►
Description
City Planning Committee meeting from January 7, 2016. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/27Aj8Hw
A
Miss
Lambert
mr.
Newman,
mr.
leery
mr.
gut
says
miss
mogadon
and
behind
them.
Mr.
Adams
and
I
thought
miss
for
far
has
stepped
out,
but
we've
got
a
good
contingent
of
staff.
Go
tonight.
I'll
say
it
now,
it's
the
last
meeting
for
mr.
goatse
and
we
congratulate
you
on
on
moving
to
another
position,
I'm
glad
you're
still
going
to
be
in
my
district.
So
that's
good
I
was
worried.
You
were
moving
away
thanks
for
all
you've
done
and
best
wishes
on
your
new
position.
A
Thanks
now
I
have
a
public
meeting
introduction
that
the
chair
reads:
oh
and
Miss
bloomingburg.
How
can
I
do
that
and
then
we
do
have
mr.
ends
were
tonight
from
Parks
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing.
It
end
on
the
forms
provided
at
the
back
of
the
room
is
collected
under
the
authority
of
the
Planning
Act
and
will
be
used
to
assist
in
making
a
decision
on
this
matter.
All
names
addresses
opinions
and
comments
may
be
collected
and
may
form
part
of
the
minutes
which
will
be
available
to
the
public.
A
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
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes,
and
there
is
also
a
sign-up
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.
Exemptions.
A
Exemption
to
this
rule
is
outlined
in
by
law.
Number
two
thousand
675
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
and
to
night.
We
do
combine
public
meeting
comprehensive
report,
versing
bylaw
amendment
to
232
brock
street
and
a
decision
will
be
made
at
the
regular
portion
of
the
planning
committee
meeting
tonight.
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.
A
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
deny.
A
This
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
city
council
and
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
submissions
before
the
bylaw
is
passed,
the
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision
of
counsel
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
A
B
Well
good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
Planning
Committee
staff
and
the
few
members
of
public
that
are
here,
my
name
is
Mike
keen
and
I'm,
a
land-use
planner
with
photon
consultants
and
I'm
here
this
evening
to
briefly
present
to
you,
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
for
232
brock
street,
so
contextually.
This
property
is
located
on
the
edge
of
downtown
and
I'm
dafont
downtown
as
the
zoning
terms.
So
you
can
see
the
highlighted
site.
B
B
B
The
second
and
the
third
floor
and
the
main
floor
is
a
commute
commercial
unit
that
was
actually
you
by
his
his
legal
partner
and
when
they
joined
forces,
the
the
unit
has
actually
remained
vacant,
he's
not
been
able
to
rent
it
out
for
commercial
or
office
purposes,
in
line
with
the
sea,
zoning
on
the
property,
and
so
in
line
with
what
the
neighbors
did
about
six
months
ago.
We
realized
that
this
is
a
location,
that's
appropriate,
to
have
a
dual
zoning
that
would
allow
residential
on
the
ground
floor.
B
So
looking
at
the
units.
This
is
how
this
is
that,
how
we'd
like
to
revive
the
main
floor
unit.
It
has
kind
of
a
little
wing
at
the
back
of
the
building,
but
it's
basically
would
be
converted
so
that
it
could
have
four
bedrooms
in
it.
And
the
second
and
third
floor
are
each
nicely
sized
three
bedroom
units.
B
So
just
you
know
again
summarizing
the
existing
situation.
It's
a
three-story
dwelling
amongst
other
three-story
buildings,
with
a
mix
of
uShip
uses
with
right
now
a
vacant
commercial
floor
and
for
the
most
part,
access
is
provided
from
the
rear
regarding
parking
amenity
and
what
not,
but
all
of
the
units
are
actually
accessed
through
the
front
door
on
brock
street
through
a
common
stairwell.
B
So
the
proposal
is
that
that
we
would
change
the
main
floor
so
that
would
allow
both
uses
both
the
continuing
commercial
uses,
as
well
as
allow
a
residential
use
on
this
floor.
We're
providing
sufficient
parking
to
accommodate
a
conversion
of
either
use,
whether
you
think
of
parking
as
visitor
parking
or,
if
it's
possible,
to
get
a
commercial
tenant
there.
That
would
basically
be
three
spaces
dedicated
to
the
main
floor
and
one
space
for
each
of
the
upper
floors
and
then
there'd
be
a
small
amenity
area
also
available
at
the
rear.
B
Some
of
the
key
policies
that
would
allow
this
application
to
proceed,
our
first,
that
it
is
in
a
central
business
district
in
an
area
where
intensification
is
supported
in
the
official
plan.
But
the
real
key
policy
in
the
official
plan
is
that
this
is
on
an
arterial
road
where
ground
floor
commercial
is
not
required.
So
it's
a
suitable
location
for
this
dual
zone
to
occur.
B
So
in
terms
of
of
the
zoning
by-law,
it
actually
has
policies
that
allow
for
conversions,
but
for
the
most
part
those
conversions
are
talking
about
second
and
third
floors.
So
in
this
case
the
zoning
amendment
is
necessary
so
that
we
can
allow
conversion
of
a
main
floor
to
residential
use,
and
so
that's
really,
ideally
the
zoning
bylaw.
That's
before
you
this
evening.
So
just
to
summarize,
there
will
not
be
any
exterior
changes
required
to
this
building,
so
the
neighborhood
context
will
remain
unchanged.
B
Perm.
The
really
the
idea
here
is
to
permit
flexibility
so
that,
as
time
changes
the
building
could
go
back
to
its
primary
commercial
use.
Should
there
ever
be
the
demand
to
do
so.
It's
consistent
with
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
the
Official
Plan
and
the
zoning,
through
working
with
staff,
we've
been
able
to
add
a
few
provisions
that
will
ensure
a
positive
result
at
the
end.
That
ends
my
brief
presentation.
The
owners
also
here
in
the
audience
and
both
him
and
I,
are
pleased
to
address
any
questions
that
committee
or
the
public
may
have.
Thank.
C
D
You
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
Planning,
Act
and
notice
of
the
statutory
public
meeting,
was
provided
in
advertisement
in
the
form
of
signs
posted
on
the
subject
property
20
days
in
advance
of
the
public
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
approximately
40
for
property
owners
within
120
metres
of
the
subject
property,
and
today
no
correspondence
has
been
received
with
respect
to
this
application.
E
Thank
you,
and
thanks
for
the
brief
and
clear
presentation,
I
just
had
a
quick
question
about
the
neighbors
who
made
the
change
previously.
Are
they
adjacent
I
just
joined
the
committee?
So
I
didn't
see
that
happen.
If
you
could
just
provide
some
context
about
that,
if
that
was
in
your
file
before,
that
would
be
great.
B
The
exact
same
challenge
occurred
with
230
we're
slightly
slightly
different
application,
because
230
is
a
slightly
bigger
building,
but
there
were
there's
a
lot
more
residential
or
call
it
mixed
residential
commercial
units
in
that
building
and
when
the
new
or
owners
bought.
The
building
combination
of
some
were
probably
not
being
used
legally.
They
wanted
to
clean
it
up,
so
that
file
in
many
ways
was
slightly
different
because
it
was
a
true
conversion
than
the
bylaw.
So,
aside
from
the
ground
floor
mix,
the
upper
floors
could
be
converted
to
residential
without
parking
without
amenity.
A
F
Yeah
so
Frank
textin,
495
Alfred
apartment
to
k7k
for
j
4,
Thank
You
mr.
Keane
I.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
and
staff
and
there's
a
public
mr.
Keane.
Thank
you
for
presentation.
I'm
in
favor
of
the
application.
I
believe
that
we
have
a
residential
vacancy
crisis
coming
to
Kingston.
F
As
of
next
fall,
this
coming
fall,
so
the
potential
for
increased
residential
units
is
most
welcome
and
I
do
have
one
question:
you've
got
for
sketches,
showing
the
layout
of
the
different
rooms
on
different
floors
and
I,
see
numbers
such
as
say,
lumos,
page
to
page
25
figure,
5,
10,
7
148.
This
kind
of
thing
are
those
the
dimensions
in
inches
of
the
various
rooms,
because
you
don't
indicate
the
units
on
them
and
then
doesn't
seem
to
make
sense.
Otherwise,
so
is
that
accurate?
A
A
B
A
And
now
we
come
to
the
regular
business
of
the
planning
meeting,
I,
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
ask
for
approval
of
the
agenda.
Councillor
Turner,
councillor,
allen
and
I'll,
let
this
member
get
back
to
so.
It
was
councillor
ternary
seconded
councillor,
Allen,
all
those
in
favor
and
that's
approved
and
confirmation
of
minutes.
The
meeting
held
Thursday
December
third
moved
by
councillor
Emile
seconded
by
Councillor
Turner
questions
errors,
emissions,
none
all
those
in
favor,
okay,
disclosures
of
pecuniary
interest,
none
and
we
now
have
no
delegations,
but
a
briefing
by
mr.
G
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Khmer,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
present
this
evening.
Today
we
are
proposing
to
the
committee
for
amendments
to
the
parkland
dedication
by
law.
The
current
parkland
dedication
by
law
is
an
amalgamation
essentially
of
three
former
bylaws
from
the
three
former
municipalities
that
was
passed
by
council
in
2013.
G
There
has
seen
it's
been
one
minor
amendment
to
the
two
parkland
dedication
bylaw,
an
administrative
or
housekeeping
issue
in
2014,
and
we're
here
with
34
new
subjects
to
propose
to
integrate
into
the
parkland
dedication
by
law
that
react
to
some
changing
trends,
some
practice
with
the
current
by
law
and
alignment
with
some
corporate
values
and
values
of
the
council.
The
four
main
subjects
that
I
will
review
at
the
amendments,
that
by
law
regarding
provisions
for
parkland
for
secondary
suites
heritage
developments,
public
access
easements,
as
opposed
to
true
public
parkland
and
buffer
land
conveyance.
G
G
Typically,
those
are
the
Victorian
three
and
at
two
and
a
half
storey
homes
where
people
would
put
in
a
suite
in
the
attic
and
a
suite
in
the
basement,
and
what
we're
finding
is
that
there
are
opportunities
where
people
are
building
and
doing
unit
outside
of
the
actual
building
and
consistent
with
the
secondary
suites
regulations
there.
There
is
a
permission
to
allow
for
an
expansion
of
a
of
a
new
unit
that
is
subservient
to
the
main
unit.
Second,
it
can
sweet
outside
the
building
envelope
and
there
are
some
restrictions.
G
C
G
To
some
of
the
trends
that
we're
seeing
in
heritage
property
development,
currently
in
the
bylaw,
if
you
evade
the
inside
of
your
heritage
property,
except
for
the
fact
that
it
would
be
heritage,
you
wouldn't
normally
actually
come
come
through
for
site
plan
approval,
because
it
is
a
heritage
property
than
they
do
come
through
for
site
plan
approval.
So
the
the
increase
of
number
of
dwelling
units
or
the
addition
of
any
dwelling
units
inside
of
a
heritage
property
are
only
exempted
for
half
of
their
cash
in
lieu
value.
G
So
the
proposal
is
to
exempt
again
that
fifty
percent
reduction
of
cash
in
lieu
for
any
development
that
expands
for
residential
outside
of
the
building
envelope
up
to
a
hundred
percent
of
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
existing
building.
That's
quite
a
mouthful,
but
you
have
to
write
it
that
way
in
the
bylaw.
G
It
doesn't
mean
that
this
says
that
this
is
the
right
way
to
treat
this
particular
heritage
development,
that's
all
controlled
under
the
process
with
the
Heritage
Committee
and
council
and
the
Heritage
Days
viola,
the
same
did
would
apply
if
someone
were
expanding
either
an
industrial
or
commercial
function.
You
often
see
old
warehouse
Lofton's
like
that
that
our
heritage
expanded
for
this
purpose,
the
other,
the
other
change
is
more
of
a
clarification
is
that
original
by
law
we
refer
to
heritage
buildings
that
she
technically
heritage.
G
So
in
that
circumstance
where
I
mentioned
a
kiss
house
in
alg
apartment
building,
if
it's
not
fully
integrated
to
the
city,
satisfaction,
if
it
really
isn't
a
development
on
another
part
of
the
site,
not
tied
to
the
original
heritage
building
and
the
heritage
building,
would
be
defined
under
the
Heritage
bylaw.
Explaining
explaining
the
heritage
attributes
of
that
of
what
was
what
was
considered
important
to
preserve,
then
it
would
not
get
a
half
price.
It
would
be
equivalent
of
a
new
development.
G
The
third
item
that
we're
proposing
isn't
is
a
completely
new
concept.
It's
actually
quite
new
in
the
industry
and
is
certainly
new
in
this
bylaw.
But
it's
the
idea
of
giving
some
credit
for
developers
for
their
for
their
cash
and
lure
their
parkland
dedication,
giving
them
some
credit
if
they
choose
to
perpetually
share
some
of
their
products
with
the
public.
So
public,
open
space
easement
works
in
a
way
that
we
could
accept
a
public
park
easement
and
then
give
a
reduction
in
their
parkland
dedication
requirement,
and
sometimes
you
can
achieve
those
easements
just
through
negotiation.
G
But
it's
always
nice
to
have
an
extra
tool
to
allow
us
to
try
and
achieve
some
of
these
more
complex
circumstances.
Public
open
space
easements
have
have
a
value
to
the
city.
Obviously
we
have
a
number
of
informal
ones,
all
in
the
city
and
some
that
are
actually
quite,
if
they're
formalized
in
in
the
deeds
to
the
properties,
but
do
they
have
as
much
value
as
proper
public
land
it
that
certainly
significantly-
and
it
varies
so
much
from
property
property-
varies
based
on
the
potential
of
property,
the
asset
value
versus
the
liability
of
the
property.
G
In
some
cases,
the
property
is
just
too
complex
because
of
multiples
circumstances
such
as
parking
garage
and
servicing
and
potential
contamination.
Other
functions
form
from
a
planning
function
or
other
functions
from
a
private
use
that
it
cannot
be
conveyed
or
deeded
out
of
private
ownership.
So
in
those
circumstances
an
easement
could
bill.
Certainly,
we
see
this
a
lot
with
walkways
or
pathways,
as
well
as
small
little
Park,
ettes
and
sort
of
plaza
spaces
that
are
accessible
to
the
public
of
may
not
be
a
traditional
type
of
parkland.
G
So
with
that
in
mind,
its
proposed
that
there
be
a
swap
ratio.
So
if
someone
were
to
convey
a
small
public
open
space
easements,
they
would
receive
a
reduction
in
their
parkland
at
a
swap
ratio
where
the
ratio
would
be
two
to
one.
So
if
they
were
to
convey
a
hundred
square
meters
of
public
open
space.
I'll
do
my
math
right
here.
They
would
get
a
50
square
meter,
parkland
credit
against
their
parkland
dedication
requirement,
and
then
they
would
probably
pay
the
balance
in
cash
and
Lou.
G
However,
if
that,
if
that
was
outside
of
the
corridor
in
downtown
area,
you
would
go
to
a
three-to-one
swap
and
again,
it's
very,
very
difficult
to
put
a
natural
value
on
every
single
product
that
might
come
in
front
of
us,
but
these
we
know
that
they're
not
the
same
as
real
land,
but
they
have
a
lot
of
Perpetual
value
for
them.
The
public
perspective,
so
private,
open
space,
privately
owned
to
open
public
spaces
are
nicknamed
pops.
G
They're
very
popular
Toronto
has
a
handbook
that
thick
on
how
to
achieve
them
and
how
to
manage
them
and
how
to
work
with
landowners
on
them
and
there's
lots
of
different
tools.
Usually
one
of
the
tools
on
a
pop
is
a
zoning
concessions
by
the
municipality,
but
this
is
just
tool
that
we
could
use
in
concert
with
any
of
the
other
suggestions
that
might
solve
a
certain
circumstance.
G
The
last
and
final
item
that
we
are
proposing
is
also
a
new
concept
for
for
this
bylaw.
It's
not
a
new
concept
in
the
industry,
but
it
it
comes
or
springs
out
of
the
master
plan,
land
access
strategy
that
we've
been
developing
through
the
last
two
years
of
public
consultation
and,
obviously
that
land
access
strategy
involves
a
lot
of
different
things.
But
when
it
comes
to
land
development,
it's
nice
to
have
a
tool
will
help
us
and
not
necessarily
guarantee
us
any
rights,
but
will
help
us
be
more
attractive
to
the
land.
G
But
perhaps
one
more
possible
scenario:
we're
modeling,
traditional
parkland
or
negotiation,
isn't
working.
So
in
this
scenario,
we're
proposing
that
waterfront
buffer
land
may
be
conveyed
to
the
city
at
a
possible
exchange
for
the
reduction
of
some
of
the
parkland.
Now
waterfront
buffer
land
is
not
EPA
land,
it's
not
the
land,
that's
under
water
and
it's
not
the
land,
that's
full
of
all
of
this
scientific
and
natural
interests
it
is.
It
is
the
land
that
is
between
those
lands
and
the
houses
are
those
lands
and
the
apartment
buildings.
G
Traditionally,
it's
a
setback,
distance
between
the
water
and
the
back
of
the
development,
and
it
ranges
from
six
years
to
usually
around
30
meters.
Now
that
land
is
constrained,
we
constrain
it
through.
The
Conservation
Authority
is
part
of
the
approval
of
development
plans
and
we
say
that
in
order
to
protect
the
EPA,
development
must
be
this
far
away
and
you
can't
really
do
intensive
bricks-and-mortar
development
in
a
buffer.
It's
gotta
stay
kind
of
left
alone
and
relatively
unfettered.
G
That
being
said,
waterfront
on
major
bodies
of
water
that
are
described
in
a
map
in
the
bylaw
proposal
that
are
consistent
with
the
waterfront
master
plan
may
have
very,
very
high
public
value.
I
mean
you
can
look
anywhere
along
the
waterfront
and
say
oh
well,
I'm
within
10
or
20
or
30
meters
of
the
water,
and
this
is
the
best
place
to
be
actually
from
a
public
perspective,
but
it
isn't
traditional
parkland,
because
it's
constrained,
we
can't
put
jungle
gyms
in
there
and
we
can't
put
soccer
fields
in
there
and
it's
not
traditional
parkland.
G
G
G
The
exchange
ratio,
that's
proposed
again
is
a
very,
very
difficult
one
to
try
and
do
based
on
land
valuation.
It's
extremely
complicated.
Every
single
waterfront
property
has
a
vastly
different
property
value
and
it
depends
on
the
type
of
development.
It
depends
on
where
it's
located
and
we
you
can
imagine
how
difficult
it
would
be
to
achieve
it.
But
we
know
that
it's
not
the
same
as
real
traditional
parkland
right
in
the
middle
of
the
apartment,
building,
complex
or
the
middle
of
the
subdivision,
because
that's
where
we
can
do
really
anything.
G
We
want
from
a
parkland
perspective.
Buffers
are
constrained,
so
it
is
suggested
in
this
proposal
that
we
exchange
based
on
the
quality
of
that
buffer
land
and
the
desirability
of
that
buffer
land
for
public
use,
at
a
ratio
of
two
to
one
or
even
up
to
a
ratio
that
was
larger,
spread
of
five
21,
and
that
would
be
where
one
this
might
be
an
acre.
One
acre
of
parkland
could
be
reduced
from
the
subdivisions
requirement
in
exchange
for
the
landowner
conveying
over
two
acres
of
buffer
land,
the
scoring
or
the
criteria,
the
qualification
of
what.
G
How
good
is
my
buffer
land?
That's
an
exercise
that
would
lay
with
the
discretion
of
the
city
and
that's
an
exercise.
That's
tied
to
another
policy
that
we
brought
to
the
admitted
before
in
in
December,
and
it
was
a
tape
and
that
it
is
outlined
in
the
report
and
it's
a
table
of
about
45
possible,
scoring
points
that
would
allow
you
to
say
my
prop.
My
buffer
land
is
or
the
buffer
land.
That's
of
interest
to
the
city
is
close
to
where
the
people
will
be.
It's
got
ability
to
go
swimming,
it's
beautiful.
G
It's
got
great
views,
etc,
etc,
etc,
and
it's
a
really
quite
prescriptive,
scoring
criteria,
and
that
would
give
you
a
score
or
evaluation.
The
property
which
would
translate
into
an
exchange
ratio
and
that
way
that
the
most
desirable
in
the
highest
quality
properties
would
would.
We
would
then
have
a
tool
be
able
to
say
to
a
land
developer.
G
We
can
reduce
your
parkland,
a
two-to-one
SWA
now
if
they
were
not
as
desirable
but
still
had
public
value,
it
might
be
a
five
to
one
swap
and
in
circumstances
which
may
be
very
rare,
but
in
the
urban
in
the
in
the
downtown
core
urban
fabric,
you
may
see
these
circumstances
where
there's
a
small
strip
of
buffer
land
between
the
water
and
the
apartment
building.
In
those
rare
circumstances,
it
might
be
considered
at
Council's
discretion,
not
not
through
the
planning
process.
B
C
A
G
Actual
reduction
would
stay
the
same,
so
it's
still
half
price
on
cash
in
lieu.
It's
just
that
the
area
of
the
building
that
we
would
apply
it
to
would
be
larger
than
current.
So
currently,
under
the
bylaw,
we
can
exempt
the
cash
in
lieu
payments
or
half
of
the
cash
in
lieu
payments
for
development
inside
the
building
structure.
G
G
It's
a
good
thing
for
a
city
from
the
perspective
of
the
fact
that
we're
respecting
the
priority
of
preserving
finding
another
mechanism
or
another
tool
to
help
reflect
our
desire
to
preserve
heritage
infrastructure
or
heritage
buildings
or
private
heritage
properties.
Will
there
be
a
reduction
in
the
parkland
cash
and
Lou
coming
in?
G
So
we
not
arbitrarily,
but
out
of
logic,
we
suggested
that
we
know
expansions
are
happening
to
her
judge
but
heritage
buildings
and
that,
if
that
expansion
takes
the
development
up
to
as
much
new
as
it
is
old
or
as
much
old
as
it
is
new,
then
that's
still
considered
worthy
of
a
discount.
Now,
if
the
development
were
to
go,
you
know
farther
than
that,
then
they
would
just
pay
regular
cash
in
lieu
rates
for
that
portion
of
the
development
in.
C
G
Under
secondary
suites
there,
the
and
heritage
those
two
clarifications
and
minor
expansion
of
provision
to
the
addition,
these
buildings
would
only
apply
to
cash
in
lieu
reductions,
so
you
were,
if
you
were
gonna,
get
land
anyways,
which
happens
on
occasion
with
large
old
heritage
sites.
You'll
sometimes
get
a
little
park
head
in
the
corner,
but
if
you
were
going
to
get
land
anyways,
it's
still
the
regular
parkland
rates.
The
old
by
the
original
current
by
lot,
doesn't
doesn't
give
any
discount
to
the
parkland
conveyance
it
gives
discount.
G
Once
you
find
out
that
you
can't
take
parkland
in
that
location,
the
cash
in
lieu
of
the
parkland
gets
reduced,
so
in
the
first
to
the
answer
is
no,
there
would
be
no
effect
on
the
park.
Land
coming
over.
There
would
be
a
minor
drop
in
the
cash
and
LU
stream
on
the
second
one
pledges
on
the
third
on
a
public
access.
Easement,
that's
arguable
about
whether
you
would
get
less
land
or
you
would
achieve
more
private.
Open
space.
G
I
would
make
the
argument
that
this
provision,
because
it
applies
to
places
where
you
cannot
get
land
anyways,
where
there's
no
other
opportunity
to
get
real
parkland
conveyed
into
public
because
of
complications
with
the
site,
usually
they're
too
small
or
too
complex.
It's
very,
very
urban
kind
of
thing.
Then
you
would
get
heartland
so
in
this
case,
but
you
wouldn't
own
and
just
have
a
perpetual
right
to
use
the
space.
G
So
in
this
case
and
that
one,
you
may
actually
get
a
higher
amount
of
public
access
to
land
in
buffer
land,
an
appalling
that
would
be
at
a
ratio.
So
you
would,
it
could
occur
on
an
application
basis.
You
could
end
it
with
two
or
three
times
as
much
public
space
as
you
would
have
got
if
you
were
trying
to
get
real
park
land
and
a
buffer
land
model
again
that
balance
between
traditional
land
and
waterfront
land
has
to
still
happen,
so
you're
not
going
to
get
less
land
overall.
G
If
we
were
able
to
use
that
as
a
tool
to
get
a
piece
of
buffer
land
on
a
major
body
of
water,
but
what
you
will
get
in
at
circumstances.
You'll
get
a
larger
piece
of
them
that
would
be
publicly
owned.
It
would
be
on
a
major
body
of
water
to
the
lay
person
25
years
down
the
road.
It
will
feel
like
open
public,
parkland
and
they'll-
probably
call
it
a
park
at
that
point,
but
it's
not
the
same
type
of
traditional
land
that
we
hold
fairly
strictly
to
in
the
plication
viola.
G
So
traditional
at
programmable
parkland
would,
in
that
model,
come
down
if
they're
used,
because
you
have
to
give
thing
to
get
something,
but
on
the
flip
side
you
would
pick
up
at
a
ratio
of
between
two
and
five
to
one
you'd
pick
up
some
more
publicly
and
they
just
had
a
different
style
to
it.
If
you
will
that's.
I
Thank
you
and
I
did
do
a
speed
reading
of
this
tis
the
season.
So,
if
I
ask
a
question,
that's
I
somehow
missed
in
my
speed,
read
my
apologies
under
public
access,
easement
I'm,
assuming
that,
once
that
easement
is
negotiated,
that
will
be
on
the
deed
and
will
carry
over
in
future
to
future
landowners,
as
mostly
Gleason's
do
great
under
under
the
buffer
zone
question.
I
guess
my
I
think,
the
in
theory
and
in
principle
this
is
a
really
good
idea.
I
I
How
tight
the
criteria
is
going
to
be
to
ensure
that
the
public
gets
value
within
these
negotiations
and
if
clearly,
the
city
is
always
in
a
position
to
say
no
deal.
Full
payment
in
lieu
is
what
what
has
to
happen
here,
but
I
guess
my
concern
is
is
if
I'm
a
developer,
and
I
want
to
appeal
for
a
low,
a
fur,
lower
ratio.
I
What
what
are
my
rights
of
appeal
and
I
I
guess?
My
only
reservation
is:
how
can
we
ensure
that
the
city
gets
full
value
for
for
any
of
these
negotiations,
because
sometimes
we
don't
get?
We
don't
necessarily
always
do
really
good
negotiations
with
developers
around
variances
and
easements.
So
is
it
kid?
Is
there
somebody
on
staff
they
could
give
us
or
give
me
some
assurance
as
to
how
tough
those
negotiations
are
going
to
be
so.
G
I
can
answer
one
of
the
questions,
not
not
the
second
one
through
the
chair
q,
but
certainly
we
we
aligned
this
presentation.
After
the
presentation
we
made
the
admitted
policies
committee
on
the
criteria
for
how
someone
could
value
some-some,
waterfront
lands
and
Exhibit
C
of
the
report
shows
that
criteria
table
and
I
believe
it
was
about
45
or
46
scoring
criteria,
point
options
that
you
could
have
and
it
is
qualitative.
We
did
everything
we
could
in
the
criteria
to
make
it
quantitative
so
that
it
would
be
irrefutable,
but
it
is
a
qualitative
exercise.
G
So
I
think
that
would
be
the
way
to
answer
that
and
we'll
have
to
try
we'll
have
to
try
it
to
see
how
how
well
we
do
and
how,
from
both
perspectives
do
each
do.
We
treat
a
scenario
well
or
do
we
or
do
we
perhaps
not
treat
the
scenario
well
enough
and
not
get
the
deal.
We
always
have
the
flexibility
in
most
ease
subdivision
circumstances
to
require
the
full
traditional
parkland
conveyance,
both
side
of
the
buffer
lands
on
public
streets,
who
can
go
with
jungle,
gyms
and
soccer
fields.
G
G
This
is
a
tool
that
we
might
use
and,
yes,
it
will
have
to
be
scrutinized
by
buy
it
by
the
administration
and
committing
counsel.
As
far
as
appeal,
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
any
negotiation
between
a
city
and
on
on
a
planning
that
it
has
the
right
to
go
to
the
appeal
to
by
law
itself.
Does
not
it's
it's
enacted
under
the
Act,
but
it
actually
is
not
appealable,
but
the
actual.
H
Thank
you
in
and
through
you
on
a
time
chair,
so
the
the
parkland
dedication
is
part
of
of
any
planning
application.
So
we
have
to
review
that
as
part
of
the
application.
If
we
can't
come
to
an
agreement
with
an
applicant
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
we
exceed
obviously
the
180
days
that
we
would
typically
have
that
can
be
appealed.
H
So
in
terms
of
negotiations,
we
would
take
the
same
approach
that
we've
been
taking
with
those
more
recent
development
and
some
others
that
I
know
are
being
discussed
are
considered
by
council.
Anything
that
would
be
outside
of
the
the
ratios
that
we've
identified
in
the
natural
land
acquisition
policy
would
have
to
come
to
counsel
for
a
decision.
So
the
one-to-one
ratio
would
have
to
be
approved
by
council
ultimately,
but
we
would
try
to
get
obviously
the
best
value
for
for
the
public
in
any
negotiation
and.
H
3Mon
chairs,
so
that
the
typical
process
would
be
that
there
would
be
a
public
meeting
for
a
proposal,
so
a
development
proposal.
The
public
would
usually
make
their
comments
at
that
point
in
time,
and
and
also
following
that
meeting,
which
all
of
that
is
taken
into
consideration
in
terms
of
the
review
when
you
typically,
we
bring
back
the
comprehensive
report
to
the
planning
committee.
There
is
usually
no
public
meeting
taking
place.
H
Having
said
that,
when
the
reports
are
made
public,
the
public
can
at
that
time
provide
input
to
members
of
the
Planning
Committee
if
they
do
not
feel
that
the
recommendation
should
be
supported
or
they
have
concerns
with
the
recommendation.
So
at
that
point
in
time
there
can
also
be
a
conversation
or
questions
asked
of
staff,
or
there
could
be
revisions
made
or
requested
amendments
requested
by
the
planning
committee.
I
guess.
I
I
guess
my
only
concern
and
I
get
now
is
that
the
process
of
the
recommendation
on
the
negotiated
buffer
lands
will
come.
I
would
assume
well
after
the
public
meeting
for
the
initial
one.
So
the
public
won't
have
that
information
and
won't
have
an
opportunity
to
present
comments
or
questions
to
the
planning
committee
at
that
time.
Is
that
I'm,
assuming
that
would
be
the
protocol,
so.
H
Through
you,
madam
chair,
that
is
the
current
process
as
well,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear
that
we
don't
have
a
process
right
now
that
allows
you
know
public
involvement
in
terms
of
determining
where
the
park
line
is
going
to
be
certainly
located
in
how
much
of
the
parkland
it's
usually
part
of
a
presentation
of
a
proposal.
But
then
negotiations
do
take
place
between
you
know,
staff
and
there's
there's
a
review
and
the
proponents
and
there's
a
review
process
as
well.
H
That
does
take
place
so
when,
when
the
planning
committee
receives
a
report
now
in
terms
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation,
the
public
has
nearly
seen
all
the
details
has
been
put
into
it.
That's
the
current
process.
So
this
would
not
we're
not
proposing
obsess
that's
any
different
than
what
we're
currently
following,
so
it
the
information
would
be
part
of
that
comprehensive
report.
E
Thank
you,
madam
turn.
Just
to
quickly
through
looking
at
the
potential
for
waterfront
buffer
land
acquisition
and
the
appeal
it
might
have,
will
there
be
some
sort
of
internal
matrix
to
ensure
that
we
still
have
the
balance
of
traditional
parkland
that
we
need,
like
I,
said
we
sort
of
start
there
and
that's
what
we
need,
especially
when
it
comes
to
a
subdivision.
But
how
do
we
internally
keep
track
of
what's
necessary
if
we
were
getting
more
public
land
in
the
form
of
offer,
rather
than
in
the
form
of
a
park.
G
C
G
Is
that
is
actually
a
looking
at
your
existing
inventory
as
a
good
is
a
good
place
to
start
we
have
a
service
level
of
approximately
four
and
a
half
hectares
per
thousand
people
of
open,
green,
open,
green
land
in
the
City
of
Kingston,
that's
public
and
high
and
dry.
Not
all
of
that
land
is
traditional
parkland.
A
lot
of
it
is
valleys
in
woodlands,
so
the
actual
cross-section
of
what
that
is
probably
not
a
bad
benchmark
to
know
that
that's
the
service
level
we've
had
today.
H
I'm
cheery
I
just
want
to
add
to
that
there
may
be
situations
where
we
may
want
to
actually
select
the
land
that
is
non-traditional
parkland.
So
we
went
see
you
know,
soccer
fields
on
them.
An
example
is
a
report
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
tonight
on
on
Isle
of
Man,
where
we're
proposing
Park
clan.
That
is
waterfront,
but
would
not
be
your
trigonal
in
the
sense
of
play
fields,
type
site.
E
Thank
you
and
the
one
more
quick
question:
if
you
don't
mind-
and
that
is
M,
how
did
you
said,
we
used
logic
to
arrive
at
the
hundred
percent
number
with
the
heritage
buildings?
How
do
we
arrive
at
a
hundred
percent?
What
made
double
the
existing
footprint?
Essentially
the
ideal
room
to
go
for
this
easement
I'm,
just
wondering
if
it's
going
to
incentivize,
you
know
additional
bulking
up
of
of
heritage
buildings
in
a
way
that
might
be
too
much
I'm,
not
sure
so.
G
Threw
the
chair:
that's
a
good
question.
We
did
think
about
that
in
advance
and
the
actual
provisions
for
what
would
be
permitted
in
a
harrisch
development
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
parkland
or
any
discount.
The
parkland
cash
in
lieu
may
have
but
would
occur,
subject
to
Heritage,
Committee
and,
of
course,
the
heritage
by
law.
That's
sitting
on
that
particular
property.
H
Thank
you
and
three,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
point
out
that
really
the
intent
of
this
is
to
try
to
incentivize
some
of
the
developments
we're
seeing
in
with
aerotek
buildings
and
I
think
we're
going
to
see
more
and
more
of
those
adaptive
you
and
I'm
going
to
point
to
the
project
on
the
glare
of
wellington
and
leave.
That's
Brock,
that's
there.
So
those
are
the
kinds
of
tech.
Sorry,
I
I
think
we're
going
to
start,
seeing
more
and
more
as
we're
see
tense,
vacation
in
the
core
and
and
that's
to
look
at.
H
Obviously
it's
a
footprint,
that's
larger
than
the
existing
or
older
era
tidge
building,
so
we
have
a
developer,
that's
coming
in
and
as
added
a
newer
part
if
you
wish
to
those
buildings,
so
we
want
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
we
can
include
those
and
we're
not.
You
know
in
a
situation
where
we're
descent
advising
those
types
of
redevelopment.
J
Thank
you.
I
do
you,
madam
chair
councillor,
Neil,
did
point
out
some
good
points
about
this
going
forward
into
the
future.
We
do
need
to
get
public
input,
I
agree,
but
at
this
point
I
think
it's
a
really
good
framework
to
start
with
and
I
like
it,
I
think
it's
really
good
and
I
think
we
need
this
to
move
forward
and
we
are
building
our
city
and
we
do
need
intensive,
occation
and
I.
J
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
just
point
of
I
guess
more
of
a
reminder
that
we
are
getting
ready
to
launch
dash
January
18th.
So
that's
a
very
exciting
thing
for
us
that
any
member
of
the
public
will
be
able
to
access
at
any
point
of
time
from
a
computer.
Real-Time
information
about
the
status
of
an
application
you'll
be
able
to
see
some
technical
comments.
You'll
be
able
to
see
the
the
evolution
of
the
particular
application
in
much
greater
detail
and
ease
before
it
comes
becomes
before
the
committee
for
a
comprehensive
review
and
recommendation.
A
Any
other
questions
well.
Thank
you
very
much.
Miss
transfer
we're
very
comprehensive
report.
It's
got
a
lot
of
excitement
now
there
is
a
recommendation
attached
to
this,
recommending
that
the
bylaw
be
presented
and
do
I
have
a
mover
in
a
seconder
councillor,
alan
kelso
Turner,
all
those
in
favor
and
that's
passed.
Thank
you.
A
E
E
It's
a
I
have
to
say
that
staff
did
an
incredible
job
with
the
zoning
on
this.
There
are
a
lot
of
zones
and
if
you
look
at
it
too
long,
you
start
to
see
other
images
come
out
of
the
cross
hatching
in
the
report,
but
ultimately
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
little
more
clarification
on
how
the
open
space
and
the
buffer
along
the
waterfront
will
work
and
what
and
I
believe
that's
going
to
be
written
in
on
title
for
all
of
the
properties
that
there.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
through
you,
so
within
the
all
the
Lots
that
front
on
to
the
water,
the
zoning
has
been
crafted
to
require
a
minimum
30
meter
setback
or
30
to
40
meter,
set
back
from
the
water's
edge
or
the
high-water
mark
of
the
canal,
and
that's
a
provision.
That's
been
written
right
into
the
zoning
coupled
with
that.
There
are
some
conditions
reflected
in
the
draft
conditions
within
the
report
that
will
put
notice
on
title
for
to
make
owners
aware
of
the
requirements
of
no
development
within
that
area.
E
L
Through
you,
madam
chair,
that
is
incorporating
language
directly
from
the
environmental
impact
statement,
so
the
intent
is
that
the
landscaping
treatment
within
that
area
would
remain
naturalized
conceivably.
There
could
be
a
path
worn
down
to
the
water
for
passive
recreation
on
those
Lots,
but
ultimately,
the
intent
of
the
provision
is
to
maintain
that
landscaping
and
a
natural
natural
I
stayed.
L
Through
you,
madam
chair,
yes,
staff
have
carefully
examined
the
building
envelope
of
lots.
9
intangibles
the
other
lots
as
well
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
sufficient
building
envelope
that
those
provisions
that
staff
recommending
can
be
implemented
for
dwelling
decided
on
each
of
those
Lots,
as
well
as
a
well
a
primary
septic
system,
as
well
as
a
place
for
a
replacement
system
in
the
future.
E
Thank
you,
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
those
questions
with
a
quick
comment
that
it's
a
it's
certainly
taken
a
lot
of
staff,
creativity
and
in
time
to
make
an
a,
not
ideal
situation
into
something
that
looks
like
we
can
work
with
and
protects
the
natural
heritage
of
the
UNESCO
World
Heritage
Site
there,
the
rideau
canal.
So
thank
you
for
your
hard
work.
M
You
madam
chair
I,
like
on
page
6
226,
where
we
have
the
purpose
prospective
purchasers
will
be
advised
that
these
are
not
water
access,
lots,
I,
just
wonder:
can
we
make
a
sign?
Go
up?
You
know,
somewhere
in
the
subdivision
closer
to
the
water.
You
know
some
like
trying
to
encourage
people
not
to
create
their
own
path
towards
the
water
is.
Is
that
possible
at
all
to
impose.
J
L
Three
men
in
chair:
there
is
a
condition
in
the
draft
conditions
before
you
before
the
committee
this
evening.
That
requires
a
video
inspection
to
verify
the
structural
integrity
of
the
road,
all
the
way
out
to
highway
15
and
that's
kind
of
a
point
in
time.
Analysis
that
will
show
the
condition
of
the
road
and,
if
need
be,
missions,
can
be
worked
into
the
subdivision
agreement
to
require
redress.
Should
the
development
of
the
subdivision
require
remediation
to
the
road.
A
A
The
recommendation
councillor
Turner
seconded
by
Councillor
Allen
comments,
questions
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you.
That's
carried
and
applications
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
if
T
for
Wiley
streets.
This
is
the
secondary
suite
moved
by
councillor
Turner
seconded
by
Councillor
Oh
Santa
questions
comments
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
and
that
concludes
that
business
portion.