►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Meeting - June 21, 2018
Description
Planning Committee meeting from June 21, 2018. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2Nxp7HP
A
So
good
evening,
everybody
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order.
We
have
three
public
meeting
portions
and
then
a
briefing
followed
by
I
believe
it's
three
or
four
recommendations
in
the
regular
meeting.
So
I'll
begin
by
reading
the
public
meeting
introduction
this
notice
of
collection,
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.
A
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification
or
further
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes.
There
is
also
a
sign-in
sheet
for
interested
members
of
the
public
at
the
back
of
the
room.
No
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications.
Unless
otherwise
noted
the
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion.
A
Exemption
to
this
rule
is
outlined
in
bylaw
number
2006
75
to
delegate
various
planning
approvals
to
staff
and
adopt
certain
procedures
for
the
processing
of
planning.
Subject
to
delegated
authority.
Council
has
authorized
staff
to
use
discretion
into
determining
if
an
application
can
become
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
We
do
have
to
combine
public
meeting
comprehensive
reports
for
zot
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
254
Collingwood
Street
and
1350
Woodfield
Crescent
a.
A
Information
gathered
at
public
meetings
is
then
referred
back
to
planning,
building
and
licensing
services
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
the
Planning
Committee.
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
applications.
A
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee.
The
recommendation
is
to
typically
to
approve
or
to
deny
this
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
City
Council
city
council
has
the
final
say
on
the
applications.
From
the
city's
perspective.
Following
Council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
A
If
a
person
republic
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
Local
Planning
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaw
is
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision
so
we'll
move
on
to
our
our
first
public
meeting.
A
B
Well,
thank
you
mr.
chair,
my
name
is
Mike
Keene
and
I'm,
a
land
use
planner
with
Foton
consultants
and
I'm
here
this
evening
to
present
to
the
committee
applications
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
plan,
a
subdivision
and
plan
of
common
element.
Condo
and
this
property
is
located
in
the
East
End
of
the
city.
It's
in
the
st.
Lawrence
Business
Park,
and
you
might
be
wondering
why
there's
an
amendment
because
this
application
is
actually
a
site.
That's
currently
under
construction.
B
It's
a
five
and
a
half
hectare
site
has
frontage
on
John
marks,
Avenue
and
it's
in
an
area.
That's
basically
a
business
park
with
some
residential
uses
and
in
2017
this
site
had
a
site
plan
application
approved
and
that's
what
you're
seeing
is
currently
under
construction.
So
this
is
the
Kingston
East
Medical
Campus
and
there
are.
There
are
basically
11
buildings
that
are
approved
on
the
site
plan
and
then
there
is
an
area
that
would
be
the
parking,
the
stormwater
all
of
those
features.
B
So
if
I
move
forward
to
the
actual
application,
this
kind
of
really
shows
how
it
works.
In
very
simple
terms,
from
a
plan
a
subdivision
standpoint,
there
would
be
12
parcels
of
tideland,
while
the
outer
box
is
one
one
block
on
the
plan
of
subdivision
and
that
one
block
is
what
ties
these
individual
parcels
together.
So
they,
you
can't
buy
one
of
these
parcels
without
being
part
of
the
condominium,
so
that
the
snow
is
plowed
in
the
parking
lot.
The
stormwater
features
are
taken
care
of
and
so
forth.
A
C
You
mr.
chair
I,
can
confirm
that
notice
was
provided
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
with
signs
posted
on
the
property
20
days
in
advance
of
this
public
meeting
and
notices
sent
by
mail
to
property
owners
within
120
meters
and
to
date,
I
have
not
received
any
written
correspondence
or
phone
calls
or
counter
inquiries.
A
A
D
D
E
F
So
this
is
my
property
right
here.
It's
a
two-five
for
Collingwood
Street,
it's
between
Earl
and
Union,
on
calling
with
Street
and
the
Cooper
streets
adjacent
there.
So
it's
just
on
the
fringe
of
the
Queens
district
area.
So
my
plan
is
to
get
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
so
that
we
zone
it
from
a
a
for
zoning
property
or
not
so
and
make
it
from
a
one-family
dwelling
to
to
family
dwelling.
F
Basically,
the
property
meets
a
lot
of
the
standards
is
the
front
of
the
property
that
are
required.
There's
a
just
one
area
of
relief
that
needs
to
be
done
currently,
I'll
give
you
a
kind
of
a
layout
of
the
property
that
should
be
here,
and
it's
not
gonna
go
but
anyway.
So
at
the
back
of
the
rear
of
the
property.
There's
a
two
parking
spots
for
the
turn
around
and
then,
as
you
see,
is
an
existing
driveway
which
we're
gonna
use.
F
An
existing
Drive
will
be
accessible
to
the
back
parking
and
then
the
actual
current
footprint
won't
change
at
all
for
the
property,
so
chamber,
changing
no
footprint
and
basically
happening
is
there's
going
to
be
four
bedrooms
up
and
two
bedrooms
down
must
be
two
units
up
and
down
if
they
would
take
advantage
of
the
space.
That's
given.
F
It's
in
a
medium
density,
residential
area,
and
it
actually
isn't
that
within
those
means
and
talks
about
Tessa
fication
and
how
the
city
is
looking
to
grow,
and
this
helps
the
city
grow,
but
also
not
take
up
more
land
footprint
and
that
talks
about
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
things
like
shadowing
and
loss
of
privacy,
blah
blah,
but
basically
my
property
nothing's,
really
changing
on
the
outside.
There's
no
footprint,
that's
changing
so,
and
there's
no
height
alternate
altercation
or
alteration
so
that
won't
really
affect
anybody.
F
And
so
basically,
if
you
go
through
all
these
things,
it
tells
you
that
we
are
aligned
and
in
line
the
city's
regulations,
so
I
just
want
to
go
through
and
functional
needs
as
well.
It
works,
but
I
just
want
to
go
through.
The
main
reason
why
we're
looking
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
that
the
lot
area
right
right
now
is
a
three
hundred
thirty
one
square
metres
and
for
a
residential
unit
for
a
one-family
dwelling.
You
need
four
hundred
and
eighteen
square
meters
per
unit.
So
for
this
we
actually
need
836.
F
So
our
relief
required
is
five
hundred
five,
but
all
the
other
areas
of
rezoning
requirements
are
and
proposed
relief.
We
have
no
relief
required,
say
if
you
just
look
at
the
different
areas
here
to
your
lock
corner,
lock,
frontier
lot,
we
have
no
relief
required
and
I
just
list
goes
on.
Our
landscape
space
is
actually
forty.
Five
percent
of
the
property,
which
is
fifteen
percent
more
than
you
need,
and
if
we
just
keep
going
on
from
it
pretty
prohibited,
uses
required
required
parking
spaces.
F
We
have
two
spots,
one
per
unit
and
then
the
parking
sauce
at
the
rear
of
the
property
not
the
front
and
then
just
from
all
the
other
aspects
of
things.
You
know
the
projections
amenity
area
we
have
the
amenity
areas
within
indoor
space
and
outdoor
space
is
ample,
and
then
these
are
just
the
calculations
are
shown
below.
So
overall
goal
of
the
property
is
to
basically
turn
it
into
from
a
one-family
yuning.
F
You
know
dwelling
to
to
unit
swelling
and
the
only
relief
from
looking
for
is
that
for
it
relief
from
the
actual
lot,
and
then
this
is
just
the
my
planner
different
recommendations
of
why
the
project
should
be
approved.
I
have
a
bit
more
of
an
actual
document
here.
If
I
could
find
it
I'm
not
sure
I
can
yeah.
F
F
So
this
is
the
existing
floor
one
and
then
this
is
what
we're
gonna
turn
it
into
we're.
Gonna
have
a
vestibule
at
the
front
of
the
building,
so
you
walk
in
the
front
door,
be
all
fire
rated
if
I
are
separated.
You
turn
right
to
go
up.
The
stairs
and
that'll
be
the
upstairs
unit,
and
you
go
straight
through.
That
would
be
the
bottom
unit
for
unit
1
unit
2.
F
And
then
this
is
floor
to
its
existing,
so
it
worked
basically
what
we're
trying
to
do,
what
we're
gonna
do
or
what
I'm
gonna
do
is
I.
Take
these
walls
out
of
the
study
and
the
bedroom
and
turn
that
into
a
living
room,
kitchen,
calm,
combo
and
you
have
another
staircase
going
upstairs
and
see
ya
there.
So
this
is
the
existing
upstairs
we're
gonna
try
to
do
is
optimize.
A
space
is
move
the
actual
bedroom
to
the
center
of
the
house
and
then
put
two
bedrooms
upstairs,
so
they
both
have
a
window.
A
A
A
No
as
a
councillor
who
represents
a
similar
district,
a
usually
very
supportive
of
the
idea
of
converting
a
bedroom
or
10
bedroom
into
multiple
units,
I
think
it
improves
the
neighborhood
atmosphere
to
have
two
four
bedroom
rather
than
one
eighth
bedroom
dwelling.
So
I
appreciate
that
so
I
will
turn
to
the
public.
Are
there
any
comments
or
questions
from
the
public
tonight?
A
H
Thank
You
mr.
chair
good
evening,
good
evening,
members
of
planning,
committee
staff
and
members
of
the
public,
my
name
is
Yuko
LeClair.
Excuse
me:
I'm
a
land
use
planner
with
photon
consultants
and
I'm,
presenting
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
1350
Woodfield
crescent
I'm,
also
here
with
Kyle
Nielsen
from
forefront
engineering
who
is
leading
the
final
plan
of
subdivision
approvals
process
and
will
help
with
answering
questions
from
the
committee
and
the
public.
H
So
our
subject
site
is
in
the
city's
West
End
it's
in
the
Westbrook
neighborhood,
it's
a
fairly
large
property.
It's
just
about
just
under
40
hectares,
an
area
I
had
fronts
on
to
the
north
side
of
Princess
Street,
as
well
as
a
number
of
local
streets
within
Westbrook
to
the
north
of
our
site
is
the
is
a
hydro
corridor
and
to
the
north
of
that
are
agricultural
and
rural
lands
to
the
east
of
the
site.
H
Is
the
Collins
Creek
wetland,
complex,
significant
environmental
protection
area
and
then
to
the
south
on
the
other
side
of
Princess
Street?
Is
the
Glen
Vale
environmental
protection
area,
obviously
to
the
west
of
our
of
our
subject?
Property
is
Westbrook
residential
community
with
a
public
school
and
a
park
right
near
to
the
property.
There
is
also
a
gas
pipeline
that
bisects
the
lands,
I'm
gonna
try
and
get
my
cursor
to
show
exactly
where
that
is
so
that's
right
about
there.
It
just
crosses
right
through
the
property
excellent.
H
There
have
been
previous
land
use
planning
approvals
on
this
property.
So
in
2015
there
was
an
official
plan
amendment,
a
draft
plan
of
subdivision
and
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
the
purpose
of
those
is
to
allow
the
redevelopment
of
the
lands.
The
Official
Plan
Amendment
changed
the
land
use
designations
on
the
site
to
what
they
currently
are.
There
were
some
technical
amendments
as
well
in
the
Official,
Plan
Amendment
side
of
things,
and
there
was
a
site-specific
policy
that
allowed
and
required
a
minimum
residential
net
density
associated
with
that
official
plan.
H
The
site
is
currently
going
through
the
final
plan
of
subdivision
process.
So
that's
the
final
step
before
the
lands
are
being
developed.
Those
approvals
are
getting
sought
right
now,
and
there
is
some
construction
that's
happening
on
the
site
right
now,
through
a
pre
servicing
agreement
as
the
engineering
drawings
been
finalized,
so
just
showing
the
current
land
use
designations
on
the
site
there.
The
south
and
east
of
the
site
is
the
environmental
protection
area
and
open
space
and
the
balance
of
the
lands
as
residential
the
site-specific
policy
I
may
have
mentioned.
H
This
requires
a
minimum
net
density
of
22
units
per
net
hectare,
which
is
very
significant
to
the
application.
That's
before
you
this
evening
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
moment,
so
the
current
zoning
on
the
site,
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application-
applies
only
to
the
site-specific
residential
type
2
zone,
so
they're,
not
touching
the
official,
the
environmental
protection
area
and
open
space
zones,
and
it's
the
site-specific
zoning
on
the
site
was
developed
to
implement
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision
that
was
designed
for
the
property.
H
So
the
Official
Plan
requires
a
minimum
density
of
22
units
per
net
hectare,
which
means
a
very
compact
form
of
development.
The
draft
plan
was
designed
around
that
and
a
number
of
these
provisions
were
intended
to
implement
that,
for,
in
particular,
the
minimum
lot
frontage,
but
also
all
of
the
other
setbacks
and
associated
provisions
that
were
amended
out
were
changed
to
suit
the
former
development
that
was
being
proposed.
H
H
Currently,
they
were
not
amended
by
the
site
specific
zone,
so
they
continue
to
apply
and
they
conflict
with
the
draft
plan
of
subdivision.
So
the
minimum
lot
area
requirements
which
are
square
feet,
so
they
predate
the
metric
adoption
of
metric
for
in
land-use
planning
and
they
apply
to
they
conflict
with
a
number
of
Lots.
H
So
150
of
the
381
residential
lots
into
the
draft
subdivision,
don't
meet
these
requirements
so
which
just
shows
that
the
they
were
intended
to
be
amended
out
and
it
just
weren't
so
we're
seeking
that
amendment
at
this
time
it
is
very
much
a
technical
application.
There's
no
change
to
the
draft.
Fine,
that's
necessary
to
make
this
happen.
It's
just
to
reflect
the
plan
that's
been
designed
and
intended
for
this
site
now.
H
Another
item,
that's
also
being
carried
forward
through
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment-
is
the
minimum
landscape
to
open
space
provision
so
that
again
it
applies
in
the
parent
zone.
But
through
this
zoning
bylaw
amendment
we
would
be
carrying
it
forward
into
the
site-specific
zone
so
that
it's
very
clearly
intended
to
apply
to
this
proposed
subdivision
this
application
so
recapping.
H
What
I've
said
were
seeking
to
remove
the
minimum
lot
area
and
maximum
a
lot
coverage
requirements,
apply
the
minimum
landscape
to
open
space
in
the
site-specific
zone
and
also
lift
the
holding
provision
from
phase
a
so
in
our
original
application,
we
had
asked
to
remove
the
holding
provision
from
phases
a
B
and
C,
so
the
first
three
phases
of
development.
It's
come
to
light
that
the
servicing
capacity
and
the
infrastructure
upgrades
that
are
necessary
to
allow
that
to
happen
are
underway,
but
they're
not
quite
there.
Yet.
H
So
the
addendum
to
tonight's
package,
which
was
provided
just
before
the
meeting,
clarifies
that
that
we're
only
seeking
to
lift
the
provision,
the
holding
provision
from
phase
a
again
I
want
to
make
it
extremely
clear
that
there
are
no
changes
proposed
to
the
draft
plan
in
order
to
accommodate
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
this
evening,
recapping
what
I've
just
said,
just
gonna,
let
you
read
it
I'm,
not
gonna,
repeat
myself
again
so
with
that
I'll
encourage
any
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
and
Kyle
will
be
here
as
well.
To
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
I
A
J
Everyone
I'm
James,
Barr
I'm,
one
of
the
new
senior
planners
in
the
Planning
Division
I,
can
confirm
that
notice
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
Planning.
Act
sign
was
posted
on
the
property
in
multiple
locations
20
days
in
advance
of
the
public
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
sent
by
mail
to
owners
of
92
properties
within
120
metres
of
the
subject
lands.
We
have
received
public
comment
on
this
application.
It
is
detailed
in
the
first
comprehensive
report
as
Exhibit
J
and
reviewed
by
the
report
as
well.
A
K
You
and
through
you
kill
them
I
have
a
question
concerning
some
of
these
diagrams.
One
diagram
has
a
road
showing
going
to
princess
Street
and
the
other
one
doesn't
or
has
some
kind
of
access
to
Princess
Street
I'm,
just
a
little
confused,
because
in
the
exhibit
J
they
had
asked
for
a
road
to
come
through
and
I'm
confused
was
that
ever
taken
care
of
or.
L
L
Which
is
the
long
proposed?
That
is
where
the
construction
axis
will
be
to
the
site,
I
believe
the
public
common
you're
referring
to
asks
for
that
to
be
the
construction
access.
It
already
is
the
construction
access.
There
is
limited
construction
access
from
the
existing
subdivision
because
we
are
actually
as
part
of
this
application
reconstructing
Roselawn
place.
So
there
is
some
construction
within
the
existing
Street
and
for
material
access
to
that
area
because
of
great
issues.
There's
there's
minor
construction
access
there.
L
L
A
M
M
M
Our
problem
is,
first
of
all,
we
show
it
up
the
other
morning
and
there
was
construction
we
couldn't
get
to
the
house,
but
also
they
have
this
access
road
going
off
of
the
end
of
the
dead-end.
Now
we
bought
that
house
and
have
lived
there
as
a
dead-end
road.
All
four
houses
on
that
Street
and
now
they're,
putting
a
road
off
of
the
dead-end
and
to
me
statutes
of
limitation,
will
not
allow
someone
to
do
that
to
an
existing
subdivision
when
you're
living
on
a
dead-end
road
forever.
M
That's
how
your
houses
were
made
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
they're
cutting
a
street
right
into
the
the
end
of
it,
and
we
are
protesting
that,
like
all
four
houses,
all
four
members
of
the
Oh
this
was
not
ever
presented
to
us
before.
They
always
told
us
that
it
would
be
an
access
from
the
highway
of
highway
2,
but
never
accessing
Roselawn
place
which
is
and
when
they
say
minor
I
have
pictures,
there's
major
construction.
M
M
A
M
I
A
N
Think
mr.
chair
Frank
Dixon
25
Alford
apartment
to
k7k
40th
one
thanks
for
the
presentation
tonight.
I
did
follow
this
file
and
it
came
to
the
committee
and
four
years
ago,
I
think
and
I've
got
two
additional
questions.
I
think
when
I
talk
about
them,
there
been
issues
around
the
lack
of
services
up
in
the
Westbrook
area
in
terms
of
enough
water
and
sewer
being
able
to
be
provided
and
what
they
were
planning
to
put
in
an
expanded
station
up
there
to
offer
more
development.
N
That's
now
going
to
be
used
for
access
for
construction
and
will
become
a
permanent
Road
when
the
project
is
completed
and
I'm
gonna
tie
this
in
with
the
lack
of
transit
service
up
in
the
Westbrook
area
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
this
is
going
to
come
in
Westbrook
was
an
established
community.
It's
well
to
the
west
and
north
of
any
connection
of
transit
service.
That's
now
in
place
and
I'm
just
gonna
make
a
suggestion.
No,
you
have
this
road
in
there.
N
It
would
seem
to
be
a
great
place
for
a
new
route
to
come
in,
maybe
starting
at
Colorado
town
center,
going
along
princess
up
into
Westbrook
and
then
coming
back
to
the
east
and
then
down
this
road
and
then
returning
to
kadowaki
talent
center
right.
So
certainly
Kingston
Transit
has
been
expanding.
Its
service,
we're
expanding
our
ridership
one
of
the
best
producers
in
Canada
and
I
would
just
like
to
see
that
continue.
So
the
new
residents
in
this
area
can
be
served.
Thank
you.
O
Hello,
my
name
is
Melanie
surcin
I
am
a
resident
at
1191,
Rosalyn
place
and
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
the
construction
going
on.
First
of
all,
it's
an
in
my
opinion.
It
is
not
minor
construction.
Many
days
we
are
told
to
access
the
current
construction
road
off
of
highway
2
and
then
other
times,
I'm
able
to
go
through
rows
on
place.
O
So
my
concern
is
that
Rosalyn
place
is
a
dead-end.
Road
has
been
as
Terri
said
since
1957,
and
we
were
not
told
about
it
becoming
an
access
to
the
new
subdivision.
That's
one
of
my
concerns
another
one
of
my
concerns
is
yesterday.
When
I
was
coming
home,
I
was
traveling
down
the
access
road
off
of
highway
2
and,
tragically,
someone
has
run
over
a
turtle
and
it
had
eggs.
O
O
Another
concern
of
mine
is
I,
went
to
work
one
day
and
my
street
for
houses
had
beautifully
treed
on
the
right-hand
side
facing
the
swamp.
We
were
told
that
there
was
houses
going
in
there
and
I
understand
that
we
need
to
grow
as
a
city.
However,
I
was
told
that
those
tree
that
tree
line
would
not
be
touched.
I
come
home
and
every
tree
almost
every
tree.
There
was
two
trees
left
which
were
removed
the
following
day:
all
of
them
gone.
O
O
O
O
A
H
L
L
L
Will
speak
to
this
servicing
quickly
is
right.
Now,
currently,
the
Westbrook
pumping
station
is
under
under
construction.
The
pumps
are
being
upgraded
to
satisfy
this
dis
development
and
other
developments
in
the
area.
Currently,
there
is
capacity
within
the
system
for
phase
a
as
proposed.
That's
why
the
holding
provision
is
only
being
removed
for
phase
a
and
will
be
reduced
for
the
remaining
Lots
and
subsequent
applications.
H
L
Rigueur
regarding
the
nesting
and
birds,
there
are
conditions
with
the
priest,
sir,
within
the
pre,
servicing
and
staff
comments,
and
on
the
engineering
design
drawings
that
there's
no
work
to
proceed
in
areas
of
nesting,
birds
and
squirrels
forefront
has
a
say,
representative
on
time.
Full
time
today,
I
have
not
received
any
complaints
regarding
it
or
been
notified
by
my
staff
that
there
has
been
an
issue
regarding
the
turtles.
Yesterday
afternoon,
I
became
aware
there
was.
There
was
a
turtle
that
was
struck
by
the
access
road
and
Princess
Street.
L
Since
since
then,
we
have
installed
additional
sill
fencing,
put
additional
signage
up
and
we're
going
to
be
doing
a
tailgate
with
the
construction
staff
on
site
to
walk
them
through
with
procedures.
They've
already
been
advised
that,
if
there's
turtles
in
the
area,
basically
that
all
work
is
to
stop
in
the
area
and
then
that
that
they
are
to
proceed
out
of
the
area.
P
Chair
with
those
two
Connie
must
ask
these
questions.
I
do
believe
that
the
migratory
bird
act
prevents
that
time
of
year
where
trees
are
cut
down
so
I
think
that
would
apply
to
your
subdivision
and
I.
Just
wonder
if
you
have
other
plans
to
cut
down
more
trees
within
the
window
that
the
migratory
bird
act
applies
to
like
I
I,
agree,
I,
don't
think
you're
allowed
to
cut
down
trees
at
this
time
of
year.
You
have.
P
Cerise
o3u
mr.
chair,
that
you
check
those
trees
from
any
type
of
nest.
I'll
just
leave
it
there
I
just
can't
believe
it
and
and
then
about
the
turtles
you
know
so
this
did
come
to
planning
committee
back
in
probably
2013.
It
wasn't
this
round
to
council.
It
was
the
last
round
to
council.
That's
when
we
did.
P
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
point,
not
just
because
that's
really
upsetting
to
hear
that
two
turtles
have
just
been
killed
and
you've,
probably
seen
all
the
turtles
last
week
on
Princess
Street
right
at
Westbrook,
Creek,
a
provincially,
significant
wetland
that
we're
nesting
on
the
side
of
Princess
Street
right
there,
and
it's
just
obvious
from
your
access
road,
a
how
there's
a
wetland
on
either
side.
So
you
know,
maybe
my
question
can
be
you
do
remember
your
environmental
impact
study.
That
said
no
turtles
were
observed
in
the
area.
L
I
believe
there
was
some
there
was
some
discussion
on
turtles
I
think
the
discussion
was.
There
are
no
turtles
that
were
species
at
risk
in
the
area
there
were
comments
provided
by
queens
of
inventories
conducted
in
that
area
and
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
they
denied
any
turtles.
There
was
discussion
about
installing
turtle
fencing
actually
along
the
new
proposed
roadway
through
the
wetland
and
I.
A
Me
I,
I'm,
sorry
they're.
The
rules
allow
people
one
opportunity
to
speak,
so
I
apologize
and
if
there's
information
that
you'd
still
like
to
share
with
the
committee,
if
you
do
it
in
written
form
through
the
clerk
or
through
our
planning
department,
then
we'll
get
that
information
and
it'll
be
duly
noted
and
by
staff.
So
thank
you
any
further
questions.
Would
you
care
to
take
the
chair
for.
A
You
a
couple
of
things:
I'm,
curious
and
staff-
are
aware
of
I've
always
have
a
little
reluctance
when
there's
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
immediately
following
a
public
meeting,
because
the
purpose
of
course,
of
a
public
meeting
is
to
give
the
public
an
opportunity
to
speak
and
to
give
staff
and
the
proponents
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
those
comments
and
questions.
We
have
two
of
those
quick
follow
up
once
the
one
that
we
heard
before
the
first
one
this
evening
was
really
really
had
no
public
response
in
the
neighborhood.
A
A
Is
there
an
overwhelming
reason
why
this
is
a
time-sensitive
proposal
and
then
I'll
turn
to
the
committee
and
suggest,
since
the
chair
doesn't
move,
motions
I
would
be
happy
to
support
or
second
a
motion
to
defer
to
our
next
planning
meeting
to
give
staff
and
the
proponents
an
opportunity
to
respond
so,
but
perhaps
Saffir
you
could
respond
to.
Why
this
would
be
time
sensitive.
K
Q
The
chair
actually
thank
you
and
through
you,
so
I
in
terms
of
timing,
I,
don't
think
the
issue
is
so
much
the
timing
from
a
staff
perspective.
I
guess
what
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
the
committee
understands
that,
even
if
this
is
deferred
back
to
staff,
it
won't
change
the
current
recommendation.
Q
We
can
include
the
comments,
but
the
recommendation
is
going
to
stand
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
this
is
not
coming
for
approval
as
a
subdivision
that
that's
passed,
that's
been
done
and
those
comments,
of
course,
if
they
came
at
the
time,
would
have
been
taken
into
consideration.
But
what's
in
front
of
planning
committee
tonight
in
terms
of
what's
being
asked
to
to
approve
the
comments
that
were
made
will
not
have
an
impact
on
that
recommendation.
Q
H
L
Through
the
draft
plan
approval
Opie
amendment
and
zoning
amendment,
we
have
already
had
two
previous
public
meetings
regarding
this
file.
The
comments
tonight
have
no
bearing
on
the
application
a
hand,
it's
very
minor
in
nature,
to
make
some
zoning
corrections
it,
as
it
really
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
the
road
layout
construction
advocate,
ivities
or
any
any
boundaries
on
the
site
themselves.
L
A
A
I
A
Sorry
there
was
an
addendum
that
I
should
have
yeah
there.
We
go
it's
here
somewhere
there.
We
are
there's
an
addendum
that
I'd
like
moved
and
seconded
to
be
included,
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
Woodfield
Crescent
Creekside
Valley
developments
and
it's
of
a
technical
nature
just
to
clarify
some
issues.
If
there's
a
mover
and
a
seconder
I
believe
we
all
have
this
in
front
of
us
great
all
those
in
favor
carried.
A
A
I
A
R
You
mr.
chair
I'm,
just
gonna,
provide
a
very
brief
introduction.
My
colleague,
a
Murray
will
then
walk
you
through
a
presentation,
the
summary
of
our
urban
pending
and
committed
housing,
supply
and
lifespan
review.
We
give
this
presentation
on
an
annual
basis.
It's
essentially
an
update
of
all
the
housing
that
we
have
coming
through
the
approvals
pipeline.
It
set
some
assumptions
to
say
that
if
all
this
housing
was
made
available
tomorrow,
this
supply
of
housing
would
last
X
number
of
years.
R
S
Hello
good
evening,
good
evening,
mr.
chair
staff,
members
of
planning,
company
and
members
of
the
public,
as
Gregg
has
mentioned,
we're
going
to
present
to
you,
the
urban
pending
and
committed
housing,
supply
and
lifespan
review
information
from
a
January
2017
to
the
end
of
December
2017.
This
isn't
this
information
is
important
as
it
informs
our
long-term
range
planning
activities.
S
The
provincial
policy
statement
requires
that
planning
authorities
provide
an
appropriate
range
and
mix
of
housing,
types
and
densities
to
meet
projected
requirements
of
current
and
future
residents.
The
PPS
contains
policies
which
introduce
minimum
housing
supply
targets
and
they
are
the
following
to
maintained
at
all
times
the
ability
to
accommodate
residential
growth
for
a
minimum
of
10
years
and
also
to
maintain,
at
all
times
land
with
servicing
capacity
sufficient
to
provide
at
least
a
three-year
supply
of
residential
units.
Again,
these
are
minimum
standards
so,
with
regards
to
the
actual,
pending
and
committed
housing
supply.
S
These
are
all
planning
act,
applications
that
are
active
within
their
urban
area
and
we
have
reviewed
56
applications,
which
is
part
of
this
inventory,
and
what
we
have
done
is
that
we
have
a
separate
separated
them
into
Pentagon
committed.
So
pending
is
the
Planning
Act
applications
that
are
currently
in
review,
and
they
include
site
plans,
zoning
bylaw
amendments
and
secondary
plans
and
are
committed
applications
which
include
registered
and
draft
approved
plans,
and
we
have
also
looked
at
this
in
terms
of
mapping
this
out
through
sub
areas.
S
So
now
the
laser
pointer
works.
This
is
the
Kingston
West
portion
of
the
city
and
we
have
three
thousand
three
hundred
and
nineteen
committed
units
and
they
are
shown
in
our
draft
approved
plans
of
subdivision
subdivision
and
registered
subdivisions
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
as
Westbrook
Meadows,
Woodhaven,
Midland,
Park
and
Cataraqui
north.
S
We
have
our
pending
units
sitting
at
two
thousand
four
hundred
and
thirty
three,
so
you
see
these
in
blue,
so
along
princess
Street,
it's
the
retirement
facility,
as
well
as
the
apartment
building
at
8:45
gardeners
Road
near
the
mall,
and
we
also
have
the
Graceland
subdivision
at
a
Bay,
Ridge
and
Taylor
kid.
That's
currently
in
review
as
well,
when
we're
looking
at
the
east
portion
of
the
city
are
committed.
S
Units
are
sitting
at
two
hundred
fifty
four
units
and
that's
mainly
the
Baxter
North
Riverview
subdivisions
and
our
pending
units
are
sitting
at
ninety
five
units
and
that
is
the
apartment.
Building
at
forty
eight
point,
st.
Mark's,
which
is
currently
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board,
now
known
as
the
L
pad.
S
When
we're
looking
at
the
central
area
of
the
city,
our
committed
units
are
sitting
at
293
and
they
include
the
townhouse
developments
along
south
of
401
Conacher
and
Shannon
Drive
and
in
terms
of
our
pending
units,
it's
quite
significant
at
4319,
so
we're
looking
along
princess
streets
in
a
Williamsville
as
well
as
the
inner
harbor
area,
so
652
sage,
condos,
that's
sitting
at
three
hundred
units,
which
is
an
application
you
received
in
2017,
as
well
as
the
Davis
tannery.
That
was
also
received
in
2017
as
well
sitting
at
1500
units.
S
So
I've
spoken
to
before
about
48-point
st.
marks
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
know
now
known
as
the
L
pad.
We
have
two
others,
as
you
know,
two
to
three
princess
streets
as
well
as
18
and
50
ones,
57
Queen
Street
for
a
total
of
600
eighty-seven
units.
So
these
these
are
the
units
that
are
at
the
board
right
now,
and
it's
important
to
note
that
it
does
become
a
timing
issue
because
it
could
delay
these
units
coming
to
the
market
or
could
preclude
the
application
altogether
from
coming
to
the
market.
S
So
when
we
look
at
our
building
permit
activity,
we
actually
review
this
information
for
a
10-year
period.
Now
we're
in
2017,
we've
reviewed
the
information
from
2008
to
2017,
and
this
is
a
chart
showing
the
figures
here.
So
we
broken
the
information
by
unit
type.
So
we
have
our
single-family
semi-detached
row,
houses
and
multiple
units,
and
one
of
the
trends
that
we
see
is
that
we
see
our
single
detached
slightly
declining,
and
then
we
see
an
upward
increase
in
our
multiple
dwelling
units
from
2008
2017.
S
This
is
a
summary
of
our
ten-year
residential
building
permit
activity,
and
this
information
is
important
because
it
also
gives
us
the
unit
type
and
percentages
here,
and
it
also
gives
us
the
average
number
of
units
per
year.
So
as
a
2017,
the
average
annual
demand
at
the
bottom.
There
is
563,
that's
563
units
from
2008
to
2017,
and
this
figures
used.
It
calculates
our
lifespan.
S
So
what
is?
Lifespan?
Lifespan
is
the
measure
of
the
total
annual
housing
divided
by
the
average
annual
demand,
and
it's
the
assumed
length
of
time
that
would
take
for
approved
units
to
be
consumed
by
the
market
to
be
made
available.
So
there
are
assumptions
that
we
consider
in
determining
as
to
what
is
our
lifespan,
and
they
are
that
all
units
are
available
immediately.
There
is
no
preference
for
unit
type.
S
So
this
is
a
committed
unit,
so
these
are
registered
and
draft
approved
subdivisions.
And
what
we've
done
here
is
that
we've
separated
it
by
unit
type.
So
we
have
our
single
semies,
townhouses
and
multiple
units,
and
what
we've
done
is
that
we've
reviewed
that
against
the
provincial
policy,
minimum
3-year
housing
requirement
and
as
you
can
see
from
the
total
at
6.9
years,
we
are
satisfying
the
PPS
3-year
housing
requirement.
S
If
we
look
at
our
pending
units,
which
consists
of
our
zoning
bylaw
amendments,
site
plans
and
secondary
plans,
taking
consideration
the
unit
type
and
also
the
total,
while
sitting
at
currently
12.1
years-
and
if
we
add
our
committed
and
pending
units
again
by
dwelling
type
and
then
also
looking
at
the
overall
total
units,
we
are
sitting
at
19
years
which
satisfies
the
PPS
minimum
10-year
housing
requirement
for
residential
development.
So,
as
we're
reviewing
this
information,
we
really
wanted
to
know
where
we
stood
in
terms
of
how
we
compare
to
other
municipalities.
S
So
we
had
the
opportunity
to
look
at
Ottawa,
York,
Region,
Cambridge,
Guelph
and
Peterborough,
and
looked
at
how
they
determined
what
the
lifespan
is
and
what
their
methods
were.
So,
as
I've
mentioned
before
the
minimum
ten
year,
supply
requirement
for
residential
developments
for
City
of
Kingston
lifespan
is
19
years
and
the
minimum
three-year
supply
requirement
for
service
in
capacities.
Six
point
nine
years.
So,
as
you
can
see
here,
we
have
if
we
look
at
the
ten
year,
we're
sitting
at
thirteen
years
versus
fifty-one
years.
S
So
that's
the
range
and,
if
we're
looking
at
the
three-year
supply
requirement
for
servicing
capacity,
we're
looking
at
five
years
to
twelve
point
seven
years
so
from
this
chart,
it
appears
that
the
City
of
Kingston
life's
life
span.
It
appears
that
so
we're
generally
aligned
with
what
is
projected
for
the
housing
capacity
or
housing
supply
in
other
municipalities.
S
So
what
will
we
do?
What
will
we
be
doing
with
sindh
with
this
information?
What
we've
presented
to
you
is
that
it's
our
pending
and
committed
our
urban
developments,
and
they
only
consider
the
planning
applications
that
are
active.
So
what
we're
intending
to
do
is
to
combine
this
information
with
a
review
of
vacant
residential
lands
as
well
as
lands
that
are
zoned
but
not
fully
develops
for
residential
use
in
order
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
review
and
capture
the
potential
supply
of
housing
available
in
the
city
and
also
their
regional
Market
Market
area.
Thank
you.
E
R
R
However,
that's
likely
the
result
of
not
us
as
a
municipality,
not
adding
a
lot
of
that
type
of
housing
to
the
market,
so
there's
a
forthcoming
supply.
We
suspect
that
demand
will
shift
relative
to
that
supply.
So
these
these
sort
of
numbers
are
constantly
fluctuating
as
a
demand
for
different
types
of
housing.
Changes
singles
might
be
partially
the
result
of
not
having
a
lot
of
singles
added
to
the
market.
R
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
know
this
is
really
important
information
because,
with
we
have
a
very
low
vacancy
rate,
very
poor
way
of
counting
through
because
we
don't
count
students
primarily
through
census
data,
so
there's
a
suggestion
that
we
actually
have
flatlined
population
wise,
but
that
isn't
what
the
real-estate
market
is
telling
us
and
it's
not
what
the
building
community
is
telling
us
either.
So
it's
it's
important
information.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
R
I
R
A
A
The
portion
of
the
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
The
city
has
initiated
a
new
process
in
which
members
the
public
will
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
up
to
five
minutes
on
comprehensive
reports
presented
before
the
Planning
Committee.
Those
wishing
to
provide
oral
comments
that
this
meeting
will
be
invited
to
do
so
if
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
so
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
local
planning,
Appeal
Tribunal.
A
But
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaws
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision,
so
we
now
make
that
available
that
opportunity.
So
if,
if
you'd
care
to
to
speak
to
it,.
G
G
G
G
G
G
The
Official
Plan
amendment,
the
the
yellow,
and
this
is
Exhibit
D
from
the
oafish
from
the
your
planning
report.
The
yellow
is
a
residential
zone,
no
changes
to
that
and
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
that.
This
is
the
existing
zoning
on
the
in
the
area.
As
you
can
see,
there's
a
variety
of
slightly
intensification,
site-specific
amendments
that
I've
already
accommodated
some
intents
that
some
of
the
proposals
that
were
looking
at
in
this
application
as
well
the
floor
plan.
G
This
is
primarily
a
lot
plan,
drawing
it
shows
the
existing
and
the
proposed
the.
As
you
can
see,
the
layout
of
the
building
is
remained
the
same.
The
the
difference
primarily
is
the
parking
and
at
the
back,
the
the
lane
ways
already
there.
There
are
no
real
exterior
changes
and
this
parking
layout
is
already
permitted.
So
there's
no
amendments
to
to
accommodate
that
again.
These
are
the
interior
floor
plans.
The
applicant
also
reviewed
them
for
for
everyone.
They
are
just
a
methodology
of
accommodating
two
units.
G
The
second
floor
is
one
of
the
main
changes.
The
one
I'd
like
to
highlight,
for
you
is
not
is
the
sublevel.
This
is
a
cellar
level
of
of
the
building.
There
are
actually
the
part
of
the
layout.
The
eight
bedroom
layout
now
includes
two
bedrooms
in
this
in
the
cellar.
However,
these
are
not
actually
allowed
in
the
current
zoning
provisions.
The
zone
actually
prohibits
the
bedrooms
in
a
cellar.
G
We
discussed
this
with
the
applicant
and
the
applicant
has
understood
that
it's
contrary
and
has
agreed
to
remove
them
and
has
actually
already
converted
them
into
storage
rooms
which
are
permitted
under
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
his
actual
proposal
has
changed
slightly
from
the
original
application.
The
original
application
was
to
four
bedroom
units
upon
review
and
discussion
with
the
applicant.
The
the
draft,
by
lot
being
presented,
actually
will
accommodate
two
volume
units,
but
with
four
bedrooms
on
one
and
two
on
the
other.
G
G
G
G
Upon
review
we've
concluded
and
make
the
following
recommendation
include
the
following:
that
the
proposed
dwelling
two
unit
dwelling
house
is
consistent
with
the
built
form
in
the
neighborhood.
The
proposal
contributes
the
overall
unit
density
in
the
urban
boundary.
The
overall
usability
of
it
is
still
based
on
bedrooms
is
similar
to
what's
originally
there.
The
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
complies
with
the
potential
policy
statement
and
the
official
plan
and
constitutes
good
planning
based
on
the
above.
The
staff
recommends
approval
directly
is
only
bylaw
amendment
for
this
property.
T
G
E
A
A
Will
be
6,
okay,
I
will
say:
I
support,
secondary
suites
and
I'm
always
appreciative
when
a
proposal
comes
forward
that
ensures
that
the
secondary
suite
is
going
to
be
built
to
code
under
current
building
standards,
and
so
how
will
we?
How
can
we
be
assured
that
these
two
bedrooms,
that
I,
would
presume,
are
illegal
at
this
time?
A
two
bedroom
basement
will
remain,
will
not
end
up
going
back
to
two
bedroom
in
the
basement
and
what
kind
of
opportunity
would
would
the
owner
current
or
future
have
to.
G
The
curb
well,
the
building
inspection
process
will
inspect
it.
We
have
discussed
it
with
the
building
inspector
about
highlighting
the
the
use
of
those
lower
unit
rooms
after
the
inspection
process
in
the
occupancy
permit
is
issued,
there
are
limited
opportunities
to
go
into
someone's
home
at
that
point.
G
It's
it's
someone
else's
home,
the
tenants
home
in
this
case.
Unless
there's
a
complaint,
there
wouldn't
be
an
opportunity
to
go
in
that's
a
limitation
of
how
we
can
inspect
people's
homes
with
regard
to
future
opportunities
to
adding
those
in
spy.
Some
other
means
you
mean
I'm,
assuming
you're,
applying
for
additional
changes
or
regulatory
changes
to
allow
them.
A
R
Mr.
chair,
just
on
the
second
residential
units,
just
because
we're
working
on
his
own
provisions
to
enable
that
more
broadly,
so,
when
those
come
into
effect,
they
would
this
property
would
not
be
eligible
for
adding
second
units.
In
addition
to
the
two
family
dwelling,
that's
being
sought
with
this
application,
so
we're
putting
a
limitation
place
that
you
can
essentially
only
have
one
second
unit
on
a
lot
that
already
contains
a
unit.
A
R
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
am
a
deep,
so
now
eternity
for
the
public
to
speak.
If
there
are
any
questions,
seeing
none
we'll
move
on
to
looking
for
a
mover
and
a
seconder
I'm
not
going
to
challenge
this,
but
yes,
Thank
You,
councillor,
Turner,
counselor
sonic.
Any
further
questions
comments.
Seeing
none
I'll
call
the
question
all
those
in
favor
carried.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation.
A
N
Now
the
thing
that
concerns
me
about
this,
we
had
an
it
an
addendum
already
on
this
item
and
from
the
sequence
of
points
made
and
questions
answered,
it
turns
out.
You
know
the
proponents
actually
knew
about
the
turtles
situation,
but
they
didn't
inform
the
public,
whereas
they
could
have
done
that.
I
would
prefer
to
have
that
happen
rather
than
have
residents
have
to
raise
it
and
then
have
to
answer
it
and
then
answer
questions
from
the
from
the
committee.
N
E
A
Seeing
no
further
questions
from
the
public
we'll
return
to
the
committee,
if
there's
a
mover
and
a
seconder
for
the
rec,
oh
I'm,
sorry,
we
should
move
and
second
for
the
dandumb
item,
which
is
the
supplementary
report.
Council
Turner
councillor
sonic
any
questions
regarding
that
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
carried.
A
A
You
and
you
know:
what's
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
a
seconder
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
committee
support,
but
I
really
really
am
troubled
when
there's
a
number
of
public
expressions
of
concern
on
the
same
day
that
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
comes
forward
and
we
dismiss
that
and
vote
on
that.
For
that
reason,
I
will.
A
Choose
a
protest
to
vote
against
this.
If
it
comes
to
the
floor
tonight,
although
I'm
sure
I'll
support
it
if
it
comes
to
at
our
next
meeting,
but
I
will
move
deferral
in
order
for
us
for
staff
and
and
the
proponents
to
have
an
opportunity
to
reflect
on
and
respond
to
concerns
expressed
by
the
public
so
I,
thereby
move
deferral
for
the
next
planning
committee
meeting
in
two
weeks
time,
if
there's
a
second
term.
K
K
A
A
U
Thank
You
mr.
chair
fellow
staff,
members
of
committee,
members
of
the
public,
so
this
is
an
application
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
1821
Berbick
Road
I'll
give
a
summary
of
the
comprehensive
report.
So
the
purpose
and
effect
of
this
application
is
to
amend
a
restricted
agricultural
a1
zone
is
to
allow
for
an
existing
building,
which
is
approximately
293
square
meters
to
be
used
for
a
fencing
contractor
business.
U
So
the
location
of
the
of
the
proposed
amendment
is
between
per
throat
and
Sydenham
Road
on
the
south
side
of
her
brook,
as
you
can
see,
it's
a
it's.
A
parcel
is
approximately
five
hectares
in
size,
so
it's
zoned,
rural
or
sorry.
It's
designated
rural
in
the
Official
Plan
and
its.
It
also
has
an
environmental
protection
area
that
that
kind
of
transects
the
the
site
as
well
and
that's
to
the
south
of
the
area
in
question.
U
These
are
a
few
site
photos
that
illustrate
the
structure
in
question,
the
existing
structure
so
from
the
road
and
from
the
the
eastern
side
of
the
property
along
a
Lane
and
then
again
kind
of
from
the
rear
corner
of
what
would
be
the
the
compound.
That's
need
to
be
delineate
by
the
fencing,
as
you
can
see
in
the
bottom
photo
there
there's
a
number
of
the
the
employees
vehicles
are
on
site,
so
the
proposed
zoning
revisions
would
have
a
fencing
contractor
business
added
as
a
permitted
use.
U
I
just
want
to
take
a
moment
and
say
that
is
not
a
fencing
contractor
yard.
One
of
the
distinctions
to
be
made
here
is
that
the
fencing
is
not
to
be
fabricated.
On-Site,
it's
the
other
uses
that
are
being
contemplated.
So
more
specifically,
outdoor
storage
is
to
be
prohibited
on
the
site
and
the
as
you
can
read
there,
the
the
location
of
the
business,
the
business
activity
and
the
actual
structure
are
to
be
limited
on
the
on
the
property.
U
That's
something
that
we
have
the
latitude
to
do
in
the
Official
Plan
and,
in
addition,
in
terms
of
providing
further
buffering
from
the
road,
the
zoning
would
also
implement
a
series
of
planting
strips
that
would
effectively
hide
the
business
by
use
of
vegetation
as
well
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
This
is
also
subject
to
site
plan
control.
U
So
there
were
a
number
of
public
comments
about
this.
This
application
will
all
go
through
them.
There
were
concerns
about
the
visual
and
compatibility
and
changes
in
the
rural
landscape.
There
were
concerns
about
the
scale
in
the
nature
of
the
business,
the
the
idea
that
it's
industrial
activity
that
is
not
new
and
that
it's
small,
not
a
small-scale
business.
These
are
some
things
that
were
put
forward.
There's
concern
about
incompatibility
with
the
residential
character,
the
area
there
was
the
thought
that
the
applicant
become
it
could
be
accommodated
in
another
part
of
the
city.
U
I
was
concerned
about
increased
truck
traffic
and
noise
generation.
There
was
concern
about
the
prior
work
on
the
site.
This
was
brought
to
this.
An
application
was
brought
forward
in
this
case
because
of
an
enforcement
issue.
There
were
concerns
about
the
environmental
protection
area
and
and
servicing
specifically
water
availability
on-site.
U
U
There
was
a
concern
about
a
associated
property
and
the
use
thereof.
There
was
concern
about
it
being
a
precedent
for
other
businesses
and
solder
site
alteration
in
the
future
and
public
notice,
and
also
decreasing
property
values.
So
all
these
concerns
from
a
staff
perspective
were
dealt
with
in
the
comprehensive
report
and
if
you
have
questions
about
any
of
those
specifically
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
them.
So,
in
a
summary,
it's
the
staffs
position
that
the
PPS
supports
economic
development
in
rural
areas.
U
This
is
a
rural
area,
not
a
residential
area,
so
the
as
I
mentioned
the
areas
designated
rural
neo
P
and
that
permits
variety
of
uses
in
addition
to
residential
uses.
So
the
OPP
specifically
does
permit
small-scale
industrial
and
commercial
if
it
is
limited
in
scale
and
they're
perceived
to
be
no
impacts
on
adjacent
lands.
U
U
Berbick
road
is
designated
as
an
arterial
in
the
opie,
which
is
intended
to
accommodate
various
forms
of
traffic.
Some
heavy
screening
is
being
proposed
on
site,
both
in
the
form
of
fencing
and
in
the
form
of
vegetative
buffers
actually
in
kind
of
two
layers,
one
closer
to
the
road
and
then
one
in
front
of
the
fence
where
the
compound
is
to
be
located
again.
The
zoning
is
supposed
to
be
implemented
as
very
site-specific
for
the
existing
building
and
that,
as
I
mentioned
business
activities,
to
be
loaded
on
the
site.
U
So
we're
recommending
that
the
all
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
intended
to
do
the
following.
It's
intended
to
clearly
define
where
the
building
and
well
not
the
building
is
existing,
but
where
the
business
would
be
able
to
take
place
on
the
site,
including
the
functional
elements.
So
the
parking
and
loading
again
it
would
prohibit
outdoor
storage,
which
we
see
is
inappropriate
at
this
site.
It
would
restrict
the
number
of
employees
to
12
and
that's
not
the
number
of
current
employees,
that's
kind
of
a
maximum.
Currently,
it's
our
understanding.
U
There
are
six
full-time
employees
and
this
is
a
seasonal
operation,
so
that
can
fluctuate
we're
proposing
the
introduction
of
additional
fencing
and
landscaping,
as
I
mentioned,
and
ultimately
it's
the
perspective
of
staff
that
the
proposed
zoning
bylaw
amendment
complies
with
pts
and
the
Official
Plan
and
constitutes
good
nineties
planning.
So
we're
recommending
for
approval.
A
T
Thanks
for
your
presentation,
Chris-
well
this
one-
this
is
a
file,
that's
got
my
attention
and
and
several
other
people
as
well
so
I'm
trying
to
come
to
terms
with
it
because,
as
you
know,
I
definitely
want
to
I'm
a
counselor.
That's
pro
development,
and
you
know
in
our
in
rural
areas
as
well
and
and
that
this
one
has
me
twisted
inside
a
bit.
U
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
the
entire
lot
would
be
given
a
site-specific
zone,
but
the
provisions
of
that
zone
would
limit
the
activity
to
very
specific
part
of
the
property,
both
in
terms
of
the
lot
area
that
could
be
used
and
in
terms
of
the
setbacks
to
that
specific
area
that
can
be
used
for
the
fencing
contractor
business.
U
T
U
T
Quite
an
effort
just
for
parking-
and
you
know,
indoor
storage,
I
I-
realize
that
that
it's
being
controlled
so
much
and
limited
and
I
realize
and
it
it
seems
almost
harmless.
How
is
my
point?
I'm
just
be
honest,
it
seems
almost
harmless
though,
although
you
know
parking
can
be
but
and-
and
you
know
to
be
honest-
I
I
think
it's
a
good
business
to
that
I'm
on
to
say
that,
with
all
of
the
comments
or
III
understand,
this
is
a
good
local
business.
So
I'm
I
have
my.
T
We
need
this
kind
of
business
in
our
city
and
to
to
not
not
have
found
them.
A
better
location
troubles
me
as
well.
I'm
being
honest
again
as
troubles
me
that
we
can't
find
something
that
you
know:
I,
don't
know
how
they're
going
to
conduct
themselves
in
business
and
not
have
everything
at
their.
You
know
that's
their
choice,
but
that
bothers
me
as
well,
but
I
am
concerned
for
the
area
I'm
concerned,
it's
a
very
wet
area,
I'm
concerned
already
so
much
parking
lot.
It's
it's
it's
a
sponge.
T
T
We
value
that
business
in
our
area,
I
just
questioned
why
it
has
to
be
there
I,
there's
surely
to
goodness,
got
to
be
a
spot
within
our
city
that
can
better
serve
an
important
business
like
that,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
like
it
there,
but
then
you've
you
have
clipped
it
so
much
and
zoning
and
all
the
things
that
I
it's
almost
seems
wrong.
What's
what
they're
going
to
do?
There
is
just
Park
and
could
the
zoning
the
existing
zoning
is
a
one
Wow
and
they,
but
the
reason
they
can't
just
keep
it.
T
U
U
T
T
K
U
U
K
U
Mr.
chair,
there
is
an
existing
septic
system
and
we
have
spoken
with
the
Health
Unit
and
we
have
a
qualified
professionals
assessment
that
the
current
service
of
the
septic
is
can
be
appropriately
accommodate
in
the
business.
So
there
is
a
requirement
from
staff
that
that
the
facilities
be
located
with
indoor
plumbing
and
that
it's
it's
tied
in
and
and
that
has
been
deemed
except
acceptable
by
the
Health
Unit
as
well.
Okay,.
A
V
Good
evening
my
name
is
Peter
Skibo
and
my
family
and
I
live
at
1850,
Berwick
Road,
which
is
directly
across
for
the
road
from
the
subject
property.
According
to
our
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw,
there
are
only
two
circumstances
under
which
this
business
backyard
fence
can
be
located
at
18:21,
Berbick
Road.
The
first
is
if
it's
a
home
occupation
of
a
limited
size,
which
it
is
not
the
second
circumstances.
If
the
business
falls
under
Official
Plan
policy,
three
1319
that
speaks
to
small
scale,
industrial
and
commercial
uses
in
the
rural
designation.
V
In
fact,
if
it
weren't
for
three
1319,
there
would
be
no
basis
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
while
back
in
2016
planning
staff
believed
that
the
applicants
business
satisfied
the
criteria
under
this
section
of
the
Official
Plan.
So
this
is
what
the
policy
states
and
I've
added
numbers
for
clarity,
small-scale
industrial
and
commercial
uses
in
the
rural
designation
can
provide
a
modest
means
of
starting
a
business.
The
businesses
that
grow
are
expected
to
move
to
more
urban
settings.
Other
businesses
may
employ
local
craftsmen
or
artisans
and
remain
small.
V
Such
amendments
must
set
a
specific
limits
on
use,
size,
location
and
number
of
employees.
And
finally,
all
new
small-scale
industrial
and
commercial
uses
in
the
rural
designation
are
subject
to
site
plan
control
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
So
the
applicants
business
has
been
in
operation
for
about
20
years.
By
their
own
admission,
they
have
plans
to
employ
up
to
12
either
full-time
or
part-time
employees.
In
fact,
they
are
the
largest
fencing
contractor
in
the
area,
and
public
records
confirm
they've
been
awarded
government
defensing
contracts
approaching
a
million
dollars.
V
The
comprehensive
report
has
taken
three
1319
out
of
context
by
stating
that
businesses
are
permitted
in
the
rural
designation,
provided
the
uses
are
limited
in
size
and
do
not
have
adverse
effects
on
adjacent
land
uses
and
I'm,
quoting
what's
in
the
comprehensive
report,
they've
taken
this
statement
from
part
of
the
fourth
sentence
without
regard
to
the
three
preceding
sentences.
This
is
misleading
and
it's
dangerous
because
it
suggests
to
you
that
the
Official
Plan
supports
this
application
when
it
does
not.
V
Furthermore,
the
comprehensive
report
rationalizes
threw
out
that
the
applicants
use
of
the
property
remain
limited
in
size
or
limited
in
activity
and
to
gain
I'm
quoting
this
from
the
report.
This
is
misleading
because
the
concept
of
limited
has
been
taken
again
from
the
fourth
sentence,
but
out
of
context
suggesting
that
anything,
that's
limited
is
permitted,
but
actually
it's
not
so
look
at
it.
V
This
way
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
establish
100
percent
of
their
business
on
the
subject
site
they've
got
their
administrative
offices,
a
muster
area
for
staff
of
12
parking
for
up
to
14
vehicles,
a
loading
and
unloading
area
for
inventory
that
will
be
delivered
to
and
transported
away
from,
the
site,
storage
for
inventory
and
equipment.
A
workshop
for
repairs,
parking
for
heavy
construction
equipment
which
has
floated
to
and
from
the
site
on
a
daily
basis,
there's
also
commercial
bins
for
garbage
and
steel
recycling,
not
to
mention
fuel
tanks.
V
So
this
is
not
a
start-up,
nor
is
it
a
small-scale
business
where
the
uses
are
limited.
It
doesn't
resemble
what's
described
in
and
intended
by
three
1319,
but
let's
say
for
argument's
sake
that
the
city
interprets
this
policy
is
applicable
to
this
business,
then,
in
the
same
breath
the
city
must
recognize
that
the
business
has
grown
and
is
expected
to
move
to
a
more
urban
setting
under
this
policy.
You
cannot
accept
one
concept
without
having
a
regard
for
the
other.
V
Finally,
this
application
effectively
establishes
an
industrial
contracting
business
in
the
very
middle
of
what
is
predominantly
a
residential
area.
It's
not
even
on
the
fringe,
it's
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
lands
that
are
developed
by
single-family
residences,
the
business
it
has
been
operating
from
the
site
since
2015
and
the
area
residents
have
complained
to
the
city
regarding
the
on-site
activities
that
are
at
time
at
times.
V
Yes,
it
is
not,
sir,
the
business
does
not
belong
here.
This
application
is
an
example
of
bad
land-use
planning,
it's
not
desirable
for
the
city
or
the
residents
and
because
three
1319
does
not
apply.
There
is
no
basis
for
this
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
In
fact,
an
official
plan
amendment
is
required.
So
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
deny
this
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
Thank
you.
They.
W
In
my
opinion,
that
fully
qualifies
as
a
small
scale,
industrial
use,
which
is
suitable
and
meets
the
criteria
of
your
official
plan.
I'd
also
like
to
comment
on
the
fact
that,
as
a
result
of
working
with
your
staff,
we
have
provided
a
site
plan
which
provides
screening,
which
I
believe
makes
this
use,
even
though
I
think
in
its
natural
steroids
current
state.
It's
it
is,
it
is
compatible.
W
This
further
and
crew
improves
the
compatibility
of
the
use
that's
proposed
here,
as
was
mentioned
to
you,
there
have
been
a
number
of
studies
that
have
been
done
in
order
to
address
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
the
the
neighboring
residential
uses.
Those
studies
include
a
noise
study
which
found
that
the
noise
standards
met
the
Ministry
of
Environment
and
culture
and
community
culture,
no
industry,
environment,
climate
change
standards.
W
There
will
be
limits
on
the
operating
times
that
that
this
facility
can
be
op
raided.
There
was
an
archaeological
study.
There's
been
a
servicing
study,
there's
been
comments
from
the
conservation
authority,
all
of
which
support
the
proposal
and
have
provided
us
with
the
details
that
you
have
before
you.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
a
compatible
use
with
the
adjoining
residential
area,
but
I
would
comment
that
this
is
a
rural
area
and
there
are
a
variety
of
uses
permitted
within
the
rural
area.
X
My
name
is
John
black
law
from
a
black
and
black
225
Bay
Street
Kingston,
Ontario
k7,
all
4x1
I'm,
speaking
on
behalf
of
Sonia
Harmsen
and
John
Harmsen,
who
own
property
immediately
in
the
area
and
also
reside
just
down
the
way
at
1759,
Burak
Road.
One
thing
I'd
want
to
make
very
clear.
My
key
element
here:
I
incur
entirely
with
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
by
mr.
X
skeebo,
and
that
is
the
Official
Plan
three
point:
one
three
point:
one
has
to
be
met
and
a
certain
point
where
you
bend
something
so
far
that
it's
no
longer
what
it
was
intended
to
do.
Okay
and
then
the
notion
is
as
well
a
good
test.
Is
it
okay?
If
this
was
done
to
every
single
property
in
that
area?
X
X
The
neighborhood's
really
not
willing
to
view
this
as
acceptable.
Now
you
have
other
businesses
which
are
sitting
in
the
rural
designation,
much
fewer
employees
and
remember.
We've
talked
when
we
had
the
introduction
here
and
the
question
was
posed
when
the
council
is
basically
storage
and
basically
parking.
Well,
it's
not.
If
you
look
closely
it's
storage
parking
and
repairs,
not
significant
repairs
of
stuff
that
can
include
equipment,
not
conclude
other
that'll
happen
and
guess
what
the
noise
attenuation.
X
Those
studies,
I
don't
very
much
take
into
place
what
banging
around
the
stuff
in
terms
of
repairs
brings
to
the
Brinkley
Party,
and
we
have
really
a
fundamentally
residential
area,
which
is
accepting
of
the
things
that
will
come
under
the
Official
Plan,
but
to
approve
this
I
would
suggest
bends
the
interpretation
of
that
section.
Three
point:
one
three
point
one
so
far:
it's
really
unacceptable.
If
they
want
to
do
this,
then
bring
an
application
for
you
know
amending
the
Official
Plan,
so
it
fits.
X
Let's
also
remember
how
this
comes
about
this
comes
about
because
and
and
first
of
all,
I
have
admiration
for
the
business,
the
people
who
are
doing
this
okay,
so
my
critique
is
not
of
them.
My
critique
is
doing
this
at
this
location,
and
the
way
they
got
here
was
to
buy
a
lot
without
properly
checking
the
zoning
and
making
sure
they
could
operate
it
here.
X
They
operated
it
for
the
bed
part
of
three
years
as
you'll
see
from
your
material
again
contraries
only
we're
allowed
to
do
that
and
now
attempting
to
rectify
it,
and
there
are
so
many
other
locations
that
could
be
doing
this
at
other
than
this
world
designation
location
and
abide
by
the
Official
Plan.
Okay.
X
So,
let's
find
the
right
area
the
right
usage.
Unless
you
can
say
that
every
person
along
there
should
be
entitled
to
have
a
similar
business,
twelve
employees
parking
for
twelve
employees
plus
a
residential
thing
that
they
don't
actually
reside
it.
So
this
isn't
a
commercial
activity
for
the
fellow
who
wants
to
be
a
resident
and
operate
a
small
business
that
fits
the
Official
Plan,
the
so
yeah
it
really
strongly
doesn't
hit
the
the
Opie
and
the
correct
section
sets
a
precedent
for
all
the
other
properties
activities
right.
One
minute:
that's
that's
pretty
much.
My
time.
U
Yes,
thank
you,
mr.
chair,
thanks
very
much
for
your
comments
in
terms
of
the
the
scale
of
the
business,
the
official
plan
does
not
provide
specific
guidance
on
what
constitutes
small
scale,
and
so,
in
that
regard
we
have
to
in
you
know
my
friends
words
there.
We
do
have
to
look
at
every
application
based
on
its
own
merits.
U
The
neighborhood
and
it
being
a
fundamentally
residential
area,
I
I,
do
want
to
return
to
the
notion
of
what
is
permitted
as
of
right
under
the
current
zoning.
So
one
of
the
permitted
uses,
for
example,
agricultural
uses,
are
permitted
use
and
one
of
the
permitted
uses
as
of
right
is
a
livestock
auction
facility,
and
so
a
challenge
from
a
staff
perspective
is
to
contemplate
whether
that
type
of
use
would
have
the
potential
to
have
a
greater
impact
than
the
type
of
use
proposed.
U
I
would
argue
that
it
would,
and
that's
as
of
right,
as
opposed
to
a
situation
where
we
have
the
ability
to
put
a
fair
number
of
controls
on
the
situation
as
it
currently
exists
and
in
terms
of
the
three
1319
I
think
it's
important
to
consider
the
policy
in
the
broader
context
of
the
Official
Plan
as
a
whole.
That's
something
we
have
to
have
regard
for
so
based
on
those
points
that
led
us
to
the
position
of
support.
A
T
Just
I
just
find
it
amazing
that
we
can
be
that
read
the
same
paper
and
just
have
such
different
interpretations
of
it.
I
find
it
very
troubling
and
I
wish
it
was
was,
was
bad
air
and
I.
Don't
think
we
do
our
businesses,
many
favors
and
you
know
I,
can't
support
it.
I
but
I
feel
really
bad
for
the
business
because
I'm
one
of
them
that's
not
a
conflict
of
interest.
That's
just
sharing
the
difficult
journey.
It
is
to
be
a
business
in
this
city.
Today,
I'm
almost
embarrassed,
and
so
here
they
are.
T
If
they
gone
this
far
and
and
I
can't
I
I,
don't
know
why
we're
there
I,
don't
know
why
we're
there
and
but
we
are
for
them
and-
and
I
just
think
I
think
the
term
of
bending
it
just
seems
like
that,
and
I
do
respect
the
work
of
staff.
I
do
told
them
that
it's
not
about
that,
because
ultimately
they're
doing
what
we
wanted.
You
know
we
want
to
find
a
way
to
find
a
place
for
business
out
there.
T
But
you
know-
and
here
we
try
in
that,
but
unfortunately
you
know-
I
know
you
say
it's
a
rural
area
but
there's
a
lot
of
houses
there
and
I'm
worried
about
the
precedent
as
well.
I
don't
think
when
you
build
a
house
to
make
that
close
I'd
I'd,
you
know,
even
though
it's
agriculture,
you
know
you
can.
If
you're
do,
I
don't
know
if
they're
gonna
do
repairs
there.
I
don't
know,
but
it's
a
it's
a
it's
unfortunate
that
you'd
have
to
go
through
this
kind
of
zoning.
Just
to
put
a
limited
in
the
use.
T
That's
clipped
so
much
that
I
feel
embarrassed
for
the
business
that
they
can't
do
what
they
want
and
I'm
100%
sure
we
can
find
a
better
location
than
that.
So
you
know
that
kind
of
controlling
on
the
business
as
a
businessman
I'm
telling
you
that
is
unbelievable,
unbelievable
to
me,
but
I'm
saying
that
out
loud,
so
I
I'm
troubled
by
it
I
think.
Maybe
the
council
should
review
it.
T
A
Thank
you
just
a
quick
comment
on
the
process.
Whatever
decision
is
made
tonight
goes
to
council-
probably
the
first
meeting
in
in
early
July
for
approval
at
that
point.
That
is,
if,
whatever
decision
we
make,
if
it's
upheld
at
at
council,
then
that
becomes
the
position
of
the
city
of
kingston
a
lot
of
we.
We
have
delegated
authority
for
site
plan
to
our
staff
and
so
say
plan
quite
frank,
frequently
is
done
by
staff
with
the
developer
and
doesn't
come
back
to
planning
or
council.
A
There
is
an
opportunity
for
what's
called
a
bump
up
and
often
bump
up
is
is
where,
after
whatever
the,
if
it's
approved
at
council,
a
bump
up
is
requested,
often
by
the
district
councillor
seconded,
and
we
pretty
routinely
support
bump
ups
and
counsel,
and
if
that
happens,
that's
an
opportunity
for
the
site
plan
process
to
come
back
to
planning
in
a
public
for
the
public
to
see
where
we're
going
with
that,
so
that
that's
the
way
a
bit
of
a
process
walk,
that's
the
way
the
process
can
work.
So
just
for
your
information.
A
Is
it
indeed
a
a
small
bit
remains
a
small
business
and
likely
will
and
it's
a
tough
decision
and
again
I
respect
the
staff
and
the
report,
but
I
the
reason
we
don't
delegate
all
authority
to
staff.
The
reason
we
have
elected
councils
is
so
that
we
can
reflect
upon
those
recommendations,
so
I'm,
sorry,
I
didn't
mean
to
go
that
far
I
should
have
transferred
the
chair,
yeah
I'll.
A
You
so
see
comments
or
questions.
I
will
call
the
question
all
those
in
favor
opposed
so
that
fails.
It
will
now
go
to
council
with
a
report
now
I
believe
that
when
we
turn
down
a
recommendation
of
staff,
we
have
were
given
an
opportunity
to
write
our
rationale.
For
that
and
you
now
have.
We
now
have
four
people
that
can
the
only
person
that
doesn't
have
to
write
their
rationale
for
their
vote
is
Laura
the
rest
of
us.
We
should
sit
down
over
coffee
and
do
that.
A
A
E
A
A
A
Comprehensive
recommendation,
which
is
652,
Princess
Street
and
it's
fo
ten
consultants
in
eight
sage,
Kingston
development
and
there's
a
recommendation
before
us.
We've
had
a
couple
of
public
meetings
and
and
an
informal
neighborhood
meeting
just
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
So
we've
had
a
kind
of
thorough
kick
of
the
can,
but
I'll
now
invite
our
lead
senior
staff
person
to
speak
to
this
recommendation.
Y
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
planning
committee
staff,
as
well
as
interested
members
of
the
public
subject
of
my
presentation
this
evening,
is
to
present
the
staff
recommendation
with
respect
to
applications
for
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
the
subject
site
location
is
municipal,
Ino,
Nazz,
652,
princess
street
662
to
670
princess
Street
and
551
Victoria
Street.
Y
As
the
chair
is
noted,
these
applications
have
been
before
the
committee
through
a
statutory
public
meeting
that
was
held
roughly
a
year
ago
on
June
8
2017
and
the
evolution
of
the
proposal,
since
that
time
has
seen
three
subsequent
submissions:
three
peer
reviews
being
the
heritage
impact
statement.
The
urban
design
report,
as
well
as
the
traffic
impact
study
and
elements
of
the
design,
have
also
been
informed
by
technical
expertise
provided
by
mr.
Brant
tottering.
Y
Y
Y
I'll
note
that
there
are
seven
ground
oriented
units
along
Victoria
Street
that
are
proposed,
there's
a
centralized
and
interior
access
to
the
underground
parking
currently
accessed
via
a
rear
Lane
with
access
aggress
at
Nelson
and
Victoria
streets.
There
are
48
surface
parking,
spaces
proposed
and
111
underground
parking
spaces,
and
the
design
now
incorporates
a
number
of
greening
elements
of
the
perimeter
in
the
rear
of
the
site
with
gathering
areas
and
seating
areas.
Y
In
terms
of
the
overall
chronology
of
the
applications.
A
pre-application
meeting
was
held
on
September
26
2016,
the
Planning
Act
applications
were
submitted
on
May
8
2017.
The
statutory
public
meeting,
as
I
mentioned,
was
held
on
June
8
2017
and
to
non-statutory.
Community
meetings
have
been
held
on
May,
10th,
2017
and
one
just
recently
earlier
this
month
on
June
5th.
E
Y
Terms
of
public
notification
for
this
evenings
meeting
a
regular
meeting
notice
was
provided
to
the
120
meter
radius
from
the
site
going
to
131
property
owners
residents
who
requested
notice
receive
the
notes
as
well,
that
totals
31
residents.
The
on-site
signage
was
updated
and
a
courtesy
ad
was
placed
in
the
Kingston
week
standard.
I
Y
Next
few
slides
that
I
have
included
just
provide
a
visual
photographic
overview
of
the
context
of
the
site.
This
slide
is
of
you
looking
at
a
west
along
Princess.
Street
next
slide
is
of
you
looking
north
on
Victoria
Street
and
in
the
the
photograph
you
can
see
the
designated
building
across
the
street,
known
as
647
princess
Street.
Y
Y
Y
Y
The
photo
shows
the
current
stucco
cladding.
The
applicant
is
part
of
the
applications,
undertook
a
building
condition
assessment
and
the
building
was
found
to
be
in
good
condition
in
the
limestone
masonry.
Underneath
the
stucco
was
found
to
be
in
good
condition
and
is
going
to
be
able
to
be
restored.
Y
So
the
the
Heritage
impact
statement
provided
for
the
applications
limited
the
identified
heritage
value
to
the
karnovski
bakery
building,
meaning
that,
as
part
of
the
purpose
of
the
more
modern
buildings
along
Francis
Street
into
the
rear
of
the
Karnofsky
bakery
would
be
removed
to
accommodate
the
proposed
development
and
the
karnovski
bakery
building
would
be
reinvigorated,
with
a
proposed
commercial
use.
In
addition,
and
an
adjacent
patio
use
through
the
proposed
development,
this
slide
shows
the
Victoria
Street
elevation
of
the
karnovski
bakery
building
and
what's
evident
from
this
photo.
Y
Is
it
just
shows
the
the
constrained
nature
of
the
placement
of
the
building
in
terms
of
it's
a
location
right
on
the
lot
line
adjacent
to
a
fairly
narrow,
sidewalk
and
Boulevard
area
in
terms
of
the
Official
Plan?
The
red
shading
with
in
this
slide
denotes
the
Main
Street
commercial
land
use
designation
in
the
Official
Plan,
surrounded
by
the
the
yellow,
which
is
the
residential
land
use
designation.
Y
This
slide
provides
a
summary
of
the
proposed
zoning
provisions.
I'm
just
gonna
deal
with
them
at
kind
of
a
high
level.
At
this
point,
both
the
height
and
angular
plane
provisions
are
proposed
to
be
addressed
through
a
height
map.
That
is
a
recommended
schedule
to
the
proposed
and
recommended
zoning
bylaw
amendment
in
terms
of
the
0.5
parking
space
ratio
for
residential
parking.
That
was
the
subject
of
a
peer
review
and
in
terms
of
the
zoning
relief
for
the
accessible
parking.
Well
note
that
all
of
the
proposed
provisions
are
compliant
with
provincial
regulation
on
the
matter.
Y
The
public
comments
that
were
received
at
that
time
followed
these.
The
themes
shown
on
this
slide
in
terms
of
building
height
density,
land-use
compatibility
and
transition,
shadowing
built
heritage
conservation,
the
provision
of
adequate
amenity
area,
vehicle
parking
and
bicycle
parking,
traffic
and
parkland
contribution.
Y
Both
staff
and
the
applicant
thoroughly
made
note
of
those
concerns,
and
so
there
were
some.
There
was
a
great
deal
of
work
put
into
the
proposal
in
terms
of
what
you
see
and
in
this
this
slide.
As
was
noted
earlier,
the
proposal
now
maintains
and
restores
the
karnovski
bakery
building
and
has
incorporated
a
number
of
mitigated
measures
and
urban
design
elements
to
improve
the
overall
proposal.
Y
I
Y
Y
So
the
elevations
that
you
see
on
the
right
of
the
screen
are
the
previous
design
and
the
ones
on
the
left
are
the
recommended
design.
There
are
some
numbers
assigned
to
the
elevations
within
the
recommended
design
that
highlight
some
of
the
specific
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
proposal
and
item
number
one
on
the
slide
corner
step
back
was
incorporated
at
the
southeast
corner
between
the
fifth
and
eighth
floors
to
remove
the
east
facing
balconies
up
on
the
corner.
Y
Y
Y
Y
In
terms
of
vehicular
access
to
the
site,
a
rear
Lane
has
always
been
part
of
the
proposal.
It
has
a
straight
alignment
and
connects
to
both
Nelson
and
Victoria
streets.
It
incorporates
a
width
of
6
meters
allowing
for
two-way
vehicular
movement
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there's
now
a
centralized
interior
access
egress
for
the
underground
parking.
Y
Some
concerns
were
recently
expressed
in
terms
of
the
alignment
of
existing
or
construction,
that's
underway,
of
those
accesses
versus
the
access
proposed
for
the
subject
development,
and
so
this
slide
shows
the
subject
site
on
the
right
and
the
existing
gas
station
and
Victoria
Street
is
the
street
in
question.
Here.
Y
Y
Y
Car
owners
with
vehicles
within
the
stacking
system
would
have
access
and
wouldn't
have
the
ability
to
independently
store
and
access
their
vehicle
through
this
system
and
staff
feel
that
it
in
terms
of
where
it's
been
sited
on
the
property.
It's
it's
a
unique
and
a
good
solution
to
an
urban
mixed
use.
Environment
such
as
the
site
in
question.
Y
In
terms
of
the
logistics
of
waste
and
deliveries
for
the
site,
this
slides
been
prepared
to
show
that,
in
terms
of
the
yellow
dots
within
the
site
plan,
2
loading
spaces
are
proposed
adjacent
to
the
rear
lane.
There
is
a
dedicated
waste
room
denoted
by
the
red
dot
for
the
building.
There
are
additional
service
rooms
noted
in
the
green
dots
at
grade
as
well,
and
what
an
important
quality
to
the
the
commercial
units
as
the
incorporation
of
a
rear
service
lane
at
the
rear
of
the
commercial
units
within
the
interior
of
the
building.
Y
So
the
proposal
now
includes
the
retention
of
the
heritage,
building
where
initially
a
public
park
at
was
proposed
in
that
location,
and
so
often
what
planners
are
faced
with
are
a
number
of
competing
objectives
and
restriping
to
find
the
right
balance
and
what
is
appropriate
for
the
site.
Well,
a
public
park
is
no
longer
part
of
the
proposal.
Y
Staff
will
be
collecting
a
cash
contribution
towards
the
parkland
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act
and
the
city's
parkland
dedication
by
law,
but
the
site
does
present
some
interesting
opportunities
for
potential
for
a
public
easement
for
public
parkland
over
the
site
and
staff.
Are
you
should
the
application
be
approved,
looking
forward
to
discussing
those
opportunities
and
engaging
with
the
public
around
those
opportunities.
Y
In
terms
of
community
benefits,
these
are
would
be
a
benefit.
That's
completely
separate
from
the
parkland
dedication
that
I
just
referenced.
This
slide
shows
schedule
PS
1
of
the
official
plan
that
shows
for
green
streets,
with
Victoria
Street
being
a
priority.
Green
Street
and
three
other
secondary
green
streets
being
Nelson
Street,
Alfred
and
Albert
Street.
Y
In
terms
of
the
the
overall
recommendation
that
staff
are
putting
forward,
in
summary,
the
proposed
official
plan
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
the
Williamsville
Main
Street
study.
The
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
Official
Plan.
The
proposed
mixed-use
intensification
within
the
service
turbine
boundary
represents
desirable
development
for
the
area
and
good
land
use,
planning
and
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
application.
Y
At
this
time
should
the
applications
be
approved,
the
next
steps
would
be
to
re-engage
with
the
site
plan,
control
application
that
has
been
filed
by
the
applicant
and
to
move
through
the
technical
review
of
that
application.
You
have
happy
to
take
questions
or
comments
on
the
recommendation.
Thank.
Z
To
me,
mr.
chair,
stop
her
proposing
one
very
minor
technical
amendment
to
the
draft
by
law.
That's
been
included
as
Exhibit
B.
We've
noticed
that
the
site
specific
zone
number
in
bylaw,
eight,
four
nine
nine
has
been
used
on
two
of
the
reports
on
tonight's
agenda.
So
254
Collingwood
Street
actually
has
exception.
Number
five,
five,
six,
so
we're
proposing
a
technical
amendment
to
the
proposed
draft
by
line
Exhibit
B
to
reflect
a
change
from
exception;
five,
five:
six
to
exception
five:
five:
seven
and
that's
the
only
change
thank.
A
T
Never
really
commented
on
this
I've
watched
it
evolve
and
I
just
I'm
very
impressed
with
it
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
well
done.
I
I
think
it's
been
an
exercise
in
patience
and
with
Brent
taught
her
into
input.
We
have
a
striking
building
with
a
lot
of
innovation
and
problem.
Solving
and
I
want
to
I
do
want
to
commend
staff
and
and
everyone
for
everything,
they've
done
to
get
it
to
this
point,
and
it's
amazing.
E
A
A
A
Is
it
your
opinion
that
we'll
be
able
to
really
green
the
streets,
especially
with
the
additional
setback
that
we've
achieved
along
the
commercial,
frontage
and
I,
know,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
green
space
at
Nelson?
Street
I
really
am
hopeful
that
we'll
be
able
to
through
site
plan,
really
thoroughly
green
that
space
and
have
benches
and
have,
even
though
it
won't
be
a
fish
'l
park
at
that
the
city
would
have
to
cut
the
lawn
on.
A
Y
Y
In
in
their
assessment
and
in
staffs
assessment,
the
actual
impact
on
on
the
sidewalks
of
Victoria,
princess
and
Nelson,
as
well
as
any
adjacent
private
amenity
areas,
it
falls
within
levels
that
are
considered
acceptable.
Within
our
policy
documents
and
our
guidelines,
you
might
have
a
shadow
on
Victoria
Street
at
9:00
a.m.
but
within
the
the
fall
and
summer
solstice,
but
it
quickly
moves
off
the
site
to
allow
for
for
those
areas
to
experience
sunlight
for
the
better
part
of
the
day.
At
those
times.
A
AA
N
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
thanks
to
SAP
the
presentation
and
to
the
committee
for
their
good
questions
and
the
answers
so
on
I
have
a
solution
which
the
sketch
is
part
and
I
had
a
written
part
as
well,
which
I
will
give
for
the
clerk
so
that
they'll
being
on
the
record,
that'll
save
him
from
having
to
worry
about
writing
it
all
down.
N
So
my
first
point
is
I
generally
support
the
project
and
I'm
impressed
with
the
ability
of
the
proponent
to
respond
to
concerns
from
the
public
and
from
members
of
the
planning
committee.
I
think
there's
been
a
very
good
interaction
there,
a
lot
of
cross-pollination
of
ideas,
so
that's
been
productive.
N
Okay,
so
I
have
a
actual
redesign
of
one
aspect
of
your
project
which
I'm
gonna
describe
now
and
that
what
that
is
is
the
sage
projects.
Access
egress
for
vehicles
would
be
done
from
Victoria
Street,
only
not
from
Nelson
Street.
Due
to
two
polls-
proximity
to
the
approved
in
progress,
Patrick
projects,
access
egress,
which
is
right
across
on
Nelson
Street.
N
N
Now
you
describe
that
you
have
the
original
proposal
of
the
park
app
on
the
corner
of
Victoria
and
Princess,
that
you
retain
the
Heritage
House,
which
I
very
much
liked
so
I'm,
proposing
that
instead
of
the
access
egress
off
Nelson
that
you
could
create
a
park
up
there
and
as
councillor
Neill
was
speaking,
he
identified
that
area
is
already
having
some
nice
vegetation.
So
perhaps
those
truth
could
be
coordinated.
N
K
K
Y
The
proposed
location
and
design
of
the
access
egress
and
the
rear
lane
has
been
a
subject
of
technical
review
by
the
engineering
department
of
the
city
of
Kingston,
as
well
as
the
traffic
impact
study.
That
was
those
peer-reviewed
as
well
in
terms
of
the
functionality
of
accessing
the
parking
spaces,
the
car
stacking
system
and
the
underground
parking
I
think
those
elements
are
dependent
on
on
an
access
that
that
exits
onto
both
Nelson
and
and
Victoria
streets.
Y
The
staff
had
prepared
a
slide,
which
we
had
showed
earlier,
indicating
that
the
development
at
6:30
Princess
Street,
with
its
underground
parking
garage
that
access
egress
is,
is
fairly
well
separated
from
the
proposed
Nelson
Street
access
egress
for
this
site,
the
neighboring
site
accommodates
23
SPARC
parking
spaces.
So
it's
so
much
less
intense
use
on
that
site
and
from
that
standpoint,
relying
on
the
technical
input
of
the
the
studies,
as
well
as
the
engineering
staff
with
the
City
of
Kingston
staff,
are
satisfied
with
the
the
rear
Lane
and
the
access
egress,
as
proposed.
Y
In
terms
of
whether
or
not
car
stacking
systems,
if
there
are
others
in
operation
to
this
scale
on
other
sites
and
Kingston
staff
at
this
time
are
not
aware
of
this,
but
find
that
it's
it's
a
good
fit,
and
it's
well
buffered
and
in
terms
of
any
noise
that
it
would
generate.
It's
subject
to
a
detailed
noise
study
through
site
plan
control
to
ensure
that
any
noise
generated
by
it
meets
provincial
guidelines.
Y
And
while
a
dedicated,
parkland
perc
Burkett
is
not
envisioned
for
the
site
at
this
time,
as
I
noted,
the
site
does
present
interesting
opportunities
for
public
easements
to
enshrine
public
access
to
various
components
of
the
site
that
the
public
can.
You
know,
perhaps
grab
a
coffee
at
a
local
coffee
shop
and
and
enjoy
the
seating
area
at
the
rear
through
a
less
visually
intense
location
and
enjoy
that
quiet
space.
D
My
name
is
Sharon's
line.
I
live
on
a
lip
of
14
dermis
tree,
which
is
across
Victoria,
and
the
first
house
facing
Princess
Street
from
from
that
particular
area.
I
would
like,
first
of
all,
to
thank
Mike
Keene
yesterday
for
devoting
some
time
to
my
questions
and
I
certainly
appreciated
his
forthrightness
and
I
certainly
appreciated
his
a
genuine
courtesy
and
I
want
to
state
that
from
the
beginning
and
I
think
that
that
is
generally
reflective
of
the
people
with
whom
he
works
on
this
particular
on
this
particular
project.
D
I
am
pretty
pleased,
generally
speaking
with
what
has
gone
on
here,
but
I
loathe
the
height
I
loathe
the
height
and
I
have
to
say
that
I
this,
the
shuttle
plans
are
legalities
that
exist,
but
they
deal
with
9:00
to
5:00,
which
are
business
hours.
The
the
this
is
a
residential
area
and
the
thing
is
people's
lives
start
before
9
o'clock.
Mine
starts
at
10
after
5:00
every
morning,
and
so
consequently,
the
the
building
the
Sun
rises
between
what
used
to
be
the
hindquarter
and
the
other
heritage
building,
which
is
now
a
doctor's
office.
D
D
Ten,
seven
six,
eight
whatever
are
put
along
princess
Street,
but
that
divide
is
going
to
be
resurrected.
That
divide
is
going
to
be
resurrected
because
these
buildings-
although
this
is
more
amenable
than
the
other
buildings
that
as
I
said
in
my
letter
to
everyone
else-
clutter
princess
Street.
Currently,
the
newer
buildings
thing
is
that
that
this
this
is
more
community
minded
in
that
it
opens
up
to
Victoria
Street.
There
is
a
walkway
through,
but
I
would
suggest
to
you.
D
D
These
approvals
affect
living
things,
people
and
animals,
and
you
know
cold
calculated,
like
academic
ideas.
Sometimes
just
don't
fill,
fill
fill
the
vacuum.
There
has
to
be
a
balance
between
the
letter
of
the
law.
If
you
like,
and
the
spirit
of
the
law
and
in
some
instances
it
just
it
needs,
maybe
more
recalculating.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
And
it's
a
technical,
straightforward
one
all
those
in
favor
carried
I
just
want
to
say-
and
we
heard
this
a
little
bit
at
the
public
meeting
at
the
neighborhood
meeting.
We
had
some
criticisms
about
and
some
frustration
that
we
have.
What
I
think
is
a
wonderful
secondary
plan,
which
is
the
Williamsville
corridor
secondary
plan,
which
we
based
our
zoning
on
which,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
I,
think
I
can
still
say
it's
the
newest
piece
of
zoning
in
the
city
and
there's
been
some
criticism
that
we
haven't
seen
on
the
street.
A
A
So
any
further
comments
questions
all
those
in
favor
carried
unanimously.
Thank
you
very
much
and
we
have
one
other
thing
which
was
I
believe
just
an
information
report.
Although
we
had
the
the
urban
pending
and
committed
to
housing,
supply
and
lifespan
review,
which
we
received
earlier
in
the
briefing
seeing
no
further
comments
on
that.
A
So
the
recommendation
is
information
purposes
only
and
emotions
notices
of
motion,
other
business
correspondence
we
received
and
I
also
forwarded
the
one
letter
that
we
all
received.
Date/Time
of
the
next
meeting
bright
and
early
July
5th
at
6:30
p.m.
so
looking
for
a
motion
to
adjourn
councilors
Java,
counselor
Turner.
All
those
in
favor
carried.