achieve
that.
Bicep
is
an
email.
No
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications
unless
otherwise
noted
the
public
meeting
is
held
together.
Public
opinion.
An
exception
to
this
rule
is
combined
reports
which
consolidates
the
public
meeting
and
comprehensive
reports.
These
applications
are
deemed
by
staff
as
straightforward
and
routine.
A
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
expedite
the
approval
process.
A
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
reviews
of
the
applications.
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee.
The
recommendation
is
typically
to
approve
with
emissions
or
to
deny.
This
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
City
Council
City
Council
has
the
final
say
on
the
applications
from
the
city's
perspective,
following
Council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
A
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
of
tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
or
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaws
passed,
a
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal.
The
decision
so
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
our
first
order
of
business
is.
B
C
C
D
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee
staff
and
members
of
the
public,
my
name
is
Yuko
LeClair
I
am
a
land
use
planner
with
pho
10
planning
and
design,
presenting
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
at
67
and
69
Chatham
Street
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
67
and
69
Chatham
Street
Corporation,
before
I
dive
into
the
presentation.
I
would
just
like
to
take
a
moment
to
acknowledge
the
efforts
of
staff
and
the
clerk's
department
and
councillors
to
make
these
public
meetings
happen
in
this.
D
In
this
way
in
I
know,
there's
been
very
little
time
to
pull
this
together
and
a
lot
of
works
gone
into
it.
So
I
just
like
to
acknowledge
that
so
Derek
next
slide
please.
So
this
slide
is
showing
an
image
of
the
context
surrounding
the
subject.
Property
there's
on
the
right-hand
side
is
an
aerial
image
showing
sort
of
a
very
far
zoom
out
from
the
property
and
a
circle
centered
on
the
site,
with
the
600
meter
radius.
So
what
this
image
is
showing
is
that
the
subject
site
is
located
in
an
area.
D
That's
well
served
in
terms
of
community
facilities.
There's
public
parks
within
walking
distance,
there's
the
Aquatic
Center,
the
Memorial
Center
express
bus
routes
along
Division,
Street
and
Princess
Street,
and
the
site
itself
is
also
within
walking
distance
of
the
hub,
so
the
stretch
of
princess
Street
between
division
and
Barry.
So
it's
an
area
where
there
are
a
lot
of
facilities
nearby,
it's
close
to
commercial
uses
along
Princess
Street.
So
it's
it's
just
an
area.
That's
that's
well-suited
to
a
neighborhood
scale.
Intensification
next
slide!
D
D
D
So
on
this
slide,
I've
got
an
image
again,
showing
the
subject
property.
It's
an
aerial
image,
but
it's
zoomed
in
a
lot
closer.
So
what
you
can
see
with
this
image
is
that
this
is
the
subject.
Site
is
located
in
a
residential
area.
It's
at
the
southeast
corner
of
elm
street
and
Chatham
Street,
and
the
surrounding
Lots
and
properties
are
they're
all
they're
developed
but
they're
also
fairly
small
they're
fairly
granular.
The
buildings
are
large
in
relation
to
the
Lots
there's,
not
a
ton
of
open
space
and
there's
also
a
wide
range
of
built
form.
D
So
the
buildings
in
this
area
in
this
in
this
image,
actually
range
from
from
one
story.
That's
restore
ease
and
the
types
of
buildings
also
range
from
single-family
houses
to
semies
row
houses.
There's
a
few
walk-up
apartment
buildings
that
are
visible
sort
of
in
the
southwest
corner
sort
of
the
bottom
corner
off
of
Chatham
Street
there.
So
there's
a
real
eclectic
range
of
built
forms.
D
What
the
slide
is
also
showing
is
that
the
site,
the
subject
property,
is
already
developed
as
well.
There
is
a
2-story
semi-detached
house
on
the
property,
the
house-
that's
there,
hasn't
it
as
a
footprint
of
about
one
hundred
and
forty
two
issue:
square
meters
in
terms
of
sort
of
the
site
dimensions,
a
lot
areas,
three
hundred
and
thirty-two
square
meters.
D
D
Next
slide,
please!
This
slide
is
just
showing
the
current
land
use
designation
under
the
Official
Plan.
So
the
image
is
showing
that
the
subject
property
is
in
the
yellow,
coloured
area.
This
is
the
area.
That's
residential.
The
residential
designation
is
a
very
broad
one
and
under
the
Official
Plan
it
permits
a
wide
range
of
residential
uses.
Everything
from
single
detached
houses,
the
multifamily
dwellings,
high-rise
buildings
and
everything
in
between
in
the
service
area.
D
The
reviewed
in
detail
in
our
planning
report,
so
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
all
of
those
policies
here,
but
I
note
them
and
acknowledge
them,
and
I'll
speak
to
some
of
the
functional
needs
and
some
of
the
compatibility
measures
that
were
taken
into
consideration
in
the
design
of
this
proposed
development.
Thanks
like
because
this
slide
I've
got
two
images
showing
that
deal
with
zoning.
So
the
top
image
it'll
speak
to
you
first.
This
is
just
showing
the
the
subject
property
within
the
current
zoning
bylaw.
D
So
what
this
is
showing
is
that
the
subject
property
is
in
the
b3
zone
that
the
b3
zone
is
a
multiple
family
dwelling
zone.
In
a
zoning
bylaw,
eighty
four,
ninety
nine,
which
is
the
area
that
the
bylaw
that
deals
with
sort
of
the
old
city,
it's
a
zone
that
allows
multiple
family
dwellings
in
a
range
of
sort
of
community,
related
housing,
uses
and
things
like
that.
So
seniors
apartments
and
things
like
that.
It's
it's
as
Onis.
It
doesn't
permit
anything
lower
density,
so
row
houses
single
attached,
semi-detached
dwellings.
D
None
of
those
are
permitted
under
the
b3
zone.
Really
the
goal
of
the
b3
zone
was
to
facilitate
the
consolidation
of
lots
and
and
the
redevelopment
of
those
consolidated
Lots
as
apartment
buildings.
So
it's
a
zone
that
was
introduced
at
some
point
in
the
past
and
it's
a
zone
that,
as
you
can
see
from
the
lock
fabric
for
the
most
part,
hasn't
resulted
in
that
particular
goal.
There's
been
certainly
some
consolidations,
but
there's
still
a
very
granular
why
fabric
around
here
a
lot
of
small
properties.
D
So
a
lot
of
the
uses
that
you're
seeing
in
proximity
to
the
subject
site,
including
the
subject
site
itself,
are
legal
non-conforming
uses
they're
not
permitted
under
the
current
zoning.
The
beach
rezone
also
has
a
maximum
density
of
123
units
per
net
hectare.
So
that's
generally
speaking
in
in
zoning,
bylaw,
84,
nine
I
believe
that's
the
highest
as
of
right
density
that
exists.
There
are
some
site-specific
zones
that
go
higher,
but
that's
sort
of
the
maximum
density
that
you'll
find
in
84
99
and
I.
D
Note
that
again
to
speak
to
that,
the
goal
of
this
zone
was
really
to
intensify
residential
areas,
in
particular
in
proximity
to
save
prints
the
street
for
the
street
corridor.
So
the
slide
on
the
bottom.
Sorry,
the
image
on
the
bottom.
There
is
showing
sort
of
some
of
the
implications
of
the
b3
zone
on
a
property
such
as
this
one.
So
the
zone
has
a
seven
and
a
half
metre
setback
from
from
the
street,
so
from
Elm
Street
and
from
Chatham
Street.
There
is
a
seven
and
a
half
metre
setback.
D
Now
the
the
subject
site,
as
you
can
see
from
the
this,
this
sort
of
conceptual
sketch
has
a
depth
of
about
11
meters
on
in
relation
to
Elm
Street
and
about
17
meters
in
relation
to
chat
in
the
street.
So
that's
seven
and
a
half
meter
front
yard
setback
eats
up
a
huge
portion
of
the
property
and
when
you
factor
in
side
yard
setbacks
which,
in
the
B
three
zone
are
actually
a
function
of
the
height
of
the
building,
there
there's
there's
very
limited
building
envelope
on
the
subject:
property
and
the
zone.
The.
E
D
Conceptual
example
that
I've
shown
here
is
really
just
showing
that,
for
a
10-foot
tall,
a
three
meter
tall
flat
roof
building,
you
could
you'd
have
a
building
footprint
of
about
32
square
meters
so
in
the
range
of
340
350
square
feet.
So
what
I'm,
showing
this
to
illustrate
the
fact
that
the
B
3
zone
does
not
allow
any
ads
of
right
development.
That's
realistic
on
this
particular
property,
so
some
type
of
zoning
relief
is
necessary
to
advance
anything
other
than
sort
of
modifying
the
existing
building.
D
That's
there
and
sort
of
fiddling
around
with
the
legal
non
conforming
rights
next
slide,
please!
So
keeping
that
in
mind.
The
intent
of
this
application
is
to
demolish
the
existing
2-story
semi-detached
house
and
build
a
new
three-story
three
unit,
Road
Welling,
and
the
sum
of
the
zoning
parameters
that
have
informed
this
design
and
the
overall
design
of
the
site
are
really
taken
from
the
existing
built
form.
D
That's
there
because
the
the
B
3
zone
just
does
not
provide
a
helpful
or
useable
framework
for
redeveloping
the
site,
so
we're
the
the
planets
there
is
really
influenced
by
the
existing
structure
and
what
you
can
see
from
this
slide
is
sort
of
the
relationship
that
the
proposed
building
has
to
the
street.
So,
along
the
left
hand,
side
is
Chatham
Street.
That
would
be
the
front
of
the
building,
so
each
of
the
three
units
would
have
its
own
separate
entrance
from
Chatham
Street
there's.
D
Also
a
three
metre
setback,
that's
proposed
from
Chatham,
and
the
reason
that
there's
a
three
metre
setback
proposed.
There
is
because
there
is
a
high-voltage
power
line
that
runs
along
more
or
less
on
that
property
line
on
that
property
line
and
just
from
a
safety
perspective,
there
is
a
minimum
setback
of
three
metres
required
from
that
power
line.
So
that's
why
there's
a
three
metre
setback
to
the
building?
D
Of
that
bicycle
shelter.
You
can
see
the
two
bicycle:
the
two
vehicular
parking
spaces
proposed
off
of
Elm
Street,
so
there's
only
Barlow
requires
three
spaces.
The
applicants
proposing
two
spaces
in
this
case
in
a
tandem
arrangement,
so
a
reduction
in
parking
is
sought,
but
there's
a
significant
oversupply
of
bicycle
parking.
That's
proposed
in
relation
to
that
and
as
well
sort
of
the
earlier
slides.
We
spoke
to
the
context
of
the
subject
site.
This
is
a
very
walkable
neighborhood,
there's
a
lot
of
alternative
methods
of
transportation
to
get
through,
obviously
walking
and
cycling.
D
There's
great
transit,
both
Chatham
and
Elm.
Street
are
quite
narrow
streets,
so
there
and
there,
and
they
have
sidewalks
so
they're,
they're,
very
walkable
streets,
the
fact
that
they're
narrow
and
that
they're
even
more
narrowed
when
there
are
cars
parked
on
there
suggests
that
there's,
there's,
there's
sort
of
this
natural
traffic
calming
happening
and
a
little
bit
more.
It
makes
the
street
a
little
bit
more
conducive
to
a
pedestrian,
friendly
type
of
atmosphere.
D
So
next
slide
please
so
this
slide
again.
It
speaks
to
some
of
the
design
parameters
that
influenced
the
design
of
the
subject
site
the
image
on
the
top.
On
the
right
hand,
side
is
the
bicycle
storage
that's
proposed,
so
this
is.
This
is
the
the
rack,
the
structure
in
which
the
sort
of
off-the-shelf
bike
rack
system
is
proposed
to
be
located.
It's
a
secure
system
in
this.
This
structure
can
be
locked
closed
and
locked
in
it.
D
You
can
see
the
way
that
the
bikes
are
sort
of
vertically
stacked
in
a
staggered
fashion,
so
altogether
eight
bicycle
park
spaces
can
eight
bikes
can
be
stored
in
this
in
this
structure?
So
some
of
the
critical
regulations
that
I
want
to
talk
about
from
the
B
three
zone
that
are
relevant
here.
What
is
the
maximum
height?
D
The
B
3
zone
actually
doesn't
have
a
maximum
height,
so
it's
height
is
regulated
by
its
side
here
at
setbacks,
so
that
doesn't
mean
that
an
applicant
or
a
designer
has
carte
blanche
to
just
build
a
12-story
Tower
on
one
of
these
Lots.
So
you
just
the
reason
I
bring.
That
up
is
because
there's
not
a
sort
of
an
artificial
numeric
number
that
we're
trying
to
strive
towards,
where
you
kind
of
give
us
some
flexibility
to
design
a
site
that
look
around
the
surrounding
area.
What
are
the,
what
are
the
height
ranges
in
the
area?
D
What
would
make
sense
to
achieve
here
and
and
and
and
let's,
let's
take
the
lead
from
the
design
from
that
the
zone
also
has
a
maximum
density
of
123
units
per
net
hectare.
Now,
given
the
size
of
this
property
that
would
actually
allow
up
to
four
residential
units
without
having
to
amend
that
provision,
three
units
are
proposed
because
functionally
three
units
is
the
most
that
can
really
work
on
this
site
and
have
enough
amenity
and
an
appropriate
level
of
parking.
D
The
zoning
bylaw
has
a
minimum
requirement
of
30%
in
this
zone
and
the
design
that's
proposed
achieves
of
just
under
40
percent,
so
between
39
and
40
percent
landscape,
to
open
space,
and
in
order
to
achieve
that,
there
really
had
to
be
some
some
some
give-and-take
in
the
way
that
the
site
was
laid
out
and,
and
part
of
that
was,
was
really
reducing
the
size
and
the
the
amount
of
parking
proposed.
So
it
wasn't
really
feasible
to
achieve
a
functional
amenity
area
and
by
providing
sort
of
side
by
side
parking
off
of
Elm
Street.
D
So
tandem
parking
arrangement
was
proposed
as
well
as
parking
spaces
are
proposed
to
be
as
small
as
they
as
they
can
reasonably
be
to
really
maximize
the
amount
of
green
space
in
landscape
area
on
the
property.
One
of
the
other
goals
on
this
site
is
that
Road
Welling
form
and
and
providing
them
a
really
high-quality
degree
of
a
manatee
area
for
each
of
the
units.
So
what
you
can
see
from
the
on
a
concept
plan
is
that
each
of
the
units
has
its
own
sort
of
access
into
its
own
private
yard
space.
D
These
aren't
huge
yards
these.
These
are,
these
are
small
yards,
but
they're
small
they're
intimate
and
they
are
private,
which
is
like
one
of
the
primary
goals
here
in
in
exploring
the
options
for
this
particular
property,
a
beat
the
b3
zone
would
allow
a
three
unit
triplex
without
having
to
amend
the
types
of
permitted
uses
in
the
zone.
D
D
The
design
I
spoke
I
mentioned
that
it's
a
row
house
a
few
times
now
that
there's
two
sort
of
fundamental
factors
that
led
to
the
design
of
the
building
one
is
the
row
host
form.
So
we
that
which
is
a
function
of
trying
to
provide
that
high
level
of
men
in
the
area,
but
before
that
form
was
even
really
selected.
We
looked
around
in
the
area
and
look
for
similar
type
of
houses.
Are
there
any
row?
D
Houses
in
the
area,
for
example-
and
there
is
one
there's
actually
a
long
block
of
row-
houses
on
the
sort
of
Katy
corner
at
the
northeast
corner
of
the
column
in
Chatham,
so
that
the
row
house
form
in
and
of
itself
exists
in
this
area.
You'll
see
on
the
next
slide
when
I
speak
to
the
sort
of
the
design
of
the
building
actually
Derrick,
why
don't
we
move
on
in
that
slide?.
D
So
you,
the
design
of
the
building,
is
this.
This
three-story
form
it
with
a
mansard
style
of
roof.
There's
there's
just
down
across
the
road
and
a
little
bit
to
the
south
on
Chatham
Street
is
an
existing
three-story
form.
That's
very
similar
to
this.
It's
a
different
design,
it's
a
different
color,
but
it
uses
this
this
this
type
of
structure
too
it's
a
three
storey
form,
but
by
having
a
mansard
roof
it
doesn't
feel
as
tall
as
it
could.
So
those
are
sort
of
the
two,
the
main
design
parameters
that
led
to
this.
D
This
built
form.
What
you're,
also
seeing
on
this
rendering
on
this
slide
is
so
you're
showing
I'm
showing
two
renderings
of
the
property.
The
one
on
the
top
is
the
front.
Rendering
is
the
front
elevation
as
seen
from
from
Chatham
Street,
and
one
of
the
benefits
of
having
this
three
metre
setback
is
that
there's
no
there's
more
room
for
putting
a
little
bit
of
green
a
little
bit
of
vegetation
in
the
front
yard.
D
The
current
property
is,
the
current
building
is
about
0.8
meters
from
Chatham
Street,
so
we're
asking
to
increase
that
setback
from
point
8
meters
to
3
meters,
and
that
lends
itself
to
that.
It
creates
a
little
bit
more
separation
from
the
street
on
the
bottom
image.
This
is
the
elevation
from
the
east
side,
so
basically
as
huge
from
Elm
Street
looking
south.
So
you
can
see
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
image
as
the
parking,
the
tandem
parking
arrangement.
D
You
can
see
the
bicycle
parking
just
beyond
that
and
you
can
see
sort
of
the
the
private
amenity
are
it's.
The
fencing
that's
proposed
is
this
sort
of
translucent
you
can
see
through
it
just
so
that
we
can
suggest
an
a
so
that
it
more
clearly
suggests
what
the
railyards
might
actually
look
like
and
how
they
might
function.
D
D
So
on
this
slide,
we
have
a
couple
more
renderings,
the
north.
The
top
point
is
viewed
from
the
north,
so
viewed
from
the
intersection,
looking
kind
of
towards
the
site,
and
you
can
see
one
of
the
the
features
that
you
can
see
in
this
rendering.
Actually
is
this
sight
triangle.
So
one
of
the
opportunities
of
this
property,
given
it's
it's
it's
eccentric
shape.
Is
that
the
that
sharp
corner
is
there's
not
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
put
a
building
in
there.
D
So,
just
looking
sort
of
at
the
side
of
the
south
side
of
the
building,
one
of
the
other
things
that's
shown
on
this-
is
that
if
you
can
looking
sort
of
the
bottom
of
that
image
is
a
couple
of
cars.
What
this
is
showing
is
that
the
setback
that's
there
that's
proposed
is
is
four
meter.
It
1.2
meters,
it's
four
feet.
The
current
setback
from
that
property
line
is
point
two
meters,
so
it
it's
proposed
to
increase
that
setbacks
by
by
a
meter,
and
that
setback
is
also
a
budding
onto
a
parking
area.
D
So
there's
there's
not
a
building
right,
that's
right
there,
but,
but
even
still
we're
asking
to
make
that
space
a
little
bit
bigger
it.
A
four
foot
setback
has
Building
Code
implications,
it's
beneficial
from
a
building
code
perspective,
but
it
also
provides
enough
room
for
someone
to
walk
around
the
building
to
access
the
rear.
Next
slide,
please.
D
So
these
slides
that
this
line
of
next
slides
show
the
floor
plans
of
the
proposed
building
so
on
the
top
is
the
basement
floor
plan.
This
is
showing
that
two
of
the
units
would
have
two
bedrooms
in
the
basement,
and
one
of
the
units
is
proposed
to
have
a
one-bedroom,
so
the
sort
of
them
northernmost
unit
that
has
that
sloping
wall
would
have
one
bedroom
and
the
other
two
would
have
two.
The
image
on
the
bottom
is
showing
the
main
floor,
which
is
sort
of
your
traditional
kitchen
living
dining
room
space.
D
Also,
the
entrances
to
the
front
back
would
be
on
that
floor.
I
next
slide.
Please.
This
slide
is
showing
the
second
and
third
floors.
In
both
cases
the
second
floor.
Each
unit
will
have
two
bedrooms
and
similarly,
on
the
third
floor,
each
unit
would
have
two
bedrooms.
So
two
of
the
units
are
proposed
to
have
six
bedrooms
as
sort
of
a
maximum,
and
then
one
of
the
units
is
proposed
to
have
a
maximum
of
five
bedrooms.
I
next,
like
this.
D
So
with
this
light,
I
like
just
to
speak
briefly
about
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
minute.
So
what
we're
asking
to
do
through
the
Zed
ba
is
to
add
Road
willing
as
a
new
permitted
use
in
a
site-specific
Zone
on
this
property
and
we're
asking
to
amend
some
of
the
yard
provisions,
so
we're
asking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
from
seven
and
a
half
meters
down
to
three
meters.
That's
that's!
D
The
the
B
three
zone
requirement
but
again
I'll
note
that
the
existing
setback
from
from
Chatham
Street
is
0.8
meters,
so
this
is
actually
an
increase
over
the
existing
situation.
We're
also
asking
to
define
the
yards
a
little
bit
better.
So
in
the
eighty
4.99
zoning
bylaw
front
yards
are
not
differentiated
on
corner
Lots,
so
on
a
corner
lot.
In
this
case,
both
Elm
Street
and
Chatham
Street
are
technically
front
yards
and
that's
it's
not
a
very
intuitive
mechanism.
It's
it's!
D
It's
it's
different
than
what
a
lot
of
other
zoning
bylaws
use,
even
the
other
zoning
bylaws
in
the
City
of
Kingston,
generally
use,
what's
called
an
exterior
side
yard.
So
what
we're
proposing
to
do
here
is
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
clarity
and
definition
into
zoning,
so
Chatham
Street
would
be
identified
as
the
front
yard
as
the
front
lot
line
and
the
that
setback
would
be
defined
as
the
front
yard.
D
The
north
lot
line
abutting
on
Elm
Street,
would
be
the
a
side
lot
line
and,
and
then
the
the
eastern
lot
line
would
be
redefined
as
a
rear
yard.
So
I'll
be
speaking
so
that
that
attics
there's
any
confusion
about
some
of
the
the
parameters
around
the
yard
setbacks.
That's
where
that's
coming
from
is
the
we're
actually
actually
asking
to
redefine
some
of
them
to
make
them
a
little
bit
more
clear
and
to
describe
what's
being
proposed
a
little
bit
more
effectively.
D
So
we're
asking
to
amend
the
side
yard
setback,
that's
the
setback
from
Elm
Street
to
0.7
meters.
That's
where
there's
currently
a
seven
and
a
half
meter
requirement,
but
the
existing
house.
If
there
is
half
a
meter
so
we're
asking
to
amend
that
to
0.7
meters,
we're
also
asking
to
amend
the
aggregate
side
yard
to
1.9
meters.
D
So
the
the
combined
setbacks
on
the
north
side
on
Elm
Street
on
the
set-aside
are
combined
to
1.9
meters
and
so
we're
asking
to
reflect
that
and
we're
also
asking
to
amend
the
rear
yard
setback
to
six
point
three
meters.
So
the
rear
yard
setback
in
this
in
the
B
three
zone
is
a
function
of
building
height.
It's
supposed
to
be
the
height
of
the
building.
D
Install
size
I
spoke
a
bit
about
that
earlier
and
how
that's
tied
to
the
the
goal
of
increasing
and
maximizing
the
amount
of
landscape
open
space,
but
it's
also
a
way
of
encouraging
active
transportation
and
other
alternative
modes
of
transportation,
such
as
which
is
in
line
with
the
goal
of
providing
those
eight
bicycle
parking
spaces.
So
the
next
provision
on
this
slide
deals
with
that.
D
The
the
bicycle
parking
provisions,
so
the
current
zoning
bylaw
has
provisions
dealing
with
describing
the
minimum
dimensions
of
a
parking
of
a
bicycle
parking
space
and
they're
they're
quite
large
and
they're,
based
on
basically
providing
sort
of
a
box
almost
for
each
individual
bicycle
and
in
this
particular
case,
the
well
we're
asking
to
do
is
to
describe
the
the
bicycle
storage
system.
That's
proposed
for
the
site,
so
the
dimensions
are
all
arsey
are
quite
a
bit
different
than
what
the
actual
zoning
bylaw
definition
requires
for
a
bicycle
parking
space
but
they're.
D
Just
it's
a
very
technical
amendment
in
the
sense
that
it's
really
just
asking
to
describe
what's
proposed
on
the
site.
These
dimensions
are
enough
to
provide
those
eight
bicycle
parking
spaces
in
the
form.
That's
being
proposed,
we're
also
asking
to
reduce
the
this,
the
driveway
width
we're
asking
to
reduce
the
parking
space
with
the
2.6
meters.
We
don't
see
the
need
to
have
a
wider
driveway
than
what
the
parking
space
is.
D
The
current
minimum
driveway
width
is
3
meters,
so
we're
asking
to
narrow
that
driveway
a
little
bit
to
2.6
and
we're
also
asking
to
allow
a
zero
meter
setback
for
that
bicycle
storage
building
to
allow
it
to
allow
us
to
tuck
it
against
the
the
southeast
corner
of
the
site.
It's
it
made
sense
in
the
sense
that
there's
there's
a
pathway,
that's
proposed
to
provide
access
to
each
of
the
rear
yards
from
from
Elm
Street.
D
That
leads
to
the
bicycle
parking
space,
its
flow,
and
it
helps
the
slight
flow
really
well,
so
we're
just
asking
that
that
provision
be
amended
as
well
next
slide,
please
so
I'll
summarize
and
conclude
my
presentation
here.
So
it's
the
the
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
This
is
described
a
lot
more
detail
in
our
planning
report,
but,
generally
speaking,
the
PPS
seeks
to
intensify
neighborhoods
and
residential
areas
that
are
in
service
areas
of
the
city
in
a
compatible
fashion,
and
this
this
proposal
achieves
that.
D
It's
in
an
area,
that's
that's
well,
served
from
transit,
open
space,
public
park
and
generally
one
that's
intended
for
intensification,
is
reflected
into
B
3
zone
next
slide,
please,
and
with
that
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
welcome
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
and
from
the
public
this
evening.
Thank.
B
B
F
Right
through
you,
mr.
chair
and
notice
of
statutory
public
meeting,
was
provided
by
advertisement
in
the
form
of
signed
or
signs
posted
on
the
subject
property
20
days
in
advance
of
the
public
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
all
156
property
owners
within
120
meters
of
the
subject
property.
A
courtesy
notice
was
also
placed
in
the
Kingston
wake
standard
on
March
20th
2020.
C
G
You
I
guess
my
questions
around
well.
I
get
a
couple
questions
on
the
I'm
looking
at
that
street,
in
particular
travesty,
which
is
very,
very
narrow,
elm
street,
is
narrow
enough
as
it
is
fairly
intense
development
in
that
area,
you're
looking
to
put
in
a
building
that
has
only
three
units,
maybe
but
it's
what
seventeen
bedrooms
in
it,
but
it
just
seems
to
me
like
that,
isn't
very
consistent
with.
What's
what
we
see
in
that
in
that
neighbourhood,
it's
gonna,
add
an
incredible
amount
of
traffic.
I
know
that
you
included
as
well
the.
G
But
I
mean
really
that
bicycle
rack
would
would
not
I,
wouldn't
think
I
guess
I'm
asking
you
this
wouldn't
really
accommodate.
Presumably
the
17
folks
that
are
gonna
live
in
that
building.
So
do
you
really
think
that
that's
adequate
in
terms
of
you
know
being
able
to
manage
what
those
folks
are
gonna
need
in
that
room?
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
mr.
chair.
So
that's
that's
a
good
question
and
it's
one
that
was
considered.
The
applicant
in
this
case
owns
a
number
of
properties
in
this
area,
a
number
of
rental
properties
and
both
the
parking
ratio
and
the
number
of
bicycle
parking
spaces
proposed
or
based
on
their
observed
usage
at
other
sites
and
the
ratios
that
they
see
use.
So
the
answer
to
that
your
question
is
yes,
based
on
their
the
applicants.
D
Experience
with
this
this
scale
of
development,
the
number
of
bicycle
parking
spaces
is
sufficient
for
their
use,
but
there's
also
no
maximum
cap.
So
there
is
an
opportunity,
if
necessary,
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
bicycle
parking
spaces
if
they
see
that
there
is
more
uptake
than
they
anticipate
on
this
particular
site.
D
Three
and
mr.
chair
I
I,
can't
speak
to
that
I,
don't
actually
know
the
size
of
the
individual
units
in
this
area.
I
can
tell
you
that
that
there
are
a
lot
of
converted
dwellings
and
one
of
the
examples.
So
in
the
presentation
I
spoke
to
an
existing
unit,
existing
building
on
Chatham,
Street,
just
sort
of
south
and
across
the
road.
That's
that's
got
a
similar
type
of
scale,
a
similar
type
of
built
formant.
It
is
a
five-unit
building.
I
Thank
you.
Mr.
Sharon,
through
you,
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
comment
you
go
on
to
building
material.
One
of
the
diagrams
that
you
presented
had
brick
with
metal
roofing.
Is
that
determined
for
sure
and
the
reason
I
ask
is
maybe
comment
about
the
cabling
of
the
roof,
making
the
building
feel
less
bulky
and
less
high,
and
you
compared
it
to
other
brick
buildings
in
the
neighborhood.
There's
a
row
house
right
across
the
way.
That's
brick
and
I'm
wondering
if
that
will
be
the
final
material.
D
3
mr.
chair,
not
necessarily
the
the
you're
exactly
right,
the
brick
is
derived
from.
What's
from
that,
the
existing
row,
housing
in
the
area
and
the
mansard
metal
roof
is,
from
the
other
one.
That's
a
little
bit
further
down
the
road.
So
those
are
those
are
suggestive
of
the
types
of
materials
that
that
are
proposed
on
this
particular
site.
J
D
3A,
mr.
chair,
so
that's
correct.
The
the
B
three
zone
requires
one
space
per
unit,
so
it
would
require
three
spaces
as
a
kind
of
a
default,
a
requirement
in
in
preparing
the
application.
In
this
case,
we
had
a
parking
assessment
done
that
looked
at
at
usages
on
on
similar
sites,
similar
types
of
site
in
this
area
and
found
that,
generally
speaking,
two
spaces
is
an
almost
an
oversupply.
It's
it's
it's
more
than
what
it's
usually
seen
use.
This
is
an
area
where
there's
just
there's
a
high
demand
for
walkability.
D
It's
it's
very
easy
to
walk
to
princess
Street
or
to
grab
the
bus
down
and
division
or
princess.
So
it
it's
an
area,
that's
very
conducive
to
alternative
and
active
forms
of
transportation.
There's
not
a
huge
demand
for
parking
on
in
this
area
in
general,
and
that
was
what
the
parking
study
found.
It
concluded
that
two
spaces
was
appropriate
to
your
year.
Question
is
further.
The
the
sort
of
the
bylaw
also
requires
one
bicycle
parking
space
per
unit
as
a
minimum
requirement.
D
So
the
study
found
that,
by
proposing
eight
bicycle
parking
spaces,
it's
really
going
to
encourage
residents
to
use
those
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
More
than
maybe
just
providing
three
bicycle
parking
spaces
with
you
to
your
question.
I
believe,
there's
one
side
parking
on
Elm
Street,
but
and
it's
permit,
but
I'm,
not
a
hundred
percent
sure
and
I
might
throw
that
question
to
staff
to
clarify.
J
D
Mr.
chair
you're
not
wrong,
there
are
no
trees
on
the
subject
site
that
proposed
form
does
not
lend
itself
to
planting
any
new
trees.
However,
there
is
more
green
space
on
this
plan
than
what
currently
exists
on
the
site,
and
so
there's
there's
gonna
be
more
opportunity
for
sort
of
low-level
greening
in
particular
along
Chatham
Street.
Right
now
the
house
is
built
way
up
through
the
road
there's
a
few
spots
about
you
know:
half
a
meter
deep
where
there's
a
bit
of
green
space
by
building
the
house.
D
Three
meters
back,
there's
gonna
be
more
room
for
greening
along
Chatham
Street,
so
there's
gonna
be
more
sort
of
vegetation.
I,
don't
have
specifics
and
there's
no
the
subject
site.
Isn't
this
proposed
development
isn't
subject
just
like
plant
control?
So
there's
not
gonna
be
a
landscape
plan,
but
there
is
absolutely
a
intent
on
the
applicants
and
to
improve
the
greening
of
of
the
site
as
much
as
possible.
There's
just
there's
not
enough
room
on
the
site
to
put
a
tree
per
se,
but
there's
like
I
said:
there's
gonna
be
more
greenery
all.
K
D
D
D
D
Three
mr.
chair
I,
think
that's
that's
one
of
those
considerations
in
this
particular
case.
Where
is
the
the
B
three
zone
provisions
conflict
very
strongly
with
the
existing
built
forms,
so
the
existing
building?
That's
there
doesn't
meet
any
of
the
existing
any
of
the
B
three
zone
provisions
either.
D
If
someone
wanted
to
build
that
building,
that's
there
today
under
the
B
three
zone
provisions
they
would.
They
would
actually
be
asking
for
more
relief
from
the
zone
than
we're
asking
for
in
this
proposed
development.
So
I
think
that
there's
there's
a
there's,
a
real,
significant
improvement
in
many
ways
over
the
existing
built
form,
in
the
sense
that
the
proposed
development
is
in
terms
of
the
footprint
on
the
site,
the
existing
house.
D
So
all
four
of
the
yard
setbacks
are
improved
in
this
new
form
versus
what's
there
today,
even
though
the
footprint
is
being
enlarged,
a
little
bit
and
I
think
that's
that's
an
important,
an
important
reflection
of
the
effort
in
designing
this
site
because
the
the
current
b3
zone-
it's
just
it's-
not
possible
to
build
anything
on
this
property
within
the
beach
rezone.
It's
if
there's
the
the
minimum.
The
B
three
zone
requires
a
multi-family
dwelling,
which
is
be
at
least
a
three
unit
dwelling,
and
it's
because
of
the
yard
setbacks
that
exist.
D
I
Thank
you,
mister
chairing
through
you,
I
wanted
to
pick
up
briefly
on
councillor
Hills
question
around
the
number
of
individuals
living
on
the
site,
and
the
question
is
for
staff
about
servicing
with
having
17
people,
at
least
that's.
If
each
bedroom
is
the
single
occupant
or
up
to
30
plus,
if
not,
if
they're
double
your
double
occupancy
rooms,
how
will
that
impact
servicing
for
water
and
waste
on
the
site,
and
is
there
anticipation
that
this
could
be
a
trend
for
the
neighborhood
and
will
that
then,
in
turn
have
servicing
implications
as
well.
F
B
L
Thank
you
and
to
you,
mr.
chair
I'm
and
subject
to
mr.
Fisher's
comments
about
providing
some
detail
from
utilities.
Kingston's
reflections
on
the
application
that's
been
brought
forward
today.
This
is
an
in
an
older
area
of
the
city
and
there
can
be
constraints
that
are
existing
on
a
street
by
street
basis
from
wastewater
perspective.
That's
something
that
utilities
Kingston
would
be
working
to
identify
through
the
technical
review
process
and
again
looking
at
like
the
entire
catchment.
That's
there
and
the
existing
lot
fabric.
That's
there
in
the
density.
L
That's
there
from
an
overall
wastewater
planning
perspective,
because
it's
an
older
area
of
the
city.
What
would
be
in
place
is
basically
what's
planned
for
in
terms
of
what's
already
built,
so
there
there
isn't
an
area
plan
yet
established
for
this
part
of
the
city.
That
has
you
know,
significant
intensification
goals.
So
when
we
look
at
these
types
of
infill
projects
or
redevelopment
projects
within
areas
that
have
an
existing
a
lot
fabric,
sometimes
there
can
be
constraints,
but
that
will
be
identified
through
the
technical
review
process.
H
G
It's
just
a
follow-up
on
what
Isaiah
said.
Is
that
so?
Does
that
mean
if
we
were
to
go
ahead
with
approving
something
like
this
project
and
setting
a
precedent
for
the
neighbourhood?
Could
would
the
services
be
in
place
to
be
able
to
support
through
a
number
of
these
kinds
of
developments
in
area?
We
would
have
to
do
a
sort
of
a
wholesale
resurfacing
of
that
area.
L
Thank
you,
and
through
you
again,
mr.
cherrick,
you
know
when
we
see
these
applications
coming
forward
on
a
lot
by
lot
faces.
Typically,
where
we're
doing
the
analysis
and
utilities
Kingston
is
doing
an
analysis
looking
at
the
impact
of
whatever
is
proposed
through
the
application
based
on
the
overall
catchment
area,
certainly
as
part
of
the
overall
wastewater
master
plan
for
the
city
and
and
work
in
the
older
parts
of
the
city
that
still
requires
sewer
separation.
This
is
already
part
of
utilities,
Kingston's
plan
over,
like
the
next
10
to
20
years.
There's
further
sewer
separation.
L
That's
going
to
take
place,
so
there
is
sort
of
the
the
longer-term
view,
then,
as
these
applications
come
forward
on
on
a
site-by-site
basis.
They're
also
reviewed
based
on
the
individual
impact,
and
the
comments
are
directed
based
on
that.
So
if
there
are
constraints
within
the
system
that
couldn't
support
the
additional
density
or
units
that
are
being
requested
through
an
application
utilities,
Kingston
would
be
flagging
that
through
the
technical
review,
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
work
with
the
applicant
on
that
prior
to
bringing
a
comprehensive
report
forward.
H
B
F
Sir
you
there,
mr.
chair
I,
can
say
that
utilities
Kingston
has
reviewed
a
servicing
report
that
was
prepared
by
the
applicant,
so
that
is
currently
being
done
and
if
there's
any
issues
in
in
response
to
to
the
report
that
will
be
addressed
before
our
comprehensive
report.
Coming
back
to
you,
I'd
like
to
touch
just
real
briefly
in
regards
to
the
on
street
parking
I'm
on
a
show
right
now
where
the
single
or
double
parking
is,
and
if
it
is
definitely
permitted
parking.
However,
I
will
find
that
out
from
our
traffic
and
engineering
there.
F
For
you
and
in
regards
to
lock
coverage
the
b3
zone.
I
know
you.
Co
was
touching
on
this,
but
there
is
a
what
does
it
here,
a
maximum
lot
occupancy
and
there
the
lot
occupancy
for
this
particular
zone
is
100%.
So,
even
though
there's
no
lock
coverage,
which
we
would
typically
see,
let's
say
in
the
a
zones
of
33
and
a
third
type
of
thing,
this
one
does
allow
100%
of
lock
coverage
for
for
the
development.
A
L
A
A
A
Two
parking
spaces:
it's
totally
inadequate
because
there
are
going
to
be,
as
counsel
Kiley
pointed
out
at
least
17
adults
that
are
living
there.
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
greater
number
of
like
like
parking
allowed,
but
that's
my
my
district
and
I
know
those
streets
very
well
and
they
are
the
two
of
the
narrowest
streets
in
my
district.
So
there's
very
limited
on
street
parking
and.
A
A
L
Perspective
will
most
certainly
give
strong
consideration
to
the
points
that
are
being
raised
this
evening
by
the
committee
with
respect
to
the
size
of
the
building
envelope
relative
to
the
size
of
the
overall
lot
in
an
area
of
the
city
that
has
fairly
constrained
right-of-ways,
with
also
further
restrictions
on
street
parking
and
then
taking
into
consideration
some
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
with
respect
to
utility
capacity
in
the
area.
Councillor
Neill
from
your
initial
question
you're
correct
that
from
an
overall
management
of
number
of
bedrooms
per
unit.
L
Typically,
the
guideline
that
we've
been
working
with
and
that's
really
been
determined
in
collaboration
with
our
partners
at
the
Town
gown
community,
at
Queen's
and
through
st.
Lawrence
College,
as
well
of
a
maximum
of
four
bedrooms
being
sort
of
the
the
largest
ideal
size
for
certainly
students
to
be
able
to
have
manageable
size,
apartment
units
and
ones
that
are
productive
and
and
the
preference
for
students
finding
that
when
they
get
into
units
that
are
a
larger
number
of
bedrooms.
Sometimes
it
can
be
less
than
ideal.
That
said,
it's
not
a
hard
and
fast
rule.
L
It's
it's
a
guideline
in
a
practice,
but
you
are
correct
that,
generally
speaking,
we
try
to
look
at
a
greater
number
of
units
with
fewer
bedrooms
being
a
better
overall
approach,
rather
than
fewer
units
with
a
lot
of
bedrooms.
So
staff
can
certainly
take
that
away
as
part
of
the
technical
review
process
and
speak
to
the
applicant
about
that.
I
think
I've
covered
off
what
you
asked.
I
know
that
you're
you're
concerned
about
the
number
of
parking
spaces
being
inadequate
based
on
the
overall
occupancy
of
the
building
that's
being
proposed
again.
L
You
know
really,
what's
what's
appropriate
for
the
area
again
I
know:
Eco
has
identified
from
a
walkability
perspective
that
this
is
an
area,
that's
highly
walkable
and
based
on
that
and
the
applicant
owning
properties
in
multiple
areas
that
they're
not
seeing
a
high
utilization
of
parking.
But
again,
if
there
are
restrictions
and
I,
almost
sir
fish
is
going
to
confirm
that
so
actually
I
think
this
is
an
area
that
has
some
restrictions
in
terms
of
street
parking
parking
and
requiring
permits.
L
That
would
be
problematic
if
additional
cars
are
spilling
into
the
the
city's
right
of
way,
where
there's
constraints
anyway
and
putting
impacts
on
the
neighborhood.
So
these
are
all
valid
points
that
we
were
happy
to
take
away
in
review
as
part
of
the
technical
review
process
with
the
applicant
and
bring
further
information
back
to
you
at
a
future
time.
L
B
D
You
so
I
just
wanted
to
three
adminstrator
I
wanted
to
build
on
the
comment
from
Miss.
I
knew
just
and
I
think
the
the
parking
study
that
was
prepared,
I
know
that
one
of
the
aspects
of
the
parking
study
was
that
it
took
a
survey
of
usage
in
the
area
and
I
think
just
for
the
benefit
of
this
committee,
I'd
like
to
just
to
go
through
very
briefly,
some
of
the
findings
of
that
study.
D
D
The
the
study
found
that
that
two
of
the
sites
have
have
two
parking
spaces,
no,
which
were
ever
occupied
as
when
the
study
was
conducted,
that
one
of
the
sites
had
seven
parking
spaces
of
which
and
occupancy
ranged
between
one
and
two,
and
that
there
was
another
site
that
had
four
parking
spaces
and
it
was
one
of
the
spaces
was
occupied
over
the
course
of
the
parking
study.
So
I
I
I
wanted
to
just
Claire
note
that.
Obviously
this
is
a
study.
D
That's
going
to
be
reviewed
by
city
staff
as
well,
and
it's
going
to
be
scrutinized
very
closely.
So
there's
there's
this
isn't
the
end
of
the
story,
but
I
think
that
it.
What
the
study
shows
is
that
the
utilization
rates
are
quite
a
bit
less
than
expected,
they're,
certainly
less
than
I
expected
when
the
study
was
was
initiated.
A
In
the
narrowing
of
the
accident
entrance
driveway
find
a
little
troubling
because
it
would
be
going
on
to
an
already
narrow
street
and
the
idea
that
there
would
be
people
both
entering
and
exiting
on
to
a
very
narrow
street
on
a
very
narrow
driving
way
could
I.
Think
problematic.
I
also
want
to
point
out
and
I
hope
that
the
proponent
is
is
Indian
as
well.
I
want
to
point
out
that,
as
miss
Agnew
pointed
out,
there
has
been
a
study
done
by.
A
Dormitory
style
apartments
and
we
have
indeed
approved
in
Plexus,
going
into
triplexes
in
order
for
there
to
be
three
or
four
bedrooms
instead
of
six
or
seven
metrics
and
in
the
whole
idea
as
I
understand
it,
and
this
came
up
when
we
were
doing
the
official
plan,
we
want
to
develop
housing
that
could
be
mixed
housing
that
eventually
family
could
could
utilize
and
six
and
seven
bedrooms
at
rentals
based
on
per
bedroom,
wouldn't
be
accessible
to
those
people
and
Queens.
Increasingly
his
doing
distance
education,
and
that
may
be
the
way
of
the
future.
A
D
It's
a
it's
a
sensitive
issue,
and
it's
certainly
one
that
we
will
explore
closely
with
city
staff
and
with
the
applicant
moving
forward
through
the
technical
review
on
this
file.
I
also
want
to
note
that
one
of
the
the
principles
that
we
take
in
presenting
applications
is
that
on
a
floor
plan
through
his
owning
by
allowing
that
these
are
conceptual
floor
plans,
any
space,
any
room
that
could
be
a
bedroom,
we
show
it
as
a
bedroom
just
to
show
them
sort
of
a
maximum
potential
usage
of
that
space.
D
One
of
the
advantages
of
the
built
form
here
in
a
row,
housing
form,
is
that
it
does
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
broad
appeal
and
the
fact
that
some
of
the
bedrooms
are
located
in
the
basement
lends
itself
to
the
usage
of
that's
those
bedroom,
those
basement
bedrooms
as
other
spaces,
potentially
so,
obviously,
the
it's
a
sensitive
issue,
and
it's
one
that
I
think
is
is
is
heard
from
this
committee
and
and
we'll
discuss
a
little
bit
further.
But
it's
also
one
that
has
very
significant
human
rights
implications.
D
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
M
M
Thank
you
good
evening,
mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public
and
staff,
my
name
is
Mike
Keene
and
I'm,
a
land
use
planner
with
Foton
consultants
and
I'm
here
this
evening.
To
present
to
you
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
for
two
Cooper
Street,
and
this
opening
slide
is
just
a
cover
slide
and
doesn't
have
any
images
to
show.
M
So
we
can
move
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
on
this
slide,
it
is
a
contact
slide
of
the
neighborhood
yeah,
with
the
subject
site
located
in
the
center
of
the
picture,
and
what
what
you
can
see
from
the
image
is
an
area
that
is
within
the
Sunnyside
neighborhood.
It's
located
just
northwest
of
Queens
main
campus
and
it's
an
area.
That's
predominantly
a
residential
and
an
institutional
one.
M
You'll
note
that
there
there
is
the
Tennis
Club
in
close
proximity
and
Winston
Churchill
public
school,
just
to
name
some
of
the
other
nearby
amenities
in
the
area.
In
this
area
we
typically
see
a
single
detached
housing
form,
ranging
from
one
to
one
and
a
half
to
three
storeys
in
height,
and
even
though
they
are
a
form.
That
is
a
single
detached
house,
they're
often
multi
units
within
those
home,
and
it's
certainly
a
sight
that
has
good
proximity
to
transit
and
parks
and
other
open
spaces,
and
next
slide
please
so
on
the
slide.
M
Now
is
a
aerial
image
that
is
zoomed
in
a
little
closer,
showing
the
property
outlined
in
red
on
Cooper
Street,
which
is
roughly
in
the
middle
of
the
block
found
by
Collingwood
Street
and
Albert
Street,
and
this
property
presently
contains
a
one
and
a
half
story
dwelling
and
a
detached
accessory
structure,
and
what
you'll
find
is
common
in
areas
like
this
in
Kingston
is
they
are
it's
the
older
grid
pattern
neighborhood?
There
are
often
deep
lots
with
very
deep
backyards.
M
There
are
often
detached
structures
and
I
mention
that,
because
when
we
start
talking
about
the
design
for
this
project,
it
has
a
lot
to
do
with
looking
at
the
neighborhood
character
and
the
types
of
structures
and
dwellings
that
are
there.
The
size
of
this
lot,
it
is,
is
certainly
a
fairly
large
lot
at
743
square
metres.
It
has
just
about
13
meters
of
frontage
on
Cooper
Street,
and
it
shares
a
driveway
with
the
neighboring
house
on
Cooper
Street
next
slide,
please.
M
M
So
the
goal
of
this
application
is
a
is
a
four
unit
project
and
we're
we're
exploring
with
the
form
a
little
bit
rather
than
putting
all
four
units
into
main
building
and
having
a
quad
with
the
neighborhood
character
in
the
detached
structures
where
we're
exploring
this
idea
of
making
a
triplex
at
the
front
and
a
separate
detached
unit
at
the
rear.
So
the
plan
would
be
to
demolish
the
existing
structures
and
replace
them
with
new
structures.
M
B
H
M
B
M
Okay,
so
this
this
next
slide
has
again
a
an
image
of
our
2d
plan
of
our
our
site
plan.
That's
been
colorized
to
help
interpret
it
better
on
the
screen
and
what
I
have
listed
are
some
of
our
our
design
parameters
when
we're
looking
at
an
infill
project
and
so
we're
we're
generally
trying
to
stay
below
a
high-density
from
a
numbers
perspective.
So
with
high-density,
starting
at
at
75
units
per
net
hectare,
we're
trying
to
stay
below
that.
M
So
it's
hitting
on
the
lower
end
of
what
we
would
classify
as
a
medium
density,
and
so
then,
when
we
take
some
of
those
thoughts
in
terms
of
how
many
units
might
be
reasonable
on
an
infill
scenario,
we
then
look
at
the
the
lot
coverage
and
we
try
to
meet
the
lot
coverage
from
the
parent
zone
and
we
try
to
meet
the
floorspace
index
and
in
addition
to
that,
we're
trying
to
make
sure
we
meet
those
landscape.
Open
space
parameters
which
are
30%
of
the
property
has
to
be
open.
M
Space,
we're
meeting
amenity
requirements
were
meeting
bicycle
parking
requirements
and
we're
meeting.
You
know
a
regular
one
space
per
unit
parking
requirement,
and
then
we
take
these
direct
design
parameters
when
we
start
to
shape
the
project.
So,
even
though,
when
you,
when
we
get
to
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
you're
gonna,
see
a
lot
of
amendments,
these
critical
zone
parameters
are
what
we
do
not
amend.
So,
let's
move
to
the
next
slide.
Please
so
I've
got
a
couple
of
2d
elevations
of
the
buildings.
M
What
you
can
there
may
be
not
as
easy
to
interpret
as
3d
plans,
but
what
you
can
see
on
this
first
page
are
elevations
of
the
main
triplex
building.
You
can
see
the
proposals
a
three-story
building.
It
has
a
single
front
entrance
to
really
make
it
look
like
a
single
detached
dwelling
and
it
has
a
front
porch
on
it.
That
would
span
the
entire
width
of
the
house,
and
that
would
be
a
space
that
all
the
people
that
live
in
this
this
house
could
use.
M
You
can
see
the
the
side
profiles
of
the
of
the
buildings,
as
well
as
the
the
rear
profile
which
which,
in
this
type
of
structure
you
have
to
provide
to
entrance
and
exit
exits.
So
we've
got
some
some
porches
on
the
back.
That
would
provide
that
secondary
access
for
for
the
owners
of
or
of
the
tenants
of
this
building.
Let's
go
to
the
next
slide.
M
So
this
is
the
the
detached
unit
and
trying
to
keep
the
design
very
simple,
similar
to
the
garage.
That's
back
there
now
so
kind
of
trying
to
mimic
the
shape
and
size
of
a
two-car
garage,
but
obviously
turning
it
into
a
house
and
you'll
you'll.
Note
that
the
materials
that
we're
showing
are
higher
quality
materials,
we're
showing
stone
and
brick
on
both
the
main
house,
as
well
as
the
accessory
structure.
M
So
this
is
showing
the
floor
plans
of
the
triplex.
This
is
an
area
of
servicing
constraint
in
the
city
of
Kingston,
so
the
basement
space
cannot
be
used
for
individual
accommodation
of
one
of
the
units.
So
basically
it's
because
if
there
was
a
flood
in
this
basement
and
someone
lived
there,
they
would
be
out
of
house
and
home.
So
what
utilities
Kingston
has
been
permitting
is
for
basements
to
be
used
as
communal
space.
M
So
one
unit
doesn't
rely
on
this
space,
but
it
would
still
be
there
and
from
an
engineering
perspective,
our
engineers
are
quite
confident
that
they
can
prevent
basements
from
flooding.
But
you
know
it's
always
99.9,
it's
never
a
hundred
percent.
So
what
you're
seeing
is
a
wide-open
basement?
It
has
very
limited
windows,
but
not
none.
There's
some
windows
to
allow
some
light
into
this
space
and
this
space
would
be
accessible
by
all
units.
M
So
one
one
more
forward
from
there,
please
that
one,
thank
you
so
this
so
sorry
this.
So
this
floorplan
this
is
showing
the
second
and
the
third
floor
plan
which
you're
seeing
you
know,
is
common
in
a
triplex
dwelling,
it
mimics
the
first
floor
plan
so
you're,
seeing
again
this
communal
living
kitchen
dining
area
with
four
bedroom
plans
with
the
bedrooms
focused
at
the
rear
of
the
dwelling.
M
Next
slide,
please
the
the
next.
This
plan
is
the
the
rear
dwelling
unit,
and
this
is
the
one
and
a
half
story
dwelling
and
similarly
has
and
has
an
unfinished
basement
in
it.
It
currently
proposed
the
main
floor
offers
a
great
room
kitchen
and
one
bedroom
and
then
the
second
floor.
Being
it's
a
one
and
a
half
story,
dwelling
would
have
a
bedroom
at
the
front
and
the
rear
of
the
building,
so
the
rear
unit
is
a
three
bedroom
unit.
Next
slide.
Please.
M
So
this
this
slide
might
not
look
like
much
because
what
it
is
it's
an
excerpt
from
the
Official
Plan,
so
you're.
What
you're
seeing
is
basically
a
yellow
overview
on
on
a
neighborhood
and
the
yellow
on
the
screen
is
representative
of
the
residential
designation
in
the
Official
Plan,
and
so
you
can
see
the
subject
site
highlighted
again
in
red,
with
the
roads
being
slightly
faint
under
the
image
showing
the
property
of
budding
at
Cooper
Street.
And
when
we
look
at
the
Official
Plan
designation
for
residential.
M
It
is
a
very
broad
designation
within
the
Official
Plan,
intended
to
accommodate
a
full
and
wide
range
of
residential
uses
and
residential
building
types
and
when
we're
analyzing
a
project
like
this,
there
is
a
section
in
the
Official
Plan
dealing
with
compatibility
under
2.7,
and
we
must
examine
that
section
of
the
plan
which
we've
done
in
our
planning
report
to
assess
and
comment
on
compatibility,
and
we
use
that
section
when
we're
also
designing
projects
like
this
next
slide.
Please.
M
So
this
slide
is
showing
the
current
zoning
in
the
the
near
community.
It's
showing
the
subject
site
again
a
budding
Cooper
Street,
and
you
can
see
that
this
property
and
the
the
immediately
surrounding
properties
are
zoned
a
which
is
a
one
and
two
family
dwelling
zone,
and
you
can
also
see
a
number
of
special
zones
that
have
occurred
in
the
area
and,
what's
important
to
note
in
the
a
zone
was
that,
in
addition
to
allowing
one
and
two
family
dwellings,
it
also
allows
existing
multifamily
dwellings
to
be
permitted.
M
So
what's
interesting
about
that,
is
that,
then,
you
know
all
of
these
homes
in
this
area
that
have
multiple
units
in
them
are
not
actually
necessarily
legal
non-conforming,
but
they're
actually
legal
uses
because
of
the
way
the
a
zone
has
been
written,
and
it's
also
important
to
note
some
of
the
changes
that
have
occurred
in
recent
years
to
try
to
control
build
form.
The
city
introduced
its
requirement
for
30
percent
landscaped
open
space,
which
will
be
achieved
in
this
project
next
slide.
Please.
M
So
I
mentioned
earlier,
there
are
a
number
of
critical
parameters
that
we
see
as
being
our
design
parameters
where
the
next
step
is
to
really
amend
the
zoning
so
that
we
shrink-wrap
the
project
so
meaning
we
use
zoning
to
really
lock
down
the
building
in
terms
of
building
what
we
say.
We're
gonna
build
in
a
public
forum
like
this,
so
we
amend
just
about
every
other
provision
of
the
bylaw
to
do
so.
M
This
property
is
also
subject
to
site
plan
control
because
the
proposals
for
four
units,
so
there
is
an
extra
layer
of
control
that
will
be
exercised
for
this
project.
So
amendments
include
the
additional
permitted
uses,
so
we
are,
we
are
seeking
to
permit
the
triplex
and
we're
also
seeking
to
permit
the
the
rear
dwelling,
we're
not
trying
to
call
it
a
secondary
suite,
since
we
are
talking
about
a
a
four
unit
project
here.
M
One
of
the
control
measures
is
is
a
lot
area,
so
the
one
of
the
old
ways
the
city
used
to
control,
how
many
dwellings
could
be
placed
on
a
lot
was
by
having
a
minimum
area
of
370
meters
per
unit.
So
when
we,
when
we
exceed
that,
we
must
mend
that
provision
we
are
seeking
to
reduce
yards,
we
are
seeking
to
reduce
the
maximum
exterior
wall
height.
M
Building
depth
building
depth
is
a
characteristic
of
the
the
houses
that
are
beside
gee
so,
depending
on
how
deep
the
houses
are
beside
a
project
dictates
how
deep
the
project
can
be.
So
in
our
case,
we
have
the
house
at
4
Cooper,
which
is
deeper
than
two,
and
that
is
really
dictating
how
how
deep
from
a
straight-up
zoning
perspective
the
building
can
be
so
we're
proposing
an
actual
number
to
replace
the
guessing
game.
M
You
could
say,
and
the
the
a
zone
requires
one
point,
four
parking
spaces
per
unit,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
reduce
that
to
one
space
per
unit.
So
not
exactly
sure
why?
But
that's
just
one
of
the
anomalies
of
the
bylaw,
where
the
a
zone
requires
more
along
with
a
few
other
zones
and
so
we're
just
suggesting
to
reduce
it
to
a
one
to
one
ratio.
Next
slide,
please.
M
M
Then
one
thing
that
we're
we're
looking
at
is
lot
coverage
for
accessory
buildings
is
10
percent
and
we're
really
we're
right
at
10
percent,
so
we
were
seeking
10.1%,
but
that
that
is
something
that
we'll
we'll
look
at
closer
with
the
applicant
and
when
it
says
you
see
on
the
slide,
it
says,
reduce
aggregate
amenity
area
we're
not
actually
reducing
the
amount
of
amenity
space,
that's
being
required.
It's
it's
just
the
way.
M
So,
just
before
I
conclude
with
this
slide,
I
will
note
that
we
have
received
comments
from
staff
and
we've
also
received
comments
from
two
neighbors,
and
there
are
some
concerns
with
the
location
of
the
rear
unit
being
too
close
to
the
property
line,
and
so
what?
What
I
want
to
assure
this
this
committee
is
that
we're
already
looking
at
this
issue
like
I'm.
M
Looking
at
this
with
my
with
my
clients
and
so
I,
so
I
would
say
the
final
product
that
comes
back
to
you
will
certainly
be
slightly
different
than
what
you
see
now,
because
we
want
to.
We
have
the
room
to
address
the
comments
that
are
being
raised
to
you
know
effectively,
swap
the
amenity
space
with
that
proposed
fourth
unit,
so
that
the
amenity
space
would
really
be
what
it
is
today,
which
is
a
nice
patio
backyard
area
with
a
barbecue.
So
that
would
remain
in
the
house
to
the
fourth
house.
M
We
get
pulled
up
so
I
just
bring
that
up
from
the
standpoint
that
we're
showing
you
what
we've
presented,
but
because
of
the
size
of
this
lot,
we
have
lots
of
flexibility
and
the
ability
to
address
any
concerns
of
the
neighbors
and
I
want
to
assure
the
neighbors
that
my
client
has
absolutely
picked
up
on
those
comments
and
wants
to
make
changes
to
address
those
concerns.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
we
look
at
this
project
being
a
four
unit
project,
we
find
it's
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
M
B
N
I
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
through
you,
two
questions
initially
from
me.
The
first
is
the
deal
with
the
basement.
We
heard
very
clearly
that
it
wouldn't
be
used
for
bedroom
space
and
the
floor
plans.
We
saw
seemed
to
indicate
that
the
only
I
guess
amenities
down
there
were
washer
and
dryer.
Could
the
applicant
confirm
that
that
is
the
case
in
that
there
is
no
ruff
in
for
say,
a
bathroom
or
a
kitchen
space
in
the
basement.
M
Yes,
so
through
you,
mr.
chair,
what
you're
actually
seeing
in
the
basement
is
actually
the
furnace,
because
each
unit
has
its
own
washer
and
dryer
in
it.
So
the
basement
space
is
like
a
wide-open
rec
room
that
could
be
used.
For
you
know,
movie,
theater
or
pool
table.
What's
critical
to
understand
is
that
that
space
is
not
dedicated
to
one
unit,
it's
a
space
that
is
shared
by
all
the
units.
So
it's
not
like
just
the
basement
of
unit.
One.
M
M
So
you
know
I
I,
suppose,
there's
risk
of
that
space
being
being
converted,
but
certainly
that's
that's
not
the
intent.
It's
just
it's
much
nicer
to
have
a
space
with
a
basement
under
it
when
it
comes
to
mechanical
and
servicing
over
a
slab
or
a
crawl
space,
so
that
space
would
be
dedicated
to
that
rear
unit.
Okay,.
I
M
That's
correct
so
in
the
back
unit
the
the
laundry
is
the
laundry
is
in
the
basement,
but
in
the
main
unit
it's
really
only
the
furnace
mechanical
in
the
main
building.
So
that's
that's
the
difference
between
the
the
rear
building
and
the
main
is
that
the
the
rear
building
would
rely
on
the
basement
for
washer
and
dryer.
I
Okay,
thank
you.
My
second
question
is
concerning
the
depth
of
the
building.
You
mentioned
its
relationship
to
you
for
Cooper
the
the
next
building
over.
Could
you
go
back
to
the
slide?
I'm,
not
sure
we're
able
to
see
the
slides
as
we
ask
questions,
but
if
we
are
there's
a
slide
that
showed
the
lot
in
relation
to
the
neighboring,
Lots
and
I
want
to
ask
if
the
building
on
that
diagram
was
the
current
building
or
the
proposed
building,
because
it
seems
surprisingly
shallow
if
it
is
the
proposed
building
very.
B
M
M
Which
show
the
new
building
is
deeper
than
for
Cooper,
like
just
for
a
hundred
percent
clarity,
so
one
of
the
colorized
plans
at
the
front
you
can
see
for
Cooper's
rear
garage,
that's
probably
a
half
decent
one
there.
That
image
is
probably
reasonable.
The
the
new
building
would
come
to
roughly
the
location
of
the
garage
on
four
Cooper
Street.
So
that's
in
terms
of
how
deep
it
would
be
on
the
lot.
M
So
I
think
I
think
I
think
mr.
clerk,
if
you
just
maybe
move
to
slide
four,
it
might
be
easier
to
see
just
on
the
colorized
plan
so
that
so
you
can
see
on
this
plan
the
location
of
the
rear
garage
which
is
an
actual
survey
and
then
you're
kind
of
trying
to
eyeball
it
off
the
aerial
image
from
the
other
slide,
but
that
that
is
showing
you
a
building.
That
is
roughly
twenty
meters
deep.
M
Certainly
so
through
you,
mr.
chair,
there's
a
couple
things
that
we've
we've
considered
in
looking
at
this
project-
and
you
know,
one
of
the
things
is:
is
the
setbacks
from
both
sides
of
the
property,
so
the
property
with
Cooper
Street,
which
is
the
closest
neighbor
at
for
Cooper,
there's
the
shared
driveway
between
the
homes,
so
the
driveways,
just
the
driveway
space
alone,
is
over
three
meters,
in
addition
to
the
space
to
the
neighboring
home.
M
But
one
of
the
comments
that
staff
have
given
has
also
been
related
to
two
windows
and
an
overlook,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
were
we're
looking
at
in
comparing
right
now
as
we're
dealing
with
technical
comments,
is
we're
looking
at
the
locations
of
our
windows
and
in
proximity
to
windows
of
neighboring
houses.
Just
to
to
more
specifically
be
able
to
address
your
comment
right
now,
so
it
is
a
kid
totally
provide
you.
M
G
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
just
doesn't
I'm
kind
of
looking
at
the
statement
where
you
say
that
the
proposed
use
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area.
I'm,
trying
to
understand
that,
because
I
went
and
took
a
look
around
the
surrounding
area
today
and
it's
all,
you
know:
single-family
homes,
sexy
homes,
there's
no
bulky
residential
units
there
until
you
get
over
to
Victoria
Street
I
think
we
used
to
call
those
the
three-story
illegal,
walk
ups,
but
I
don't.
G
M
Well
through
you,
mr.
chair,
there's,
two
there's
two
things:
there's
one
is
the
form
there's
one
is
the
actual
design
of
the
house.
So,
regardless
of
how
many
units
are
inside,
it
will
look
like
a
large
single
detached
house
similar
to
the
homes
on
the
abutting
streets
like
like
Albert,
Street
and
Union,
as
examples
and
and
in
actual
fact,
councilor
hill
I
think
you'll
find
if
you
went
door-to-door
you'll
find
that
many
of
the
the
residents
in
that
area
are.
M
Multi-Unit
dwellings
and
it's
a
mix
like
that
is
a
mix,
and
you
know
I
do
see
this
as
being
a
compatible
form
with
that
mix
of
everything
from
single
to
multi
units.
Within
that
form,
that's
going
to
look
like
a
nice
brick
single
detached
dwelling.
It
doesn't
have
you
know
multiple
front
doors
on
it.
You
know
right
across
the
street
from
this
site.
You'll
see
I
just
got
to
remember
the
address
here.
M
Both
v
Cooper
is
a
project
that
that
was
built
many
years
ago,
but
it
actually
saw
zoning
to
change
that
five
units.
Now
the
work
hasn't
been
completed
to
convert
that,
but
that's
the
permission
is
to
take
that
from
being
a
very
large
couple
units
into
five
and
if
you
look
at
nine
Cooper,
which
is
also
across
the
street,
you'll
see
that
it
it's
that
that
traditional
Kingston
triplex
format,
which
has
a
unit
in
the
basement
and
a
main
floor
unit
in
a
second
floor
unit,
so
I
think
I.
M
Think
what
you'll
find-
and
you
know
you
can
start
looking
at
the
hydro
meters
or
one
of
the
indicators,
but
I
think
you
will
find
that
that
when
you
look
closely
there,
this
neighborhood
does
have
a
pretty
good
mix
and
it
does
still
have
a
good
number
of
owner-occupied
as
well.
So
it
is
a
good
mix
and
I
find
you
know.
G
M
Three
mr.
chair
I,
would
say
you're
wrong.
I
would
say
most
of
the
ones
on
Albert
are
two
and
a
half
to
three
five
Cooper
is
is
three
three
Cooper
is
a
two
and
a
half
to
three
that
most
of
them
in
this
area
would
be
two
and
a
half
to
three,
certainly
the
immediate
four
and
six
Cooper.
They
are
both
like
one
and
a
half
two
stories,
but
a
lot
of
the
immediate
area
would
be
two
and
a
half
and
three
stories.
Evans.
H
J
M
M
M
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
that
that's
correct,
you
know
a
lot
of
our
a
lot
of
our
direction
on
this
project
has
been
really
trying
to
come
up
with
a
creative
way
to
balance
the
main
structure
with
the
size
of
the
main
structure,
while
also
trying
to
obtain
four
units
out
of
the
property,
and
so
when
we
look
at
the
provincial
direction
which
which
has
actually
changed
in
recent
months,
it's
gone
from.
M
You
know
the
language
that
we
used
to
call
second
residential
units
to
additional
residential
units
and
you've
seen
the
strengthening
of
provincial
policy
around
not
only
in
unit
dwellings,
but
also
detached
ones,
so
building
that
provincial
direction
with
a
neighborhood
that
already
has
a
lot
of
just
detached
accessory
structures.
That
was
the
one
of
the
design
elements
in
in
why
we've
proposed
that
rear,
separate
building.
You
know,
I
I,
do
appreciate
it's
a
bit.
You
might
seem
odd.
M
J
J
Okay
and
my
last
question,
then
I'm
just
building
on
what
I'm,
councilor
Hills
question
was
with
compatibility
in
the
neighborhood.
What
other
like
are
their
homes
and
right
in
that
immediate
area,
with
a
necessary
structure
where
people
are
living
in
the
accessory
structure
like
we're,
proposing
for
two
Cooper
Street.
M
M
But
but
what's
interesting
is
when
you
look
at
the
like,
you
could
almost
say
a
flashback
to
10
or
12
years
ago,
project
at
171,
Union
Street,
where
in
that
case
they
they
went
through
a
process
to
to
build
like
what
we
would
have
called
a
flag
lot
back
in
the
day.
So,
what's
interesting
is
is
is
where,
in
the
past,
we
would
have
had
to
create
a
lot
to
have
this
separate
unit.
M
J
M
K
K
M
K
I'm
getting
there
okay,
so
there's
a
number
of
questions
could
be
on
there.
It
seems
to
me
that
one
of
the
reasons
you
only
have
one
story
structures
are
back
buildings
or
buildings
is
because
the
bylaw
says
that
on
page
twelve
fourteen
ninety
three
of
260,
the
residential
units
front
II
on
the
street,
says
no
building,
which
is
not
fronting
on
a
street
you'll
be
erected
or
altered
for
use
as
a
dwelling.
K
K
Okay,
but
it's
hardly
surprising
you
getting
objections
from
the
neighbors,
it
seems
to
me
it
was
their
plans
and
what
their
why
they
bought
in
the
area
in
part
is
because
is
protected
under
the
bar
laws.
That
now
exist
so
makes
it
rather
difficult.
So
to
agree
with
the
proposal
in
my
way
of
thinking,
the
I
am
I.
K
B
K
There,
it
is
okay,
no
I,
think
I
think
the
fact
that
there
is
an
accessory
buildings,
if
you
want
to
call
them
that
looks
like
a
house
to
me,
are
not
allowed,
as
perhaps
enough
in
this
case,
but
as
far
as
the
back
building,
and
given
that
the
the
front,
though
they
already
meets
what
the
province
is
talking
about,
currently
the
but
anyway
on
there,
it
shows
that
there's
a
sidewalk
going
back
to
the
back
the
rear
accessory
building.
How
long
is
that
sidewalk.
M
K
K
M
We
we
have,
you
know,
we've.
We
see
the
comments
from
the
neighbors
about
the
rear
unit
being
too
close
to
them,
so
that
there's
a
you
can
see
in
this
image
right
now
how
you
could
flip
that
you
could
just
literally
move
the
box
closer
to
the
parking
and
have
the
green
behind
it.
So
these
are
the
types
of
issues
that
we're
dealing
with
as
being
raised.
You
know,
partly
by
yourself
and
partly
by
the
community,
so
I
think
we
have
some
flexibility
to
address
concerns
like
what
you're
raising
councillor
Hutchinson
and.
K
K
M
Well,
three
mister
chair:
if
I,
if
I
may
just
one
more
time
like
that,
you've
got
to
remember
that
that
provision
about
not
having
buildings
in
the
rear,
there's
also
contrary
to
the
city's
bylaw
that
allows
secondary
units
in
a
detached
building
at
the
rear.
So
so
there's
like
a
contours,
a
balancing
of
issues
there
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
mimic.
B
B
H
N
Just
wanted
to
come
back
to
a
couple
of
points
that
were
raised
in
particular
councilor
Kylie's
point
regarding
the
potential
future
uses
of
the
basement
within
both
the
proposed
primary
dwelling,
as
well
as
the
proposed
accessory
dwelling.
I.
Just
want
to
point
out
that
use
of
both
basements
is
something
that
we
can
restrict
through
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
when
the
time
comes,
so
those
details
can
be
flushed
out
within
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
A
A
couple
of
things,
first
of
all,
I'm
relieved
that
this
will
indeed
have
a
full-fledged
site
plan
review
being
a
four-plex,
which
means
that
the
proponent
will
have
an
opportunity
to
address
some
of
these.
Some
of
these
issues-
I-
didn't
have
a
quick
question.
I
know
that
miss
Robideau
mentioned
that
there
were
only
two
letters.
Did
we
receive
some
more
on
the
addendum,
or
is
that
the
total
number
of
letters
sweet
mercy.
B
A
A
I
will
say
that
that's
a
fairly
vigilant,
neighborhood,
so
I
doubt
very
much
if
there
could
indeed
be
end
up
being
an
illegal
use
of,
though
of
that
basement,
so
I'm
hopeful
of
that,
indeed
won't
happen,
and
the
fact
that
there
were
two
bedrooms
previously
may
or
may
not
with
an
earlier
owner
or
owners
may
have
been
a
leak,
illegal
use
of
space.
But
if
it's
restrictive
within
the
within
the
zoning,
as
Miss
Roberto
says
it
will
be,
then
there
shouldn't
be
an
issue
with
that.
A
I'm
sure
I
have
a
quick
question
and
this
is
probably
to
tip
age.
I'm,
sorry,
miss
Agnew
or
mr.
Park.
This
request,
as
councillor
Hutchison
rightfully
has
pointed
out,
is
contrary
to
the
existing
zoning.
But
it's
it's
in
compliance
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
If
this
ended
up
going
to
the
tribunal
under
appeal,
would
the
provincial
policy
statement
carry
much
weight
if
it
doesn't?
If
the
old
zoning
is
different.
L
Thank
you
mr.
chair
I
can
I
can
start,
and
certainly
mr.
Park
wants
to
add
any
additional
comments
he
can.
He
can
be
unmuted
after
I
have
a
chance
to
provide
some
comments.
As
mr.
Kean
was
explaining,
we
are
dealing
with
an
older,
bylaw
and
older
zoning.
That
applies
to
this
particular
lot
and
the
the
previous
thinking
related
to
having
occupancy
of
accessory
dwellings
and
dwellings
in
rear
yard
or
garages
that
it
was
something
that,
from
a
planning
perspective,
there
used
to
be
restrictions
on,
and
certainly
that's
reflective
in
the
old
zoning.
L
So
we
did
bring
a
series
of
amendments
forward
as
part
of
our
second
units.
We
used
to
call
them
secondary
Suites.
We
now
refer
to
them
as
secondary
units
which
look
at
creating
the
ability
for
second
units
within
an
accessory
structure
within
the
rear
yard.
Now
again,
just
to
clarify
where
this
is
different
and
mr.
Kean
did
make
this.
This
distinction
is.
This
is
in
the
second
unit
associated
with
a
single,
a
single
unit
dwelling.
L
This
is
a
triplex
with
an
additional
accessory
unit
in
a
detached
dwelling
in
the
rear
yard-
that's
being
proposed
here
and
with
respect
to
our
zoning
that
we
brought
in
to
allow
accessory
dwellings
within
units
in
the
rear
yard.
Those
were
subject
to
zoning
conditions
as
well
that
looked
at
the
location
of
those
structures
and
relationship
to
the
property
line
to
make
sure
that
things
like
overlook
privacy.
Those
types
of
potential
nuisance
issues
are
mitigated
through
having
the
accessory
structures
located
in
the
right
place
relative
to
law
into
the
neighboring
property
line.
L
So
that's
something
that
will
get
reviewed
as
part
of
the
process.
Certainly
9,
as
mr.
Kean
is
indicated,
there's
already
a
number
of
issues
that
have
been
brought
up.
You
know,
through
communication
with
staff
and
with
some
of
the
correspondence
that
we've
seen.
Also
from
other
community
members
expressing
some
concern
that
will
certainly
be
discussed
in
detail
and
vetted
through
the
technical
review
process.
L
O
Thank
you
through
you,
mr.
chair,
just
to
add
to
what
miss
Agnew
mentioned
about
second
residential
units.
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
the
province
recently
amended
the
Planning
Act
and
also
the
new
provincial
policy
statement,
which
will
come
into
effect
in
in
May
of
this
year.
They
have
now
amended
the
sections
related
to
second
residential
units,
and
they
are
now
calling
them
additional
residential
units.
So
the
primary
intention
is
that
now
each
lot
could
have
a
total
of
three
units,
so
two
units
in
the
main
building
and
one
unit
in
the
access
rebuilding.
H
B
K
M
Three
mr.
chair
I
can
respond
to
that
this.
The
way
at
this
point
the
there
is
not
a
transition
provision,
though,
as
of
May
1st,
this
project
will
have
a
decision
made
under
the
2020
provincial
policy
statement.
So
the
way
the
province
used
to
do
it
in
the
past
was
they
would
say
if
you
made
an
application
under
the
old
one.
M
That's
how
you
applied
and
I
think
they
realize
it
just
caused
so
much
confusion,
trying
to
sort
out
transitional
provisions,
so
they've
now
moved
forward
with
a
process
where,
as
I've
made
first,
the
decision
would
have
to
be
made
based
on
the
2020
plan.
Given
where
we
are
in
the
process,
you
will
be
making
a
decision
under
that
policy
rather
than
the
2014
one.
K
Okay,
thank
you
and
I.
Just
have
one
final
comment,
mr.
chair,
and
that
is,
it
has
to
do
with
the
aggregate
amenity
area,
and
this
keeps
coming
up
where
we
have
a
minimum
of
fifty
four
point:
zero
square
metres,
but
this
is
yet
another
application
that
doesn't
make
it
it's
considerably
short,
actually
32
feet
of
42
square
meters.
K
M
Through
through
you,
mr.
chair,
just
one
more
quick
point
on
that,
I
think
I
think
you'll
find
if
we
move
the
rear,
the
rear
dwelling
to
abut
the
parking
space.
The
only
reason
that
that
amenity
space
is
divided
right
now
is
because
of
the
walkway
to
the
accessory
house.
So
if
the
house
is
moved
up
and
and
the
yard
is
truly
at
the
very
back,
it
would
exceed
that
54
square
metre
provision
because
it
would
be
a
single
block
as
opposed
to
two
blocks.
K
H
L
A
L
Just
for
the
the
committee's
benefit
and
in
response
to
councillor
Hutchison's
comment
related
to
the
the
54
meter
area,
so
really
from
a
from
a
staff
perspective
and
from
an
overall
policy
development
perspective.
When
we
brought
through
the
amendments
to
the
amenity
space,
zoning
provisions,
I
think
that
was
in
parent
member
was
in
2015
or
2016.
We
added
a
condition.
Then
there
are
provisions
in
there.
I
should
say
not
conditions
with
respect
to
the
area
of
community.
L
So
it's
part
of
those
amendments
we
put
in
those
additional
considerations
or
provisions
related
to
the
size
in
the
shape
of
the
amenity
space.
For
the
reason
of
trying
to
ensure
that
whatever
the
spaces
that
was
provided
to
meet
the
zoning
provision
would
actually
be
functional
for
the
users
of
the
property.
A
C
P
Yes,
all
right,
so
my
name
is
Mark
Tao
I'm,
a
planner
with
ibi
group
representing
Katherine
blacker,
who
is
the
owner
of
171
and
173
Union
Street,
which
is
abiding
to
the
south
of
the
subject,
property
on
slide.
3
of
the
presentation,
if
you
were
to
look
at
that,
the
rear
yard
of
171
Union
is
the
green
space
immediately
south
of
of
to
cooper
of
the
subject
property
some
is
black
or
their
daughters.
They
had
submitted
a
letter
to
the
committee,
which
is
in
the
addendum
package.
From
today.
P
We
represent
a
MS
blocker
and
her
husband's
new
applications
to
sever
and
rezone
their
property
at
171
Union
a
number
of
years
ago,
and
the
result
was
creating
a
vacant
lot
at
171
Union
for
a
single
detached
dwelling
and
retain
law
at
173.
Union
contained
a
pre-existing
three
unit
welling
the
vacant
lot
at
171
is
to
be
the
location
of
MS,
Blacker's,
personal
home
and
we're
currently
going
through
site
plan
approval
for
that
detached
single
detached
dwelling,
hopefully
to
move
to
construction
later
this
year.
P
So,
although
the
units
that
are
being
proposed
are
same
as
on
his
Blacker's
lands,
the
the
size
of
the
lot,
the
setbacks
are
substantially
different.
So
she
doesn't
necessarily
have
a
concern
about
the
number
of
units
per
se,
though
the
density
intensity
could
be
cause
for
concern
in
terms
of
activity
levels
and
impact
on
on
her
property.
P
Her
primary
concern
is
the
proximity
of
the
new
detached
dwelling
in
the
rear
yards
at
only
one
point
three
metres,
so
she
was
happy
to
hear
tonight
that
the
applicants
looking
to
move
the
detached
fourth
unit
away
from
the
property
line,
so
that
would
be
an
improvement
they
would
otherwise
have
some
serious
concerns
for
costclub
concerns
our
client
as
that's
right.
Next
to
their
primary
outdoor
space
to
be
the
rear
yard
of
the
of
the
proposed
detached
dwelling
at
171,
Union
and
so
related
to
this.
The
this
we
have
some
concerns.
We
have
a
zone.
P
It
seems
that
this
this
second
dwelling
is
being
subject
to
the
accessory
structure,
provisions
for
Heights
and
setbacks.
So
when
they're
getting
variances
or
reductions,
it's
from
the
accessory
building
and
not
to
the
primary
building
standards
in
terms
of
minimum
setbacks
to
the
rear
yard,
for
example.
So
we
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
we
don't
think
that's
an
appropriate
gauge
of
how
the
fourth
units
the
separate
buildings
should
be
evaluated.
P
An
accessory
building
is
defined
in
the
bylaw
means,
as
a
reading
of
the
definition
means
a
subordinate,
detached
non
residential
building,
designed
or
provided
or
used
for
the
more
complete
or
convenient
use
of
the
main
building.
And
then
the
definition
of
dwelling
means
a
building.
Our
portion
thereof
designed
exclusively
for
residential
akhom
t.
So
the
seemingly
the
fourth
unit
in
a
separate
building
should
be
a
dwelling
and
subject
to
the
dwelling
setback
provisions
and
not
the
accessory
building
setback
provisions.
P
Buildings
are
only
4.6
meters
tall
as
a
second
unit,
not
a
fourth
unit.
The
proposed
second
building
here
is
to
contain
a
fourth
unit.
It's
one
and
a
half
stories
tall,
six
point:
nine
meters,
not
four
point
six
and
so
I
think
there's
a
there's,
a
distinction
there.
That
needs
to
be
recognized
and
they
can
be
more
appropriate
that
if,
if
a
detached
fourth
unit
is
allowed
on
the
property,
it
should
be
viewed
through
the
lens
of
a
primary
building
and
the
setbacks,
etc.
P
P
A
M
Sorry,
I
just
didn't
want
to
lose
my
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
public,
especially
since,
since
it
is
my
my
colleague
mr.
Chow
as
a
fellow
planner,
so
so,
first
and
foremost,
I
want
to
acknowledge
mr.
Taos
comments
as
being
very
reasonable
and
and
certainly
I
want
to
assure
him
and
and
his
client
my
clients
neighbor,
that
it's
not
our
intention.
You
harm
harm
their
proposal
in
any
way,
so
we
are
absolutely
already
in
the
process
of
considering
changes
to
our
project.
The
comments
provided
by
mr.
M
Tao
are
all
comments
that
we
are
already
considering,
including
testing
the
building
as
a
primary
dwelling,
as
opposed
to
an
accessory
structure,
and
so
we
have
a
few
design
options
that
we're
considering
and
I
just
just
wanted
to
to
assure
him
that
that
I
agree
with
the
points
he's
raised,
and
that
is
how
we
are
examining
moving
forward.
So
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
respond,
thank.
B
B
B
A
Business
items
tonight
I
believe
that
there
are
free,
so
the
first
order
of
business
is
a
motion,
I
call
meeting
to
order
and
an
approval
of
the
agenda.
If
two
people
can
wave
at
us
that
would
be
great
here.
We
go
Kemp's
economy,
counselor
Hill,
so
all
those
in
favor
very
confirmation
of
minutes
from
our
March
12th
meeting
again
a
mover
and
a
shaker
counselor
of
sanik
counselor
Hutchison.
All
those
in
favor
carried
a
disclosure
of
pecuniary
interest,
seeing
none.
We
have
no
delegations,
we
have
no
briefings.
A
I'll,
just
read
a
very
quick
statement.
The
portion
of
the
meeting
is
this:
portion
of
the
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
The
city
has
initiated
a
new
process
in
which
members
of
will
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
up
to
five
minutes
on
comprehensive
reports
presented
before
the
planning
committee.
A
So
our
first
order
of
business
is
for
311
Conacher
Drive,
it's
a
final
plan
of
condominium
and
we
have
the
recommendation
before
us.
Are
there
any
questions
from
the
committee
of
staff
seeing
none
if
anybody
would
like
to
move
or
second,
this
Thank
You
councillor,
Sanok
Thank,
You,
councillor
Hill?
Seeing
no
further
questions,
I'll
call
the
question
all
those
in
favor
carried
unanimously.
Thank
you.
Our
next
order
of
business
is
305
and
323
Rideau
Street.
B
A
K
K
K
H
Q
Somebody
name
is
James
bar
for
everyone.
Listening
on
the
phone
today,
I'm
a
planner
with
the
City
of
Kingston
and
I
have
been
working
on
the
application
for
the
Bailey
broom
Factory,
so
it's
305
and
323
Rideau
Street
and
put
forward
the
recommendation
tonight
through
mr.
chair
counselor
Hutchison's
question.
The
petition
that
came
in
was
received
by
the
city
last
night
in
the
Dropbox
at
John
counter
Boulevard,
so
it
was
scanned
and
sent
to
myself
and
clerks
just
today
as
well.
Q
It's
come
from
the
neighbor
who
is
located
directly
adjacent
to
the
site
to
the
north
at
3:35
Rideau
street.
So
they
are
the
person
who
created
the
petition
and
has
submitted
it
on
behalf
of
the
persons
who
have
signed
it
and
so
I
think.
The
second
part
of
your
question
was
what
is
the
relationship
to
the
of
the
development
to
that
property
owner?
Is
that
correct
counselor?
Q
It
is
yes,
so
the
uses
that
are
proposed
adjacent
to
that
property
line
are,
is
a
semi
detached
dwelling,
so
it'll
be
two
units
in
a
semi-detached
arrangement
located
along
that
property
line.
Its
proposed
to
be
set
back
about
two
point:
three
meters
from
that
interior
side
lot
line,
the
semi
detached
dwelling
itself
is
proposed
to
be
three
storeys
in
height
and
I.
Believe,
if
you're
looking
at
your
package,
the
report
package,
if
we
skip
to
page.
B
K
Q
Okay,
it
will
be
the
I
believe
it's
the
first
page
of
exhibit
II.
Let
me
just
double
check
yeah,
so
it's
the
first
page
of
exhibit
II.
What
you're
looking
at
is
a
3d
rendering
of
the
proposal
for
both
the
residential
development
and
the
Bailey
Broome
factory
itself,
and
so
the
the
the
property
in
question
so
335
Rideau
Street,
is
located
at
the
far
side
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
drawing.
Q
Q
Looking
at
the
density
for
the
area,
so
the
seven
proposed
units
there
will
represent
a
density
of
55
units
per
net
hectare,
which
is
in
keeping
with
the
policies
for
this
area
for
the
inner
harbor
to
develop
at
around
between
50
and
50
7.5
billion
units
per
hectare.
So
they
do
fall
within
an
acceptable
range
in
accordance
with
the
city's
policies
and
transportation
services.
Engineering
and
Public
Works
have
reviewed.
Q
The
application
did
not
have
any
concerns
with
regards
to
traffic
on
Rio
street
or
the
entrances
that
are
proposed
out
on
Torito
Street
and
the
Bailey
green
factory
itself
is
a
designated
heritage.
Property
heritage
staff
have
reviewed
the
Official
Plan
Amendment
and
zoning
bylaw,
and
them
an
application
for
this
site
and
do
not
have
any
concerns.
I
will
note
that
the
Bailey
broom
Factory
right
now
it
does
have
heritage
approval
for
the
restoration
works
which
are
currently
underway
on
site.
K
Q
Betsy,
that's
a
that's.
Okay.
I
can
provide
additional
clarification,
so
transportation
services,
engineering
and
Public
Works
have
reviewed
this
application
and
I
do
not
have
any
concerns
with
the
proposal
for
the
traffic
on
Rideau
street,
as
well
as
the
entrances
that
are
now
proposed.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
history,
for
both
the
commercial
property,
which
is
the
Bailey
room
Factory
and
for
the
residential
units
themselves.
If
we
are
looking
at
the
site
plan
that
is
Exhibit
E
in
the
report
package
there
there
are
independent
driveways
proposed
for
each
of
the
properties.
H
K
You
thank
you
ty
comment.
Yes,
you
may
okay.
Thank
you.
Okay,
I'd,
perhaps
add
that
that
was
very
thorough.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Barr,
the
original
question
I
asked
was
perhaps
an
unfair
one
because
you
might
not
know.
The
answer
should
be
pointed
out
that
that
when
the
public,
not
my
heritage,
but
the
public
went
out
of
its
way
to
save
the
daily
boom
Factory
when
I
was
going
to
get
knocked
down.
K
Circumstance
to
do
this
now,
I
understand
by
people,
it's
change
and
people
would
not,
you
know,
might
have
their
concerns,
as
in
the
petition,
like
I
said
before,
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
speak
to
them
just
receiving
the
petition
this
evening,
but
we
heard
from
the
planner
that
the
density
is
I'm
longing
for
the
area,
we're
talking
about
adding
you
know,
maybe
10
cars
or
something
if
that
each
most
cars
will
have
their
own
garages
and
we're
heritage
and
values
command.
That's
very
important
is
acknowledged
by
the
petition.
K
Q
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair
I,
can
provide
additional
information
there,
as
well
just
for
the
benefit
of
those
in
attendance
tonight.
I
have
spoken
to
mr.
Braga,
who
has
submitted
the
petition,
and
he
I
do
believe
he's
in
attendance
tonight
on
the
meeting
listening,
so
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
that
I've
had
very
friendly
relations
with
him.
He's
been
an
absolutely
wanted
to
work
with
as
well.
Thinking
about
this
application,
holistically
contra
Hutchison
is
correct.
Q
This
is
a
city
owned
land
sale
that
was
facilitated
through
our
real
estate
department
and
raw
design
and
raw
factory
were
the
only
people
to
apply
to
it.
Part
of
the
conditions
of
the
redevelopment
of
this
site
is
that
the
Bailey
broom
Factory
must
first
be
rehabilitated
and
readapted
prior
to
any
works
happening
on
the
northern
parcel,
so
that
is
the
residential
land.
Q
So,
first
the
heritage
attribute
needs
to
be
brought
back
to
life
and
rehabilitated
and
reused
prior
to
them
actually
being
able
to
move
forward
and
construct
any
of
the
residential
units
to
the
north.
This
site
is
both
a
heritage
designated
and
be
a
brownfield
site.
So,
in
addition
to
the
cost
to
rehabilitate
the
heritage
structure,
they
are
also
dealing
with
contaminants
in
the
ground
and
rehabilitating
the
site
in
order
to
be
able
to
allow
the
commercial
use
to
happen
on
the
South,
as
well
as
the
residential
uses,
to
happen
to
the
north.
Q
So
we
are
really
at
one
of
the
first
stages
for
the
rehabilitation
of
this
site,
which
is
the
parameters
were
establishing
through
the
Official
Plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
In
order
to
have
commercial
uses
on
the
south
and
residential
uses
on
the
north,
the
Bailey
broom
factory
to
the
south
well
has
received
at
erage
approval
in
order
to
actually
secure
the
remaining
heritage
attributes
on
the
site.
So
they
are
currently
working
on
the
shell
of
that
building.
They
are
going
through
site
plan
control
and
are
starting
to
near
the
end
of
that
process.
Q
Afterwards,
once
it
is
developed,
they
can
apply
for
the
site
plan
control.
Sorry
they
can
probably
in
advance,
but
they
will
be
able
to
apply
for
site
plan
control
in
part
lock
control
in
order
to
be
able
to
program
the
residential
uses
to
the
north,
as
well
as
divide
up
the
Lots
addition
to
that,
the
residential
parcels
of
the
north
will
also
have
to
go
through
a
heritage
approval.
So
there
are
still
a
number
of
steps
happening
here
to
make
this
redevelopment
happen,
but
they
are
ongoing
at
this
time.
J
You,
mr.
chair,
through
you,
I,
just
have
two
questions
for
mr.
Barr.
So
when
we
look
at
the
Billy
bream
factory,
we
have
on
those
parking
spots
at
the
back
I'm
looking
at
exhibit
II,
and
so
it
looks
like
the
access
to
those
parking
spots
are
from
Rideau
Street.
Do
they
drive
underneath
like
a
structured
garage
roof
or
something
to
get
there?
Is
that
what
I'm,
looking
at
I'm
just
trying
to
envision?
How
you
get
to
those
parking
spots?
And
it
looks
like
you-
go
underneath
that
that
structure
with
that
cross,
hatch,
gray,
roof
well.
Q
That's
a
very
good
question
to
raise,
but
what
you're,
seeing
there
on
that
plan
is
actually
of
the
shape
of
an
extension
of
the
building
that
was
put
on
back
in
the
day
when
it
was
still
operating
in
an
industrial
purpose.
Oh
all
that
is
now
is
actually
going
to
be
just
a
commemoration
of
that
attribute,
which
is
no
longer
there,
so
that
is
just
a
shape
on
the
ground.
That's
going
to
be
filled
in
with
decorative
brick
to
emulates
how
big
the
factory
used
to
be
in
the
past.
Q
So
it's
a
very
cool
attribute
and
feature
I,
don't
know
if
one
of
the
clerk's
can
actually
pull
up
the
PowerPoint
presentation
I
put
together,
but
if
we
go
to
slide
five
of
that,
PowerPoint
you'll
be
able
to
see
what
the
property
looks
like
from
an
aerial
perspective
and
how
that
parking
feature
is
accessed.
Okay,.
J
Q
Very
good
have
three
Minister
Cho,
it's
a
very
good
question,
so
each
of
these
is
being
designed
with
a
second
unit
in
mind,
should
a
purchase
or
seek
to
implement
one
of
those
on
site,
so
whether
they
are
an
interior
townhouse
unit
or
an
exterior
townhouse
unit.
The
the
designs
already
been
thought
through
in
order
to
accommodate
all
of
the
requirements
of
our
second
unit
bylaw
for
independent
access
or
shared
vestibule
access,
as
well
as
the
actual
physical
unit
in
the
basement.
Q
I
will
note
that
each
of
the
second
units
is,
and
this
is
built
into
the
zoning
bottle.
Each
of
the
second
units
is
required
to
have
one
bicycle
parking
space
on
site,
which
will
be
sheltered
from
weather
protection,
either
on
the
front,
porch
or
adjacent
to
the
building
near
the
entrance
to
the
second
unit,
and
that
will
be
secured
as
well
through
cycling,
control,
okay,.
J
Q
Correct
the
second
units
are
currently
proposed
to
be
basement
units
the
size
and
layout
of
the
site.
Doesn't
let
itself
to
secondary
units
in
the
rear
yards
as
the
semi-detached
hverir,
it
setback
of
six
meters,
and
then
they
increase
from
there,
and
it
would
be
impossible
to
satisfy
the
requirements.
The
fire
department
for
1.2
meter
pounds
waited
around
this
building
to
access
those
interior
units.
If
there
was
a
unit
in
the
rear,
okay,.
J
Thanks
for
pointing
me
to
a
slide
four
of
our
PowerPoint
depth
because
now
I
know
I,
have
the
visual
I
see
how
you
access
on
the
back
parking
spots?
Therefore,
the
belly,
broom
and
I
also
just
want
to
echo
what
councillor
Hutchison
said.
You
know
like
many
years
ago
on
is
when
we
first
voted
on
saving
the
broom
belly,
broom
Factory
and
it's
great
to
see
what
it
looks
like
right
now
being
proposed.
J
That's
awesome:
I
I
worked
for
eight
years
a
long
time
ago
at
the
woman
mouth,
so
I
know
this
corner
really
well,
and
this
is
really
exciting.
I
did
see
the
petition
in
our
edits
and
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
the
one
person
to
the
north
is
upset
what
this
might
look
like,
but
hopefully,
when
it's
all
built
on,
you
know
it
will
look
really
good
and
those
concerns
won't
be
concerns
anymore,
because
I
think
this
is
really
good
for
the
area.
Thank
you.
I
You
mr.
chair,
through
you,
I,
wanted
to
go
back
to
questions
around
parking
and
traffic.
Specifically
if
this
proposal
has
been
considered
in
relation
to
redevelopment
of
the
former
tannery
site
and
the
traffic
that
will
come
with
that
and
if
there's
an
interplay
between
the
two
or
is
it
just
looking
at
the
current
traffic
situation
and
what
this
development
could
possibly
add
to
you
to
the
roadways
there.
Q
Certainly
through
you,
mr.
chair
this
site,
because
the
applications
were
submitted
in
2017-2018
have
been
continuing
through
to
this
point.
It
contemplates
the
existing
situation
for
the
area,
noting
the
traffic
levels
through
the
area,
as
well
as
the
availability
of
local
and
express
bus
service
through
the
area,
so
the
tannery
site
and
the
traffic
flows
that
are
contemplated
with
that
application
have
not
played
into
this
one
and.
Q
Believe
through
you,
mr.
chair,
so
with
this
application,
we're
looking
at
it
as
it's
being
improved
now,
but
if
we
look
at
and
I
can't
speak
for
the
the
tannery
itself,
but
I'm
thinking
in
applications
in
general,
when
an
application
is
submitted,
it
has
to
take
into
account
if
the
development
that
exists
in
the
area,
so
the
tannery
site
will
have
to
accommodate
the
traffic
flows
which
will
exist
at
the
time
it's
submitted
when
that
application
comes
in.
I
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
make
one
more
comment
so
I'm
not
trying
to
belabor
it
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
how
these
get
layered
on
one
another.
So
if
this
current
development
isn't
there,
when
the
tannery
comes
in
or
vice-versa,
it's
possible
that
to
wrap
or
substantial
developments
could
go
forward
without
the
traffic
assessment,
considering
either.
Q
Okay,
so
three
of
mr.
chair,
there
are
a
couple
things
happening
in
this
area
right
now,
so
we
do
have
the
secondary
plan
for
the
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan
and
the
traffic
modeling
associated
with
that
which
is
ongoing
at
this
time,
which
is
looking
at
this
as
a
total
area
and
a
total
realized
area
and
what
the
current
densities
are
versus
the
future
densities,
and
so
that
will,
at
a
higher
level,
take
into
account
and
study
traffic
flows
for
the
the
neighborhood
itself.
Q
When
an
application
comes
in,
it
is
reviewed
against
what
is
in
existing
at
the
time
and
if
there
was
two
major
developments
coming
in
either
simultaneously
or
near
each
other,
I
believe
transportation,
services
and
I
can't
speak
for
them
on.
This
would
take
that
into
consideration,
but
part
of
transportations
review
on
this
noted
the
potentially
lower
traffic
flows,
just
given
the
minor
density
on
the
site
of
seven
residential
units
and
a
commercial
use
with
nine
parking
spaces.
So
they
did
note.
Q
A
B
B
E
I'm
I'm
concerned
with,
if
there's
still
going
to
be,
that
30-foot
30%
open
space,
minimum
allotment,
I'm,
not
initial
locked
and
if
there
isn't
a
sewer
and
water
concerns.
Consider
considering
there's
going
to
be
seven
new
units
on
the
property
next
door
and
those
were
my
only
two
that
I
can
think
of
right
at
the
moment
on
this
short
notice.
B
R
R
A
Q
Gladly
so
three
mr.
chair
just
to
understand
the
procedural
question.
The
original
the
original
public
meeting
that
this
is
supposed
to
be
at
was
in
March
on
March
26,
but
due
to
the
ever-changing
neighbor
of
Cova
19
and
the
meeting
that
was
cancelled,
it
was
moved
to
today,
April
April
literally
today,
April
16th,
so
I
don't
believe
when
the
report
was
moved
from
one
agenda
to
the
other
that
that
detail
in
the
report
was
updated.
So
my
apologies
on
that.
Q
Q
Q
Regarding
the
30%
landscaped
open
space,
minimum
the
landscape
open
space
for
the
lots
actually
exceed
30%
for
every
single
lot
that
is
proposed,
so
the
there
well
above
the
30%
landscape,
open
space
requirement
and
regarding
the
capacity
for
sewer
water
and
storm
utilities.
Kingston
engineering
and
Public
Works
have
reviewed
the
servicing
brief
and
there
aren't
any
servicing
capacity
concerns
with
this
development.
Proceeding.
Q
The
stormwater
management
is
actually
going
to
be
handled
by
a
swale
along
the
rear
lot
lines
of
the
sites.
That's
going
to
drain
south
towards
the
Bayley
broom
Factory,
where
there's
going
to
be
a
small
retention
pond
at
the
rear
of
the
parking
lot,
and
then
that
will
drain
into
our
municipal
system.
A
A
A
B
B
H
S
S
S
Purpose
of
the
effect
of
the
application,
the
purpose
of
the
effective
application
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
a
development
zone
to
a
rural
residential
zone.
This
is
to
facilitate
to
consent,
applications
that
will
create
one
retained
and
two
severed
parcels
of
land
and
allow
for
a
single
detached
dwelling
house
to
be
built
on
each
lot
next
slide.
S
So
the
site,
location,
200,
Civic
Avenue,
is
located
within
the
Ravens.
Viewed
neighborhood,
the
Canadian
Forces
Base
Kingston
is
located
to
the
north
of
the
property
and
Ravens
view.
Wastewater
treatment
facility
is
located
to
the
west
of
the
property,
so
that's
just
a
picture
of
the
existing
site
next,
so
the
proposal
applicant
is
proposing
to
amend
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
3274
to
facilitate
a
read
of
207
Avenue
with
three
Lots
that
would
permit
one
single
detached
dwelling
have
us
on
each
line.
The
proposed
rezoning
application
will
be
associated
with
to
consent
applications.
S
So
if
you
look
at
the
current
picture
there,
it
has
a
top
one
would
be
proposed,
severed
lot,
a
which
has
an
area
of
a
one
point,
six
five
hectares
with
a
hundred
and
two
point.
Sixteen
meters
a
lot
frontage
on
the
south
side
of
highway
two
and
a
hundred
and
fifty
nine
point.
Seven
nine
meters
on
the
west
side
of
Senate
Avenue,
so
the
next
one
down
would
be
proposed,
submit
or
proposed
severed
lot.
S
B
will
have
an
area,
one
point:
six,
six,
three
hectares
and
ninety
two
point:
fifty
four
meters
of
lawn
furniture
on
the
west
side
of
submit
the
proposed
retained
Lada,
which
is
at
the
bottom
lot,
will
have
it
area.
One
point:
six
two
hectares
with
seventy
five
point:
zero
eight
metres
of
lot
frontage
on
seventh
Avenue
next
slide,
so
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
the
application
is
seeking
relief
from
the
use
of
section
of
the
development
zone.
Currently,
the
development
zone
only
allows
for
an
existing
detached
family
as
single-family
Devine.
So
the
lot
is
vacant.
S
So
there's
no
existing
single-family
dwelling
on
the
property.
The
rural
residential
zone
will
provide
this
relief
with
a
permitted
detached
single-family.
Drawing
use
on
the
property
also
important
to
note
that
the
rural
residential
zone,
the
applicant,
is
proposing
three
very
large
Lots
will
it
which
will
exceed
all
the
zoning
provisions
in
there.
S
Next,
that's
just
a
picture
of
the
d
zone,
so
I
guess
next
slide:
okay,
excellent
plan
conformity
and
an
example
of
this
application
demonstrating
conform
me.
What
the
official
thing
could
be
seen
in
section
two
point:
seven:
establishing
land-use
compatibility
measures.
These
measures
relate
to
potential
adverse
effects
on
neighboring
properties,
including,
but
not
limited,
shadow
shadowing
lost
the
privacy
light
and
noise
pollution.
S
As
mentioned
in
the
zoning
bylaw
section,
the
proposal
will
exceed
minimums
of
lot
area,
a
lot
frontage
and
yard
setbacks
of
the
zone,
which
will
mitigate
any
adverse
effects
on
other
properties
in
the
area
and
three
Lots
that
they
want
to
create.
Next
next
slide,
please
next!
Next,
okay,
so
during
the
public
meeting,
two
questions
or
concerns
were
brought
up
by
the
committee,
the
first
one
was:
will
the
trees
on
the
property
we
require
a
tree
permit
if
the
owner
wants
to
remove
any.
S
This
was
where
the
rezoning
application
was
reviewed
by
the
city's
legal
services
department,
and
it
was
determined
that
section
6
of
the
tree
tree
by
bylaw
would
require
the
owner
of
the
property
to
apply
for
a
tree
permit
if
they
want
to
remove
any
trees
on
the
property
that
fall
under
the
specifications
set
out
in
the
tree
by
law.
So
the
answer
would
be
yes.
The
second
concern.
S
If
the
applicant,
or
so
when
the
application
was
brought
forward
during
the
public
meeting,
the
Planning
Committee
asked.
Why
wasn't
there
a
plot
plan
that
shows
the
footprint
or
setbacks
of
the
proposed
detached
single-family
dwelling
on
the
east
lot?
The
response
is
at
this
point
of
the
application
is
not
required
to
provide
any
plot
plan
of
the
footprints
of
so
basically
showing
all
three
single-family
drawings.
S
S
Next,
so
staff
recommended
approval
for
this
application.
The
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
complies
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
Official
Plan
in
constitutes
good
land-use
planning.
The
proposed
development
will
contribute
to
the
city's
housing
supply.
Adequate
amenity,
space,
parking
and
landscape
area
will
be
provided.
The
proposed
development
and
site
layout
are
compatible
with
the
surrounding
land
uses,
so
the
next
step
after
approval
would
be
consent,
application
which
the
applicant
has
applied
for
two
of
them.
At
this
time,
I'm
willing
to
answer
any
questions
for
this
file.
A
J
You,
mr.
chair,
just
one
question
for
clarification
about
the
tree
bylaw
having
to
apply
word
owner.
Does
that
mean,
like
you
know
how
this
proposed
Oh
is
gonna,
be
I,
think
it
was
on
three
different
properties,
so
is
it
owner,
as
in
who
buys
lot
B
versus
the
owner
of
who's,
bringing
forth
the
application
right
now,
which
owner
is
it?
Thank
you.
S
S
S
J
S
J
Think
that's
what
would
be
necessary
right
now.
If
you
buy
a
house
like
a
pre-existing
house
and
whatever
subdivision
you
can
take
down
whatever
trees
you
want
without
having
to
go
through
the
tree
bylaws,
since
we
don't
have
a
tree
bylaw
for
private
property
right
now,
so
in
this
case,
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
if
we
could
put
that
in
the
agreement,
like
you
said
so,.
B
A
B
K
K
S
K
A
B
A
A
Thank
you.
So
we
have
no
motions
any
mock
notices
of
motion,
seeing
none
other
business,
seeing
none
correspondence
we've
received
in
the
added
any
comments,
seeing
none,
eight
and
time
of
the
next
meeting,
May
7th
at
6:30
p.m.
and
I
just
want
to
thank
staff,
because
this
was
our
our
first
pilot
run
at
zoom
meeting
and
I
think
it
went
off
very
well.
Thank
you
to
staff
for
facilitating
this.