►
Description
Planning meeting from July 5, 2018. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2KBnWXe
A
A
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification
of
further
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
open
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording
in
the
minutes,
there's
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
and
less
otherwise
noted.
A
The
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion.
An
exception
to
this
rule
is
combined
reports
which
consolidates
the
public
meeting
and
comprehensive
reports.
These
applications
are
deemed
by
staff
as
straightforward
and
routine.
This
business
practice
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
is
received
by
the
app
applicants
as
efficient
customer
service
and
effective
use
of
committee
time.
Please
note
that
staff
use
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
A
Public
meetings
report
reports
are
provided
to
inform
the
public
and
all
relevant
information
information
gathered
is
then
referred
back
to
Planning
and
Development
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
the
Planning
Committee.
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
applications.
When
this
review
is
completed,
a
report
will
be
prepared
making
a
recommendation
for
action
to
this
committee.
The
recommendation
is
typically
to
approve
with
conditions
or
to
deny.
A
This
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
City
Council
City
Council
has
the
final
say
on
the
application.
From
the
city's
perspective,
following
Council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
If
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal.
The
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
local
planning,
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaw
is
passed.
A
B
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
my
name
is
Mark
time:
I
registered
professional
planner
with
ibi
group
here
tonight
for
a
statutory
public
meeting
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
of
three
properties
at
the
corner
of
Portsmouth
and
King
Street
West
in
Kingston.
The
request
is
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
twelve
unit
three
and
a
half
stories,
stacked,
townhouse
developments
at
the
corner,
made
way
for
by
the
demolition
of
three
existing
dwellings
and
the
property.
B
As
noted,
the
application
is
for
three
properties
along
the
eastern
furnish
at
Portsmouth
Avenue
wrapping
around
a
new
King
Street
across
from
Saint
Lawrence
College,
its
provincial
campus
to
the
south
new
providence
care
hospital
to
the
southwest
and
just
of
note
particulars
the
providence
care
secondary
plan,
a
provincial
campus
secondary
plan,
which
will
allow
for
significant
development
kitty-corner
to
the
subject.
Property
set
some
in
the
broader
context
in
the
in
the
area.
The
existing
properties,
three
separate
parcels
currently
each
contain
a
single
detached
dwelling.
B
They
have
been
there
they're
the
original
dwellings
on
the
lot.
As
far
as
we're
aware,
all
containing
a
single
unit,
all
currently
rental
tenure,
the
surrounding
uses,
as
I
pointed
out,
is
a
mix
of
institutional
and
predominantly
residential,
associate
with
the
Portsmouth
neighborhood
to
the
west
or
the
east
of
st.
Lawrence
College.
It's
also
significant
to
open
space
in
the
area,
notably
Lake,
Ontario
Park.
B
The
property
is
in
close
proximity
to
a
number
of
uses.
Kingston
transit
transfer
points
at
Saint,
Lawrence
College,
as
we
said,
province
care,
provincial
campus,
Portsmouth,
village
itself
to
the
east,
along
King,
Street
West
and
in
the
future
I'd
into
the
residential
mixed-use
across
the
street
as
part
of
the
Providence
or
a
secondary
plan.
B
The
proposal
is
for
three
and
a
half
story.
12
units
tagged
townhouses,
this
point
conception
conceptually.
It
would
have
34
bedrooms
a
mix
of
two
in
three
bedrooms:
11
parking
spaces,
almost
one-to-one
bicycle
parking
on
the
north
side,
next
to
the
parking
and
a
landscaped
amenity
area
in
the
rear
yard.
B
This
is
a
conceptual
site
plan
shows
the
building
close
along
the
streetscape
to
kind
of
define
the
edge
individual
accesses
to
each
unit
would
be
from
directly
from
the
sidewalk
11
parking
spaces.
Bicycle
parking,
as
well
as
garbage
and
recycling
storage
in
the
side
yards
along
Portsmouth
Avenue,
there's
provision
for
a
metre,
wide
landscape
buffer
along
the
edge
from
the
parking
area
and
in
the
rear
yard,
intended
to
be
landscaped
open
space
with
a
crate
or
first
level
porches
and
then
upper
level
balconies.
B
The
concepts
here
show
the
elevations
from
Portsmouth
and
then
from
the
rear
of
the
building,
and
so
intention
is
for
a
mixture
of
traditional
materials,
brick,
stone,
etc,
and
the
owner
developer
is
a
looking
for
a
trivet,
fairly
traditional
style
for
Kingston
in
terms
of
the
mix
and
materialism.
The
Victorian
design,
with
perhaps
some
kind
of
modern
touches
inserted
as
well.
B
Also,
with
respect
to
housing,
districts,
infill
and
off-campus
housing
on
that
point,
I'll
note
that
the
owner
is
looking
for
this
to
be
market
housing,
not
oriented
toward
students,
although
it
is
located
in
close
proximity
to
college
the
intentions
more,
that
there's
employment
uses
nearby,
particularly
Providence
care
hospital,
Queens,
West,
Campus,
etc.
So
this
is
reflected
in
the
parking
ratio
as
well.
It's
close
to
one
to
one.
B
So
the
intention
is
that
it
is
very
viable
for
the
wider
rental
market
perspective
zoning
it's
currently
in
an
a5
zone,
as
is
the
majority
of
the
neighborhood
east
of
Portsmouth
Avenue.
The
request
is
to
place
it
in
a
site-specific
b3
zone
which
would
allow
for
a
multiple
family
dwelling
such
as
being
proposed.
B
The
request
is
to
allow
for
a
reduction
in
the
minimum
yards,
particularly
along
the
front,
to
bring
it
closer
to
the
street,
also
on
the
easterly
side,
yard
building
height
proposed,
there's
no
minimum
or
no
maximum
building
height
and
zoning
not
currently
for
that
zone.
We're
looking
for
three
and
a
half
stories-
or
this
is
a
type
of
12
meters-
not
13-
also
a
lot
occupancy
relief
as
well
as
parking.
A
manatee
area
were
actually
able
to
meet
them
any
area
requirement
of
18.5
square
meters
per
dwelling
unit,
so
no
relief
is
required
there.
B
So
in
conclusion,
we
believe
the
application
is
consistent
with
the
PPS,
conforms
to
the
Official
Plan
and
is
appropriate,
and
we
were
supportive
of
the
request
and
would
recommend
it
for
approval
to
Council.
That's
everything
I'll
note
that
the
owner,
one
of
the
owners
is
here
tonight
his
son
to
garrison
as
well
and
myself
as
the
agent.
So
we
were
able
to
answer
questions.
C
You
mr.
confirmed
that
notice
was
provided
for
this
public
meeting
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
with
notices
placed
on
the
property
20
days
in
advance
and
notices
sent
by
mail,
238
properties
within
120
metres
of
the
subject
property.
There
was
a
courtesy
notice
in
the
week
last
week,
On
June
26th
and
to
date,
I
haven't
received
any
public
comments
in
writing
or
by
phone
or
by
counter.
Although
I
did
receive
one
note
from
the
local
councillor.
A
D
B
I've
seen
through
You
mr.
chair,
so
the
application
is
proposing
a
reduction
in
the
in
the
side
yard
in
the
front
yard
setbacks,
but
there
would
be
enough
room
along
the
frontage
for
some
plantings.
I'll
note
also
that
engineering
had
requested
a
one
metre
road
widening
to
widen
the
sidewalk.
If
you're
familiar
with
the
area.
You
know
it's
quite
tight,
particularly
at
the
corner
of
the
intersection,
so
the
sidewalk
would
be
widened,
which
would
provide
some
more
breathing
room,
but
there
would
still
be
some
room
for
landscaping
as
well.
B
E
A
B
Good
question,
and
certainly
a
common
one
for
infill,
so
the
property
to
the
east,
see
if
I
have
a
good
air
photo.
That
shows
it
so
here
so
currently
there's.
So
this
is
a
subject
property
here.
Currently
this
property
on
the
other
side
of
the
neighboring
property,
was
recently
given
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
allow
to
approximately
three
Story
3
unit
dwellings.
B
On
the
east
side
yard
story
of
the
proposed
development
is
significant,
bigger
than
we've
seen
in
some
of
these
other
similar
projects
and
one
recently
that
we
had
done
on
Wall
Street,
and
so
it
does
provide
a
minimum
of
four
meters
so
which
is
about
15
15
feet.
The
rear
yards
are
intended
to
have
kind
of
a
trade
decks
at
best.
You
can
kind
of
see
it
through
here
and
then
there
will
be
balconies
at
the
second
floor.
B
So
one
concept
we
had
had
some
third
floor
balconies,
but
we
went
away
from
those
because
of
that
issue,
so
we're
trying
to
treat
that
frontage
sensitively
in
terms
of
the
Overlook
there
I
think
it's
just
it's
something
that
we've
seen
along
that
frontage
as
densifies
I,
guess
that
we
are
getting
a
little
bit
closer
to
those
yards.
But
the
intention
is
to
provide
enough
of
a
setback
and
not
be
high
to
have
to
avoid
that
Overlook.
A
A
Thank
you.
I
will
now
turn
to
the
public.
There's
a
microphone
at
this
chair
here
and
a
microphone
at
this
chair.
Anybody
who
wishes
to
speak
are
more
than
welcome
to
go
to
one
of
those
microphones
you're,
given
a
an
opportunity
to
to
speak
to
the
issue,
make
sure
you
give
your
name
and
address,
and
you
have
five
minutes
I'm
getting
cute
by
that
clerk
here
and
you
get
five
minutes.
So
thank
you.
G
Thank
You
mr.
chair
Frank
deck
soon,
495
Alfred,
preppin,
2,
K,
7,
K,
4,
j
4,
thanks
to
the
planner
for
the
presentation
and
the
information
from
staff
and
the
questions
so
far,
I
had
a
question
about
how
many
bedrooms
are
there
currently
in
the
three
houses
that
are
there
now
I'm,
just
looking
at
like,
if
that,
if
this
gets
approve
and
those
get
taken
down,
we're
gonna
lose
those
in
the
short
term
right.
If
we
do
get
around
building
this,
then
we're
gonna
be
gaining.
G
You
know
in
the
longer
term,
but
as
my
concern
is
we're
looking
at
a
little
big
surge
of
housing
next
a
while,
with
the
increased
density
that
the
project
proposes.
We're
gonna
have
some
further
traffic
impact
because
we're
close
to
two
arterial
roads
right,
you're
gonna,
be
accessing
off
ports
mode,
which
is
a
busy
street
and
then
you're
close
to
King
Street,
which
was
also
very
busy
I
just
said:
there's
a
lot
stuff
there
hospital
is
there
st.
G
Lawrence
College
as
close
to
Portsmouth
Village,
there's
large
Deval,
not
going
in
on
the
south
side
of
King
and
next.
My
other
question
is
mr..
Chow's
talked
about
wanting
to
widen
the
sidewalk
there
and
seems
like
a
good
idea.
She
said
that
is
a
bit
of
a
narrow
spot
there
with
traffic
and
you've
got
a
lot
of
buses
going
through
there.
Certainly
in
the
winter,
it's
an
issue
through
there
down
on
them.
G
A
E
I
was
very
pleased
when
I
saw
this
application
come
forward.
This
is
the
sort
of
thing
I've
been
asking
for
for
a
while
two
arterial
roads,
housing
that
really
doesn't
function
for
as
a
family,
home
area
anymore
and
I
am
extremely
happy
to
see
this
plan
come
forward.
I
had
mentioned
to
the
owners
that
to
me
this
is
a
signature
corner,
it's
the
beginning
of
Portsmouth
Village.
So
it's
it's
really
quite
an
important
corner
and
I
think
it's
probably
the
first
design
for
this
company
in
Kingston.
E
So
it's
an
important
statement
for
them,
so
I'm
pleased
that
they
have
come
forward
with
the
design
that
sort
of
fits
the
idea
of
Portsmouth
Village
I
am
hoping
they
refine
it
a
bit
more
to
make
it
a
little
more
punchy
because
it
is
such
a
signature
spot,
but
I'm,
certainly
very
much
in
favor
of
this
type
of
infill
that
can
function
so
well
for
the
major
institutions
that
are
growing
in
the
area.
So
that's
my
comment.
Thank
you.
A
B
So
mr.
Dixon's
questions
I'm
not
sure
how
many
bedrooms
are
currently
existing.
If
I
had
to
guess
I'd,
probably
say
three
to
four
per
per
dwelling,
so
they
will
be
lost
while
the
property
is
redeveloped.
But
you
know
that's
kind
of
has
to
happen
for
for
new
development
and
new
bedrooms
to
be
added
to
the
property
concern
about
traffic
at
the
busy
intersection.
That's
certainly
something
that
was
discussed
with
the
city
and
currently
the
there
are
three
driveways
entering
into
the
sites
or
into
the
existing
three
properties
right
now,
I
know
just
anecdotally.
B
The
owners
said
that
the
person
who
is
at
one
of
these
two,
you
know
they
kind
of
have
to
position
themselves
and
time
themselves
because
cars
coming
around
the
corner.
They
don't
have
enough
time
to
you
know
if
they're
pulling
out
somebody
could
whip
around
the
corner
quite
quickly
and
they
wouldn't
have
time
so
they're.
You
know
very
tentative
about
getting
out
of
there
or
they
just
go
really
quick
and
get
out
of
the
way.
B
So
I
think
engineering
staff
are
pleased
that
the
entrance
would
get
moved
as
far
away
from
the
intersection
as
possible
to
provide
that
kind
of
distance
and
separation
and
then
in
terms
of
space
for
widening
on
the
sidewalk
I.
Think,
that's
precisely
because
it
is
such
a
tight
intersection
that
they
do
want
to
widen
the
sidewalk
and
allow
for
a
more
pedestrian
comfort,
especially
when
buses,
as
you
said,
are
coming
around
the
corner.
It
gives
that
extra
a
little
bit
of
breathing
room,
so
we
will
be
losing
that
space
from
the
properties.
B
A
A
H
Through
you,
mr.
chair
notice
of
these
applications
was
given
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
by
providing
a
statutory
public
meeting
notice
in
the
whig
standard
on
June
12
2008
Dean
more
than
20
days
prior
to
this
public
meeting
tonight,
notice
was
also
mailed
to
all
required
public
agencies
and
221
property
owners
who
had
requested
to
receive
notification
of
these
applications.
H
A
H
Okay,
so
good
evening,
mr.
chair
planning,
committee
and
members
of
the
public
I'm
here
this
evening
to
present
the
city's
initiated
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
applications
to
broaden
second
unit
residential
permissions
across
the
municipality.
Well,
I'm
gonna
begin
by
just
providing
a
little
background
information
in
context
to
understand.
What's
led
the
city
to
initiate
these
amendments,
I'll
outline
the
applications
and
then
provide
some
next
steps
in
terms
of
the
applications
so.
H
All
of
this
was
really
stemming
from
a
large
mandate
from
the
province
to
provide
municipalities
across
Ontario,
with
more
support
and
control
over
establishing
affordable
housing
initiatives
in
in
establishing
second
units.
The
provincial
policy
statement
has
further
complimented
these
changes
to
the
Planning
Act
by
indicating
that
intensification
should
be
promoted
and
facilitated,
and
second
units
are
one
item
that
specifically
referenced
us
as
being
included
in
that
in
2013.
The
city
initiated
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
to
address
second
residential
units.
H
H
Very
much
analysis
specifically
identifies
that.
The
second
units
are
to
be
permitted
in
all
of
those
zones
in
the
municipality
that
permit
single
semi,
Zandro
house
dwellings.
So,
overall,
our
current
five
main
principle:
zoning
bylaws-
do
not
conform
to
the
Official
Plan
policy's
Planning,
Act
legislation
and
components
of
the
provincial
policy
statement.
H
H
Current
zoning
regulations.
They
also
have
size
restrictions
that
they're
only
able
to
be
40%
of
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
main
dwelling
unit.
There
you
can
have
one
parking,
you
must
have
one
parking
space.
This
can
be
provided
through
a
tandem
arrangement,
so
essentially
one
car
in
front
of
the
other
there's
driveway
restrictions,
and
it
also
only
allows
one
residential
second
residential
unit
per
lot
and
they're,
also
not
permitted
on
Lots.
That
would
already
contain
a
boarding
house,
lodging
house
or
garden
suite
they're
prohibited
in
a
floodplain.
H
So
the
the
application
is
tonight
the
proposed
Official
Plan
Amendment
and
the
current
Official
Plan
and
policies
that
were
established
as
part
of
the
Official
Plan
Update
were
intended
to
permit
second
units
across
the
entire
municipality.
However,
in
the
actual
rural
hamlet
and
agricultural
area
designation
policies,
it
doesn't
clarify
this
very
well
and
you
could
argue
that
it
may
not
be
permitted.
So
we
are
proposing
to
amend
those
policies
to
provide
that
clarification,
that
it
is
permitted
in
the
rural,
agricultural
and
Hamlet
areas.
H
So
we
defeat
the
purpose
is
to
allow
them
on
their
own
Lots,
we're
also
proposing
to
Amanda
current
schedule.
We
have
in
the
Official
Plan
that
addresses
servicing
constraints
to
specifically
identify
known
or
potential
constraints,
so
this
this
map
right
here
displays,
and
it
is
an
existing
map
that
is
in
our
official
plan,
where
we,
where
there
is
no
nor
potential
servicing
constraints,
except
the
current
map.
We
have
right
now
doesn't
indicate
what
these
specific
constraints
are.
H
So
we
worked
with
utilities
Kingston
to
find
out
what
the
specific
issues
are
in
these
areas,
which
provides
more
information
for
staff
when
reviewing
applications
at
the
pre-application
stage
and
for
residents
as
well
just
to
identify
what
a
couple
of
them
are.
Some
of
them
are
combined
sewer
and
storm
water,
where
there's
sewer
surcharge
in
issues.
Sewer
surcharging
is
common
in
other
areas
as
well,
and
then
there's
also
sewage
capacity
constraints.
H
That
we're
proposing
as
part
of
this
is
to
include
a
new
policy
in
our
servicing
and
infrastructure
section
to
indicate
that
Planning
Act
applications
for
new
residential
units
that
are
located
in
a
known
or
potential
servicing
constraint
that
are
identified
on
the
schedule.
I,
just
displayed
must
demonstrate
adequate
water
and
wastewater
capacity
and
the
protection
of
Public,
Health
and
Safety,
and
the
this
this
development
of
this
policy
of
them
basically
stems
from
the
fact
that
servicing
constraints
are
not
simply
just
to
put
applicable
at
a
second
unit
and
as
part
of
Planning
Act.
H
So
in
regards
to
where
we
are
proposing
to
use
the
holding
symbol
and
we're
proposing
to
utilize
this
for
two
specific
servicing
constraint
areas,
the
first
one
applies
to
Hamlet's
and
rural
estates.
Subdivisions
where
we're
going
to
be
requiring
a
long
term
pump
test
and
letter
of
opinion
from
a
qualified
engineer,
stating
that
the
private
water
supply
is
sufficient
to
support
the
second
unit.
H
You
can't
see
too
well
from
here,
but
this
is
the
area
in
red
and
in
in
yellow
in
these
areas,
where
permitting
we're
putting
in
a
provision
that
second
residential
units
not
permitted
in
a
cellar
or
a
basement.
This
is
primarily
because
these
areas
are
subject
to
sewer,
surcharging
and
there's
an
increased
risk
of
basement
flooding
so
for
the
protection
of
public
health
and
safety.
We
are
proposing
that
restriction
there.
H
H
A
second
residential
unit
shall
only
be
permitted
if
it's
connected
to
municipal
services
or
private
water
and
sewage
services
approved
by
the
authority
having
jurisdiction.
So
this
is
just
to
confirm
that
there's
adequate
servicing
and
it
particularly
in
like
coach-house
situations,
they
must
be
able
to
hook
up
to
services
and
have
services.
A
second
residential
unit
should
not
be
permitted
in
a
floodplain
complying
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
official
plan
that
we
direct
development
away
from
natural
hazards
for
a
protection
of
life
and
property.
H
In
terms
of
density,
where
any
of
the
bylaws
calculate
density
as
a
measure
of
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare,
a
second
residential
unit
shall
be
exempt
from
this
calculation.
This
is
mainly
included
to
encourage
intensification
and
we
are
trying
to
promote
these
and
to
reduce
restrictions
around
them.
So
if
they
are
included
in
a
density
calculation,
many
of
them
would
not
be
permitted
to
proceed
and
due
to
the
scale
of
them,
we
we
felt
that
they
can
be
exempt
from
density
calculations
in
terms
of
parking.
H
We
are
permitting
I'm
proposing
to
permit
tandem
parking
spaces
to
accommodate
a
second
unit,
but
the
parking
space
location
shall
meet
all
other
applicable
provisions
of
the
bylaw.
So
this
is
to
allow
for
additional
flexibility
to
accommodate
parking
for
that
second
unit,
but
but
again,
important
to
note
that
other
provisions
have
to
be
met
in
the
bylaw,
so
parking
size
lengthen,
which
would
still
have
to
be
maintained
where
second
residential
units
attached
to
the
principal
dwelling
unit
at
the
second
residential
unit
may
have
a
separate
entrance
or
share
a
joint
entrance.
H
Vestibule
with
the
principal
dwelling
unit
and
again,
this
is
to
provide,
and
so
you
couldn't
have
two
separate
entrances
off
the
front.
But
a
tenant
could
essentially
share
the
the
entrance
through
the
the
front
door
to
provide
an
additional
way
to
accommodate
a
second
unit.
If
a
property
may
not
be
able
to
have
the
room
to
have
an
exterior
entrance
at
the
rear
or
side
of
the
property.
H
The
maximum
length
of
the
walkway
shall
be
40
meters,
and
this
was
a
provision
that
was
specifically
requested
by
emergency
services
in
that
with
extended
long
walkways,
and
they
don't
have
an
driveway
to
get
to
it.
It
can
cause
issues
in
response
time
in
being
able
to
obtain
who's
living
in
the
second
you,
it's
particularly
more
clickable
in
coach-house
situations
as
well.
No
person
may
park
a
vehicle
on
any
part
of
a
walkway
so
again
for
emergency
service
access
and
ensuring
the
walkways
not
unobstructed
the
gross
floor.
H
Area
of
the
second
residential
unit
must
be
less
than
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
principal
dwelling.
So
this
is
a
much
more
lenient
policy
than
our
provision
than
our
current
restrictions
that
require
40%
to
be
put
in
place
of
the
gross
floor
area.
So
a
lot
of
the
units
aren't
able
to
comply
with
this.
H
That
proposals
that
we
see
so
this
is
this
is
a
way
that
can
allow
them
to
proceed
more
and
we've
also
received
very
clear
direction
from
the
province
that,
aside
from
just
requiring
them
to
be
smaller
in
size
than
the
primary
dwelling,
we
shouldn't
be
restricting
their
size
and
any
more
than
that
so
for
a
detached
second
unit.
So
the
the
coach
houses
and
we
have
some
particular
specific
policies
I'm
surrounding
these
ones.
H
A
second
unit
will
be
permitted
in
a
detached
accessory
building,
but
they
must
meet
the
requirements
of
the
accessory
building
regulations,
except
the
rear
yard
setback
shall
not
be
less
than
three
meters
and
interior
side
yard
setback
shall
not
be
less
than
1.2
meters.
In
our
discussions
with
the
ministry
of
municipal
affairs,
they
would
really
like
to
see
our
provisions
around
coach
houses
not
to
be
any
more
restrictive
than
our
current
accessory
structure
provisions,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
make
reference
to
those.
H
However,
some
of
our
zones
and
some
of
the
bylaws
on
allow
accessory
structures
to
go
right
up
to
a
0
log
line
and
a
lot
of
the
setbacks
for
accessory
structures
were
not
developed
with
the
intent
of
habitable
space
being
in
these
structures.
So
we
are
proposing
that
they
have
to
meet
those
regulations,
but
in
those
situations
where
an
accessory
structure
may
be
only
required
to
meet
at
0
meter
lot
line,
we
are
proposing
that
they
have
to
have
at
least
3
metres
from
the
back
and
1.2
meters
from
the
side.
H
Detached
accessory
building
containing
a
second
unit
must
be
located
in
the
interior,
side
yard
or
rear
yard.
This
is
primarily
just
to
maintain
streetscape
and
to
ensure
that
the
primary
dwelling
really
is
the
the
principal
unit
and
that
the
coach-house
is
accessory.
The
footprint
of
a
building
containing
a
detached
unit,
excluding
an
accessory
use
which
serves
the
principal
dwelling,
may
not
exceed
40
percent
of
the
footprint
of
the
principal
dwelling
or
where
the
principal
dwelling
is
a
footprint
of
125
square
meters
or
less.
It
must
be
50
square
meters.
H
So
those
are
the
those
are
the
provisions
at
this
point.
In
regards
to
second
units,
there
is
one
more
owning
provision
that
we're
proposing
in
zoning
bylaw
8
499,
which
is
the
old
city
of
kingston
zoning
bylaw,
there's
currently
a
provision
in
there
right
now
that
prohibits
the
use
of
a
seller
as
a
dwelling
unit
or
as
a
habitation
unit
unless
otherwise
indicated
in
the
bylaw.
So
this
is
owning.
Bylaw
defines
a
seller
as
being
less
than
50%
above
grade,
and
this
was
prohibited
all
around.
H
In
this
particular
scenario,
this
is
just
a
top
up
view
where
you
can
see
that
there's
a
coach
house
in
the
back
of
the
second
and
I
have
a
few
diagrams
on
this.
Just
you
can
get
an
idea
of
the
scale
and
what
it
would
mean
to
the
surrounding
properties.
But
I
should
note,
though,
that,
in
accordance
with
our
provisions,
you
are
only
allowed
one
per
lot.
So,
even
though
it
does
show
one
inside
the
house
in
the
back
that
wouldn't
be
allowed,
we
just
shown
it
all
in
one
just
to
simplify
things.
H
So
here's
a
this
is
a
good
example
of
a
coach
house
in
the
back,
and
this
is
actually
done
to
scale
where
it
is
3
metres
from
the
property
line.
It
is
1.2
meters
from
the
side
yard
it's
40%
of
the
footprint
of
the
main
dwelling
legal
parking
spaces
in
the
front,
and
there
is
a
1.2
meter,
walkway,
that's
leading
to
it.
So
in
this
particular
situation
it
would
comply
with
with
the
zoning
bylaw.
The
other
thing
I
should
note
as
well
is
that
other
provisions
of
the
bylaw
are
still
applicable
to
these
as
well.
H
So,
for
example,
last
year,
there's
a
30%,
a
minimum
30%
landscaped
open
space
requirement
that
was
put
into
the
zoning
bylaws
and
coach
houses
would
still
be
subject
to
meeting
that
as
well.
So
in
this
particular
situation,
this
does
comply
with
the
30%
landscape
requirement
and
it's
just
showing
a
different
view
of
that
and
then
the
top
down
view
as
well.
H
So
the
next
steps
for
these
applications.
We
currently
have
an
online
survey.
That's
up
from
June
27th
to
July
13th.
You've
had
good
response
so
far,
I
think
we've
received
close
to
100
responses,
and
so
we
would
encourage
anybody
to
fill
that
out
as
well.
We're
gonna
be
having
further
consultation
with
the
ministry
of
municipal
affairs
on
these
provisions.
H
Reviewing
all
technical
comments
and
public
correspondence
and
based
on
all
of
that,
we're
likely
going
to
be
refining
on
some
of
these
proposed
amendments
based
on
the
feedback
and
then
in
the
fall
of
this
year.
We
anticipate
having
an
additional
statutory
public
meeting
with
a
comprehensive
report,
because
we
do
anticipate
that
there
may
be
some
changes
and
would
likely
want
an
additional
statutory
public
meeting
for
those
and
that's
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
I
You
and
through
you,
mr.
Jones,
that
was
a
very
comprehensive
report.
I
thank
you,
and
there
was
one
question
I
had,
but
you
answered
it
very
well
with
the
visual
and
I
thought
that
was
very
effective
about
the
how
far
away
the
the
suite
would
be
from
the
fence
in
the
backyard.
So
that
was
very,
very
good.
So
thank
you.
It's
great.
D
Your
chair,
so
we're
secondary
Suites,
used
to
have
to
be
no
more
than
40%
of
the
now
that's
being
changed.
Is
it
so
if
the
secondary
suite
is
inside
a
house,
not
a
coach
house,
but
inside
a
house
now
it
could
be
up
to
49%.
Is
that
where
you
had
the
slide
the
floor
area
requirements
and
you're,
saying
we've
taken
out
40%
as
long
as
it's
not
more
than
50%.
H
Yes,
three,
mr.
joy,
yes,
that's
it!
So
as
long
as
it's
just
smaller
in
gross
floor
area
than
the
main
than
the
main
dwelling,
then
that
would
be
okay.
The
only
place
where
we
are
proposing
a
restriction
in
size
is
with
the
coach
house
and
we
are
using
a
40%
actual
footprint.
But
if
it's
within
a
dwelling
we're
not
using
that
40%
cap
anymore,
okay,.
D
Thank
you
and
just
a
fall
to
that,
so
really
much
difference
between
like
Kissimmee
and
then
having
a
secondary
suite
is
there
other
than
with
the
semi
all
the
walls
are.
You
know
it's
like
two
completely
different
families
living
there,
but
if
we're
gonna
do
then
up
to
forty
nine
percent
of
the
gross
floor
area,
and
you
know
that
that's
a
change
yeah.
H
No
that's
it
is.
You
could
have
more
floor
space
dedicated
to
it,
I'm
one
in
one
of
the
areas
that
we've
noticed
where
it
could
be
helpful,
as
well
as
a
lot
of
people
would
like
to
use
their
entire
basement
as
space
for
a
second
unit
and
sometimes
that's
capped
off
where
they're
they're
unable
to
utilize
that
in
entire
space,
because
they
don't
meet
that
requirements.
And
now
in
this
the
entire
basement
could
be
used.
As
that.
But.
A
A
If,
if
somebody
wanted
to
alter
that,
would
they
have
to
come
to
this
committee
and
request
a
full
zoning
amendment
or
could
it
go
through
committee
of
adjustment,
which
concerns
me
somewhat
and
the
other
question
I
share
councillor
Sonic's
concerned
what,
if,
if
we
can
go
49%
for
a
secondary
Swede?
How
is
that
different
than
a
duplex
in
my
head
before
when
it
was
40%
that
made
a
clear
distinction
between
what
a
secondary
suite
was
and
what
a
duplex
was
and
I
think
that
gets
muddied
by
going
to
49%?
A
Having
said
all
of
that,
I
want
to
thank
you.
I
think.
The
best
way
to
address
to
address,
affordable
housing
is
probably
through
secondary
Suites
and
representing
the
core,
a
core,
a
ward
in
the
core
area
of
the
city.
For
too
long
we've
had
because
of
the
housing
shortage,
illegal,
secondary
Suites
and
by
legalizing
them,
and
then
they
we
can
ensure
that
they're
built
to
code
with
proper
fire
restrictions
and
other
things.
So
so
I
applaud
that
and
I'm
glad
that
we're
getting
away
when
this
first
came
up
in
I
think
it
was
2013.
A
The
reality
was
that
some
of
the
areas
that
were
restricted
were
restricted
purely
on
political
grounds.
The
district
counselor
didn't
want
secondary
Suites
in
his
or
her
district,
and
this
is
a
much
more
objective
and
logical
way
to
govern
secondary
Suites.
But
perhaps
you
could
address
some
of
those
questions.
Thank
you.
J
If
you're
now
gonna
allow
something
to
occupy
an
accessory
building,
you
have
habitation
of
a
space
in
someone's
backyard
potentially.
So
what
are
the
implications
of
that
from
a
loss
of
privacy,
obtrusive
overlook
and
those
sorts
of
things,
so
the
stacked
tandem
parking
piece
is
one
that,
where
we've
scenario
tested,
we
think
that
it
can
work.
We
think
that
it
can
allow
for
second
units
in
context,
we're
just
not
simply
enough
room
to
add
more
asphalt.
Nor
do
we
maybe
want
that.
J
The
committee
of
adjustment
versus
planning
committee
approach,
certainly
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
relief
sought
and
a
number
of
areas
of
relief
sought.
There
are
20
years
old
provisions
that
we've
walked
through.
So
if
people
need
really
for
more
than
one
or
two
provisions,
it
may
not
make
sense
to
go
through
minor
variants
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
and,
lastly,
the
duplex
I
think
the
reality
is
sure
you
end
up
with
something
that
is
composed
very
much
like
a
duplex.
In
reality,
whether
or
not
40
versus
49
really
has
an
impact
on
the
ground.
A
I
want
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
restriction
off
of,
but
with
conditions
off
of
the
rural
area.
I
previously
have
served
on
the
housing
and
homelessness
Committee,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
have
been
born
and
raised
in
countryside
living
in
Hamlet's,
not
having
an
opportunity
to
find
in
their
home
community,
affordable,
housing
and,
and
so
I
applaud
that
aspect
of
it.
Thank
you,
I
look,
thank
you,
so
we
will
now,
unless
there's
further
questions
or
comments,
we'll
turn
to
the
public
again.
A
K
K
So
most
of
us
understand
that
a
cellar
is
50%
on
average
below
grade,
whereas
50%
on
average
above
grade
would
be
a
basement.
So
in
a
cellar
it
appears
that
you
could
have,
for
example,
maybe
a
guest
bedroom
or
an
office.
Your
teenager
could
have
his
bedroom
down
there.
That
I
understand
that
would
be
habitation,
whereas
building
a
granny
flat
or
an
apartment
in
a
cellar
that
would
be.
That
would
be
different,
but
in
some
of
the
literature.
A
If
I
can
just
ask,
this
is
funny
protocol.
But
if
you
address
your
questions
through
me,
then
then
our
planning
staff
will
write
down
all
of
the
questions
and,
at
the
end
of
the
public
portion,
they'll
be
happy
to
answer
all
of
your
questions
and
if
there
are
further
questions
or
clarifications,
you
need
you're,
welcome
to
contact
in
written
form
or
clock
or
button
hold
them
on
the
way
out
of
the
room
later,
it's
just
to
avoid
debates
breaking
out
during
this
process.
So
thank.
A
F
My
my
name
is
Carol
Porter
and
I've
lived
in
Polson
Park
at
16
Bonnie
castle
Court
for
41
years,
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
number
of
houses
in
my
neighborhood
being
bought
by
investors
who
do
not
live
in
these
houses
but
who
rent
out
single
rooms.
Many
of
these
houses
were
originally
built
as
three-bedroom
bungalows,
but
are
now
being
advertised
as
six
bedroom
houses.
In
addition
to
the
three
bedrooms
on
the
main
level,
three
more
bedrooms
are
being
built
into
the
sellers.
F
Most
of
these
seller
bedrooms
have
small
windows
and
I
believe
the
rooms
are
more
than
50%
below
grade.
Some
of
these
rooms
are
targeting
the
student
population
of
st.
Lawrence
College
and
some
other
transient
populations.
My
concerns
are
as
follows:
by
laws
prohibiting
seller
capitation
were
written
for
a
reason
and
I
believe
that
that
reason
is
safety.
Proper
egress
in
a
fire
is
a
major
concern.
F
F
Tenants
living
in
these
houses
unsupervised
by
the
owner
can
lead
to
many
problems:
noise,
litter,
neglect
of
the
house
and
yard,
constant
10
turn
over
possible
use
of
kettles
hot
plates
and
the
like
in
small
individual
bedrooms,
creating
a
fire
hazard.
These
types
of
rentals,
where
many
individual
bedrooms
are
rented
to
individuals
versus
a
family
rental,
will
likely
result
in
the
devaluation
of
neighboring
properties,
as
people
will
balk
at
buying
a
house
near
them.
These
six
bedroom
houses
escape
being
called
rooming
houses
because
they
put
individuals
under
one
lease.
F
In
my
opinion,
this
is
simply
a
way
for
an
investor
to
escape,
having
to
be
licensed
as
a
rooming
house,
which
would
require
more
scrutiny
by
the
city.
In
my
opinion,
these
houses
are
in
fact
rooming
houses,
despite
the
occupants
being
under
one
lease
traffic
in
the
area
will
increase.
We
have
many
young
families
here
and
a
local
French
immersion,
Elementary
School,
which
attracts
many
families
with
children
to
our
neighborhood.
F
Increased
intensification
may
overload
municipal
infrastructure
such
as
sewers
and
drainage.
A
real
concern
for
me
is
the
response
of
authorities
to
monitor
and
respond
to
problems
related
to
intensification,
for
example,
noise,
parking
problems,
property
standards,
problems,
I
am
concerned
that
the
authorities
will
not
address
these
situation
in
a
timely
and
responsive
manner.
I
am
speaking
from
experience
here.
F
I
have
been
told
in
the
past
by
city
parking
personnel
that,
even
though
parking
on
the
street
over
12
hours
is
against
the
bylaw,
it
is
not
enforced
unless
the
vehicles
are
run
down
and
left
there
for
days.
I
have
been
told
in
the
past
that
the
city
does
not
have
enough
personnel
to
enforce
certain
bylaws
because
they
are
stretched
too
thin.
I
feel
that
if
the
city
loosens
bylaws,
will
it
be
there
to
support
residents,
owners
or
renters
in
their
attempt
to
lead
mutually
respectful
and
decent
lives?
F
Will
be
the
city
be
there
to
monitor
and
enforce
property
standard
and
parking
bylaws?
Our
neighborhood
is
currently
littered
with
cars
parked
illegal
illegally
over
12
hours
an
overnight
during
the
winter,
no
parking
enforcement
is
being
done,
except
by
repeated
calls
to
the
city.
We
require
better
municipal
oversight
if
bylaws
will
be
relaxed
in
the
future.
In
conclusion,
I
feel
that
our
neighborhood
will
be
changed
in
a
negative
way
if
these
multiple
single
bed,
thirty.
A
G
G
These
are
three
questions.
Number
one
is,
this
was
dealt
with,
I
think,
maybe
in
part
I'm
somewhat
just
kind
of
confused
I.
Guess
you
sort
of
how
to
deal
with
the
cases
of
sometimes
what
are
called
legal
non-conforming
right,
where
you
may
have
renovations
that
have
been
done,
that
you
didn't
know
about
it.
Weren't
filed
in
terms
of
a
an
amendment
or
through
many
of
adjustment
or
some
some
body,
but
they've
actually
been
done
and
they're
being
rented
out.
G
G
G
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
different
possible
constructions
that
are
available
out
there
and
I
am
concerned
about
units
being
advertised
as
secondary
suites,
where
fire
safety
provisions
might
not
be
adequate
and
then
my
final
point
is
speaking
with
the
hamlet
areas
are
all
basically
located
north
of
highway
401
or
maybe
to
the
east
and
highway
15
in
north
of
highway
to
serve
in
the
rural
area.
Don't
have
a
real
good
feel
for
where
those
actually
are
located
and
I'll.
G
L
I've
been
waiting
a
couple
of
years,
at
least
for
this
to
be
passed
so
I'm
glad
to
see
it's
happening.
It
does
seem
a
well-balanced
and
thought
through
process.
I
remain
a
bit
skeptical
about
coach
houses
because
I
in
my
neighborhood
there's
large
backyards
and
everybody
can
see
like
a
green
space.
Is
they
give
a
built-in
park?
And
if
you
just
somebody
sticks
a
coach
host
in
the
middle
of
that
it's
going
to
destroy
the
value
of
the
yard,
so
I'm
a
bit
concerned
about
that.
L
But
if
the
province
means
you
have
to
like
my
guess,
you
have
to
I,
also
AM
the
the
40
percent
and
the
basement
I
kind
of
agree
with,
because
that
forces
what
unfortunate
but
makes
it
normally.
You
would
have
a
furnace
room
and
a
repair
room
in
the
basement,
so
the
house
is
a
bit
better
taken
care
of
and
there's
a
way
for
everybody
to
get
to
the
electrical
boxes
safely.
It
was
a
comments,
but
my
main
question
is
I.
L
Couldn't
tell
at
all
what
you're
talking
about
with
the
areas
where
it's
gonna
be
restricted
because
of
capacity
like
I
saw
to
read
things
and
I'm
like
because
a
is
that
my
area
and
B?
What
does
it
mean
if
it's
restricted
capacity?
Does
the
city
have
any
obligations
or
plans
to
deal
with
the
capacity
problems
anytime
in
the
near
future?
Thank
you.
L
A
D
M
My
name
is
Anne
kezelowski,
so
my
reason
for
coming
to
the
mic
is
basically
to
support
the
lady
from
Paulsen,
Park
and
and
other
people
who
are
interested
in
second
units.
But
again
my
biggest
concern
is
how
the
city
is
going
to
monitor.
I
do
have
some
investment
properties
and
probably
for
most
people
here
they
probably
think
I
should
be
on
the
other
side
of
the
track,
but
my
biggest
concern
is
I.
M
Do
believe
that
income
properties
and
residential
can
mix
together,
but
over
the
past
years,
I
continued
to
to
improve
my
properties,
but
I
have
constantly
called
the
city
to
note
parking
on
lawns,
multiple
cars
in
the
driveway
parking
on
sidewalks,
and
yes,
these
are
probably
near
some
of
the
colleges
in
that.
But
still
it's
not
right.
We
can't
park
on
our
lawns
and
the
garbage
and
I
do
agree,
also
that
there
are
places
where
they're,
putting
way
too
many
people
in
the
houses.
There's
no
windows
for
some
of
the
areas
there.
M
People
are
flying
out
of
the
radar
and
yes,
there's,
probably
not
enough
staff,
but
again
if
they
open
the
doors
to
allow
more
residential
units,
secondary
units,
etc,
etc.
It
can
work,
but
not
unless
it's
properly
set
out
and
monitored,
and
it's
a
shame
for
the
residential
areas
for
the
people
who,
in
my
opinion,
feel
that
a
lot
of
these
people
who
are
buying
for
investors
myself
included
twelve
years
ago
I
bought
in
a
nice
area.
M
I
want
to
have
nice
neighbors
respect,
it's
safe,
it's
clean,
but
over
time
when
people
come
in
and
they
don't
look
after
their
properties,
they
don't
respect
the
neighbors.
They
don't
respect
the
laws
they
Park
on,
wants.
They
don't
clean
up
their
garbage,
then
it
downgrades
the
neighborhood
and
it's
tough,
because
I've
also
different
I'm
spoke
on
behalf
of
some
of
my
elderly
neighbors,
because
they
are
afraid
and
are
timid
ated
by
tenants,
mostly
who
are
young
people
who
will
not
listen
to
them
or
respect
them,
and
so
they're
intimidated
by
them.
M
That
they'll
might
have
some
repercussions
about
somebody
throwing
something
on
their
lawn
or
talking
back
to
them.
So
I
think
it's
really
a
big
concern
about
how
they
go
about
implementing
this
and
yet
controlling
it,
so
that
it
doesn't
devalue
any
of
the
areas
that
they
allow
this
to
happen,
that's
my
big
concern.
Thank.
A
N
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Donald
Mitchell
I
live
at
43,
Gibson
Avenue
I
just
had
a
couple
questions,
so
one
is
my
understanding.
Is
I'll
get
another
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
there'll
be
another
public
opportunity,
I'm
confused
about
a
number
of
things,
but
I
guess:
I'll
start
with
that
there
was
this
zoning
bylaw
8
for
99
removal
of
conversion
provisions.
Last
year,
I
think
it's
report,
D
14
zero,
one,
seven,
two
zero
one,
seven
and
it's
like
four
parts.
Five
point:
two
three
and
five
point:
two
3a
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
N
So
I
don't
understand
how
that
fits
in
with
what
this
is.
My
laypersons
take
and
I
don't
have
a
planning
background
and
I'm,
not
an
academic,
but
my
laypersons
take
is
that
this
is
essentially
saying
that
the
province
wants
every
home
to
be
able
to
have
a
second
unit
and
that
this
is
the
policy.
That's
going
to
do
that
and
then
they
use
other
language
to
leverage
that
you
know.
N
So
when
I
flip
through
the
report,
I
look
at
the
section
that
has
the
nice
bullets,
that's
about
affordable
housing
and
we're
all
for
affordable
housing
and
I'd
love
to
see
affordable
housing.
But
there's
like
five
bullets
and
only
the
last
bullet
of
it
actually
addresses
the
real
issue
which
is
to
create
developer.
N
You
know,
economy
and
get
that
stuff
going
and
create
renovations
and
the
rest
of
them
are
all
about
how
mom
and
dad
will
be
able
to
live
in
the
secondary
suite
and
they're
about
how
we're
gonna
create
affordable
housing
everything.
But
the
report
itself
to
me,
as
a
lay
person,
has
no
science
data,
no
information
about
how
it's
gonna
deliver
affordable
housing.
N
There's
no
numbers!
There's
no
saying
do.
We
need
affordable
housing.
That's
two
bedroom
units,
so
we
talked
about
Guelph
that
has
a
restriction
to
two
bedrooms.
Is
that
why
they
have
it?
Because
by
restricting
it
to
two
bedrooms,
you
keep
it
away
from
going
to
five
bedrooms
or
north
of
that,
so
that
it's
not
as
attractive
to
a
whole
bunch
of
individuals
who
all
want
to
live
together,
but
actually
it's
for
single
mom
and
a
kid
or
who
you
know
and
I
don't
see
seniors
in
this
I.
N
Certainly
don't
see
accessibility
hugely
figured
in
this
and
so
I'm
just
I'm
looking
about
how
the
affordable
housing
piece
sort
of
weighs
into
this
I
still
just
see
this
as
a
leverage
that
we
all
know.
What's
gonna
happen,
if
you
treat
one
province,
one
city
as
the
same
planning
rules,
the
path
of
least
resistance
is
gonna,
see
where
the
biggest
draw
is
is
where
we're
gonna
maximize
these
units
in
order
to
get
the
most
bedrooms
possible,
and
so
that
perplex
me
but
I
think
I
have
other
opportunities
to
talk
about
it.
N
So
I'll
jump
off
that,
but
I
would
love
to
delve
into
the
affordable
housing
piece
over
more
I'd
like
to
delve
into
the
comprehensive
report
more
because
I
think
there's
data
and
information.
That's
missing
for
us.
That
would
make
the
rationale
of
why
this
is
so
good
come
across
to
me,
but
I
don't
get
it
I
think
the
parking
recommendations
should
accompany
a
more
robust
on
street
permit
program.
N
You
know
online
and
stuff
like
that,
and
because
we
all
know
that
there
are
gonna
be
units
that
have
ten
bedrooms,
and
maybe
eight
cars
are
gonna,
show
up
for
a
couple
of
critical
periods
during
the
year,
if
not
longer,
and
how
do
we
deal
with
that
and
and
how
do
those
impacts
and
adverse
effects
on
other
neighbors?
How
is
that
all
dealt
with
I?
Don't
see
that
the
final
thing
and
then
I
will
be
quiet.
N
But
if
we
start
making
these
sweets
and
cellars
and
basements
in
areas
that
actually
are
known
to
have
double
sump
pumps
going,
you
know
and
backup
batteries
for
them
and
that
have
never
traditionally
had
water.
But
it
came
in
through
the
sewer
in
my
basement.
It
came
in
through
our
shower
for
some
reason
why?
All
of
a
sudden,
you
know
that's
someone's
home.
Where
do
they
go
when
all
their
belongings
get
flooded
out
and
everything,
and
so
I'd
like
to
go
further
into
the
basement
water
piece
and
I?
Think
we
need
more
data.
N
I
think
you
have
it
I
mean
we
put
in
a
backflow
valve
people
put
in
sump
pumps
and
everything.
According
to
the
municipal
program,
I
think
some
of
that
data
should
be
should
inform
not
just
the
style.
I
get
I
have
to
say,
I,
fully
support,
council
and
I
fully
support
staff
and
the
more
I
study
this
stuff,
the
more
I'm
amazed
by
what
you
do,
but
I
I
think
there
should
be
more
than
just
the
staff
tick-box
technical
circulation.
N
A
H
H
The
next
one
just
get
my
bearings
here,
so
concerns
raised
parking
I'm
front
lawn
parking,
a
number
of
those
things
in
hearing
a
lot.
Maybe
that
can
address
some
of
the
other
comments
as
well.
Primarily
I
hear
a
lot
about
property
standards,
type
comments.
So
the
I
mean
the
ability
to
establish
second
units,
the
property
standards
and
the
other
bylaws
do
still
stand
whether
there
are
noise,
bylaws
and
parking
bylaws.
So
those
those
are
all
still
relevant
as
a
result
of
this
I
think
that
there
was
a
question
in.
H
J
Thanks
Andrea
so
through
mr.
chair
yeah,
so
a
lot
of
comments
tonight
about
the
concerns
around
implications
of
parking,
additional
parking
on
the
street,
the
ability
for
the
city
to
enforce
parking
parking
on
a
front
lawn
and
that
and
the
safety
of
a
unit
meeting
enter
a
building
code,
meeting
fire
code
and
a
whole
list
of
other
things
where
you
saw
garbage
and
that
sort
of
thing
the
upkeep
of
a
building,
and
so
this
is
not
new
to
second
residential
units.
J
This
is
something
the
city
is
actively
evaluating
right
now,
through
the
consideration
of
a
rental
licensing
program
which
would
enable
the
city
to
have
better
access
into
confirming
compliance
with
the
Ontario
Building
Code
and
fire
code
for
units
that
maybe
have
slipped
through
the
cracks.
We
do
largely
work
on
the
basis
of
complaint,
we're
not
actively
out
there
patrolling
the
streets
for
people
parking
on
front
lawns.
J
Unfortunately,
just
don't
have
the
capacity
to
do
that,
but
in
tandem
with
the
discussion
around
a
rental
licensing
program,
there
will
be
information
presented
to
council
in
the
not-too-distant
future,
the
number
of
staff
it's
going
to
take
to
properly
administer
the
rental
licensing
program
and
hand-in-hand
with
that.
The
monitoring
of
licensees
and
their
adherence
to
certain
property
standard
obligations
will
certainly
make
note
of
the
comments
about
monitoring
overflow
parking
on
streets.
J
That
has
been
the
recurring
theme
in
some
of
the
feedback
that
we've
received
today,
but
that's
just
an
update
on
on
the
mental
licensing
piece.
There
is
it's
an
active
project
right
now
that
the
city
had
an
information
report,
I
think
I
think
I
went
to
council
last
month,
so
people
that
want
to
take
a
look
at
what
that
entails.
There
is
an
report
to
Council
the
one
I
think
June
the
12th
there's
more
more
to
come.
H
So
some
of
the
additional
questions
in
regards
to
a
legal
non-conforming
unit,
so
these
could
be
second
units
that
are
currently
existing
and
they
may
be
in
an
area
where
it's
currently
not
permitted,
but
they
were
established
quite
some
time
ago
before
our
bylaws
were
in
place,
and
so
they
do
have
the
legal
non-conforming
status.
And
then
there
are
some
illegal
units
out
there.
H
But
in
regards
to
the
comments
run
illegal
in
units
and
how
they're
enforced
I
mean
we
are
made
aware
of
them
regularly
from
complaint
basis
and
a
number
of
times
coming
through
the
fire
department,
drawing
our
attention
to
them
as
well,
and
we
do
act
on
them
and
the
fire
department
gets
involved
to
ensure
they
comply
with
code
and
if
they're
not
permitted,
then
they
they
are
required
to
proceed
through
zoning
amendments
and
and
so
on.
So
we
do
actively
enforce
those
on
a
regular
basis
in
regards
to
hamlet's
and
and
where
they're
located.
H
There
are
some
in
the
the
main
ones.
I
mean
Elgin
burg,
Glen,
Burnie,
Sunnyside,
Kingston,
Mills,
Joyce,
Phil
Brewers
mill.
That
majority
of
north
of
the
401
I
could
provide
you
with
a
map
that
that
maybe
you
could
blow
up
and
maybe
help
me
help.
You
see
the
exact
locations
a
little
bit
and
I'm
happy
to
get
your
emailing
and
send
that
to
you.
If
that'll
assist
that
way,.
H
There's
a
question
in
regards
to
infrastructure
upgrades
some
of
the
sewer
sewer
charging
areas
are
around
the
the
West
End
around
the
day's
road
area
and
then
there's
there's
some
infrastructure
upgrades
plan
for
around
2022
the
days
Road
pumping
stations.
So
we
anticipate
the
issues
there
to
be
alleviated
at
that
time.
In
the
northern
part
of
the
East
End
urban
boundary
there's
huge
capacity
issues
that
are
expected
to
be
relieved
next
year,
according
to
utilities,
Kingston,
so
I
think
we'll
see
those
restrictions
lifted
there.
H
Those
ones
become
a
little
bit
more
complicated
because
it
is
quite
a
process
to
separate
the
the
storm
and
the
sewer
systems
and
in
those
particular
areas
we
have
capacity
issues
and
sewer
surcharging
issues,
but
it
is
something
that
is
on
utilities,
Kingston's
radar.
So
that's
just
a
bit
of
an
update
on
some
of
the
infrastructure
upgrades.
H
Essentially,
if
there
is
a
group
of
people
that
are
that
are
one
lease,
it
becomes
difficult
in
accordance
with
Human,
Rights
Code
and
regulating
what
a
family
is
and
sort
of
people
zoning
that
way.
So
if
it
is
a
group
of
people
together
and
they're
on
the
same
lease
and
whether
they're
friends
or
their
family
or
it
becomes
harder
to
regulate
as
rooming
houses,
so
that
is
a
difficult
one,
but
I
do
and
I
do
understand
the
point.
That's
taken
and
again.
H
In
regards
to
statistics,
I
mean
providing
a
number
of
statistics.
There
I
think
you'll
see
that
when
we
come
forward
with
a
more
comprehensive
report,
this
is
our
first
go
ahead
at
this
as
well,
and
we
come
back
and
actually
are
making
specific
recommendations
after
we've
reviewed
all
the
impact.
All
the
input
then
I
think
at
that
point.
You'll
see
that
they'll
be
a
lot
more
detail
and
rationale
and
justification
for
each
of
these
provisions
that
were
recommending
I
guess.
H
Provincial
policy
also
speaks
to
providing
a
various
amounts
of
different
housing
types
and
housing
options
for
people.
So
in
a
matt
case,
there
is
various
forms
of
housing.
So
there's
a
number
of
things
that
we
see
as
positive
to
this
as
well.
Some
of
the
comments
and
comments
in
regards
to
wanting
to
see
more
with
seniors
and
there's
a
lot
of
talk
as
well,
that
it
also
provides
options
for
seniors
to
stay.
I
have
an
age
in
place
in
being
able
to
stay
in
their
homes.
More
because
they're
able
to
gather
additional
income.
D
J
J
The
way
the
problems
has
framed
it
in
the
way
we
sort
of
summarized
it
in
the
report
on
page
six
is
that
it's
not
just
to
allow
for
say
a
senior
to
subsidize
their
daily
expenses,
but
to
also
have
a
live-in
caregiver
live
in
a
unit
above
or
below,
or
they
they
occupy
a
second
unit,
or
perhaps
they
have
extended
family
living
in
the
same
structure.
So
that's
part
of
the
thinking
presented
by
the
province
and
some
of
this
and
the
removal
of
conversion
provisions,
as
mr.
J
Mitchell
mentioned,
was
done
to
avoid
forms
of
intensification
that
we
really
didn't
have
much
of
an
opportunity
to
review.
It
was
fairly
curt
blush
and
here
what
we're
doing
is
we're
introducing
this
opportunity
for
as
of
right,
introduction
a
second
unit,
subject
to
20
some-odd
zone
provisions
that
really
tighten
up
the
expectations
and
the
only
other
comment.
I
guess
there's
one
timÃs
Corcoran's
point
about
connecting
into
the
main
within
the
road
allowance
versus
connecting
in
that's
the
connection
that
the
existing
house
is
served
by.
J
So
the
limitation
here
would
be
that
you
have
to
be
serviced
from
the
existing
connection
to
the
live,
so
utilities
Kingston's
policy
is
one
service
per
lot,
so
you
can
have
this
coach-house
connecting
into
the
road
with
a
different
line.
You'd
have
to
be
off
the
existing
line
that
serves
the
main
main
dwelling.
A
Great
thank
you
and
thank
to
everybody
who
had
issues
or
questions
I
just
want
to
point
out.
I
know
that
residential
rental
licensing
was
referenced,
but
it
wasn't
discussed
tonight
and
the
reason
I'm
pointing
that
out
is
I've
always
declared
a
conflict
every
time
it's
come
to
Council
for
discussion
debate.
I'll
do
the
same.
If
it
comes
to
a
vote,
my
daughter
owns
a
couple
of
rental
properties,
I
own
one
rental,
one
home
that
I
happen
to
rent.
So
that
puts
me
in
a
conflict
situation.
A
It
doesn't
put
any
member
of
the
public,
doesn't
have
the
same
regulations
so
so
I
appreciate
your
understanding.
I
almost
stood
up
and
declared
a
conflict
but
I
think
because
it
wasn't
really
discussed
it
was
just
referenced.
So
any
further
comments
or
questions.
Seeing
none
again
could
you
take
the
chair.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
A
couple
of
things
that
came
up
tonight.
There
were
some
there
were
some
clear
references
to
by
law
enforcement
and
frustrations
that
some
residents
have
with
by
law
enforcement.
I
just
want
to
point
out
in
90,
95
percent
of
the
by
law
enforcement
is
complaint
driven.
So
if
there's
an
issue
on
your
block,
you
need
to
call
the
customer
service
line
or
contact
your
counselor
and
bylaw
is
now
under
the
same
umbrella
as
planning,
so
they
can
respond
to
that.
So
that's
that's!
Your
best
bet
the
referrals.
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee.
I
think
we're
all
done.
Oh
I,
just
had
one
more
really
quick
question
am
I
right
to
assume
that
under
the
new
PPS
and
the
regulations
that
have
applied
our
only
sole
rationale
for
saying
no
to
a
secondary
suite
when
this
is
passed,
will
have
to
be
based
on
servicing
issues
and
that
the
whole
city,
unless
otherwise
identified,
will
have
by
right,
secondary
Suites.
Is
that
an
accurate
statement.
H
3
mr.
chair,
it's
accurate
in
that
it
will
be
permitted
as
a
right
in
all
zones.
Aside
from
the
servicing
constraint
areas,
as
you
mentioned,
but
as
noted
there
are
a
number
of
zone
provisions
that
you
still
have
to
comply
with.
So
if
someone
does
not
meet
the
setbacks,
if
someone
cannot
put
a
coach
house
in
and
they
can't
meet
landscaped
open
space,
they
wouldn't
be
permitted
to
have
one
unless
they
went
through
a
Planning
Act
process
and.
H
A
Thank
you
for
that
very
detailed
report.
I
appreciate
it
so
I'll
declare
this
final
public
meeting
closed
now,
we'll
go
to
the
regular
planning
committee
meeting
number
14
2018,
which
really
has
little
or
no
business
so
we'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
Thank
You
councillor,
Turner,
councillor,
sanic
approval
of
the
agenda
that
isn't
really
there
councillor
a
sanic
councillor,
Turner
confirmation
of
minutes
from
our
June
21st
meeting
councillor
Turner
councillor
sanic,
all
those
in
favor
carried
and
disclosure
of
pecuniary
interests.
Seeing
none.
We
have
no
delegations,
we
have
no
business.