►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from August 29, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/Bq74yZ
A
All
names
addresses
opinions
and
comments
may
be
collected
and
may
form
part
of
the
minutes
which
will
be
available
to
the
public
questions
regarding
this
collection
should
be
forwarded
to
the
Director
of
Planning
building
and
licensing
services.
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification
or
further
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
opened
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes.
There
is
also
a
sign-in
sheet
for
interested
members
of
the
public
at
the
back
of
the
room.
No
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications.
Unless
otherwise
noted
the
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion.
A
Exemptions
to
the
exemption
to
this
rule
is
outlined
in
bylaw
number
2000
675
to
delegate
various
planning
approvals
to
staff
and
to
adopt
certain
procedures
for
the
processing
of
planning
applications
subject
to
delegated
authority.
Council
has
authorized
staff
to
use
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
A
Information
gathered
at
public
meetings
is
then
referred
back
to
planning,
building
and
licensing
services
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
Planning
Committee.
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
applications.
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee.
The
recommendation
is
typically
to
approve
with
conditions
or
to
deny.
A
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,
and
anyone
with
an
interest
in
the
matter
may
file
an
appeal.
Interested
persons
are
advised
that
if
a
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
before
the
bylaw
is
passed,
the
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal.
A
The
decision
of
counsel
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board,
unless,
in
the
opinion
of
the
board,
there
are
reasonable
grounds
to
do
so
and
with
that
I
will
open
our
first
public
meeting,
and
this
is
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
102,
104
Park
Street,
and
we
will
receive
a
presentation
about
this
application.
First.
B
Good
evening
committee
members
and
members
of
the
public,
my
name
is
Leslie
mache
and
I'm,
with
IDI
group
and
myself
and
Mark
Towe
are
here
to
present
a
proposal
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
This
is
to
consistent
the
construction
of
a
of
two
unit
dwellings,
one
at
102,
Park
Street
and
one
at
104,
Park
Street.
So
this
involves
the
demolition
of
the
existing
single
detached
dwellings
that
are
on
the
properties.
Currently,
the
site
is
located
on
Park
Street
between
MacDonell
and
region
streets,
and
this
is
south
of
Princess
Street,
which
is
an
arterial
road.
B
So
this
shows
the
location.
That's
another
image
showing
the
location
of
the
two
properties.
A
102
Park
Street
is
493
square
meters
in
area
and
has
15.6
6
meters
of
road
frontage.
104
Park
is
575
square
meters
in
area
and
has
seventeen
point
seven
nine
meters
of
road
frontage,
so
the
surrounding
uses
contain
a
real
mix
of
residential
types
and
densities.
Park
Street
has
single
detached
homes,
medium
density,
multi-unit
dwellings,
as
well
as
high-density
apartment
buildings,
so
medium
density
residential
can
be
found
in
both
directions
on
Sparkfun,
Park,
Street,
eastward
and
westward
of
the
subject.
B
B
So
this
is
an
image
from
the
site
plan,
and
this
shows
how
the
setbacks
are
lessened
from
what
they
are
currently
so
the
units
are
brought
forward
to
allow
room
in
the
rear
yards
for
parking.
There's
the
easement
for
the
drive
aisle
in
between
the
two
units-
and
this
is
the
building
elevation.
So
seven
meters
is
proposed
for
the
building
height
just
up
to
the
gable,
and
that's
here
and
the
overall
will
be
10.2
meters.
B
B
Our
number
of
amenities,
such
as
hotel,
dieu,
UK,
GH,
Queen's,
University
and
Princess
Street
commercial
district.
The
proposal,
sorry,
the
proposal
achieves
intensification
targets,
as
the
density
will
be
increasing
from
17
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare
to
35
on
one
unit
and
33
on
the
other.
So
to
sum,
the
request
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
Official
Plan.
As
for
the
zoning
bylaw
on
number
8
499,
the
properties
are
zoned,
one
family
dwelling
and
two
family
dwelling
under
the
a
zone,
and
this
does
allow
for
a
two
unit
dwelling
which
is
proposed.
B
The
applicant
is
proposing
the
four
properties
that
the
properties
we
placed
in
a
site-specific
zone
under
the
same
a
zone
in
order
to
allow
for
the
reduction
in
law
area,
increase
in
lot
coverage
and
reduction
in
aggregate
side
yard
to
allow
for
the
right-of-way
as
well.
The
requested
rezoning
is
to
allow
abital
space
that
is
50%
below
grade,
which
is
generally
permitted
in
the
city
of
Kingston's
other
zoning
bylaws.
B
We
are
of
the
opinion
that
the
requested
relief
is
appropriate,
given
the
developments
scale
and
how
it's
consistent
with
the
surrounding
context.
It
supports
a
mix
of
dwelling
types
density
is
appropriate,
given
the
proximity
to
transit
and
amenities.
Increased
lot
coverage
is
appropriate,
giving
the
site's
proximity
to
parks
and
other
community
amenities
and
with
regards
to
the
seller
living
space.
B
It
is
our
understanding
that
the
city
is
generally
moving
away
from
these
restrictions
and
we'd
like
to
note
that
the
basement
units
will
meet
all
requirements
under
the
Ontario
Building
Code
and
the
requested
requests
and
amendments
are
appropriate.
As
they're
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement,
they
conform
to
official
plan
and
they're
compatible
with
the
existing
residential
uses.
B
C
You
through
you,
madam
chair
I,
noticed
for
this
public
meeting
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act
and
to
date
we
have
received
three
pieces
of
written
correspondence
with
respect
to
the
application.
Two
pieces
of
Correspondence
were
included
as
schedules
to
the
agenda,
and
one
additional
piece
was
placed
on
the
addendum
for
the
committee
this
evening.
Certainly
any
correspondence
that
we
receive
either
in
writing
or
through
tonight's
public
meeting,
will
be
considered
by
staff
when
we
make
our
recommendation
at
the
next
when
it's
scheduled
for
the
next
meeting
with
the
comprehensive
report.
Thank
you.
D
First,
thank
you
for
committing
to
save
those
trees.
That
was
a
concern
of
the
immediate
neighbors.
The
other
primary
concern
that
I've
heard
is
regards
parking
and
I
know
that
our
current
requirement
is
one
space
per
unit,
I'm
curious
as
to
the
number
of
bedrooms
that
the
net
number
of
bedrooms
that
will
be
in
each
of
the
of
the
units,
so
the
total
number
of
bedrooms
that
will
have
to
be
served
by
that
parking.
B
Okay,
yes,
so
there
is
one
a
one
to
one
ratio
provided
for
this
proposal,
so
there
is
one
parking
space
per
unit
and
a
total
of
four
units,
so
four
parking
spaces
and
there
are
six
bedrooms
per
unit,
but
that's
one
I'm,
sorry,
five
bedrooms,
plus
den,
but
technically
that's
six
bedrooms.
There
are
a
lot
of
transit
amenities,
nearby,
there's,
transit
route.
12
that
goes
I.
Think
it's
200
meters
away
is
the
closest
stop
and
Princess
Street.
B
D
B
D
B
A
Any
other
questions
from
the
committee
I'd
now
like
to
open
the
meeting
to
members
of
the
public
will
have
a
microphone
on
this
side
and
a
microphone
on
on
this
and
anyone's
welcome
to
come
and
give
their
opinion
or
ask
questions.
We
asked
you
to
give
your
name
and
address
five
minutes
limit
for
speaking,
and
the
questions
and
the
proponent
will
gather
up
all
the
questions
and
answer
them
at
the
end
of
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting,
but
I'd
like
to
invite
anyone
who
wants
to
speak.
A
E
Conroy
I've
lived
in
the
city
for
almost
59
years,
so
I
know
the
city
very,
very
well.
I
live
at
103,
Park
Street,
which
is
right
across
the
street
from
the
the
proposed
development
I'm
totally
concerned
about
this
because
I
see
you
know,
I
moved
there
recently
and
fixed
my
house
up
and
saw
many
other
neighbors
and
when
I
see
is
somebody
deciding
to
build
some
quote
residential
properties
that
they
say
our
residential,
a
real,
your
student,
its
student
housing
and
we're
very
talked
about
how
many
people
are
going
to
be
moving
there
to
live.
E
E
Those
schools
are
gonna,
become
dormant
soon
to
be
nobody
going,
those
schools,
we
just
spend
a
whole
bunch
of
money,
fixing
up
that
park
at
the
corner
of
Mackinac
and
Park,
and
there's
no
sense
of
building
parks
anymore,
because
what
we're
doing
is
we're
destroying
the
neighborhoods,
we're
destroying
the
little
houses
if
it's
destroying
the
family
houses
and
we're
starting
to
look
at
people
who
are
tearing
down
these
houses
and
looking
at
profit,
they
don't
care
about
the
people
next
door.
There
are
properties,
they
don't
care.
E
What
property
values
of
the
neighbors
all
they
care
about
is
money
and
I.
Think
it's
about
time
that
the
City
Council
says
enough
is
enough
and
they
need
to
go
build
somewhere
else.
So
we
already
deal
with
parking
problems.
Now
we
have
a
apartment
building
down
at
the
corner,
not
the
big
one,
one
down
by
Mack
Canal
Street.
We
we
pair
up
the
garbage
costly
from
those
people.
They
parked
their
cars
in
front
of
our
houses,
cuz
don't
park
in
there.
E
Those
are
things
I,
see,
happy,
I,
see
a
lot
of
noise.
I,
see
a
lot
of
parties,
I
see
loud
music.
You
know
I
see
all
this
stuff
happening,
I've
been
here
59
years.
I
know
it's
gonna
happen
here.
She
wants
to
talk
too
quick
here.
Jim
just
said:
do
you
guys
with
the
trees?
Well
on
your
thing
up
here?
It
says
you
might
keep
the
trees
they're
not
gonna,
keep
the
trees,
they
might
keep
the
trees.
E
So
that's
not
for
sure
those
though
two
beautiful
trees
that
were
inspected
last
year
by
the
city
there
they're
in
excellent
shape,
say
six
bedroom
units
yep
and
parking
I
feel
sorry
for
the
neighbors
behind
the
house,
because
they're
gonna
end
up
with
a
lot
of
water
in
their
yards
they're,
going
up
to
a
lot
of
noise
at
nighttime.
They
have
to
go
to
bed,
people
buy
their
cars
down
there.
E
If
you
work
a
night
shift
or
stuff
like
that,
or
you
work
nights
and
trying
it
or
nights
or
days,
and
you
have
cars
going
the
back
of
those
houses,
guess
what
have
fun
trying
to
sleep?
It's
gonna
be
a
mess,
and
this
city
council
needs
to
say
enough
is
enough:
we've
had
enough
of
it.
They
want
to
build
something,
go
up
it
in
their
backyard.
E
G
G
We're
opposed
to
the
proposed
bylaw
amendment
as
as
it's
currently
proposed
the
six
properties
located
at
thirteen
eleven
seven
and
five
and
three
Scott
as
well.
Ninety-Eight
parks
creep
have
all
at
one
time
or
another
been
affected
by
flooding
in
this
area,
will
only
address.
Cyril
he'll
only
address
this
situation
at
seven
Scott's
creep.
Over
the
last
five
years,
we've
put
in
close
to
eight
cubic
meters
of
soil
in
an
effort
to
try
and
reduce
the
flooding
only
to
see
that
material
being
washed
away
every
spring.
G
We've
also
replaced
some
of
the
drainage
around
the
foundation
of
our
home
at
great
expense
to
us.
We've
upgraded
our
sump
pump
system
there
as
well
in
my
written
submission
I
have
attached
photographs
of
the
floods
that
we
have
in
our
backyard.
It
makes
it
totally
unusable,
and
this
occurs
not
only
in
the
spring,
but
it
occurs
in
the
summer.
G
After
a
heavy
rainfall
and
what
we're
seeing
in
the
current
proposal
for
the
storm
storm
water
attenuation
does
not
sufficiently
address
this
particular
issue
of
flooding
or
runoff
management
due
to
the
extensive
area
that'll
be
paved
in
the
increased
area
or
the
footprint
occupied
by
the
larger
building
and
the
roof
runoff
that
has
been
proposed
at
the
rear
of
the
building.
I,
don't
believe
that
even
in
the
material
that
was
provided
in
the
service
briefing
in
Appendix,
II
shows,
there's
actually
gonna
be
less
ability
for
that
property
to
be
able
to
attenuate
the
water.
G
That
is
there
even
though
they
provoked
proposed
catchment
basement
Basin
there.
Actually
it's
soaked
water
base
and
it's
not
a
catchment
basement
Basin.
So
we're
gonna
see
this
problem
on
a
continuous
basis.
You
know
all
of
those
properties
that
are
in
the
back
of
that
particular
yard.
There's
nothing
being
done
about
addressing
the
grade
of
that
particular
property,
and
so
we're
gonna
see
this
problem
just
exasperate
itself.
So
it's
unclear
in
our
reading
of
the
service
briefing
of
July
or
June
28th
that
is
available
on
the
website.
G
Whether
or
not
this
issue
has
been
addressed
correctly,
it's
our
understanding
when
we
reviewed
it
and
we
looked
at
it
in
detail
that
there
is
going
to
be
less
ability
to
be
able
to
remove
that
water.
Also,
all
of
the
snow
is
going
to
end
up
in
the
backyard
and
that's
even
on
the
drawings
as
part
of
proposal
in
appendix
in
in
Appendix
B
of
the
service
briefing,
and
so
we're
gonna
see
yet
even
more
or
an
increase
of
water
and
spring
runoff
in
our
backyards.
G
H
H
So
I
fought
four
questions.
First,
one
is
the
report
provided
doesn't
deal
with
anything
on
the
deed
of
construction
of
the
two
houses
that
are
there
now
and
just
doing
a
bit
of
asking
around
I've
heard
that
it's
1920's
1930's
there,
so
we
are
potentially
getting
into
you,
know
a
heritage
aspect
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
was
examined
in
the
creation
of
the
report,
the
houses
don't
look
like
they're,
especially
outstanding
in
the
form
of
design,
but
just
want
to
get
that
on.
The
record.
H
As
the
two
speakers
who
have
gone
before
have
noted
and
that's
a
concern
for
the
neighborhood
number
three
I'm
gonna
follow
on
from
what
councillor
Neill
was
talking
about
with
the
parking
situation,
and
if
we
look
at
page
13
in
the
package,
I
mean
they'll
just
go
back
to
that
the
slide
that
shows
the
two
units
side-by-side
along
with
a
parking
easement
down
the
middle
like
I'm.
Just
you
know,
I
guess,
that's
it
there.
H
I
I'm
Gail
Rolf
love,
my
sister
and
I
represent
our
parents
that
live
at
11,
Scott
Street
they're
in
their
94th
year
and
are
unable
to
to
attend
the
meeting.
Our
concern
is
water
as
well.
Our
parents
get
water
on
a
regular
basis
and
have
for
many
years
and
we're
concerned
with
the
Rays
of
the
parking
at
the
back.
That
is
the
man
it
had
earlier
said
it's
going
to
get
much
worse.
There
has
always
been
water
back
there
there's
an
underground
Creek,
as
we
remember
as
children.
We
would
play
then.
J
I
L
My
name
is
Sharon
Strickland
and
I
live
at
five
Carruthers
I'm
opposed
to
this
project,
because
not
because
necessarily
it's
a
student
rental
students
deserve
a
good
place
to
live
as
well
as
anyone
else
I'm
opposed
to
this
project
because
it
is
destroying
in
the
beginning
of
the
destruction
of
a
conservative
neighborhood,
a
community
that
already
exists
there.
Students
who
come
and
stay
for
eight
months
are
not
going
to
add
to
that
community.
L
This
project
does
not
enhance
our
community
in
any
way
strictly
a
draw
to
take
money
from
the
community
and
add
to
the
current
services
that
are
there
and
I
can
see
in
the
future
that
we
might
have
to
put
out
money
in
tax
dollars
to
fix
up
the
building
that
they're
going
to
put
there.
That
is
providing
such
a
high
density
level
of
population.
L
There's
enough
high
density,
medium
density,
it's
a
mixed
bag
in
that
neighborhood,
but
we
don't
need
to
take
it
down
further
you're,
destroying
two
perfectly
good
houses
to
put
up
this
monstrosity,
and
the
population
of
Kingston
is
leaning
toward
an
elderly
population.
Not
a
student.
This
Queens
is
expanding.
There's
no
doubt
about
that,
and
there
is
a
need
for
student,
housing
and
I.
Think
Queens
is
addressing
that.
L
Given
the
number
of
projects
that
are
currently
under
consideration
on
Princess
Street,
we
don't
need
to
take
down
two
perfectly
good
single-family
homes
that
would
provide
housing
for
maybe
a
starter
home
for
younger
people.
That's
destroyed
in
the
city
by
developers.
Putting
in
these
huge
projects
with
multi
bedrooms,
I,
don't
understand
why
that
is
happening
and
people
are
allowing
it
and
the
city
is
allowing
it
and
it's
happening
all
around
me
and
I
have
a
great
concern
for
it.
I
spent
time
and
effort
on
my
own
property
to
develop
it
and
maintain
it.
L
This
I
do
not
see
adding
in
any
way
any
benefit
to
me
in
my
neighborhood
in
my
community,
and
so
I
oppose
this
I
think
if
they
wanted
to
put
in
a
senior
citizen,
complex
I
might
be
interested.
But
my
last
my
last
comment
would
be
the
shared
driveway
in
the
name
of
time.
We
got
away
from
that
because
of
the
disputes
and
and
whatever,
with
regard
to
a
mutual
Drive.
L
That's
a
recipe
for
disaster
and
as
for
students,
not
having
cars
and
using
public
transit,
that's
hogwash,
they
all
own
curse
and
they
all
want
parking
and
they're
gonna
park
where
they
see
a
spot.
So
that's
going
to
add
to
the
congestion
and
pollution
of
the
area
and
I
say
no
to
the
project.
Thank
you
for
listening.
Thank
you.
M
M
Whatever
II
want
to
call
but
rebuild
I
thought
that
we
weren't
allowed
to
specify
use,
and
so
I
was
surprised
to
see
the
word
student
up
there.
So
then
I
went
to
the
the
updated
o
P
to
look
at
what
the
exact
language
is.
So
one
of
my
concerns
would
be
that
this
is
in
fact
a
student
agenda
construction,
because
I
thought
we
weren't
supposed
to
be
doing
that
so
similar
to
then,
as
I
was
looking
up
hearing
councillor
Neil's
comments,
then
things
like
Park
any
space
and
those
types
of
things
are
important
to
me.
M
A
number
of
bedrooms
is
important
to
me
because
these
should
be
family
homes,
so
I
live
in
one
of
the
smallest
houses.
It's
been
in
our
family
for
fifty
five
years.
We
bought
it
from
my
grandparents
on
the
street.
That's
similar
to
this,
and-
and
nobody
wants
to
be
dwarfed.
I
can't
stand
when
they
built
a
huge
three-story
building
behind
us,
and
then
they
promised
us
that
there
was
good
tree
coverage
and
then
they
cut
down
all
the
trees.
So
I
think
people
don't
like
stuff
like
flooding
in
their
yards
due
to
development.
I.
M
Don't
think
that
they
like
parking
issues
due
to
development
I,
don't
think
they
like
tree
issues
etc,
but
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
grabs
that
is
to
ensure
that
what
you're
building
is
actually
functionally
fits
so
again,
coming
back
to
the
idea
that
if
this
is
going
to
be
a
building,
that's
carved
up
to
a
whole
bunch
of
bedrooms.
I
think
that's
really
unfortunate
and
probably
inappropriate
in
the
area.
M
I
lived
on
the
west
coast
where
they
seem
to
have
appropriate
development
in
between.
So
this
strikes
me
as
we're
all
going
to
end
up
with
some
of
this
in
our
neighborhood.
Because
of
this
huge
draw
at
Queens
and
the
student
populations
themselves
have
identified.
They
want
to
live
in
these
types
of
homes,
so
I
think
it
should
have
maximum
protection
for
the
people
around
it.
M
But
it
seems
to
me
if
I
speak
from
my
heart
and
not
from
a
popularity
contest,
it
seems
to
be
somewhat
appropriate
and
in
the
range
of
what's
on
Johnson
Street,
but
there
I
think
that
they
really
handle
the
parking
well
in
some
of
the
other
issues.
So
my
aspiration,
my
hope
for
this
would
be
that
you
address
some
of
that
stuff
and
we
make
sure
that
it
doesn't
turn
out
to
be
I.
M
K
J
My
name
is
Karen
Hutchins
I
live
at
62
Scott,
but
I
have
a
vested
interest.
My
brother
lives
at
95
Park.
He
feels
that
the
city
has
given
up
on
them.
They've
put
their
house
up
for
sale,
they're
gonna,
try
to
move
because
of
this
housing.
I
have
nothing
against
student
housing,
I
lived,
it
doesn't
matter.
I
love
the
area
I'm
a
retired
nurse
from
kgh.
The
reason
I
moved
to
that
area.
I
can
walk
to
work,
I've
retired
now,
but
I
am
against
it.
J
I'm
gonna
miss
my
family,
but
if
this
goes,
there
will
be
problems
because
there
is
flooding.
I
have
flooding
in
my
house
too,
not
as
much
as
the
other
people
on
Scott
Street,
but
I
do
have
flooding,
but
my
brother's
given
up
because
he
figures
the
city
has
given
up
on
him.
That's
why
he
put
up
his
house
for
sale
so
I'm
against
this,
mainly
because
I'm
losing
family.
Thank
you.
N
As
a
you
know,
as
a
municipality
from
professors
and
all
the
spinoff
from
that.
But
the
fact
the
matter
is
there
as
a
group
of
residents
here,
you
either
need
to
start
showing
up
at
every
one
of
Queens
this
applications
when
they
want
to
expand
the
university
and
say
no,
we
want
no
more
students
or
you
need
to
figure
out
that
you
are
gonna,
have
add-on
additions
or
you
need
to
start
supporting
large
additions
but
to
say
no
to
students
every
time
I've
ever
been
to
one
of
these
meetings.
I
love
students.
N
N
I
think
it'd
be
better
if
we
allowed
them
to
have
eight
units
there
that
were
two
bedrooms
each
but
they're
running
into
restrictions
with
their
current
zoning
and
everything
else,
and
they
would
probably
make
as
much
money
with
two
and
three-bedroom
units
there,
but
they've
got
a
unit
count
that
they
need
to
make,
and
that's
I
guess.
My
point
is:
we
should
look
at
that
and
the
last
bit
of
Sun
I
know
what
it's
like
to
have.
Your
house
flooded.
I've
got
a
number
of
properties
that
do
flood
I've,
also
been
through
the
zoning
applications.
N
A
number
of
times
as
well
site
plan
and
I
haven't
been
through
one.
This
I've
been
through
this
specific
project
or
not,
but
every
time
I
go.
The
city
requires
that
there's
reduction
in
stormwater,
so
pre
and
post-development.
You
actually
have
to
make
the
situation
better
and
there's
an
engineer
that
goes
and
there's
catch
basins
or
strong
tech
systems.
N
O
Hi,
my
name
is
Lauren
Aidan
I
live
at
99
Park
Street
directly
across
from
102,
and
mr.
pea
tree
just
said
that
four
parking
spots
is
enough.
The
house
beside
me
recently
sold
and
I
there's
gonna,
be
five
believe
four
students
living
there.
There
is
already
two
cars
and
at
least
one
more
possibly
two
more
coming.
So
that's
four
kids,
four
cards
now
I,
don't
have
an
issue
with
that
because
we
do
have
a
mutual
driveway.
O
I've
already
talked
to
the
parents,
because
the
parents
had
bought
the
house
and
they
do
have
plenty
of
parking
for
their
students.
But
I
am
very
concerned
with
up
to
24
students,
there's
going
to
be
more
than
four
cars
and
you
can't
say
well:
they'll
take
public
transportation
because
maybe
they
don't
want
to
take
public
transportation
to
go
and
get
their
groceries.
My
other
concern
and
I
had
sent
in
a
letter
that
was
circulated.
I
believe
is
the
snow
removal.
O
P
You
Lorie
Davis
fourteen
Scott
Street
I,
just
like
to
add
that
I'm,
actually,
probably
the
one
of
the
youngest
people
living
on
my
street
and
I,
mean
that
in
an
endearing
way,
as
many
of
my
good
neighbors
have
have
spoken
about
their
concerns,
I
too
have
the
same
concerns.
I
just
have
to
also
mention
to
my
son,
went
to
Queens
and
one
of
his
classmates
actually
had
four
cars.
P
It
wasn't
my
son,
but
just
as
a
point
of
fact,
the
concern
here
is
that
us,
as
stakeholders
have
a
lot
to
a
lot
of
concerns
living
in
the
area
of
the
community.
I
think
that
this
really
is
what
I
look
at
it.
My
initial
reaction
was
that
it
looks
like
a
boarding
house
I.
Don't
think
that
the
infrastructure
is
there
for
the
not
just
the
flooding,
but
for
the
parking
for
all
the
other
concerns
that
go
with
it
and
I.
Just
don't
think.
P
I
think
this
is
so
high
density
for
the
area
and
I
really
hope
that
council
will
really
give
this
some
good
thought,
because
we,
as
has
been
mentioned,
we
do
have
issues
with
parking
on
several
of
the
streets
regarding
the
school
and
I,
always
say
that
it's
a
matter
of
time
before
I
think
somebody
gets
injured,
given
the
drop-off
with
the
school
issue
and
the
parking.
Thank
you.
A
B
B
So,
first
of
all,
in
the
area
there
is
known
to
be
a
range
of
types
that
are
ages
and
tenants
from
different
backgrounds.
There's
renters
and
owners
on
the
street,
and
just
people
of
different
areas
are
students.
There
are
older
adults,
so
it's
anticipated
that
this
will
continue
in
the
future
and
has
been
noted
actually
that
the
current
tenants
of
the
properties
are
families.
So
it's
not
anticipated
that
it's
just
for
students
on
that.
No
from
a
planning
perspective,
we
cannot
zone
for
users.
B
Secondly,
there
was
concern
for
the
trees
that
were
in
front
of
104
Park
Street
we've
been
discussing
this
with
staff
and
there
it
is
possible
to
maintain
certainly
one
of
the
trees,
with
a
change
to
the
site
plan
and
with
these
concerns,
we'll
certainly
take
another
look
at
it
and
if
anyone
has
any
other
comments
with
regards
to
that,
they
can
get
in
touch
with
us
through
the
city.
Parking
was
a
major
concern.
B
As
well,
the
tenant
when
renting
or
sorry
the
landlord
when
renting
to
tenant,
asked
you
let
them
know
if
the
parking
situation.
So,
if
there
is
someone
renting
that
is
not
able
to
park
their
car,
then
they
would
have
to
be
notified
of
that
and
that
there's
no
parking
spaces
in
terms
of
parking
on
the
street.
This
city
has
bylaws
with
regards
to
you
on
street
parking.
So
that's
also
something
that,
from
a
planning
perspective,
we
don't
really
have
the
authority
to
speak
on.
B
The
next
major
concern
was
the
water
and
flooding,
and
we
have.
We
are
aware
of
the
situation
in
that
area
of
the
flooding
and
no
construction
will
continue
without
a
proper
grading
plan,
and
that
will
address
the
the
runoff
and
stormwater
management
and
with
the
development
like
this,
it's
it's
an
opportunity
to
fix
the
problem
of
flooding.
So
Anna's
one
speaker
was
saying
that
it's
not
to
make
the
situation
worse
or
keep
it
as
it
is.
It
should
be
to
make
it
better
than
it
was
currently
and
again,
we
I
think
the
it
was.
Q
The
storm
our
since
it
seems
to
be
a
major
concern
of
those
with
the
budding
to
the
south,
so
there
is
the
the
storm
water,
the
grading
plan
that
was
created,
that's
reviewed
by
engineering
staff
and
that
one
speaker
was
right.
In
that
any
time
a
new
development
happens
in
the
city,
the
rule
or
the
requirement
is
that
the
amount
of
volume
of
water
going
off
the
site
after
new
development
happens,
has
to
be
equal
to
or
less
than
what
was
going
off
before.
So
what
happens?
Q
So
that's
the
intention
through
this
process,
but
if
somebody
has
seen
something
of
concern
or
has
particular
concerns,
we
have
met
with
specific
property
owners
in
the
past
to
look
at
the
plans
in
person.
So
if
you
identify
any
particular
issues,
we're
happy
to
look
at
those
plans
and
go
over
them
with
you
to
help
rectify
any
potential
concerns
you
may
have,
since
that's
the
storm
water
issue
and
I
think
everything
else
more
or
less
Leslie
covered
in
terms
of
parking
yeah.
The
the
requirement
is
one
to
one
in
looking
at
the
site
plan.
Q
There
is
some
action.
There
is
room
in
the
back
yard.
One
of
the
speakers
pointed
out
that
there's
appears
to
be
additional
kind
of
paving
available,
and
that
was
that
was
put
in
place
to
allow
for
proper
turn
around
and
and
exiting,
but
it
may
be
more
than
needed,
so
we
can
take
it
back
to
the
owner
and
see
if
there's
opportunity
to
provide
additional
parking
space
in
the
rear
yard
with
in
that
existing
area
and
beyond
that,
I
think
that's
that's
about
it.
Q
A
Thank
you
other
questions
from
the
committee.
Thank
you
so
I,
what
we
were
told
was
keep
in
touch
with
us,
the
staff
member
who's
on
the
file,
and
you
can
deal
with
the
proponents
directly
through
the
staff
member
and
they
actually
offered
meetings
to
talk
about
the
plans.
So
please
keep
talking.
This
isn't
finished
yet,
but
this
public
meeting
portion
is-
and
thank
you
all
for
for
participating
in
this
one
and
I
will
close
this
public
meeting
and
open
public
meeting
number
two,
which
is
application:
203,
205,
Colborne,
Street
and
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
Q
Q
So
the
subject
property
is
located
in
Colborne
Street
between
division
and
Chatham
Street,
so
in
an
area,
a
fair,
fair
amount
of
density
and
closely
spaced
homes.
The
subject
property
here
is
outlined
in
red:
I,
see
it's
a
fairly
mature
neighborhood
in
terms
of
trees
and
existing
development.
There's
a
mix
of
existing
development
in
the
neighborhood,
if
you're
familiar
with
it,
ranging
from
apartment
blocks
to
lower
rise,
lower
density,
residential
development.
Q
The
subject
property
is
650
square
meters,
give
or
take
with
spreadsheet
and
Colborne
Street
you'll
notice,
as
with
a
number
of
properties
on
the
frontage,
there's
no
direct
via
cooler
access
to
the
rear
yard.
So
there's
a
pedestrian
walkway
on
the
easterly
side
yard,
so
the
the
building
from
the
front
is
more
or
less
as
it
as
it
has
been
for
a
number
of
years.
Q
There's
an
addition
on
the
rear
which
I'll
show
you
in
a
moment,
and
this
application
is
only
proposing
to
recognize
the
existing
building
envelope
in
the
existing
units
or
no
new
development
or
additions
are
proposed
as
part
of
it.
So
Colborne
Street
has
a
variety
of
building
forms,
ranging
from
the
row
house
s
core
semi-attached
desk
frontage
of
the
subject:
property,
some
kind
of
more
modern
seventies,
walk
up
to
three
apartments,
to
some
more
original
singles
and
on
down.
So
it's
quite
an
eclectic
mix
in
the
neighborhood.
Q
Q
The
parking
currently
is
three
spaces,
so
parking
reductions
required
to
allow
a
point.
Six
per
unit
parking
ratio
and,
as
I
said,
consent,
applications
and
filed
to
allow
for
an
easement
over
the
rear
property
on
Elm
Street
to
the
rear
yard
parking
on
the
subject,
property
and
also
the
application
will
recognize,
seem
to
recognize
existing
in
Manatee
area.
That's
provided
on
site.
This
is
a
site
plan
apologized
a
little
bit
difficult
to
read
on
the
screen
so
on
the
bottom
end
is
Colborne.
Q
There
number
of
policies
that
apply
to
developments
such
as
this,
including
compatibility
of
the
uses
or
there's
a
property
functional
in
terms
of
amenities,
space
access
lot
size,
are
any
adverse
effects
likely
to
result
in
terms
of
noise
traffic
dust,
etcetera,
also
looks
official
planets
here
is
intensification.
Where
can
be
accommodated
where
it's
appropriate
and
there's
also
policies
and
high
density
residential
uses,
as
well
as
infill
student
accommodation
and
consents,
so
upon
reviewing
all
these
the
detailed
review
in
our
planning
report?
Q
The
subject
property-
and
this
is
a
bit
unusual
as
a
stretch
north
of
princess
streets
and
west
of
Division.
That's
in
the
B
three
zones-
this
is
a
high-density
zone,
allows
123
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare
within
this
area.
The
subject
property
is
73
with
five
units,
a
seventy-three
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare,
so
it's
well
below
the
as
of
right,
owning
for
density,
so
relief
is
not
required
for
for
density.
In
this
case,
so
relief
is
required
in
terms
of
legalizing
the
fifth
unit
for
the
parking
reduction
to
0.6
per
unit.
Q
Parking
rack,
the
Ameria
and
the
play
space
are
also
proposed
to
be
amended,
no
formal
play
space
would
be
provided
and
the
amenity
area
would
be
at
least
the
minimum
required
under
the
recent
standards
proposed,
or
that
planning
committee
would
have
reviewed
at
their
August
3rd
planning
committee
meeting,
which
is
eighteen
point
five
square
metres
per
per
dwelling
unit
to
interview
hooli
the
requested
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
appropriate.
It
provides
her
a
functional
site,
there's
density
that
can
be
accommodated
in
the
neighborhood
and
on
the
sites.
Q
Parking
is
a
level
that's
appropriate
for
the
location
and
the
use
and
amenity
space
provided
it
was
appropriate.
I
can
identify
that
the
regression
amendments
are
consistent
with
the
PPS
conform
to
the
Official
Plan
policies
and
are
compatible
with
the
existing
uses
in
the
area
and
conclusion
we
are
the
opinion
that
represents
good
land,
use,
planning
and
request
that
Planning
Committee
recommends
approval
when
this
comes.
Thank
you.
R
You,
madam
chair,
through
you
notice
of
this
public
meeting,
was
provided
in
accordance
the
Planning
Act.
It
included
a
notice
being
mailed
to
all
124
property
owners
within
120
meters
of
the
site
and
signs
posted
at
the
site
at
least
20
days
in
advance
of
the
meeting
we've
received.
One
piece
of
Correspondence,
which
has
been
included
as
page
27
of
this
evening,
is
addendum
and
I'll
just
note
that
this
meeting
is
the
second
public
meeting
for
this
application.
The
first
public
meeting
the
statutory
public
meeting
was
held
on
March
1st
2012.
R
D
Q
D
D
So
five
units
and
requests
for
three
parking
spaces
for
24
bedrooms.
Yes,
is
that
accurate?
Yes,
okay,
yeah,
my
other
question
and
I
think
I'll
address
it.
When
the
business
item
comes
up
later,
I
have
some
issues
with
the
fact
that
this
has
been
so
many
years
kind
of
languishing
with
an
incomplete
file
yet
continuing
to
be
rented
in
non-compliance
with
zoning
and
there's
another
unit.
That's
coming
up
in
the
business
section,
that's
the
same
situation
which
I'll
address
at.
T
You,
madam
chair,
so
you
have
two
questions.
I
guess
both
related
to
parking,
the
proposed
easement
for
the
four
parking,
the
access
through
Elm,
the
property
at
home.
So
with,
if
the
ownership
of
that
property
were
to
change,
what
would
what
would
the
effect
on
that
easement
be?
Is
the
first
question
and
I
guess?
The
second
question
is
the:
as
far
as
I
know
we
have.
We
are
in
the
process
of
expanding
the
on
street
parking
resident
parking
permit,
which
would
mean
people
in
the
area
who
currently
abide
by
other
risk
parking
restrictions.
T
Q
So,
with
respect
to
the
first,
the
first
question:
it's
a
good
one.
The
reason
for
the
easement
is
essentially
to
easing
application
over
24mm
is
to
confirm
that
that's
access
to
the
parking
would
be
guaranteed
overtime.
No
matter
who
owns
it
should
be
a
legal
registration
on
that
land,
so
that
doesn't
matter
if
ownership
changes.
T
Just
the
if
proposed,
that
we
have
a
bunch
of
areas
that
are
becoming
subject
to
resident
parking
permits
as
a
requirement
because
of
the
fact
that
that
the
current
restrictions
mean
that
those
streets
are
quite
congested
with
parking
and
therefore
residents
often
have
difficulty
accessing
parking,
but
then
deal
what
will
happen
when
that
parking
program
comes
into
effect.
Is
that
residents
can
purchase
parking
on
the
street,
but
it's
a
difference
then
parking
for
free
near
your
home
when
that
comes
into
effect,
yeah.
Q
N
I've
had
the
property
since
2001
and
we
hold
leases
on
everything
and
just
kind
of
archive
them
all
at
no
point
in
15
or
16
years,
I've
owned
it
have.
We
had
more
than
three
cars
parked
on
the
site
through
those
leases
most
years
it's
one
or
two
we
charge
about
25
dollars
a
month
for
parking,
so
it's
pretty
nominal
fee.
Basically
the
cover
snowplowing,
so
the
three
parking
spots,
certainly
from
the
last
15
or
16
years
that
I've
had
it
is
adequate.
In
most
years
it's
one
or
two:
it's
almost
never
reached
three.
A
Q
And
actually,
at
some
point
in
time
there
was
a
driveway
in
the
side
yard,
so
you
can
actually
see
it
in
the
photo
of
the
site.
Here
you
can
see
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
gravel,
let's
left
there
of
a
former
gravel
driveway.
So
at
one
point
in
time
there
was
direct
access
off
of
Colborne
Street
to
the
rear
yard
parking.
That's
my
understanding
been
removed
quite
a
while
ago
and
just
dedicated
to
residential
access,
rather
than
having
pedestrians
and
vehicles
sharing
the
same
access
to
to
the
rear
yard.
A
H
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
thank
you
mr.
Pat
Reid,
for
providing
the
insight
I've
gotten
no
direct
objections.
I
live
around
the
corner,
probably
eight
or
nine
blocks
away
from
this
and
walk
by
there
now
and
then
so
this
couple,
maybe
some
questions
to
start
from
my
own
experience.
H
I
have
an
understanding
that,
with
the
zoning
bylaws
that
are
in
place,
that
five
units
would
be
legal,
but
sex
would
not
be
some
wondering
if
that
ties
in
with
the
requirement
to
remove
the
six
unit,
as
was
described
in
presentation,
okay
I
was
going
through
the
diagrams.
Looking
at
the
number
of
bedrooms
and
I
heard,
it
was
twenty
four
and
I
came
up
with
20,
so
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
on
that.
H
You
have
what
looks
like
units
over
an
hour
different
floors,
so
makes
it
a
bit
complicated
to
try
to
understand
that
so
and
then
my
my
main
concern.
This
is
actually
quite
an
older
neighborhood
on
another
Queens
University.
When
it
is
started
in
1841,
it's
only
building
was
just
down
the
street,
it's
about
three
or
four
blocks
away
to
the
east.
H
A
Q
Thank
you.
Mr.
Dixon
I
realize
I
didn't
answer
your
question
the
last
meeting,
but
the
heritage
property
and
neither
of
the
properties
are
designated
to
either
the
park
Street
one
or
or
this
one
are
designated
according
to
the
to
the
current
records.
Certainly
it's
an
area
that
is
certainly
an
older
area,
I
think
hasn't
been
designated
as
a
as
a
property
in
the
register
perspective
the
zoning
in
five
units
versus
six.
Q
So
it
isn't
an
area
that
Jones
high
density,
so
it
would
allow
under
density
six
units
or
probably
in
fact,
nine
or
ten
given
a
lot
size,
but
the
need
for
a
relief
is
based
on
parking.
How
much
parking
can
be
a
comedy
on
site
amenities,
space,
etc.
So
that's
that's
the
need
for
the
zoning
relief,
so
it
was
six.
It's
that
much
more
challenging
to
to
meet
those
other
criteria.
Other
than
density
in
terms
of
number
of
bedrooms.
It's
a
good
question
and
not
one
I
have
haven't
looked
at
more
closely.
Q
F
306
to
308
Montreal
Street
is
located
in
the
Inner
Harbor
neighborhood.
It's
Corner
law
situated
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
intersection
of
Montreal
Street
and
Charles
Street.
It's
located
about
a
kilometer
north
of
the
central
business
district
and
it's
well
serviced
by
public
transit
on
Montreal
Street.
F
Looking
a
little
bit
closer,
you
can
see
the
the
property
outlined
in
red
on
this
slide.
It's
about
240
square
meters
in
size
has
about
nine
meters
of
frontage,
on
Montreal
stre
and
about
23
meters
of
frontage
on
Charles.
The
immediately
surrounding
neighbourhood
and
context
features
a
mix
of
uses
immediately
to
the
south.
F
This
is
what
the
property
looks
like
today
if
you're
standing
right
at
the
intersection
looking
at
the
building,
it's
two
storeys
in
height
and
it
forms
part
of
a
larger
row
of
existing
dwellings
and
mixed-use
buildings
that
front
on
to
Montreal
Street.
The
upper
level
is
currently
occupied
by
two
residential
units.
Each
have
two
bedrooms,
and
the
ground-floor
is
currently
vacant
and
previously
was
occupied
by
commercial
uses,
may
be
familiar
with
the
the
Rexall
pharmacy.
That
was
there
for
a
number
of
years.
Parking
is
located
at
the
rear.
F
There
are
two
parking
spots
and
they're
accessed
from
Charles
Street.
The
property
is
currently
zoned
a
141,
so
this
is
a
site-specific
one.
Family
dwelling
in
two
family
dwelling
residential
zone
and
the
site-specific
aspect
of
this
zone
permits
neighborhood
stores
so
long
as
they
don't
occupy
an
area
greater
than
the
total
area
occupied
by
commercial
uses
established
as
of
July,
28,
1975,
plus
10%.
That's
the
way
the
zoning
is
currently
written,
not
sure
exactly
what
happened
in
1978
when
the
zoning
was
approved,
but
I
suspect
it
was
legalizing.
F
The
the
situation
as
of
1975
with
commercial
on
the
ground
floor
and
neighborhood
stores
include
a
wide
variety
of
permitted
uses
within
that
umbrella.
That
could
be
in
that
ground,
floor
space,
general
stores,
clothing
stores,
food
stores,
drug
stores,
banks,
restaurants,
delicatessens
and
dry
cleaners
are
within
that
range.
Now,
before
I
go
over.
What
we're
proposing
I
just
want
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
in
history.
F
There
have
been
numerous
showings,
many
of
which
have
actually
been
for
office
uses
what
aren't
permitted.
Unfortunately,
and
so
after
about
six
months
of
not
being
able
to
secure
a
commercial
tenant,
the
owner
said.
Okay,
we
need
to
look
at
providing
some
additional
flexibility
on
the
site
so
that
we
don't
have
an
empty
storefront.
So
he
engaged
planning
staff
and
to
have
a
discussion
about
what
would
be
involved
in
being
able
to
permit
additional
residential
units
in
this
building
and
the
maximum
permitted
number
of
units
is
currently
two.
F
The
amendment
would
allow
for
residential
intensification
within
the
existing
structure.
Up
to
a
maximum
of
four
units,
it
was
very
important
to
the
owner
to
be
able
to
maintain
the
existing
ground-floor
commercial
permissions
so
through
the
rezoning
we've
included
and
maintained
the
exact
same
provisions
as
exist
today,
so
that
hopefully,
when
there
is
a
demand
for
commercial
uses,
that
opportunity
is
still
there
without
having
to
go
through
another
planning
application
process.
F
There
are
currently
two
parking
spaces
in
the
rear,
we're
proposing
to
maintain
those
and
convert
one
of
them
to
a
barrier-free
space.
There's
currently
no
dedicated
bicycle
parking,
so
we're
proposing
five
new
spaces.
Those
are
the
dark,
that's
a
dark
area
at
the
very
back
of
the
site,
so
that
would
be
dedicated,
secure
bike
parking.
The
site
currently
is
zero
amenity
space
for
residential
tenants.
F
F
Housing
districts
will
be
designed
for
residential
use
of
different
types,
but
will
also
contain
areas
of
local,
open
space,
community
facilities
and
commercial
designated
areas.
Now
these
designated
areas
that
the
housing
district
policies
reference
can
be
found
in
the
land-use
schedule
to
the
official
plans.
When
we
look
at
that
schedule,
we
see
that
the
property
is
designated
residential
and
residential
designation
is
intended
to
accommodate
various
residential
uses
of
different
densities
on
serviced
land.
The
opie
also
discusses
that
intensification,
which
this
is
we're
proposing.
F
Infill
projects
are
meant
to
be
located
more
in
centers
and
corridors,
while
in
stable
areas
such
as
these.
The
official
plan
contemplates
more
subtle
forms
of
intensification,
such
as
conversions
within
existing
envelopes,
such
as
what
we're
proposing
here,
a
few
other
additional
compatibility.
Considerations
have
been
added
to
the
new
o
P,
such
as
light
pollution
traffic
impacting
active
forms
of
transportation,
as
well
as
cultural
heritage
resources.
F
F
F
As
I
mentioned,
there's
two
parking
spaces
on
the
property
under
the
current
residential
commercial.
If
commercial
is
provided
in
the
ground-floor
and
residential
above,
the
parking
requirement
is
seven.
If
the
site
were
to
be
for
residential
units,
the
parking
demand
would
decrease
to
four
we're
proposing
to
maintain
the
existing
two
spaces,
as
well
as
to
provide
a
barrier
free
space,
requesting
a
few
reductions
in
in
the
length
of
stall
size
again
to
reflect
the
existing
situation.
F
The
bylaw
doesn't
allow
front
yard
parking,
currently
the
parking
projects
into
the
front
yard
by
29
centimeters,
so
we're
looking
for
relief
in
that
as
well.
We're
exceeding
the
bicycle
parking
requirement,
recognizing
that
there
is
less
vehicle
parking
on
the
site
as
well
we're
seeking
an
amendment
in
amenity
space
to
recognize
the
proposed
deck,
which
is
17.8
square
meters
in
size.
F
In
summary,
the
proposed
uses,
which
are
residential
and
neighborhood
stores,
are
consistent
with
the
broader
action
of
the
Official
Plan.
This
proposal
achieves
reinvestment,
infill
residential
infill
developments
in
an
appropriate
manner.
It
will
maintain
the
existing
commercial
permissions
on
the
site,
as
they
appear
in
the
zoning
today,
and
this
proposal
is
compatible
with
surrounding
uses
and
with
that
I
welcome
any
questions
or
comments.
F
U
Through
you,
madam
chair
notice
of
the
public
meeting,
was
provided
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
So
far
to
date,
since
the
staff
report
was
finalized,
we
received
13
pieces
of
Correspondence,
9
are
provided
in
the
agenda
and
additional
four
provided
in
the
addendum
and
all
correspondence
will
be
addressed
and
included
as
part
of
the
comprehensive
report.
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
think
so
the
presentation.
The
first
question
is
regarding
the
layout.
So
in
the
package
that
we
have,
the
multiple
proposed
layouts
are
included
as
I
understand
it.
There
would
only
be
an
amendment
required
for
the
one
that
involves
the
additional
two
units
on
the
ground
floor,
I'm
just
curious.
Why
the?
Why
the
multitude
of
options,
and
is
this
just
leaving
everything
open
so.
F
The
thank
you
for
your
question
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
the
various
floor
plans
provided
were
intended
to
show
essentially
the
flexibility
that
that
the
proposed
zoning
provides.
So
the
way
the
zoning
is
structured
could
essentially
result
in
three
different
options.
The
zoning
could
allow
for
the
existing
situation,
which
is
to
residential
units
upstairs
and
ground-floor
commercial,
so
we're
proposing
to
maintain
that
existing
permission,
so
that
floorplan
was
provided
the
way
the
zoning
is
crafted.
F
So
the
intention
is
to
provide
flexibility,
knowing
that,
after
eight
months,
we,
the
owner,
hasn't
been
able
to
successfully
find
a
tenant
for
that
commercial
space,
provide
the
flexibility
so
that
it
doesn't
sit
empty.
But
there
is
the
ability
there
to
have
the
ground-floor
in
part
or
completely
commercial
and
the
various
floor
plans.
Just
one
I
wanted
to
show
what
that
could
all
look
like.
T
Thanks
and
so
in
terms,
then
of
having
let's
say,
moving
forward
with
a
resident
with
a
residential
use
for
the
ground-floor
instead
of
a
commercial
use,
would
any
of
those
floor
plans
provided
ensure
that
if
it
went
in
the
direction
of
residential
that
it
could
be
quickly
or
immediately
changed
over
to
a
new
commercial
use
in
the
future
like
within
the
design?
Is
that
possible
certainly.
F
And
in
speaking
to
the
so
first
of
all,
the
way
the
zoning
is
is
has
been
drafted
and
will
be
refined
with
staff.
It
would
allow
for,
from
a
planning
perspective
that
conversion
to
than
with
simply
building
permits.
From
a
practical
perspective,
the
owner
has
a
lot
of
experience
with
renovations
and
construction
and
has
indicated
that
once
a
space
is
plumbed,
it's
actually
not
terribly
difficult
to
remove
walls
and
convert
a
space
back
to
commercial,
and
if
there
was
a
commercial
tenant,
he
was
interested
in
the
space.
D
V
D
I've
received
some
correspondence
from
the
immediate
neighbourhood,
as
we
all
have
with
a
concern
about
the
potential
future
loss
of
opportunity
for
commercial
space
and
both
our
secondary,
a
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan,
and
our
Opie,
as
you
mentioned,
that
was
just
approved,
recognizes
this
as
a
prime
neighborhood
commercial
area.
I
guess
my
concern,
and
perhaps
you
can
speak
to
this-
it's
it's
all
well
and
good.
D
Wouldn't
it
bit
make
sense
now
that
you're
going
through
with
this
zoning
and
I
look
to
staff
to
help
answer
this
to
expand
that
list
so
that
there's
a
greater
potential
for
commercial
use
on
the
property.
I
mean
this.
This
was
drawn
up
many
years
ago
and
there
are
a
lot
of
other
potential
commercial
uses
that
with
an
expanded
list,
might
be
feasible
on
that
site.
Perhaps
you
could
speak
to
that.
F
In
fact,
there's
actually
been
quite
a
bit
of
interest
in
the
space
from
users
who
are
our
office
office
space
users,
several
not-for-profits,
who
have
been
interested
in
occupying
this
space
for
office,
use
several
healthcare
practitioners,
I.
Think
a
doctor
and
potentially
a
physiotherapist
have
actually
I've
also
expressed
interest
in
the
space
office,
uses
aren't
currently
permitted
and
we
actually
sat
down
with
staff
in
the
middle
of
the
process.
Given
that
interest
in
the
desire
for
the
owner
to
have
some
sort
of
commercial
tenant
in
the
ground
floor,
we
looked
at.
F
You
know
the
viability
of
putting
some
putting
office
uses
within
that
definition,
and
we
all
agreed
that
it
would
be
great
from
a
compatibility
and
a
community
perspective,
but
there
simply
isn't
enough
parking
on
site
to
support
the
demand
that
would
be
generated
by
office
uses,
which
is
significantly
higher
than
residential
and
neighborhood
commercial.
So
we
did
look
at
that
as
an
option
from
a
more
of
a
retail
perspective.
F
I
just
want
I
do
want
to
clarify
that
the
lands
are
currently
designated
residential
and
are
within
a
housing
district
and
are
zoned
one
into
a
site-specific
one
and
two
family
dwelling
zone,
which
also
permits
the
ability
to
have
ground-floor
commercial.
The
site
isn't
required
to
have
ground-floor
commercial,
in
fact,
currently,
within
the
existing
zoning
it
could.
The
building
could
be
entirely
residential
one
unit
upstairs
one
unit
downstairs
or
a
mega
one
unit
which
isn't
realistic.
F
So
again,
I
want
to
stress
that
the
lands
are
designated
residential.
There
are
certain
areas
of
the
city
where
we
are
seeing
policies
that
are
requiring
ground-floor
commercial,
particularly
in
the
downtown
on
Princess
Street
and
in
certain
sections
of
Williamsville.
You
raise
the
north
kingstown
secondary
plan,
which
is
in
just
about
to
start.
The
second
phase
of
work,
which
may
which
will
look
at
include
a
land
you
study
and
potentially
down
the
road.
When
that
secondary
plan
comes
into
effect,
we
might
see
a
requirement
for
ground-floor
commercial
on
Montreal
Street,
but
you
know
we
can't.
R
W
F
Well,
yes,
you
could
the
way
we've
structured.
The
zoning
is
that
we
could
have
a
portion
of
the
ground-floor,
particularly
the
portion
fronting
on
to
Montreal,
be
commercial
space
and
I'm
sure
there
would
be
opportunities
for
an
in
that
case.
The
rear
of
the
ground-floor
would
be.
It
could
be.
A
residential
unit,
in
which
case
the
owner
of
the
commercial
space,
could
occupy
that
unit.
F
I
think
maybe
what
you're
referring
more
to
is
home
occupations
where
it's
more
of
a
home
based
business
potentially,
which
have
to
double
check
to
see
if
that's
permitted
in
this
zone,
but
certainly
the
the
owner
of
the
commercial
space,
there
would
be
opportunities
for
them
to
live
to
live
in
the
building.
Okay,.
A
X
My
name
is
Yehuda
kaminer,
thirteen
fourteen
sierra
avenue,
and
I
can
fill
in
some
of
the
historical
blanks
that
came
up
in
the
presentation
of
the
planner
and
one
or
two
of
the
questions
and
I'm
in
a
unique
position
in
that
regard,
because
in
1976
I
was
an
articling
student
article
to
Terry
Tate,
whose
father-in-law
was
the
owner
and
pharmacist
at
the
our
M&E
pharmacy.
That
occupied
these
premises.
X
The
city
fathers
in
their
wisdom,
zoned
this
entire
stretch
of
Montreal
Street,
just
about
residential
in
the
in
a
bylaw
called
eight
four,
nine,
nine
and
the
know'm
be
hearing
was
held
in
1976
and
the
three-week
hearing
and
I
was
thrown
into
it
without
knowing
what
I
was
doing.
My
first
OMB
hearing
and
the
issue
that
was
most
controversial
revolved
around
this
pharmacy.
X
Suffice
it
to
say
that,
because
of
the
the
poignancy
of
having
the
only
pharmacy
there,
the
OMB
I
think
there
were
three
members.
It
was
a
three-week
hearing
adopted
that
as
the
golden
standard
for
our
community,
so
the
zoning
and
as
a
matter
of
fact,
it
was
great
because
all
the
other
great
lawyers
who
were
there
we're
all
cozying
up
to
me
and
I
didn't
know
what
I
was
doing.
But
the
point
is
that
the
representation
of
that
part
of
our
city
is
a
little
misleading
in
that
it
is
not
really
residential.
X
X
X
The
secondary
plan,
in
my
opinion,
and
the
only
submission
I
can
really
make,
is
that
this
seems
to
be
premature,
that
there
are
opportunities
for
commercial
tenants
that
this
would
preserve
the
stock
of
available
commercial
space
in
that
specific
neighborhood
and
how
much
density
residential
density
we
want
to
see
on
Montreal
Street
is
something
that
needs
to
be
considered
beyond
the
scope
of
this
one
application.
There
are
greater
principles
involved,
and
so
I
would
encourage
the
committee
to
consider
deferring
this
issue
until
such
time
as
it
receives
the
scrutiny
that
will
happen.
X
The
next
go-round
of
planning
that
should
be
coming
up
pretty
soon
and
I
say
all
this,
not
because
I
have
a
fondness
for
the
the
outcome
in
1976,
although
I
take
great
pride
in
it,
I
think
that
when
we
take
steps
such
as
these,
the
historical
part
is
important.
We
fought
to
keep
that
commercial
rather
than
being
railroaded
or
steamrolled
actually
into
residential
because
of
the
immediate
uses,
and
we
really
have
to
bear
in
mind.
This
is
not
just
a
residential
street
with
a
couple
of
commercial
uses
on
it.
X
H
You,
sir
I,
have
no
real
objection
to
the
material
as
presented
by
the
planner,
and
the
questions
from
members
of
council
served
to
bring
out
more
detail.
Certainly,
mr.
calendars
insight
is
really
valuable
and
thank
him
for
presenting
that
we
wouldn't
have
had
that.
Otherwise,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
entirely
agree
with
everything
that
he
said,
though,
because
if
you
look
at
the
area
in
the
time
since
that
OMB
hearing
was
held
41
years,
as
he
said,
the
Robert
meek
school
has
closed
and
that's
about
two
blocks
away.
H
That's
now
the
Boys
and
Girls
Club
headquarters,
so
a
very
good
new
use
of
that
school
space,
but
the
fact
that
the
school
closed
indicated
that
it
was
becoming
less
of
a
neighborhood
for
families
with
children
who
could
attend
the
school
and
it's
really
almost
a
student
neighborhood
in
a
lot
of
ways.
I
know
that
you
know
students
do
live
in
and
near
there
and
a
number
of
units
will
say
one
or
two
bedroom
apartments.
That
is
certainly
going
on,
and
it's
just
kind
of
part
of
how
the
see
is
changing.
H
In
a
lot
of
ways.
There
was
a
supermarket
just
around
the
corner,
I'm
kind
of
like
a
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
a
no-frills
or
if
it's
a
peplum
Eboni
of
it,
they
moved
up
into
the
Kings
crossing
area
and
then
that
building
was
torn
down
and
it's
now
vacant
right
across
from
where
the
school
used
to
be
so,
given
that
maybe
there
was
less
business
from
say,
less
families
living
near
there
to
actually
support
them.
H
So
it
is
a
very
complex
question
and
I
want
to
thank
the
planner
for
her
explanation
on
why
the
office
space
wouldn't
have
been
an
appropriate
use
just
due
to
the
lack
of
parking
very
good
insight.
None
of
that
and
as
a
response
from
the
question
so
I'm
just
kind
of
offering
this,
the
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan,
which
I've
put
material
into
and
taking
a
strong
interest
in,
they
could
see
this
going
residential
as
a
bit
of
a
setback
to
having
the
area
regenerated
for
small
business,
certainly
right
across
the
street.
H
H
You
know
it's
a
little
more
spruced,
it's
more
jet
providing
you
should
be
kind
of
rundown.
What
a
petty
crime
there
I
think
that
has
been
reduced,
so
the
neighborhood
is
changing
in
subtle
ways
and
I'm.
Just
asking
you
know
that
the
committee
understand
the
depth
of
the
changes
and
I
don't
feel
qualified
to
offer
an
opinion
one
way
or
the
other
as
to
how
the
zoning
should
be
modified.
Thank
you.
Y
The
money
that
would
be
put
in
investment
in
this
base
to
make
it
into
a
residential
unit
that
money,
no
one's,
gonna,
walk
away
from
that
you
have
to
recoup
the
cost,
so
it
just
further
reduces
the
economic
viability
of
that
venture.
So,
where
that
really
points
and
like
to
is
like
the
access
to
bricks
and
mortar,
like
entry,
existing
stock,
commercial
spaces,
I
think
that's
what
made
our
venture
viable
was
low
entry
cost
low
entry
cost
yeah
existing
stock
to
start
a
venture
and
and
I
think
anybody
who's
been
to
the
cafe.
Y
Y
A
lot
of
our
neighbors
like
I,
think
thirteen
pieces
of
corn
Swanson's
been
put
in
so
I
think
like
that
in
itself
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there's
people
there
they're
desperate
for
services
I
think
you
know
not
that
I
want
to
shoot
down
a
whole
application,
but
I
think
that
you
know
I
would
be
willing
to
talk
about.
You
know
I,
think
if
we
were
to
take
the
square
footage
of
that
space,
I
think
it
projects
if
you're
using
it
as
an
office.
Y
It's
like
thirty
parking
spots,
I
think
you
know
it's
on
a
main
artery
and
and
I
think
also
too,
like
there's
consistent
transit
all
day
through
there,
and
you
know
we
actually
less
than
a
kilometer
to
downtown
6800
meters.
So
it's
worth
noting
so
I
think
a
walkable
neighborhood
is
400
meters
quarter
mile,
so
you
know
there's
essentially
two
districts
in
there.
So
I
think.
Y
That's
worth
noting
and
I
think
also
you
mentioned
that
it
was
compatible
and
had
no
adverse
effects
and
I
think
that
it's
your
your
plan
for
to
Residential's
is
not
compatible
and
has
adverse
effects,
because
a
residential
street
front
would
just
be
a
dead
wall
and
I.
Think
anybody
who,
like
knows
anything
about
planning
notice
that
that's
the.
I
Y
Y
It's
like
the
70s
that
was
single
use,
planning,
peak,
I.
Think
it's
well
understood
by
all
of
us,
because
we're
all
looks
like
we're
under
40,
then
single
use
planning
is
super
antiquated
and
it's
frustrating,
and
it's
like
it's
just
frustrating
and
I
just
it
would
just
be
a
real
shame.
So
I'm
super
interested
in
looking
into
solutions
like
you
know
that
the
half
and
half
that
seems
like
a
really
viable
option,
like
you
know,
relief
for
parking
for
that,
and
it
seems
like
really
reasonable.
Y
You
know
if
it
means
we
need
to
make
it
up
with
metered
parking
like
I,
really
bag,
understanding
of
how
parking
works
so
but
like
metered
parking
could
be
a
solution.
I
know
it's
not
the
city's
job
to
provide
parking,
but
at
some
point
in
time
we're
not
like
you
know:
they're
not
making
dinosaurs
named
like
you,
don't
have
fuel
forever.
Y
W
Is
really
exciting
for
me:
I've
never
done
this
before
my
name
is
Annie
Clifford
and
I
am
a
resident
of
Charles
Street
between
Montreal
and
Patrick.
But
with
your
permission,
madam
chair
I
run
a
small
general
law
practice
which
includes
family
law.
I
prefer
to
keep
my
residential
address
confidential.
All
right.
W
Okay,
I
can
swear
as
an
officer
of
the
court
that
I've
lived
within
a
400
meter
radius
of
this
subject:
property
since
I
returned
to
Kingston
in
2006
and
I
guarantee
you
it's
not
a
student
neighborhood
I
know
one
undergraduate
who
lives
in
that
area
because
she
lives
with
her
parents.
So
I
beg
to
disagree
with
you.
There's
her
and
nothing
personal
I.
Just
it's
it's
very
much
a
residential
neighborhood.
There
are
a
lot
of
families
in
that
area.
There's
lots
of
older
people!
W
It's
a
nice
mix
of
neighborhoods
now,
unfortunately,
I
also
completely
disagree
with
the
photon
application.
I,
don't
think
your
application
is
in
line
with
the
Official
Plan
2010
at
all
is
certainly
not
in
line
with
the
2017,
which
hasn't
much
more
updated,
meaning
to
sustainable
development
and
I
know
that
it's
not
legislative
in
effect.
Yet
but
the
North
Kingstown
draft
report
has
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
city
investment,
both
financial
and
time,
and
also
time
investment
by
the
residents
of
my
neighborhood,
and
it's
proposing
that
Montreal
Street
be
developed
as
a
commercial
area.
W
This
would
be
two
steps
backward,
so
I'm,
just
gonna
talk
briefly
today
about
the
2010
Official
Plan
and
how
its
foundational
goal
is
really
sustainable
development.
What
that
means
isn't
given
a
whole
lot
of
content
in
the
plan.
My
neighbor
Matthew
provided
some
content
to
that,
and
we
all
know
that
sustainable
development
absolutely
means
residential
density,
but
there's
so
much
more
to
it
than
that.
W
It
really
means
neighborhoods
that
have
a
variety
of
readily
available
commercial
spaces
within
them,
so
that
people
can
walk
to
and
get
the
different
things
we
need
in
the
course
of
our
daily
lives,
and
that's
why
this
is
own.
Neighborhoods
store,
no
walkable
in
planning,
lingo
I'm,
not
a
planner.
So
stop
me,
but
I
understand
it's
400
meters,
which
means
for
an
able-bodied
adults,
no
more
than
a
five-minute
walk.
After
that,
it's
not
really
walkable
people
are
getting
in
their
cars.
W
We
want
sustainable
development
in
Kingston,
even
in
2010
we
wanted
it,
and
so
we
need
neighborhoods,
like
my
neighborhood,
where
we
can
get
the
things
we
need
in
our
daily
lives
within
this
five
minute,
walk
so
I
have
circulated
to
miss
Didrikson.
Thank
you
very
much.
Some
excerpts
from
the
2010
and
the
2017
plan.
I'm,
just
gonna
read
a
little
bit
from
them.
I'll
stop
boring
you
quickly,
but
I
just
thought.
W
We
should
see
that
it's
right
in
there,
so
sustainability
of
development
will
be
emphasized,
and
this
includes
strategically
deploying
the
built
resources
in
the
city.
So
that's
the
existing
buildings
and
we're
gonna
strategically
deploy
them
in
a
manner
that
one
promotes
compatibility
between
different
functions,
which
means
that
residential
neighborhoods
aren't
just
gonna
be
residential.
There
will
be
other
stuff
going
on
in
them
to
the
limits
reliance
on
private
automobiles,
three
that
fosters
pedestrian
activity
and
for
that
revitalizes,
neighborhoods,
specifically
and
I'm.
W
Still
reading
from
the
plan,
most
retail
uses
and
personal
service
support,
support
the
population
and
so
they're
required
in
convenient
locations.
That's
not
recommended
that's
required,
and
the
location
of
commercial
sites
must
be
in
accordance
with
these
principles
of
sustainability.
Now,
in
another
section,
the
2010
plan
talks
specifically
about
mixed-use
buildings,
and
it
says
the
city
promotes
the
development
of
mixed-use
buildings
that
contain
commercial
and
office
space
on
the
ground
floor
residential
units.
Upstairs
that's
what
this
building
is
right.
Now,
that's
what
it
should
stay.
So
that's
really
boring
the
Official.
I
W
But
there
was
no
pharmacies,
so
we
had
to
bundle
up
the
baby
in
the
dark
in
the
snow
and
drive
to
the
shoppers,
Drug
Mart
on
Division,
Street
and-
and
it
was
awful
and
I'll
just
compare
that
to
the
the
Rexall
has
now
reopened.
It's
it's
still
within
the
400
meters
and
we
all
had
poison
ivy
this
summer,
which
was
also
terrible,
but
we
just
walked.
W
We
just
walked
around
the
corner
and
we
got
our
calamine
lotion
and
we
walked
home
and
it
was
so
easy
and
it
was
so
stress-free
and
that's
exactly
what
the
goal
of
the
2010
official
plan
is.
Is
that
easy
walkable
access
to
the
daily
needs
of
neighborhood
residents?
The
plan
also
says
there
should
be
walkable
access
to
employment
in
a
variety
of
employment
opportunities,
and
that's
not
just
the
kind
of
employment
you
can
do
in
a
residence
like
personal
care
or
babysitting.
W
It's
a
variety,
including
commercial
spaces,
office
spaces,
neighborhood
stores,
the
2010
plan
says
we
should
have
walkable
access
to
healthy
food,
whether
it's
groceries
or
prepared
food,
but
we
need
commercial
spaces
where
we
can
access
that
food
and
it's
not
in
the
plan.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
it's
a
generally
good
planning
principle
that
we
want
eyes
on
the
street
right.
We
want
this
like
community
safety,
that's
created
when
there
are
people
on
the
street.
This
property
has
these
terrific
big
glass
windows,
and
if
that
stays
commercial,
that
means
there's
eyes
on
the
street.
W
My
neighborhood
is
safer
and,
as
I'm
sure
you're
all
aware,
my
neighborhood
has
not
always
been
safe.
I'd
like
it
to
stay
that
way.
I
have
a
four
year
old
and
I'm,
pretty
keen
on
it
being
safe,
know
the
very
nicely
presented
letter
from
foe
10
on
page
2,
there's
a
list
of
amenities
in
the
very
available
in
my
neighborhood
you've
used
the
word
many
but
I
beg
to
differ.
I,
don't
think
there
are
very
many
I
think
we're
a
really
under
serviced
neighborhood.
W
We
don't
have
a
grocery
Mart
I,
think
you
know
it
closed
a
couple
years
ago
and
I
don't
see
any
presentations.
Sorry
is
not
there
anymore,
we
don't
have
a
hardware
store.
We
don't
have
any
restaurants
that
are
open
after
five
o'clock
there's
nowhere.
We
can
go
to
get
a
drink
with
our
friends,
we
don't
have
a
clothing
store,
we
don't
have
a
bank,
we
don't
have
a
general
store,
we
don't
have
a
dry
cleaners,
we
don't
have
a
laundromat
I'm.
W
I
want
to
say
is
we
don't
currently
have
the
access
to
our
daily
needs
and
we
need
it,
and
just
this
is
prime
commercial.
Please
don't
take
it
away.
I
have
included
in
my
written
submissions
some
reasons
why
it's
not
a
good
residential
area,
specifically
parking.
A
complete
lack
of
green
space
that
would
the
deck
would
serve
the
upper
two
residents.
W
There
would
be
nothing
for
the
lower
people,
but
it's
terrific
commercial
and
we
really
need
it
for
the
sustainable
development
and
the
functioning
of
our
neighborhood
I
love,
Kingston,
I,
love
living
here
and
I
want
to
see
it
moving
forward
and
absolutely
keeping
this
commercial
and
commercial
only
is
the
only
way
to
do
it.
Allowing
it
to
be
residential
would
just
be
two
steps
backwards.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
S
Just
quickly
more
of
a
question:
sorry,
my
name
is
Ian
Arthur
and
I
live
in
the
neighborhood
on
Stephen,
Street
and
I.
Work
downtown
and
I
got
my
bike
by
the
building
every
day
on
the
way
to
work.
Just
a
quick
question
in
terms
of
aggressively
looking
for
10s
4i.
From
my
understanding,
it's
listed
at
eight
dollars,
a
square
foot
which
sounds
reasonable,
but
then
there's
up
to
eight
dollars
more
in
common
costs
associated
with
that
per
square
foot,
bringing
it
up
to
a
total
of
sixteen
dollars.
S
A
square
foot
now
I
work
in
a
downtown
business
and
I'm
many
friends
who
own
downtown
businesses.
That
is
much
more
in
line
with
the
princess
Street
corridor
in
terms
of
a
cost
for
operating
a
business
with
a
lot
more
people
accessing
that
business
and
I,
wonder
if
that
puts
it
out
of
reach
for
some
people
who
would
be
willing
to
open
in
that
community.
But
it's
seen
as
too
expensive.
M
So
I
had
a
question
about
the
accessible
parking
which
doesn't
fully
make
sense
to
me,
but
I'm,
assuming
that
there's
no
door
in
Exhibit
D,
there's
no
door
in
the
side
of
the
building,
but
I
I
assume
the
accessible
parking
would
be
closest
to
the
entrance
of
the
building
and
then
my
second
question
is:
is
there
gonna
be
anything
accessible
in
the
building
and
I?
Get
that
accessible
parking
is
not
enforceable
law,
not
law,
but
if
you're
gonna
go
to
the
trouble
of
dedicating
a
spot
to
that.
M
Specifically,
it
almost
begs
the
question
that
you
have
a
rationale
or
a
reason
to
do
that.
So
I
wondered
whether
it
was
gonna,
be
an
accessible
unit
or
something
that
you
were
proposing,
and
then
the
access
aisle
for
the
accessible
parking
would
be
also
your
access
to
your
bicycle
storage,
I'm.
Assuming
that
that's
the
other
reason
why
I
was
put
there
and
it
couldn't
be
in
the
middle
because
then
it
would
be
in
the
way
of
the
building.
So
some
of
that
seemed
confusing
to
me
on
the
neighborhood
use.
M
I
guess
the
piece
that's
missing,
just
as
Joe
resident
here
or
whatever
is:
are
we
gonna
dedicate
ourselves
to
these
spaces
so
coming
here
tonight,
I
took
a
stroll
for
another
file
to
look
at
a
building
and
I
passed
this
laundromat.
That's
it's
in
Sydenham
district
that
I
love.
You
know
and
you
almost
fall
and
weep
because
they're
loading,
all
the
laundry
machines
onto
a
truck
and
I
thought.
Oh
no
is
the
laundromat
gone
and
then
I
realized
no
they're
just
taking
a
way
to
repair
them
before
the
start
of
the
new
season.
M
So
I
love
that
building
I.
Think
that's
amazing
and
you
know
embarrasses,
is
way
over
where
I
live
in
Sydney
district.
That's
great,
but
the
reality
is
most
of
us
shop
differently.
Now
you
know
we're
not
doing
these
little
local
shops
and
when
we
are
the
stuff
costs
more
and
we're
really
gonna
spend
our
money
that
way.
M
So
what
what's
missing
for
me-
and
this
is
if
you're
gonna
keep
it
a
retail
space,
there's
got
to
be
a
larger
commitment
to
the
area,
I
think
in
order
to
to
make
it
work,
and
so
this
doesn't
really
acknowledge
that
and
that's
the
piece
that's
missing
for
me
is:
is
it
really
justified
as
a
retail
space
and
and
what
is
the?
What
is
the
proof
in
that
and
are
the
people
that
live
in
the
area?
Are
gonna
go
there
and
shop?
Are
they
really.
I
M
But
if
you're
gonna
hop
in
your
car
and
go
to
the
Kingston
center,
or
you
know
no
frills
or
Food
Basics
to
buy
your
groceries,
then
Baron
tsa's
is
never
gonna
work.
Ultimately,
it's
gonna
fail
right
or
if
there's
like
we're
lucky
in
our
area,
because
there's
so
many
students,
so
there's
a
demand
for
these
services
and
I
don't
see
that
connection
in
this
area
in
the
file.
M
It
has
to
be
worked
out
here
if
you,
if
you
go
for
it
as
a
commercial
space
that
that
there's
gonna
need
to
be
those
linkages
and
a
commitment
by
the
local
councillor
and
people
to
try
to
create
a
movement
in
that
area
that
is
going
to
sustain
this
place,
because
otherwise
I
think
we're
gonna
be
right
back
here,
where
the
commercial
space
it's
just
not
getting
rented
because
there's
better
offers
elsewhere
in
the
city.
Thank
you.
M
A
F
Thank
you
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
all
very
much
and
thank
you
also
for
the
written
correspondence
that
was
sent
in.
We
have
received
all
that
through
planning
stuff
and
and
have
had
an
opportunity
in
both
myself
in
the
owner
to
read
through
that
correspondence
and
I
guess.
I
would
just
start
off
by
saying
that
it
truly
is.
The
owners
intention
has
been
the
owners
intention
and
desire
to
find
a
commercial
tenant
for
this
space,
as
I
said,
he's
owned
the
property
since
January
has
yet
to
be
able
to
secure
a
tenant.
F
F
As
far
as
I
understand
it
is,
is
higher
than
that
in
the
downtown
core
area
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
20
to
25
dollars
per
square
foot.
Now
that's
my
understanding
and
I
encourage
someone
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
my
understanding
is
the
rent
that
is
being
requested
is,
is
a
fair
bit
lower
than
what
you
would
see
in
the
downtown
again.
F
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
the
site
is
not
currently
required
to
have
ground-floor
commercial,
its
own
to
allow
for
it.
The
building
could
be
entirely
residential
right
now,
within
the
existing
zoning
and
I
know.
A
few
people
have
mentioned
the
north
kingstown
secondary
plan
phase.
2
is
about
to
start
in
which
there
is
a
land.
You
study
that
will
look
specifically
weather.
F
But
again
we
have
a
brand
new
official
plan.
As
of
yesterday,
that
designates
the
lands
is
residential,
recognising
that,
yes,
in
some
instances,
it
might
be
compatible
and
appropriate
to
have
neighborhood
commercial
uses
which
were
proposing
to
maintain
and
we'll
look
at
expanding
the
list
of
uses
that
are
currently
permitted
in
terms
of
compatibility
in
an
adverse
impact,
adverse
impacts
that
were
referenced.
F
In
my
presentation,
as
well
in
the
the
planning
rationale,
those
considerations
have
been
looked
at
within
the
context
of
Official
Plan
policies
that
specifically
lay
out
what
what
do
we
consider
compatible
and
water
adverse
impacts
that
we're
trying
to
avoid-
and
those
are
mostly
surrounding-
is
intensification
going
to
result
in
in
overcrowding?
Is
there
going
to
be
shadow
impacts
on
the
neighbors?
Are
we
going
to
run
into
issues
of
intrusive
overlook?
Are
we
going
to
have
noise
and
traffic
impacts?
That's
going
to
affect
the
neighborhood?
F
F
So,
regardless
of
whether
the
ground
floor
would
be
residential
or
commercial,
the
owner
does
intend
to
add
an
entrance
and
and
windows
along
that
Charles
Street
frontage.
Currently,
the
ground-floor
is
a
completely
blank
wall,
so
there
would
be
an
entrance
that
that
could
conceivably
be
completely
barrier
free
at
the
at
the
rear
of
the
building
on
the
Charles
Street
side,
which
would
actually
serve
that
barrier.
Free
space
quite
nicely.
F
Again,
concerns
that
this
is
premature,
given
the
planning
process,
that's
that's
under
being
undertaken
when
applications
planning
applications
are
before
the
city
and
council.
They
are
assessed
based
on
the
current
policies
that
are
in
effect
and
not
which
policies
may
be
in
effect,
two
years
down
the
road
and-
and
hopefully
at
that
time
there
will
be
demand
for
commercial
uses,
and
to
this
day
the
owner
is
still
having
showings
for
commercial
tenants
and-
and
hopefully
that
happens,
but
this
is
essentially
intended
to
provide
some
flexibility.
F
Just
don't
want
to
miss
anyone's
comment.
I
I
hope
that
covered
most
of
the
main
themes,
but
again,
if
there
are
any
further
questions
or
concerns,
I
encourage
you
to
go
through
the
city
planner,
and
we
can
certainly
begin
that
that
conversation
and
hopefully
answer
any
questions
or
concerns,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
feedback.
Much
appreciated.
F
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
this
question,
I
guess
is
for
staff
commenting
question.
In
the
early
days
of
our
term,
when
we
undertook
the
strategic
planning
process,
we
each
had
an
opportunity
to
put
various
sticky
notes
on
walls
and
one
of
the
ones
that
I
chose
was
a
greater
commercial
development
along
Montreal
Street,
and
in
that
the
main
reason
for
that
is
because
the
district
that
I
represent
part
of
it
at
least
accesses
the
downtown
through
Montreal
Street.
T
So
just
for
an
example,
if,
if
you
were
to
head
north
from
Charles
Street
to
the
intersection
of
Charles
and
Montreal,
it
would
take
about
four
kilometers
to
get
to
the
nearest
coffee
shop
and
store,
not
including
the
churches
but
I'm
thinking
more
along
the
lines
of
a
place
to
get
some
prepared
food,
etc
or
use
a
bathroom.
So
I
think
it's
a
must
that
we
do
and,
having
heard
all
the
comments
tonight,
I
think
many
people
understand
the
need
for
commercial
development
on
this
stretch.
T
I
guess
my
question
is
knowing
that
we
can't
be
think,
even
though
we're
all
thinking
about
the
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan,
and
it's
it
doesn't
anything
to
do
with
us
at
this
moment
in
time.
What
impact
does
the
strategic
plan
have?
I
know
it's
not
a
part
of
the
planning
process,
but
if
we're
not,
if
we're
not
able
to,
let's
say
enact
anything
that
has
already
in
the
works
on
the
North
Kingstown
plan,
do
previous
council
decisions
on
the
strategic
planning
and
priorities
for
the
city?
How
do
they?
How
do
they
be?
T
Z
Thank
you,
madam
chair
uns,
for
you.
So
as
the
applicants
planner
has
discussed
tonight
the
the
task
that
the
city
has
before
it
is
to
review
the
planning
application
and
you
have
to
review
it
against
the
policies
that
are
in
effect
at
the
time
that
the
application
is
filed.
So
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
evaluate
the
proposal
against
what
we
are
are
thinking.
The
policy
frameworks
going
to
be
coming
out
of
the
visioning
exercise.
Z
It
doesn't
mean
that
it
discounts
it,
but
from
a
staff
perspective,
we
have
to
evaluate
the
policy
tests
based
on
the
Official
Plan.
That's
there,
and
the
challenge
that
we
have
with
this
property
is
that
it
is
designated
residential
in
the
Official
Plan.
It
has
been
for
a
period
of
time
that
wasn't
changed
or
looked
at
as
part
of
the
work
that
we've
just
undertaken
with
the
new
Official
Plan.
That's
been
brought
in,
knowing
that
we
are
doing
a
broader
study
through
the
secondary
plan.
Z
Because
it
is
designated
residential
in
the
Official
Plan
and
it
and
Jen
spoke
to
some
of
this
before
there
are
limitations
to
what
types
of
restrictions
that
we
can
put
in
place
and
what
types
of
commercial
uses
would
be
considered
appropriate
and
compatible.
So
staff
has
to
work
within
what
those
limitations
are,
so
some
of
the
larger,
more
intensive
commercial
uses
that
were
suggested
because
it's
designated
residential
in
the
Official
Plan
that
only
contemplates
more
of
a
neighborhood
commercial
level
of
commercial
use.
Z
So
that's
the
reason
why
the
commercial
uses
that
are
suggested
are
ones
that
fit
within
the
Official.
Plan
designation
or
else
we'd
actually
be
looking
at
an
amendment
to
the
Official
Plan
on
top
of
the
zoning
application,
so
that
sort
of
puts
it
into
context
from
counsels
perspective,
certainly
any
strategic
directions
that
you've
said,
as
a
group
will
certainly
factor
into
land-use
decisions
that
you
make
as
a
group
from
staff
perspective.
Z
Certainly,
we
have
an
appreciation
and
awareness
of
the
priorities
of
council
and
especially
as
it
relates
to
good
land
use
planning
incorporate
those
wherever
possible,
but
we
do
have
some
limitations
in
terms
of
conditions
that
we
can
impose.
Given
the
current
policy
framework,
that's
on
the
property.
D
Thank
you,
I'll
repeat
an
earlier
concern.
I
have
I
think
the
opportunity
for
this
to
become
viable,
neighborhood
commercial
space
will
be
lost
if
it's
developed
as
residential.
No
matter
how
much
we
may
say
well,
we
can
always
convert
it
back
once
it's
residential
I
think
the
owner
would
be
hard-pressed
and
and
wouldn't
have
much
motivation
to
to
put
it
back
to
commercial.
D
Could
a
yoga
studio
go
into
that
space,
possibly
it
wouldn't
fit
with
the
existing
or
a
dance
studio
or
an
internet
cafe
or
something
that
would
could
go
into
there.
That
was
never
even
conceived
of
in
30
years
ago,
when
this
zoning
took
place
40
years
ago,
yeah,
so
so,
I
hope
that
that
that
message
gets
heard
and
that
we
really
really
look
for
viable
commercial
uses
along
that
that
storefront
area.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you.
That's
very
valuable
input
and
I
can
say
that
the
owner
is
here
tonight
and
has
heard
all
of
the
comments
and
has
read
all
of
the
correspondents
received
and
will
certainly
go
back
and
take
a
look
at
that
list
and,
as
you
say,
maybe
maybe
bring
it
into
the
21st
century
and
make
make
this
a
more
viable
commercial
property.
A
AA
Well,
thank
you
and
good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
staff
and
members
of
public.
My
name
is
Mike
Keene
and
I'm,
a
land
use
planner
with
fo
ten
consultants
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
present
to
you
an
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
the
Frontenac
Club
in
so
you'll
be
familiar
with
this
property,
particularly
when
I
bring
up
the
next
slide.
But
this
property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
King
and
William
streets.
It's
right
where
Williams
or
rather
downtown
and
the
old
Sydenham
collide.
So
to
speak.
AA
It's
an
area
where
the
residential
and
the
commercial
uses
blend
and
it's
an
area.
That's
obviously
well
served
by
the
city's
transit
system.
It's
a
site
that
is
part
of
the
downtown.
It's
part
of
the
Harbourfront
part
of
the
commercial
uses
that
have
existed
in
downtown
Kingston
for
a
long
time,
and
it
is
part
of
the
BIA
area.
AA
So
this
property,
the
the
Frontenac
Club,
has
been
in
existence
for
a
long
time.
It's
a
designated
heritage,
building
I've
just
kind
of
put
a
few
points
up
about
its
history,
starting
with
a
bank
back
in
1845
used
as
a
private
men's
club
for
a
number
of
years,
and
then
around
1934.
It
was
converted
to
apartments
and
from
1994
to
2000
there
was
a
number
of
uses.
I've
just
listed
a
few
like
daycare
and
dental
office.
There
were
general
offices
and
other
men's
club.
AA
It's
had
a
long
history
and
then
about
17
years
ago
is
when
it
really
became
known
as
the
Frontenac
club
in
and
that's
when
we
started
to
see
the
facility
used
as
an
inn
with
the
meeting
facilities,
the
restaurant
and
the
special
events
venue
and
the
property
is
really
consolidated
over
the
years.
So
it
ranges
from
one
to
three
stories
and
I
think
so.
Critical
points
for
the
folks
in
the
room
to
note
is
that
there's
there's
no
actual
change
proposed
to
the
building
or
to
what's
happening
on
the
site.
AA
So
when
we,
you
know,
look
at
the
building
now.
This
is
really
the
picture
that
you're
familiar
with
knowing
downtown,
and
you
know
what
I've
kind
of
noted
is
that
there's
no
change
proposed
and
largely
this
is
because
the
use
that's
there
today,
the
in
it
works,
but
right
now
it's
in
an
old
B
zone
and
it's
in
the
residential
designation,
even
though
it's
long
being
a
commercial
property.
AA
So
in
terms
of
a
little
bit
more
functionality
of
the
site
there,
there
is
parking
on
site,
but
as
a
commercial
use,
downtown
parking
for
commercial
uses
is
not
required.
The
in
itself
presently
contains
16
rooms
and
an
owner's
suite
and
meeting
rooms
and
the
little
restaurant,
if
you're,
if
you've
been
in
there
for
any
of
the
special
events
that
they've
held
in
recent
years
and
the
the
former
owners
noted
how
about
25%
of
their
guests
on
average,
arrived
by
either
train
or
plane.
AA
The
the
site
itself
has
14
parking
stalls
that
would
officially
meet
bylaw
requirements,
but
it's
a
gravel
site.
So
it's
hard
to
market
out,
it's
not
uncommon.
For
there
to
be
many
more
than
14
cars
on
the
property,
the
new
owners
are
proposing
only
minor
renovations
to
the
property
really
to
just
restore.
You
know
some
of
the
things
like
dry,
rotting
windows,
repointing
stones,
the
stonework
chimneys
and
the
roof,
and,
as
I
noted
earlier,
this
site
has
long
been
a
member
of
the
downtown
BIA
and
it's
it's
lever
levied
accordingly.
AA
AA
AA
So
in
terms
of
the
current
zoning
bylaw,
the
property
is
a
multi-family
dwelling
zone
right
now.
Essentially,
it's
zoned
as
an
apartment
building
and
the
the
existing
in
is
a
legal
non-conforming
use.
So
our
plan
after
the
official
plan
would
be
amended,
would
be
to
also
amend
the
zoning
bylaw
to
also
reflect
the
downtown
zoning.
C1
designation
and
there
are
reliefs
that
are
required
and
the
reliefs
that
are
required
are
as
a
result
of
what
actually
exists
on
the
site
today.
AA
So,
just
quickly
mentioning
some
of
those
like
the
exterior
side
yard,
we
need
a
zero
setback,
because
the
building
is
at
the
street
and
in
place
is
encroaching.
The
rear
yard
is
an
existing
rear
yard
at
four
meters.
So
again,
we're
just
asking
to
recognize
that
four
meter
rear
yard
building
height
in
downtown
as
you'll
know
from
other
applications.
AA
Buildings
are
supposed
to
be
taller
in
downtown
and
what
I
mean
taller
I
mean,
like
the
zoning,
says
three
four
stories,
so
there's
minimums
as
well,
because
this
building
has
a
few
portions
that
are
only
one
story
and
their
historical.
We
can't
per
say
plunk
a
second
floor.
On
top
of
those,
we
need
recognition
to
acknowledge
the
existing
building
height
and
some
of
those
places
being
one-story
lock.
Coverage
in
downtown
is
also
supposed
to
be
maximized.
A
hundred
percent
we
want
to
see
our
buildings
take
up
our
entire
sites.
AA
This
building
takes
up
approximately
40%
and
again
heritage
nature
of
the
site.
We
don't
really
want
to
see
the
backyard
filled
in
with
the
building,
so
the
zoning
would
acknowledge
that
existing
built
form
this
list
is
from
the
c1
zone.
However,
there
are
a
number
of
uses
that
are
already
removed
from
the
list
that
are
not
part
of
it
as
a
result
of
our
review
that
we
thought
they
should
be
removed
from
the
site
specific
zone
for
this
property.
AA
So
in
terms
of
the
application
overall
and
in
the
planning
rationale
that
I
provided
I
come
to
the
conclusion
that
it's
consistent
with
provincial
policy
statement.
It's
consistent
with
strategic
direction
of
the
Official
Plan
and
the
redesignate
to
recognize
the
long-standing
commercial
use
of
this
property
and
then
to
broaden
the
use
to
be
reflective
of
what
is
allowed
in
downtown
and
other
historical
buildings.
It
makes
sense,
doesn't
require
altering
the
building
it
normalizes,
what's
been
going
on
on
the
site
ever
since
it
was
built.
AA
Acknowledging
the
existing
uses
rather
existing
building
footprint
and
then
tightening
up
those
uses
that
are
more
broadly
allowed
downtown,
but
would
be
tightened
in
terms
of
this
site,
and
the
I
can
tell
you
that
the
current
owner
looks
forward
to
taking
over
the
inn
and
fixing
up
the
building,
all
in
line
with
heritage
permits
and
whatnot
and
continuing
the
inn,
as
it's
been
operating
at
least
since
2000
and
I
would
be
pleased
entertain.
Any
questions
of
the
committee
in
the
public.
C
Thank
you
through
you,
madam
chair
I,
noticed
for
this
public
meeting
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
including
both
on-site
signage
and
a
Mela
that
went
out
to
98
property
owners
within
120
metres
of
the
site.
Today
we
have
received
only
one
inquiry
with
respect
to
the
application,
essentially
someone
just
seeking
some
more
information
about
the
application.
Certainly
any
comments
that
we
get
in
writing
or
at
tonight's
meeting
will
be
addressed
in
the
comprehensive
report.
C
D
AA
D
A
V
Curiosity
brought
me
here:
my
name
is
Martha
Vosper.
My
grandmother
bought
that
building
in
1934
and
I
opened
a
daycare
center
there
in
1983.
As
far
as
I
know,
my
grandfather
died
before
my
grandmother
owned
the
building,
so
there
was
never
a
dentist's
office
there.
There
were.
No
other
offices
were
used
at
the
building,
was
sold
to
Baron
Susan
and
it
did
become
a
bed-and-breakfast,
because
a
daycare
center
is
seen
as
educational.
It
was
allowed
the
non-conforming
in
its
use.
You
know
it
is
a
beautiful
building.
It
deserves
to
be
used.
V
Well,
my
concern
is
not
so
much
for
whether
it
part
of
that,
but
that
BIA
or
not
my
concern,
is
for
the
elderly
people
who
live
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
who
live
beside
it,
the
housing
along
Earl,
Street
and
the
way
in
which
we
have
a
zone.
We
have
a
barrier
to
what
I
experienced
living
in
many
of
the
apartments
at
the
pronet
Club,
which
is
the
bars
and
the
restaurants
along
Ontario,
Street,
and
because
Johnson
Street
is
one
way
going
down.
V
William
Street
became
the
street
where
everybody
raised
up
and
did
various
other
things.
As
they
passed,
the
Frog
nightclub
on
their
way
back
to
the
University
I
just
have
concerns
that
if
this
building
goes
beyond
its
bed-and-breakfast
usage
that
it's
going
to
create
a
lot
more
noise
and
it's
going
to
create
a
lot
more
difficulty
for
the
residents,
King
Street
is
a
beautiful
built,
a
beautiful
roll
of
residential
houses.
V
It's
been
quietly
for
20
years,
a
bed-and-breakfast
and
I
know
it
wasn't
quiet
as
a
as
a
apartment
building,
but
it
was
contained
I'm,
a
partial
owner
of
141
King,
Street
East,
and
that
is
also
a
bed-and-breakfast
and
I
have
concerns
for
what
will
happen
to
King
Street
and
where
we
stop.
When
we
say
the
business
where,
where
the
downtown
business
ends
and
we're
residential
goes
forward,
I'm
not
against
this,
but
I'm.
Just
saying,
let's
be
clear.
This
building
has
been
residential
up
until
2019
years
ago
or
whatever
it
did
not
have
a
dentist
office.
V
H
Well,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
presentation,
so
my
own
personal
experience,
I've
had
many
enjoyable
occasions
there.
It's
very
interesting
building
and
people
have
rented
it
and
hosted
very
interesting
events
there.
So
I
enjoyed
the
building
its
heritage
features
have
been
a
very
well
preserved
and
enhanced
I
think
and.
H
Only
question
is:
we've
heard
from
the
previous
speaker
more
on
the
residential
previous
use
aspect,
and
the
question
is
I'm
wondering
whether
as
to
whether
apartments
could
be
installed
there
under
the
current
application
or
if
there
are
already
other
apartments
there.
In
addition
to
the
bed-and-breakfast
feature,
thank
you.
M
M
So,
in
line
with
two
speakers
ago,
I
guess
my
question
would
be
then,
by
making
this
switch
and
calling
a
building
that
has
been
entertaining
residential
uses,
even
if,
like
a
church
that
might
entertain
uses
that
are
are
beyond
its
primary
use.
Does
this
now
all
of
a
sudden
open
this
building
up
to
a
totally
commercial
use
in
in
in
a
fashion
that
is
very
different
than
its
historic
use
and,
and
that
would
be
possibly
concern
for
some
people
so
to
a
layperson?
M
The
question
for
me
is:
is
it
the
area
that
really
defines
the
zoning,
or
is
it
the
building
itself
that
defines
it?
Because
if
it's
the
building
like
it's
a
church
that
happens
to
me
in
a
downtown
core,
then
it's
gonna
go
a
certain
direction.
If
it's
the
area,
then
it's
gonna
go
in
a
totally
different
direction
and
so
to
a
layperson
I.
Don't
want
little
bit
of
clarity
about
that
I
guess
anyway.
Thank
you.
AA
AA
Ultimately,
you
know
the
zoning
and
the
Official
planner
are
really
establishing
the
principle
of
development,
but
you
know
if
we
were
to
say
to
turn
this
into
apartment
building
tomorrow,
there's
site
plan
applications
items
like
noise
studies
have
to
be
completed
and
assessed,
and
assessing
noise
on
heritage
buildings
is
is
challenge.
You
know.
Some
of
the
nice
things
to
do
with
this
site
are
the
fact
that
does
have
a
stone
wall
that
surrounds
the
courtyard
and
heavy
vegetation
and
wooden
fences.
So
those
are
all
matters
like
noise
are
critical.
AA
So
the
way
to
think
of
this
official
plan
and
zoning
amendment
is
that
we
most
certainly
want
to
normalize
the
use
that
exists
there
today.
They
in
you
know
the
the
way
that
it
works
today
and
what
we
want
to
do.
You
know
if
the
other
uses
come
into
play,
then
other
planning
applications
also
come
into
play.
That
ensure
you
know,
items
such
as
noise
are
dealt
with
and
you
know
I,
don't
I'd
have
a
hard
time
saying
that
this
is
an
appropriate
building
to
be
part
of
downtown.
AA
If
I
said,
the
only
thing
appropriate
for
the
site
is
is
the
end
and
because
I
do
think
that
we
do
want
to
provide
flexibility
for
the
site,
but
because
of
the
nature
of
the
building
you
know
like
you
can
see
some
of
the
lists.
Some
of
the
list
items
that
we've
struck
off
like
liquor,
beer
store,
you
know
I
could
make
the
argument.
AA
AA
We
remove
it
from
the
list,
so
you
know
we're
working
with
staff
to
ensure
that
what
I
would
call
technical
matters
are
dealt
with
so
that
when
staff
bring
a
comprehensive
report
out
into
the
public
forum
and
to
this
this
committee,
you
know
it
will
be
tied
down
with
respect
to
house.
The
site
is
serviced
why
it's
appropriate
to
consider
some
of
these
additional
uses
and
to
deal
with
some
of
those
mitigative
impacts
such
as
changing
the
used
to
be.
AA
You
know,
noise
and
I
mean
noise
goes
both
ways
if
we
put
residential
use
in
there.
We
want
to
know
the
noises
from
traffic
and
things
that
surround
the
site
and
make
sure
that
you
know
the
site
is
appropriately
may
get
mitigated,
so
it
works
works
both
ways.
You
know
from
the
neighbors
that
exist
and
and
out.
So
it's
in
and
out
so
you
know
I'm
kind
of
grouping
the
questions
together
so
right
right
now
the
plan
is
to
run
the
in
it.
It
will
become
apartments
or
something
else.
AA
If
the
end
doesn't
work,
you
know
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
establish
is
the
the
back-up
plan
in
the
event
that
that
you
know
you
know,
as
the
new
owners
have
told
me
what,
if
we're
bad
hotel
your's,
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
some
flexibility,
but
we
also
in
purchasing
this
property,
want
to
make
everything
legitimate-
that's
happening
there
today.
So
that's
really.
D
Very
quick
question:
I
meant
to
ask
and
I
slipped
my
mind
when
you
showed
the
intention.
I
know
that
currently,
and
previously
the
inn
was
pay
to
BIA
levy,
because
Susan
was
the
chair
for
a
period
of
the
BIA.
So
now
the
BIA
levied.
Is
that
just
for
that
property
or
is
it
being
proposed
for
a
larger
footprint
when
you
showed
the
picture,
I
didn't
know
if
it
took
in
more
of
the
block
or
is
it
just
the
property
of
the
end
I?
Don't.
AA
D
A
Thank
you
and
conformation
of
the
minutes
of
August
3rd,
moved
by
councillor
Neill
executive
by
tells
Cermak
Claire,
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you.
Disclosures
of
pecuniary
interest.
I
have
one
aisle.
Is
shell
council,
the
corporation
city
keys,
and
declare
my
peak
any
very
interest
in
the
matter
of
clause?
A
752
King
Street
West,
as
my
mother
owns
a
condominium
right
beside
the
property
and
will
be
coming
to
that
shortly
and
councillor
Neill
will
take
over
the
meeting.
D
Sorry
I
lost
my
page
and
plant
planning
committee
and
that
by
hot
number.
Thank
you.
Eighty
four.
Ninety
nine
entitled
restricted
area.
Zoning
bylaw
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
as
amended,
be
further
amended
as
per
Exhibit
B
to
report
number
PC
17-0,
eight
five
and
that
council
determines
that
in
accordance
with
section
34
17
of
the
Planning
Act.
D
No
further
notice
is
required
prior
to
the
passage
of
the
bylaw
and
that
the
amending
bylaws
be
presented
to
council
for
all
three
readings
and
that
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision
be
subject
to
the
conditions.
As
per
Exhibit
C
draft
plan
of
subdivision
conditions
to
report
number
PC,
1706,
five,
zero,
eight
five,
my
apologies,
I
was
on
the
red-eye
from
Vancouver
last
night,
so
I
not
sure
I'm
being
cold
here.
But
so
are
there
any
questions
or
comments
or
would
staff
like
it
did
staff
have
any
thing
they
wish
to
add?
AB
You
I
can
just
add
that
this
has
been.
These
applications
have
been
in
process
for
some
time.
There's
been
a
lot
of
collaborative
work
between
the
city
and
infrastructure
Ontario,
and
the
recommendation
being
put
forward
tonight
is
consistent
with
the
public
consultation.
That's
been
done
throughout
the
process
and
we're
happy
to
be
putting
this
one
forward
for
recommendation.
If
there's
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them.
D
AB
There
absolutely
would
be
a
public
process
so
as
part
of
the
secondary
plan,
there
was
a
master
transportation
review
done
that
looked
at
what
improvements
might
be
required
in
the
local
road
network,
should
the
lands
develop.
The
blocks
that
are
proposed
through
the
plan
of
subdivision
are
large
blocks
that
are
likely
going
to
be
subject
to
future
plans
of
subdivision,
which
would
go
through
a
full
public
process
at
the
time
that
block
a
which
is
the
block
that
is
adjacent
to
the
Lake
Ontario
Park
entrance.
AB
A
D
Yes
I:
this
was
the
subject
property
that
I
had
a
couple
of
questions
and
concerns
about
my
primary
concern
also
applied
to
the
Colborne
Street
one.
Both
of
these
were
years
in
a
kind
of
limbo
state
of
limbo,
because
they
were
found
in
non-compliance
and
correct
me.
If
any
of
these
facts
are
wrong,
they
were
found
in
non-compliance
with
existing
zoning.
There
was
a
threat
of
some
kind
of
remedy
being
sought
through
legal
action.
D
D
D
Z
Thank
you
through
you,
madam
chair.
So
your
summarization
of
the
two
applications
I
think
your
facts
are
fairly
accurate.
Depicting
what's
happened.
I
would
say
that
the
time
that
we're
in
now
with
the
council
that
we
have
and
the
staffing
complement,
that
we
have
there's
a
much
greater
emphasis
on
enforcement
of
zoning
and
site
plan
issues
than
previously
existed.
I
think
from
a
resourcing
standpoint.
Z
If
you
don't
fall
within
these
parameters,
then
we
have
enforcement
mechanisms
and
then
we
have
all
the
things
in
place
for
us
to
enforce
and
then,
if
necessary,
prosecute
successfully,
so
we're
putting
all
those
tools
in
place.
We've
certainly
advanced
the
work
quite
a
bit
in
2017
we're
hoping
to
rent
to
finish
some
of
it
off
at
the
end
of
2017.
You're,
definitely
going
to
see
some
some
potential
things
in
the
budget
that
will
be
focused
on
these
matters,
and
that
is
our
plan
going
forward.
Z
D
Z
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
we
are
working
on
developing
that
now,
as
well
with
our
site
plans
and
some
recent
ones
that
you've
had
some
communications
of
a
staff
on
where
we
do
have
current
language
at
Center
site
plan
agreement.
The
city
has
never
aggressively
pursued
that
in
the
past,
but
we
are
putting
the
tools
in
place
to
be
able
to
address
issues
of
chronic
non-compliance
in
the
ways
that
we
have
available
to
us.
Thank.
D
You,
the
high
school
teacher
in
me,
wants
to
not
not
reward
inappropriate
behavior
but
well
I
mean
what
would
be
the
outcome
of
voting.
No
to
this
I
mean
the
building
exists,
I
guess
I'm
a
on
principle,
which
seems
strange,
as
the
mover
I
may
in
principle
vote
against
it
on
a
recorded
vote,
but
I
don't
think
I
want
it
to
fail.
What
what
would
happen
if
it
fails.
AB
Do
you,
madam
chair,
the
recommendation
being
put
forward
is
based
on
staffs
review
of
the
proposal
based
on
our
review
in
terms
of
the
policy
framework,
the
Official
Plan
and
the
Williamsville
zoning.
That's
in
effect,
in
the
area.
Our
recommendation
is
supportive
of
what's
being
put
forward,
it's
consistent
with,
what's
in
the
area
and
much
actually
lower
in
scale,
and
some
of
the
other
recent
projects
that
have
occurred
in
the
so
based
on
our
review
staff
are
supportive
and
putting
forward
a
recommendation
to
support
the
project.
A
A
That
concerns
me
more
I
understand
why
this
is
irritating,
but
in
many
ways
this
is
safer
than
what
many
people
are
living
in
in
the
city
that
we're
also
going
to
start
trying
to
deal
with
I
understand
so
I
can
support
this
I
understand
there
are
business
people
who
will
do
this,
but
it
is
livable
and
legal
in
terms
of
building
inspections.
So
I
can
I
can
be
supportive
of
this,
even
though
it's
irritating.
Thank
you.
It's.
A
Will
call
the
vote
all
those
in
favor?
Thank
you
recorded
councillor,
Neill
opposed.
Thank
you
and
item.
C
is
66
Earl
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
we
have
a
recommendation
from
staff.
I
have
a
mover
and
seconder
moved
by
councillor
Hollins
seconded
by
councillor,
Neill
comments
or
questions
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
that
passes
and
our
item.
D
is
950
Centennial
Drive
and
that
also
has
an
addendum.
A
The
report
was
actually
changed
for
this
evening
by
current
seniors,
Housing
Development
Corporation,
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor
Holland
comments
or
questions
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
that
carries
and
item
E
is
94
Carruthers
Avenue
zoning
bylaw
amendment
believe
we
had
this
public
meeting
not
that
many
weeks
ago,
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor,
Hall.
D
Just
one
question
of
staff:
if
I
might
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
infill
project
and
there
was
very
little
it's
in
my
district.
There
was
very
little
comments,
but
there
was
one
neighbor
that
mentioned
a
concern
about
front
yard.
Setback
has
just
gonna.
Ask
staff
if
that's
been
adequately
addressed
in
your
opinion,
did.
AC
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Through
you,
the
original
proposal
included
a
two
metre
front
setback
from
the
building
to
the
property
line
and
a
0.75
meter
setback
from
the
from
the
front
property
line
to
the
to
the
front
porch
and
in
consultation
with
staff.
The
applicant
came
forward
with
revisions
as
suggested
and
what
is
proposed
in
front
of
you
today,
staff
find
it
acceptable
and
worth
recommending,
and
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
then
I
will
call
the
question
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
that
carries
and
f
also
a
very
recent
public
meeting.
This
is
46
kau
D
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
Habitat
for
Humanity,
moved
by
Councillor,
Neil
seconded
by
Councillor
Holland
any
comments
or
questions
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
that
carries
and
we
have
reached
the
end.
We
have
no
motions
notices
of
motion,
other
business.