►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Committee - July 4, 2019
Description
Planning Committee meeting from July 4, 2019. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2lD3ugx
A
A
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.
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.
An
exception
to
this
rule
is
combined
reports
which
consolidates
the
public
meeting
and
comprehensive
reports.
These
applications
are
deemed
by
staff
as
straightforward
and
routine.
A
This
business
practice
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
is
received
by
the
applicants
as
efficient
customer
service
and
effective
use
of
committee
time.
Please
note
that
staff
are
used
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
A
Public
meeting
reports
are
provided
to
inform
the
public
of
all
relevant
information.
Information
gathered
is
then
referred
back
to
planning
and
development
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
the
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.
A
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.
The
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.
If
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal.
A
The
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
land,
Local
Planning,
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaws
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal.
The
decision
so
we'll
move
to
our
first
public
meeting
and
I
hit
the
wrong
button
here.
I
just
have
to
find
it
has
to
do
with
an
official
plan
and
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
regarding.
B
Thank
You
mr.
chair
good
evening,
members
of
the
public
members
of
Planning,
Committee
and
staff,
my
name
is
secretely
Angharad
I
am
a
project
manager
with
the
city's
Planning,
Division
and
I'll,
be
presenting
the
proposed
city
initiated
Official,
Plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
regarding
residential
parking
and
driveways.
This
public
meeting
was
previously
scheduled
to
be
held
on
June
6th.
However,
it
was
deferred
at
that
time
a
new
notice
has
been
provided
in
the
Kingston
week.
B
Standard
advertising,
the
new
date
to
date,
staff
have
received
12
pieces
of
Correspondence
regarding
this
application,
so
just
a
little
bit
of
background
and
context
as
to
why
we
are
proposing
the
changes
to
regulations
around
parking
and
driveways
in
residential
areas.
As
you
may
know,
there
is
provincial
direction
to
increase
as
of
right.
Permissions
for
second
residential
units
across
the
City
Council
at
the
last
council
meeting
had
approved
the
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
related
to
second
residential
units.
You
may
also
know
that
the
province
through
bill
108
is
now
changing.
B
Rules
2,
which
would
now
be
asking
municipalities
to
allow
a
third
unit
on
a
lot
which
could
be
located
within
the
primary
dwelling
or
in
an
accessory
building.
So
staff
want
to
take
a
proactive
approach
to
you.
The
increased
demand
for
parking
in
residential
areas
with
with
opening
up
of
permissions
related
to
second
units.
B
So,
with
respect
to
you,
the
Official
Plan
policies,
there
are
two
sets
of
policies
that
apply
to
residential
areas.
One
is
for
new
development,
where
the
Official
Plan
policies
speak
to
front
yard
parking,
so
frontier
parking
is
not
permitted,
except
for
parking
in
a
driveway
leading
to
a
permitted
parking
space
in
your
garage
side
or
rear
yard.
B
There
are
there's
a
second
set
of
policies
for
existing
residential
areas
where
the
Official
Plan
discourages
front,
yard
parking
and
restricts
parking
to
rear
yards
side
yards
and
garages,
and
then
there
are
there's
also
a
set
of
criteria
for
the
review
of
requests
to
establish
front
yard
parking.
For
example,
if
we
were
looking
at
a
minor
variance
application
or
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
relating
to
front
yard
parking,
there's
a
set
of
criteria
that
the
application
would
have
to
demonstrate
how
it
meets
the
intent
of
those
policies.
B
So
this
is
just
a
graphic
that
shows
the
current.
The
current
rules,
as
it
relates
to
our
zoning
bylaws
in
residential
zones.
Parking
in
a
driveway
in
a
portion
of
a
front
yard,
is
permitted
where
the
driveway
leads
to
a
permitted
parking
space
in
a
car
outside
your
yard.
So,
as
you
can
see,
if
this
regulation
more
or
less
mirrors
the
new
development
section
of
the
Official
Plan,
where
it
does
permit
parking
in
a
driveway
where
the
driveway
is
leading
to
a
garage,
a
side
yard
or
a
view
yard.
B
B
B
The
city
has
five
principal
zoning
bylaws.
In
effect,
the
maximum
permitted
driveway
widths
in
a
residential
zone
vary
across
the
bylaws,
with
in
Kingston
Township
and
Pittsburg
Township.
The
maximum
permitted
driving
bits
are
40%
of
the
lot
width
or
6
meters,
whichever
is
lesser
within
the
Cataraqui
North
bylaw,
the
driveway,
with
sound,
greater,
then
what's
permitted
in
these
areas.
It's
they
are
typically
at
50%
of
the
lot
width
within
the
Central
Kingston
area.
B
B
So
through
this
amendment
we
are
looking
to
you
bring
together
the
Official
Plan
policies
regarding
new
and
existing
low-density
residential
developments.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
there
are
two
sets
of
policies,
one
for
new
development,
one
for
existing
residential
areas.
We
are
proposing
to
bring
these
together
and
the
main
change
would
be
that
these
type
of
residential
developments
will
not
have
front
yard
parking,
except
for
parking
in
a
perimeter
driveway.
B
As
for
the
provisions
of
the
bylaw,
so
one
of
the
main
changes
is
that
we
are
removing
the
restriction
that
parking
in
a
drive
is
only
permitted
where
the
driver
leads
to
a
garage
side
or
a
rear
yard.
So
and
I
have
some
illustrations.
Do
you
show
what
this
exactly
means,
which
I
will
be
discussing
shortly
and
the
the
third
amendment
to
the
Official
Plan
is
adding
a
new
criteria
to
Section
four
point:
six
point
sixty
which
is
related
to
request
to
establish
frontier
parking.
B
So
so
in
this
image,
I'm,
so
the
so
the
left
image
shows
our
existing
rules,
so
you
can
park
in
in
our
driveway
whether
driveway
leads
to
a
garage
in
this
situation.
This
is
what's
what
we
are
proposing,
you
can,
you
will
be
allowed
to,
residents
will
be
allowed
to
park
in
a
driveway
where
the
driver
is
not
leading
to
a
garage
or
a
side
yard.
So
that
is
one
of
the
main
changes
relating
to
residential
parking
and
drivers
in
our
zoning
bylaws.
B
There
are
several
of
several
situations
within
the
older
part
of
the
city
where
development
did
not
contemplate
automobiles,
they
were,
they
were
built
before
like
in
the
early
1900s
and
they
have-
and
there
is
no
really
no
space
to
be
able
to
park
a
vehicle
based
on
our
current
zoning
regulations.
So
the
proposed
changes
would
address
those
type
of
situations.
B
I
also
wanted
to
mention
that
in
no
way
is
the
intent
of
staff.
Do
you
allow
the
whole
front
lawn
to
be
paved
for
parking
permit
purposes?
That
is
not
at
all
the
intent
of
the
proposed
amendment.
The
proposed
amendment
would
restrict
the
driveway
width
to
40%
of
the
lot
width
or
6
meters.
Whichever
is
lesser
so
6
meters
is
about
a
20
foot,
wide
driveway,
which
can
accommodate
two
cars
side
by
side
and
that's
the
maximum
that
we
are
proposing.
B
So
similar
to
the
Official
Plan
Amendment,
similar
changes
are
being
proposed
to
you
this
morning
by
laws
where
we,
where
vehicles
would
be
allowed
to
park
in
a
portion
of
a
front
yard
in
a
permitted
driveway
only
and
then
in
zoning
bylaw
number
84
99.
We
are
adding
new
provisions
related
to
the
maximum
and
minimum
driveway
vex
permitted.
B
Minimum
driveway
widths
are
also
proposed
to
be
added
to
the
other
bylaws,
which
do
not
speak
to
a
minimum
driveway
with
at
this
time
we
are
proposing
a
minimum
driving
width
of
3
meters,
which
should
be
able
to
accommodate
one
car
with
the
other
change
is
permitting
tandem
parking,
which
is
one
curve
park
behind
the
other
in
areas
where
it's
currently
not
permitted.
So
some
of
our
zoning
bylaws
already
permit
tandem
parking.
Some
call
me
tandem
parking
only
for
second
residential
units.
However,
through
this
amendment,
they
will
be
permitted
across
all
of
the
residential
zones.
B
So
again,
just
reiterating
the
intent
of
these
proposed
amendments
is
to
take
a
proactive
approach.
You
choose.
The
anticipated
increase
demand
that
we
will
be
seeing
as
a
result
of
second
units
within
our
residential
areas.
The
intent
of
these
proposed
amendments
is
to
provide
additional
opportunities
for
off
street
parking,
while
at
the
same
time
trying
to
strike
a
balance
between
the
need
for
maintaining
the
streetscape
and
neighborhood
character.
The
proposed
amendments
are
supportive
of
second
residential
units,
which
are
an
important
tool
in
contributing
to
the
supply
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
B
So
just
a
few
more
illustrations
to
explain
the
proposed
changes.
The
the
two
illustrations
on
the
left
are
the
existing
rules.
So
in
this
in
in
this
case,
the
the
leftmost
illustration
residents
are
permitted
to
park
in
a
driveway
in
a
portion
of
the
front
yard.
So
a
front
yard
is,
is
the
area
between
the
front
wall
of
a
building
and
the
front
lot
line
which
is
adjacent
to
the
municipal
right
away.
B
So
if,
if
there
was
a
garage
on
the
property
and
a
driveway
is
leading,
of
course,
that
driveway
will
be
leading
to
a
garage
residents
are
allowed
to
park
on
a
driveway.
However,
where
there
is
no
garage
as
in
this
in
the
center
illustration,
resistance
are
not
allowed
to
park
within
the
driveway,
because
then
our
existing
rules
do
not
permit
that.
So
what
we
are
proposing
is
to
remove
that
restriction.
So,
even
if
there
was
no
garage
on
a
property,
people
would
be
able
to
park
within
their
driveway.
B
Some
more
illustrations,
so
in
the
left
most
image,
there
is
a
garage
located
in
the
back
of
a
property
and
currently
a
vehicle
may
be
part.
We
do
not
driveway
that's
leading
to
a
garage.
However,
if
your
driveway
was
short,
you
are
not
allowed
to
park
like
that
within
the
front
yard.
So
we
are
proposing
to
you
sorry
again,
like
I
said.
Remove
that
restriction,
the
driveway
is
no
longer
required,
would
be
no
longer
required
to
be
leading
to
to
a
garage
or
a
parking
space
in
a
side
yard
or
the
rear
yard.
B
I
also
just
wanted
to
speak
quickly
about
the
driveway,
widths
and
orientation.
Like
I
mentioned,
the
maximum
drift
width
of
a
driveway
within
the
required
front
yard
so,
which
is,
which
is
this
area
in
front
of
the
building,
is
proposed
at
40%
of
the
lot
width
or
6
meters.
Whichever
is
lesser
so
like
I
mentioned
6
meters
would
only
be
able
to
get.
You
would
would
only
be
able
to
provide
two
cars
parked
side
by
side
beyond
the
required
front
yard.
B
So,
for
example,
if
in
the
zoning
bylaw
they
required
minimum
required
front
yard
is,
let's
say,
6
meters.
However,
the
dwelling
was
located
at
12
meters,
so
within
that
additional
6
meter
space
between
the
minimum
required
front
yard
and
the
building
you,
we
are
looking
to
allow
the
driver
widths
to
be
equal
to
the
width
of
the
garage.
B
If
there
is
a
garage,
that's
wider
than
the
width
that
proposed
within
that
front
yard
portion,
one
of
the
other
things
is
we
that
we
are
proposing
is
that
a
driveway
would
not
be
permitted
parallel
to
the
street
within
the
required
front
yard,
because
this
does
have
the
effect
of
negatively
impacting
the
streetscape
character.
If
a
car
is
parked
if
a
vehicle
is
parked
parallel
to
the
street
within
a
frontal
situation.
So
these
type
of
situations
we
would
still
have
to
look
at
on
a
case-by-case
site-by-site
basis.
B
The
leftmost
illustration
shows
that
a
vehicle
is
straddling
the
municipal
right-of-way
and
a
little
bit
over
the
municipal
sidewalk,
that's
not
permitted.
A
parking
space
must
be
located
entirely
on
private
property,
not
on
municipal
property.
Again,
here's
another
situation
where
a
vehicle
is
parked
in
the
front
lawn,
that's
not
permitted.
It
has
to
be
parked
on
a
driveway
which
is
permitted
by
the
zoning
bylaw
again
another
situation
here
where
a
vehicle
is
parked
partially
on
a
driveway
and
partially
on
grass.
B
Again,
that
would
not
be
permitted
and
then
this
last
situation,
where
there
is
not
enough
space
between
the
front
of
the
dwelling
and
the
front
lot
line
to
be
able
to
park
a
vehicle
those
situations
again,
we
would
have
to
look
at
them
on
a
case-by-case
basis
if
like.
If,
if
we
can
look
at
other
configurations,
that
would
work
on
the
property.
B
Staff,
looked
at
some
of
the
other,
some
other
municipalities,
with
respect
to
how
other
municipalities
are
dealing
with
parking
in
a
driveway
in
low-density
residential
areas,
Oakville
Newmarket,
Oshawa,
Barrie,
Mississauga
and
London.
They
all
permit
working
in
a
driving
approach
in
a
portion
of
a
front
yard
similar
to
what
we
are
proposing
currently
Vaughan
and
Kingston.
B
They
only
permit
currently
only
permit
parking
in
a
drive
enough
portion
of
a
front
yard
where
the
driveway
leads
to
a
garage
or
a
side
yard
or
a
yard
parking
space.
We
also
looked
at
whether
or
not
municipalities
permit
tandem
or
stacked
parking,
and
most
of
the
municipalities
do.
For
my
dad,
however,
Newmarket
and
one
do
not
have
any
regulations
related
to
tandem
parking
in
their
bylaws.
B
One
of
the
other
changes
through
this
work
that
we
are
proposing
is
regulating
the
temporary
parking
of
recreational
vehicles,
watercraft
and
trailers
within
the
residential
zones.
The
current
regulations
permit
the
parking
of
such
vehicles
within
a
garage
or
other
building
or
in
a
rear
yard
or
interior
side
yard,
but
not
closer
than
one
meter
to
any
large
line
and
not
in
any
required
parking
space
or
sight
triangles
so
a
side
triangle
generally.
It
applies
to
corner
Lots,
it
sits.
B
There
is
a
calculation
which
applies
if
the
main
thing
is
that
it
should
not
be
blocking
views
like
when
people
are
trying
to
make
turns
on
a
street,
so
that
corner
corner
is
required
to
be
vacant
of
any
buildings
and
structures,
vehicle
or
parking,
and
things
like
that
and
the
current
zoning
bylaw
is
allow
for
the
temporary
parking
of
recreational
vehicles,
watercraft
and
trailers
in
a
front
yard.
So
the
current
bylaws
do
not
speak
to
a
driveway
or
anything.
B
It
just
says:
you're
permitted
to
park
a
recreational
vehicle
or
a
watercraft,
or
a
trailer
with
in
the
front
yard
or
in
an
exterior
side
yard.
So
again,
an
exterior
side
yard.
Is
you
usually
would
apply
to
you
a
corner
lot
as
well,
so
one
side
is
considered
the
front
yard
and
the
other
side
is
an
exterior
side
yeah.
B
So
these
type
of
vehicles
are
permitted
to
be
parked
in
in
these
yards
for
72
hours
in
a
in
one
calendar
month
throughout
the
year,
staff
have
received
several
comments
from
members
of
the
public
that
the
72-hour
restriction
is
it's
very
restrictive.
Sometimes
people
don't
have
enough
time
to
be
able
to
to
load
both
load.
It
off.
Do
some
repairs
within
that
72-hour
time.
Limit
and
staff
also
have
difficulties
in
enforcing
that
72
hour
time
limit,
because
staff
are
not
out
there
going
around
street
every
day.
B
So
it's
difficult
for
staff
to
determine
whether
or
not
of
you
has
been
parked
within
a
driveway
for
72
hours.
More
than
that,
so
there
are
some
changes
that
we
are
proposing
just
to
the
temporary
parking
piece
we
are
proposing
to
remove
the
72
hour
in
a
month
time
limit
restriction
and
regulate
the
temporary
parking
of
recreational
vehicles,
watercraft
and
trailers
on
a
seasonal
season
based
approach.
B
So
what
we
are
proposing
is
these
type
of
vehicles,
maybe
part
in
a
permitted
driveway
in
a
front
yard
or
in
an
exterior
side
yard
between
April
1
and
October
31st
of
each
year.
So
these
would
include
vehicles
such
as
a
boat,
motorhome
travel
trailer,
but
not
both.
So
you
could
either
have
a
Motorhome
or
a
travel
trailer,
a
personal
watercraft
and
all-terrain
vehicle
or
a
similar
recreational
vehicle
or
a
utility
trailer.
B
If
you
had
a
snowmobile,
you
could
only
park
it
with
in
the
winter
months
within
within
the
driveway
in
a
front
yard,
so
so
yeah.
So
one
of
the
changes
is
that
we
have
introduced.
The
current
regulations
do
not
speak
to
parking
in
a
driveway.
They
just
said
you
are
permitted
to
park
these
vehicles
in
the
front
yard,
so
you
want
to
clarify.
It
has
to
be
within
parking
of.
B
Such
vehicles
has
to
be
within
a
driveway,
but
not
closer
than
one
meter
from
any
not
lot
line,
and
also
a
recreational
vehicle,
watercraft
or
trailer
parking
must
not
displace
the
vehicle
parking
on
property.
So
it's
it's
not
the
intent
as
at
all
that,
with
the
automobile,
the
car
would
be
parked
on
the
street.
They
they
are
only
permitted
these
type
of
vehicles
on
property
if
they
can
accommodate
them.
In
addition
to
you,
the
private
automobile.
B
So,
with
respect
to
you,
a
review
for
the
municipalities,
Burlington,
Oakville
and
Cambridge
have
have
also
adopted
a
seasonal
based
approach
for
temporary
vehicles
parking
there,
the
wear
permitted,
so
the
yards
were
permitted.
That
generally
varies
in
between
these.
Among
these
different
municipalities,
for
example,
Burlington
allows
the
temporary
parking
in
any
yard
on
a
seasonal
basis.
Up
will
only
permits
it
in
a
driveway.
B
Depending
on
the
height
and
the
maximum
length
of
the
vehicle,
or
within
an
exterior
side
yard
into
your
side
or
rear
yard,
so
if
it's,
if
it
exceeds
a
maximum
height,
it's
only
permitted
within
those
areas
and
Cambridge
permits
such
vehicles
on
a
temporary
basis
in
a
driveway
Newmarket
permits
temporary
parking
of
such
vehicles
in
your
driveway
for
8
days
in
a
calendar
month,
Oshawa
and
1
have
no
regulations
regarding
temporary
parking.
They
only
have
regulations
regarding
the
permanent
parking
of
such
vehicles.
A
A
C
B
Thank
you
for
the
question
through
you,
mr.
chair
I,
am
just
going
to
take
us
back
to
this
illustration,
so
the
reality
is
that
vehicles
are
being
currently
parked
on
streets
if
they
are
not
being
able
to
be
be
located
on
private
property,
which
which
does
result
in
operational
challenges
as
it
relates
to
Street
maintenance,
snow
removal
in
the
winter
months.
B
Regarding
specifically
regarding
climate
emergency,
and
how,
through
this
amendments,
we
we
also
anticipate
people
would
no
longer
need
longer,
try
this
as
they
will
be
able
to
park
vehicles
within
like,
for
example,
in
this
situation,
where
you
know
a
garage
could
be
located
up
front
and
you
would
not
like,
or
you
wouldn't
even
need
a
garage.
Some
people
don't
have
garages
so
longer,
drivers
would
could
be
replaced
with
landscape
open
space,
which
would
result
in
more
stormwater
absorption,
which
in
indirectly
does
have
a
positive
impact
on
the
environment.
B
C
C
So
the
support
the
active
transportation
plan
and
then,
if
parking
on
streets,
are
an
issue
for
snow
removal.
What
not?
Wouldn't
enforcement
of
issuing
parking
tickets
be
more
beneficial
than
creating
this?
This
issue
on
the
on
the
lots
and
the
only
reason,
I
asked
this
question
is
because
I
do
have
some
community
some
streets
where
I
got
lots
of
concerns
with
already
more
residential
cars
per
resident,
creating
traffic
problems
and
I
think
it's
it's:
enforcement
of
traffic
violations
and
issuing
tickets.
D
Via
question
comes
with
you,
mr.
chair,
with
respect
to
the
city's
active
transportation
plan.
There
is,
there
is
only
so
much
municipal
right-of-way
within
within
the
street,
and
that
municipal
right-of-way
is
split
up
between
travel
lanes
for
vehicles,
travel
lanes
for
for
non
auto
modes,
pedestrians
to
use
on
sidewalks
and
in
many
cases
on
street
parking
areas.
So
the
the
ability
to
manage
and
sort
of
balance
all
of
those
uses
across
the
right-of-way.
D
Your
second
equation
question,
as
it
relates
to
enforcement,
also
I
think
in
a
way
relates
to
what
ms
agrawal
presented
with
the
practical
difficulty
in
enforcing
some
of
those
pieces.
So
the
city's
by
law
allows
any
vehicle
to
be
parked
for
up
to
12
hours
unless
it's
unless
it's
otherwise
signed
or
regulated
enforcing
enforcing
a
12
hour
restriction
requires
multiple
visits
and
oftentimes
over
multiple
days.
In
order
to
to
rectify
that
behavior
and
such
I
think
through
these
amendments,
it's
it's
looking
at
providing
a
legal
alternative
to
to
address
the
need
that
exists.
C
We
meant
and
wondering
if
you
had
an
opportunity
to
look
in
communities
where
secondary
Suites
are
already
permitted
and
looked
at
the
parking
scenario,
and
if
you
had
any
thoughts
on
those
because
I
often
see
areas-
and
we
didn't
discuss
it
here,
where
we
have
a
driveway
that
is
now
extended
wider
with
with
I,
would
say
concrete
or
patio
stones,
so
they
create
two
spots.
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
visited
anywhere
in
the
community
that
you
saw
this
impact
or
where
in
the
community
of
Kingston.
You
see
this
having
the
greatest
impact.
B
B
E
F
E
Okay,
the
whole
purpose
of
this
I'm,
assuming
is
to
get
cars
off
the
street,
or
one
of
the
purposes
of
this
at
least,
is
to
get
cars
off
the
street
kind
of
maintain
the
ambiance
of
the
neighborhood.
That
sort
of
thing
right,
but
getting
cars
off
the
street
is
a
is
a
critical
consideration
with
the
secondary
units
coming.
B
E
E
E
Then
you
know
I
mean
I,
understand
what
you're
saying
it's
just
I
think
that
might
be
something
that
we
could
maybe
take
another
look
at
and
maybe
consider
whether
or
not
that
would
require
an
enhanced
piece
of
front
yard
property.
In
order
to
be
able
to
do
that.
Just
a
suggestion,
and
in
my
last
thing
was:
is
there
any
potential
around
recreational
vehicles
to
ask
the
developers
of
new
subdivisions
to
include
as
part
of
that
subdivision,
a
parking
area
so
that
people
in
that
district
could
or
that
area
could
park?
E
B
B
E
B
E
B
G
D
Units
to
share
and
I
think
around
the
second
aspect,
I
think
counselor.
What
you
were
describing
was
an
off-site
area
parking
area
that
would
that
would
allow
private
vehicles
to
park
within
that
community.
I
think
generally,
that
that
is
sort
of
a
essentially
a
public
parking
lot
that
you're
describing
in
in
under
the
city's
policies.
From
a
transportation
perspective,
we
wouldn't
necessarily
develop
large
surface
parking
areas
solely
for
the
provision
of
parking
private
vehicles
within
that
neighborhood.
H
You
mr.
chair
I'm,
through
you
with
what's
proposed
for
residential
parking,
how
are
we
going
to
ensure
that,
like
front
yard,
trees
aren't
cut
down
so
that
people
can,
you
know
I
parked
the
cars
on
their
front
lawn?
That's
what
my
concern
is
and
I
I
don't
follow.
Are
they
can
I?
They
can
flee
change.
The
zoning
bylaw
to
pepo
apply
to
then
try
to
get
this
parking
and
that's
how
we
can
ensure
that
trees
won't
be
cut
down,
or
is
there
no
way
to
enforce
that
through
you.
B
Mr.
chair,
if
the
tree
is
located
on
municipal
property,
a
permit
would
be
required
to
take
down
that
tree
if
the
tree
is
located
on
private
property
and
it's
a
residential
lot,
the
tree
bylaw
does
permit
the
removal
of
trees.
So
that's
something
that
we
will
not
be
able
to
regulate
based
on
our
existing
tree
bylaw.
Thank.
H
You
and
Russians
are
about
to
know
vehicles
and
what
we're
proposing
to
change.
So,
if
somebody
does
have
to
jet
skis
on
their
driveway
and
if
the
neighbor
then
was
having
problems
with
sight,
land
lines
right
backing
out
of
their
driveway,
they
could
then
call
bylaw
and
put
in
again
a
complaint
and
by
law
would
come
to
investigate
if
they
were
having
problems
backing
out
of
their
driveway.
Because
of
all
the
recreational
vehicles
on
the
neighbor
next
door
to
them
through.
B
You
are
mr.
chair,
so
the
recreational
vehicles
are
required
to
be
located
entirely
on
private
property.
Typically,
there
is
space
in
front
of
his
face
between
the
private,
with
the
property
line
and
the
actual
like
asphalt
pavement,
which
is
the
roadway
generally.
We
would
have
a
sidewalk
or
a
Boulevard,
so
that's
not
the
that's,
not
the
portion
of
the
driveway,
where
somebody
would
be
able
to
park.
B
H
H
A
I
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
through
a
question
about
the
current
bylaw
in
Kingston
West
I,
think
it's
bylaw
76
from
the
old
township
that
refers
to
the
parking
of
recreational
vehicles.
Can
you
confirm
that
individuals
currently
are
allowed
to
park
either
beside
their
house
or
in
their
back
yard,
for
the
recreational
vehicles
through.
B
B
Your
mr.
chair,
that
would
still
continue
so
the
main
changes
parking
of
such
vehicles
on
a
temporary
basis
if
yeah
so
so.
Currently,
we
only
allow
the
temporary
parking
of
such
vehicles
in
a
front
yard
for
72
hours
in
a
calendar
month,
so
that's
what's
being
proposed
to
be
changed
to
a
seasonal
basis,
but,
yes,
they
can
still
park
it
park,
such
vehicles
within
the
side,
yard
or
the
rear
yard,
or
in
a
garage
all.
I
Then
my
final
question
is
about
a
petition
that
my
predecessor
presented
to
I
think
is
the
second
last
council
meeting
from
residents
in
now
my
district
about
this
issue,
I'm
wondering
if
that
has
been
considered.
It
was
about
75
people
who
signed
a
petition
in
support
of
changes
to
bylaw
76.
If
not
I
can
send
it
along.
A
Something
that
kept
sort
of
sanik
pointed
out
and
I
just
want
to
reinforce
our
bylaws
in
very
large
part,
our
complaint
driven
and
nothing
is
more
frustrating
than
having
somebody
say
to
a
counselor
they've
been
breaking
this
bylaw
for
months.
Why
haven't
you
done
anything
and
you
ask
them?
Have
you
reported
it
and
the
answer
more
times
than
not
is
no?
We
don't
drive
around
trying
to
catch
people
breaking
bylaws
in
large
part,
it's
complaint
driven
so.
A
The
garage
is
farther
back,
but
they
wanted
to
allow
tandem
parking
closer
to
their
front
property
of
the
house
line,
and
is
it
am
I
correct
in
and
they're
gonna
need
10
or
12
inches
to
be
able
to
fit
two
cars
side-by-side
so
they're
that
middle
example
that
you
see
there
as
long
as
they
meet
the
40%
rule,
they'll
be
able
to
add
a
little
bit
more
pavement
that
will
sneak
slightly
in
front
of
their
current
house.
Is
that
accurate,
so.
B
A
I
right
in
some
of
the
motivation
for
this.
What
I
think
is
a
very
sensible
amendment,
but
this
amendment
has
to
do
with
the
PPS
the
provincial
policy
statement
that
is
really
really
encouraging
secondary
suites
and
they're
looking
to
make
sure
communities
aren't
using
other
bylaws
to
discourage
secondary
Suites,
so
parking
we've
all
heard
when
people
come
in
to
request
a
put.
A
secondary
suite
is
a
primary
complaint
within
the
community.
So
is
that
accurate
that,
yes,.
B
That
is
so
one
of
the
reasons
behind
these
amendments
is
for
second
residential
units
that
are
being
implemented
across
the
city
in
residential
zones.
The
province
has
indicated
that
one
of
the
only
that
the
only
thing
municipalities
can
regulate
is
parking
for
second
units,
so
yes,
this
is
important
later
to
that.
Okay,
thank.
A
A
You
much
seeing
no
other
questions
from
the
committee.
I
will
now
open
it
up
to
the
public.
There
are
microphones
at
both
corners
if,
when
you
go
to
a
microphone,
you'll
have
five
minutes
to
make
comments
or
ask
questions
and
within
those
five
minutes
at
the
very
beginning,
you
should
identify
yourself
name
and
address
okay.
A
J
Thank
you.
Mister
chair,
Frank,
Dixon
495
offered
apartment
two
k7k
for
Gateway,
so
I'm
gonna
begin
by
commending
staff
or
whatever
we
think
is
excellent.
Work
on
this
you've
contacted
other
communities
to
learn
a
lot
of
information
that
you
brought
to
this
here
right
now.
So
that's
very
good
I'm,
taking
a
scientist
approach
to
this
sort
of
looking
at
the
different
orientations
that
are
possible.
So
I'll
just
begin
by
talking
about
my
own
situation,
live
in
a
house.
J
That's
been
subdivided
into
three
apartments
and
has
a
long
driveway
from
the
street
right
to
the
garage
at
the
back.
So
we
there
be
possible
to
have
three
cars
and
the
garage
one
for
each
unit
in
the
house.
So
there's
enough
room
for
that
I'm,
going
to
move
on
to
some
suggestions,
as
the
chair
explained
and
as
I
learned
talking
to
staff
before
the
meeting.
J
This
is
essentially
a
complaint
driven
process,
and
you
can
imagine
that
there's
a
multiplicity
of
different
orientations
possible
like
we
saw
some
of
them
in
the
diagrams
that
you
saw
tonight
right.
So
those
are
only
some
of
the
possibilities
and
you
can
imagine
that
there
will
be
quite
a
few
others.
J
So
I'm
gonna
make
two
suggestions
in
a
respectful
manner
on
this,
and
one
of
them
is
that
the
city
would
work
to
create
a
database
of
all
situations.
The
complaint
driven
basis
would
still
apply.
There
would
be
a
lot
of
work
for
staff
to
do
that.
But
one
saying
is
that
you
could
be
assisted
by
property
owners.
They
could
submit
drawings
of
their
own
situation.
How
long
will
say
questions
on
maybe
what
they
would
like
to
do?
I
want
to
add
a
secondary
suite.
J
Can
I
have
guests
parking
in
all
this
time
and
so
forth,
and
perhaps
that
they
could
work
with
their
district
councillors
and
with
staff
on
that
to
create
that
database
of
information
would
take
quite
a
lot
of
time
to
do,
but
once
you
have
it,
then
anybody
could
maybe
plug
into
it
and
say:
okay.
Well,
my
situation
is
somewhere
what's
happening
over
there.
I
think
I
should
be
able
to
do
this.
Is
that
the
case?
J
And
then
my
final
point
would
be:
is
I'm
wondering
if
planning
staff
are
going
to
be
sharing
the
outcome
of
this
process
like
we're
gonna
talk
tonight
and
make
the
amendments
they'll
come
to
Council,
eventually
you'll
probably
be
passed.
Are
you
going
to
inform
all
those
other
cities
that
you've
been
in
touch
with
on
what
Kingston
has
been
doing?
So?
Thank
you.
K
A
L
L
Agarwal
did
I
say
your
name
correctly.
Thank
you.
My
husband
and
I
are
here
tonight
because
we
do
have
like
those
of
us
from
the
community
how
vested
interests
in
some
of
these
proposed
changes,
and
as
my
as
the
previous
speaker
mentioned,
we
both
like
to
congratulate
everybody
on
recognizing.
Many
residents
needs
to
have
a
more
relaxed
kind
of
bylaw.
For
many
reasons,
ours
pertains
to
the
recreational
vehicles.
L
L
So
I
really
only
have
one
issue
to
mention,
and
that
is
not
on
the
proposed
changes
but
I'd
like
it
to
be
I'd
like
it
to
be.
We
would
like
to
amend
the
length
restriction
that
is
allowed
on
driveways
what
the
proposals
that
you
make.
The
proposed
changes
that
you
have
outlined
this
evening
look
at
different
things
and
we
understand
about
the
maintaining
the
streetscape
and
the
neighborhood
character.
L
In
other
words,
my
understanding
of
that
is,
you
don't
want
clunkers
in
the
driveway
and
you
don't
want
the
streetscape.
Looking
like
it's
a
junkyard.
We
understand
that
most
of
us
I,
think
with
recreational
vehicles
don't
have
clunkers,
we
certainly
don't.
The
current
by
law
doesn't
even
allow
us
to
park
our
31
foot
Class
C
recreational
vehicle
in
our
driveway
for
72
hours.
It
stipulates,
however,
ambiguously
that
only
recreational
vehicles
up
to
a
length
of
8.2
meters
are
allowed
in
to
be
parked
on
driveways.
L
So,
as
the
current
bylaw
reads,
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
we
can't
even
park
our
vehicle
in
the
driveway
to
unload
or
load
to
go
on
a
trip
kind
of
difficult
to
use
recreational
vehicle.
When
you
can't
park
it
in
your
driveway
at
all
and
parking
it
on
the
street
is
not
permissible
either.
We
in
fact
did
have
you're.
One
of
your
bylaw
officers
tell
us
that
we
should
park
our
RV
on
the
street.
We
parked
our
RV
on
the
street.
L
Our
sorry
in
our
driveway
to
begin
with,
because
parking
it
on
the
street,
we
thought
was
a
safety
hazard
complaint
driven
process.
One
of
our
neighbors
didn't
like
the
fact
that
he
had
to
look
at
our
RV
complained
to
the
city.
We
had
to
move
it,
so
the
the
bylaw
officer
said
well,
it's
a
vehicle
park
it
on
the
street
and
we
said
well.
We
didn't
want
to
do
that
because
it's
going
to
create
a
problem.
It's
a
safety
issue.
Well,
that's
you're!
Following
a
bar
law.
L
Okay,
so
we
tried
that
the
same
person
complained
and
apparently
we
were
contravening
another
bylaw
that
has
to
do
with
the
weight
I
believe
it
is
of
the
vehicle
being
parked
on
the
street
and
by
the
way
we
did
move
on
vehicle
every
12
hours,
so
we
were
complying
as
best.
We
knew
how
so
at
any
rate,
I
guess
the
point
I'm
making.
Is
that
well
you're?
Looking
at
making
changes?
That's
great,
but
it's
really
stressful
for
people
who
have
a
slightly
larger
recreational
vehicle
to.
L
So
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
propose
that
the
length
at
least
be
the
maximum
length
rather
be
increased
to
whatever
you
think
is
appropriate.
Obviously
we
have
a
vested
interest.
Nine
point:
five
meters
would
we'd
be
able
to
work
with
that,
but
we're
not
the
only
ones.
We
know
who
are
in
this
situation
and
we
know
that
you're
trying
very
hard
to
I.
L
Anyone
with
half
a
brain
can
figure
that
out
so
anyway
bottom
line.
We
would
like
the
length
the
maximum
length
to
be
increased
to
at
least
nine
point
five
meters.
Think
of
this.
You,
you
measure
the
length
of
the
boat.
It
could
be
up
to
your
maximum
eight
point,
two
meters,
but
you're,
not
looking
at
the
length
of
the
trailer
which
takes
up
space
on
a
driveway
to
you
know
the
same
width
hitches
they're
not
considered
as
part
of
the
length
of
the
vehicle
but
they're
taking
up
space.
L
F
Kim
Connelly
7,
Toronto
Street,
we've
been
there
for
20
years
and
we
have
seen
an
increase
in
parking
issues
during
that
time.
That's
you
who
are
not
familiar.
We're
in
Sydenham,
Ward
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
being
would
there
be
a
limit
to
the
number
of
cars
allowed
on
a
lot,
even
with
the
secondary
suite
added
and
the
continuing
parking
in
backyards?
Is
that
going
to
be
allowed?
F
One
of
them
has
a
gradual
on
of
them,
doesn't
have
a
garage
and
they
parked
two
cars
in
a
single
spot
and
they
are
on
the
sidewalks
and
they
are
on
their
lawns.
No
one
has
enforced
this
and
that
was
told
to
me
because
we
are
reviewing
our
bylaws
on
this
so
for
the
whole
year,
they've
been
allowed
to
do
this,
even
though
I
have
made
a
complaint.
So
it's
not
always
enforced
and
I'd
also
like
to
know.
F
If
you
can
define
a
driveway
is
a
driveway
where
the
sidewalk
I
don't
know
the
technical
terms,
but
where
it
narrows
downward,
there's
an
indication
that
it
is
actually
a
driveway,
because
we
have
again
rental
units
that
have
parked
cars
on
the
side
of
the
house.
That
has
no
end
indication
that
it's
a
driveway
they
park
on
the
lawn
or
they
they
take
away
them
on
and
put
gravel
down
and
park
on
there.
F
So
I
I
guess
I
want
to
know
what
is
a
driveway
and
is
there
going
to
be
a
a
recommended
surface
for
the
driveway?
If
we
don't
have
paved
driveways
or
gravel
driveways,
we
have
people
parking
in
the
mud
in
the
springtime
and
it
affects
our
streetscape.
So
if
we're
concerned
about
the
streetscape
I
think
we
should
also
consider
driveways
that
aren't
officially
a
driveway
being
allowed
and
I
think.
That's
all.
F
K
A
M
M
Actually,
the
co-chair
of
the
community
of
i3
board
for
homelessness
in
Kingston,
we
have
a
very
concerning
low
vacancy
rate
and
I
applaud
staff
for
trying
to
remove
some
of
the
barriers
or
challenges
by
allowing
for
secondary
Suites
within
the
within
the
city,
which
will
then,
hopefully,
as
we
get
more
vacancy.
Obviously
more
people
will
be
able
to
house
be
housed,
but
may
also
reduce
the
the
costs
of
which
has
been
increasing
with
the
the
low
vacancy
rates
as
well
and
hopefully
will,
in
the
end,
reduce
homelessness
in
Kingston
as
well.
M
So
I
applaud
staffer
for
that
and
for
council
for
considering
the
proposed
changes
as
well
from
my
own
personal,
secondary
aspect.
I
also
applaud
you
for
the
proposed
changes,
which
I
think
are
reasonable
for
families
who
want
to
spend
time
with
recreational
activities.
Kids
are
inside
way
too
much
if
you
can
get
them
out.
M
You
know
boats
or
jet
skis
ski-doos
in
the
wintertime,
whatever
get
them
outside
more
activities,
more
fresh
air
and
sunshine,
and
this
change
would
allow
families
a
more
affordable
option
to
be
able
to
have
you
know
a
recreational
vehicle
or
a
boat
in
terms
of
doing
it
and
I
think
having
the
temporary
parking
for
that
allows
for
that.
So
thank
you.
A
B
B
I'm
just
going
to
try
and
answer
all
of
them.
If
I
don't
have
an
answer,
we
will
I
will
certainly
address
it
in
the
comprehensive
report.
One
of
the
questions
was
regarding
an
existing
three
unit
development,
where
a
question
was
asked
if
one
car
for
each
unit
could
be
parked
in
you
drive
I,
don't
if
I
understood
that
question
correctly,
without
actually
looking
at
the
specifics
of
that
property,
I'm
not
able
to
provide
a
response.
B
Another
comment
was
made
about:
there
were
several
orientations
possible
and
that
is
correct.
I,
don't
think
that
our
proposed
amendments
would
be
able
to
address
the
several
possible
variations
regarding
parking,
driveway
orientation
and
parking
possibilities.
There
will
be
certainly
some
situations
which
won't
be
able
to
comply
with
these
proposed
changes,
and
we
will
look
at
them
on
a
case-by-case
side-by-side
pieces.
B
We
do
have
currently
we
do
have
a
GIS
database.
However,
it
doesn't
capture
all
of
the
changes
that
may
have
been
made
to
a
property.
It
depends
on
when
that
data
would
have
been
digitized.
However,
maybe
it's
it's
a
great
suggestion.
I
wish.
We
could
do
something
like
that.
However,
we
do
do
review
all
of
such
requests.
For
example,
when
someone
is
putting
in
a
driveway,
they
do
need
a
permit
from
the
city's
engineering
department
to
be
able
to
pack
pave
within
the
municipal
right-of-way
portion
of
the
driveway.
So
we
do.
B
B
The
one
of
the
other
questions
was
if
there
will
be,
if
we
will
be
informing,
there
will
be
more
information
coming
if
it
will
be
informing
other
municipalities
of
the
proposed
changes.
And,
yes,
we
staff
do
keep
in
touch
with
other
municipalities
and
in
Ontario
and
share
the
changes
that
are
going
on
within
the
municipalities,
as
it
relates
to
zoning
regulations
and
emerging
issues
and
emerging
forms
of
land
uses.
B
The
next
question
was
around
increasing
the
maximum
permitted
length
of
a
recreational
vehicle
that
is
permitted
on
private
properties.
To
you
at
least
nine
point.
Five
meters
I
will
have
to
look
at
our
previous
reports
as
to
how
that
how
our
existing
eight
point
two
meter
maximum
length
was
determined
and
I
can
certainly
address
that
as
part
of
our
comprehensive
as
part
of
the
comprehensive
report,
one
of
the
questions
was
related
to
you,
a
limit
on
the
number
of
cars
that
could
be
parked
on
a
lot.
We
are
not
looking
at
that.
B
We
are
not
proposing
any
limits
to
the
number
of
vehicles
that
can
be
parked
in
a
vehicle
as
long
as
they
are
parked
within
a
driver
that
is
permitted
as
long
as
they
can
meet
the
landscape
open
space
requirements.
There
are
lot
coverage
requirements.
We
are
not
proposing
any
limits
on
the
number
of
vehicles.
B
There
was
a
comment
made
about
paved
backyards
which
are
converted
to
parking
lots.
This
is
the
situation
that
we
regularly
come
across,
especially
in
the
older
part
of
the
city,
and
we
are
continually
enforcing
these
situations
where
we
have
had
property
owners
who
remove
the
parking
spaces
and
replace
them
with
with
a
soft
with
a
permeable
surface.
B
B
There
was
a
comment
about
whether
a
driver
would
be
defined
like
is
there
a
wreck?
Is
there
a
recommended
surface
for
a
driveway,
the
zoning
bylaws?
Do
you
require
that
drivers
be
a
stable
surface?
I'd
have
to
look
at
exactly
whether
they
refer
to
the
materials
materials
is
something
that
generally
cannot
be
regulated
through
zoning,
but
we
do
indicate
drivers
have
to
be
a
stable
surface.
We
are
proposing
a
new
definition
for
a
driveway
in
in
the
bylaws,
where
there
is
currently
no
definition.
Most
of
the
bylaws
do
have
a
definition,
but
there
is
I.
B
B
There
was
a
question
regarding
enforcing
driveway
width,
as
I
just
mentioned
when,
as
part
of
when
people
are
putting
in
a
new
driveway
or
if
they
are
looking
to
expand
her
driveway,
they
do
need
a
permit
from
the
city's
engineering
department,
at
which
time
the
engineering
department
consults
with
Planning
Division
staff,
at
which
time
we
would
be
reviewing
the
proposed
driveway
bits,
also
as
part
of
any
new
development.
Driveway
bits
are
looked
at
through
the
building
permit
process
as
well.
B
A
You
so
before
I
declare
this
closed.
I
just
want
to
mention
that
this
will
probably
I
would
imagine,
come
back
either
in
August
or
September,
with
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
and
up
until
the
time
it
gets
to
Council.
Anybody
can
ask
further
questions
and
you
just
have
to
address
it
through
the
clerk
or
through
the
planning
department.
So,
okay
and
we'll
take
it
to
the
committee
now
counselor
Kyle
Thank.
I
You
mr.
chair,
a
question
through
you
that
was
alluded
to
by
one
of
the
residents:
are
there
any
bylaws
around
the
orientation
of
the
vehicles
within
the
driveway?
So
can
cars
Park
perpendicular
to
the
driveway
and
I
asked
because
that's
been
an
issue
a
few
times
in
my
district
and
people
have
asked
me
about
it.
I
haven't
had
an
immediate
response,
so
people
wanted
to
park
going
the
opposite
direction.
Is
that
allowed.
B
G
Yeah,
okay,
so,
as
we've
seen,
there's
the
numbers
of
different
types
of
problems
across
the
city
in
the
portion
of
the
downtown
that
I
represent.
This
has
been
an
ongoing
problem
and
so
I'm
happy
to
see
the
staff
are
trying
to
come
to
grips
with
this.
It's
difficult
because
conditions
are
not
always
the
same,
so
the
big
problem
downtown
and
the
reason
why
parking,
the
front,
front,
yard,
Suffolk
houses
and
this
whole
issue
about
being
able
to
park
if
there's
a
side,
yard
yard
garage
that
originates
them
by
like
eighty
four.
G
So
the
main
thing
is
aesthetic
and
the
sense
of
streetscape
and
crowded
nature
of
it
when
there's
cars
all
over
the
place-
and
this
comes
up
on
of
every
once
in
awhile
for
the
counselor
and
the
other
thing
is
the
environmental
part
of
it
has
to
do
with
stormwater
management
and
drainage,
and
when
you
have
higher
densities,
the
more
that
becomes
an
issue.
The
third
reason
is
that
the
city
does
not
want
its
infrastructure
covered
in
cement.
G
I've
had
people
close
off
their
bathtub
a
claim,
they
probably
even
know
it
had
been
closed
off
happened
like
50
years
ago,
and
then
they
wanted
to
put
their
submit
pad
beside
those.
There
was
a
city
infrastructure
under
there
and
they
didn't
want
if
they
needed
to
get
at
it
quickly.
I
would
be
a
problem,
so
there
are
reasons
for
this.
G
I
would
I've
had
the
talk
with
staff
and
I'm
I
had
this
deferred
from
last
meeting
at
least
I
initiated
and
I'm
satisfied
with
the
answers
they
gave
and
the
explanation,
which
seems
to
be
a
new
one,
but
better
explains
what
they
had
in
mind.
So
the
other
thing
is
the
enforcement
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
we
do
not
enforce
it
strongly
enough
and
when
it
is
complained
about,
we
don't
pursue
it
strong
enough,
including
having
the
asphalt
that
doesn't
meet
the
measurements
removed,
and
that
is
a
problem.
G
A
And
if,
if
you
have
those
questions
is
definitely
contact
through
through
the
city
but
also
CC
your
your
city
councilor,
because
those
need
to
be
dealt
with
for
the
same
reasons
that
my
colleague
just
mentioned.
That's
creates
stormwater
management
issues
when
that
happens
so,
and
you
mentioned
a
frustration
and
the
fact
that
there
was
a
mention
that
well
the
bylaws
being
amended.
A
A
You
and
I
will
now
declare
this
meeting
closed
and
anybody
who
has
signed
the
back
or
made
a
comment
you'll
be
notified
when
the
comprehensive
report
and
recommendations
come
forward.
So
thank
you
now
onward
and
upward
for
our
second
public
meeting,
which
is
a
repeat
above
earlier
public
meeting,
and
it's
regarding
168
division,
227,
Broad,
Street,.
N
All
right
good
evening,
everybody,
this
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
for
two
properties,
168
Division,
Street
and
227
Brock's
read
the
application
before
you
tonight
has
had
a
public
meeting
prior
to
I
think
it
happened
in
January
or
February
of
this
year.
Now
this
is
being
brought
forward
tonight
as
a
combined
report,
so
both
planning
meeting
and
comprehensive
report
with
a
recommendation
from
staff
the
purpose.
In
effect,
this
application-
is
to
rezone
each
property.
168
Division
Street
is
going
to
be
rezone
for
a
site-specific
development.
N
168
Division
Street
is
located
at
the
southwest
corner
of
Garrett
Street
and
Division
Street,
which
is
south
of
the
princess,
Street
and
Garrett
streets,
sorry
princess
Street
and
Division
Street
intersection.
If
it's
hard
to
see
on
the
map,
hopefully
you
can
see
where
I'm
outlining
with
the
mouse
the
location
of
the
property
227
Brock
Street
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
Brock
Street
at
the
end
of
Sydenham
next
to
the
Memorial
Street
parking
garage.
So
you
can
see
it
located
right
here.
N
N
The
proposal
that's
for
use
tonight
has
been
modified
slightly
since
the
initial
public
meeting
I
can
quickly
point
out
some
of
these
modifications
for
you
at
the
public
meeting
in
earlier
this
year.
The
building
did
have
vertical
articulation
that
broke
up
the
facade
and
massing
of
the
building,
which
you
can
see
mostly
represented
here
by
the
orange
orange
red
color
of
the
building.
N
The
first
floor
has
been
stepped
back
or
set
back
at
grade
about
1.5
meters
along
both
Garrett
Street
and
the
Division
Street
frontages,
and
the
building
of
the
second
storey
was
proposed
to
cantilever
out
over
that
story
to
provide
some
pedestrian
weather
protection
for
persons
in
that
area.
This
is
a
image
here,
looking
east
sorry,
West,
Dan,
Garrett
Street
from
Division
Street
and
here
would
be
the
view
of
the
building
looking
south
down
Division
Street
from
Princess.
N
This
is
it
from
the
rear,
looking
east
along
Garrett
Street,
where
you
can
see
the
1.5
meters
setback
and
the
cantilever
of
the
building
here,
which
would
provide
that
pedestrian
weather
protection
just
to
make
it
evidently
clear.
This
is
the
first
floor
diagram
for
the
building,
and
you
can
see
this
hatched
line
right
here
is
the
property
boundary
and
for
the
significant
portion
of
this
setback.
Here
it's
about
1.5
meters,
with
a
couple
of
interjections
for
structural
supports
for
that
second
storey.
The
same
is
carried
along
the
Division
Street
frontage
as
well.
N
You
can
see
the
proposed
retail
space,
which
will
front
on
both
Garrett
Street
and
Division
Street
animating,
the
corner
with
the
parking
located
on
the
ground
floor
in
a
structure
down
the
side
and
the
rear
of
the
building
bicycle
parking
is
proposed
in
this
garage
as
a
tandem.
Sorry,
as
a
stacked
bicycle
arrangement
now
get
to
a
little
further
on
in
the
presentation
here,
you
can
see
the
second
story
where
the
building
will
be
built
out
to
the
property
boundary.
N
You
can
see
the
property
boundary
here
again
in
the
hatching,
with
the
building
located
along
those
property
frontages.
The
vertical
articulations
provided
opportunity
for
private
amenity
space
for
the
units,
so
most
of
the
balconies
I
believe
27
of
the
35
will
have
their
own
private
in
many
space
as
well.
In
addition
to
that,
there's
a
290
excuse
me:
there's
a
291
square
meter
outdoor
amenity
space
proposed
above
the
parking
garage
accessible
from
the
second
floor,
with
a
common
amenity
space
that
enters
over
onto
it,
which
is
54
square
meters
in
size.
N
These
are
just
some
proposed
nasan's
of
the
building
that
were
presented
at
the
public
meeting
by
the
applicant,
so
you
can
see
the
six
storey
massing
in
relation
to
some
of
the
other
existing
development
in
the
area.
These
two
large
towers
here
are
the
princess
towers,
and
these
are
the
Brock
Street
towers.
N
N
N
227
Brock
Street
again
the
proposed
sorry.
The
existing
building,
the
long
Brock
Street
is
here
and
not
proposed
to
be
amended
or
touched
as
part
of
this
application.
This
existing
parking
lot
in
the
back
is
going
to
be
reconfigured.
You
permit
the
ten
parking
spaces
that
are
going
to
be
required
for
that
development.
So
five
for
the
existing
ten
unit,
commercial,
sorry,
residential
building
that
exists
today
and
five
offsite
parking
spaces
for
one
hundred
and
sixty
eight
Division
Street
a.
N
Thorough
policy
analysis
was
completed
as
part
of
the
planning
reports
and
is
contained
both
in
the
appendices
and
the
recommendations
in
the
report.
The
application
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statements
it's
located
in
an
urban
area
and
there
are
a
mix
of
land
uses
within
walking
distance,
and
this
building
continues
to
add
to
that
mix
of
an
intensity
of
units
within
the
area.
It's
on
existing
municipal
services,
supported
by
transactive
transportation
as
well
as
transit
and
the
transportation
and
Lighting's
considerations
were
integrated
at
all
stages
of
this
planning
process.
N
Each
property
is
located
within
a
different
Official
Plan
designation,
168
Division
Street
is
designated
Main
Street
commercial,
which
supports
and
facilitates
buildings
with
ground
for
commercial
uses
and
residential
uses.
Above
it,
227
Brock
Street
is
located
within
the
central
business
district
and
provides
for
a
broad
range
of
commercial
uses
that
support
an
integrated
downtown
area
and
the
use
of
a
commercial
parking
lot
which
is
what's
proposed
for
part
of
this
application
is
supported
by
that
designation.
N
One
of
the
new
items
brought
forward
as
part
of
this
application
at
the
previous
public
meeting.
They
the
ability
to
ask
for
a
request,
section
37,
was
not
known
at
the
time
between
that
time
and
this
application.
We
worked
at
the
developer
to
understand
the
increase
in
density,
as
well
as
a
gross
floor
area
on
site,
and
we
were
able
to
calculate
that
yes,
section,
37
community
benefits
could
be
attained
as
part
of
this
application,
so
the
calculation
revealed
that
we
can
ask
for
sixty
two
thousand
dollars
in
community
benefit
contributions.
N
As
part
of
this,
we
worked
with
cultural
services,
who
called
Wigginton
is
here
tonight
as
well
to
answer
any
questions
we
may
have
on
that
as
well,
but
looking
at
the
existing
public
art
project
within
the
hub,
which
is
known
as
the
hub
fraud,
it
is
a
public
art
project
which
furthers
the
city's
public
art
master
plan
and
was
completing
with
a
full
consultation.
Last
fall,
consulting
over
I,
think
300,
community
members
and
what
they
were
looking
for
out
of
this
project.
N
Part
of
the
considerations
for
public
benefit
are
contained
within
the
official
plan
as
to
how
we
can
consider
it
and
where
will
be
applied,
and
one
of
the
key
aspects
is
that
the
benefit
is
applied
to
the
area
of
the
proposed
development.
So
the
section
37
community
benefit
would
be
applied
here
with
a
public
art.
Mural.
N
That's
on
one
of
the
walls
of
the
building
and
I'll
show
you
that
in
a
moment
and
part
of
this
process
is
under
Section
37,
that
the
public
must
be
consulted
as
part
of
any
section
37
contributions,
but
it
doesn't
specify
how
and
the
process
which
planning
has
planning
staff
I
proposed
tonight
is
that
the
public
consultation
process
is
through
the
combined
public
meeting
and
comprehensive
report
and
that
we
are
piggybacking
off
of
an
existing
public
art
project
which
has
had
extensive
community
consultation.
To
this
point,.
N
This
is
the
wall
that
would
face
south
down
Division
Street.
There
are
existing
one
and
two-story
buildings
located
along
this
area,
but
the
large
hardy
wall
between
the
this
site
and
the
adjacent
site
presents
itself
as
a
prime
opportunity
for
community
benefits
for
public
art
when
looking
north
on
Division
Street
from
Brock.
The
proposed
building
would
sit
high
above
this
intersection
right
here
and
would
present
a
large
opportunity
for
this
type
of
public
art.
It's
not
uncommon
to
see
this
application
in
other
urban
centers,
where
public
art
can
be
attained.
N
So
it
creates
an
open
and
lively
public
space
there
at
grade,
locking
in
the
building
height
all
the
required
yards
and
setbacks.
Things
like
lock
coverage
the
parking
ratio,
a
reduced
parking
stall
dimension,
which
is
consistent
with
what
the
city
has
been
approving
with
a
lot
of
new
developments,
bicycle
parking,
amenity
space,
the
loading
space
and
the
community
benefits.
N
At
the
initial
public
meeting.
We
received
some
comments
about
how
the
bicycle
parking
will
function
and
how
stacked
bicycle
parking
would
look
and
I've
provided
a
bit
of
an
overview
on
that
tonight.
One
of
the
requests
was
that
the
Garrett
Street
frontage
be
made
more
pedestrian
friendly.
The
initial
proposal
had
the
first
floor,
built
right
up
to
the
property
line
at
a
zero
major
setback
by
widening
out
to
1.5
meters.
We've
expanded
that
public
realm.
N
So
almost
three
meters
in
width
from
curb
to
face
of
building
there
are
elevators
proposed
for
the
building
and
all
the
drawings
that
have
come
forward
now
have
clearly
labeled
that
to
alleviate
any
confusion
about
how
the
building
is
accessed-
and
we
had
a
question
about
concerns
about
traffic
and
snow
storage
at
2:27
brock
tree,
which
I
believe
is
already
a
concern
with
the
initial
tempering
spaces
that
are
back
there
now.
But
that
is
an
item
that
we
would
be
reviewing
through
the
site
plan
control
application
for
the
development.
N
N
About
the
walking
distance
between
the
proposed
building
and
the
off-site
parking
at
2:27,
Brock
Street,
and
were
there
any
concerns-
and
there
was
some
concern
about
any
amendments
that
might
happen
to
227
Brock
Street,
given
its
heritage,
designation,
public
notice
tonight
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
so
property
owners
were
mailed,
a
notice
of
tonight's
meeting
within
120
metres
of
each
property,
and
that
was
placed
in
the
Kingston
wing
standard
and
signs
were
posted
on
the
property.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
have
here
forward.
I
You
mr.
chair
a
few
questions
about
justification
for
some
of
the
proposed
reliefs,
particularly
as
it
pertains
to
setbacks,
the
front
setback
is
supposed
to
be
4.5
meters
and
the
back
setback
is
supposed
to
be
nine
point:
nine
meters
and
if
I'm
reading
the
report
right
and
I've
heard
you
correctly
we're
asking
for
zero
on
the
back
and
only
one
point
five
on
the
front.
So
that's
about
10
meters
difference
and
something
that
I
hear
from
residents
very
often
is
that
they're
not
opposed
to
such
development.
I
In
fact,
they
think
that
it's
good
for
the
city
as
do
I,
that
type
of
density
and
even
the
design
of
this
building
in
my
own
taste
is
quite
nice,
with
the
articulation
that
you've
you've
mentioned,
but
it's
going
to
loom
large
over
the
sidewalk
and
it
will
have
no
setback
at
the
back.
So
what
is
the
planning
justification
for
essentially
ignoring
those
requirements
entirely
for.
N
You,
mr.
chair,
the
for
a
multi-use
building,
as
leaders
have
created
all
other
buildings,
commercial,
otherwise
I
think
are
zero
and
nil.
So
this
is
a
mixed-use
building
and
what
we're
considering
here
is
a
more
urbanized
frontage,
so
setting
a
building
back,
4.5
meters
would
eat
into
a
lot
of
the
developable
area
on
this
site.
A
and
B
not
help
to
reinforce
the
E
Street
wall
in
area
and
create
a
more
urbanized
center
in
the
hub
district.
H
N
H
Okay,
thank
you
and
both
the
community
benefits
so
where
it
was
that
300
people
provided
input
that
was
not
specific
to
this
building.
It
was
more
the
hub
project
right
that
was
Princess,
Street
Division,
Street
area
is
that
where
the
300
people
came
in
and
was
this
project
actually
recommended
for
consult
or
was
it
just
300
people
said
yeah?
We
should
do
art
in
that
you
let.
N
Cultural
services
speak
to
that
first
part,
but
I
believe
the
second
part
section
37
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
The
hub
project
also
recognized
that
community
art
could
be
developed
in
the
hub
project
through
section
37
contributions
for
developments
happening
in
the
area,
but
I
will
turn
to
call
in
to
speak
to
the
process
for
the
hub
project.
Thank.
K
You
and
to
you,
mr.
chair,
so
this
the
project
that
we've
done
around
public
consultation
in
relation
to
the
hub
project
is
started
in
September
continued
through
March
of
this
year,
and
it
was
through
those
opportunities
that
we
connected
with
about
350
people
in
the
community
and
the
focus
was
on
how
we
could
bring
public
art
into
the
intersection
of
Princess
and
Division
Street.
But
through
the
findings.
K
We
didn't
specifically
address
this
proposal,
but
one
of
the
outcomes
of
that
consultation
was
that
people
would
like
to
see
the
impact
of
that
work
start
to
have
more
of
a
ripple
effect.
I
go
out
across
Division,
Street,
up
princess
Street,
and
so
this
building
being
in
close
proximity
to
that
certainly
makes
sense
in
terms
of
what
the
public
was
calling
for
in
terms
of
activating
and
improving
the
experience
of
that
intersection.
K
H
K
K
H
Just
one
last
question
about
them
for
the
60
mm,
so
the
60
mm
will
like:
will
there
be
any
leftover
money
or
about
the
permanent
wall?
Equal,
the
sixty-two
thousand
dollars
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
any
like?
Maybe
the
wall
will
cost
forty
five
thousand
and
then
there'd
be
leftover
money
that
we
can
put
towards
like
a
fund
for
affordable
housing
or
when
other
been.
You
know,
Community
Benefit.
K
So
you
mister
chair,
come
to
my
understanding.
At
this
point.
There
hasn't
been
a
budget
finalized
within
that
sixty
two
thousand
dollar
envelope
that's
been
identified.
Our
conversations
have
been
strictly
based
on
the
components
that
would
be
required
in
terms
of
project
administration,
artist
fees,
creation
of
the
work
and
then
funds
that
would
support
its
continuing
maintenance.
G
N
Three
mr.
chair,
the
zoning
bylaw,
does
outline
for
residential
zones
through
a
499
that
you
can
provide
or
who
can
find
offsite
parking
within
sixty
meters
of
your
property
and
that's
that's.
What's
regulated
by
the
zone.
The
Official
Plan
has
a
consideration
that
says
walking.
Distance
is
up
to
six
hundred
meters
and,
as
part
of
this
application,
the
walking
distance
here
is
about
450
to
500.
G
N
G
K
Through
you,
mr.
cherry
focus
areas
and
the
public
art
master
plan
and
the
public
art
policies
approved
by
council
is
the
opportunity
to
explore
and
develop
these
kinds
of
relationships
with
the
private
sector,
and
it
would
be
controlled
by
an
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
developer
in
terms
of
how
it
would
play
out
both
in
the
short
term
and
the
long
term.
So
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
worked
out
as
that
kind
of
contract
agreement.
G
Thank
you
and
when
it
says
here,
the
section
92
37
community
benefits
is
not
large
enough
to
consider
affordable
housing
options.
Well,
I
know
that
doesn't
pay
for
you
know
maybe
half
of
one
bedroom
unit.
Nevertheless,
how
does
the
community
benefits
operate
differently
than
parkland
dedication,
where
we
take
the
bark
line
dedication
when
we
apply
it
where
it's
necessary
is
this?
Is
it
done
differently
under
section
37
and
who
saw
how
the.
N
Three
mr.
Sherrod
parkland
dedicated
section
37,
are
two
different
parts
of
the
Planning
Act
and
are
both
regulated
differently.
As
such
section
37
is
a
bit
more
of
a
negotiation
based
on
the
uplift
value
of
the
property
based
on
the
increases
in
height
density
and
gross
floor
area.
So
it
is
a
bit
of
a
different
process
in
order
to
consider
the
calculation
to
arrive
at
that
number.
Our
official
plan
goes
a
little
bit
further
to
specified
areas
which
we
would
like
to
see.
N
Community
benefits
applied,
so
some
of
those
areas
include
affordable
housing,
environmental
initiatives,
parkland
dedication
beyond,
what's
required,
the
provisions
for
public
art
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
think
there's
about
a
list
of
maybe
twelve
different
considerations
for
community
benefits
and
public
art
is
one
of
them
as
part
of
this,
and
just
to
reiterate
what
we
said
earlier,
is
that
we're
kind
of
piggybacking
and
building
off
of
and
helping
to
further
the
hub
project
initiative
with
this
project
through
these
section,
37
monies
good.
C
Chappell,
thank
you.
The
chair
I
mean
to
sort
of
confusing
how
you're
calculating
the
community
benefit
of
sixty
seven
thousand
dollars,
I'm,
not
sure
which
version
of
the
community
benefit
plan
you're,
using
whether
it's
2007
2008
2009.
What
are
19
rather
and
as
far
as
public
art
is
concerned.
The
the
demonstration
that
you
put
up
from
Ottawa
I
guess
it's
beauties
and
I
a
beholder,
because
I
didn't
really
find
that
very
attractive.
So
my
concern
is
we
put
up
another
building
and
intensify
that
section
and
have
another
tower
that
goes
up?
C
Is
there
any
envisioned
like
to
me?
The
community
benefit
for
the
size
of
that
magnitude
doesn't
seem
to
be
sufficient
enough
as
a
quantity,
I
would
have
preferred
to
seen
electrified
parking
spaces.
I
would
have
preferred
to
see
you
know
geared
to
guarantee
income
aspect
of
rental
units
for
sure
and
I
respect
on
telling
on
hub,
and
you
know
should
that
art
to
be
hidden
by
future
development.
Would
that
benefit
of
sixty
seven
thousand
dollars
or
potentially
more
than
be
reverted
back
to
another
benefit
for
more
trees
or
more.
C
N
Three
Merrick,
the
the
calculation
for
section
37,
is
detailed
in
the
report.
There
is
a
charter
to
the
community
benefits
acts
section
which
outlines
how
we
arrived
at
the
dollar
value
and
it's
a
it's
a
the
same
process.
We
used
for
several
projects
on
Princess
Street,
so
it
follows
the
same
sort
of
valuation
formula
when
considering
taste
or
not.
N
The
the
project
presents
an
opportunity
to
advance
a
project
that
the
city
has
seen
that
has
some
value
through
the
the
hub
project
in
the
public
art
master
plan
and
the
call
for
submissions
for
this
project
might
very
differently,
depending
on
how
it's
done
and
what's
actually
constructed
there,
but
its
staff
recommendation
that
this
is
of
some
value
and
of
some
benefit
to
the
area
and
as
part
of
this
project.
That's
what
we
had
to
consider
when
we
were
trying
to
arrive
at
that
understanding.
N
We
looked
at
what
the
project
was
already
proposing
its
proposing
a
six-story
mid-rise
mixed-use
building,
which
is
something
that
we're
trying
to
encourage
here
in
the
city,
and
it
is
a
stick
frame
built
building
which,
from
an
environmental
and
ecological
perspective
and
fitting
in
with
our
climate,
emergency,
helps
to
further
the
built
form
aspect
of
that
climate
emergency
by
looking
at
alternative
building
construction
other
than
concrete
formed
buildings,
and
this
is
a
different
project.
It's
a
rental
project,
that's
being
brought
forward.
N
It's
not
one
of
the
higher-end
condos
that
we've
seen
come
forward
in
some
of
our
mixed-use
developments,
so
this
is
already
offering
a
different
type
of
units
and
a
different
type
of
build
form
and
a
different
type
of
construction
material,
which
kind
of
leans
into
a
few
of
the
city's
key
aspects
around
environmental
sustainability
and
increase
housing
supply
to
help
combat
our
low
vacancy
rate.
So
when
considering
all
of
the
items
that
this
building
put
forward,
the
community
benefits
aspect
and
the
timing
of
the
hub
project
really
kind
of
dovetails
nicely
together.
A
Have
a
couple
of
questions,
particularly
because
this
official
of
this
meeting
statutory
meeting
is
leading
into
a
recommendation
which
I'll
make
a
couple
of
comments
now,
but
I'll
reserve
some
of
what
I
want
to
say
till
we
get
to
that
portion.
First
of
all
we
had.
We
did
indeed
have
a
public
meeting,
and
there
were
a
number
of
issues
that
were
brought
forward
that
were
of
concern.
Setback
was
one.
A
Addressing
of
those
issues
in
the
new
comprehensive
report
which
I
find
a
little
bit
troubling
I
want
to
go,
and
also
there
are
so
many
requests
for
relief
in
this
and
which
begs
the
question:
are
we
approving
something
that
doesn't
fit
within
the
footprint
of
this
of
this
project?
So
if
you
don't
mind,
I
will
just
go.
Go
over
a
couple
of
these
maximum
height.
A
A
There's
123
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare
I
was
trying
to
because
it's
divvied
up
so
much
I'm
curious
about
what
is
the
total
number
of
parking
spaces
that
are
being
provided
residentially
and
the
total
number
that
are
being
provided
by
for
commercial.
If
you
could
answer
that,
that
would
be
helpful.
C
A
So
we
have
123
units
residential
and
I,
totally
I
drank
the
kool-aid
on
the
idea
that
in
the
in
the
downtown
core,
where
you
have
lots
of
Rapid
Transit,
we
don't
need
one
parking
space
for
every
unit
of
housing.
But
what
we're
talking
about
is
123
dwelling
units
with
15
parking
spaces
and
if
I
could
just
finish
this
off
and
then
and
as
and
we've
going
from
one
parking
space
for
every
28
square
meters
of
leasable,
floor
area,
commercial,
non
residential
to
one
parking
space
for
every
hundred
and
fifty
square
meters
of
leasable
floor
space.
A
N
Mr.
chair,
the
aisle
sir,
with
the
the
commercial
parking
spaces,
there
are
two
proposed
for
the
commercial
unit.
The
rate
of
one
parking
space
for
every
150
square
meters
of
leasable
floor
area
is
the
rate
that
has
been
approved
for
the
Bloomie's
Ville
Street
projects,
so
the
the
10
story
building
is
along
Williamsville
Street,
like
700
and
575
and
the
other
ones
there
have
had
that
rate.
N
If
you
look
at
where
this
property
is
and
location
to
the
downtown,
if
it
was
on
the
opposite
side
of
Division
streets
of
the
East
Side,
the
requirement
for
commercial
parking
spaces
would
be
zero
across
the
board.
This
has
just
happens
to
be
on
the
west
side
of
the
street
and
with
the
parking
rate
of
150
one
per
150,
it's
common
and
applicable
to
what
we've
seen
in
other
mixed-use
projects
in
this
area.
I.
A
I'll,
try
not
to
be
sound
like
a
scold,
but
it
always
frustrates
me
when
people
refer
to
the
Williamsville
corridor
plan,
which
is
very
site-specific
for
the
Willie
for
the
Princess
Street
upper
Princess
Street
corridor,
and
they
they
want
to
apply
those
standards
in
an
area
that
that
is
very,
very
different.
I
walk
that
area
or
drive
that
area
every
day
of
my
life
and
the
park.
It
isn't
like
Princess
Street,
where
there
is
available
parking.
There
is
nothing
on
that
street
that
isn't
already
dedicated
to
a
commercial
operation.
A
N
With
regards
to
the
maximum
density,
so
the
maximum
density
is
regulated
by
this
zone.
The
parent
zone
is
123
perdón
that
Hector
the
development
that's
proposed
today
doesn't
propose
123
units.
It
proposes
35
units
which,
for
15
parking
spaces
devoted
to
35
units
that
residential
parking
rate
is
0.42
parking
spaces
per
residential
unit,
and
that
has
been
supported
by
the
applicants
parking
study.
N
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
It's
my
understanding
under
the
community
benefit
as
a
first
as
prescribed
in
the
Planning
Act
and
in
our
new
in
our
official
plan.
There's
a
commitment
to
neighborhood
consultation,
okay
and
the
way
I
read
that
it's
neighborhood
consultation,
specific
to
the
community
benefit
and
I
totally
support
the
hub
project
and
I
totally
support
out
to
public
art
and
I
would
vote
for
any
public
art
that
comes
through
Council
for
approval.
A
I
I
really
wish.
We
had
public
art
on
that
big
ugly
white
wall
on
the
Queen's
on
the
princess
towers,
but
that's
a
different
issue.
I
know,
but
I
guess.
My
concern
is
my
understanding
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
the
public
meeting
that
was
held
some
months
ago
for
the
hub
project
was
not
specific
or
was
not
even
was
not
specific
to
this
community
benefit.
A
It
was
specific
to
what
the
community
wanted
for
that
hub
project
and
I
totally
support
that
and
I
would
vote
tomorrow
to
put
money
in
the
budget
to
make
that
happen,
but
I'm
concerned
that
there
wasn't
the
community
and
the
immediate
neighborhood
as
I
read
the
the
our
official
plan
and
the
Planning
Act
should
have
required
never
took
place.
Could
you
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
N
N
The
public
meeting
tonight,
as
well
as
the
comprehensive
report
and
the
advertisement
that
went
out
for
the
tonight's
meeting,
all
specified
that
community
benefits
were
to
be
discussed
this
evening.
The
purpose
of
this
additional
public
meeting
we're
having
right
now
was
to
consult
on
the
community
benefit
aspect
and
hear
from
any
member
of
the
public
that
may
wish
to
speak
on
it
tonight.
There's
no
requirement
that
there
has
to
be
specific
neighborhood
consultation
under
the
Planning
Act
or
our
official
plan,
but
the
public
should
be
consulted
is
what
is
specified
then.
A
I
will
comment
that,
even
in
that
scenario,
if
this
public
meeting
is
to
discuss
community
benefit,
why
would
we
10
minutes
later
after
we
get
that
input
from
the
community
tonight?
Why
would
we
10
minutes
20
minutes
later
be
asked
to
vote
on
a
plan
that
obviously
doesn't
include
whatever
community
benefit?
We
hear
here
tonight
so
usually
I.
A
Ask
this
question
so
I'll
ask
it
again
what
specifically,
what
is
so
time
sensitive
that
we
have
to
deal
with
this
right
after
the
public
meeting
and
I
mean
from
a
city
perspective
or
a
process
perspective,
not
from
a
developer's
perspective.
Why
is
this
time-sensitive
from
a
city
planning
perspective.
N
Through
you,
mr.
chair
I'll,
start
with
the
first
part
of
your
question,
relates
to
the
the
community
benefit
public
process
which
we're
engaged
in
this
evening.
The
the
process
has
been
brought
forward
for
this
aspect
is
covered
under
the
Planning
Act
and
our
official
plan.
However,
when
we're
considering
that
this
evening,
the
reason
we've
brought
forward
this
recommendation
tonight
and
holding
this
public
meeting
prior
to
the
comprehensive
report
was
to
hear
any
public
feedback
they
may
get
on
the
proposal
to
use
the
section.
N
37
monies
for
public
and
Community
Arts
staff
are
confident
in
the
recommendation.
That's
put
forward
this
evening
that
this
is
an
appropriate
use
of
the
section
37
monies
with
regards
to
this
project
and
the
hub
area,
and
it's
always
the
discretion
of
council
and
planning
committee
that
you
can
choose
to
approve
or
defer,
based
on
what
you
hear
tonight.
N
So
if
we
have
a
groundswell
or
a
couple
of
comments
that
come
forward
with
regards
to
the
section
37
monies
that
can
be
considered,
but
staff
are
confid,
the
recommendation
put
forward
tonight
that
it
is
appropriate
and
that
it
is
good
planning
and
that
it
represents
a
compatible
style
of
infill
in
bill
form.
With.
A
N
At
it,
from
the
time
sensitive
portion,
the
applicant
went
through
pre
application
in
2017
and
submitted
an
application.
2018
we've
been
working
with
them
for
the
past
nine
months.
I
believe
at
this
point
to
move
the
application
to
this
point,
we're
in
the
summer
session.
So
there's
gonna
be
two
parts
to
my
answer.
One
is
gonna
be
about
timing
and
the
second
is
going
to
be
about
appropriateness
with
regards
to
timing.
N
The
summer
session
does
have
a
compressed
counsel
schedule,
so
in
order
to
move
the
appeals
period
along
for
this,
there's
only
one
council
meeting
in
July.
So
that's
why
we
are
recommending
that
the
decision
tonight
move
forward
to
the
July
9th
council
meeting
and
not
the
August
15th
or
whatever,
that
is
in
August
council
meeting,
looking
at
it
from
the
planning
perspective,
if
it's
planning
staffs
perspective
that
this
is
the
type
of
development
that
we
want
to
encourage
in
the
city.
This
is
the
six
story:
mixed-use
mid
rise
style
of
development.
N
That
I
think
we've
been
looking
at
for
a
while
now
and
looking
to
have
come
forward.
This
is
both
positive
from
the
mix
of
uses.
That's
happening
on
side,
its
rental.
It's
going
to
be
a
different
tiled
style
of
built
form
for
the
area
that
could
help
catalyst
to
change,
maybe
in
this
area
and
looking
at
it
from
the
environmental
aspect
as
well.
N
This
is
a
six-story
timber
frame
building
that
we're
getting,
which
is
also
something
that
we
I
think
wanting
to
encourage
more
of
in
the
city
so
from
an
appropriateness
of
the
planning
recommendation
tonight.
Those
are
some
of
the
key
aspects
we
considered
when
trying
to
move
this
application
forward.
I
think.
A
A
N
A3
mr.
chair
I
did
cover
that
at
my
presentation,
but
just
in
the
in
the
mindfulness
of
thoroughness,
we
did
receive
one
written
communication
tonight
that
I
have
been
made
aware
of
it
was
submitted.
This
afternoon.
That's
spoke
about
the
process
for
community
benefits,
as
well
as
the
appropriateness
of
the
walking
distance
between
168
division
in
227,
Brock
and
questions
about
whether
there
were
changes
to
the
designated
building
at
227,
Brock
and
I.
Believe
I've
covered
answers
to
all
of
those
in
the
presentation
and
comments
here
for
and.
A
O
Thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
John
Granville
I
live
in
Williamsville
district
at
24,
Jenkins
Street
I've
had
an
interest
in
the
community
benefit
process
since
2013,
when
three
developments
in
Waynesville
district
were
given
increased
height
and
density
bonuses
returned
for
the
increased
height
and
density
for
these
three
developments,
the
property
owners
were
required
to,
and
I
quote
directly
from
the
bylaw
establish
a
high
quality
of
architectural
design
and
human
scale
development
consistent
with
the
city's
long
term
vision
for
the
area.
O
This
was
completely
contrary
to
a
prior
report
to
Council
on
community
benefits,
which
clearly
stated
that
and
I
quote
by
accepting
good
architecture,
and/or
good
design
as
eligible
community
benefits.
The
city
would
be
signaling
that
lower
standards
are
appropriate
in
developments
or
density.
Bonusing
is
not
used,
and
this
is
definitely
not
the
case
that
triggered
my
interest.
O
That
was
in
2013.
That
was
the
first
instance.
First
instances
I
believe
that
community
benefits
have
been
provided
for
by
the
city
of
Kingston
in
April
of
2016
presentation
was
made
to
planning
committee,
who
was
informed
that
the
Planning
Department
was
proceeding
with
the
development
of
procedures
to
guide
planning
staff
on
the
implementing
implementation
of
the
community
benefits
section
of
the
Official
Plan
I
personally
participated
in
a
number
of
public
meetings.
A
small
group
consultation
session
with
planning
staff
and
a
meeting
and
a
direct
meeting
with
the
recently
departed
manager
for
planning
policy.
O
I,
have
read
reread
and
commented
on.
Various
versions
of
the
community
benefit
guidelines
in
2016
in
2017
and
in
2018
the
Planning
Department
has
had
what
I
am
told
is
the
final
version
of
the
community
benefit
guideline
since
September
of
2018,
but
as
far
as
I
know,
it's
never
been
presented
to
the
Planning
Committee
I
am
told
that
the
reason
for
this
is
that
it
is
being
held
back
until
the
mayor's
Task
Force
on
housing
is
completed,
I,
don't
understand
or
know
why
the
guidelines
aren't
implemented
and
then
amended
if
needed.
O
O
However,
tonight's
public
meeting
to
consider
the
community
benefits
leads
me
to
conclude
that
there
are
no
consistent
guidelines
and
I
hesitate
somewhat
to
use
this
term,
but
it
appears
to
be
a
sort
of
a
wild-west
and
inconsistent
approach
to
determining
community
benefits.
I
say
this
because
the
unapproved
guidelines
refer
to
the
need
to
and
I'm
quoting
directly
from
these
guidelines,
to
identify
a
candidate
list
of
community
benefits
early
in
the
review
of
the
development
proposal.
O
Accordingly,
they
should
have
been
presented
at
February's
public
meeting.
The
feedback
received
from
the
public
through
this
Planning
Act
process
will
be
used
to
inform
identification
and
the
evaluation
of
community
benefit
options.
The
process
that
was
followed
in
this
instance
did
not
develop
a
candidate
list
for
community
benefits.
There
was
no
presentation
of
the
candidate
list
for
public
comment
and,
consequently,
public
input
was
not
informed,
has
not
informed
the
recommend.
O
Community
Benefit
I
fully
recognize
that
this
is
a
statutory
public
meeting
at
which
interested
members
of
the
public
are
being
asked
for
their
input.
I
guess.
My
question
is:
why
waste
everyone's
time
on
what
is
seen
as
a
rubber
stamp
on
the
staff
recommendations,
except
except
for
the
fact
that
I
personally
don't
know
when
to
quit
on
a
subject
like
this
I
would
not
be
here
to
comment
on
a
flawed
process.
Let
alone
come
to
offer
alternatives
over
the
past
18
months
to
height
and
density
bonuses
have
been
given.
Excuse
me,
30
seconds.
O
As
you
well
have
surmised,
by
now,
I
have
been
frustrated
by
how
community
benefits
have
been
handled
and
how
little
community
consultation
has
been
conducted,
for
what
is
supposed
to
be
community
benefit,
with
the
emphasis
on
community
what
about
Garrett
and
division?
The
short
answer
is
I,
don't
know
where's
the
community
list,
it's
like
being
told
you
can
vote
in
a
communist
country,
but
when
you
go
to
vote,
there's
only
one
name
on
the
ballot.
I
support
the
public
art
initiative,
but
question
the
community
benefit
process.
O
The
longer
answer
is
time:
committee
should
refer
the
report
back
to
the
Planning
Department,
with
a
request
for
follow-up
action.
That's
in
line
with
the
community
benefit
guidelines
that
are
languishing
in
somebody's
file
after
more
than
three
years
since
the
first
presentation
on
the
matter
to
the
planning
committee
I,
don't
believe
that
this
prevents
consideration
of
the
draft
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
but
it
would
allow
for
consideration
of
options
for
the
community
benefit,
rather
than
just
the
one
option,
as
currently
proposed,
bearing
in
mind
that
I
do
support
the
public
art
initiative.
A
J
J
I'm
gonna
say
that
I'm
generally
supportive
but
I
do
have
some
concerns,
some
of
which
have
already
been
covered.
So
I'll
do
my
best
to
not
repeat
the
points
in
the
interest
of
time.
You
are
asking
for
a
lot
of
variances
and,
in
a
nutshell,
I
believe
that
there's
too
much
residential
project
for
the
footprint
that
you've
got.
J
J
I
J
J
Now
it's
a
bit
of
a
tech
question
here
on
some
numbers:
how
many
residential
bedrooms
are
in
the
current
currently
existing
buildings
on
this
site
and
how
many
bedrooms
are
there
in
this
project,
so
that
question
goes
together.
We
went
last
question
assuming
that
this
project
does
get
approved
in
something
similar
to
its
current,
very
I,
guess
version
from
the
climate
we
go
through
the
Planning
Committee
and
then
to
Council.
How
long
would
it
take
your
new
proponents
to
actually
construct
the
project?
J
J
Okay
and
I
will
go
along
with
what
my
neighbor
friend
just
said
on
the
so
called
community
benefits.
My
suggestion
is
that
affordable
housing
in
one
or
two
units
is
preferable
at
this
time
to
public
art
and
I'll
say
that
even
saying
that
I
do
support
public
art,
I
didn't
take
part
of
the
consultation,
but
I
have
some
ideas:
okay
and
then.
My
final
point
is
that
with
the
parking
as
the
chair
was
saying,
15.
A
J
G
P
My
name
is
Mark
Tao
I'm,
the
applicant,
so
this
being
a
combined
statutory
and
public
meeting,
we
did
not
give
a
presentation
to
date
because
we
didn't
believe
on
was
necessary,
so
I
guess
I'm
speaking
more
as
an
applicant
agent
at
the
public
meeting.
More
so
than
necessarily
a
member
of
the
public.
Commenting
on
it.
I
will
still
try
to
be
brief,
but
I
may
go
over
the
five
minutes,
but
I
believe
it's
part
of
the
public
meeting.
It's
I'm.
A
Sorry
I
I
just
have
to
say
you
had
every
opportunity
as
the
agent
to
speak
at
the
beginning
as
an
agent
of
the
plan.
So
please
keep
it
within
the
five
minutes.
Okay,
because
right
now,
I
hate
to
say
this,
but
you're
operating
as
a
member
of
the
public,
but
so
so
it
is
the
five-minute
rule.
Okay,
thank.
P
P
So
with
respect
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
are
expressed
so
far,
there's
concerns
about
reduced
parking
and
the
appropriateness
of
that
so
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
a
couple
of
those.
So
a
parking
study
was
done
that
assess
the
appropriateness
of
the
parking
ratio,
which
was
reviewed
and
accepted
by
staff
with
respect
to
the
residential
and
the
commercial
parking
ratio.
The
commercial
parking
ratio
is
what's
been
accepted
elsewhere
for
very
comparable
developments
in
the
downtown.
P
It's
important
to
note
that
this
site
is
across
the
street
from
the
CBD
it's
designated
Main
Street
commercial,
which
is
the
same
designation.
That
applies
to
Louisville.
So
it's
been
that
same
mint
main
hub
of
of
the
downtown,
so
with
respect
to
the
purpose
of
the
parking
ratio.
On
that
basis,
we
believe
it
was
appropriate
and,
as
did
the
parking
study
that
was
done
there
SEC
to
the
Manatee
space
reduction
within
the
downtown
core,
so
across
the
street.
P
The
requirement
for
many
spaces
10
square
meters,
as
it
is
long
since
the
streets,
we're
proposing
something
in
between
the
10
and
the
18.5
required
elsewhere.
As
part
of
the
analysis
that
we
did
for
staff,
we
demonstrated
through
diagrams
and
written
submissions
how
the
function,
how
the
United
States
provided
was
functional
and
usable
in
terms
of
the
type
of
space,
the
variety
of
space
there
is
outdoor
space
as
well
on
the
upper
dekha,
the
parking
garage,
that's
the
large
outdoor
space,
that's
provided
with
respect
to
barrier
free
parking
dimensions.
P
We
do
meet
the
requirement
for
the
number
of
barrier
free
spaces,
not
based
on
reduce
ratio
but
based
on
the
standard
requirement
before
a
reduction
is
asked
for,
so
we
do
fully
comply
with
that
requirement
in
terms
of
dimensions,
they're
asked
for
a
ODA
requirements.
No
reductions
are
being
required
or
requested
for
that.
P
With
respect
to
the
setbacks,
whether
they're
appropriate
in
the
building
form.
As
I
noted,
it's
within
the
Main
Street
commercial
designation,
which
is
what
applied
to
Williamsville,
it's
also
in
the
core
of
the
city
in
terms
of
the
downtown,
so
those
designations
would
allow
for
heights
of
what
we're
proposing
zero
mere
setbacks.
One
year
setbacks
from
the
front
yard
which
we
are
providing,
so
the
built
form
is
consistent
with.
Why
else
would
be
supported
in
that
designation
in
that
area
there
spec
to
the
zoning.
P
As
everyone
knows,
the
zoning
bylaws
are
out
of
sync,
with
the
Official
Plan
they're,
all
30-plus
years,
owning
violets
for
the
most
part,
so
we're
the
official
plan
allows
for
built
forms
of
what
we're
proposing.
The
zoning.
Bylaw
typically
is
out
of
sync
and
doesn't
recognize
what
the
Official
Plan
allows,
whether
it's
density
built
for
massing,
etc.
So,
though
we
are
requesting
relief
from
the
zoning,
the
zoning
itself
is
quite
archaic
and
not
consistent
with
the
Official
Plan.
P
P
The
community
benefit
value
is
based
on
a
calculation,
that's
provided
by
the
city
in
terms
of
the
uplift
value
of
the
additional
density,
so
a
value
has
been
determined
where
that
value
goes
is
applied
to
subject
to
a
future
community
benefits
agreement
that
would
be
implemented
through
a
future
site
plan
before
site
plans
applied.
So
if
there's
a
desire
that
the
community
benefit
amount
is
used
for
something
other
than
the
hub
project,
that
opportunity
still
exists.
P
A
N
Three
mr.
chair,
looking
at
the
public
comments,
the
questions
about
the
community
benefits
process.
To
date,
miss
Agarwal
will
be
able
to
answer
a
bit
better
than
I
have
she's
a
lot
more
about
first
in
it.
So
I'm
going
to
look
to
her
for
that
and
then
come
back
to
me
to
answer
a
few
mushrooms
here.
B
B
You
mr.
chair
I,
wanted
to
specifically
answer
the
question
regarding
the
proposed
community
benefit
guidelines
that
staff
had
been
working
on
and
why
they
haven't
yet
been
implemented.
The
province
has
revised
section
37
of
the
Planning
Act
so
as
it
relates
to
height
and/or
density
increases.
That
section
has
been
totally
revamped.
B
The
changes
to
the
Planning
Act
have
received
Royal
Assent.
However,
they
have
not
been
implemented
yet
so
so,
based
on
the
changes
to
the
Planning
Act
staff
have
more
work
to
do
before
those
type
of
guidelines
are
finalized.
Section
37,
increase
in
height,
and/or
density
is
now
being
replaced
with
what
the
province
is.
Calling
a
community
benefits
charges
by
law.
B
There
will
be
more
details
being
released
by
the
province
through
proposed
regulations.
At
this
time.
We
don't
have
much
information
about.
What's
going
to
be
included
in
that,
however,
with
the
changes
anticipated
soon,
the
proposed
guidelines
that
we
had
been
working
on
won't
be
coming
forward,
as
proposed
as
we
do
need
to
make
changes
to
them,
based
on
the
changes
that
the
province
is
making.
N
You
mr.
chair
just
to
answer
some
of
the
final
questions
that
we
received
from
the
public,
there
was
concerns
that
there
might
be
too
much
residential
density
for
this
project.
Given
the
footprint
staff
through
the
review,
this
application
are
satisfied
that
the
built
form
is
appropriate,
as
well
as
the
proposed
density
on
site.
The
proposed
density
is
supported
by
a
number
of
studies
which
were
submitted
as
part
of
the
application.
N
A
N
Okay,
it's
getting
late
with
regards
to
the
shadow
of
solar
study,
the
that
was
submitted
as
part
of
the
urban
design
report
and
it
has
been
deemed
satisfactory
for
the
project
and
it
was
updated
as
part
of
any
built
form
changes.
So
that's
all
regulated
through
the
bill
former
has
been
deemed
to
be
satisfactory.
This
area
is
not
within
the
Williamsville
Main
Street
C
for
commercial
zone.
However,
this
is
within
the
princess
Street
corridor,
as
outlined
on
schedule,
2
of
the
Official
Plan,
which
deals
with
city
structure.
So
it
is
part
of
this.
N
N
The
answer
about
how
long
the
project
is
going
to
take
has
been
answered
and
that,
with
regards
to
parking
agreement
with
metro,
that
would
have
to
be
a
separate
discussion.
The
owner
could
have
with
that
developer
or
saw
like
this
property
owner
at
this
point,
but
they
have
secured
parking
on
one
of
their
own
sites,
so
they
could.
With
this
amendment,
look
at
any
parking
abilities
within
450
meters
of
their
property.
A
I
You
mister
through
you
and
freaky
broad,
but
one
of
the
questions,
that's
nagging
me
through
all
of
the
other
comments
that
have
been
made
tonight
is
why
so
many
reliefs
are
required.
I
am
not
satisfied.
I
asked
earlier
about
the
setbacks.
It's
pretty
much
entirely
going
to
zero.
We
heard
about
amenity,
space,
parking,
etc,
etc.
It
seems
like
this
is
not
compatible
with
any
of
the
current
regulations
and
so
I'm
wondering
how
it
can
come
as
a
recommendation
of
good
planning.
I
know,
that's
very
broad.
I
N
Mr.
Tao
brought
up
during
his
portion
of
the
meeting
is
that
the
zoning
bylaw
480
499
is
30-plus
years
old
and
our
official
plan
is
a
more
updated
policy
document
which
is
guiding
development
within
the
city
of
Kingston
and
the
Main
Street
commercial
designation
facilitates
and
encourages
the
type
of
built
form.
That's
come
forward
today
as
part
of
this
application,
so
this
style
of
building
is
what
is
being
encouraged
by
the
Main
Street
commercial
designation,
the
C
zone.
That's
the
general
C
zone.
N
That's
on
the
property
now
does
require
some
amendments
in
order
to
be
able
to
establish
this
bill
form
through
the
zoning
bylaw.
But
this
the
zoning
in
this
application
is
supported
by
the
studies
which
have
been
submitted
to
date
and
the
planning
evidence
of
mr.
Tao
the
project
consultant
to
really
outline
as
to
why
this
bill
form
is
appropriate
and
staff
are
accepting
of
that
recommendation,
and
this
is
an
appropriate
style
of
mid
juice.
N
Mixed
rise,
sorry
mixed
use,
mid-rise
buildings
within
both
this
designation
and
this
portion
of
the
city,
its
adjacent
to
the
central
business
district.
It's
on
Division
Street,
it's
located
on
arterial
and
it's
supported
by
both
active
transportation,
Express
bus
services
and
local
bus
services.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
driving
factors
that
both
facilitate
the
number
of
units
and
uses
on
site
and
the
built
form
that's
being
proposed.
I
That
does
index.
So
thank
you.
The
follow-up
is
what
type
of
timeline
should
we
expect,
especially
for
three
of
the
committee
members
or
ourselves
being
new
to
Council
and
this
committee,
and
particularly,
what
type
of
timeline
should
we
expect
between
updates
the
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaws
to
follow
suit,
because
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
around
regulations
that
are
ostensibly,
or
at
least
purportedly
not
up
to
snuff
up
to
date.
When
does
that
gap
close.
N
B
B
The
first
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
was
released
a
couple
of
years
ago
with
respect
to
your
question
about
the
Official
Plan
Update.
Typically,
that
is
done
every
five
years.
The
last
time
it
was
initiated
was
in
2015
and
the
Official
Plan
amendments
were
adopted
by
council
in
2017,
so
we
will
be
coming
back
to
you
another
update
of
the
Official
Plan
in
in
in
to
two
years
or
so.
Thank
you.
Thank.
I
Third
and
final
question
about
a
timeline
pertaining
to
the
the
community
benefits
that
we've
heard
about
and
I
appreciate
the
context
that
was
given
around
the
passage
of
updates
to
section
37
of
the
Planning
Act.
What
is
the
timeframe
on
having
council
or
this
committee
approve
new
guidelines,
given
those
changes?
Thank.
B
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair
at
this
time,
actually
like
all
of
the
municipalities
within
the
province,
are
awaiting
the
province
to
release
proposed
regulations.
The
province
has
I
think
very
recently.
Maybe
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
released
a
summary
of
what
they
might
be
proposing
in
the
regulations
and
consultation
on
that
is
open
until
sometime
in
August
I.
Don't
remember
the
exact
date.
I
really
can't
speak
to
the
timeline
that
the
province
is
looking
at
because
they
are
still
consulting
on
the
proposed
regulations.
However,
I
know
that
the
changes
have
received
Royal
Assent.
B
However,
they
will
come
into
effect
on
a
date
when
proclaimed
by
the
lieutenant
governor-
and
we
don't
know
that
date
yet
so
it
all
depends
on
how
far
the
provincial
government
intends
on
moving
into
making
these
changes
into
implementing
these
changes.
The
province
has
indicated
that
it
will
give
municipalities
some
time
to
work
on
community
benefits.
Charges
strategy
before
a
municipality
can
adopt
a
community
benefit
charges
bylaw.
B
At
this
time
the
province
is
no
longer
tying
community
benefits
to
an
increase
in
height
or
density.
So
so
we
don't
really
know
what
what
exactly
that
would
entail.
I'm
guessing
that
each
municipality
will
have
to
come
up
with
their
own
strategy.
What
the
province
has
indicated
is
that
through
several
type
of
Planning
Act
applications,
including
minor
variances,
a
city
may
be
a
municipality,
may
be
asked
for
maybe
we'll
be
able
to
ask
for
community
benefits.
However,
that
had
that
would
would
have
to
be
identified
within
that
community
benefits
strategy.
B
Q
B
E
So
comments
or
accept
this
is
the
kind
of
conversation
in
my
mind
that
makes
the
citizens
of
Kingston
go
crazy.
I
mean
we
have
here
in
front
of
us
a
perfectly
acceptable
example
of
intensification
that
meets
a
whole
bunch
of
needs
that
we've
identified
over
and
over
again
we're
talking
about
potentially
deferring
this
because
of
parking
spots.
We
just
declared
a
climate
emergency.
We
should
be
encouraging
that
there
are
only
be
two
parking
spots
and
they
both
be
accessible
and
built
to
the
right
size.
I
mean
this,
this
kind
of
dip.
E
You
know
the
regulations
that
we're
working
with
here
are
the
guidelines.
Are
we
working
with
here
apply
to
a
street
that
existed
50
years
ago?
It
doesn't
apply
to
the
fact
that
this
is
an
extension
of
a
core,
that's
expanding
outward.
This
is
a
perfect
example
of
a
downtown
core
residential
development.
It
meets
all
the
expectations
that
we've
outlined
as
a
council
in
the
last
few
months
and
I've
been
on
council
I.
E
G
What
I
heard
from
the
representative
of
waynesville
first
of
all,
first
thing
I'd
say
is
the
questions,
do
not
necessarily
reflect
how
the
committee
will
vote
and
what
they
think
is
important.
But
what
is
important
is
understanding.
There
have
been
developments
which
were
not
particularly
acceptable.
They
have
gone
in
two
ways:
Vinod
on
prints
the
street,
but
on
adjacent
streets
and
I
believe
between
the
lines.
That's
what
the
counselor
and
the
public
were
concerned
about
without
baldly
stating
it
okay,
and
this
was
straightened
out
somewhat
by
the
different
designations.
G
The
other
things
are
I
mean
I
can
understand
why
people
would
wonder
what
this
what
the
problem
is,
but
in
fact
I
think
is
the
community
benefits
section
as
we
found
out,
we
don't
know
what
what
the
rules
are
or
what
the
guidelines
are
or
what
their
status
is.
So
I
have
a
question
of
staff.
What
is
the
legal
status
of
the
deal
that's
being
brokered
if
the
province
hasn't
indicated
what
they
are
going
to
allow
or
do.
G
G
Think
that
the
section
37
came
forward
and
brought
forward
by
the
previous
government
supported
its
by
the
present
one
is
because
it
was
found
by
municipalities
that
they
were
giving
developments
for
which
they
were
not
getting
adequate,
Public,
Interest
outcomes,
and
so
this
is
a
way
of
trying
to
get
at
that
and
that,
after
all,
the
value
to
the
community
is
in
its
regulations
into
its
planning
and
what
it
needs
to
develop
as
a
functioning,
sustainable,
community
and
I'm.
Not
talking
about
just
Kingston
I'm
talking
about
whatever
community
might
have
so
I.
G
Think
that's
why
we
have
these
discussions
and
staff
are
living
in
like
the
rest
of
us
are
living
in
boxes
within
boxes
within
boxes.
They
have
legal
structures,
they
have
to
meet
and
we
are
wiggling
around
trying
to
find
out
if
there's
more
or
less.
Sometimes
we
ask
for
less
leave
even
that
cases
where
we
have
given
the
developer
more
than
they
asked
for,
and
they
still
objected
so,
which
was
pretty
crazy
as
I
remember,
but
at
least
some
of
us
thought
so
so.
This
is
why
we
have
these
discussions
anyway.
G
I'm
inclined
I
am,
from
my
perspective
as
a
downtown
councillor.
I'm
I
I
like
this
it
for
some
crude
and
more
or
less
some
crude
reasons,
and
they
are
plus
I
have
some
others,
but
the
crude
reason
is
they're
going
to
increase
the
density
I'm
concerned
about
the
parking,
because
that
particular
area
I've
lived
on
Garrett's
feet,
long
Goldmember.
What
was
there?
It's
not
the
same
now
by
a
long
shot,
but
the
park
is
not
so
good,
okay.
So,
but
the
real
reason
is
the
density
is
incorrect
to
interrupt.
A
And
so
the
official
plan
is
I.
I'm.
Sorry,
statutory
public
meetings
as
I
understand
them
are
for
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
hear
and
ask
questions
and
for
counselors
to
hear
and
ask
questions
and
I
probably
am
as
guilty
as
everybody
else,
because
what
we
were
getting
was
a
champion
for
the
project
in
an
official
plan
and
Iowa
an
apology
to
the
IC
I
planner,
who
normally
has
an
opportunity
to
address
all
of
the
questions.
A
There
will
be
an
opportunity
to
the
comprehensive
report
portion
free
to
be
able
to
comment
on
that
as
well,
so
so
I
unless
there's
a
specific
question,
I
would
strongly
suggest
if
staff
want
a
comment
on
any
of
this.
Please
do.
But
if
anybody
has
a
specific
question
of
statutory
meeting
type
question
now
would
be
the
time
to
ask:
will
get
an
opportunity
to
express
our
opinions
and
how
we're
going
to
vote
later.
I
saw
a
hand
up
over
there.
I
believe.
Oh
no
I'm,
sorry
a
staff
member,
but
you
will
have
an
opportunity.
C
Thank
you
through
your
chair.
This
listening
to
the
discussion
on
the
community
benefit.
I
am
so
I
want
to
know
if
the
community
benefit
changes
with
new
provincial
direction
so
that
it's
reduced
below
the
sixty
seven
thousand
dollars.
What
would
happen
with
the
new
revised
plan?
Come
with
something
less
or
would
it
stay
at
the
sixty
seven
thousand
dollars.
B
Keep
mixing
it
up
through
you,
mr.
chair
at
this
time.
We
do
not
know
how
the
community
benefits
would
be
calculated.
The
the
province
has
indicated
it
will
be
based
on
the
percentage
of
the
appraised
market
value.
However,
they
haven't
indicated
what
that
percentage
would
be.
The
province
is
currently
consulting
with
municipalities
on
that.
So
at
this
time
it's
it's
hard
to
say
what
the
impact
of
the
changes
would
be.
It
may
result
in
more
or
less
I
I
cannot
say
at
this
point.
A
R
Do
you're
the
chair,
I
think
what
will
happen
is
within
the
the
new
legislation.
That's
gonna
regulations
that
are
come
going
to
come
forward
from
the
province.
They'll
be
grandfathering
clauses
in
it,
so
in
other
words,
if
I
section
37
agreement
was
entered
into
and
executed
prior
to
the
new
regs
coming
in,
they
would
be
honored.
We
don't
know
what
those
grandfather
and
provisions
are
exactly
like
the
dates,
if
they'll
be
like
a
within
a
one
year,
two
year
time
frame,
but
it
will
honor
those
that's
what
they've
done
in
the
past.
A
A
G
F
A
I
A
You
so
no
ditions
no
briefings
the
business
portion
and
then
we'll
get
into
the
three
recommendations
that
are
before
us.
The
portion
of
the
meet
this
portion
of
the
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
The
city
has
initiated
a
new
process
in
which
members
of
the
public
will
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
up
to
five
minutes
on
comprehensive
reports
presented
before
the
Planning
Committee.
Those
wishing
to
provide
oral
comments
at
this
meeting
will
be
invited
to
do
so
if
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal.
A
The
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
local
planning,
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaws
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision,
so
our
first
order
of
business
will
be
deja
vu
all
over
again
uh-huh.
It's
the
comprehensive
recommendation
on
227
Brock
Street.
N
View
mr.
chair
I,
understand:
we've
had
this
application
tonight
and
I
think
a
lot
of
questions
have
been
brought
up
and
both
answered
through
the
public
meeting
portion,
but
I
would
like
to
reiterate
at
one
point:
is
that
the
section
37
aspect
which
we
discussed
tonight
isn't
just
staff
recommending
it?
This
is
something
that
the
developer
themselves
has
also
put
forward
and
bought
into
in
a
sense
and
that
they
thought
it
was
a
really
good
project
that
the
city
was
advancing
through
the
hub
project
and
wanted
to
be
a
part
of
that.
N
So
both
city
staff
and
the
developer
are
on
side
with
the
recommendation
for
the
community
benefits
aspect
outside
of
that
I.
Think
all
the
questions
regarding
the
appropriateness,
the
planning
justification
reports,
the
studies
that
have
been
brought
forward
have
all
been
answered
as
part
of
the
public
meeting
process.
Thank.
A
G
Except
well
we're
all
over
the
map
there.
Okay
I
just
want
to
say
in
general,
I
support
this,
because
I
do
have
some
reservations
about
the
parking
I,
don't
know
what
the
percentage
is,
but
0.5
is
always
seeing
pretty
low
to
me,
and
this
is
way
lower
than
that.
So,
however,
in
general,
if
it's
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
a
low-rise
fashion,
which
is
makes
for
a
more
neighbourhood
amenable
proposal-
and
hopefully
we
can
work
out-
the
community
benefits
part
of
things.
Thank
you.
So,
all
from
any
further.
N
A
A
C
N
A
J
Thank
You
mr.
chair
very
briefly,
I've
been
impressed
and
I
guess
one
over
to
support
of
the
project
and
I
have
two
recommendations.
One
of
them
is
shrimp.
I've
already
said
1
to
2
units
of
the
35
we
designated
as
affordable
housing
find
a
way
to
make
it
happen
and
to
improve
the
parking
arrangements
which
have
been
discussed
by
members
of
the
committee
and
the
prawns
that
you
seek
and
arrangement
with
Metro,
which
is
one
block
away
with
a
water
vacancy.
So
thank
you.
A
R
Not
yours,
okay,
Thank
You.
Mr.
chair,
my
apologies
I'm
covering
up
for
one
of
my
staff.
This
is
their
application
and
still
getting
used
to
your
process
here.
So
the
application
before
you
today
is
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
at
685,
Gardner's
Road.
The
proposal
in
particular
is
requesting
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
bylaw
to
modify
the
existing
special
general
commercial
zone,
C
251,
to
permit
an
autobody
use
shop
and
a
workshop
with
some
existing
uses,
which
are
already
permitted
on
the
site.
R
The
applicant
is
also
requesting
permission
for
the
outdoor
storage
of
vehicles
to
facilitate
the
sales
of
vehicles
and
a
reduction
in
the
required
yard
setbacks
to
recognize
the
existing
of
location
of
existing
buildings
and
structures
on
the
subject
site.
So
that's
a
housekeeping
variance
the
location
of
the
proposal
here.
R
R
The
Official
Plan
designation
is
arterial,
commercial
and
general
industrial
in
the
City
of
Kingston
Official
Plan.
It
should
be
noted
that
that
schedule,
3a
of
the
Official
Plan,
identifies
a
general
industrial
designation
on
the
subject
site,
which
is
limited
to
a
small
area
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
R
R
R
Around
questions
a1
was
maintaining
the
grass
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
road.
That
area
is
not
part
of
the
development
application.
It's
part
of
the
public
roadway,
we'll
existing
businesses
be
displaced;
no,
they
will
not
be
displaced.
Will
existing
building
facades
be
changed?
The
proponent
has
advised
that
they
will
be
changed
and
upgraded.
Is
there
a
request
for
reduced
setbacks
only
recognizing
ones
that
were
already
existing
and
are
to
bring
come
into
compliance
with
the
existing
zoning?
R
R
Just
a
listing
of
the
modifications
that
have
been
asked
for
I'm
at
the
zoning
provision,
so
staff
are
recommending
additional
requested
uses
and
setback
reductions
to
recognize
the
existing
development
and
because
it
will
not
result
in
an
adverse
impact
on
the
surrounding
built
form.
The
additional
uses,
as
previously
mentioned
being
a
workshop
and
an
automotive
body
shop
and
an
automotive
center,
will
enhance
the
economic
viability
of
the
subject
property.
The
proposed
zoning
bylaw
complies
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
official
plan
and
constitutes
good
land-use
planning.
A
A
Thank
you,
I
will
turn
to
the
committee.
Then.
Are
there
any
questions
seeing
none?
We
will
go
to
the
public
if
there
are
any
questions,
seeing
none
mover
and
a
seconder
Thank
You
councillor
Hill
councillor
Kiley,
all
those
in
favor
I
think
councillor
Chappell
raised
his
hand
as
well
all
those
in
favor
passed
unanimously.
Thank
you
and
our
last
one
is
a
final
plan
of
condominium
and
that's.
Q
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
planning
committee
staff,
colleagues
and
members
of
the
public,
my
name
is
Lindsay
Lambert
and
I'm,
a
planner
with
the
city's
planning
services
group
I'm
here
this
evening
to
present
the
staff
recommendation
on
an
application
for
final
plan
of
condominium
for
a
property
located
at
10:05
to
10:15
Terre
Verde
way.
Q
This
view
is
taken
from
the
east
side
of
Centennial
Drive
looking
southwest,
and
this
view
is
taken
from
the
west
side
of
Centennial
Drive.
Looking
North
terms
of
the
Official
Plan
designation
of
the
property
in
2005
Council
approved
an
official
plan,
amendment
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
Rockland,
a
subdivision
for
for
this
site
and
the
wider
area
to
the
north
and
south
and
the
subject.
Q
Q
Q
So
this
is
just
a
summary
of
the
previous
Planning
Act
applications
that
the
site
has
been
subject
to
prior
to
the
final
plan
of
condominium
application.
So,
following
the
approval
of
the
official
plan,
amendment
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
draft
land,
a
subdivision
in
2015,
the
applicant
then
filed
for
final
plan
of
subdivision
that
was
approved
in
2018.
Q
The
one
of
the
conditions
of
the
subdivision
agreement
was
that
each
of
the
developable
blocks
would
be
subject
to
site.
Thang
control
block
number
seven,
which
is
the
subject.
Property
was
the
first
to
come
forward
in
terms
of
the
site
plan,
control
application
approval
was
issued
through
delegated
authority
in
2018,
and
the
agreement
was
registered
a
little
bit
later
in
July
as
well
of
that
year.
Q
Q
This
slide
shows
the
approved
North
and
South
elevation
plans
for
the
one
of
the
two
townhouse
buildings
on
the
subject:
property
containing
10
units,
and
then
this
slide
shows
the
building
located
on
block
simmons,
as
well
with
the
approved
North
and
South
elevation
plans
for
the
12
unit.
Townhouse
building.
Q
Q
Basically
approved
recommends
approval
of
the
application
that
that
approve
will
be
subject
to
the
owner
entering
into
an
agreement
with
the
city.
That
agreement
provides
her
further
notice
to
the
condominium
corporation
and
president
future
purchasers
of
the
conditions
contained
within
the
parallel
site
plan
controlling
agreement
that
is
already
registered
on
title,
making
the
condominium
corporation
responsible
for
maintaining
the
approved
site
works
and
fulfilling
the
conditions
of
the
agreement.
Q
It
authorizes
the
mayor
and
clerk
to
execute
the
condominium
agreement,
which
is
included
as
part
of
the
staff
report,
subject
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
director
of
legal
services
with
respect
to
the
agreement.
Both
the
applicant
legal
services
have
indicated
that
they're
satisfied
with
a
proposed
agreement
and
then,
finally,
that
the
director
of
legal
services
is
authorized
to
forward
the
signed
stamped
originals
of
the
final
plan
of
condominium
to
the
Land
Registry
Office
for
registration.
I
Looking
mr.
chair
through
you,
this
sort
of
lose
my
train
of
thought.
Does
this
type
of
approval
usually
come
this
far
in
development?
Normally
like
the
building
is
pretty
much
done
right
since
councillor
Chappell's
district?
Would
they
normally
have
the
approval
for
their
condo
before
they
go
this
farm
building,
or
is
it
just
up
to
the
developer.
Q
G
My
question
is
this:
is
a
series
of
similar
condo
developments,
I
notice,
it's
a
multi-use,
but
it
doesn't
plus
with
different
uses
and
not
in
the
report.
It's
not
clear
to
me
that
it's
pretty
small
so
and
sometimes
there's
lack
of
economies
of
scale
I.
Suppose
the
city
has
no
saying
this,
but
lack
of
confidence
scale
can
make
it
difficult
for
a
cognitive
development
of
this
size
to
function
efficiently.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
say
about
that
I
doubt
it
but
I'm
wondering
if
there's
further.
Q
Chair
this
is
the
first
block
to
be
developed
within
the
plan
of
subdivision.
This
slide
shows
that
there
sorry
six
other
blocks
to
be
developed
for
both
standalone
residential
high-density
buildings,
as
well
as
mixed-use
buildings
on
the
site.
There
is
one
owner
for
the
entire
subdivision
lands
that
were
purchased
after
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision
was
approved.
Q
R
G
J
I'm
generally
supportive
of
the
project.
So
number
questions
has
the
extension
of
Centennial
Drive
been
completed.
I'll
weigh
up
to
Creek
fruit
on
all
the
way
back
round.
I
know
it's
been
a
progress
for
a
while
just
wondering
if
it's
done
I'm
wondering
if
there's
any
perspective,
Kingston
transit
service
to
the
new
development.
Given
this
is
one
of
six
blocks
we
put
in
I
got
an
idea
on
that
which
I'm
gonna
ask
you
right
up,
but
it's
getting
late,
so
I'm
not
gonna.
J
Take
it
now,
you're
describing
22
unit
stack
townhouses
here,
I'm
wondering
how
many
bedrooms
in
total
are
included
or
not
when
it's
completed
and
then
my
last
question
is:
what's
the
completion
schedule
looks
like
the
project
is
pretty
well
along?
Are
we
talking
finished
by
the
end
of
this
year?
Or
could
you
be
good.
A
Q
A
We'll
go
back
into
the
committee
any
further
questions,
a
mover
and
a
shaker
can
service
attic,
Council
of
Chappell,
all
those
in
favor
carried.
Thank
you.
We
have
no
motions,
we
have
no
notices
of
motion.
We
have
no
other
business
that
I'm
aware
of
we
do
have.
We
did
receive
correspondence
date
and
time
of
the
next
meeting
is
August
1st
in
this
room
at
10:00
at
6:30.
A
Yes
and
I
believe
some
of
us
had
in
our
calendars
next
week's
meeting,
which
was
cancelled.
So
that's
the
good
news
we
just
made
councillor
Chappell
stay
so
I
will
I'll,
see
you
next
Tuesday,
but
not
at
planning.
So,
thank
you
very
much,
and
does
anybody
have
a
key
to
the
councillors
room
because
I
truly
do
have
a
bag
of
beer
that
I'm
willing
to
share.