►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from August 3, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/PfNEnp
A
A
Our
Commissioner
hurdle
director,
Agnew
and
manager,
Ben
Betty
and
on
this
side,
starting
at
the
end,
our
city,
solicitor,
ray
planner,
Lambert,
planner,
Diedrichs
and
planner
sands
and
planner
see
that
so
we
have
a
full
complement
and,
of
course,
Derek
will
say
our
committee
clerk,
we
have
a
number
of
public
meetings
tonight
and
I
will
recognize
councillor
Neill.
Thank.
B
You
very
much
if
I
can
find
a
seconder
I'd
like
to
move
a
slight
adjustment
in
the
order
of
the
meetings.
Since
we
have
these
things
are
never
slam
done,
but
I
think
we
have
three
shorter
public
presentations
and
a
longer
one
so
I'd
like
the
longer
one
to
go
last.
So
if
the
homestead
proposal
couldn't
follow
the
other
three
I
think
that
would
be
good
for
the
people
waiting.
Okay,.
B
A
A
seconder
katsuro
sanik,
all
those
in
favor
thanks
and
that's
carried,
but
first
I
will
read
the
public
meeting,
introduction
that
we
read
before
all
public
meetings,
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.
All
names
addresses
opinions
and
comments
may
be
collected
and
may
form
part
of
the
minutes
which
will
be
available
to
the
public.
A
Questions
regarding
this
collection
should
be
forward
to
the
Director
of
Planning
building
and
licensing
services.
The
purpose
of
public
meetings
is
to
present
planning
applications
in
a
public
forum,
as
required
by
the
Planning
Act
following
presentations
by
the
applicant
committee.
Members
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
for
clarification.
Our
further
in
information.
The
meeting
will
then
be
opened
to
the
public
for
comments
and
questions.
Interested
persons
are
requested
to
give
their
name
and
address
for
recording.
In
the
minutes.
A
A
Exemption
to
this
rule
is
outlined
in
bylaw
number
2000
675
to
delegate
various
planning
approvals
to
staff
and
to
adopt
certain
procedures
for
the
processing
of
planning
applications
subject
to
delegated
authority.
Council
has
authorized
staff
to
use
discretion
in
determining
if
an
application
can
be
a
combined
public
meeting
comprehensive
report
to
expedite
the
approval
process.
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
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.
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
applications
from
the
city's
perspective.
Following
Council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act,
and
anyone
with
an
interest
in
the
matter
may
file
an
appeal.
Interested
persons
are
advised
that
if
a
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
before
the
bylaw
is
passed,
the
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision
of
council
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
A
C
Gunner
and
Pauline
Heisler
purchased
an
85
Signum
Street
on
October
31st
2014,
with
the
intention
of
renovating
the
interior
of
the
existing
house
as
their
retirement
home
and
adding
a
two-bedroom
apartment
above
the
existing
attached
garage
as
a
residence
for
their
caregivers.
The
property
is
located
in
the
old
Sydenham
Heritage
Conservation
District
on
the
east
side
of
Sydenham
Street,
and
it's
between
Johnson
and
William
Street
and
it's
in
the
locations
it's
shown
as
exhibits,
a
B
and
C
and
D
of
the
staff
report
of
Lanny
hurdle.
C
This
is
a
very
desirable
area
to
live
for.
Anyone
that
is
retired
hotel-dieu
hospital
is
less
than
a
block
away.
There
are
several
churches
within
a
few
blocks,
including
Sydenham
United
Street
United
Church,
which
is
almost
directly
across
the
street.
The
main
branch
of
the
Kingston
public
library
is
a
couple
of
blocks
away.
C
The
princess
streets,
shopping
area,
restaurants,
are
less
than
a
5-minute
walk
and
the
heisters
are
very
excited
about
residing
at
85,
sinem
street
photographs
of
the
existing
house
and
garage
are
attached
that
tab
a
to
my
submission,
and
if
you
take
a
moment
to
look
at
that,
you
can
see
from
the
photographs
at
the
garage
in
it's.
As
is
condition.
This
is
really
inconsistent
with
the
pastiche
of
the
of
the
Sydenham
district.
C
The
2-story
stucco
brick
residential
dwelling
was
constructed
204
years
ago,
and
the
garage
was
constructed
in
1965.
The
proposed
addition
to
the
garage
has
been
reviewed
by
the
Heritage
Committee
and
a
heritage
permit
has
been
granted.
It
is
mr.
and
mrs.
heisters
contention
that
the
proposed
addition
is
consistent
with
provincial
policy
conforms
to
the
policies
of
the
Official
Plan
and
it's
really
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
neighbor
of
a
neighboring
dwellings
in
the
in
the
neighborhood.
The
scale
and
height
of
the
development
is
is
appropriate.
It
represents
good
planning.
An
architect's.
C
D
C
Section
one
point:
one
point:
three
three
addresses
intensification
and
that's
what
really?
This
is
and
redevelopment
in
settlement
areas,
the
policy
states,
the
planning
authorities,
shall
identify
appropriate
locations
and
promote
opportunities
for
intensification
and
redevelopment
where
this
can
be
accommodated,
taking
into
account
existing
building
stocks
or
areas,
including
brownfield
sites
and
the
availability
of
suitable,
existing
or
planned
infrastructure
and
public
service
facilities
required
to
accommodate
projected
needs.
The
height
slurs
proposed
the
construction
of
a
second-story
to
an
existing
structure
in
the
downtown
center,
which
is
an
area
identified
by
the
city
for
residential
intensification.
C
Turning
next
to
the
relevant
Official
Plan
considerations,
eighty-five
signal
Street,
as
I
mentioned,
is
within
the
urban
boundary
in
the
primary
center
of
the
city,
which
has
been
identified
as
an
area
where
intensification
is
intended
to
be
focused.
An
85
Sydenham
Street
is
an
area
that
would
be
categorized
as
stable
and
section
two
points,
six
point:
one
of
the
Official
Plan
states.
C
It
is
the
intent
of
this
plan
during
the
official
plan
to
promote
development
and
appropriate
of
reuse
opportunities
to
areas
where
change
is
desired,
while
protecting
stable
areas
from
incompatible
development
or
types
of
development
and
rates
of
change.
That
may
be
destabilizing
stated
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
C
Minor
changes
in
the
predominant
pattern
of
housing,
type
height
of
the
density
are
permitted
in
accordance
with
section
3.3.5
of
the
Official
Plan
and
the
proposal
to
add
a
second
dwelling
unit
to
a
property
which
currently
contains
a
one
dwelling
unit
does
not
include
a
substantive
increase
in
density
for
the
subject
property
and,
as
a
result,
does
not
require
an
amendment
to
the
Official
Plan.
The
proposal
meets
the
intensification
requirements
of
the
Official
Plan
as
a
moderate
increase
in
building
height
and
density,
adjacent
to
transit
routes,
community
facilities
and
adjacent
to
mixed-use
centers
in
corridors.
C
In
accordance
with
section
three
point:
three
point:
eight
a
stated
in
the
planning
justification.
The
proposed
proposal.
Development
protects
the
stable
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
doesn't
alter
the
type
of
land
use
within
the
stable
area,
and
the
land
use
is
in.
The
immediate
area
include
single
dwelling
units,
duplexes
apartments
and
institutional
uses.
This
is
not
seen
as
a
precedent-setting
and
will
not
create
any
adverse
effects.
C
Section
two
point:
seven
of
the
Official
Plan
provides
principles
for
land-use
compatibility
and
section
two
point:
seven
point:
three
outlines
a
list
of
potential
adverse
effects,
including
shadowing
loss
of
privacy
due
to
intrusive,
overlooked
and
architectural
incompatibility
in
terms
of
scale
and
style
massing
in
color.
A
review
of
that
list
was
completed
for
the
planning
justification
as
it
applies
to
the
proposed
construction
and
it
did
not
identify
any
adverse
effects.
C
Section
three
point:
three
point:
nine
of
the
Official
Plan
outlines
requirements
for
conversions
that
involve
a
property
with
one
residential
unit,
converted
to
a
property
containing
two
or
more
residential
units
when
the
requirements
were
reviewed
in
the
planning,
justification
and
found
to
have
been
met,
and
the
proposed
addition
to
the
garage
is
consistent
with
the
adjacent
building
design.
Now
the
existing
garage
provides
adequate
parking.
There
is
adequate
amenity
area
in
the
rear
yard
and
second-story
patio
area
attached
to
the
existing
house,
and
there
will
be
no
overview
or
shadowing
of
adjacent
residences.
C
The
height
of
the
addition
on
the
garage
will
be
a
maximum
of
0.25
or
quarter
of
a
meter
higher
than
the
height
of
the
existing
residence.
A
minimal
increase
in
section
seven
point:
two
of
the
Official
Plan
addresses
the
need
to
consider
heritage
protection.
Existing
structures
at
85,
Signum
Street,
are
part
of
the
important
heritage
of
the
area
proposed
addition
will
not
impact
the
heritage,
attributes
of
the
subject,
lands
or
the
adjacent
lands
and
approval
of
the
development
has
been
granted
by
Heritage
Committee,
turning
them
to
what's
required
by
the
zoning
bylaw.
C
Zoning
bylaw
also
requires
lot
coverage
of
buildings
to
33.3%
of
the
lot
area.
The
coverage
of
the
proposed
buildings
is
going
to
be
forty.
Eight
point
five
percent.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
existing
house
and
attached
garage
have
a
coverage
already
a
forty
six
point,
four
percent,
so
the
minimal
increase
just
reflects
the
two
meter
deep
by
five
meter,
wide
enclosed
stairwell
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
garage.
C
Finally,
if
I
may
I'd
like
to
address
the
concerns
expressed
in
the
email
from
the
resident
at
141,
William
Street,
Dorian,
Sagar
I-
know
she's
unavailable
to
be
here
tonight,
but
I
would
like
to
address
those
concerns.
If
I
may
there-
and
there
appear
to
be
two
concerns-
main
concerns
from
that
email
and
first
is
a
concern
that
the
addition
will
be
a
monster
addition
that
will
tower
over
their
backyard
and
create
adverse
shadowing
of
their
backyard.
C
Shadowing
and
loss
of
privacy
due
to
intrusive
overlooked
are
the
first
two
criteria
with
respect
to
assessing
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
enumerated
in
Section.
Two
point:
seven
point:
three
of
the
Official
Plan
as
I
previously
mentioned,
those
criteria
were
specifically
examined
by
Clark
consulting
services
in
the
planning
justification
and
no
adverse
effects
were
identified.
C
The
two-bedroom
addition,
it's
admit,
hardly
falls
into
the
same
category
as
some
of
the
monster
additions.
Seen
in
the
in
the
student
district,
the
height
of
the
addition
is
always
also
restricted,
as
I
mentioned,
to
one
quarter
of
a
meter
above
the
existing
residence
and
so
will
not
be
towering
over
any
neighboring
properties.
C
C
C
Chose
the
intersection
of
Sydenham
Street
and
William
Street,
and
the
large
house
at
the
corner
is
the
secret
garden
in
bed
and
breakfast
and
141
William
Street
is
the
house
next
door
and
it
does
have
a
lovely
backyard
to
the
north.
On
Sydenham
street
is
83
Sydenham
Street,
it's
a
nice
two-story
limestone
and
then
to
the
north
of
it
is
the
current
residence
at
85,
Sydenham,
Street
and
then
immediately
to
the
north
of
that
is
the
subject
garage
it's
difficult
to
see
you
with
the
with
the
trees
surrounding
it.
C
But
since
the
garage
does
not
extend
deep
into
the
property
at
85,
Sydenham
Street,
there
should
be
no
shadowing
effect
on
141,
William
Street
and
the
site
plan
at
exhibit.
F
of
the
staff
report
is
also
illustrative
the
backyard
if
you
look
at
that,
exhibit
F
the
backyard
to
141.
William
Street
would
be
kiddy
corner
to
the
bottom
right
corner
of
the
site
plan
and
the
garage
at
85
Sydenham
street
backs
on
to
its
own
sizeable
backyard.
Given
its
location
and
it's
restricted
height.
C
There
would
be
no
intrusive,
overlook
or
shadowing
of
the
back
yard
of
141,
William,
Street
I.
Think
mrs.
Sager
may
be
referring
to
the
existing
deck
of
the
existing
restored
residence,
which
does
overlook
the
back
yard
of
141
William
Street,
there's
not
going
to
be
any
change
and
to
that
residence.
C
The
second
main
objection
is
that
the
addition
would
create
a
university
student
lost
her
home
and
without
commenting
on
the
discriminatory
tone
of
the
email
has
already
indicated.
That
is
not
a
monster
home.
This
is
going
to
be
a
tasteful
addition
to
the
garage
and
an
improvement
to
the
neighborhood.
C
As
I
mentioned
this,
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
fine
addition
to
the
to
the
street.
As
indicated
earlier,
the
the
high
slurs
intend
to
reside
in
the
existing
residence
at
85,
Sydenham
Street.
Mr.
Keisler
is
in
his
early
80s.
Mrs.
Heisler
is
in
her
mid-70s
and
they
have
a
vested
interest
not
to
rent
a
two-bedroom
apartment.
C
To
rowdy
students,
their
longer-term
plan,
as
they
mentioned,
is
to
have
it
available
for
their
caregivers,
and
currently
the
existing
residence
is
leased
to
professionals
and
the
intent
of
the
height
theirs
is
to
do
the
same
as
the
apartment
until
they've
moved
in.
To
summarize,
then,
the
the
proposed
two-story
addition
to
the
existing
AG
garage
to
provide
for
two
bedroom
apartment
is
consistent
with
provincial
policy.
It
conforms
to
the
policies
of
the
Official
Plan
and
is
comparable
with
the
character
of
the
neighboring
dwellings
on
the
neighbourhood.
C
The
scale
and
height
of
the
development
is
appropriate
and
does
represent
good
use
and
planning
good
land-use
and
accordingly,
the
applicant
respectfully
submits
to
this
Planning
Committee
that
the
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
be
allowed.
Allow
the
development
at
85
signalmen
Street,
whether
it
be
granted
and
subject
to
any
questions
you
have.
Those
are
the
applicant
submissions.
Thank.
E
Through
you,
madam
chair,
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
Planning
Act
notice
that
the
meeting
was
provided
through
a
sign
posted
on
the
property,
at
least
20
days
before
the
meeting
and
notices
sent
to
property
owners
within
120
metres
of
the
property.
Courtesy
notice
was
also
placed
in
the
Kingston
Wieck
standard
and
we
received
one
an
email
from
a
resident
which
is
included
in
the
addendum
to
the
planning
committee
agenda.
And
there
was
one
resident
who
came
to
John
counter
Boulevard
to
review
plans
in
person
through.
A
E
The
Heritage
permit
conditions
include
marginal,
it's
the
height
of
the
addition
can
be
0.25
meters
taller
than
the
ridgeline
of
the
existing
house.
This
resulted
from
back
and
forth
it's
contained
in
the
staff
report
of
the
Heritage
permit,
but
that
marginal
difference
between
the
existing
house
to
maintain
consistency.
E
A
F
F
That's
involved
that
you
described
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
you
could
have
considered
providing
some
slides
or
having
the
material
more
in
detail
in
the
report
than
it
is
other
than
that
I
have
no
objections
to
the
project
going
forward,
but
just
in
terms
of
the
format
of
the
presentation,
that's
the
only
point.
I
think.
C
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
comments
from
members
of
the
public,
seeing
none
I'll
be
back
to
the
committee,
no
questions.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation
and
I
will
close
the
first
public
meeting
and
open
our
second
public
meeting,
which
is
46
County
Street
Habitat
for
Humanity,
with
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
G
G
Just
wanted
to
start
with
a
little
bit
of
a
background
of
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
Bishop.
Michael
Bolton
challenged
the
members
of
the
Anglican
Diocese
of
Ontario
to
live
their
faith
through
service
to
the
community
and
not
to
focus
on
lands
and
buildings.
In
anticipation
of
the
Church
of
the
Good
Shepherd
on
County
Street
being
designated
as
surplus
property,
they
asked
the
queen
school
of
urban
and
renew
sort
and
Regional
Planning
to
find
out
what
the
community
needs
were.
G
G
G
G
This
is
what
our
site
plan
looks
like.
We
have
a
three-year
build
plan.
This
year,
we
plan
to
build
units
five
and
six
next
year.
We
plan
to
demolish
the
church,
build
a
ministry
center
for
them,
which
will
then
get
deeded
back
to
the
Anglican
Diocese
and
build
units.
Three
and
four,
then
in
2019
we'll
build
units,
one
and
two.
G
This
is
our
floor
plan.
You
might
want
to
turn
your
head
a
little
I
think
I
when
I
scanned
it
this
morning,
it's
a
little
crooked
Habitat
for
Humanity
builds
simple,
decent
and
affordable
homes.
This
is
a
three
bedroom
plan,
which
is
twelve
hundred
and
fifty
square
feet,
which
actually
is
a
little
bit
bigger
than
we
normally
build,
but
it's
what
we
need
to
build
in
order
to
meet
the
building
requirements.
For
example,
we
need
to
put
a
garage
on
which
we
don't
normally
build.
G
G
G
We
answered
questions
about
the
project
with
about
a
hundred
people
in
attendance
which
far
exceeded
my
expectations,
then,
on
Saturday
July
29th,
we
went
door-to-door
to
see
everyone
in
the
hundred
and
twenty
meter
public
notice
area
to
show
them
the
same
plans
that
I've
just
shown
you
to
provide
general
information
about
Habitat
for
Humanity's,
homeownership
program
and
answer
questions.
A
few
suggestions
were
made,
such
as
trees
along
Adelaide,
Street
and
a
false
window
on
the
rights
elevation
of
unit
six,
all
of
which
we
are
now
considering
another
more
major
suggestion.
G
G
We
had
a
very
positive
reception.
We've
tried
to
be
good
neighbors.
We
feel
that
we've
selected
a
house
plan
that
will
add
value
to
the
neighborhood
and
not
detract
from
it.
We
have
tried
to
ensure
that
our
immediate
neighbors
were
aware
of
the
project
and
could
provide
feedback
to
us
and
ask
questions.
G
We've
selected,
two
families,
kay
mote
and
her
daughter,
Tory
and
Nathan,
and
Virginia
Lovelace
and
Sons
Nathaniel
and
Cole,
who
are
excited
to
become
part
of
the
neighborhood
families
who
will
purchase
their
homes
at
fair
market
value,
with
no
interest,
no
down
payment
and
monthly
payments
that
are
geared
to
their
income
and
their
mortgage
payments
will
be
used
to
build
more
affordable
homes.
They
will
be
paying
it
forward
to
more
families
and
the
property
tax
payments
will
be
used
to
pay
for
services
in
Kingston.
Just
like
each
of
you.
G
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Through
you,
notification
requirements
for
this
application
were
met
in
accordance
with
Planning
Act
notices
were
posted
on
the
property
20
days
prior
to
the
public
meeting
and
74
property
owners
were
notified
or
through
notices
in
the
mail.
One
piece
of
public
correspondence
was
received.
The
comments
will
be
addressed
through
the
comprehensive
report.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
G
A
D
Hello
ever'one,
my
name
is
Jared
ochre
and
I
live
at
836
little
stolen
Crescent
I
just
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
Habitat
for
tonight
and
I'm
gonna,
step
out
of
a
little
bit
of
a
box
here.
I'm
not
gonna,
make
this
really
formal
because
it
habitats
were
more
like
a
really
big
family
and
we
keep
things
casual
but
good.
So
what
I'm
gonna
ask
everyone
tonight
and
when
you're
making
this
decision
in
zoning,
this
property
from
institutional
to
residential
I'm
gonna,
ask
that
you
do
one
thing:
I'm
gonna:
ask
that
you
close
your
eyes!
I
D
Family
lives
in
that
is
unhealthy,
that's
embarrassing,
and
that
has
mold
I'm
gonna.
Ask
that
you
think
about
that
and
think
about
what
that
would
mean
to
a
family.
What
that
would
mean
to
you
if
you
were
raising
your
children
in
that
home,
so
what
we
do
is
we
give
people
hope
and
when
you
realize
that
you
come
across
the
paperwork
for
habitat,
you
realize
your
income
could
possibly
qualify
you
for
a
brand-new
home,
so
you
apply
you
put
in
an
expression
of
interest
from
there.
You
wait
and
then
eventually
you
hear
yes.
J
D
Going
to
move
you
on
to
the
next
step
and
we're
gonna
ask
you
to
put
in
a
full
application.
Two
weeks
after
you
submit
your
out
full
application,
you're
guaranteed
a
response
from
Habitat,
and
you
find
out
that
you've
been
approved.
We're
gonna
put
you
forward
to
the
board
to
suggest
you
as
a
partnering
family
with
habitat,
so
you
wait
with
excitement
and
then
you
hear
yes,
it's
good.
D
It's
a
go
ahead,
but
now
we're
at
this
stage
where
we're
here
tonight
where
we
need
your
help
and
we
need
you
to
approve
this
property
and
changing
the
zoning,
because
without
you
this
will
not
be
successful.
So
the
second
thing
I'm
gonna
ask
from
everybody
here
tonight
is
I'm
gonna.
Welcome
you
to
join
Habitat
I'm
gonna.
Welcome
you
to
join
us
in
our
success.
D
I'm
gonna
welcome
you
to
make
the
decisions
that
need
to
be
made
in
order
to
make
this
project
go
forward
and
I'm
gonna
welcome
you
to,
even
if
you
want
to
go
so
far
as
to
come
out
and
volunteer
with
us,
because
when
you
make
a
decision,
I
think
it's
great.
If
you
can
see
the
end
result
and
see
what
it
is
that
you've
done
and
the
impact
that
you've
made
in
your
community,
thank
you.
K
K
So
at
present
the
proposal
includes
1.8
meters,
dark
side
yard
setback
to
the
north
between
the
new
houses
and
the
abutting
properties
to
the
north
and
a
6
meter,
exterior
side
yard
setback
at
the
corner
of
Adelaide
just
to
make
sure
I'm
being
clear.
I'm
just
talking
about
the
two
sides
of
the
setbacks.
K
So
unless
there's
an
assorted,
clear
safety
issue
decreasing
that
6
meter,
corner
setback
would
seem
a
reasonable
approach
to
knitting
this
building
into
the
existing
neighborhood
and
allowing
a
greater
setback
between
the
new
houses
and
the
existing
properties.
We
understand
that
the
proposal
does
not
currently
meet
the
standard
set
it
in
the
a
zone
and,
as
such,
this
amendment
fixed
your
side.
Yard
setback
could
be
addressed
within
the
site.
Specific
zone
being
proposed
so
in
terms
of
the
design
I
would
agree
that
the
elevations
facing
County
Street
are
quite
acceptable
and
compatible.
K
But
we
just
wanted
to
note
that
the
both
the
south
and
north
elevations,
which
are
the
facing
Adelaide
Street
and
the
wall
facing
abutting
properties,
are
blank
at
present.
We
both
feel
that
some
articulation
and
depth
is
needed
on
these
elevations,
both
for
the
outlook
of
the
abutting
properties,
but
most
significantly
on
the
corner
property,
which
will
act
as
a
focal
point
and
a
feature
at
the
corner.
So,
for
example,
the
introduction
of
windows
or
even
glazed
windows,
a
variation
in
external
materials
would
be
a
modest
and
affordable
solution.
K
This
is
best
practice
in
urban
design
and
as
referenced
by
the
city's
design
guidelines
for
residential
lot.
So,
for
example,
they
say
create
facades
that
address
both
streets
on
corner
or
flanking
Lots
use,
design
elements
such
as
wraparound
porches,
sun
rooms,
windows
and
side,
entrances
designed
to
that
emphasize
visibility
and
the
potential
role
of
corner
buildings
as
landmarks
or
an
orientation
structures
within
the
community.
And
my
last
small
point
is
the
plaintiff
justification
report
speaks
to
preserving
mature
and
existing
vegetation
on
site
in
order
to
maintain
privacy.
K
However,
the
tree
report
Rebecca,
recommends
removing
all
the
trees
and
replanting
with
additional
new
ones.
We
are
not
entirely
clear
on
which
approach
is
being
taken
at
present,
but
just
we
do
strongly
feel
that
the
preservation
of
any
mature
vegetation
would
help
to
mitigate
the
impacts
of
the
new
development,
as
well
as
to
soften
the
character
and
tie
it
into
the
neighborhood.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
Thank.
A
F
Yes,
thank
you
for
presentation,
I'm,
supportive
of
the
general
direction
that
you
want
to
go
in
and
I
lose
only
a
few
blocks
away.
So
great
ideas
and
one
question
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
looked
at
the
possibility
of
just
salvaging
the
church
building
and
actually
adapting
it
in
addition
to
maybe
using
some
of
the
additional
wat
space.
That's
there
for
that
baby.
Exactly
it
just
seems
to
shame
to
take
it
down
entirely,
and
you
know
start
from
scratch.
A
A
G
The
existing
church
doesn't
meet
their
needs,
and
so
we
have
agreed
to
do
that
on
their
behalf
and
then
donate
the
property
back
to
them
with
respect
to
the
trees
and
the
design.
I
think
anything
that
we
can
do
to
enhance
the
property
without
it
overly
increasing
the
value,
because
that's
what
the
families
pay
is
the
fair
market
value
so
we're
trying
to
keep
it
within
an
affordable
amount
so
that
their
mortgages
will
be
25
years
long
and
not
35
years
based
on
their
income.
A
Thank
you
who
will
be
receiving
that
that
note
so
I
think
that'll
be
helpful.
I'll
go
back
to
the
committee
any
further
questions,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation.
Thank
you
and
with
that
I
will
close
public
meeting
number
2
and
open
public
meeting
number
three,
which
is
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
respect
to
1707,
1709,
17,
11,
1713
and
1715
executive
Avenue.
L
Okay,
thank
you
and
good
evening,
madam
chair
planning,
committee
staff
and
members
of
the
public.
My
name
is
Jennifer
Guerra
and
I'm.
A
land
use
planner
with
Foton
consultants
and
I'm
pleased
to
present
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
five
Lots
on
executive
Avenue
on
behalf
of
green
homes,.
L
So
this
slide
shows
the
subdivision
design,
that's
currently
under
development
and
the
five
Lots
proposed
for
rezoning,
which
are
in
the
northwest
corner.
So
this
is
phase
four
of
the
Midland
Park
subdivision
specifically,
and
this
phase
has,
in
addition
to
a
park,
block
104
residential
lots,
which
are
all
slated
for
single
detached
dwellings,
including
the
five
subject
properties.
L
Setbacks
are
intended
to
establish
a
desirable
streetscape
one
where
houses
are
brought
but
closer
to
the
road
than
what
we
saw
in
some
of
the
older
subdivisions
and
also
provides
provisions
that
are
aimed
at
reducing
the
scale
of
garages
and
influencing
the
design
and
location
of
the
garages.
But
what
we
found
on
irregularly-shaped
and
specifically
pie-shaped
Lots,
is
that
the
maximum
front
yard
setback
has
the
effect
of
really
limiting
what
width
of
dwelling
you
can
have
on
the
lot,
because
it
pushes
the
structures
closer
to
the
street,
where
the
lot
really
narrows.
L
Now
this
figure
provides
a
sense
of
what
kind
of
increases
we're
talking
about.
So
the
Green
Line
and
I
see
in
the
slides
it's
kind
of
hard
to
differentiate
between
the
Green
and
the
blue.
But
the
green
lines
are
the
ones
closer
to
executive,
Avenue
and
those
are
the
required
7
meters
front
your
maximum
setbacks
and
we're
proposing
an
increase
to
the
blue
lines,
which
are
slightly
further
setback
and
summarized
in
the
table
on
the
left.
L
Now
this
table
it
are
the
zoning
provisions
for
the
front
yard.
Only
so
increasingly,
zoning
for
newly
developing
neighborhoods
includes
additional
and
more
complex
front
yard
provisions,
and
the
purpose
of
this
is
to
essentially
influence
the
streetscape.
Try
to
bring
houses
closer
to
the
street,
create
a
more
uniform
setback
along
the
road
and
as
well
as
control
the
design
and
the
location
of
garages
and
trying
to
avoid
sort
of
the
eighties
and
earlier
snow
houses.
L
L
The
third
provision
that
you
see
this
one
here
essentially
says
that
if
you
provide
a
porch
which
is
of
a
particular
size
and
dimension,
you're
allowed
to
an
increase
maximum
setback
of
nine
point.
Two
meters
and
the
last
provision
basically
says
your
garage
is
allowed
to
project
up
to
a
maximum
of
three
meters.
L
If
your
garage
is
setback,
a
maximum
of
six
point,
two
meters
and
you
provide
a
porch
as
well
so
again,
these
provisions
are
intended
to
control
the
design
of
the
house
and
the
garage
and
to
really
in
court,
encourage
entry
features
such
as
porches
and
try
to
minimize
the
appearance
of
garages
and
really
these
provisions
they
build
on
each
other.
So
they
only
work
if
the
increase
is
relative
to
the
maximum
setback
proposed.
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
amended.
L
L
The
uses
are
permitted
frontage,
all
of
the
yards,
the
driveway,
with
the
garage
location,
parking
or
continued
to
be
met,
and,
to
summarize
it's
my
opinion
that
they
proposed
amendment
is
appropriate
as
it
addresses
a
constraint
resulting
from
the
irregular
shape
of
three
Lots
and
the
relief
for
the
N
Lots
will
provide
a
gradual
transition
to
the
increased
setbacks
in
the
pie
shaped
Lots
in
the
corner.
All
other
zoning
provisions
are
met,
perhaps
most
notably,
the
rear
yard.
L
So,
despite
that,
we're
shifting
the
buildings
back
a
little
bit,
it's
not
at
the
expense
of
rear
yard
amenity,
that's
still
being
met.
It
maintains
the
approved
form
and
density
of
residential
development
in
phase
four
alone
of
Midland
Park
there's
a
hundred
and
four
Lots,
and
this
is
only
going
to
effect
5,
so
95%
of
the
phase
of
the
largest
subdivision
will
be
affected.
And,
finally,
the
proposal
conforms
with
the
Official
Plan
policy
is
related
to
residential
uses,
functional
needs
and
compatibility,
and
with
that
I
invite
any
comments
or
questions.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
You,
madam
chair,
through
you
notice
of
this
public
meeting,
has
been
provided
in
accordance
with
the
Planning
Act.
This
consisted
of
signage
being
posted
at
each
of
the
five
Lots
in
question,
as
well
as
a
notice
being
mailed
to
all
62
property
owners
within
120
metres
of
the
subject.
Lands
to
date,
staff
have
not
received
any
queries
or
comments
with
respect
to
the
proposed
amendment.
Thank.
A
You
thank
you,
questions
from
staff
or
a
CEREC
committee.
Seeing
none
I
would
like
to
open
the
meeting
to
members
of
the
public.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this
application,
seeing
none?
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation.
Thank
you
and
with
that
I
will
close
planning
meeting
number
three
and
we'll
go
back
to
the
beginning
of
the
agenda
and
I
will
open
public
meeting
number
one.
A
N
N
Essentially,
the
applications
for
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
are
to
allow
for
the
redevelopment
of
block,
3
and
block
5
of
the
north
block
to
allow
for
the
redevelopment
of
of
that
area
in
a
manner
that's
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
area
and
consistent
with
the
city's
planning
documents.
So
subject,
properties
for
those
of
you
are
aware
located
north
of
Princess
Street
in
the
princess
eat,
Street
corridor,
they're
part
of,
what's
known
as
the
North
block
district
history,
in
that
area
of
industrial
industrial
character,
industrial
heritage
of
of
Kingston
close
to
the
downtown.
N
So
these
two
Lots
in
particular,
have
been
surface
parking
lots
for
a
number
of
years,
but
previous
history
was
was
an
industrial
in
nature,
so
they
are
located
in
proximity
to
the
downtown
many
services
etc,
and
that's
part
of
the
attraction
certainly
of
developing
these
at
a
higher
density
because
of
the
the
proximity
so
block.
3
is
half
of
that
city
block
is
bounded
on
the
north
side
by
the
LCBO,
which
is
in
the
top
left
corner.
N
It's
this
building
right
here
and
then
on
the
north
west
corner
is
the
good
life
fitness
building,
which
has
there's
a
couple
of
other
uses
as
well
so
right
now,
this
is
currently
the
jury
parking
lot
for
those
of
driven
by
you
may
have
seen
construction
activity.
It's
actually
archaeological
work.
That's
been
ongoing
for
quite
some
time,
because
the
archaeological
resources
on
the
site
block
five
is
the
northern
half
of
this
city
block
with
the
SNR
building
on
the
north
or
on
the
south
east
corner,
and
then
on
the
southwest
corner.
N
In
terms
of
existing
uses
in
the
in
the
air
and
on
the
north
block,
specifically
Food
Basics
is
located
in
the
in
the
block,
one
which
is
northeast
of
the
Northwest
and
septic
site.
Uk
Rock
Center
is
block
2,
which
is
directly
north
of
block
5
and
block
3.
There's
a
block
for
block
3
is
there.
You
said
it's
good
life
and
then
LCBO
down
here
on
the
other
part
and
then
block
4,
which
is
directly
across
from
both
block
5
and
block
3.
N
Our
sorry
in
the
north,
waterfront
development
has
been
slower
redevelopment
and
former
industrial
lands
along
the
waterfront
and
inland
had
been
slower.
Certainly,
the
k-rock
Center
has
been
the
biggest
spur
or
spurring
on
a
development
north
of
the
downtown
in
terms
of
a
large-scale
property,
large-scale
development
and
though
others
have
happened
as
well.
N
So
this
would
be
kind
of
the
first
larger
scale,
residential
projects
on
the
north
side
of
the
down,
with
the
exception
of
sand,
others
such
as
Anna
Lane
to
the
north
at
nine
stories,
which
was
completed
a
couple
of
years
ago,
I'll
now
pass
the
presentation
over
to
the
project.
Architects,
we'll
go
through
the
proposal
and
changes
there.
O
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
members
of
Planning
Committee,
it's
nice
to
be
back
in
Kingston
on
a
beautiful
day,
there's
a
little
warmer.
The
last
time.
I
was
here
in
January.
I
thought
I'd
quickly
just
go
through
some
of
the
broad
brush
changes
that
take
place
over
the
last
eighteen
and
nineteen
months.
So
after
the
proposal
back
and
I
think
February
January
February.
O
The
outline
in
red
is
basically
the
profile
of
the
project
that
was
brought
forward
last
year
and
the
rendered
image
is
what's
being
brought
forward
today
in
in
broad
strokes.
We
basically
removed
three
stories
in
building
height
from
the
original
20-story
building
down
to
a
17-story
building.
The
overall
size
of
the
tower
portion
has
reduced
from
almost
12,000
square
feet
down
to
about
11
a
half
thousand
square
feet
and
the
overall
building
area
in
terms
of
total
building
mass
has
been
reduced
by
almost
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
O
Just
within
the
this
site,
the
biggest
change
from
a
programming
point
of
view
and
the
original
proposal
we
had
included
for
a
public
parking
garage
in
this
area.
That's
now
been
replaced
with
some
ground-floor
retail
along
King
Street,
as
well
as
residential
units
on
the
second
to
fifth
floor,
I,
see
in
building
with
basic
again
the
red
lighting
where
we
were
compared
to
where
we
are
today
and
a
general
reduction
on
block
five
again,
the
same
process
took
place
a
little
different
in
terms
of
the
building
metrics.
O
The
building
height
was
reduced
in
this
case
from
20
stories
down
to
19
stories,
and
the
the
podium
area
has
been
reduced
from
7
stories
down
to
5
stories.
Most
of
that
was
achieved
through
the
elimination
of
homestead
was
looking
to
relocate
their
head
office.
This
there
is
after
we've
gone
through
this.
O
Again,
the
buildings
is
showing
the
general
outline
and
if
we
go
back
to
block
3,
that
biggest
change
from
a
site
plan
point
of
view
was
the
relocation
of
the
placement
of
the
tower
and
it
was
felt
from
the
original
design.
We
had
the
tower
pushed
much
closer
here
was
over
in
this
area
and
quite
a
lot
higher,
and
there
was
a
feeling
that
it
was
a
negative
impact
or
adverse
impact
on
Wellington
Street.
O
The
idea
was
to
reduce
the
overall
size
of
the
tower
or
the
height
of
the
tower,
with
the
tower,
but,
more
importantly,
its
placement
on
the
site
to
reduce
its
overshadowing
or
impact
on
to
Wellington
Street,
the
use
materials.
Again,
we've
been
a
little
bit
more
forceful
in
the
use
materials
to
sort
of
break
down
the
mass
of
the
building
at
grade
we
find
with
these
Tower
and
podium
buildings.
O
You
begin
looking
at
the
building
from
a
cityscape
and
then
from
a
streetscape
and
then
down
to
a
pedestrian
level
and
at
each
level
we
begin
to
increase
the
amount
of
detail,
increase
the
animation
involved
in
sort
of
a
tactile
feel
of
the
building.
So
we
went
back
and
looked
at,
try
to
create
a
little
bit
more
bolder
statement,
trying
to
break
up
the
mass
of
the
building
from
a
streetscape
level.
O
As
you
begin
to
look
from
from
a
further
away,
you
begin
to
use
different
materials
to
try
to
make
the
towers
a
little
bit
more,
even
more
slender
than
what
they've
become,
but,
more
importantly,
at
the
street
level.
We
begin
to
really
look
at
the
impact
on
how
the
pedestrian
views
the
buildings
and
the
idea
is
to
create
and
integrate
almost
the
appearance
of
multiple
buildings,
town,
as
opposed
to
one
large
building
mass,
and
to
create
a
little
bit
more
of
an
animated
streetscape.
O
Same
approach
was
taken
in
and
block
5.
However,
it
was
felt,
though,
because
of
the
nature
of
Ontario
Street
compared
to
Wellington
Street.
It
was
actually
advantageous
to
keep
the
building
and
it's
where
we
had
originally
showed
it
a
little
bit
closer
to
Ontario
Street,
not
the
mid
block
approach,
and
the
idea
was
to
reinforce
the
distance
between
the
two
towers
to
get
as
much
separation
as
possible,
but
still
have
a
sizable
setback
from
from
the
King
Street.
O
We
thought
would
be
an
advantage
at
the
same
time
to
maintain
proper
setback,
to
create
a
strong
read
of
the
podium,
and
so
the
the
uses
within
this
building
I
say
the
potential
of
putting
in
the
rental
office
in
here
will
add
to
that
commercial
aspect.
The
rest
of
the
is
made
up
of
amenity
spaces
for
the
overall
building,
and
the
idea
is
demand
for
retail,
as
it
begins
to
increase
over
time.
These
amenities
spaces
can
be
converted
into
retail
spaces
where
we're
actually
have
more
amenity
space
and
probably
what's
required
and
so
work.
O
Although
we
don't
think
at
the
present
time,
it's
appropriate
to
add
retail
space
in
this
location.
We
know
that
as
the
city
grows
and
there's
more
residential
intensification
downtown,
the
need
will
could
come
forward
and
these
spaces
could
easily
convert
into
ground-floor
retail.
Otherwise
the
building
is
made
up
entirely
of
residential
and
again,
the
same
idea
is
taking
place
we've
to
try
to
break
down
the
mosque,
the
building
with
use
of
different
materials,
setbacks
within
the
tower
and
but
more
importantly,
is
to
create
an
animated
streetscape.
O
This
is
just
a
again
a
comparison
between
the
two,
just
as
a
record
and
numbers
of
units.
You
can
see
that
from
a
number
of
unit
point
of
view
we've
actually
through
this
change
of
the
removal
of
the
parking
and
block
3
we've
actually
added
some
units
to
that
building
and
kept
the
the
building.
Basically
the
same,
so
we
have
approximately
400
units
between
the
two
buildings
to
enter
each
unit,
and
we
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
welcome
addition
into
the
downtown
there.
P
P
Our
role
is
a
little
bit
different
in
that
we
are
evaluating
the
development
of
the
design
and
that
the
results
of
the
design
and
as
mr.
Tao
indicated,
we
have
two
roles
in
that
evaluation
process.
One
is
on
the
heritage
side
and
one
is
on
the
urban
design
side.
So
I'm
gonna
just
go
over
with
you.
What
our
findings
were
and
a
little
bit
about
what
our
process
was
in
order
to
do
that
evaluation,
we're
gonna
start
with
heritage.
P
P
The
North
Block
area
and
its
relationship
with
downtown
and
the
most
important
element
for
us
is
designated
elements,
whether
it
be
districts
or
individually
designated
properties,
and
you,
as
you
can
see,
do
we
have
a
designated
district
here,
which
is
City
Hall
and
Market
Square
Heritage,
Conservation
District
and
the
blue
dots
represent
individually
designated
properties.
So
you
see
these
are
the
two
blocks
block
three
and
block
five,
so
we
have
a
few
that
are
kind
of
huddled
in
there
close
to
the
close
to
the
property.
P
So
these
are
when
it
comes
to
a
heritage
evaluation
we're
looking
at
what
is
the
potential
impact,
be
it
positive
or
negative.
On
these
historic
resources,
the
other
two
colored
areas
are
non
designated
zones,
but
nevertheless
recognized
in
the
Official
Plan
as
heritage
character,
areas
I
think
it's
important
to
not
only
look
at
the
designated
properties
which
these
three
are.
These
are
three
of
the
four
huddled
in
close
to
the
two
sites,
but
we
also
looked
a
lot
at
precedent.
P
Buildings,
precedent,
Street,
scapes,
pardon
me
within
the
area
that
could
serve
as
examples
or
models
for
the
development
of
the
podium,
so
recognizing
that
the
podium
and
setback
tower
concept
in
general,
a
proven
concept
for
compatibility
in
lower
scaled
areas.
We
said:
well,
that's
not
enough.
We
need
to
see
what
those
podiums
are
like
and
how
did
those
podiums
work
with
the
context?
And
so
we
did
a
study
of
I
think
five
or
six.
These
are
two
of
them.
P
You'll
recognize
this
is
the
s
and
R,
but
a
handful
of
others,
including
the
old
Whig
standard
building
and,
of
course,
there's
a
lot
of
focus
that
we
have
on
the
closest
heritage.
Conservation
district
would
be
be
it
City,
Hall,
Market,
Square
and
more
on
that
in
a
second
and
just
before,
I
go
any
further.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
well
aware
of
the
sort
of
mandate
of
the
Heritage
impact
study
it's
required
under
municipal
and
provincial
law.
P
It
looks
at
both
positive
and
negative
impacts
and
it
focuses
on
designated
resources
and
unless
so
on,
non
designated
resources.
Nevertheless,
it's
looking
at
all
heritage
resources.
In
our
case,
we
always
do
a
thorough
inventory
and
analysis
and
evaluation
of
each
aspect
of
the
development.
In
this
case,
each
of
the
two
blocks
we
like
to
bring
a
methodical
and
rigorous
process
to
to
the
to
the
study
and
another
aspect
that
is
required
is
required
by
the
city.
P
But
the
study
goes
a
lot
farther
than
that,
in
fact,
studies
a
fairly
thick
book.
That's
the
Heritage
one,
that's
the
urban
design
one!
They
are
public
documents,
I.
Believe,
madam
chair,
so
there
are
for
anyone
who
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
have
a
look
happen,
so
it
goes
in
a
lot
more
depth.
One
area,
for
instance,
looks
at
the
history
of
the
site,
the
evolution
on
the
site
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
it's
I
think
most
people
are
understand.
P
It's
a
former
heavy
industrial
zone
and
has
been
slow
to
redevelop,
partly
because
of
that,
the
other
or
one
of
the
other
aspects
of
the
Heritage
study
is
very
core
part
of
it,
in
fact,
is
the
actual
evaluation,
and
this
is
what
I
mean
about
the
rigor
we
want
to
bring
to.
It
is
that
we
take
every
historic
designated
heritage
asset.
That's
within
that
area
we
bring
out
its
designer
physical
value,
its
historical
or
associative
value,
its
environmental
or
contextual
value,
as
per
provincial
Heritage
Act,
and
we
take
out
it.
P
We
take
it
out
clause
by
clause
when,
where
you
have
the
Heritage
character
statement
about
what
what
characteristics
of
these
properties
give
it
its
heritage
value,
that's
very
important
to
be
very
exacting
with
that,
because
there's
naturally
a
world
of
ways
of
looking
at
these
things.
So
we
try
to
bring
some
objectivity
to
it,
and
so
each
clause
is
then
described.
The
impact
is
described
clause
by
clause,
so
there
are
many
pages
of
this
because
we
go
through
each
and
every
designated
resource
and
we
go
through
each
and
every
clause
for
each
of
those
resources.
P
P
P
One
of
the
one
of
the
positive
potential
impacts
is
that
it
serves
to
increase
the
the
potential
for
support
and
for
adaptive,
reuse
of
nineteen
and
twenty
three
Queen,
which
are
the
series
of
small
three
small
stone
buildings
right
across
the
street
right
across
Queen
Street
free
block
five-
and
you
know
we-
we
don't
like
to
see
fallow
heritage
buildings
that
that
that's
a
that's
a
trigger
point.
You
can't
save
a
heritage
ability
without
getting
a
new
use
for
it.
P
So
we
like
the
idea
of
bringing
more
people
close
to
this
area,
perhaps
increasing
the
opportunity
for
new
use,
and
we
found
that
due
to
the
podium
and
tower
approach
that
in
general,
the
proposal
is
respectful
of
the
part
for
resources
close
by
and
I'll.
Give
you
a
bit
of
detail
on
that
in
a
second
with
respect
to
part
5,
which
is
the
districts.
P
It's
a
very
specific
way
of
analyzing
how
a
proposal
impacts
a
district,
and
that
is
to
look
at
from
being
in
the
district
and
looking
towards
the
proposed
development.
So
in
doing
that-
and
we
did
extensive
three-dimensional
modeling
ourselves
of
the
entire
area-
I'll
show
you
some
of
that
in
a
minute
so
that
we
could
get
in
and
around.
P
So,
in
terms
of
protecting
heritage
value,
you
can
have
protection
physically
or
protection
visually,
so
under
physical
we've
made
recommendations
in
the
study
that
there
should
be
required,
advanced
detailed
methodology
of
the
measures
that
are
proposed
to
be
taken
to
prevent
potential
harm
physical
harm
to
the
designated
buildings
in
the
area
during
the
construction,
because
these
are
going
to
be
very
large
construction
projects.
Obviously-
and
there
will
be
things
like
excavation
and
pilings
poundings,
and
so
to
get
the
approval
that
this
should
be
part
of
the
approvals
process.
P
We
found
that
again
similar
to
what
I
just
told
you
about
the
district,
the
part
five
that
there
there
is
impact.
But
in
our
view
it's
limited.
The
value
of
the
designated
buildings
that
that
the
value
that
the
heritage
resources
that
is
brought
to
the
community
by
their
presence,
in
our
view,
is
not
adversely
or
negatively
impacted
by
these
tall
buildings.
Let's
face
that
they
are
very
tall
buildings
compared
to
the
scale.
That's
there
now
and
they're
set
back
from
the
street
wall
podium.
The
tall
aspects
of
the
development
is
well
setback.
P
The
other
thing
that
we
have
recommended
in
the
heritage
report,
as
well
as
the
urban
design
report
I'll,
get
to
that
in
a
second
is
that
opportunities
do
exist
and
we
make
recommendations
that,
as
the
design
is
developed
for
the
site
plan,
approval
process.
So
the
next
stage,
if
you
will
that
there
be
certain
design
development
elements
that
are
brought
forward,
and
these
are
details
within
their
report.
So
that's
the
Heritage
report.
Now,
let's
go
to
the
urban
design
report
again,
it
starts
with
looking
at
the
surrounding
context.
P
In
this
case,
these
are
not
designated
buildings,
these
little
circles
with
letters
in
them.
These
are
just
features
within
the
urban
context
around
the
$0.02
and
of
course,
you
can
see
that
the
two
sites
here
the
light
green,
is
just
the
north
block
area
which
mark
is
already
taking
you
through,
and
these
features
are
elements
to
be
very
conscious
of
when
you're
thinking
about
the
urban
design
of
this
area.
P
I
want
to
just
take
you
through
a
more
like
a
walk-through
of
the
area,
so
photographic
instead
of
plans
and
maps
and
the
sort
of
land-use
planning
method.
I
want
to
take
you
more
through
the
urban
design
method.
So
when
we
look
at
these
sites
and
what
they
have
to
offer,
they
have
both
positive
and
negative.
The
these
views,
I,
would
say,
are
relatively
negative.
The
sites
are
fallow
they're
on
great
parking,
neighboring
gas
stations.
There's
there's
a
sort
of
automotive
culture
is
sort
of
really
prevalent
in
the
district,
but
then,
of
course,
very
closeby.
P
One
really
important
aspect
of
this
area
is
the
connectivity
that
this
part
of
Queen
Street
provides
to
the
waterfront
and
that's
a
very
valuable
resource
from
an
urban
design
point
of
view
that
needs
to
be
protected,
I
think
in
a
way
it's
enhanced
by
the
infilling
of
the
street
wall.
If
you
will
of
this
development.
P
P
So,
as
I
give
an
indication
about
what
the
Heritage
report
is.
The
urban
design
report
is
really
a
valuation
to
look
at
the
review
of
the
fit
within
the
existing
and
the
emerging
urban
character.
So
a
city
is
not
a
static
and
finite
thing.
A
city
is
an
evolving
thing,
so
it's
very
important
to
look
at
the
existing
and
the
evolving
and
to
look
at
evolving.
We
look
at
things
like
the
Official
Plan
and
the
various
plans
that
the
city
has
for
this
part
of
the
city.
P
There
is,
in
this
case
a
really
high
number
of
previous
studies
that
the
North
Block
has
been
studied
to
the
hilt.
We
went
through
I
think
it
was
a
box
and
a
half
banker's
box
and
a
half
of
previous
reports,
and
so
of
course
we
don't
want
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
We
want
to
build
on
the
knowledge,
that's
been
developed
by
those
previous
reports
and
we
want
to
isolate
current
issues
as
well
within
the
context.
So
there
are
very
large
themes
within
the
planning
and
official
direction
that
the
city
wants.
P
Sustainability
and
core
intensification
is
a
large
theme.
There
is
a
real
challenge
with
court
area
vacancies.
Kingston
is
not
the
only
city
to
experience
that
sort
of
down
downdraft,
if
you
will
of
of
their
urban
core
the
sites
themselves.
Are
these
post-industrial
brownfields
and
again
that's
not
uncommon
either,
and
there
is
pressure
to
increase
both
the
number
of
residents
and
the
opportunity
for
parking
in
the
downtown
area.
P
So
what
is
appropriate
that
it's
part
of
the
evaluation
if
there
is
to
be
high-rise
towers
according
to
the
previous
documentation,
that
they
should
have
a
distinctive
presence
and
another
really
important?
One,
is
to
locate
that
the
building
strategically
and
the
previous
presenters
have
talked
a
little
bit
about
that
I'm.
Just
gonna
very
quickly,
go
through
numbers,
one
in
five
off
this
list,
so
number
one.
It's
all
about
that:
street-level
interaction
that
that
sort
of
interface
between
a
person
walking
by
and
the
end
and
the
buildings.
It's
about
entries.
P
It's
about
activities
that
that
create
active
streetscapes
such
as
retail.
It's
about
amenity
areas
again
to
create
activity,
and
it's
also
really
important
to
have
ground
floor
Heights
that
are
tall
enough,
both
for
us
of
the
matching,
the
traditional
historic
downtown
streets
gates,
but
also,
in
this
case
really
important
rod
mentioned
earlier
about
the
lack
of
marketability
of
commercial
retail
on
the
ground
floor,
and
this
is
a
real
challenge,
because
that's
what
we
want
to
do
with
the
development
of
the
these
properties.
P
P
That's
what's
gonna,
give
you
the
life,
the
activity
that
you're
looking
for
in
terms
of
locating
building
strategically
there's
two
ways
of
looking
at
it.
One
is
what
was
mentioned
by
rod.
Is
that
to
be
able
to
separate
the
towers
so
that
they
don't
start
forming
a
wall
being
being
that
the
the
blocks
are
right,
kitty-corner
from
each
other?
That
is
a
real
potential
problem.
P
So
we
like
the
fact
that
they're
separated
and
the
other
idea
of
locating
the
building
strategically,
which
is
something
probably
the
land
use
planner,
would
look
more
at,
which
is
how
does
this
very
tall
very
large,
very
dense
development?
How
does
sort
of
shakedown
when
you
look
at
the
whole
downtown
area
beyond
the
north
block?
So
this
is
an
example
of
some
of
the
three-dimensional
modeling
that
we
did.
P
We
modelled
in
fact,
that
that
entire
area
that
you
see
there
from
scratch
in
order
to
study
that
and
we
were
able
to
use
our
model
to
go
through
this,
this
whole
area
and
understand
what
the
experience
would
be
walking
through
the
streets
and
so
that's
what
we
did
and
that
that
was
how
we
that
was
how
we
did
the
process.
If
you
will
of
our
evaluation.
P
Ok,
almost
finished,
we
want
to
talk
about
the
relationship
to
setting,
because
it's
it's
very
important
when
you're
talking
about
the
the
districts,
so
any
courteous
conservation
districts,
we
always
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
that
setting
and
what
is
the
relationship
between
the
proposed
development
and
the
setting.
So
imagine
if
you
will
that
you're
standing
in
Market,
Square
and
you're
looking
north
towards
the
new
development.
This
is
what
you
will
see
today,
so
these
buildings
here
are
these
here
right
and
then
the
city
hall
is
just
off
to
the
right.
P
Here-
and
this
is
King
Street,
so
when,
when
you're,
when
you're
standing
there,
what
what
is
the
experience
of
that
and
in
our
in
our
view,
that
these
very
tall
buildings,
which
are
a
couple
blocks
away,
are
not
having
an
impact
that
is
harmful
to
the
heritage,
value
of
that
heritage,
district
and
I
guess
another
point
should
be
made.
Is
that
this
building,
which
is
I,
think
roughly
within
it,
within
a
story
or
two
of
the
proposed
ones,
which
is
actually
a
lot
closer
to
the
City
Hall,
which
is
perhaps
Kingston's
finest
gem?
P
The
changes
brought
has
given
you,
the
physical
changes,
I
think
with
those
illustrations
you
had
with
the
red
dotted
lines
of
a
previous
proposal.
I
just
want
to
highlight
one,
and
that
is
rod
did
mention
it.
I
want
highlight
it
more
boy.
Were
we
happy
to
see
that
massive
parking
garage
public
parking
garage
be
removed?
Not
that
we
don't
agree
that
you
do
need
to
have
lots
of
public
parking
in
or
near
your
downtown,
but
we
just
didn't
feel
it
was
the
right
spot
for
it,
and
so
we
were
really
happy
to
see
that
go.
P
That's
really
helping
with
active
street
fronts,
it's
helping
on
a
lot
of
different
levels.
So,
in
conclusion,
for
the
urban
design
report,
there
is
some
similarity
I
suppose
in
a
way
with
the
Heritage
report,
and
that
is
not
surprising.
Given
that
heritage
conservation,
urban
design
and
land-use
planning
as
well
can
throw
that
in
are
very
much
interrelated.
P
P
Sorry,
we
seem
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
ghost
in
the
machine
here.
I
think
we're
close
there.
We
are
in,
in
our
view,
and
primarily
because
again
of
those
podiums
and
by
today's
urban
design,
standards,
we're
Kingston
Canada
is
are
not
the
only
places
where
you're
looking
to
intensify
properly
our
cities
is
that
the
the
tower
house,
in
our
view,
is
acceptable.
The
ground
floor
floor
articulation,
I,
can't
say
it
enough.
It's
the
most
important
and
so
effort
should
be
concentrated
here
as
we
move
forward
through
the
design.
P
For
a
number
of
those
areas,
so,
if
you
look
at
the
report,
you'll
see
a
number
of
recommendations.
We
talked
a
little
bit
near
the
end
of
the
report
about
the
potential
for
Gateway
along
Ontario
Street.
We
think
that's
important.
That's
why
we
we
wanted
really
very
much
to
see
at
least
a
bit
of
green
space
on
the
Ontario
Street
side.
P
N
Thanks
mark
and
rod,
so
the
last
pieces
are
really
just
the
the
planning
policies
to
the
PPS.
The
Official
Plan
zoning
bylaw
I'll
I'll
try
to
move
through
those
as
efficiently
as
possible.
So
with
respect
to
the
provincial
policy
statements,
it's
a
it's
a
broad
planning
documents.
It
looks
a
encourages
mr.
Palace
to
use
resources
efficiently
to
make
sure
that
land
is
provided
to
accommodate
a
population,
growth,
etc.
It
also
talks
about
intensification
and
the
key
is
intensification.
N
That's
compatible
with
the
existing
development
in
the
development
context,
so
based
on
the
supporting
documents,
including
the
H,
is,
and
their
design
analysis
where
the
opinion
that
it
does
satisfy
the
intent
of
the
PPS,
the
Official
Plan
designates
the
land,
a
central
business
district,
the
urban
core
of
the
city,
where
intensity
is
intended
to
be
focused,
both
residential
commercial,
institutional
to
some
extent
as
well.
So
the
original
official
plan
amendment
requested
four
amendments.
N
One
amendments
been
removed
and
that's
with
respect
to
allowing
100%
residential
on
block
three
so
that
that's
no
longer
needed
we're
proposing
commercial
on
the
ground
floor
on
King
Street
for
block
three
there's
three
amendments:
the
Official
Plan
they're
required.
The
first
is
to
allow
non-commercial
frontage
in
Ontario,
Wellington
and
Queen
streets.
So
right
now,
commercial
would
be
provided
on
King
Street.
N
The
attention
for
this
is
what
it
was
when
we
first
presented.
This
is
because,
at
this
point,
there's
not
demonstrated
need
to
have
all
phases
of
those
two
blocks
with
retail
or
with
commercial.
The
downtown
the
BIA
spoken
support
at
the
last
public
meeting
about
the
need
to
balance
commercial
in
different
areas
of
the
downtown
and
and
at
present
it's
not
clear
that
there's
a
need
for
that.
So
the
intention
is
to
allow
for
flexible
use
to
the
ground
floor
and
but
also
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
ground
floor
is
actively
programmed.
N
So
it's
not
blank
walls,
it's
not
inactive
spaces.
There's
nobody
coming
and
going
so
the
floor
plans.
If
you
look
at
them,
you'll
see
that
there's
kind
of
tenant
service
areas,
so
bike
storage
rooms
or
bike
rooms,
also
in
Manatee
space
areas,
would
have
doors
that
would
open
out
onto
the
sidewalk
with
you
know,
full
curtain
walls
of
glass,
and
there
is
something
to
look
at
and
not
just
blank
space.
Despite
the
fact
there
may
not
be
retail
on
all
the
frontages.
The
second
area
for
relief
from
the
effort
of
plan
is
is
height.
N
Maximum
height
in
the
Official
Plan
is
limited
as
a
right
to
seventeen
at
the
street
and
then
25.5
maximum
overall,
so
at
the
street,
while
both
blocks
will
be
at
17
meters.
The
podiums
will
step
up
to
about
20
meters
beyond
that,
so
four
storeys
of
the
street
five
storeys
for
the
whole
of
the
podium
and
then
the
two
towers
themselves
will
reach
17
stories
and
19
stories,
which
is
a
reduction
of
a
four
and
two
stories
from
the
from
the
original
design.
So
based
to
evaluate
that,
we
obviously
look
to
the
urban
design
study.
N
N
N
Moving
to
the
zoning,
the
current
zoning
for
that
all
of
the
north
walk
is
C
122,
which
recognizes
existing
uses
for
there's
a
holding
on
them
for
confirming
that
there's
adequate
services
etc
for
development
that
may
happen
there,
so
we're
proposing
to
site
specific
zones
says
with
the
original
proposal,
and
they
would
each
identify
specific
setbacks,
a
specific
building
heights,
parking
provisions
etc
for
both
of
the
blocks.
Just
briefly,
on
one
slide,
I've
highlighted
the
main
kind
of
the
high
points.
I
guess
words,
owning
relief
is
meant
or
is
being
requested.
N
N
In
summary,
our
opinion
is
that
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
PPS
conforms
to
the
official
plan
and
cemented,
and
it
constitutes
good
planning
and
ask
that
council
consider
and
planning
community
consider
the
application
for
approval
when
the
time
comes.
Thank
you
thank
you
for
the
additional
time
and
realize
it's
longer
than
usual,
but
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
good
understanding
what's
proposed.
Thank.
Q
Certainly
thanks,
madam
and
through
you
like
to
make
a
few
points
here,
so
it'll
be
a
bit
a
little
bit
longer
than
usual
as
well.
I
just
want
to
start
off
by
saying
that,
as
the
applicants
are
proposing,
both
an
increase
in
height
and
density
staff
are
looking
for
input
with
respect
to
community
benefits
at
this
time
through
this
public
meeting.
Q
Underground
parking,
open
space,
small
park,
ATS
community
centers,
rec
facilities,
so
just
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
make
the
public
aware
of
that.
Secondly,
I'd
like
to
note
and
make
everyone
aware
as
well
that
this
application
for
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
has
been
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
That
appeal
was
submitted.
Q
June,
8th
2017
by
the
applicant
homestead
land
holdings
on
the
approval
authorities
or
councils
failure
to
make
a
decision
within
the
prescribed
amount
of
time,
188
days
for
an
official
plan,
amendment
and
120
days
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
just
further
to
that.
This
is
not
a
statutory
public
meeting.
The
statutory
public
meeting
with
respect
to
the
two
files
presented
tonight
was
held
February
18th
2016.
Q
So
this
is
a
non
statutory
public
meeting
that
is
being
held
to
seek
public
input
with
respect
community
benefits,
as
well
as
public
input
for
councils
consideration
and
moving
forward
through
the
process.
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
staff
have
circulated
the
application,
in
conformance
with
the
Planning
Act,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
this
isn't
a
non-statutory
public
meeting.
So
with
that
all
of
the
signage
on
block
three
and
block
five
have
been
updated
to
reflect
such
matter.
Q
Q
I've
already
mentioned
the
point
regarding
community
benefit,
but
I
want
to
mention
the
fact
that
that's
still
open
and
tonight
is
not
the
only
opportunity
for
you
to
provide
that
staffs
contact.
Information
is
public
as
well
as
all
of
the
submitted
materials
and
supporting
studies
are
all
online
through
our
which
their
development
and
Services
Hub
and
we're
located
at
1211
John
counter
Boulevard
to
date.
Following
the
resubmission,
there's
been
one
piece
of
public
correspondence
that
was
received,
that
was
a
written
letter
and
I
believe
it
has
been
included
as
part
of
your
ad.
Q
B
First
of
the
from
the
architect
I
appreciate
the
five-story
podium
and
somewhat
modest,
but
a
setback
for
the
tower
behind
it
to
address
the
whole
issue
of
streetscape
and
human
scale.
I
know
that
angular
plain
is
something
else:
that's
used
to
mitigate
those
kinds
of
issues,
but
your
plan
seems
to
be
a
90
degree
podium
in
a
setback
and
a
90
degree
tower
have
you
why?
Wouldn't
you
have
considered
angular
plane
as
a
way
to
to
mitigate
some
of
that?
Some
of
those
issues,
streetscape
issues.
O
But
when
you're
looking
at
the
the
concept
of
trying
to
concentrate
the
mass
into
a
tower
and
reduce
the
podium,
then
the
angular
plane
works
really
well
as
regards
to
the
design
of
the
podium
and
what
happens
as
you
move.
The
building
in
in
our
opinion
becomes
less
relevant
because
the
focus
becomes
really
shifted
to
the
to
the
mass
of
the
the
podium,
and
you
know
traveling
through
the
country
and
around
seeing
examples,
that's
sort
of
what
we
call
podium
architecture.
O
It
seems
to
work
really
well
compared
to
the
idea
of
be
angular
plane
where
I
think
the
reference
from
the
streetscape,
where
we
do
exactly
what
you
say
where
we,
you
know
we
step
up
to
the
70
meters,
and
then
we
cut
back
so
that
fifth
floors
actually
setback
almost
the
height
of
that
fifth
floor
and
in
the
original
design.
We
had
a
seven
story,
I
thing
and
we
set
those
back
further.
O
So
but
after
a
point,
it
becomes
sort
of
irrelevant
and
from
the
pedestrian
point
of
view,
you're
up
against
the
building
and
really
beyond
that
top
level
of
the
podium.
The
tower
becomes
less
important,
so
we
thought
in
this
case
it
was
a
better
to
if
we
look
at
block
three
where
we
centered
the
building.
So
we
have
very
large
setbacks
on
both
sides
to
because
of
the
nature,
both
King
Street
in
Wellington
Street.
O
It
tends
to
we
thought,
worked
very
well
aware
on
the
other
project
because
of
the
density
of
Ontario
Street
and
the
height
associated
with
Ontario
Street.
We
could
move
that
tower
forward
and
get
greater
setback
to
King
Street.
So
I
think
that
angular
pain
were
truly
well
at
the
podium
level.
I
think
my
professional
opinion
becomes
a
little
more
irrelevant
with
the
concept
of
the
podium
design,
building.
B
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
recognition
for
retail
ready
on
the
first
floor.
I
know
that
that
wasn't
in
the
earlier
designs,
anticipated
and
I
have
to
say.
I
was
I've
been
lobbied
by
both
merchants
in
the
area,
but
also
residents
saying
that
revitalizing
Queen
Street
requires
some
retail
aspects.
So
I
appreciate
that
that
was
included.
B
So
am
I
right
in
anticipating
that
that
what
you're
really
talking
about
is
what
happens
in
Williamsville,
my
district,
quite
often,
which
is
that
you're
going
to
build
a
first
floor
that
compatible
with
and
retail
ready,
but
it
may
initially
have
alternative
uses
until
the
business
demand
is
there?
Is
that
accurate.
O
Somewhat,
we
are
actually
putting
some
retail
on
King
Street
at
the
corner
of
King
in
block
three
to
strengthen
that.
So
there
is
a
fair
bit
of
pedestrian
movement
at
that
location.
We
think
there's
no
appropriate
space
to
put
retail
and
then
the
rest
is
going
to
be
we're.
Gonna
have
amenity
spaces
that
will
at
least
provide
that
Ahmed
Street
front
and
then
on
the
original
design.
O
We
did
have
the
rental
offices
of
Homestead
located
again
in
a
location
that
would
act
not
retail
but
commercial,
and
that
from
a
programming
that
was
sort
of
removed
through
the
design
process,
it's
now
sort
of
entering
back
into
it.
So
we
we
would
be
looking
at
the
potential
to
introduce
a
commercial
aspect.
It's
not
retail!
That
does
involve
a
lot
of
street
activity
with.
Obviously
the
people
come
in
and
going
from
the
office
as
well
as
the
office.
Usually
so
the
rest
of
the
building,
though,
would
be
designed
to
meet
future
needs.
O
B
Up
my
final
question
for
this
period,
which
is
you
maintaining,
if
I
remember,
rightly
from
the
the
chart
that
that
you
put
up
originally,
even
though
you're
reducing
somewhat
the
height
and
and
the
density
from
that
original
design?
You
are,
if
I,
remember,
rightly,
maintaining
the
number
of
units,
yes
and,
in
one
case,
having
a
very
modest
increase
in
the
number
of
units,
but
there's
a
substantial
decrease
and
that
I
saw
in
the
parking
number
of
parking
and
I'm
a
little
concerned
if
we're
having
office
and
retail
uses,
which
I
support
on
the
site.
O
You
speak
to
that.
It's
a
little
misleading,
because
the
major
loss
of
parking
was
actually
taking
the
whole
parking
garage
component
out,
so
we
had
just
associated
with
the
public
parking
garage
alone,
284
parking
spaces
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
actual
commercial
component
of
the
building.
It
was
a
you
know
and
independently.
It
would
have
been
owned
by
the
City
of
Kingston,
so
the
the
net
change
actually
the
reason
what
happened.
We
took
the
space
that
was
occupied
by
parking
garage
and
we
put
units
into
that
area.
O
Even
so,
even
though
the
building
height
came
down
substantially
and
the
the
girls
square
footage
was
reduced
substantially,
the
unit
count
actually
increased
because
we
were
making
different
use
of
that
floor
space
that
was
left
over.
So
our
actual
ratio
of
car
to
unit
stayed
the
same
in
the
building,
and
so
the
you
see,
the
big
loss
of
parking
was
not
really
associated
with
the
residential
component
at
all
and.
B
O
O
O
Where
we're
pushing
more
and
I
said
in
the
auto
area,
where
we
do
most
of
our
work,
we
we
push
more
and
more,
not
only
just
bright
spaces
pride
the
space
in
a
way
that
can
be
used
so
you're,
not
dragging
bicycles
through
through
lobbies
and
enough
elevators,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we've
done,
which
we
didn't
mention
in
this
proposal
is
I.
Think
we
really
refined
the
way
the
cars
and
service
spaces
are
working
for
both
these
projects,
we've
taken
I
mean
the
original
design.
O
We
had
access
coming
off
of
Queen
Street
for
both
buildings,
all
of
that's
been
removed
and
all
of
the
access
now
is
off
the
creating
a
lane
way
at
the
back
of
the
building
and
I
think
with
I
think
more
refined
design.
We
can
probably
find
those
bicycle
spaces
to
meet
the
requirements
as
we
move
forward.
Thank.
R
N
N
There
I
write
a
trade
with
direct
street
access
out
to
the
out
to
the
sidewalk,
which
will
hopefully
encourage
their
use,
but
there's
also
going
to
be
other
general
stores
available
for
each
unit
or
for
a
number
of
units,
so
that
people,
if
they
choose
to,
they,
can
also
store
their
bicycles
and
their
general
storage.
Or
you
know,
if
you
have
high-end
bicycles,
people
just
don't,
they
won't
store
them
in
a
common
storage
area.
They'll
take
them
to
their
units
that
they
can
so
I.
Think
there's.
N
There
is
probably
some
other
unofficial
bike
stores
that
would
happen
and
also
just
part
of
its
based
on
the
reality.
I
guess
of
what
homestead
is
experience
and
there
are
other
buildings
in
terms
of
the
number
of
units
that
will
have
bikes
in
a
certain
a
certain
point
when
you
have
200
units
in
a
building
and
you
have
105
dedicated
bike
parking
spaces,
your
uptake
probably
won't
be
one
to
one
official
bike
spaces
per
unit
and
maybe
something
less.
So
that's
it's
finding
that
balance
of
efficiently
using
the
space.
Yes,.
O
I
think
reach
in
the
range
of
six
or
seven
or
eight
stories
and
building
night
I
rise.
Buildings
are
governed
by
a
lot
of
building
code
changes,
specifically
in
the
last
two
building
codes.
We,
for
example,
we've
added
sprinkler
systems,
I've,
never
existed
in
high-rise
buildings,
all
the
buildings
downtown
Kingston
today.
Basically,
none
of
them
would
have
sprinklers
in
them
in
the
unit.
So
that's
the
new
change,
so
the
use
of
materials
you
know.
Obviously
we
we
want
to
avoid
that
disaster
that
took
place
recently
in
London.
It's
horrific
and
I
would
say.
O
Our
building
code
is
actually
much
tougher
than
that.
That
particular
model
that
was
used
is
specifically
not
allowed
to
be
used
here,
I've,
the
the
material
that
was
used,
it's
one
of
those
misleading
materials.
That
looks
like
it's
not
possible
because
it's
metal
on
the
outside,
but
it's
got
a
foam
core.
That's
only
allowed
to
be
used
in
Ontario
up
to
six
storeys
in
building
height,
as
opposed
to
a
high-rise,
so
I'm
I'm.
The
building
code
is
constantly
upgrading.
You
can
imagine
that
an
issue
like
that
building
it
doesn't
have
impact
all
around
the
world.
O
So
I
would
expect
changes
in
the
code
to
continually
improve
life
safety.
Many
changes,
save
sprinkler
systems.
Alarm
systems
have
greatly
improved
the
notification
to
four
handicap
in
terms
of
the
way
they're
notified
for
the
deafblind.
Everybody
is
constant
improvements
to
the
safety
of
the
building,
so
I'm
quite
comfortable.
This
is
this
will
be
a
safe
building,
I'm,
not
sure
if
the
city
has
a
circulation
to
the
fire
department
generally
years
ago,
the
cities
would
circulate
to
fire
departments.
Generally,
they
don't
today.
As
part
of
the
review
process,
the
code
is
fairly
strict
in.
S
O
S
A
Other
questions
from
the
committee
I
have
a
couple.
One
is
about
the
previous
design.
The
podium
area
had
some
really
lovely
architectural
details
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
to
try
to
make
it
look
very
compatible.
These
drawings,
don't
sort
of
show
the
arches
and
you
had
some
plasters.
I
mean
there
was
quite
some
interesting
detail
in
the
previous
drawings.
Is
it
just
that
these
drawings
are
really
quite
plain
and
and
you're
going
to
pump
them
up
after.
O
Yeah
combination
of
two
things:
one:
we
decided
to
switch
actual
software
to
demonstrate
this
project
and
we
sort
of
got
caught
partway
through
almost
toward
the
end.
We're
realizing
couldn't
get
quite
the
life
that
we
wanted
to.
The
project
is
basically
a
terrible
excuse,
but
anyways
we
sort
of
got
caught
up
in
our
own
desire
to
improve
the
technology
in
the
office
and
I
think
they
imaging
sort
of
got
left
a
little
cold.
O
I
think
the
intent
is
actually
to
move
beyond
where
we
were
last
time
and
make
sure
we
add
those
details
back
into
the
project
and
I.
Think
as
Mark
mentioned
as
we
go
through
the
site
plan
stage,
we
begin
really
seeing
the
the
animation
of
that
podium
really
come
to
life
in
terms
of
the
detailing
and
the
say,
the
the
precast
and
the
pilasters
and
all
those
things
come
to
come
to
life,
the
material
selection
and
and
just
subtleties
of
the
detail.
A
That's
good
to
hear
so.
I'll
just
keep
in
touch
with
staff
to
see
how
things
are
going
and
community
benefits.
Just
as
you
were
speaking
I
thought
of
one
signage,
you
had
some
lovely
maps,
very
old
maps
of
what
the
area
looked
like
and
I
think
that
could
be
really
beneficial
for
each
building
to
have
the
actual
map
sort
of
like
we
have
at
the
Market
Square
the
big
sort
of
metal,
plaques
or
book
that
could
actually
help
people
relate
to
what
it.
A
A
I
would
like
to
open
the
meeting
now
to
members
of
the
public
if
you
could
state
your
name
and
address
and
if
you
could
keep
your
comments
and
questions
to
five
minutes,
and
certainly
if
you
have
anything
written,
make
sure
staff
gets
it
please
and
we
will
start
at
the
podium.
Would
you
like
the
clerk
to
help
work.
T
T
So
the
plan
is
the
balance
the
balance
has
been
achieved
and
what
I
find
in
this
case
goes
so
beyond
the
plan
that,
when
I
see
up
on
the
screen
that
this
is
an
example
of
good
planning,
I
am
simply
perplexed.
The
plan
has
already
attempted
a
balance
and
presumably
achieved
such
in
the
Democratic
fashion.
T
T
I've
heard
a
lot
about
height
I've
heard
about
tenants
ability
to
go
through
doors,
but
I
haven't
heard
much
about
citizens.
Interaction
with
these
buildings,
which
are
massive
they're
half
city
blocks
each
and
I'm,
not
even
talking
about
the
height,
a
change
to
the
maximum
density
provisions,
a
profound
change
to
the
most
intensive
provisions.
We've
talked
the
1/2
from
123
to
over
400
a
change
to
reduce
the
amenity
space
requirements,
virtually
zero
for
the
public.
T
We've
heard
about
a
soft
green
corner,
a
change
to
eliminate
the
rear
yard
and
build
to
plane
requirements,
a
change
to
reduce
the
size
of
parking
spaces.
The
shaving.
This
is
a
common
thing.
That's
been
going
on
with
these
large-scale
applications
to
shave,
everything
down
to
the
minimum,
a
change
to
reduce
the
size
of
parking
spaces,
including
the
spaces
required
for
people
with
mobility,
challenges,
this
inhibits
accessibility
and
then
the
change,
as
we
just
heard,
to
reduce
the
number
and
form
of
bicycle
parking
spaces
and
a
change
to
the
loading
space
requirements.
T
This
application
fails
to
respect
this
work
done
by
all
the
reputable
consultants
who
work
for
the
city
which
I
as
a
citizen,
help
to
pay
for
to
craft
a
meaningful
way
to
develop
downtown
while
maintaining
its
most
desirable
characteristics
and
its
status
as
a
city
where
history
thrives.
This
proposal
is
not
good
planning.
T
U
I'm
Doug
Ritchie,
the
managing
director
of
the
downtown
Kingston
Business
Improvement,
Area
Board
of
the
city
formed
by
Council
to
promote
downtown.
We
have
700
businesses,
10,000
employees
and
through
recent
planning
sessions,
we've
come
up
with
residential
intensification
as
our
highest
priority
to
guarantee
the
success
of
downtown
in
the
future.
U
We
have
done
reading
of
lots
of
research,
looked
at
many
photos
that
cities
use
to
promote
themselves
and
the
one
that
this
city
uses
most
of
the
time
is
the
one
of
Cross
Market
Square
over
City
Hall.
Looking
at
our
18
story,
high-rise
on
the
waterfront,
we
have
very
few
locations
in
the
city
that
can
maximize
both
the
economic
benefit
and
the
environmental
benefit
of
that
that
higher
density
intensification
can
deliver
to
score
the
highest.
In
both
those
categories.
You
need
to
be
located
in
a
full-service
business
district.
U
The
residents
have
to
be
within
a
5
seven-minute,
walking
distance
of
all
the
goods
and
services
possible,
so
groceries,
beer
and
wine
shops
boutiques
restaurants,
banking
services
in
this
location,
that's
all
available
within
a
seven-minute
walk.
Practically
everybody
decides
not
to
use
their
car
when
faced
with
driving
it
somewhere.
Trying
to
find
apartments,
but
as
compared
to
a
seven
minute,
while
the
area
also
to
maximize
again
the
benefits
in
both
the
economic
area
and
the
end,
the
environmental
it
has
to
be
walkable.
It
has
to
be
an
enjoyable
walk,
not
long.
U
It
has
to
be
on
the
main
transit
line
so
that
that's
an
option
and
it
has
to
be
the
location-
has
to
be
in
the
major
employment
zone.
So
within
two
kilometers
of
these
projects
are
near
forty
thousand
jobs.
So
if
you
go
from
cfb
Kingston
around
to
the
hospitals
and
Queens
and
st.
Lawrence
College
downtown
Kingston,
tens
of
thousands
of
jobs,
even
if
they're
not
close
enough
to
walk
to
or
bicycle
everybody's
commuting,
different
a
distance
is
hugely
reduced.
V
Thank
you.
My
name
is
diana
cacao.
Ski
and
I
live
at
1612
gross
hood
lane
in
the
East
End
of
Kingston
I'm,
not
a
developer.
I,
don't
have
any
planning
background
I'm
just
here
as
an
ordinary
citizen,
and
my
comment
is
concerning
talking
about
benefits
when
we
haven't
actually
approved
this
project
in
terms
of
density
and
height
height,
double
what
the
Official
Plan
says:
I'm
all
for
increased
density,
but
double
I
mean
double
the
height
and
three
times
the
density.
I
want
to
live
downtown,
and
but
this
is
just
beyond
you
use
the
words.
V
Sorry,
you
use
the
words
you
looked
at
all
that
heritage
stuff.
You
said
your
words
exactly
were
it
does
not
impose
itself
too
strongly
on
heritage
element
elements
in
downtown
on
what
scale
is
that
not
strongly
strongly
too
strongly
I'm
concerned
about
that?
Anyways?
That's
one
comment.
My
second
comment
is
when
the
buildings
are
built:
homestead,
you're,
a
very,
very
large
company,
large
developer,
I
hope
you
don't
use
cheap
materials.
This
is
gonna,
be
a
beautiful
place,
downtown
to
come
and
live,
and
it
should
look
spectacular.
W
W
One
as
I
understand
the
process,
because
this
is
already
before
the
OMB
or
an
appeal
has
been
launched
that
really
what
citizens
are
doing
here
tonight
is
art.
It's
our
last
kick
of
the
can
to
influence
city
councillors
as
to
what
your
decision
is
going
to
be
as
early
as
next
week.
In
terms
of
whether
or
not
what's
your
position
going
to
be
with
regard
to
this
OMB
appeal,
are
you
going
to
defend
the
official
plan?
Are
you
going
to
protect
the
investment
that
you've
made
in
money
and,
more
importantly,
public
trust?
W
So
my
plea
is
for
you
to
defend
the
official
plan,
to
not
abandon
the
principles
and
and
the
the
rules
that
are
defined
by
by
that
plan
and
to
not
negotiate
away
easily
or
even
worse,
fail
to
defend
at
all
this
plan
by
simply
ceding
to
the
the
developer,
like
others,
I
think
that
have
said
that
this
is
these
are
not
small
variances.
These
are
huge
amendments
that
are
being
requested.
W
I
agree
with
mr.
Richie
and
I
think
that
most
people
here
would
agree
that
urban
intensification
is
not
only
a
desirable
thing
is
a
necessary
thing,
and
it
is
very
tempting
to
look
at
the
four
hundred
units
that
are
proposed
here
and
say:
that's
puts
us
four
hundred
units
closer
to
our
objective.
My
worry,
though,
is
that,
by
in
investing
in
this
type
of
vertical
sprawl,
we're
putting
all
of
our
chickens
in
one
basket,
it's
going
to
make
other
areas
for
potential
development
unviable.
W
Finally,
like
some
other
people
have
said,
I
feel
that
community
benefits
is
a
little
bit
like
negotiating
the
terms
of
surrender,
so
I'm
hesitating.
You
know
I
I'm,
hesitant
to
to
concede
any
sort
of
defeat
at
this
point,
but
since
it
is
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
community
benefits,
I
would
like
to
see
the
city
shift,
its
emphasis
from
selling
or
trading
one-off
capital
investments
or
financial
money.
W
I
wonder
if
there's
not
creative
ways,
since,
since
the
the
community
benefit
that
we're
going
to
get
what
the
developer
gets,
is
the
ability
to
make
money
in
perpetuity
they're
not
just
getting
an
immediate
financial
bump?
They
are.
Presumably,
this
is
going
to
be
a
profitable
enterprise
and
because
of
the
extra
units
that
would
be
allowed,
they
are
going
to
be
making
profits
well
into
the
future.
W
Some
sorts
of
daycare,
centers,
art,
space,
art
communities,
art
galleries
in
the
nonprofit
sector,
where
rent
discounts,
steep
rent
discounts
in
perpetuity
are
offered
in
a
way
that,
rather
than
you
know,
some
parkland
or
our
parking
well
off-site
that
there
is
something
that
actually
mitigates
against
a
problem
that
the
developer
is
identifying
that
they're
not
able
to
to
find
commercial
tenants.
So
they
want
to
just
abandon
the
rules.
X
Alexandrina
Dell
over
38
st.
Lawrence
three
to
violent.
If
you
build
this
building
and
I
get
a
heart
attack
on
I'm
working
out
I'll
be
dead
because
there
was
no
way
an
ambulance
will
get
me
there
to
the
hospital.
There
is
no
hospital
on
the
island,
I
realize
it
if
I
get.
There
are
two
lanes
of
cars
and
you
have
250
garage
spaces
in
one
building
and
another
260
I
believe
India.
So
these
are
in
peak
hours.
X
500
cars
in
the
two-lane
Street
Queen
King
next
week,
I'm
dead
on
the
book,
because
I
will
not
be
getting
the
hospital,
but
forget
about
me
going
dead
about
the
hospital
I
come
from
the
sixth
living
city
in
the
world,
and
it
has
a
huge
history
just
like
Kingston
and
it's
beautiful
and
it
doesn't
have
a
single
high-rise
in
the
Delta.
And
why?
Because
the
city
is
trying
to
preserve
somehow
the
architectural
integrity
of
heritage
it
carries.
X
X
These
are
five
hundred
units
and
these
five
hundred
people
need
to
eat
to
shower
at
the
same
time,
get
out
at
the
same
time
go
on
the
same
street.
At
the
same
time,
Kingston
is
not
projected
for
that.
It
wasn't
built
like
that.
It
wasn't
built
for
the
20
stories.
High
rise,
look
around
try
to
go
on
the
street
and
put
500
people
walking
in
the
same
direction.
X
At
the
same
time,
it
was
gonna
be
a
manifestation,
apart
from
the
people
trying
to
get
there
on
foot
on
bicycle
in
the
cars
I
believe
that
City
of
Kingston
needs
to
rethink
its
policy
about
the
downtown
density,
because
this
density
is
not
built
in
in
this
city,
it
may
arrange
a
beautiful,
wonderful,
great
Center,
a
new
center
commercial
one
somewhere
in
the
city.
Haslund
has
access
to
land,
has
plan
it
to
be
like
that.
X
All
the
modern
cities
are
trying
to
preserve
in
Europe
their
identity.
Kingston
is
probably
the
last
one
in
Canada
to
stay
in
the
hands
of
the
City
Council.
You
are
the
people
who
will
decide
working
Stan
will
go
well,
it
will
preserve
the
historical
capital
of
Canada,
or
it
will
be
just
another
city
like
Toronto,
which
is
completely
faceless
and
me
personally,
I'll
never
go
leader.
I
come
from
a
place
which
is
guilt
for
living,
and
that's
why
I
love
Kings.
That
was
my
intention.
I
want
to
buy
a
house
here.
X
X
According
to
my
experience
within
two
to
five
years,
and
it's
a
disaster
believe
me,
I
have
lived
through
it,
I
have
worked
through
it.
I
have
come
to
court
with
it.
I
have
had
the
payments
delayed,
I
have
had
the
condo
fees.
Delayed
I
have
seen
it
in
working.
So
if
the
city
does
not
insist
on
affordable
housing
within
the
expensive
high-rise,
I
believe
that
this
will
benefit
the
city.
X
That's
my
point
and
one
thing:
I
believe
that
will
make
a
huge
impact
also
on
the
infrastructure,
like
you
need
a
new
fire
unit
because,
as
the
gentleman
mentioned,
the
fire
stairs
save
people
up
to
the
seventh
floor
above
the
seventh
floor.
That
depends
on
the
sprinkles.
They
depend
on
this
fire
escapes,
but
just
think
about
how
you
gonna
get
this
fire
crews
there
they're
gonna,
have
to
pass
through
the
same
streets.
Few
days
ago
we
were
passing
because
princess
is
the
main
artery
for
everybody
who
lives
on
the
island.
X
10
o'clock
at
night
were
going
down
from
Home
Depot
to
the
island,
we're
relying
of
cars,
and
we
all
had
to
stop
to
let
the
two
Fire
Brigades
pass
fair
enough
they're
going
to
something
small,
because
there
is
nothing
big
in
that
area.
But
imagine
how
many
crews
you
need
to
save
this
building,
how
you
gonna
get
them
here,
which
way
and
excuse
me,
but
you're,
cutting
my
vital
earth
areas
to
everything
which
is
beyond
the
port.
Thirty
thousand
thirty
Seconds
excuse
me.
A
X
About
that,
well,
these
people
will
have
to
go
through
a
very
nice
bridge.
Is
it
expected
to
support
such
kind
of
load?
Is
this
bridge
going
to
go
down?
Is
this
bridge
going
to
be
replaced?
I
know
that
it's
a
key
port,
because
I
pass
through
it
very
often
and
I
really
really
need
my
accessibility
to
the
rest
of
the
town.
X
R
R
They're
not
terribly
organized
but
I'll
try
to
speak
to
your
downtown
businesses,
particularly
that
locally
owned
ones
are
struggling.
Many
are
not
gonna
survive
and,
as
mr.
Richie
said,
the
secret
to
that
is
probably
a
big
part
of
it
is
adding
people
I've
been
here.
35
years
in
this
city,
I've
watched
a
lot
of
hundred-year-old
family
businesses
disappear.
R
Secondly,
running
the
city
is
running
a
business.
There's
a
huge
tax
advantage
in
properties
like
this,
the
sooner
we
get
it
the
sooner
we
can
do
other
things
in
the
city.
I
would
not
want
us
to
ignore
that
either
and
from
a
selfish
point
of
view,
I've
reached
a
stage
in
life
where
owning
a
house
is
probably
more
than
I
want
to
do.
I'd
like
to
move
downtown.
R
Almost
got
to
a
point
much,
and
they
first
say
that
I
have
a
lot
of
peers
that
are
in
a
similar
position
and
they
would
all
like
to
go
downtown.
We're
almost
at
the
point
now
we're
waiting
for
somebody
to
die
to
find
a
place
to
live
down
here
at
least.
Lastly,
I
want
to
say
that
you
have
a
high
quality
developer
here
with
the
resources
to
complete
this
project,
and
that's
worth
a
lot
to
the
city
to
know
that
this
will
get
done.
It
will
get
done
right.
A
J
So
my
thoughts
are
not
totally
clear
either
so
more
than
double
the
height
triple
the
density
and
the
framework
is
community
benefits
and
yet
we're
not
gonna
put
affordable
housing
in
there
and
actually
at
the
last
community,
benefits
meeting.
They
wanted
to
up
that
to
the
number
one
priority.
So
the
whole
problem
with
all
of
this
for
me,
having
been
born
in
Vancouver,
lived
in
Victoria,
lived
in
a
14th
floor
of
a
17th
floor.
J
And
what
is
the
key
meaning
you're
gonna
get
for
it,
and
so
some
stuff
comes
into
my
head
amenity
space
that
will
be
turned
over
later
to
commercial
space
and
I
would
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
amenity
space
that
is
supposed
to
be
there
for
the
people
in
the
building
stays
there
for
the
entire
life
of
the
building,
so
that
clarification
would
be
nice.
I
would
really
want
to
know.
The
infrastructure
in
the
area
is
gonna
support.
J
Having
all
these
people
in
that
area,
so
amazing
program
at
Airy,
Park,
beautiful,
building,
completely
redone,
my
children
are
there
swimming.
How
is
that
going
to
change
the
life
of
the
area?
So
I
would
want
as
a
resident
to
see
some
demonstration
of
when
we're
gonna
do
the
community
benefits
of
what
is
the
capacity
of
artillery
park,
and
what
is
this
going
to
do
to
that?
J
J
Instead
of
just
always,
the
apology
I'd
like
to
know
how
this
tall
building
makes
that
heritage
better
when
you're
in
downtown
Vancouver
and
you
turn
a
corner
and
boom.
You
find
this
old
heritage
building,
tucked
into
a
little
nook
or
whatever.
So
anyway,
it
might.
Maybe
there
are
no
positives,
but
it
would
have
been
nice
to
hear
some
of
that.
Where
are
all
these
people
gonna
work?
And
that
was
great
to
hear
mr.
J
J
I'd
also
really
like
to
know
how
these
community
benefits
are
gonna
directly
relate
to
the
people
who
are
impacted
I'm
on
way
over
on
the
other
side
of
the
city
on
the
corner
of
Sydenham,
bought
it
up
against
Portsmouth.
This
I
have
no
stakes,
you
could
argue
so
I
would
like
to
know
the
direct
benefits.
So
when
we
started
listing
the
list
and
there's
no
affordable
housing,
you
know
in
parks
are
nice
and
open
space
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
J
You
know
I'm
sure
we
can
create
another
art
gallery
I'd
like
to
see
an
assessment
of
the
stuff,
that's
already
in
the
area,
so
we
just
don't
do
redundant
stuff
and
I
think
it
would
should
be
all
the
private
interests
and
the
public
interests,
because
there's
a
lot
of
private
stuff.
We
never
consider
when
we
go
ahead
and
build
another
redundant
public
benefit.
So
I'd
like
to
see
a
direct
relation.
There
I
also
wondered
about
I'm,
throwing
on
crazy
stuff
because
it's
off
the
top
your
head,
but
what
about
tall
or
what
thinner
I
mean?
J
J
So
if
we're
talking
probably
but
whatever
call
it
benefits
for
the
community,
what
about
making
all
those
stores
and
everything
like
that
all
designed
to
a
standard
that
anyone
could
get
and
get
out
of
that
would
be
interesting,
maybe
exciting.
To
me
and
again
it
might
be
like
a
hundred
percent,
a
wish
list
of
what
I
said
it
thanks
for
your
time.
Y
Y
It's
actually
about
Venice,
which
has
to
be
one
of
the
most
spectacular
tourist
cities
in
the
world
and
they're
facing
a
problem
of
too
many
tourists
and
the
Minister
of
Culture
is
saying
the
beauty
of
Italian
towns
is
not
only
the
architecture.
It's
actual
action,
also
the
actual
activity
of
the
place,
the
stores,
the
workshops
we
need
to
save
its
identity.
So
I
think
this
is
very
pertinent
to
the
committee's
challenge.
With
this
proposal
and
I
think
mr.
Y
Brandt
has
spoken
to
that
when
he's
talked
about
and
recognized
and
acknowledged
as
what's
going
to
give
life,
what's
the
kind
of
street
life
you're
looking
for
what
what's
the
street
level
interface
he's
used
the
words
but
he's
not
really
reflected
how
to
make
that
happen,
and
we
know
from
great
cities
in
the
world
we
that
happen
by
having
people
on
the
streets.
We
make
that
happen
by
having
ways
that
people
can
walk
between
buildings
through
buildings.
Y
I
mean
what's
magical
about
the
courtyards
in
Kingston
that
you
can
walk
through
them,
and
that
was
part
of
the
plan
for
this
areas
to
have
that
walkability
within
the
block
set
and
as
dr.
Burfoot
pointed
out,
these
buildings
are
taking
half
blocks
of
the
city
and
leaving
no
to
use
I.
Think
a
planning
word
permeability
at
all,
and
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that's
being
lost
here.
Y
That's
one
of
the
ways
that
this
plan
does
not
reflect
the
Official
Plan
and
it's
very
important
and
I
acknowledge
that
people
are
saying
we'd
like
to
live,
downtown
and
I'm,
not
acknowledge
that
people
are
saying.
Intensification
is
important.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
to
that
it's
in
the
Official
Plan,
but
as
dr.
brewer
Foote
said
it's
a
balance
and
when
we
overdo
something
like
these
buildings
are
overdoing
something,
then
we
lose
the
ability
to
have
that
walkable
livable
city,
that's
desirable
for
everyone
that
continues
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
everyone.
Y
So
you
know
the
planners
come
up
with
their
view
of
the
Official
Plan
and
the
planning
policies
that
apply
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
people
back
to
the
provincial
policy
statement,
because
it's
very
important
to
remember
that
the
provincial
policy
statement
is
to
be
read
as
a
whole.
It's
to
be
read
with
all
the
policies
considered
and,
of
course,
one
of
the
important
policies
in
the
provincial
policy
statements,
cultural
heritage
and
architecture
and
significant
built
heritage,
resources
and
significant
cultural
heritage.
Landscapes
shall
be
conserved
and
that's
landscapes.
Y
That's
the
view
of
City
Hall,
that's
the
view
of
the
water.
That's
the
view
of
the
utilities,
build
Kingston
building,
that's
all
of
the
heritage
buildings
that
we
find
along
Queen,
Street
and,
with
all
due
respect,
I,
don't
agree
with
mr.
brands
conclusion
that
none
that
these
buildings
are
not
going
to
have
an
impact
that
is
harmful
over
the
heritage
district.
Indeed,
they
are,
and
that's
one
of
the
things
you're
gonna
have
two
ways:
is
it
a
legitimate
impact
that
can
be
weathered,
or
is
it
too
much?
Y
So
the
other
thing
that
I
feel
that
the
the
planning
documents
don't
with
properly
our
compatibility-
and
this
is
the
definition
of
compatible
in
section
1,
of
our
official
plan
development
that
is
compatible
of
coexisting
and
harmony
with
them.
That
will
not
have
an
undue
physical
or
functional
adverse
impact
on
existing
or
proposed
development
in
the
area
or
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
environmental
or
human
health.
Y
Compatibility
should
be
evaluated
in
a
Corman's
with
measurable
objective
standards
based
on
criteria
such
as
a
esthetics
I
think
cherish
Lu
pointed
out
how
the
aesthetics
have
been
lost
on
this
building
proposal,
now:
noise,
vibration,
dust,
odors,
traffic
safety
and
Sun,
shadowing
and
known
as
asked,
but
on
December
21st.
If
you
look
at
the
shadow
studies,
these
buildings
completely
shadow,
a
hold
like
two
blocks
of
downtown
and
and
that's
not
just
for
the
day
of
December
first,
that
is
for
at
least
a
month,
if
not
six
weeks.
Y
That
and
shadowing
is
one
of
the
things
in
winter.
That
really
matters,
because
it's
cold
and
windy
and
it
matters
to
have
the
Sun
come
through
and
the
potential
for
adverse
health
effects
and
impacts
on
animals
and
humans.
So
our
official
plan
goes
on
to
describe
what
adverse
effects
are
and
lists
quite
a
few,
including
shadowing
as
being
number
one.
So
these
are
not
small
things.
Y
These
are
very
important
things
that
have
been
listed
in
the
Official
Plan
as
being
important
to
consider
when
you
look
at
compatibility
and
I
with
all
due
respect,
don't
feel
that
this
has
been
properly
addressed
and
I'm,
hoping
staff
will
address
it
and
whatever
report
they're
going
to
come
up
with
to
Council
I
think
the
other
thing,
of
course
is
building
heights,
and
you
know
this
is
a
lovely
piece
from
the
the
applicants
documents
talking
about
building
heights
and
podÃa.
Well,
these
are
the
total
buildings.
These
aren't
podium,
it's
not
the
podium.
Y
It's
the
actual
building,
the
hydro
substation
is
nine
meters.
High
Smith
and
Robinson
building
is
sixteen
meters
high.
The
Royal
Bank
building,
which
is
the
closest,
is
18
meters
high.
The
whig
standard
building
across
here
is
17
meters
high.
So
these
are
the
actual
call
that
the
height
of
these
buildings,
what
is
proposed
block
358
metres
high
block
565
meters,
high
and
I,
find
it
very
disingenuous
of
the
applicant
to
come
with
pictures
of
how
they've
reduced
the
building
by
two
stories.
Y
They
should
be
coming
with
a
true
picture
of
what
is
the
as
of
right.
Building
that
can
go
on
each
of
those
building.
Lots
and
I
feel
it's
very
incumbent
on
stuff
to
come
forward
with
an
as
of
right.
What
is
allowed
and
with
all
due
respect
again
to
our
architect,
who
is
our
architect?
The
architect
who
is
asked
about
the
angular
plane,
so
I
understand
at
the
point
of
angular
plane
is
not
it
becomes
irrelevant.
The
angular
plane
is
to
control
height.
It's
a
way
of
saying
you
can't
go
higher
than
the
angular
plane.
Y
It's
a
it's
a
sort
of
balance
to
height
and
I
know
the
city
is
rethinking
it,
but
in
the
Official
Plan
and
zoning
bylaws
right
now,
we're
requiring
angular,
plane
discussions
and
measurements,
because
that's
a
way
of
enforcing
the
height
restrictions
that
were
seen
by
the
box
and
a
half
full
of
studies
that
we're
done
at
taxpayer
expense.
As
someone
has
pointed
out,
it's
been
studied
to
the
hilt,
to
quote
mr.
Y
Brad,
but
there's
a
study
to
the
hilt
and
then
its
input
into
the
Official
Plan
and
zoning
bylaw,
and
then
applicants
come
along
and
try
to
blow
it
up
and
just
can
treat
those
documents
as
irrelevant
I
think
there
are
several
questions
that
have
to
be
asked:
xxxii.
Okay,
why
is
this
one
application?
These
are
two
distinct
building
sites,
as
has
been
pointed
out
by
the
applicant
and
for
some
reason
they
got
blended
into
one.
Y
It
is
very
difficult
to
look
at
those
documents
and
figure
out
which
one
is
which
in
which
it's
not
so
easy
and
I,
think
it
was
a
real
disservice
to
the
public
to
blend
the
two
applications.
I
understand
more
about
the
new
signage.
Thanks
to
planning
stuff,
but
there
been
significant
changes
to
the
applications
and
I
do
think.
Y
It's
confusing
that
this
is
a
public
meeting
without
being
a
statutory
meeting
and
has
been
pointed
out,
it's
now
up
to
Council
to
instruct
their
solicitor
as
to
what
to
do
with
the
OMB
appeal,
and
it's
really
important
that
I
think
you
know
my
opinion.
The
city
solicitor
should
be
instructed
to
tell
the
acting
solicitor
to
protect
Kingston's
interests
and
to
protect
our
official
plan
and
our
zoning
bylaw,
and
you
know
someone's
already
talked
about
density.
My
one
comment
about
community
benefits,
as
many
of
the
benefits
seem
to
end
up
on
a
taxpayers
shoulder.
Y
So,
yes,
you
give
a
part,
but
then
the
taxpayers
have
to
maintain
the
park
and
I
think
it's
very
important
if
a
community
benefit
is
negotiated
here.
That
is
something
sustainable
and
substantial.
That
benefits
the
city
on
the
and
the
long
term
and
does
not
cost
taxpayers
anything
but
I
think
that's
a
really
important
element
of
community
benefits,
and
the
last
thing
that
I
will
say,
with
your
permission,
is
that
I
realize
this
is
a
Legacy
Project
and
the
legacy
it
will
be.
A
F
F
I'm
gonna
reinforce
what
several
others
have
said
on
the
proposed
height
with
respect
to
the
official
plan
later,
which
I
believe
this
twenty
five
point:
five
meters
so
we're
at
58
and
sixty
eight
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So
that's
two
to
two
and
a
half
times
the
official
plan
allowed
height
and
the
go
to
page
53
of
the
agenda.
F
I'm
wondering
is
the
dashed
line.
Horizontal
dashed
line
is
that
the
old
P
height
that's
on
there
you're
showing
angular
plane.
It
seems
to
be
about
that.
So
maybe
that
could
be
indicated
more
clearly,
so
you
can
get
a
perspective
on
what
the
opie
height
allows
and,
what's
being
asked
for,
it's
kind
of
confusing
okay.
F
The
same
thing
was
shown
in
the
earlier
presentation
here
enough
to
go
as
I
was
saying
so
I'm
sorry,
I
wasn't
born
yesterday,
I've
got
some
tech,
training
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
you
can't
see
a
building
that
something
like
200
feet,
tall
from
two
blocks
away
when
the
intervening
buildings
are
four
storeys
high,
so
I
would
question
the
professional
veracity
of
your
protection.
I
F
F
F
So
what
I
would
like
to
see
is
the
applicant
and
his
cohorts
other
developers
in
the
area
work
together
on
a
collaborative
basis
with
city
staff,
City
Council,
members
of
the
community
and
the
business
community.
The
downtown
BIA
group
to
create
a
looking
forward
development
plan
for
downtown
Kingston
and
his
good
friend
of
mine
was
involved
in
creating
a
similar
plan
for
North
York
prior
to
amalgamation,
with
the
City
of
Toronto.
F
So
if
they
can
do
it
in
the
city,
that's
five
times
larger.
We
can
do
that
here.
It's
gonna
take
a
lot
of
will
and
a
more
collaborative
approach,
and
so
next
I
want
to
refer
to.
The
diagram
is
for
the
shadow
studies
which
were
referred
to
by
some
of
the
other
speakers
tonight
and
they're
on
page
32
and
49
respectively,
for
each
of
the
two
structures.
F
F
F
Several
other
speakers
were
talking
about
the
traffic
issues
and
we've
got
the
'south.
Causeway
is
close
by.
We
have
the
ferry
docking
with
its
traffic
coming
and
going.
We
have
busy
streets
such
as
Princess,
Queen,
Brock
and
Johnson,
and
it's
a
concentrated
hub
of
activity,
as
mr.
Richie
explained
so
well,
and
there's
reference
in
the
report
to
a
traffic
study.
But
there's
no
specifics
on
the
traffic
study
in
the
report,
so
I
think
that's
a
major
flaw.
We
need
some
details
on
that
before
we're
making
a
decision
on
such
an
important
aspect.
F
That's
been
going
on
for
a
year
or
more
and
to
be
sure,
adequate
parking
is
very
important
to
the
health
of
the
downtown
I
support.
That
so
here
is
my
question:
would
homestead
be
prepared
to
share
with
the
City
of
Kingston
and
the
public
its
business
information
for
the
parking
business?
That's
been
done
on
those
two
sites
for
the
last
ten
years
as
a
way
of
helping
the
city
understand
its
own
assessment,
I
realise
that
would
be
asking
for
a
private
business
information,
but
I'm
wondering
if
that
might
be
possible.
Thank
you
very
much.
Z
Thank
You
ed
Smith,
519,
Grand,
Trunk,
Avenue,
Kingston
I
just
want
to
ask
the
committee
members
and
ultimately
council
members
to
keep
in
mind
that
the
City
of
Kingston
is
always
changing
and
has
changed
from
the
very
beginning
and
I'm
sure.
At
one
point,
the
SNR
building
is
one
example
when
it
was
built
at
four
storeys
high
was
dwarfing
buildings
around
it.
At
one
point,
Kingston
was
single
Fitz
single
single-story
homes
made
of
wood
before
that
it
was
probably
teepees.
Z
So
you
know
we
are
always
evolving
and
for
Kingston
to
be
sustainable,
we
we
need
to
have
an
economically
strong
community
and
intensification
is
happening
around
the
world
and
is
certainly
an
important
element
in
Ontario's
plan,
and
many
of
those
issues
has
been
addressed
so
I
urge
you
to
keep
a
bind.
That
what-what-what
looks
outrageous
today
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
outrageous,
but
obviously
some
people
think
it
is
is
is
not
not
tomorrow.
It's
it's
perfectly
agreeable
in
in
as
time
progresses
and
I'd
also
like
to
point
out.
Z
You
know
I
I,
think
there's
many
elements
of
this
project
that
are
very
good
and
there
has
been
some
improvements
to
it
from
the
first
iteration,
but
also
we've
lost
something
here:
we've
lost
a
public
parking
lot
and
that
concerns
me
that
we've
lost
the
public
parking
lot
at
the
corner
of
King
and
Queen.
It
also
concerns
me
that
homestead
has
at
least
at
this
point,
and
these
drawings
indicated
that
they
aren't
going
to
move
move
their
head
office
to
this
building.
Z
It's
encouraging
to
see
the
presentation
indicate
that
they
might
be
coming
back
with
something
to
add
that
back
in,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
real
shame
for
our
community.
If
homestead
wasn't
able
to
provide
space
in
this
building
for
their
had
offices,
that's
been
a
Kingston
company.
That
I
think
many
people
are
proud
of.
It's
you
know.
North,
American,
renowned
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
sad
day
if
we
were
to
lose
a
head
office
of
the
homestead
and
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
great
to
see
them
locate
right.
Z
A
P
Nor
does
it
cause
a
change
to
the
character,
defining
elements
of
the
heritage,
character
district
as
defined
by
the
character,
district's
own
study
and
their
and
their
description
of
those
character,
defining
elements.
So
it's
in
the
it's
in
the
report.
This
is
the
slide
that
I
showed
just
took
the
wording
right
out
of
the
report,
so
I
just
wanted
to
go
on
record
that
that
is
the
actual
statement
that
was
made.
Thank
you.
O
Happy
I
worked
as
part
of
the
team
to
bring
some
of
these
ideas
forward.
I
would
like
to
reiterate
the
my
firm
and
myself
our
strong
believer
and
the
re-energizing
of
our
urban
core
and
bringing
residential
back
into
it.
We
realize
that
90%
of
development
is
taking
place
in
the
suburbs
throat
North
America
I
mean
we
haven't
slowed
that
down,
but
we
are
seeing
a
change
to
the
inner
core,
and
recently
it's
been
in
Auto,
for
example,
the
it's
been
strengthened
and
particularly
in
to
the
rental
market
the
gentleman
mentioned.
O
You
know
the
idea
of
selling
your
house
and
moving
into
a
rental,
but
it's
moving
into
a
rental
that
is
in
a
specific
area
that
has
all
that
walkability,
which
this
site
does,
and
there
was
discussion
about
high-rise
buildings
and
somehow
high-rise
sites
with
high-rise
buildings
are
not
walkable
communities
and
I
would
have
to
say
that
that's
wrong.
If
you
look
at
cities,
you
know
seems
like
Vancouver,
for
example,
that
Chicago
you
know
high-rise
buildings
that
are
most
walkable
of
our
of
our
North
American
cities
and
great
height.
O
It
really
has
to
be
with
the
improvements
to
that
public
realm.
That
makes
a
walkable
city
and
I
agree
one
animated
Street.
You
want
great
sweet
architecture.
You
want
great
landscaping
and
I
think
through
the
site
plan
process.
As
we
move
forward
with
this
project,
we
can
really
start
and
take
a
look
at
those
things
that
how
do
we
make
this
a
walkable
environment
and
still
maintain
its
height,
because
we
do
need
density
Kingston
needs
to
maintain
that
strong,
retail
and
strength
12
months
a
year
you
know
walking
downtown.
O
O
Look
in
Ottawa
as
an
example
in
the
buyer
bird
market,
where
we
managed
to
protect
a
very
fragile
environment
there
of
two
story:
buildings,
essentially
and
and
but
we've
tremendous
growth
has
taken
place
around
with
high-rise
building
and
same
sort
of
range,
we're
in
the
26
story
range,
but
generally
surrounding
that
area
on
Cumberland
and
dozy
Reno
Street.
But
the
essence
of
the
historic
district
has
been
maintained
and
strengthened
and
the
retail
component
is
being
strengthened,
so
I
think
the
two
worked
well
together
and
I
think
I
say
as
a
project
develop.
O
N
Thanks
to
everyone
in
providing
comments
who
came
out,
it
won't
spend
too
long,
they're,
responding
and
there's.
Certainly
some
strong
themes
throughout
certainly
height
and
building
envelope
is
concerned
still
concerned.
The
one
thing
I
wanted
to
add
about
that
is:
there's
I
think
a
bit
of
a
misunderstanding,
but
what
the
official
plan
says
is
a
starting
point.
So
if
you
look
at
the
secondary
plan,
the
site,
specific
policy
area
for
the
North
Block,
specifically
it
identifies
that
twenty
five
point:
five
meters
isn't
the
maximum
we're
not
capped
at
twenty
five
point:
five.
N
What
it
says
is
that
if
you
go
above
twenty
five
point
five,
you
have
to
check
off
certain
boxes
with
respect
to
urban
design,
study
and
satisfying
those
criteria.
So
it's
not
necessarily
you're
starting
off
at
twenty
five
point:
five,
the
policy
does
contemplate
taller
than
that
as
a
starting
point,
provided
that
you
meet
those
tests
and
the
zoning
bylaw
as
I
noted,
is
an
older
document.
That's
at
a
date,
but
nonetheless
I
expect
that
a
new
zoning
bylaw
would
have
a
limit
in
there
because
it
may
not
be
appropriate
to
have
tall
buildings.
N
Every
single
block,
downtown
every
site
needs
to
be
evaluated,
which
is
why
I
think
the
opie
policies
appropriate
to
satisfy
tests
for
where
you
could
go
potentially
above
a
certain
height.
So
I
think
it's
important
to
highlight
that
that
there
is
a
recognition
in
the
policy
document
that
taller
buildings
may
be
appropriate.
Certain
locations
based
on
certain
tests,
so
I
think
that's
important
too.
To
reiterate:
there's
some
concerns
about
adequacy
of
services,
traffic
impacts,
etc.
So
studies
have
been
done
looking
at
adequacy
of
water,
sewer,
etc.
N
So
that
has
been
vetted
through
the
review
process
as
well
as
looking
at
traffic
impacts.
So
if
there
are
concerns,
those
reports
are
publicly
available
to
review
and
to
ask
questions
of
in
terms
of
conversion
of
the
storefront
space
and
impact
in
any
space,
and
also
linking
that
community
benefits
and
what
could
happen
there
in
terms
of
artist
space
or
other
things
like
that.
N
The
community
benefits
discussion
is
something
that's
relatively
new
in
a
formal
sense
and
also
in
a
in
a
public
meeting
sense,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
will
be
taken
back
and
we
discussed
and
can
be
brought
back
again
in
terms
of
what
may
be
considered
for
public
benefit
in
terms
of
the
question
about
conversion
of
space
and
adequacy
of
many
space.
That
would
be
assured
to
make
sure
that
if
space
does
get
converted
in
the
future
to
commercial
there's
still
adequate
amenities
space
in
the
building.
N
B
Actually,
just
a
comment:
one
of
the
things
I've
been
a
little
troubled
with
tonight
is
the
amount
of
time
we've
spoke
and
I
totally
support
Community
Benefit,
but
it
seems
really
premature
right
now
to
be
talking
about
Community
Benefit.
It
starts
to
make
it
feel
like
it's.
Let's
make
a
deal
and
that's
not
the
intent
of
Community
Benefit.
I
know
this
is
kind
of
a
it's,
not
fish.
B
It's
not
fowl
it's
kind
of
an
intermediate
public
meeting,
because
we've
had
an
earlier
public
meeting,
but
to
talk
about
community
benefit
before
we've
had
a
kind
of
a
more
comprehensive
report
from
from
staff
from
planning
feels
really
awkward.
I
support,
some
of
the
concepts
that
have
been
put
forward
for
community
benefit,
but
one
the
Planning
Act
says
that
there'll
be
there'll,
be
the
immediate
neighbourhood
and
and
the
community
will
have
lots
of
input
and
I
know
that
we've
had
a
public
meeting
looking
at
the
broad
strokes
of
that,
but
I
would
hate
this.
B
The
whole
concept
of
community
benefit
in
Toronto
has
become
a
case
from
talking
to
some
Toronto
councillors,
where
councillors
pet
projects
get
funded
by
Community
Benefit,
and
that's
not
the
intent
of
the
Planning
Act.
That's
not
the
intent
of
of
Community
Benefit
I
would
be
more
comfortable
having
a
total
focus
on
on
the
planning
on
the
sound
planning
aspects
of
a
proposal,
and
if
going
beyond
the
envelope
is
sound
planning
practice.
That's
when
we
should,
with
lots
of
public
input,
have
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
community
benefit.
I
You
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
so
the
challenge
that
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying
in
principle
and
it
does
make
sense
in
principle.
The
challenge
that
we
work
with
in
the
Ontario
planning
framework
is
that
the
community
benefits
that
are
attached
to
a
project
have
to
be
implemented
through
the
amending
zoning
bylaw.
So
they
have
to
come
present
it
at
the
same
time
that
the
planning
recommendation.
That's
your
opportunity
to
integrate
that
into
a
project
approval,
it's
not
something
that
can
come
after
the
way.
I
The
legislation
is
written,
so
you're
right
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
They
do
have
their
own
approach
to
community
benefits
and
there
is
discretion
within
the
act
to
do
that,
and
a
lot
of
those
conversations
are
initiated
specifically
by
councillors
through
a
process,
but
they
do
start
at
the
beginning
of
a
project
not
after
the
project
has
gone
through
approval.
So
well.
I
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
where
you're
coming
from
staff
do
have
to
work
within
our
regulatory
framework,
and
that
would
include
a
discussion
of
the
community
benefits
as
part
of
the
consultation
that
leads
to
a
Planning
recommendation
with
an
amending
bylaw
that
council
either
supports,
or
they
don't
support.
So
our
opportunity
is
to
talk
about
it
now
and
if
we
do
want
to
pursue
those
conversations
to
ensure
that
they
would
be
part
of
any
staff
recommendation
that
will
become
presented
to
Council
at
a
future
date.
Based
on
the
fact.
B
I
Again
from
the
public
perspective,
I
can
understand
perhaps
where
there's
that
perception
I
can
tell
you
from
staffs
perception.
The
way
that
we
approach
community
benefits
isn't
in
any
way
characterized
the
thought
of
from
that
standpoint.
For
us,
it's
not
a
selling
of
anything
before
we
would
even
consider
entering
into
negotiations
of
a
specific
nature
around
community
benefits.
I
We
have
to
be
confident
that
the
planning
decision
is
there,
that
it
represents
good
planning,
and
then
there
is
the
ability
under
the
Planning
Act,
to
look
at
how
you
mitigate
some
of
the
impacts
that
can
be
experienced
through
the
heightened
density
that
may
supersede
what
is
in
the
parent
zoning
or
the
Official
Plan
designation
for
the
property.
So
again,
it's
the
perception.
It's
the
approach
to
how
we
we
engage
in
community
but
benefit
discussions
as
a
municipality.
I
I
can't
speak
for
other
cities,
but
certainly
from
the
city
of
Kingston
and
from
my
team's
perspective,
it's
really
done.
First,
with
the
spirit
of
looking
at
what
the
proposal
is
before
us
and
whether
or
not
we
feel
that
it's
good
planning
and
then
if
there
is
a
deviation
from
what
the
as
of
right
permissions
are,
which
normally
is
the
case
because
there's
an
application
that's
filed,
then
we
can
look
at
whether
there's
an
opportunity
for
a
benefit.
AA
So,
with
respect
to
the
appeal
that's
been
received,
we
have
the
resubmission
of
the
application,
which
is
the
subject
of
this
evening's
meeting.
What
we
will
be
doing
is
circulating
that
internally
for
our
technical
review
groups
to
look
at
and
comment
on
as
well
as
receiving
all
of
the
public
input.
That's
been
provided
tonight.
We
will
be
finalizing
the
peer
review
process
on
the
second
submission,
with
respect
to
the
Heritage
and
the
urban
design,
and
we
will
be
coming
back
to
Council
for
additional
direction
with
respect
to
the
applications.
AB
Thank
you
and
through
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
your
very
comprehensive
report
this
evening.
There's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
information
in
this,
but
there's
a
couple
of
things.
I'd
like
to
make
a
comment
on
one
of
the
constituents
here
tonight
talked
about
what
we
would
get
in
perpetuity
from
this
project
and
I'd
like
to
state
I,
think
we
would
get
a
lot
of
taxes
back
versus
an
empty
parking
lot
and
I
know
I've,
asked
and
I.
AB
Don't
expect
you
to
give
me
the
numbers
tonight,
but
maybe
in
the
future
you
could
give
us
the
sort
of
the
breakdown
of
what
we
would
get
back
in
taxes
versus
what
an
empty
parking
lot
is
and
I.
Don't
expect
you
to
give
this
to
me
tonight,
but
I
think
it
would
be
quite
significant
and
the
difference
in
what
we're
collecting
currently.
So
that's
one
thing:
I
think
we
would
get
a
lot
in
taxes
also.
AB
It
concerns
me
that
we're
always
we
don't
want
anything
in
Kingston
and
and
we
need
intensification,
we
need
development
and
there
is
a
demand
for
rental
units
downtown.
That's
another
gentleman
from
trail
head
place
stated
quite
intently,
or
he
was
very
concerned
that
he
needs
a
place
to
live
and
to
rent
and
a
lot
of
people
would
like
to
live.
AB
Downtown
and
I've
heard
that
there
are
very
long
waiting
lists
to
get
a
nice
place
downtown
to
live,
and
if
you
put
a
pool
on
the
rooftop
I'll
sign
up
and
I'll
live
downtown
that'd
be
a
Lora
benefit,
not
a
community
benefit,
but
anyway
we
do
need
more
places
to
live,
downtown
and
I.
Think
that's
that's
very
important
that
we
all
think
about
that
when
we
make
this
decision
and
also
as
we've
all
we
all
know,
we've
talked
about
it:
economic
development,
downtown
intensification.
AB
We
need
more
people
20
12
months
of
the
year,
not
just
when
the
university
students
are
here
or
when
they
go
away.
We
need
real
people
to
live
downtown
and
with
our
demographics
changing
we
have
to
consider
that
we're
going
we're
all
getting
older.
We
need,
we
need
people
that
are
going
to
live
downtown.
We
have
all
different
age
groups,
it's
it's
an
interesting
demographic
in
Kingston,
and
we
need
to
consider
that
when
we
make
this
decision
we
need
rental
spaces.
AB
We
need
people
that
can
walk
to
get
their
groceries
and
in
timing
they
may
not
always
be
going
out
at
the
same
time.
So
for
the
other
woman,
these
people,
these
500
people
or
400
people,
are
over
many
live
there.
They
may
go
at
different
times,
so
there's
many
different
factors
that
we
need
to
consider.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
this
evening
and
I,
do
appreciate
all
your
comments.
Thank
you
great.
A
Thank
you,
everyone
that
I
will
now
open
the
regular
portion
of
the
the
business
portion
of
our
meeting
and
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
ask
for
approval
of
the
agenda
as
it
was
amended
councillor
Neill
second,
by
councillor
Turner,
all
those
in
favor.
Thank
you
and
approval
confirmation
of
the
minutes.
X
A
Seconded
by
councillor,
Turner,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
any
disclosures,
a
pecuniary
interest,
no
delegations
or
briefings,
and
the
first
item
of
business
is
removal
of
conversion
provisions.
Zoning
bylaw
number,
eight,
four,
nine,
nine
that
we
discussed
a
while
ago.
This
is
all
concerning
our
working
on
changing
the
bylaws
around
monster
homes,
it's
the
beginning
of
the
process.
A
So
any
discussion
or
move
movers
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor
sanic
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor.
That's
great!
Thank
you
and
number
two.
The
same
thing:
amenity
area
and
landscaped
open
space
provisions
moved
by
councillor
Neill
seconded
by
councillor,
sanic
any
comments,
questions
all
those
in
favor
great,
thank
you
and
number
C
is
285,
Holden,
Street,
Woodhaven
subdivision,
and
it's
a
bylaw
amendment.