►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from October 19, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/Ni5jJF
A
Good
evening
welcome
to
planning
committee
I'm
counselor
Chell,
the
chair,
and
we
have
a
complement
of
councillors.
Councillor
McClaren
just
sat
down
vice
chair
councillor,
Neill
councillor
Holland
and
councillor
Turner,
and
we
have
a
number
of
members
of
staff.
Oh
and
I
wanted
to
mention
councillor
Hutchison
is
here
this
evening
as
well.
We
have
a
number
of
city
staff,
I'll
start
with
our
director
Agnew
and
beside
her
manager.
A
Vendetti
we
have
our
clerk
O'shea
and
we
have
a
number
of
planners
planner,
lambert
and
planner
Didrikson
and
planner
sands
are
here,
and
we
also
have
a
consultant
with
us
tonight,
Donna
hind.
You
may
have
remembered
her
from
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
she's
going
to
handle
the
public
meeting
on
the
point
st.
mark
file
once
we
get
into
it
and
we'll
do
our
public
meeting
introduction.
A
This
is
our
notice
of
collection
that
is
read
whenever
we
have
a
public
meeting
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing
and
on
the
forms
provided
at
the
back
of
the
room
is
collected
under
the
authority
of
the
Planning
Act
and
will
be
used
to
assist
in
making
a
decision
on
this
matter.
All
names
addresses
opinions
and
comments
may
be
collected
and
may
form
part
of
the
minutes
which
will
be
available
to
the
public
questions
regarding
this
collection
should
be
forwarded
to
the
Director
of
Planning,
building
and
licensing
services.
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
opened
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
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
and
in
the
hall
no
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications.
A
Unless
otherwise
noted
the
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion
exemption
to
this
rule
outlined
in
bylaw
number
two
thousand
675
to
delegate
various
planning
approvals
to
staff
and
to
adopt
certain
procedures
for
the
processing
of
planning
applications
subject
to
delegated
authority.
Council
has
authorized
staff
to
use
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
Information
gathered
at
public
meetings
is
then
referred
back
to
planning,
building
and
licensing
Services
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
Planning
Committee.
A
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
applications.
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee
now
I'm,
not
sure
we
only
have
one
public
meeting
and
this
this
last
bit
isn't
actually
quite
true.
We
won't
be
receiving
a
report
because
this
file
has
already
been
a
sent
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
A
So
after
tonight,
staff
will
certainly
be
considering
all
the
opinions
and
creating
a
position
for
the
City
of
Kingston,
with
the
advice
of
staff
and
council.
So
I'll
leave
it
there
and
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
open
the
first
and
only
public
meeting
and
ask
our
applicants
to
present
I
will
hear
from
staff
and
then
I'll
ask
the
committee.
If
they
have
questions
and
at
that
point
I
will
hand
the
public
meeting
over
to
miss
hind.
So
I
will
start
to
proceed
for
the
48-point
st.
work
file.
B
That's
being
proposed
just
to
give
you
very
briefly
where
the
site
is
located,
it's
located
in
the
of
the
city
between
the
great
Cataraqui
river
and
highway
15,
it's
located
right
on
the
waterfront,
so
it's
located
right
on
the
Cataraqui
River,
as
part
of
which
is
part
of
the
UNESCO
World
Heritage
Site.
At
that
point,
the
site
is
quite
a
sloped
site.
It
starts
at
the
water
and
rises
up
to
point
st.
mark.
Drive
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
the
existing
situation
and
the
applications
that
are
being
made.
B
As
you
can
see
here.
These
are
two
illustrations
from
the
city's
official
plan
and
it's
zoning
bylaw.
So
the
site
is
currently
designated
in
the
Official
Plan
as
marina
and
it's
zoned
there's
two
zones,
water
area
p2
and
a
tourist
commercial
CT
zone.
So
obviously,
these
are
very
site-specific
zones
that
pertain
to
this
property.
The
property
has
been
in
this
designation
and
zoning
for
many
years.
It
predates
our
existing
Official,
Plan
and
Sony
bylaws
and
actually
goes
back
to
a
old
use
of
the
site.
B
B
B
The
proposal
that
was
submitted
was
for
an
eight-story
95
unit
building
the
picture
that's
shown
on
the
screen
right
now
is
a
rendering
of
the
site
as
it
exists
now,
so
there
are
several
buildings
on
the
site.
There
are
storage
facilities
for
the
boats,
both
on
the
water
and
off.
There
are
large
sheds
for
repairing
boats
there.
B
The
offices
for
running
the
marina
there's
also
several
areas
of
the
site
that
are
graveled
and
parking
and
paved
so
the
proposal
is
to
remove
all
of
these
buildings
and
replace
them
with
a
new
building
that
would
have
underground
parking,
as
well
as
The,
Associated
landscaping
and
a
public
pathway
again.
Just
to
reiterate
the
this
use
and
the
associated
designation
and
Zoning
goes
back
to
at
least
the
70s
with
this
site.
B
So
after
the
original
application
in
the
public
meeting,
there
were
comments
received
from
the
city
and
from
relevant
agencies
such
as
the
Cataraqui
region,
Conservation,
Authority
and
Parks
Canada.
So
some
work
was
done
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
site.
Again,
look
at
the
building
with
the
original
application.
There
were
supporting
studies
done.
There
was
a
Heritage
impact
study
traffic
study
serviceability.
All
of
these
were
reviewed
in
light
of
the
comments
and
as
a
result,
some
changes
were
made
to
the
proposal.
B
The
building
height
has
been
reduced,
setbacks
from
the
water
have
been
increased,
so
the
original
proposal
had
a
30
metre
setback.
That's
been
increased
now
to
an
additional
average
of
five
point:
five
meters.
So
that
way
you
get
the
30
metre
setback
off
the
water,
that's
required
by
Parks
Canada
and
the
conservation
authority
plus
extra
the
building
has
actually
been
shifted.
It's
been
articulated
somewhat.
This
is
to
stay
outside
of
the
100-year
floodplain,
a
boat
launch,
that's
accessible
to
the
public
is
proposed.
B
Also,
the
shoreline
path
has
been
clarified
that
it
is
proposed
to
be
a
public
pathway
and,
as
part
of
the
comments
on
the
landscape
plan,
that's
been
prepared
by
Scott
Wentworth
group
has
been
updated
and
refined.
The
previous
proposal
showed
a
berm
along
the
water.
The
berm
has
been
taken
out
and
replaced
with
different
kinds
of
plantings.
C
Both
looking
from
the
left,
for
instance,
on
the
upper
elevation,
is
a
certain
color
brick,
it's
got
a
consistent
base
of
stone,
brick
middle
story
and
then
a
top
which
is
has
a
steel
roof
on
it
and
a
slope
steel
roof
for
that.
So
those
are
that's
basically
amenities
space
on
the
top
and
allows
people
to
enjoy
that
the
views
of
the
river.
The
it's
also
is
split
into
three
sections,
as
you
can
see
both
in
those
elevations.
C
C
The
what
if
we
just
go
to
the
next
one
now
and
that's
thanks
this
is
a
really
an
interesting
slide,
which
shows
why
these
we've
got
these
two
different
aspects
of
that
steep
slope.
The
Margo
talked
about
we're
rising
up
from
the
the
flat
plane
of
the
category
River
to
just
below
our
actually
substantially
below
the
the
crown
of
the
hill
and
particularly
below
the
crown
of
the
existing
trees.
That's
something
that
Parks
Canada
had
recommended
and
really
is
stipulated
that
we're
not
just
supposed
to
poke
our
heads
above
that
tree
line.
C
So
you
can
see
on
the
on
that
upper
section
where
we
were
back
in
that
the
last
meeting,
where
the
the,
where
we've
taken
off
that
existing
that
extra
story
lowered
it
down
so
that
from
the
center
of
the
canal,
you
can
look
up.
You
can
see
that
the
the
crown
of
the
hill
you
can
see
the
crown
of
the
existing
trees
and
as
this
grows
in
as
Martha's
going
to
describe
you
in
a
few
minutes,
is
the.
C
By
the
same
token,
there
are
things
which
the
carriage
impact
studies
asked
us
to
look
at
and
which
we've
respected
and
I'm
just
gonna
try
and
carefully
read
or
scan
these
for
you
right
now
and
because
I
think
we've
been
able
to
achieve
these,
and
actually
you've
got
some
great
champions
in
terms
of
Parks
Canada
and
in
terms
of
their
stipulations.
For
this
and
we've
really
respected
their
wishes,
is
its
it
to
try
and
make
this
a
better
scheme
and
I
think
that
back
and
forth
has
worked.
C
Yeah
they've
asked
us
to
carefully
design
the
building
site,
worked
a
high
standard
design
to
respect
and
compliment
the
natural
and
scenic,
and
many
of
the
arena
canal.
Buildings
should
be
low
profile
and
not
exceed
the
height
of
the
tree
canopy.
So
at
seven
stories,
we're
talking
about
a
not
a
high
rise
to
say,
mid
rise
or
even
less
many
of
the
buildings.
In
downtown
Kingston,
along
on
Terrace
right
near
the
water,
are
seven
stories.
C
Eight
stories
block
T's
of
16
sores,
in
some
cases
also
located
accessory
uses
in
structures
such
as
parking
areas,
garage
storage
facilities,
signage
site
lighting,
etc.
To
have
a
minimal
impact,
ensuring
they're
not
visible
from
the
category
River,
so
the
Heritage
impact
setting
in
parks
can
are
asking
is
respect
this
natural
environment.
B
Thank
you,
I'm
just
gonna
continue
along
and
expand
a
little
bit
on
where
we're
talking
about
the
landscaping
of
the
site.
So
as
we're
talking
about
you
know,
it's
a
very
major
influence
on
this
site
and
the
design
that
it
is
next
to
the
Rideau
Canal,
the
UNESCO
World
Heritage
Site,
and
it's
very
important
that
we
meet
the
Heritage
requirements
and
respect
that.
So
sandy
spoke
a
lot
about
this
profile
and
one
of
the
things
that
the
landscaping
is
going
to
do
is
it's
going
to
change
the
look
of
this
site
from
the
waterway.
B
What
will
be
planted
are
you
know
we're
talking
about
a
very
big
variety
of
plants,
but
the
trees
that
go
in
at
the
beginning
will
already
be
quite
mature,
so
you're
instantly
going
to
get
a
greening
of
the
site,
a
landscaping
of
the
site,
and
you
can
see
that
in
ten
years
already,
trees
have
grown
up
and
significantly
the
the
look
of
the
site
changes
and
those
will
become
even
larger
over
time.
Screening
more
of
the
building.
The
key,
as
we've
already
said,
is
that
slope
from
the
water.
B
I'd
now
like
to
change
gears
a
little
bit
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
more
of
the
policy
and
regulatory
environment.
So
what
this
drawing?
We
showed
this
at
the
last
public
meeting
on
this
one
we'd
superimpose
the
outline
of
the
proposed
building
and
what
this
does
is.
It
shows
the
as
of
right
zone
een
on
the
site.
B
B
B
If
someone
want
to
put
in
say
low-density
residential
houses
or
townhouses,
what
would
happen
is
you'd
end
up
likely
with
two
tiers
of
houses,
one
where
we're
showing
here
and
another
approximately
where
the
proposed
building
is
and
in
actual
fact,
because
those
buildings
are
closer
and
they're.
Excuse
me,
at
the
top
of
the
slope,
there's
actually
more
of
a
physical
impact
on
adjacent
residences.
B
So,
looking
at
this
from
a
policy
point
of
view,
if
we
start
from
the
point
of
view
of
this
site
is
no
longer
going
to
be
used
for
marina,
then
we
won't.
We
look
to
guidance
in
the
policy
documents
of
what
it
should
be
used
for
and
if
you
look
in
the
Official
Plan,
there
are
many
policies
throughout
the
Official
Plan,
but
three
main
ones
that
would
guide
a
change
of
use
would
be
schedule
2,
which
is
the
city
structure,
and
this
is
in
a
housing
district.
B
So
if
we
can
look
at
those
policies
and
recognize
ok,
then
why
is
this
a
good
use
to
have
this
mid
rise
apartment
building
on
this
site?
The
first
one
is
it's
in
a
housing
district
and
this
is
residential
use.
The
second
is
this
site
provides
the
opportunity
both
to
connect
to
an
existing
Park
and
also
to
extend
that
Park
and
to
extend
pathways.
B
The
red
shows
so
to
the
north
is
the
existing
pathways,
and
then
you
can
see
how
that
continues
south.
So
that's
providing
public
access
to
the
waterfront
and
it's
also
providing
a
loop
in
the
trail
again,
even
beside
the
fact
that
we
would
have
a
lot
of
yards
on
this
property
that
will
all
be
landscaped.
Just
the
actual
waterfront
will
be
realized
from
what
it
is
today.
B
So
there
are
things
about
the
site
that
do
make
it
unique
and
able
to
mitigate
potential
conflict
or
non
compatibility
with
adjacent
uses.
First
of
all,
if
you
look
at
the
outline
of
the
building
on
this
site,
we're
talking
about
a
more
compact
footprint
than
you
would
see
from
other
uses,
so
other
residential
uses
could
easily
be
more
spread
out.
You
could
have
more
houses
throughout
the
site.
This
allows
more
compact
building
in
one
spot,
allowing
for
these
large
yards
again.
B
B
They
also
the
entire
public,
not
just
a
few
who
live
there,
get
those
views
of
the
city,
so
this
is
actually
a
way
of
enhancing
views
towards
the
water
and
the
city
and
overall,
this
is
going
to
be
a
greening
of
that
site
and
if
you
remember
the
picture
that
I
showed
you
of
what
it
looks
like
right
now,
it's
a
former
quasi
commercial
industrial
site.
It
has
boat,
repair,
port
boat
storage.
This
is
going
to
look
dramatically
different
on
the
ground
after
so
that
was
the
end
of
what
we
wanted
to
present
to
you.
D
You,
madam
chair,
through
you
South,
would
just
like
to
take
a
brief
opportunity
to
go
through
some
of
the
chronology
with
respect
to
the
applications
and
also
speak
to
community
benefits
and
the
notification
for
this.
This
meeting
this
evening,
so
going
back
to
2013,
there
was
a
statutory
public
meeting
held
on
May,
2nd
and
the
applications
were
in
a
bands
for
close
to
four
years
awaiting
the
submission
of
additional
information
from
the
applicant
to
address
the
first
round
of
technical
comments.
D
D
The
appeals
were
based
on
the
approval
authority's
failure
to
make
a
decision
within
the
prescribed
period
of
time.
As
for
the
Planning
Act,
the
approval
Authority
Council
has
180
days
to
make
a
decision.
Once
an
official
plan,
amendment
has
been
deemed
complete
and
120
days
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
as
the
applications
have
been
appealed
to
the
OMB
at
this
time.
D
The
purpose
of
this
evening's
non-statutory
public
meeting
is
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
input
for
council
and
staffs
consideration
in
reviewing
the
applications
with
respect
to
the
policy
framework
staff
would
just
like
to
confirm
that
as
the
applications
were
deemed
complete
under
the
Planning
Act
back
in
2013,
their
review
falls
under
the
2010
official
plan
that
came
into
effect
at
that
time.
That
wasn't,
in
effect
in
that
time,
as
opposed
to
the
2017
Official
Plan
Update,
which
recently
came
into
effect
in
August,
in
accordance
with
section
37
of
the
Planning
Act
in
sections.
D
Community
benefits
can
be
provided
by
the
public
this
evening
or
in
writing
to
the
planning
services
staff.
With
respect
to
notification
for
this
evenings
meeting,
a
notice
of
non-statutory
public
meeting
was
provided
by
advertisement
in
the
form
of
signs
posted
on
the
subject
site
in
advance
of
the
public
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
to
by
mail
to
all
76
property
owners
within
a
hundred
120
metres
of
the
subject
site.
D
E
Thank
you
a
question,
and
this
is
probably
to
staff.
I
know
that
all
of
that
landscaping
happens
through
site
plan,
and
this
is
in
no
way
a
reflection
on
Homestead,
but
we've
had
some
site
plans
in
Williamsville
that
there's
been
a
bit
of
a
bait-and-switch
on
that
it
looks
beautiful
in
the
in
the
renderings
when
they're
seeking
approval,
and
it
never
looks
anything
like
that.
E
One
is
completed
so
I'm
wondering
how
we
can
ensure
that,
indeed,
all
of
those
trees
have
an
opportunity
to
mature,
and
is
there
a
way
within
site
plan
agreement
so
that,
if
you
need
to
do
succession
planning,
because
some
of
those
trees
aren't
successful,
you
have
that
opportunity.
Is
that
something
that
can
be
assured
within
site
plan.
E
F
F
With
specific
dimensions
so
that
we
can
ensure
that
there's
appropriate
space
for
the
tree
roots
to
be
able
to
take
and
grow
and
mature
within
that
space
within,
we
can
require
the
landscaping
and
the
area
through
zoning
and
then
through
site
plan.
There
can
be
conditions
put
in
place
to
ensure
the
maintenance
and
care
of
the
trees
over
the
long
term
and.
E
I
have
one
more
question:
probably
to
staff:
can
you
go
forward
to?
Where
are
you
showing
the
four
story
and
how
that
would
relate
to
the
building
yeah
in
behind
that
one?
Yes,
I
guess
my
concern
is
homestead
being
in
the
rental
business.
What
would
stop
them
from
at
a
future
date
severing
a
piece
of
land
and
putting
in
a
four
or
five
storey
Sacko
Bowl
townhouses,
so
that
you
would
end
up
with
with
the
neighbors,
probably
would
consider
the
worst
of
both
worlds?
F
B
Just
jump
in
as
well
and
speak
to
the
site
plan
if
you'll
notice,
the
access
to
the
site,
so
the
front
of
the
building
is
facing
towards
the
east,
so
you
have
a
driveway
up
to
access
that
there's
also
underground
parking
and
the
entrance
is
there.
So,
even
though
it
looks
landscaped
and
you
do
have
a
certain
amount
of
Sur
sparking
that
always
goes
with
this
kind
of
building,
but
there
actually
isn't
room
to
take
off.
You
need
that
for
the
same.
A
B
A
Other
questions
from
the
committee
I've
got
a
couple.
You
show
a
townhouse
complex
in
one
file
on
one
picture,
but
actually
this
is
zone
only
for
a
motel
correct.
It
would
even
to
put
up
townhouses.
There
would
have
to
be
a
rezoning
it
isn't
it
a
bi
right,
yeah
and
I'm
interested
in
the
public
boat
launch.
It
isn't
really
shown
there
very
well
and
is
that
kind
of
an
offer,
or
is
that
a
firm
part
of
the
plan
that
there
would
be
a
boat
launch
that
the
public
could
access
I
mean.
B
Certainly
the
applicant
is
is
saying
that
that's
something
that
they
would
like
to
provide.
It
made
it
part
of
their
application.
They
think
it's
an
asset
for
the
property.
There
is
an
existing
boat
launch
there.
So
not
all
of
the
docks
that
are
there
now
will
stay.
Some
aren't
in
good
condition,
but
the
ones
that
are
in
good
condition
will
stay
and
there's
a
boat
launch,
so
it
just
makes
sense
to
keep
it
and
take
advantage
of
it.
A
B
A
J
Thank
You
councillor
Shaw,
so
I
have
just
a
few
things.
I
want
to
read
out
before
we
get
started
and
then
we'll
get
into
the
list
of
people
that
have
signed
up
to
ask
a
question
so
requesting
to
speak
is
an
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
or
make
a
comment
regarding
the
content
of
the
reports
and
the
presentation.
That's
before
you,
tonight's
48,
a
point
st.
mark
drive,
the
questions
are
being
recorded
by
the
applicants
representative
and
I.
J
If
everybody's
given
another
couple
of
minutes,
we're
here
for
quite
a
long
time
we,
the
the
city,
very
much
values
your
comments
and
questions
and
the
city
wants
to
make
sure
that
these
kinds
of
meetings
are
conducted
in
a
very
respectful
and
orderly
manner.
So
I
ask
for
everyone's
mutual
respect
of
everybody
in
the
room.
Speakers
are
encouraged,
not
to
repeat
information
or
questions
that
they've
already
heard.
Another
speaker
asked
so
a
note
to
the
speakers
on
the
list.
You're
invited
to
speak
only
once
on
the
application.
J
Again,
please
be
respectful
of
everyone
in
the
room,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
every
the
speakers
in
particular
to
refrain
from
comments.
Language
sounds
that
are
demeaning
or
disrespectful
of
anyone
in
the
room.
Please
stay
focused
on
this
application.
Please
don't
enter
into
debate
or
cross
discussion.
The
purpose
your
purpose
is
to
share
your
comments,
make
your
questions
clear
and
my
job
is
to
try
and
do
the
best
job
I
can
to
get
your
questions
answered
tonight.
J
I'll
ask
everyone
as
they
come
up
to
give
their
name
and
address
so
that
it
can
be
recorded.
So
a
note
to
everyone
in
the
room
is
that
I
also
ask
you
to
refrain
from
any
kind
of
disrespectful
sounds
or
noises
that
would
demean
anybody
in
the
room.
I
also
ask
that
you
refrain
from
clapping.
The
CD
is
very
firm
that
they
will
not
tolerate
any
kind
of
abusive
language
towards
staff
counsel,
again:
consultants,
members
of
public.
They
have
a
duty
to
help
ensure
a
very
safe
workplace,
and
that
includes
this
room.
J
So
we've
got
five
minutes.
I'll
give
a
warning
at
about
thirty
seconds,
I'm
going
to
call
people
up
in
small
groups,
so
we
can
get
people
organized.
We've
got
two
places
to
speak
in
front
of
me
and
behind
me.
So
I'll
call
up
the
first
and
second
speaker
on
the
list
and
I've
been
asked
to
to
identify
them
by
the
number,
not
the
name.
So
I'll
get
speaker
1
in
front
of
me,
speaker,
2
behind
me
and
then
speaker,
3
and
4.
You
can
be
on
the
ready
and
I
think
with
that.
K
K
My
wife
and
I
have
owned
a
home
in
the
Point
C
Mark
neighborhood.
For
the
past
32
years
we
raised
our
five
children
there,
my
company
bravery
homes
built
all,
but
one
of
the
homes
along
the
ridge
that
we've
been
most
impacted
by
this
proposal,
plus
another
150
homes.
In
the
point
st.
mark
woods,
landing
development
that
make
up
this
community
is
not
normal
for
a
developer
to
publicly
oppose
and
other
developers
endeavours
to
increase
the
value
of
their
lands.
But
this
is
different.
This
is
much
different.
K
This
increase
in
value
to
homestead
would
be
at
the
significant
cost
in
both
money
and
enjoyment
to
my
neighbors,
two
of
my
neighbors
approached
me
asking
for
my
help:
I'm
primarily
here
for
them.
This
is
not
about
another
NIMBY
group
objection,
but
a
legitimate
opposition
to
an
inappropriate
development
for
our
neighborhood.
K
First
I
want
to
make
a
few
short
points
about
the
Official
Plan.
Because
of
the
time
restrictions
put
on
me,
I
only
missed
a
few
of
the
problems.
The
city
pays
millions
of
taxpayer
dollars
on
studies
to
create
the
best
practices
and
create
a
blueprint
on
how
to
best
develop
a
community
and
in
the
end
it
is
called
the
Official
Plan.
Obviously,
it
should
have
some
flexibility,
but
we
are
not
talking
about
flexibility
on
this
proposal.
We
are
talking
about
proposed
changes
that
I've
almost
never
seen
before
a
few
examples.
K
Official
plan
requirements
for
proving
a
change
to
be
located
on
a
site
of
a
pro
context
of
surrounding
uses.
The
entire
area
around
this
development
proposal
is
low
density
adjacent
to
a
commercial
area.
It
is
not
adjacent
to
a
commercial
area.
Few
escapes
of
cultural
heritage
features
to
be
retained
and
enhanced.
K
How
can
homeowners
views
of
a
UNESCO
site
be
totally
brought
from
view
not
being
convention
contravention
of
this
official
plan?
Official
pan
272
only
land
uses
that
are
compatible
or
can
be
made
compatible
with
surrounding
sites
and
land
uses
designations
will
be
approved
again.
How
can
any
rational
interpretation
of
that
mandate
conclude
that
this
proposal
eats
that
straightforward
standard,
opie,
273
adverse
effect
to
be
addressed?
K
Relief
in
this
application
is
being
requested
on
the
proposal
from
minimum
lot
area.
Minimum
interiors,
either
maximum
height.
Let's
be
more
specific
interior
side
garden
Trojans
over
50%
height
increase
over
zone
current
zone
is
a
hundred
and
sixteen
percent,
and
on
and
on
just
on
the
technical
standards.
The
site
access
does
not
be
close
to
a
Kingston
technical
standards
to
right-of-ways
would
be
the
minimum
for
Road
is
required
as
18
metres.
When
we
get
into
higher
densities,
the
city
is
seeking
20
metres.
The
access
to
this
site
is
9
metres.
K
High
density
development
should
be
located
in
central
high
traffic
areas
with
arterial
roads.
This
site
is
opposite
to
where
high
density
should
be
built.
Safety
I'm
not
sure
how
the
fire
department
is
accepting
this
design.
How
is
a
fire
truck
with
a
ladder
going
to
go
down
that
entrance
into
a
straight
narrow,
steep
grade
sharp
turn
and
then
there's
no
access
road
on
the
water
French
for
the
lower
three
floors
of
apartments
traffic
transit?
One
word
irresponsible.
K
If
I
submitted
this
application
to
the
painting
stuff,
they
would
make
this
an
airplane
tour
back
in
and
left
me
out
of
the
room.
I'm
done
because
I
get
two
more
paragraphs.
I
believe
that
if
the
mayor,
Patterson
or
CEO
hunt
instructed
the
planning
department
to
have
a
report
in
one
week,
there
would
be
a
Planning
Review
recommendation
for
it
done
in
one
week.
K
There
isn't
one
why
why
we
need
one
now,
I
hope
the
city
does
not
sit
down
with
a
developer,
see
if
an
agreement
can
be
made
to
enable
the
cancellation
of
the
own
B
appeal
prior
to
the
public's
real
input
and
view
of
the
staffs
comments
and
recommendations
without
staff.
Having
already
carried
out
a
thorough
report
of
this
proposal,
we
don't
have
on
record
what
I
believe
are
numerous.
Numerous
defects
in
the
application,
I
believe
a
balanced
planning
report
would
have
a
very
negative
impact
for
homestead
at
the
O
and
B
hurry.
K
Alternatively,
if
a
resolution
is
struck
with
council,
the
neighborhood
community
appealed
to
the
OMB
would
be
negatively
impacted
with
both
the
applicant
and
the
city.
Satisfied
with
the
official
official
planned
amendments
and
appeal
by
impacted
homeowners
under
these
circumstances
be
severely
prejudiced.
Let.
K
K
J
I'd
like
to
know
clapping,
please
I'd
like
to
go
to
speaker
number
two
and
then
get
number
three
so
I
know
I'm
gonna
deal
with
the
questions
at
certain
intervals
of
the
questions
and
so
I'll
get
I'll
begin
with
speaker
number
two
behind
me
and
get
speaker
number
three
to
come
up
to
the
podium
in
front
of
me.
So
speaker,
2.
L
L
At
the
time
I
presented
a
38
page
presentation
with
comparing
facts,
charts
photographs
against
the
presentation
of
the
developer,
each
member
of
the
committee
and
the
clerk
were
presented
with
a
copy
and
should
be
a
matter
of
public
record
I
would
assume
if
it
is
not
I'm
happy
to
supply
the
second
time
inside.
The
document
I
asked
a
number
of
questions
and
was
assured
that
I
would
get
answers
to
my
questions
now.
L
I
would
like
to
make
my
bottom
line.
Is
the
plans
as
indicated
on
the
new,
are
virtually
the
same
virtu?
They
say
you
can
take
the
building
overlay
it
on
site
plans
from
the
previous
one
ago.
Oh,
it
has
one
floor
less,
but
you
have
95
units
and
you
have
one
less
floor.
How
do
you
do
that?
I?
Don't
know?
L
That's
just
one
example.
So
I
would
suggest
that
it's
unacceptable
and
does
not
conform
to
the
city's
official
plan
of
2010.
Now
previous
speaker
outlined
a
number
of
points
which
there's
no
point
in
me
going
over
except
to
say,
I
find
that
it
is
too
high,
too
wide,
too
dense
and
so
on,
and
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
know
what
I,
what
I
think
about
the
whole
proposal
over
four
years?
L
L
They're
back
onto
this,
I
am
NOT
one
of
them,
our
president,
owned
by
hired
individuals
and
those
individuals
count
on
the
equity
in
that
property
for
their
future,
which,
if
this
structure
is
built,
as
previous
speaker
said,
we
will
have
a
serious
problem.
Retaining
the
current
value
of
it,
there'll
be
an
increase
in
traffic.
It's
a
new
bridge
is
built.
An
increase
of
noise
for
point
st.
mark
on
the
third
crossing
compression
will
take
place
because
highway
15
has
an
expansion
in
the
wind.
So
there
goes
the
east
side.
L
We've
had
the
north
side,
the
west
side
east
side,
and
this
is
a
complete,
inappropriate
and
out
of
the
character
development
being
proposed
for
the
south
end.
It's
as
if
point,
st.
mark
and
woods
landing
is
being
caught
in
a
grip
and
squeezed
for
some
particular
reason
from
all
four
directions
and
I
really
can't
answer
the
rationale
for
the
one.
On
the
south
end,
we
have
a
lot
of
problems
going
north-south
with
people
from
the
base.
They
need
the
extra
highway
15.
So
there's
gonna
be
some
compensation,
some
issues
with
with
point
st.
L
mark,
but
that's
to
be
expected.
Now
all
that
said,
we
find
ourselves
tonight
on
the
poster
saying
that
we
were
supposed
to
be
here
to
respect
the
process
and
we
are
going
to
talk
about
the
potential
community
benefits
related
to
the
proposed
development
that
might
be
requested
from
the
applicant.
Now
that
begs
five
questions
for
me:
one
if
we
create
a
list
of
possible
community
benefits
at
this
time,
are
we
not
capitulating
to
the
developer
without
even
a
fight?
L
Is
this
action
setting
a
new
course
for
the
city
when
dealing
with
development
issues
3
as
the
city
given
in
to
the
tactic
of
the
OMB
being
used
against
the
city
as
it
is
in
this
case
and
I
understand?
There's
two
others:
two
other
structures
that
have
the
same
issue
for
is
this
tactic,
an
attempt
to
deny
the
citizens
and
the
elected
officials
the
right
to
open
and
meaningful
dialogue
to
give
clear
direction
and
exercise
control
of
what
developers
may
or
may
not
do
with
our
city
and,
most
importantly,
five.
L
L
Do
I
do
not
believe
at
it.
Now
is
the
time
to
create
such
a
list.
What
time
of
action
I
would
like
to
encourage
all
members
of
the
City
Council,
not
just
those
present,
for
the
planning
committee
to
stand
up
against
this
attack
direct
staff
to
challenge
this
tactic
and
defend
the
rights
of
all
citizens
of
Kingston,
for
it
is
before
it
becomes
the
normal
approach.
After
all,
Kingston
belongs
to
all
its
citizens,
not
just
a
select
few.
J
M
I
would
also
like
to
for
the
information
for
Margaret's
information
to
say
that
the
bus
stop
is
not
at
the
corner
of
Point
st.
mark
and
highway
15.
It's
a
block
further
on
half
half
a
block,
past
medley
court
and
I
would
like
homestead
if
they
could
to
really
clarify
the
question
of
access
and
parking
I.
Think
you
made
reference
to
people
mistakenly
thinking
that
there
might
be
some
kind
of
road
access
through
Lila,
Burke,
Park.
Well,
I!
M
Guess
we
got
that
apprehension
because,
in
anticipation
of
the
first
planning
application,
I
went
down
with
the
dogs
one
morning
to
find
sir
being
set
out
for
exactly
that.
Some
sort
of
access
and
I'm
also
concerned
in
opposing
this
about
the
point
raised
earlier
about
access
for
fire
and
the
like
in
the
current
roadway,
so
I'd,
like
some
clarification
on
that
if
I
could
please.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
J
N
N
If
you
live
down
there,
you
see
the
number
of
people
who
walk
through
there
every
day
and
the
number
of
people
who
come
in
the
summertime,
particularly
to
play
on
that
playground.
So
I
think
the
integrity
of
that
park
is
very,
very
important
and
my
concern
is-
and
it's
been
raised
tonight
and
I'm-
not
sure
I
haven't
been
particularly
well
informed.
N
Nobody
stops
at
the
intersection,
including
our
police,
who
don't
love
to
do
a
rolling,
stop
there
and
to
add
another
90
cars
whatever
would
be
going
up
and
down
there
would
make
for
a
hazardous
situation,
so
I
would
just
urge
the
council
or
staff
members
to
get
out
on
a
boat
and
look
at
the
site
and
I
would
also
ask
you
very
carefully
to
make
sure
that
nobody
destroys
the
park
and
allows
access
for
any
reasons
through
Kenwood
circle
to
the
new
development.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
J
J
J
O
A
Sanjeev
Sandhu
I
live
on
74
Lyme
Ridge
says
a
little
bit
offset
from
the
dive
down
into
the
marina.
My
family
has
been
in
that
area,
since
that
was
all
woods
when
we
were
on
the
other
side
in
Grenadier,
village
and
I'm,
not
fundamentally,
philosophically
opposed
to
all
development.
I've
lived
in
that
area
for
a
long
time
and
I
would
give
a
kidney
to
have
hardware
store
somewhere
in
that
area,
because
there's
really
a
lack,
there's,
a
lack
of
retail
space
and
then
the
lack
of
retail
was
because
of
a
lack
of
people.
O
O
If
you
look
at
the
the
way
the
circuits
are
there,
you
have
Gore
Road
that
goes
straight
through
Google
Street
to
the
crossing,
and
you
have
point
C
mark
that
loops
around
from
highway
15
to
what
is
it's
not
Goro's,
it's
like
points
a
mark
right
where
that
bridge
is
going
to
be
so
we're
gonna
have
an
influx
of
many
vehicles
for
the
bridge
and
we're
gonna
add
another
hundred
to
two
hundred
vehicles
for
this
development.
It's
going
to
turn
that
neighborhood
into
a
bit
of
a
circus.
O
That's
that's
my
opinion
and
it's
going
to
make
it
very
dangerous
thing.
The
sight
lines
there
now
are
terrible.
It's
almost
a
90-degree
angle
around
that
marina
and
if
you're,
if
you're
turning
left
onto
lime,
wheels
like
I
have
to
do.
Can
you
have
a
quite
a
blind
spot
there,
just
as
it
is,
and
now
we're
gonna
have
traffic
coming
up
from
the
marina
hill
on
the
right
and
more
traffic
coming
in
from
that
third
crossing
I?
Think
as
I
said,
I'm
not,
you
know
philosophically
opposed
to
develop.
O
O
J
You
I'm
just
gonna,
take
a
brief
pause
and
ask
the
applicants
representatives
to
answer
some
of
the
questions
that
I
have
in
my
list
and
so
I
want
to
reiterate
that
both
staff
and
the
applicants
representatives
are
recording
their
own
notes.
With
respect
to
all
the
comments
that
the
speakers
are
making
tonight,
I'm
going
to
call
out
just
some
of
the
specific
questions
that
I
heard
you
asked
of
the
applicant
or
of
city
staff,
so
the
first
question
and
then
we're
gonna
pick
up
with
the
presentation
by
a
speaker
number
five.
J
B
You
know
so
to
get
into
a
back
and
forth
on
that
kind
of
thing,
when
it's
not
based
on
the
actual
design
of
the
property,
we
don't
find
it
necessary
to
get
into
that
tonight.
I
think
the
main
point
I'd
like
to
make
from
what
we've
heard
so
far,
I'd
like
to
speak
about
the
the
perception
that
there's
going
to
be
an
entrance
through
Lila
Burke
Park,
so.
J
Let
me
just
wait:
I'd
rather
go
through
the
questions
as
I've
written
them
down
and
then
I'll
ask
you
to
respond
to
them.
Just
so.
I
keep
them
straight
in
my
mind,
and
so
people
that
are
speaking
are
assured
that
we're
dealing
with
the
questions
as
they
come
up.
So
the
next
question,
I
think
I
heard,
was
maybe
a
response
of
why
this
site
is
appropriate
for
this
form
of
development
and.
J
B
F
Thank
you
through
you,
madam
chair.
This
application
was
submitted.
There
was
a
public
meeting
held
I
believe
it
was
in
2013.
All
of
the
submissions
that
were
noted
were
received
and
due
form
part
of
the
public
record
as
it
relates
to
this
file.
At
the
time,
staff
took
in
all
submissions
that
were
received,
undertook
a
technical
circulation
and
provided
comments
back
to
the
developer.
F
With
respect
to
the
first
review
of
the
application,
a
resubmission
of
that
application
was
provided
earlier
this
year,
I
believe
it
was
in
June
that
it,
the
application,
was
resubmitted
for
the
second
submission.
So
there
was
a
significant
amount
of
time
that
passed
between
the
first
submission
and
the
second
submission
for
review
on
this
application
with
respect
to
addressing
public
comments
and
concerns.
F
Typically,
staff
addressed
those
when
we
bring
back
a
comprehensive
report
what's
unusual
in
the
circumstances,
the
amount
of
time
that
elapsed
between
the
first
and
second
submission,
so
staff
did
provide
technical
comment
back
to
the
developer
and
the
proposal
sat
in
abeyance
for
a
significant
period
of
time,
which
is
why
a
recommendation
was
not
made
to
counsel
and
counsel
was
not
able
to
make
a
decision
within
the
hundred
and
eighty
day
appeal
period.
That
is
legislated
cleaning
act,
I.
J
Think
that
answered
my
next
question
was
why
the
city
didn't
provide
the
comments
in
a
timely
manner.
I
think
I
heard
another
question
about
why,
if,
if
the
community
starts
to
describe
possible
benefits
for
a
community
benefits
as
part
of
this
plan-
and
this
is
a
question
for
staff-
does
that
not
give
the
impression
that
they
have
they're
showing
support
for
the
application,
because
they're
talking
about
community
benefits
that
would
be
part
and
parcel
with
this
application?
You.
F
Through
you,
Mountain
showstopper
asking
for
input
with
respect
to
community
benefits
at
this
point
in
the
process,
because
this
is
our
opportunity
to
bring
this
forward
to
the
public
and
have
that
discussion
at
this
point
in
time.
So
there
was
a
statutory
meeting
held
for
this
application
back
in
2013,
and
this
is
our
next
opportunity
to
be
in
front
of
the
public
and
ask
questions
with
respect
to
community
benefits.
It
certainly
does
not
imply
that
we
have
a
position
or
recommendation
on
the
application
at
this
point
in
time.
I.
J
F
To
the
community
benefits,
as
well
as
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
appeal
in
this
situation,
staff
are
required
to
report
back
to
Council
to
receive
any
direction
going
forward
with
this.
Given
the
appeal
so
with
respect
to
community
benefits,
as
well
as
the
appeal
itself,
with
respect
to
the
application,
we're
seeking
input
from
the
public
for
councils,
consideration
with
respect
to
any
future
direction
from
Council
together
with
the
community
benefits
in
terms
of
whether
they
will
that
will
form
part
of
the
direction.
With
respect
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
position
of
council.
P
Thank
you
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
just
to
add
to
that
in
terms
of
the
process.
It
is
a
bit
of
a
unique
situation
for
staff
to
be
in,
given
that
this
application
has
been
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
and
as
a
result
of
that,
our
process
deviates
from
what
we
would
normally
do
in
terms
of
preparing
that
comprehensive
report
which
would
come
to
this
committee.
We'd
have
the
opportunity
to
discuss
it
with
this
committee
and
answer
any
questions.
P
We
would
also
have
the
ability
normally
to
entertain
public
submissions
at
the
comprehensive
report
stage
which
again,
because
this
file
has
now
been
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
It's
a
bit
unique
in
that
respect.
So
it's
not
to
say
that
city
staff
are
deviating
from
good
planning
principles
and
reviewing
the
information
that
we're
going
to
be
bringing
forward
and
being
able
to
provide
some
guidance
to
City
Council,
which
then
gives
us
guidance
going
in
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
hearing,
which
we
will
have
going
up.
P
J
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
It's
been
mentioned.
The
development
of
this
type,
an
apartment
building,
would
be
subject
to
site
plan
control,
so
that
gives
the
city
more
powers
in
terms
of
how
the
actual
site
and
the
building
or
design
so
that's
where
they
get
into
how
the
site
is
laid
out.
Where
access
points
are
that's
what
controls
landscaping,
but
it
also
is
what
controls,
what
the
building
looks
like
in
terms
of
materials
and
where
it
sits
on
the
site.
B
So
there's
that
extra
level
beyond
the
Official
Plan
and
zoning,
when
you're
into
this
type
of
building,
where
the
city
actually
has
more
control
over
design
than
they
would
say
if
this
were
single-family
residences.
I
also
wanted
to
speak
to
lilah,
Burke
part
and
I'd
like
to
put
that
to
rest
right
now.
It's
a
red
herring,
there's
never
been
anyone
surveying
there.
There's
never
been
an
intent
to
have
an
access
across
that
park.
It's
not
even
on
our
radar,
so
I
think
that
issue
should
just
be
put
to
rest
right
now.
J
Okay,
so
we'll
go
back
to
speaker
number
five
with
the
presentation
that's
up
and
ready
and
then
maybe
I
will
get
speaker
number
seven
to
get
ready.
But
the
microphone
in
front
of
me-
oh
okay,
speaker
number,
seven
and
then
maybe
I
can
get
speaker
number
eight
in
front
of
me,
while
nikki
is
presenting.
H
The
community,
we're
speaking
of
I've,
been
going
from
house
to
house
speaking
to
the
neighbors
and
I
want
to
relate
to
you
that
there
is
a
lot
of
emotion.
There's
a
lot
of
frustration,
there's
a
lot
of
confusion.
It's
hard
to
understand
these
policies
and
this
information
when
you're
not
experienced
in
it
and
and
you
don't
really
understand
the
different
policies
and
the
different.
H
You
know
this
expertise
really
and
so,
and
especially
with
this
unusual
situation,
where
we
had
the
meeting
back
in
2013,
we
thought
we
understood
how
it
was
supposed
to
unveil
and
unravel
and
we
had
more
people
at
that
meeting.
Then
for
any
meeting
ever
here
at
City
Hall,
we
we
all
came
out.
We
all
had
our
different
opinions.
We
came
with
our
information,
we
were
ready,
we
had
her
questions
and
we
had
our
concerns
and
we
expressed
them
and
we
got
no
answers
and
the
next
thing
we
know.
H
Apparently,
the
applicant
didn't
address
anything
in
four
years
later:
they're
able
to
appeal
to
the
OMB,
and
now
it's
in
the
hands
of
the
OMB
and
now
this
meeting
is
just
for
information,
and
it's
just
for
benefits
benefits
that
we're
not
interested
in
we're,
not
even
ready
to
think.
In
those
terms,
we're
still
is
trying
to
fight
the
good
fight,
and
it's
very
disappointing
have
to
say
so.
H
H
H
H
Let
me
just
review
that
quickly
for
you,
this
canopy,
that
we
keep
coming
back
to
the
canopy
that
is
allowing
them
to
build
this
larger
height
of
building
is
based
on
the
trees
that
are
behind
this
proposed
building.
When
I
looked
at
the
tree
survey,
please
have
a
look
at
it
because
the
majority
of
those
trees
that
they're
basing
it
on
on
the
east
side
actually
don't
belong
to
them.
They
actually
belonged
to
those
homes
on
the
ridge
to
those
other
people
to
the
single-family
homes
20
of
those
trees.
H
Let's
have
a
look,
the
ones
in
orange.
Those
actually
belongs
to
the
single-family
homes
there
on
the
ridge
and
then
the
few
there
on
the
Left
belong
in
the
park.
So
my
question
is:
can
they
base
their
the
height
of
their
building
their
whole
proposal
on
trees
that
they
don't
own?
Is
this
allowed?
These
are
trees
that
the
owners
could
actually
take
down
and
if
they
go,
you
know
submit
for
a
permit.
So
that's
my
question:
can
this
be
allowed.
H
And
then
a
lot
of
things
have
already
been
addressed
and
will
be
again
but
and
then
finally
I
just
want
to
know
if
we're
gonna
allow
a
building
like
this
on
the
Gateway
to
our
Rideau
Canal
to
our
UNESCO
designated
World
Heritage
Site,
already
homestead
has
made
reference
to
their
four
buildings
too,
as
a
precedent
to
go
ahead
and
build
this
apartment
on
the
water.
Are
we
gonna
start
building
Apartments
on
the
water?
Is
this
the
next
step?
That's
my
next
question.
Thank.
J
Q
I'm
reprising
my
performance,
then
I
think
I
made
one
major
argument
which
someone
were
a
neighbor
of
my
reminded
me
of
tonight
that
essentially
argued
that
it
didn't
fit
and
the
analogy
I
used
was
a
photograph
of
kindergarten,
children
and
the
sender.
The
photograph
is
a
sumo
wrestler
and
weight,
and
then
the
question
underneath
which
one
of
these
doesn't
fit
I've
been
around
a
long
time.
My
lawyer,
local
scientists,
that
taught
law
top
politics
I
know
that
this
doesn't
fit.
Q
It
doesn't
take,
as
they
say,
a
rocket
scientist
to
understand
things
that
don't
work
so
I
think
it
speaks
to
I.
Think
the
leverage
that
a
large
corporation
can
have
no
matter
how
deviant
from
the
official
plan
its
proposal
is
as
against
either
myself
or
my
neighbors
together
around
and
with
circle
and
point
sight
mark.
Q
That's
that
does
not
fit
with
the
official
plan.
I
think
Peter
Splinter
has
pointed
it
out
very
effectively
and
I.
Don't
want
to
repeat
that.
I
am
concerned
a
little
bit
about
the
comments
that
was
made
with
respect
to
the
park
where
it
was
said,
a
road
is
not
on
the
radar.
I
worry
about
that
phrase,
not
on
the
radar.
Q
J
Q
So
so
my
first
concern
is
I.
Think
there
are
process
issues.
I
am
you
know
I'm
here
now
where
I,
maybe
I
should
be
before
the
OMB
I
have
no
idea
what
I'm
doing
here
I
have
no
sense
of
what
I'm
who
I'm
speaking
to
and
whether
or
not
those
who
will
hear
me
what
kind
of
leverage
they
have
in
these
circumstances.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Contrary
to
what,
when
my
neighbors
said
there
I
don't
see
this
a
beautiful
building,
I,
don't
see
any
of
the
buildings
on
block
thee
being
a
beautiful
building.
They
are
very
good
and
very
efficient
at
producing
wind
tongs,
but
but
that
is
not
the
measure
the
measure
is.
Does
it
fit
with
the
values
embedded
in
the
Official?
Plan
do
the
changes
fit
the
values
embedded
in
the
Official
Plan
and
who
is
responsible
to
maintain
the
Official
Plan
to
argue,
afford
to
articulate
it
and
to
defend
it.
R
Thank
you
good
evening
and
thank
you
for
being
here
tonight
to
listen
to
the
public's
voice,
their
important
process,
I,
think
within
our
democracy,
and
you
can
tell
for
some
who
are
affected
by
this,
can
be
very
emotional
and
and
I
think
that
speaks
to
the
reality
of
the
magnitude
of
this
decision.
I
just.
R
I've
lived
on
point
eight
might
drive
now,
since
1992
raised
two
children
there
continued
to
enjoy
living
in
that
residence,
so
I
think
a
very,
very
convenient
part
of
the
city
and
its
it's
afforded
a
very
good
lifestyle.
For
me,
I
have
really
two
possibly
three
points:
I'll
clarify
in
a
second
and
then
one
question.
R
The
first
point
is
I
in
adding
my
voice
to
the
public
objection
to
this
I
didn't
like
to
make
a
plea
that
you
consider
fairness
to
the
residents
and
to
the
taxpayers
within
that
area.
When,
when
someone
chooses
to
buy
a
home
in
a
district,
I
would
hope
and
I
believe
most
do
their
due
diligence.
They
look
at
the
existing
plans
that
he
planned
the
Official
Plan,
but
I
would
say
more
than
anything
use
their
instinct.
They
used
their
gut
and
they
use
reasonable
judgment.
R
So
when
I
moved
into
that
area,
it
was
no
secret
to
me
that
people
were
talking
about
1/3
crossing
that
would
be
in
that
area.
So
when
that
came
on
the
radar,
I
mean
I
wasn't
taken
off
guard.
It
was
no
secret
to
me
that
highway
15
would
likely
undergo
development.
In
fact,
I
expected
that
I
didn't
even
I,
didn't
look
at
the
Official
Plan
for
that
I.
R
Don't
think
I
had
to
because,
regardless
of
what
it
said
through
a
process
like
this
would
likely
be
amended
as
times
changed,
but
for
the
last
25
years,
I've
driven
by
the
entrance
to
this
property-
and
there
was
a
plea
made
tonight
for
somebody
to
look
at
it
from
the
water.
If
you
haven't
driven
down
point
st.
mark,
please
do
so
before
you
have
any
decision
on
this
matter.
It
is
a
driveway.
It
is
no
wider
than
my
driveway
into
my
house.
R
It
is
bordered
on
each
side
by
a
property
fence
for
the
two
adjoining
properties.
So
when
I
drove
by
when
I
purchased
my
home,
there
I
knew
it
was
a
marina
I
felt
it
may
not
always
be
a
marina,
but
never
in
my
wildest
dream
did
I
think
it
would
be
high-density
95
unit,
condo
or
apartment
building.
Never
in
fact,
when
I
first
heard
about
this
proposal,
I
thought
it
was
a
vicious
rumor
and
how
could
that
possibly
be?
How
could
it
possibly
be?
R
It's
been
said
tonight
I
like
the
saying
if
it
doesn't
fit,
you
remember
OJ
Simpson.
If
it
doesn't
fit,
you
must
acquit
I
would
say
if
you
remember
something
in
your
mind
tonight,
if
it
doesn't
fit,
you
must
reject
no
reasonable
rational
person
would
have
ever
looked
at
that
driveway
that
entrance
and
have
thought
that
this
is
going
to
be
rezone
to
a
high-density
area.
R
So
I
think
it's
very
unfair
to
change
the
game
partway
through
to
go
against
common
sense
judgment
and
also
to
go
against
very
poor
planning,
there's
no
architect
that
would
ever
design
this
neighborhood
with
that
there
on
the
drawing
rated
right
out
of
the
gate
it
just
doesn't
fit.
My
second
point,
I
think,
has
been
illustrated
tonight,
but
but
I
I'm,
just
gonna,
add
to
it
and
I
think
just
the
impact
on
this
neighborhood
that
high-density
residential
housing
will
have.
R
We
are
on
the
eve
it's
not
approved
yet,
but
it's
well
on
its
way
to
have
the
third
crossing
I.
Don't
think
anyone
in
this
room
knows
and
can
say
with
certainty
the
impact
that
will
have
on
the
traffic
flow
within
that
neighborhood.
It
will
have
some.
Hopefully
it
can
be
mitigated
and
it
and
it
will
not
be
destructive
to
a
quiet
residential
neighborhood,
but
we
don't
know
so.
If
anything
comes
into
your
decision-making
tonight,
I
would
say
we
need
to
wait.
R
We
cannot
go
ahead
with
two,
almost
simultaneous
major
impacts
on
this
small
residential
commitee
community
you're.
Looking
at
almost
a
hundred
units
in
that
immediate
vicinity,
there
aren't
a
hundred
homes,
it's
going
to
have
huge
impact
in
on
lifestyles
there.
The
third
thing
I'll,
add
very
quickly
and
I
wasn't
going
to
argue
about
the
plan
because
I
don't
want
high
density
residential
housing
there,
but
because
of
the
response
to
the
questions
that
I
think
we're
honest
questions
put
forward
to
the
presenters
tonight.
I
will
add
something
I
think
the
presentation
is
disingenuous.
R
Those
dogs
that
they
refer
to
are
virtually
destroyed,
particularly
after
the
high
water.
We
had
this
spring,
but
if
anybody
goes
down
there,
there's
nothing
really
useable
to
a
public
boat
launch
on
private
land,
where
people
gonna
put
trailers
for
boats
like
it's
just
disingenuous
and
I-
think
one
other
speaker
spoke
to
that
tonight
as
well.
So
I'll
add
that
I
don't
want
to
be.
You
know
negative
in
that
sense,
but
I
couldn't
resist,
because
we
did
not
get
a
clear
response
to
honest
questions.
R
So
my
question
for
the
group
tonight
is
I've
heard
tonight:
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
follow
this
back
closely.
I,
don't
understand
the
details
of
the
OMB
challenge
and
I
would
appreciate
if
someone
could
clarify
how
that
affects
this
decision
in
this
process
and
and
and
how
this
is
going
to
move
forward.
Thank
you
thank.
S
You,
my
name,
is
Alwin
haugen's
I
live
at
20,
Kenwood
circle,
so
again
one
of
the
residents
within
that
hundred
and
twenty
meter
radius.
They
spoke
of
that
received
notification
and
I
wanted
to
to
again
add
my
voice
to
to
the
dissent
over
this
proposal.
Inta
to
bring
up.
One
particular
item
that
I
found
somewhat
disingenuous
in
the
beginning
of
the
proposal,
was
the
implication
that
this
decision
to
have
this
as
a
commercial
property
was
made
long
before
the
current
development
and
and
should
therefore,
you
know,
be
considered
to
be
out
of
step
with
with.
S
What's
currently
there
they've
taken
that
idea
that
this
is
an
old
decision
based
on
on
old
facts
and
therefore
this
should
be
changed
to
residential.
However,
at
the
same
time
they
are
holding
on
to
the
part
of
that
original
decision.
That
said,
you
could
put
a
six-story
hotel
on
there.
I
don't
see
how
you
can
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too
either.
S
This
is
a
commercial
property
which
will
generate
benefits
of
some
sort
and
that
can
be
discussed
if
there's
proposal
put
forward
to
develop
it
commercially
as
far
as
employment
or
access
to
services
that
they
may
have
value
to
the
community,
but
then
to
go
around
and
dismiss
that
ono
commercial
doesn't
fit
anymore.
This
is
now
a
residential
neighborhood,
but
we'd
still
like
to
keep
the
idea
that
a
six
story
building
is
appropriate
on
this
land.
Well,
that's
nonsense.
You
can't
come
in
and
say
it's
no
longer
appropriate
commercial
property,
but
the
height
is
still
appropriate.
S
If
you're
going
to
change
the
use
of
the
land,
you
need
to
go
back
to
square
one
and
say
what
is
appropriate
in
this
area
and
nothing
in
the
plan
or
in
the
city.
Guidelines
would
indicate
that
this
is
an
appropriate
location
for
a
high-density
building.
Access
is
inappropriate.
All
the
surrounding
property
is
inappropriate
and
two
points
in
the
city
guidelines
that
that
haven't
been
brought
up
so
far.
Things
like
it
should
have
ready
access
to
a
major
thoroughfare.
S
Well
highway.
15
we've
been
told
this
is
between
the
river
and
highway
15.
No,
it's
not
it's
on
the
river,
it's
over
300
meters,
away
from
highway
15.
If
at
the
point
where
we
can
say
that
you
can
be
three
four
hundred
meters
away
from
a
major
road
and
consider
that
to
be
ready,
access
very
little
of
Kingston
is
know,
it
would
would
be
excluded
from
high-density
development.
S
Almost
everything
has
accessed
that
close
to
to
a
major
thoroughfare.
Also,
the
city
guidelines
indicate
this
should
be
on
the
edge
of
a
community
that
a
development
like
this
should
not
be
in
the
heart
of
a
community.
Well
to
say
that
the
waterfront
is
on
the
edge
of
the
community
is
as
ludicrous
as
saying
that
City
Hall
is
on
the
edge
of
Kingston,
because
there's
a
lake
across
the
street,
of
course,
city
hall,
isn't
it
the
edge
of
Kingston
city
halls
at
the
heart
of
Kingston?
S
This
is
what
also
there
be
at
the
heart
of
our
community
and
wholly
inappropriate
for
the
rest
of
the
community.
Completely
out
of
scale
and
point
st.
mark
is
not
a
major
thoroughfare
and
I
think.
That's
been
readily
indicated
by
the
city's
proposals
around
the
third
crossing
that
to
restrict
traffic
to
local
traffic.
On
point
st.
mark,
there
have
been
discussions
about
limiting
access
at
point,
st.
mark
or
Road
intersection
to
discourage
through
traffic
to
people
using
that
as
a
byway
to
get
around
the
highway
15
stretch
that
I
think
has
indicated
that
you
know.
S
I
think
that
that
really
to
pick
and
choose
your
bits
of
previous
decisions
to
say
you
don't
like
the
fact
that
it's
commercial,
it
should
be
residential,
but
you
do
like
the
fact
that
somebody
chose
to
put
a
six-story
building
on
there
is
disingenuous
to
the
whole
process
and
flies
in
the
face
of
planning
planning
should
take
the
entire
use
and
not
get
to
cherry-pick.
So
that's
thank.
T
It's
Keith,
Nider
I'm
from
33,
Kenwood
circle
and
I
am
very
glad
such
a
credible
person,
Peter
Splinter,
spoke
so
well
tonight.
So
emphatically
it
is
a
bit
concerning
that.
Maybe
city
councillors
have
already
decided.
However,
I
do
want
to
point
out
comprehensive
replies
from
our
2013
questions
really
haven't
been
supplied.
T
For
instance,
the
fire
took
how
hard
is
that
access
is
not
a
complicated
question,
but
it
keeps
getting
put
somewhere
else.
How?
Why
is
that
one
so
hard
to
get
an
answer
to
so
there
is
something
that
I
don't
want
to
repeat
what
other
people
have
said,
but
light
pollution,
in
my
mind,
really
takes
away
from
a
neighborhood,
and
it's
not
hard
for
us
to
walk
up
close
to
the
other
apartment
buildings
at
Homestead
has
and
they're
nice
buildings
I've
been
in
one.
It's
it's
it's
really
quite
nice.
T
However,
the
light
pollution
in
the
evening
at
night
will
be
not
only
down
in
our
homes.
It
will
be
in
our
backyards.
It
will
be
as
we
walk
down
the
street.
It
will
be
in
the
park
for
people
who
are
just
visiting
and
it'll
be
for
people
who
are
actually
boating
on
the
water.
Wanting
to
look
at
the
Stars.
T
That's
important,
I
think
as
far
as
this
protection
of
a
tree
screen
in
front
of
the
building
I
understand
the
trees
will
grow
over
time
and
it
will
take
time,
but
there
has
been
an
issue
of
Brad
Johnson
who's,
a
very
acclaimed,
Landscape
Architect
says
the
trees
will
not
be
able
to
grow
the
heights
or,
as
well
as
being
portrayed
in
the
presentation.
I
think
we
have
a
civic
obligation
to
ask
the
city
staff
and
council
to
have
homestead
build
a
building
that
fits
and
I
would
like
them
to
represent
us
at
OMB.
J
F
J
I
heard
another
question
asking
about
clarification
of
the
OMB
process
and
so
I
think
when
I
heard
that
question
being
asked
it's,
when
do
projects
go
to
the
OMB,
what
happens
with
public
input
when
it
when
it's
been
referred
to
the
board?
Who
decides
from
the
board
so
maybe
just
an
overview
to
clarify
the
OMB
pro3.
F
Amount
chair,
so
the
applications
were
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
staff
did
provide
a
report
to
Council
seeking
direction
in
terms
of
next
steps
with
respect
to
how
to
proceed
with
the
application
based
on
the
appeal,
it
was
the
recommendation
of
staff
in
the
direction
from
Council
that
we
have
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
public
input
on
the
revised
second
submission,
which
is
in
front
of
planning
committee
and
the
public
this
evening
for
input.
All
of
that
input
is
being
gathered
by
staff.
F
A
number
of
us
are
here
taking
notes
tonight
that
information
will
be
summarized
together
with
the
technical
review
that
staff
is
undertaking
right
now,
which
also
includes
peer
reviews
of
the
information
that
has
been
submitted
and
staff
will
be
coming
back
to
council
with
respect
to
direction
on
next
steps.
So
in
terms
of
that,
at
this
point
there
is
a
pre
hearing
date
set
for
November.
Second,
for
this
appeal
at
that
point.
That
is
a
process
that
is
also
open
to
the
public
in
terms
of
attending
or
asking
for
participant
status.
O
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
three.
There
is
one
question
that
I
want
to
declare
if
I
believe
it
may
have
been
a
few
speakers
ago.
Somebody
asked
the
question
about:
has
180
days
really
lapsed,
and
why
are
we?
Why
are
we
in
a
position
now
that
an
OMB
appeal
was
filed
by
the
applicant,
so
the
clock
for
the
180
days?
It
starts
from
the
time
that
the
original
application
is
filed.
P
So,
as
Marny
mentioned,
the
application
was
in
the
bans
for
about
two
years,
two
and
a
half
years
before
it
came
back
to
staff
with
a
second
submission
that
was
responding
to
the
first
public
meeting
and
the
first
round
of
detailed
technical
comments
that
were
provided
to
the
applicant
by
staff.
The
way
the
Planning
Act
worked.
Is
it
doesn't
account
for
an
application
being
an
active
or
being
in
abeyance.
P
J
Okay,
I
have
four
remaining
speakers,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
a
speaker,
number
13
to
come
to
the
mic.
She
behind
me
in
front
of
me
and
speaker
number
14
behind
me
so
and
then
I
have
a
new
one.
Okay,
we're
gonna
go
up
to
speaker
number
17.
So
if
I
can
get
13
in
front
of
me
and
14
behind
me
and
I'll,
ask
speaker
number
13
to
begin
with
your
name
and
address.
U
Make
trainer
a
deal
I'm
rich
drive,
madam
chairman
councillors,
representatives
staff,
homestead
neighbors
first
off
I'd,
like
to
thank
all
the
previous
speaker,
who
have
all
been
very
eloquent
and
expressing
our
concerns
in
regard
to
the
development
of
48,
a
point
st.
mark,
some
of
it
even
emotional
and
wonderful
presentations
that
strike
the
emotion
that
this
particular
thing,
development
proposed
development
bring
brings
to
the
neighborhood
and
the
city
at
large
I
would
suggest
so.
U
If
I
may,
madam
chair,
first
off
homestead
refers
to
the
hundred
year
flood
line
and
where
they
have
positioned
the
property
on
that
this
year,
and
the
early
year
was
an
exceptionally
high
year
that
high-water
mark
far
exceeded
the
banks
of
the
even
the
abutments
of
the
docks
moving
forward.
I
would
ask:
has
the
city
gone
back
to
Parks
Canada
and
the
cataract
wood
conservation
authority
to
re-establish
where
the
hundred
hundred
year
flood
line
is,
and
once
that
is
established?
Does
homesteads
plan
actually
conform
to
that
I
would
ask?
U
Is
there
in
fact,
a
barrier
free
parking,
as
opposed
in
this
development
going
forward?
I
would
ask
it
was
brought
out
in
the
last
presentation.
Given
the
boat
ramp
is
the
boat
ramp
in
the
from
new
proposal?
In
fact,
the
same
boat
ramp
that
is
currently
in
place
or
has
it
been
shifted
and
in
so
doing
has
homestead.
Therefore,
plan
to
disrupt
the
waterline
going
forward,
I
would
ask,
is,
with
regard
to
the
boat
lund
and
the
boat
parking,
where
did
the
boat
cars
and
the
trailers
park
when
that
comes
forward
in
regards
to
access?
U
First
off,
it
has
been
very
clear,
I'm,
afraid,
I,
don't
I
only
remembered
your
first
name,
madam
as
Margaux
I,
don't
recall
your
last
name,
so
it
was
very
clear
that
there
is
one
access
point
and
mr.
splinter
was
very
clear
that
that
access
point
is
9
meters
in
length
and
width,
not
the
recommended.
20
meters,
if
a
ladder
truck
for
an
eight
story,
seven
storey
development
needs
to
get
in
there.
How
does
it
get
in
there
and
if
it
cannot
make
that
steep
turn
at
the
bottom?
U
Not
one
access
point,
but
access
is
plural
and
I
would
ask
her
to
address
why
she
suggested
that
when
there
was
clearly
only
one
access
point
with
regard
to
a
perspective,
it
was
brought
out
very
very
clearly
that
perspective
is
a
matter
of
viewpoint
and
that
viewpoint
dictates
how
one
graphically
represents.
Things
are
going
on
so
clearly
misny
Richardson's
presentation.
Her
last
slide
showed
the
proposed
building
a
superimposed
as
viewed
from
the
water
homesteads
presentation
had
no
presentations
as
it
would
be
viewed
from
the
water.
Simply
the
edifice
of
that
side
of
the
building.
U
I
asked
why
that
is
so,
and
I
would
suggest
that
that
slide,
that
Miss
Richardson
has
was
from
a
presentation
that
mr.
Jim
tiket
made
and
a
letter
of
protests
that
he
made
in
May
2013
also
with
regard
to
perspective
Gerry.
My
dear
neighbor,
at
that
time,
also
made
another
presentation
that
showed
how
the
representation
of
the
side
perspective
could
be
viewed
quite
differently
than
the
other.
So
I
would
ask.
Has
the
councilmembers
here
sitting
to
today
seen
those
two
presentations
made
in
2013
by
mr.
Duquette
and
my
good
neighbor
Jerry?
U
J
U
Acid
is
there:
has
there
ever
been
a
comprehensive
reply
from
homestead
on
the
previous
2013
meeting,
because
I
have
not
been
informed
that
there
has
been,
and
they
have
made
an
assertion
tonight
that
they
will
address.
All
concerns
that
are
raised
in
this
meeting
and
I
would
ask
to
be
included
when
that
comes
in
I
would
then
point
out
they
many
many
many
points
that
mister
splinter
eloquently
brought
out
at
how
this
contravenes
the
plan.
I
would
ask
that
each
and
every
point
that,
mr.
that
mr.
U
splinter
brought
out
be
addressed
by
staff
and
the
rationale
for
excusing
them
be
circulated
to
the
members
here
present
tonight
with
regards
to
the
staff
they
have
asked
consistently
about
enabling
benefits,
as
if
the
development
is
a
foregone
conclusion
and
I
would
ask
why
they
have
not
been
directed
to
look
at
other
options
as
such
as
opposing
the
development
and
why
they
have
not
been
directed
to
oppose
the
development
at
the
OMB.
Given
the
rationale
for
mr.
J
V
I've
written
this
out
and
I'll
provide
it
to
the
clerk
that'll,
make
it
easier.
I
won't
repeat
the
points
that
have
been
made,
but
all
the
points
will
come
to
the
clerk,
so
Frank
Dixon,
495,
Alfred
apartment
to
K,
7,
K
or
J
4,
so
I'm.
On
the
other
side,
the
river
I
don't
live
in.
The
neighborhood
saw
some
fantastic
presentations
fight
from
concerned.
Citizens
and
I've
learned
a
lot
from
that.
I.
V
Don't
want
Mississauga
on
the
Rideau
and
this
project
tends
in
that
direction.
I
think
it's
excessively
masked
excessively
dense
and
extend
too
much
right
now,
I've
been
following
staffs
work
on
the
area
of
community
benefits
in
recent
months,
I've
been
to
a
seminar
and
another
event,
and
I've
learnt
quite
a
bit
about
that,
and
it's
gonna
quote
one
of
the
senior
planners
from
the
seminar
not
to
be
used
to
make
a
bad
planning
good,
but
to
make
good
planning
better
I.
V
V
One
point
that
hasn't
been
raised
yet
is
the
fact
that
this
is
a
former
marina
and
I'm
wondering
if
there
are
brownfield
issues
involved
with
a
clean
of
that
on
the
shore
and
just
off
the
shore
from
the
previous
shoes
that
hasn't
come
up
yet
so
I
want
to
get
that
on
the
record.
I'm
gonna
add
my
concern
to
the
access
points
that
have
been
raised,
but
I'm
also
gonna
broaden
it
out
into
the
areas
around
construction,
the
logistics
of
that.
V
If,
in
fact,
this
core
tech
does
get
approved
or
some
version
of
it
does
get
approve,
which
does
seem
inevitable,
you're
on
property,
that's
heavily
sloped
and
that
you
may
have
to
take
down
existing
trees
in
order
to
get
your
vehicles
in
there
either
to
park
them
or
to
move
them
around
to
bring
in
and
work
with
the
materials
to
be
used
for
construction.
She
bring
in
things
like
mudslides
and
that
kind
of
thing
major
concern
for
me.
V
V
V
V
I
think
that
pretty
well
gets
at
the
points
and
hadn't
been
raised,
as
of
yet
the
other
ones.
I
had
were
repeating
points
that
were
made
and
I'm
just
going
to
wrap
up
by
saying
that
I
think
it's
really
incumbent
upon
this
committee
to
take
the
comments
that
have
been
made
tonight
and
the
submissions
that
were
made
in
2013.
V
Why
citizens,
who
are
gonna
be
voting
to
support
you
or
not
in
this
collection
in
about
a
year,
really
take
that
to
hurt
for
this
project
and
I'll
just
say
that
I'm
not
against
development.
An
appropriate
development
on
this
site
could
work
if
it
was
maybe
a
quarter
or
a
third,
the
size
of
what's
being
proposed
and
just
in
in
terms
of
comparison,
there
was
an
accident
at
another
homestead
project.
Recently
it
was
reported
in
the
media,
so.
J
V
J
W
W
I
honestly,
don't
think
that
any
of
you
with
good
conscience
would
stand
there
and
actually
approve,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
it
actually
is
a
detriment
to
those
that
are
already
there.
I
understand
that
it
actually
benefits
those
that,
obviously,
as
the
gentlemen
put
on
facing
the
west
side,
they'll
have
a
great
view
of
of
the
city
and
obviously
of
of
the
river
at
the
expense
of
other
individuals
and
I.
W
Don't
really
think
that
that's
what
our
society
is
all
about
now
is
it
our
job
as
a
society
is
to
actually
make
things
better
for
everybody
involved
and
I
think
the
question
that
we
have
to
ask
ourselves
is:
what
is
the
best
use
of
this
land
for
everybody's
benefit?
I?
Think
if
you
actually
surveyed
not
just
the
community
directly
but
the
whole
entire
city-
and
you
said
you
know
what
we
really
want
to
put
something
in
the
benefits:
the
entire
community.
W
Let's
put
in
a
park,
let's
put
in
a
meeting
area
with
a
boardwalk
with
barbecues
and
swings.
So
it's
not
just
there
for
the
direct
residents,
but
basically
for
anybody
that
actually
wants
to
come
down
because
it's
public
property
and
you
gave
them
that
option
and
this
option
I
think
all
of
us
in
this
room.
Even
the
representatives
would
agree
that
putting
in
something
that
benefits
the
largest
number
of
citizens
and
actually
puts
those
at
detriment-
the
least
that's
what
we
would
actually
choose
and
I
think
is
public
officials.
That
is
obviously
you're
wrong.
W
What
is
the
best
use
of
this
land
and
I?
Don't
think
any
of
this
right
here
tonight
would
basically
say
that
this
is
it
outside
of
all
of
the
planning
issues
that
we've
just
discussed
and
all
of
the
valid
points.
There
are
so
many
other
issues
associated
with
this
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
deep
down
inside,
ask
yourself
the
one
question:
is
this
the
best
use
of
our
land,
our
public
land?
Is
it
and
who
does
this
actually
really
benefit,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
the
elephant
in
the
room.
W
J
X
Name
is
Dean
Vogelsang
and
my
family
lives
at
58
point
Saint,
Mark,
Drive,
I,
think
of
all
the
people
that
have
spoken
here
so
far
this
evening,
I'm,
probably
one
of
those
who
might
be
impacted.
The
most
and
I'll
tell
you
why
I'm
currently
pursuing
a
degree
in
a
master's
Applied
Science
in
electrical
engineering
at
the
Royal
Military
College
of
Canada,
with
especially
the
possession
and
radar.
So
the
comments
earlier
about
not
on
the
radar
I
know
what
that
means.
So,
when
I
moved
in
I
took
possession
of
mr.
X
James
ducats
house,
he
gave
a
very
eloquent
speech
as
I
understand
four
years
ago
and
I
guarantee
tonight.
I'm
not
going
to
say
anything
that
hasn't
already
said.
I
can
tell
you
that
not
on
the
radar
is
pretty
important
because
just
like
the
fact
that
it
was,
it
was
known
that
there
were.
There
was
an
application.
It
wasn't
all
that
well-known
as
a
as
a
as
a
home
buyer,
especially
a
military
home
buyer
who's,
afforded
a
mere
seven
days
to
make
a
decision
from
purchasing
a
home.
X
X
I'd
like
to
ask
the
council
specifically
if
there
is
any
consideration
to
the
existing
residents
as
to
the
losses
that
they're
going
to
face,
it's
been
mentioned
that
people
are
planning
on
using
these
homes
for
retirement
and
it's
it's
their
financial
future.
It's
my
financial
future
as
well
and
I'd
like
to
know
what
City
Council
has
planned.
It's
been
spoken
of,
and
unfortunately,
I
can't
quote
the
reference,
but
there
was
a
applicant
document
which
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
and
I
do
recall.
Reading
it
I'll
paraphrase
the
existing
residents.
Do
not
own
the
view.
X
X
I
want
to
dress
all
of
the
other
concerns
that
have
already
been
mentioned,
I'd
like
to
have
it
on
public
record
than
I
agree
with
all
of
the
other
opponents
to
this
application
and
I'd
like
to
ask
the
council
itself,
is
it
going
to
take
the
stance
that's
in
favor,
of
or
in
opposition
to
their
wishes
of
their
constituents,
the
app
or
the
citizens
of
point
st.
mark
and
the
surrounding
neighborhoods?
Thank
you.
Thank.
J
Y
It
was
a
monstrosity
in
2013
and
it's
a
monstrosity
now
not
because
of
its
medium
density,
but
because
of
its
location,
as
people
have
pointed
out,
I
have
a
series
of
questions
I'd
like
to
ask
just
to
make
sure
that
we
get
the
specific
answers.
One
is
with
respect
to
the
bus.
Stop.
We
have
a
city
policy
that
people
should
live
within
300
meters
of
a
bus,
stop
exactly
how
far
is
it
between
the
front
door
of
this
building
and
the
bus
stop
on
highway
15?
Y
If
it's
correct
that
the
roadway
is
19,
nine
meters,
the
city
standard
is
20
meters
with
some
possibilities
of
18
meters
and
some
developments
in
usually
smaller
roads
and
a
development
with
which
I
don't
agree.
I
prefer
20
meters
everywhere.
But
what
is
the
precedential
value
when
the
city
allows
a
9
meter
right-of-way
to
a
building
or
a
9
meter
access
road
to
a
building?
Y
What's
going
to
happen
and
all
those
other
applications
when
the
developers
are
always
trying
to
cut
back
on
roadway
width,
as
we
saw
a
development
on
Gardner's,
Road
and
Taylor
kid
I
think
there
are
consequences
to
that.
That
I'd
like
to
know
the
answer
to
we've
talked
about
emergency
access
and
fire
trucks
having
trouble
turning
when
they
first
come
down.
But
if
there's
an
incident
at
the
water
on
the
water
side
of
the
property,
what
is
the
access
to
the
water
side
of
the
property
I'm?
Having
trouble
with
this
image?
Y
Also,
the
pathway
looked
like
it
was
right
along
the
shoreline,
and
we
know
that
animals
need
that
shoreline.
There
are
a
lot
of
turtles
in
the
Inner
Harbor.
It's
amazing
that
they
are
so
resilient,
because
the
Inner
Harbor
is
extremely
polluted,
but
they
are
there
and
they
are
species
at
risk.
It's
not
just
painted
2
turtles,
which
are
the
only
turtle
species
in
Ontario.
That's
not
listed
as
at
risk.
Y
There
is
a
Rideau
corridor,
landscape
strategy
for
the
whole
retail
corridor,
between
the
causeway
and
Ottawa,
and
this
is
a
strategy.
That's
been
adopted
by
municipalities,
all
the
Rideau
system
to
protect
the
Rideau
system
and
create
a
common
way
of
approaching
development
along
the
system,
and
I
would
like
to
know
to
what
extent
the
city
is
abrogating
its
responsibilities
to
everybody
else,
who's
committed
to
respecting
that
rito
corridor
landscape
strategy
and
by
allow
by
potentially
allowing
this
like.
How
does
this
fit
within
that
strategy?
Y
Most
importantly,
how
can
citizens
be
assured
that
city
staff
and
council
will
not
discuss
this
OMB
application
behind
closed
doors
and
then
for
fear
of
the
costs
of
an
OMB
hearing,
make
a
deal
with
the
developer
that
is
then
presented
to
the
public
as
a
fete
accompli
without
anybody
in
this
room
ever
having
a
chance
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
go
to
the
OMB
as
a
participant
or
as
a
party
and
fighting
this
development,
because
I
think
it's
been
rightly
pointed
out
by
a
number
of
people
in
this
room.
This
is
a
precedent.
Y
The
Dodge
we've
sacrificed
our
waterfront
at
Lake
Ontario.
This
is
the
beginning
of
a
sacrifice
of
the
waterfront
on
the
great
Cataraqui
River
and
we
have
an
obligation,
as
has
been
pointed
out
very
eloquently
not
only
to
the
citizens
of
Kingston
and
the
collective
of
the
citizens
of
Kingston.
We
have
an
obligation
to
the
Rideau
corridor
partners
and
we
have
an
obligation
to
the
world.
The
UNESCO
designation
is
extremely
important.
Y
There
are
only
689
designations
in
the
whole
world
like
this,
and
we
have
one
and
uniquely
and
I
meant
to
look
this
out
that
I
didn't.
We
also
have
the
Frontenac
Arch
biosphere
reserve,
designation,
another
UNESCO
designation
and
there
are
only
about
I-
think
it's
20
places
in
the
world
that
both
have
a
cultural
heritage,
designation
like
the
Rideau
Canal
one
and
a
natural
heritage,
designation
like
the
front
neck
arch
one-
and
this
is
an
enormous
tourist
potential
that
has
not
been
tapped
at
all
by
by
the
city
or
by
the
neighbors.
Y
There
are
groups
trying
to
work
on
it
like
the
Algonquin
to
Adirondack
collaborative,
but
we
still
haven't
really
begins
to
use
that
potential.
And
what
do
we
do
when
we
allow
a
higher
medium
rise?
7/8
dorton
story,
building
right
on
the
waterfront
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
retail
corridor,
so
I
need
you
to.
J
Y
I'm
about
two
more
points,
so
I
haven't
seen
any
information
about
the
density
per
floor
area
of
this
building
and
I
haven't
seen
specific,
miss
Watson
said
that
it
would
be
allowed
to
build
to
12
meters,
but
she
didn't
say
what
the
height
actually
is
and
then
realized
that
the
reason
I'm
bringing
that
up
is
because
in
any
calculation
of
community
benefit,
we
have
to
know
exactly
how
much
more
density
and
how
much
more
height
the
developer
is
getting
before.
We
can
comment
on
community
benefit.
Y
That's
the
city
policy,
that's
evolving,
so
I
feel
this
whole
meeting
is,
is
falsely
asking
for
community
benefit
information
from
the
public
when
we
don't
have
the
necessary
information
from
the
developer,
or
at
least
I
haven't
seen
it
with
us
in
this
application.
So,
finally,
if
I
may
and
I
certainly
agree
with
people,
this
is
not
good
club.
This
is
a
bad
plan
and
we
shouldn't
be
to
seem
to
try
to
make
it
better,
but
if
it
is
going
to
go
forward,
the
community
benefit.
Y
That
I
would
suggest
is
that
the
developer
provide
a
piece
of
property
with
at
least
five
times.
The
shoreline
of
this
piece
of
property
somewhere
along
the
Rideau
Canal
between
the
causeway
and
and
Kingston
Mills,
that
is
set
aside
for
nature
as
a
conserved
land
with
at
least
120
meter
buffer,
because
what
this
is
doing
we're
thinking
about
it
in
terms
of
people
and
buildings,
but
it's
also
destroying
the
natural
heritage
of
this
area.
So,
at
the
very
least,
the
compensation
shouldn't
be
public
art
which
I
agree.
Y
Y
Everybody
in
the
city
is
affected
by
this
I
know
the
neighbors
have
come
to
speak
because
they're,
the
ones
who
know
about
it.
Most
people
don't
know
about
it,
but
I
think
that
people
knew
about
it.
They
would
be
here
too
saying
our
waterfront
is
precious.
Our
waterfront
is
a
rare
commodity
or
waterfront
has
already
been
sacrificed
too
much
too
often,
and
we
should
not
let
this
happen.
So
please
respect
that
the
people
most
effective
know
about
it.
Other
people
care
about
it.
Thank
you
so.
Z
34
Kenwood
circle
I'm
a
grade
10
pre
IB
student
at
KC,
VI
and
I
have
lived
in
the
neighborhood
surrounding
the
proposed
building.
My
whole
life
I
was
brought
home
the
day
after
I
was
born
to
a
house
with
a
backyard
directly
facing
the
marina,
with
a
back
gate,
leading
straight
into
the
Lance
Lane
way
before
grade
8,
my
parents,
including
number
five
over
there,
Kat
and
I,
moved
about
a
block.
Z
Three
years
previous,
when
I
was
in
grade,
five
I
came
to
City
Hall
for
the
first
meeting
about
this
building
and
spoke
about
why
I
disapproved
of
the
proposal.
I
still
disapprove
and
here's
why
the
wildlife
of
our
neighborhood
would
be
negatively
impacted.
The
building
would
not
be
very
fruitful
or
convenient
traffic
caused
by
the
building
would
be
dangerous
and
the
environment
would
be
harmed.
I
don't
have
any
questions
tonight.
Z
Well,
I
have
a
lot
of
questions,
but
I
only
have
five
minutes,
so
I
can't
get
them
all
in
to
begin
when
I
was
really
small.
There
was
a
family
of
foxes
by
the
marina,
where
the
apartment
building
would
go.
My
dad
and
I
often
looked
at
them
from
a
distance
because
they
were
so
cool,
but
then,
like
a
portrayal
of
loss
of
innocence
in
the
coming-of-age
story,
the
creatures
disappeared,
I,
still
wonder
what
happened
to
those
poor
things,
and
it
raises
an
important
question:
what
would
happen
to
the
other
creatures
in
our
neighborhood?
Z
Should
the
construction
go
ahead?
Secondly,
there
are
four
apartment
buildings
owned
by
homestead,
that
google
map
says
our
11.4
1
and
1.4
kilometers
away
from
the
proposed
location,
but
are
closer
to
schools
in
downtown,
and
there
are
still
apartments
available
in
each
building
if
homestead
constructed
another
apartment
building,
they
likely
stick
with
the
same
unit
loads
since
most
of
the
available
available
apartments
in
their
buildings
are
different:
combinations
of
1
to
2
bedrooms
and
bathrooms,
plus
or
minus
again.
Believe
me,
I,
checked
on
their
website.
Last
night
at
1:20
have
I
mentioned
I'm
determined.
Z
This
raises
the
question
of
why
we
need
more
apartment
buildings.
There
are
buildings
and
more
convenient
locations
in
our
area
and
they
all
have
available
space.
So
if
I
were
interested
in
an
apartment
in
the
area,
I
would
rather
an
apartment
in
one
of
those
than
the
one
we're
discussing.
How
could
did
this
building
disrupt
our
neighborhood?
You
asked
the
third
reason:
I,
don't
believe
this
is
suitable
for
a
neighborhood
is
because
of
traffic,
we're
fortunate
to
have
quieter
streets.
So
it's
safer
for
our
kids.
Z
Z
Imagine
how
much
busier
and
more
dangerous
these
roads
would
get
with
95
more
families
in
the
area,
especially
since
there's
only
one
exit
that
would
be
in
high
demand
every
morning
which
isn't
good
for
all
those
just
trying
to
get
to
school
at
work
like
the
multiple
doctors
who
are
required
to
be
at
the
hospital
in
20
minutes
or
less
so
that
they
can
save
people's
lives.
The
congestion
on
these
streets
could
cost
human
lives
in
Kingston
in
more
ways
than
one.
This
risk
to
the
citizens
is
not
something
I
deemed
to
be
negotiable.
Z
In
addition,
the
one
lane
way
leading
to
the
proposed
location
is
insufficient.
Many
collisions
could
be
caused
by
vehicles
heading
out
of
the
buildings
and
others
heading
in
not
to
mention
the
fact
that
in
case
of
a
fire
there
would
be
there
would
need
to
be
many
directions
to
escape.
In
years
ago,
the
marina
was
set
ablaze
by
a
raccoon
chewing
wires
and
the
houses
lining
it
were
evacuated,
including
including
my
own
Ashley,
even
fell
a
few
streets
over.
Z
If
something
like
this
were
to
happen,
people
would
have
difficulties,
leaving
due
to
the
congestion
such
a
dreadful
and
easily
avoidable
event
should
not
be
allowed
to
occur.
So
not
only
does
this
building
cause
inconveniences
for
our
population
and
like
it
can
just
it
can
hurt
people
and
that's
not
something
that
we
should
risk.
Finally,
the
environment
is
very
important
to
Kingston,
but
constructing
a
new
apartment
building
would
not
be
good
for
the
environment.
For
many
reasons.
Z
We
should
consider
the
environment
when
we
ask
ourselves
if
this
building
is
in
any
way
helpful,
so
threat
to
our
wildlife,
our
environment,
to
the
population
of
our
neighborhood,
to
the
patients
who
are
being
treated
by
the
people
in
our
neighborhood
and
not
a
very
convenient
place
to
build
a
building
in
the
first
place.
Do
we
still
really
think
that
the
view
is
worth
it?
Thank
you.
You.
J
AA
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Gavin
Anderson
and
live
at
7:02
New
Market,
Lane
I
have
a
procedural
question.
I
guess:
I'll
direct
it
to
the
chair
of
the
Planning
Committee
councillor
Cheryl,
and
that
is
I
understand
it
learned
this
evening
that
there's
going
to
be
an
OMB
pre
hearing
on
November
22nd.
My
question
is:
will
the
city
be
represented
at
that
meeting
by
whom
and
with
what
mandate?
AA
It's
clear
that
the
that,
without
exception,
the
speakers
here
are
advocating
for
the
city
to
take
a
position
in
opposition
to
homestead
in
their
application,
but
perhaps
it
could
explain
to
me
and
others
here.
What
is
the
role
of
the
Planning
Department,
the
the
planning
committee
and
council
between
now
and
the
22nd,
and
what
are
a
failure
to
to
take
a
position,
particularly
a
position
in
opposition
to
this
application?
AA
Does
that
in
any
way
compromise
us
when
we're
going
up
against
a
developer,
who
will
quite
clearly
appear
on
November
22nd
well
represented
by
counsel,
with
with
a
line
of
experts
that
are
prepared
to
counter
every
argument?
That's
been
made
here
tonight.
So
in
essence,
my
question
is
a
procedural
one.
AA
What
is
going
to
happen
from
from
this
moment
forward,
particularly
between
now
and
the
22nd,
and
what
are
the
city's
options
going
forward,
bearing
in
mind
that
in
once,
it
is
in
the
OMB,
the
the
city
count,
the
city
does
have
the
opportunity
to
to
negotiate
with
the
applicant
in
a
process,
as
a
previous
speaker
has
said,
is
it's
not
in
the
public
domain?
Thank
you.
Thank.
J
F
Through
you,
madam
chair
staff
are
working
with
the
conservation
authority
with
respect
to
the
review
of
the
applications.
That's
something
that
we
will
have
to
do
some
further
review
with
the
conservation
authority
regarding
so
we
don't
have
there.
There
is
an
elevation
established
by
the
conservation
authority
and
in
terms
of
where
the
floodplain
is,
there
have
been
no
questions
with
respect
to
what
that
elevation
is
it's
as
established,
I
believe
at
seventy
six
point,
nine,
the
conservation
authority
hasn't
asked
for
a
higher
floodplain
elevation
because
of
the
flooding
that
happened
in
the
springtime,
a.
C
Yes,
there
is
there'll,
be
both
very
free
parking
on
grade
and
also
underground
parking.
By
the
same
token,
the
building
meets
all
the
Ontario
Building
Code
requirements
for
accessibility
in
terms
the
mix
of
units
which
needs
to
be
wheelchair,
accessible
and
any
other
requirements
for
access
to
swimming
pools
or
amenity
areas.
Thank.
J
C
A
big
travel
lift
River,
getting
large
boats
in
the
water.
We're
not
talking
about
anything
like
that.
This
is
for
the
launching
of
canoes
and
kayaks
a
small
pleasure
craft.
Any
large
boats
would
have
to
still
have
to
put
in
at
Portsmouth
Olympic
Harbor,
for
instance,
or
where
there's
large
facilities
for
those
types
of
boats,
so
this
would
be
the
was
shown
is
on
the
left
corner
of
the
site
that
there's
a
path
heading
down
to
the
water
that
it's
where
the
launching
ramp
would
be.
So
we
see
boats
being
carried
down
there.
C
The
conservation
authority,
as
well
as
the
emergency,
the
fire
department,
do
not
want
us
to
have
vehicles
down
on
the
water.
They
really
want
to
keep
that
that
green
ribbon
of
life
intact,
and
so
it's
really
just
people
carrying
boats
down
there,
the
and
that
can
be
from
the
neighborhood
or
from
the
parking
lot.
It
could
also
be
exposed
from
the
the
park
to
the
north
in
in
the
same
manner.
So
it's
that
type
of
watercraft
and.
C
You
know
we
had.
We
had
discussed
with
the
fire
department
about
taking
getting
an
emergency
route
across
that
park.
That's
that's
I
think
about
five
years
ago.
They
were
not
interested
in
that
and
we
weren't
didn't
really
want
to
do
that
either
and
I.
Think
there's
any
kind
of
vehicles
moving
through
there
would
be
would
not
be
a
good
idea.
So
our
discussion
with
the
fire
department
has
been
to
use
that
nine
meter
wide
lane
way
access
to
the
site,
the
minimum
width
of
that
that
access
for
to
the
two-way
traffic
six
point
four
meters.
C
So
we
are,
we
were
much
wider
than
we
need
to
be,
and
we
the
fire
trucks.
You
can
see,
there's
a
turnaround
as
they
come
in
to
the
site.
They
would
not
you'd
be
able
to
do
the
18
meter
turning
radius
to
be
able
to
park
near
the
front
entrance
of
the
building
and
of
course
any
building
of
this
size
needs
to
be
sprinklered
so
and
it's
non-compostable
construction.
So
the
there's,
no
there's
no
danger
of
the
type
of
fire
which
affected
one
of
those.
Those
boat
sheds
a
few
years
back
a.
J
J
J
F
You,
madam
chair,
the
second
submission
of
the
application
is,
in
effect
the
response
to
the
2013
technical
response
comments
that
were
provided
to
the
applicant
by
staff.
So
that
is
what
is
in
front
of
us
now
for
review,
and
that
is
what
we
will
be
seeking
direction
from
Council
from
following
the
meeting
this
evening.
F
Through
you,
madam
chair,
the
application
that
is
in
front
of
us
is
what
staff
are
reviewing.
Staff
have
not
taken
a
position
on
the
application
and
are
still
reviewing
the
matter.
We
are
also
having
peer
reviews
conducted
on
the
information
that
has
been
submitted
to
us
and
we'll
be
reporting
back
to
Council,
with
a
reporting
camera
to
seek
direction
prior
to
the
pre-hearing
on
November
22nd,
a.
J
J
J
F
Through
you,
madam
chair,
with
respect
to
the
access
point
being
a
9
meter
wide
driveway
to
the
site,
as
opposed
to
a
municipal,
Road
staff,
have
indicated
some
concerns
with
respect
to
the
volumes
of
traffic
that
may
be
coming
and
going
through
here,
as
well
as
combining
vehicle,
er
access
and
pedestrian
access.
We're
having
the
access
component
looked
at
by
a
peer
reviewer
for
a
technical
review
of
access
to
and
from
the
site,
and
so
that
component
is
still
under
review
and
we're
seeking
further
clarification.
Regarding
that.
J
B
Can
confirm
that
there
is
some
I
can't
go
so
far
as
to
say
contamination,
but
because
boats
have
been
stored
on
the
site
and
repaired
there,
that
there
will
have
to
be
some
cleanup
on
the
site,
but
that
the
applicant
at
this
point
is
not
considering
this
a
brownfields
application
site
that
they
recognize.
It
has
to
be
cleaned
up.
But
that's
part
of
the
development
cost.
J
B
That's
actually
a
representation
of
existing
conditions.
The
reason
that
it
juts
out
that
way
is
because
the
existing
property,
as
the
marina
was
filled.
So
it's
been
filled
and
been
filled
for
many
many
years.
So
actually
this
is
going
back
to
a
more
naturalized
state.
So,
right
now
it's
it's
a
mixture
of
concrete.
It's
hard
surfaces,
there's
no
growth
there.
So
what
will
happen
is
we're
actually
creating
a
ribbon
of
life
on
this
property
where
there
isn't
one
now.
B
J
F
J
B
So,
in
terms
of
I
know,
I
lost
my
train
of
thought
a
little
bit
on
the
question
there,
but
I
know
you
did
ask
about
turtles.
His
report
doesn't
specifically
deal
with
that.
What
the
conservation
authority
and
their
original
comments
noted
that
the
site
didn't
require
an
environmental
impact
statement
that
it
wasn't
necessary
for
this
site.
P
Thank
you,
and
through
you
so
as
part
of
the
technical
review,
that's
one
of
the
elements
that
we're
looking
at,
as
well
as
the
unesco
world
heritage
guidelines
and
statements
and
policies.
So
that's
part
of
the
detailed
review
and
work
that
we've
been
doing
with
Parks
Canada.
It
started
in
2013.
It
obviously
resumed
again
once
we
had
a
resubmission
earlier
this
year
and
those
are
detailed
discussions
that
are
still
ongoing.
J
And
the
final
question
on
my
list
is
a:
will:
the
city
be
represented
at
the
OMB?
What's
the
mandate,
what
happens
between
now
and
then
and
sorry,
there's
bundle
of
questions
in
this
question
and
then
what
are
the
city's
options
so
first
question:
the
first
part
of
the
question:
will
the
city
be
represented
at
the
OMB
and
and
by
what
and
with
what
mandate,
by
whom
and
with
what
mandate.
F
With
respect
to
what
position
the
city
will
be
taking
that
hasn't
been
determined
as
of
yet
as
I
indicated
in
my
previous
responses,
staff
are
gathering
all
of
the
public
input
that's
received
this
evening,
together
with
undertaking
peer
reviews
of
the
heritage
impact
assessment,
as
well
as
doing
a
functional
peer
review
with
respect
to
the
access
to
the
site,
which
also
does
include
emergency
vehicle
access.
So
those
components
are
under
review.
F
Staff
will
be
providing
a
report
to
council,
outlining
the
components
of
the
technical
review
to
date
and
seeking
direction
from
Council
with
respect
to
how
to
proceed
as
it
relates
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
hearing
at
the
pre
hearing
on
November
22nd.
It
is
not
the
hearing,
it
is
a
pre
hearing,
and
so
in
terms
of
what
components
are
to
be
discussed
at
that
time.
I
certainly
am
not
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
outline
all
of
the
details
at
that,
given
that
there
hasn't
been
direction
provided
to
date.
P
Thank
you
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
so
the
city
has
retained
external
legal
counsel
related
to
this
appeal,
since
it
was
filed
so
that
legal
counsel
works
alongside
city
staff
and
will
be
part
of
the
in-camera
briefing
when
the
report
goes
to
council
as
part
of
a
litigated
matter.
So
there
is
an
external
counsel
that
has
been
retained.
It's
Toni
Fleming.
A
H
J
Q
AC
With
regards
to
the
plan
that
was
submitted
to
the
on
the
site,
I
was
informed
that
they
were
going
to
be
bringing
a
specific,
detailed
change
in
the
floor
plan
of
the
building
to
significant,
tell
us
and
clarify
how
they're
going
to
get
ninety
five
units
within
a
seven
floor.
Building
it
has
six
floors
actually,
but
the
top
floor
is
it,
but
how
they
were
going
to
do
that
and
I'm
just
wondering.
Are
they
going
to
provide
that
right
now
today
or
do
they
not
have
it.
J
AC
J
AC
It
runs
along
runs
across
the
the
main
entrance
to
the
property
that
services
the
entire
property.
Is
there
an
emergency
plan
to
set
up
what,
if
there,
what
if
the
sewage
system
goes
down
and
kinda
cut
across
the
main
entrance,
which
is
only
twenty,
nine
or
nine
meters
or
whatever?
Is
there
a
plan
as
I?
Don't
know
like
how
do
you
plan
on
addressing
that
issue?
If
something
happens
in
the
future,
how
do
you
address
that
safety
aspect
of
evacuating
those
people
are
kidding
and
an
ambulance
down
or
getting
those
things.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Through
you
in
discussions
with
the
applicant.
We
understand
that,
although
the
height
has
been
dropped
by
a
story
to
seven
stories,
they're
still
the
intent
to
apply
for
zoning
that
would
permit
ninety
five
units.
The
floor
plans
can
be
modified
over
time
due
to
changes
in
terms
of
the
applicants
intent
over
1-bedroom
units
versus
two-bedroom
units.
But
the
application
before
staff
is
a
request
for
ninety
five
units,
a
density
of
five
ninety
five
units
for
the
site
and.
J
B
So
and
you're
talking
about
servicing
as
in
water
and
sewer,
it's
that
correct
yeah,
so
the
when,
at
this
stage
of
the
game,
an
engineer
provides
a
serviceability
study
and
that
shows
that
there
is
capacity
to
accommodate
a
development
like
this.
Once
you
get
to
a
further
stage
of
site
plan
and
building
permit,
then
detailed
engineering
drawings
are
submitted
and
they
are
reviewed
by
the
city's
utilities,
Kingston
and
their
engineering
stuff.
So
professional
engineers
are
reviewing
these
and
ensuring
the
appropriate
standards
are
in
place.
A
E
E
So
and-
and
the
other
thing
is
I
almost
said-
for
the
first
time
in
13
years
of
being
a
councillor
point
of
personal
privilege
at
a
public
meeting,
a
couple
of
people
suggested
that
council
has
already
made
up
their
mind,
and
this
committee
has
already
made
up
their
mind.
I
can
assure
you
I'm
on
no
developer's
Christmas
list.
I
will
make
whatever
judgment
I
make
as
weak
as
we
must
as
a
quasi
judicial
board,
based
on
planning
the
Planning,
Act
zoning
and
our
official
plan,
and
those
are
the
only
criteria
we're
allowed
to
to
use.
E
So
perhaps
you
could
explain
better
I,
don't
want
to
be
in
this
in
a
position
where
either
we
as
a
committee
or
Council,
might
end
up
saying
no
to
this
development
and
then
we're
told
that
vote
doesn't
count
because
it's
in
the
hands
of
the
OMB.
That's
happened
that
one
other
development
recently.
So
can
you
walk
kind
of
walk
me
through
how
the
OMB
will
impact
our
process.
P
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
I'm
gonna,
do
my
best.
I
wish
Tony
Fleming
was
here.
I've
thought
that
about
25
times
in
the
last
half
an
hour
because
he's
the
lawyer
and
I'm
the
planner,
so
I'll
do
my
best.
This
is
a
unique
situation.
It's
one
where
our
normal
process
to
some
extent
has
been
circumvented
by
the
appeal
of
the
application.
So
normally
we
would
be
going
through
and
doing
our
technical
review.
We
would
be
looking
at
the
peer
review,
so
that
part
is
still
the
same.
P
The
part
that's
different
is
that
we
no
longer
are
able
to
bring
a
comprehensive
report
with
the
staff
recommendation
to
this
group
in
open
session,
which
then
goes
on
to
Council
for
a
final
decision,
because
this
matter
has
been
appealed
and
the
final
decision
on
this
will
be
made
by
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
What
position
we
have
now
as
a
city
is
to
look
at
the
information
go
to
council,
have
council,
provide
us
direction
as
to
how
they
want
to
represent
this
issue
on
the
city's
behalf.
P
So
I
know
it's
not
the
the
best
answer,
but
it's
the
best
one
I
can
give
you
right
now
there
were
a
lot
of
unknowns,
but
that's
essentially
the
process
ahead
based
on
the
direction
that
counsel
provides
to
us
as
we
want
you
to
go
in
and
support
this
project.
We
want
you
to
not
support
this
project
and
then
go
through
a
hearing
process.
The
city
on
either
side
would
present
its
side
of
it,
as
does
the
developer.
E
Kind
of
trying
to
get
my
head
around
the
legalities
and
the
way
things
have
worked
out
in
the
past.
We
could,
it
would
be
unfortunate
or
possible
that
council
could
in
camera
say
that
we
aren't
supporting
that.
We
are
supporting
the
application
or
we
aren't
willing
to
defend
a
decision,
and
that
does
that.
Take
away
everybody's
right
to
appeal
to
the
OMB
with
the
OMB,
then
just
make
their
judgment
based
on
on
an
in-camera
decision
of
counsel.
F
Irrespective
of
the
position
that
counsel
takes
because
we
don't
know
what
that's
going
to
be
at
this
point
in
time,
the
public
always
has
the
opportunity
to
be
a
participant
or
a
party
to
the
hearing
and
could
establish
a
status
at
the
hearing
going
forward
or
at
the
pre-hearing
going
forward.
So
there
is
still
opportunities
for
that
to
occur.
E
F
E
It
really
does
feel
to
a
lot
of
people
in
the
public
and
to
me
at
times
that
this
is
a
bit
of
a
let's
make
a
deal
to
issue.
That's
going
on
like
if
there's
enough
community
benefit,
this
will
get
through
now.
I
know
that
isn't
the
intention
of
the
process,
but
that's
the
perception
of
the
process.
Perhaps
you
could
comment
on
that
sure.
P
Thank
you
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
understand
that
there
is
and
I
read
the
Toronto,
Star
and
I
read
the
globe
and
I
read
a
lot
of
the
the
media.
That's
been
out
there
talking
about
cities
that
make
deals
and
I
know
that
there's
been
discussion
about
that
here,
I
would
say.
The
unfortunate
thing
about
that
is
is
the
origin
of
that
comes
from
the
way
the
legislation
has
been
written
and
the
way
the
legislation
has
to
be
implemented
in
that
community
benefits
have
to
be
implemented
through
the
zoning
bylaw.
P
That's
passed
to
support
a
project,
so
it
does
give
the
impression,
because
you
have
to
have
those
discussions
very
early
in
the
process
before
staff
have
often
even
determined
a
position
on
a
proposal.
That's
the
way
the
legislation
is
and
that's
the
way
we
have
to
engage
in
the
conversations
in
this
case.
P
The
reason
why
we're
having
the
conversation,
even
though
the
matter
is
going
to
be
before
the
board,
is
that
we
didn't
want
to
as
a
city
forfeit
our
opportunity
to
have
a
discussion
about
community
benefits
and
present
any
of
that
information
to
the
board.
Should
they
decide
to
approve
some
type
of
project,
so
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
so
that
we
have
a
position
or
we
would
potentially
forfeit
our
ability
to
have
that
at
all,
because
the
matter
is
now
before
the
board
as.
E
I
understand
it,
the
Planning
Act
talks
about
there
being
neighborhood
input
on
community
benefit.
I
guess
the
problem
is
by
doing
it.
The
way
we're
doing
it
now
is
the
community
I
didn't
hear
a
whole
lot
of
discussion
of
community
benefit
today,
because
people
aren't
focused
on
that.
If,
if
a
comprehensive
report
came
forward
with
a
recommendation,
I'm
not
saying
it
will,
but
if
it
did
wouldn't
that
be
the
appropriate
time
to
consult
with
the
community
rather
than
having
25
people
saying
no,
we
don't
want
this
to
happen.
P
Yeah
I
understand
your
perspective
on
that
and
I
think.
The
work
that
we're
doing
right
now
is
looking
at
our
process
for
community
benefits.
We've
had
it
established
and
policy
in
the
official
plan,
I
think
since
2010,
we
have
engaged
in
very
few
discussions
on
developments
related
to
community
benefits-
probably
two,
maybe
three,
and
it's
something
that
we're
trying
to
wrap
our
minds
around
a
staff:
how
to
do
it
in
a
meaningful
way.
P
Knowing
that
the
legislation
gives
us
a
certain
order
of
doing
things
and
that's
why
we've
developed
our
own
comprehensive
guidelines,
so
we're
finishing
that
document.
Now,
we've
done
a
lot
of
public
engagement
related
to
it
and
we
will
be
bringing
that
back
to
this
committee
sometime
in
the
near
future.
But
we
can
certainly
contemplate
some
of
your
suggestions
about
appropriate
timing,
but
there
are
requirements
in
and
around
statutory
consultation
and
when
that
happens,
and
the
process
is
typically
at
the
beginning
unless
there's
multiple
public
meetings
so
logistically
it
presents
some
challenges.
A
A
This
is
now
a
legal
matter,
as
we
all
know,
and
the
process
that
continues
now
will
be
council
and
staff,
not
the
planning
committee.
Since
this
is
under
an
OMB
hearing
and
November
22nd
I'm
presuming,
it
will
be
here,
that's
the
day
that
there
will
be
a
pre
hearing
on
this
matter,
and
you
mentioned
or
the
OMB
itself
is
this.
Would
people
get
in
touch
with
the
OMB
through
with
the
planner
or
through
the
website,
which
would
be
right
through.
F
You,
madam
chair,
the
case,
would
be
directly
listed
on
the
OMB
website.
If
you
go
in
to
Kingston
to
look
at
active
Appeals
and
the
details
of
the
pre-hearing
would
be
there,
there's
the
opportunity
to
contact
the
caseworker
directly
to
ask
to
be
listed
as
a
participant
or
to
come
that
day
of
the
pre
here.
So.
A
People
could
actually
get
on
the
OMB
website
and
list
themselves
in
advance
of
November
22nd
as
a
participant,
so
I
urge
all
of
you
who
are
interested
to
to
do
that
so
that
you
stay
involved
in
this.
But
the
process
is
somewhat
out
of
city's
hands.
It's
now
a
legal
process
with
the
Ontario
Municipal
Court,
which
is
why
we
will
be
hiring
a
lawyer
as
mentioned
to
represent
the
city.
A
A
Let's
take
a
five-minute
recess.
Well,
well,
the
room
clears.
Thank
you
hey.
Thank
you.
I'll
call
the
regular
planning
committee
meeting
to
order
and
ask
for
approval
of
the
agenda
with
the
edits
that
we
received
this
evening,
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor,
sanic,
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
and
confirmation
of
the
minutes
of
October,
the
5th
moved
by
councillor
sanic
seconded
by
councillor,
Holland,
all
those
in
favor,
and
that
is
carried.
Thank
you.
Disclosures
of
pecuniary
interest.
None.
A
A
R
AD
Thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
me.
I
know,
you've
had
a
long
evening
and
you
must
be
sweltering
first
I'd
like
to
say
thanks
to
City
planning
staff,
I'm
very
new,
to
planning
my
background
is
in
family
law.
This
has
been
a
real
eye-opener
for
me
and
this,
as
you
all
know,
I'm
sure
this
file
became
somewhat
complex.
So
I
speak
to
my
neighbors
quite
frequently
and
although
I
you
know
have
spoken
with
them
and
I'm
the
only
one
here.
These
are
my
own
views.
AD
First
I'd
really
like
to
commend
city
staff
and
the
Planning
Committee
for
recommending
the
extended
uses
option
of
this
space.
The
neighborhood
to
my
understanding
is
totally
behind
it,
we're
really
behind
the
applicant
finding
an
appropriate
tenant,
and
we
think
that
this
extension
of
use
will
move
towards
that.
We
are
concerned.
We
remain
concerned
about
two
things:
one
is
that
to
have
a
hold
symbol
on
just
the
front
portion
of
the
property
for
a
year.
AD
Well,
it's
a
great
idea:
it
it
might
limit
a
potential
commercial
tenant
who
could
be
really
terrific
and
especially
since
the
uses
are
being
extended
to
things
that
include
yoga
studios
and
doctors,
offices
that
tend
to
take
up
a
bit
more
room
than
just
a
little
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
like
corner
store
that
sells
gum
that
we'd
really
encourage
that
if
the
Planning
Committee
chooses
to
pursue
the
whole
symbol
that
it'd
be
extended
to
the
entire
ground
floor.
AD
So
that's
my
first
point
and
my
second
point
is
that
I
I
pursued
a
you
know
just
some
introductory
research
into
what
an
adverse
effect
is
and
when
I
look
at
the
2010
Official
Plan
I
see
that
it's
a
non
exhaustive
list.
It
means
here
are
some
things
to
consider,
but
there
could
be
more
things.
There
could
be
more
adverse
effects
and
so
well
city
staff.
You
know
aptly
dealt
with
community
comments
in
the
community
comment
section
of
the
report.
AD
I
really
think
it
would
be
important
to
look
at
the
loss
of
the
commercial
space
as
an
effect.
I
understand
it's
in
a
residential
area,
but
I
think
we're
all
aware
that
the
effect
of
passing
this
CBA
as
it
stands
would
be
to
lose
the
commercial
space
that
this
effect
could
potentially
be
detrimental
to
our
neighborhood
and
so
I
would
encourage
the
planning
committee
to
just
do
whatever
you
can
to
just
pursue
that
more.
Like
I
did
a
little
bit
of
preliminary
OMB
research.
AD
It
looks
like
it's
a
really
wide
open
question,
of
course,
there's
the
NKT
report,
which
wouldn't
be
binding
legislation
on
this
file.
We
all
know
it's
not
the
governing
framework.
Perhaps
it
would
provide
some
enlightenment
to
what
the
neighborhood
needs,
but
I
do
think
it
would
be
wonderful
to
see
the
potential
loss
of
commercial
space
explored
more
thoroughly
as
an
adverse
effect
which
is
dictated
by
the
2010
o
P.
So
that's
it.
You
guys
must
be
hot
and
tired,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
listening
to
me
this
evening.
Thank.
A
AE
AE
Both
the
2010
plan
and
the
2017
plan,
which
was
just
approved
in
August,
is
that
this
site
is
residentially
designated
and
it's
within
a
housing
district
and
the
primary
uses
intended
for
these
sites
is
for
residential
use.
The
opie
also
contemplates
there
may
be
situations
where
commercial
development
is
appropriate
as
assessed
on
a
site
by
site
basis,
but
there
certainly
isn't
a
case
where
we
would
see
commercial
required
in
a
residential
designation.
In
fact,
that
might
be
contrary
to
what
those
policies
say.
AE
The
current
zoning
does
not
require
commercial,
so
the
question
really
before
the
committee
tonight
is
not
whether
or
not
it's
inappropriate
to
not
have
commercial
in
the
ground
floor,
because
currently
it's
not
required
to
have
commercial
in
the
ground
floor.
The
question
is
whether
it's
appropriate
to
intensify
to
for
residential
units
and
that's
what
the
zoning
is
about.
It's
a
residential
intensification,
we're
actually
broadening
the
list
of
commercial
uses
that
are
permitted,
but
we're
certainly
not
taking
it
away
and
I
think
my
opinion
and
and
staff
have
agreed
in
their
report
that
this
is
appropriate.
AE
E
Abilities,
I
guess
what
we're
trying
to
respond
to,
and
the
hold
I
think
does
impart
respond
to
is
the
fact
that
the
community,
the
immediate
neighborhood,
definitely
would
like
to
see
what
has
been
there
for
four
years
and
years,
which
is
commercial.
A
some
kind
of
commercial
application
and
I
know
that
we're
going
by
existing
zoning
and
I
appreciate
that
I
guess.
E
But
the
reality
is
that,
probably
without
second-guessing,
we
have
a
secondary
plan
that
may
come
back
to
talk
about
greater
commercial
space.
So
I'm
thankful
that
you're
that
the
owner
is
continuing
to
respect
that
potential
for
the
space
I'm
curious.
Whether
and
this
may
be
a
question
for
staff
when
we
get
to
this
part
in
the
agenda,
but
do
you
foresee
there
being
any
additional.
AE
One
of
the
big
comments
we
heard
from
the
community
is,
it
would
be.
It
would
be
great
if
we
could
have
office
or
you
know,
clinic
uses,
and
we
actually
went
back
with
staff
and
sat
down
and
discussed
what
could
this
site,
which
keep
in
mind,
was
purpose-built
residential,
initially,
most
likely
it
was
converted
to
commercial
at
some
point
in
the
70s.
So
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
it
is
constrained
in
that
it
was
originally
purpose-built
for
residential.
AE
AE
AE
What
the
zoning
before
you
tonight
includes
is
the
most
intense
form
of
potential
commercial
uses
that
this
site
can
accommodate
anything
more
I,
don't
think
could
be
supported
by
the
parking
and
sorry
one
more
thing:
the
fact
that
we're
applying
a
hold
to
the
site
that
would
not
allow
commercial
or
residential
development
in
the
front
of
that
ground-floor.
For
up
to
a
year,
the
owners
already
been
looking
for
a
commercial
tenant
for
a
year
from
now.
AE
AE
A
A
No
other
delegations,
we
will
now
come
to
business
item
a
783
King
Street
West,
which
was
subject
of
a
public
meeting
a
few
months
ago
and
has
a
comprehensive
report
with
a
recommendation.
I
have
a
mover
moved
by
Councillor
turned
her
seconded
by
Councillor
Oh
Sanok
comments,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
thank
you
and
B
is
299.
303
concession,
Street,
trans
Easterns
communications.
A
Moved
by
Councillor,
Turner
seconded
by
councillor,
Neill
comments
or
questions
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
thank
you
and
C
is
2:25.
King
Street
East
Official
Plan
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
the
Frontenac
club,
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor,
Holland,
all
those
in
favor,
and
that
carries
thank
you
and
D.
A
E
G
E
A
I
AF
AF
P
AF
AF
18
months
from
the
time
of
report-
and
my
understanding
is
that,
even
so,
if
the
if
the
developer
or
the
applicant
has
made
the
application
several
months
ago
to
make
these
changes,
the
secondary
the
N
key,
the
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan
would
not
apply
because
it's
not
law
at
this
point
in
time
is
that
correct.
That's
correct!
Okay
got
a
couple
of
technical
questions
here.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about,
and
that
is
on
page
124
at
the
very
bottom.
AF
It
says
that
it's
giving
the
rationale
for
the
recommendation,
or
it's
one
of
a
number
of
rationale
and
the
proposed
residential
sentence.
The
proposed
residential
density
and
potential
conversion
of
the
ground
for
the
two
dwelling
units
is
consistent
with
the
strategic
policy
direction
related
to
the
direction
of
residential
growth,
where
it
can
be
accommodated.
AF
AF
AF
Mean
this
is
a
difficult
file
because
they
have
the
with
the
the
neighborhood.
What
the
neighborhood
is
saying
is
not
inconsistent
with
what
our
general
movement
in
the
official
plan
over
the
last
10
years,
that
I've
been
around,
and
it's
understandable
that
people
would
say
that
and
that
those
desires
are
there.
AF
AF
Think
that
I
don't
have
a
vote
on
this,
but
I
think
that
this
is
about
as
good
as
it
gets
under
the
circumstances.
Given
the
framework
I
personally
would
like
to
see
commercial
there's
a
whole
issue
and
I've
told
the
developer
this
like
multiple
times,
but
you
know,
there's
a
system
there's
a
framework.
There's
a
set
of
bylaws
in
place
and
the
applicant
is
is
reasonably.
You
know
following
those
as
far
as
I
can
see,
so
what
I
want
think
would
be
good
or
not
great,
so
I
think
what
the
I
think.
AF
A
E
You
very
much
I
know
we
rarely
use
other
business
here.
Just
a
very
quick
question.
It's
my
understanding
in
in
talking
to
mr.
Horgan
bus
today
that
there
is
a
tentative
agreement
between
the
city
and
mr.
Skolnick
on
the
boundary
issue
for
the
tanneries
or
tannery
for
the
for
the
the
deferral
I'm
just
curious.
When
that
may
come
back
to
us.
I
know
a
public
meeting
is
is
necessary,
but
are
we
looking
at
November
potentially.
F
Through
you,
madam
chair
I,
believe
that
that's
scheduled
to
come
back
in
December
I'm,
not
directly
involved
in
that
report.
And
unfortunately
we
don't
have
any
of
the
staff
working
on
that
here
this
evening.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
it's
coming
back
in
December
and
that
there
will
be
another
statutory
public
meeting,
because
the
boundary
is
again
being
adjusted
and.
E
A
We
had
one
item
of
Correspondence
and
excreting
is
November
the
second
Oh
Portsmouth
Olympic
Harbor.
Well,
that's
right.
I
thought
it
was
tonight
how
many
of
us
will
arrive
at
6:30
of
ports
about
the
Olympic
harbour
yeah
yeah,
okay,
motion
to
adjourn
councillor,
Turner,
councillor,
Neill,
all
those
in
favor
and
we're
adjourned.
Thank
you.