►
Description
City of Kingston Planning Committee meeting from April 29, 2021. For full meeting agenda: https://bit.ly/3eajtvr
A
A
A
Interested
members
of
the
public
can
email
the
committee
clerk
or
the
assigned
planner
if
they
wish
to
be
notified.
Regarding
a
particular
application,
no
decisions
are
made
at
public
meetings
concerning
applications
unless
otherwise
noted
the
public.
This
public
meeting
is
held
to
gather
public
opinion
an
exception
to
the
rules
contained
combined
reports.
A
A
Information
gathered
is
then
referred
back
to
planning
services
staff
for
the
preparation
of
a
comprehensive
report
and
recommendation
to
the
planning
committee.
This
means
that
after
the
meeting
tonight,
staff
will
be
considering
the
comments
made
by
the
public
in
their
further
review
of
the
application.
A
A
The
committee
then
makes
a
recommendation
on
the
applications
to
city
council
city
council
has
the
final
say
on
the
application.
From
the
city's
perspective
following
council,
decisions
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
The
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal.
The
decision
of
the
council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
kingston
to
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunal,
but
that
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
city
of
kingston
before
the
bylaw
is
passed.
A
The
this
paper
also
includes
potential
amendments
to
the
city
official
plan,
a
city-initiated
full
official
plan.
Amendment
is
anticipated
to
be
submitted
at
the
same
time
as
the
release
of
the
second
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw,
which
will
be
proceed
processed
concurrently
with
future
statutory
public
meetings.
Considering
both
the
pro
proposed
official
plan
amendment
and
the
new
zoning
violence,
so.
A
C
A
A
D
D
D
As
a
quick
overview
of
the
anticipated
agenda
for
this
evening,
I
will
be
providing
some
background
information
about
the
new
zoning
bylaw
project.
Niall
audi
will
present
information
related
to
the
discussion
paper
on
environmental
protection
areas
in
the
ribbon
of
life.
We'll
then
take
questions
and
comments
from
members
of
committee.
Then
members
of
the
public
myself
and
chris
wicca
will
then
present
information
about
the
second
discussion
paper
on
schools
and
places
of
worship.
The
question
and
comment
period
will
follow
next
slide.
Please.
D
So,
as
most
people
are
aware,
in
kingston,
we
have
five
main
zoning
bylaws
that
apply
across
the
municipality.
These
bylaws
are
legacies
of
the
former
townships
and
predate
amalgamation.
Three
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaws
were
adopted
in
the
1970s
and
two
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaws
were
adopted
in
the
1990s.
D
D
This
means
that
many
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaw
provisions
that
are
in
effect
do
not
reflect
the
current
official
plan
policies
and
at
present
there's
a
disconnect
between
the
vision
for
future
growth
of
the
city
and
the
provisions
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaws
next
slide.
Please,
when
we
talk
about
a
new
zoning
by
bylaw
for
the
city
of
kingston,
we
have
a
vision
to
harmonize,
simplify
and
modernize.
The
zoning
framework
across
the
municipality
harmonizing
zoning
provisions
is
more
than
just
a
consolidation
exercise.
D
It
means
we
will
carry
forward
some
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaw
regulations,
but
it
also
means
that
new
and
updated
regulations
will
be
created
to
ensure
that
the
zoning
by-law
aligns
with
the
vision
established
by
the
official
plan.
Simplifying
the
zoning
by-law
means
that
language
and
maps
will
be
modified
to
be
as
user-friendly
as
possible.
Requirements
will
be
clearer
and
more
easily
understood.
D
Modernizing
the
language
in
the
zoning
bylaw
means
that
the
terms
will
be
updated
uses
will
reflect
current
trends
and
will
be
written
in
a
way
that
allows
for
innovation
for
future
trends
and
uses
to
thrive
next
slide.
Please,
the
new
zoning
bylaw
has
been
talked
about
for
many
many
years
phase.
One
of
the
project
established
strategic
direction
for
the
new
zoning
bylaw
and
created
the
direction
for
a
future
consultant.
D
The
strategic
direction
was
largely
focused
on
the
consolidation
of
the
existing
zoning
bylaws
phase.
Two
of
the
project
was
led
by
an
outside
consulting
team
and
resulted
in
the
creation
of
the
first
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw,
which
was
released
to
the
public
in
october
of
2016,
with
extensive
public
consultation.
D
At
that
time,
following
the
release
of
the
first
draft,
the
project
was
put
on
hold
so
that
staff
resources
could
be
directed
to
other
policy
projects
that
have
impacts
on
the
second
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
we're
now
in
phase
three
of
the
project,
which
is
being
led
by
staff
and
planning
services.
Next
slide,
please.
D
While
the
initial
direction
for
the
zoning
bylaw
project
was
more
of
a
consolidation
exercise,
phase
three
of
the
project
has
expanded
the
scope
to
ensure
that
certain
topics
are
given
a
tweak
and
other
topics
are
given
a
rethink.
Tweaking
some
of
the
requirements
means
that
they
may
be
updated
to
better
align
with
new
policies
or
that
the
approach
has
been
modified
in
a
manner
that
maintains
the
intent
of
the
policies,
but
has
done
so
in
an
alternate
format.
D
Next
slide,
please
we're
at
the
beginning
of
public
consultation
in
phase
three
of
this
project,
so
the
two
public
meetings
tonight
are
the
first
of
four
public
meetings
about
discussion
paper
topics.
The
second
meeting
is
scheduled
for
wednesday
june
23rd
and
will
focus
on
parking
standards,
tiny
houses,
shipping
containers
and
additional
residential
units
following
these
public
meetings,
staff
anticipate
releasing
the
second
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
to
the
public
this
summer.
D
We
have
a
project
website,
along
with
a
get
involved.
Kingston
webpage,
dedicated
specifically
to
this
project
staff,
are
also
maintaining
a
project
email
list
where
updates
are
sent
when
new
documents
are
published
and
events
are
scheduled.
Written
comments
can
be
sent
via
email
or
mail,
and
staff
are
available
to
speak
on
the
phone
or
meet
virtually
with
interested
members
of
the
public.
Finally,
members
of
the
public
can
virtually
attend
future
events
and
public
meetings
next
slide.
Please.
E
E
The
second
draft
is
proposed
to
transition
the
protection
for
riparian
corridors,
which
are
lands
within
close
proximity
to
water
bodies,
from
a
mapped
zone
to
a
text-based
regulation,
and
this
change
from
map
to
text-based
regulation
would
expand
underlying
zoning
permissions
to
approximately
4
200
properties
within
the
municipality
without
creating
legal
non-conformity
or
financing
issues,
while
still
remaining
maintaining
the
same
protections
for
riparian
quarters,
I
think
that's
very
important
to
say
up
front
and
to
keep
in
mind
as
we
move
forward
in
this
presentation.
Next
slide.
Please.
E
This
presentation
is
going
to
start
a
fairly
high
level
with
a
quick
introduction
of
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
then
a
overview
of
our
existing
official
plan.
Policies
related
to
this
topic,
a
quick
summary
of
the
existing
patchwork
of
zoning
bylaws
that
are
in
place
today
and
then
an
overview
of
the
first
draft
of
the
new
zoning
by-law,
together
with
a
summary
of
public
comments
that
we
had
received
since
2016..
E
So
the
provincial
policy
statement
forms
the
basis
or
foundation
for
land
use
planning
policy
within
the
province
of
ontario,
section
2.1
regards
natural
heritage,
and
this
is
where
the
province
has
identified.
The
features
that
are
of
provincial
significance,
together
with
their
adjacent
lands,
which
are
lands
within
a
specific
buffer
or
a
radius
around
those
features
that
have
the
potential
to
impact
the
heritage
features
generally
section
2.1
prohibits
development
within
or
conditionally
prohibits
development
within
the
natural
heritage
features
in
the
adjacent
lands.
E
It's
important
to
note
that
section,
3.1
of
the
pps
regards
natural
hazards
and
there's
commonly
overlap
between
natural
hazards
and
natural
heritage
features
in
areas
of
water.
But
tonight
we
are
focusing
on
natural
heritage
features,
and
so
we
won't
be
discussing
much
about
natural
hazards
next
slide.
Please.
E
In
order
for
development
to
proceed
in
b
features,
it
would
need
to
be
supported
by
an
environmental
impact
assessment
that
determines
that
there
will
be
no
negative
impact
to
the
feature
this
chart
also
introduces
or
specifies
the
adjacent
lands
for
each
of
the
applicable
features.
Coming
from
the
provincial
policy
statement
of
particular
note,
riparian
corridors
are
identified
in
our
official
plan
as
a
natural
heritage,
a
feature
and
are
generally
to
be
protected
from
development
next
slide.
Please.
E
E
However,
the
epa
designated
lands
that
relate
solely
to
a
riparian
corridor
are
a
little
different.
Our
official
plan
allows
these
epa
riparian
corridor
areas
to
be
developed
in
accordance
with
the
any
other
applicable
land
use,
designation
that
that
occurs
on
a
property.
So,
despite
riparian
corridors
being
identified
as
natural
heritage,
a
feature
and
appearing
in
the
environmental
protection
area
designation,
they
are
not
protected
to
the
same
level
or
status
as
other
natural
heritage.
A
features
section
3.9
of
the
op
gets
into
waterfront
protection,
and
this
is
the
portion.
E
The
official
plan
that
introduces
the
concept
of
ribbon
of
life,
which
is
generally
considered
to
be
a
30
meter,
naturalized
buffer,
around
water
bodies
and
in
wetlands
ribbon
of
life,
are
our
lands
that
have
very
high
ecological
significance.
They
offer
habitat
they
offer
opportunities
for
migration
and
transportation
through
corridors
offer
opportunities
for
stormwater
infiltration
and
water
quality
management
stream
shading.
E
E
E
E
The
difficulty
with
this
approach
is
that
the
zone
boundary
is
fixed,
whereas
the
epa
designation
in
the
official
plan
does
allow
for
some
degree
of
flexibility
specifically
relating
to
riparian
corridors.
So
the
existing
epa
zone
approach
is
not
implementing
the
intent
of
the
official
plan
to
the
fullest
degree.
E
The
second
approach
is
to
bring
in
water
body
setbacks.
Generally,
it's
a
30
meter,
water
body
setback,
that's
being
recommended
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
with
a
10
meter,
water
body
setback
only
within
the
the
downtown
core
in
in
particular,
so
it's
30
meters
throughout
the
municipality
with
10
meters
right
downtown.
E
E
The
third
approach
was
a
natural
heritage
overlay,
and
this
was
a
map
that
was
prepared
that
included
all
natural
heritage,
a
and
b
features
together
with
their
adjacent
lands
and
prohibited
development
within
these
lands.
Unless
that
development
was
supported
by
an
environmental
impact
assessment,
although
this
approach
would
provide
a
strong
level
of
protection
for
our
natural
heritage
features,
it
was
determined
that
this
approach
is
is
conditional.
Zoning
under
the
planning
act
and,
unfortunately,
municipalities,
don't
have
the
ability
to
implement
conditional
zoning
at
this
point
in
time.
E
E
E
This
is
a
map
that
shows
lands
that
are
currently
designated
environmental
protection
area
in
the
official
plan.
Now
this
is
a
portion
of
the
municipality,
so
everything
shown
in
green
is
epa
today,
and
what
we're
proposing
to
do
is
to
shrink
that
epa
designation
boundary
by
the
width
of
riparian
corridors
in
favor,
of
strengthening
the
wording
in
section
3.9
to
clarify
that
by
prayering
corridors
and
water
body
setbacks
ribbon
of
life,
they
don't
need
to
be
shown
on
a
map
in
order
to
be
protected.
E
E
E
That
would
be
directly
impacted
by
this.
This
mapping
change.
So
if
we
maintain
the
approach
that
was
in
the
first
draft,
there
would
be
approximately
1900
structures
that
would
be
located
within
an
epa
zone
when
we're
already
protecting
those
same
blends
through
a
general
30
meter,
water
body
setback
next
slide,
please.
E
The
third
topic
that
we
explored
was
water
body
setbacks
themselves
and
whether
or
not
different
water
body,
setbacks
should
be
applied
in
different
contexts
within
a
municipality
and
what
we
found
through
our
municipal
comparison
was
that
it's
generally
a
30
meter,
water
body
setback
through
and
through.
It's
it's
quite
common,
but
there
were
examples
where
reduced
setbacks
were
implemented
in
highly
urbanized.
E
Sorry,
excuse
me
highly
urbanized
municipalities
to
reflect
historical
parcel
fabric,
existing
development
trends,
filled
lands
hardened,
shorelines,
etc,
and
that
some
municipalities
included
exemptions
for
for
minor
residential
accessory
structures
such
as
a
a
small
accessory
shed
or
some
stairs
going
down
an
embankment
towards
the
water,
and
so
our
recommendation
is
to
carry
forward
the
general
30
meter,
water
body
setback
that
was
in
the
first
draft
and
also
to
carry
forward
the
reduced
10
meter,
water
body
setback
that
would
apply
just
in
the
downtown
core
itself.
So
carry
those
two
setbacks
forward
into
the
second
draft.
E
E
But
we
need
to
recognize
that
there's
going
to
be
lots
of
areas
where
especially
adjacent
lands
where
proposed
development
is
not
going
to
have
an
impact
on
the
actual
natural
heritage
feature
itself.
So
perhaps
it's
development
within
120
meters
of
provincially,
significant
wetlands,
but
there's
a
fairly
major
road
intervening
between
the
development
site
and
the
wetland
itself.
That
development
is
likely
not
going
to
have
an
impact
on
that
wetland.
E
E
E
E
So
we're
recommending
that
the
riparian
corridors
and
the
protection
for
riparian
corridors
be
transitioned
from
a
map
based
approach
to
the
text-based
approach,
which
would
then
allow
us
to
better
better
protect
those
features.
Wherever
they
have
to
be
found
in
the
landscape,
we
would
have
the
tools
to
protect
them.
E
Also,
we're
going
to
be
working
with
the
ministry
of
natural
resources
to
ask
them
to
amend
boundaries,
to
a
few
provincially,
significant
wetland
complexes
and
perhaps
a
nancy
boundary
to
better
reflect
the
the
actual
boundary
of
the
natural
heritage
feature
itself.
There
seems
to
be
a
discrepancy
between
the
mapping
and
aerial
imagery
for
the
feature.
Our
conversation
with
mnrf
thus
far
have
been
have
been
supportive
and
it
looks
like
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
some
of
these
mapping
changes
brought
in
to
make
sure
that
our
mapping
is
as
accurate
as
possible.
E
E
We'd
like
to
maintain
the
30
meter,
general
water
body
setback,
this
being
10
meters
through
just
the
downtown
core
itself,
update
the
definition
of
water
body
to
better
clarify
what
we
intend
to
protect
through
the
30
meter,
development
setback
and
what
we
don't
intend
to
protect
and
bring
in
an
exemption
for
up
to
one
exception,
accessory
residential
structure
up
to
10
square
meters
to
be
permitted
within
the
water
body.
Setback.
E
A
Great,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation.
I
believe
we'll
go
into
committee
first
and
then
we
open
it
up
to
the
public.
We
we
are
doing
each
of
these
distinctly.
I
believe
good,
so
I'll,
open
it
the
floor
to
members
of
the
committee.
If
you
have
questions
just
raise
your
hand
and
I'll
recognize
you.
F
Thank
you
and
through
the
chair,
I
just
have
a
couple
questions
so
properties,
then
that
are
currently
you
know
in
existence
and
and
where
the
property
is
developed.
You
know
basically
up
to
the
shoreline,
so
I
I'm
lakeside
and
so
there's
obviously
there'll
be
a
number
of
properties
in
red
and
dale
and
sunny
acres,
etc.
That
that
are
you
know
in
that
situation,
right
so
by
by
eliminating
the
mapping.
F
E
The
zoning
bylaw
doesn't
doesn't
regulate
pools,
but
what
what
this
proposed
approach
would
do
would
be
to
if
it's
a
residential
use
and
it's
a
residential
zone.
Now
it
would
maintain
the
residential
zoning,
so
we
wouldn't
be
establishing
a
legal
non-conforming
situation,
any
future
structures.
If
that
say
that
that
dwelling
is
developed
at
15
meters
from
the
high
water
mark
for
discussion
sake,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
go
any
closer
to
the
water.
They
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
build
a
deck
or
a
shed
or
something
between
their
house
and
the
water.
E
F
E
A
D
So
when
we're
talking
about
the
amendments
that
we're
proposing
to
make
to,
the
second
draft
is
to
ensure
that
the
uses
are
permitted
on
that
property
in
the
zone.
The
buildings
themselves
would
become
legal
non-complying
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
because
there
are
performance
standards
for
those
buildings
that
aren't
being
met.
So
the
setback
from
the
water
would
be
a
situation
where
the
building
itself
is
legal
non-complying,
but
the
use
is
permitted.
So
there
are,
there
will
be
some
permissions
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
related
to
legal
non-complying
buildings,
but
there
are
no
expansion.
D
Permissions
related
to
legal
non-conforming
uses
so
for
illegal
non-conforming
use
and
needs
to
go
through
a
planning
act,
application
for
a
legal
non-complying
building.
They
would
be
permitted
to
build
in
an
area
on
that
lot
that
complied
with
the
zoning
bylaw
100.
So
say
they
wanted
to
put
an
addition
on
the
front
yard
if
they
met
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
rear
yard
setback
and
all
of
the
other
performance
standards.
D
D
F
E
Through
your
mr
chair,
I
think
if
the
the
answer
is
a
kind
of
a
non-helpful,
it
depends,
and
it
depends
on
the
the
size
of
the
parcel.
Our
official
plan
does
have
existing
wording
in
there
for
development
of
existing
existing
lots.
This
is
in
section
396.,
and
so,
if
there's,
if
the
parcel
is
not
physically
large
enough
to
locate
development
outside
that
30
meter
water
body
setback,
then
an
appropriate
amount
of
development
can
occur
on
that
property.
While
trying
to
maintain
the
greatest
water
body
setback
that
that
it
can
in
a
redevelopment
scenario,.
E
A
D
Through
you,
mr
chair,
so
when,
if
someone
wants
to
demolish
and
rebuild
the
exact
same
house
in
the
exact
same
footprint,
they
have
permitted
like
they
have
legal
non-conforming
right
permissions
under
the
planning
act.
To
do
that,
so
they
have
the
ability
to
demolish
an
existing
building
and
build
the
exact
same
building
in
the
same
place.
I
think
we
would
have
to
speak
with
our
legal
services
department
about
an
expansion
of
that
building.
D
If
it's
an
increase
in
height
with
the
same
footprint,
I
believe
that
they
would
require
a
expansion
application
through
the
committee
of
adjustments.
So
it's
the
expansion
of
a
legal
non-conforming
use
and
that
would
need
to
go
through
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
it's
subject
to
different
tests
than
a
minor
variance
under
the
planning
act.
D
E
Certainly
conservation
authorities
have
interest
in
those
as
well,
but
the
the
permits
that
are
required
before
a
property
owner
can
get
a
building
permit,
for
example,
are
in
relation
to
the
natural
hazards,
be
flood
plain
and
wave
operation,
those
types
of
things,
so
they
I
can
appreciate
from
a
property
owner
perspective
it.
It
may
be
seen
as
a
bit
of
a
duplication
of
effort
or
red
tape,
perhaps
having
to
get
multiple
levels
of
approval,
but
they
are.
They
are
focused
on
on
different
aspects
of
ensuring
appropriate
development.
F
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
know
that
there
were
a
couple
of
other
counselors
that
were
putting
questions
forward
through
the
week
so
and
I
want
to
what
oh
I'll
recognize
counselor
sonic,
but
I
want
to
recognize
and
welcome
vice
chair
kylie
back
to
the
what
we
have
of
the
horseshoe
so
go
ahead.
Counselor
sonic.
G
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
that
that
is
the
the
intent
where,
wherever
possible
is
especially
within
lands
that
have
been
developed
through
a
previous
plan
of
subdivision,
where
the
the
zone
boundary
was
established,
based
on
a
planning
act,
application
in
the
intent
of
the
land
was
was
to
have
residential
uses.
The
intent
certainly
would
be
to
maintain
that
moving
forward.
G
Okay,
great
so
then,
I'm
like,
if
I
could
use
safari,
drive
right
as
an
example,
so
they
were
definitely
one
of
the
part
of
safari
drive
right
was
affected
by
this
new
mapping.
Now
we're
not
going
to
use
the
new
mapping
and
they're
going
to
revert
back
to
an
r1
residential
zone,
then
yeah
a
specific
question.
I
got
going
into
tonight's
meeting.
E
It
comes
inland
much
much
farther
than
it
ought
to
based
on
the
aerial
imagery,
and
so
that
is
one
of
the
areas
they've
looked
at
the
mapping.
They
agree
that
there's
there's
a
problem
with
it,
and
they've
agreed
that
they're
going
to
pull
that
mapping
back
so
the
safari
drive
property
with
this
proposed
approach
would
then
maintain
that
residential
zone
boundary
on
the
particular
parcels
themselves,
but
the
epa
zone
boundary
anticipated
to
start
at
generally.
The
the
rear
lot
line.
G
E
That
is
where
the
the
30
meter
water
body
setback
would
would
commence
so,
depending
on
the
depth
of
those
lots,
the
homes
may
still
fall
within
30
meters
of
water
body
setback,
which
would
mean
that
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
put
any
rear
additions
onto
those
particular
houses.
Similar
situation,
as
as
council
hill
was
describing
earlier,
but
what
it
would
mean
is
that
their
property
would
be
zoned
residential.
It
would
be
in
a
residential
zone,
they
would
be
of
legal
permitted
use.
G
Okay,
thank
you.
So,
if
their
other
concern
also
is,
this
could
have
a
significant
impact
on
property
values
that
wouldn't
apply,
because
the
r
one
zone
goes
back
to
their
house
is
that
right,
except
they
still
might
be
confined.
If
somebody
wants
to
buy
the
house
to
tear
it
down
to
create
a
big
monster
home,
then
that's
where
they're
going
to
be
confined
like
we
just
had
the
conversation
over
the
existing
footprint.
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
think
that
that
that's
correct
the
intent
is
to
maintain
the
residential
boundary
of
those
lots
in
a
residential
zone.
Any
any
potential.
Future
development
would
need
to
comply
with
the
regulations
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
if
any
planning
act
applications
were
to
be
required,
then
the
policies
and
and
sorry
the.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
it's
good
to
be
back,
I'm
wondering
if
staff
could
talk
a
bit
about
the
10
meter
setback,
that's
proposed
for
the
downtown
central
business
district
and
harbors.
If
you
can
give
a
bit
of
the
rationale
to
the
public
about
why
that's
a
different
setback,
distance
than
what
we've
been
talking
about,
residentially
with
30
meters,.
E
It's
the
existing
zoning.
That's
in
place
now
in
zoning
below
96
259
for
the
downtown
and
harbor
zoning
fly
lot.
It
has
a
10
meter,
development
setback
applied
to
the
the
downtown
zone
or
the
central
downtown
zone.
I
forget
the
particular
term
right
now
in
the
in
the
harbor
area,
so
the
waterfront
areas,
and
that
is
to
recognize
the
existing
developed
nature
of
those
areas,
the
highly
urbanized
nature
of
those
parcels,
the
existing
parcel
sizes.
E
The
fact
that
a
lot
of
those
those
lands
have
been
have
been
filled,
they've
been
previously
developed
and
they're,
not
in
a
very
natural
state
right
now.
In
fact,
a
lot
of
some
of
those
lands
may
not
even
be
natural
lands
at
all.
They
may
just
be
filled
lands
in
former
lake
ontario,
so
a
10
meter,
development
setback
was
brought
into
96
259,
and
that
is
primarily,
I
understand,
to
implement
the
or
provide
an
opportunity
and
requirement
for
the
waterfront
pathway,
yeah
waterfront
pathway,
sorry,
which
is
required
by
our
official
plan.
H
Thank
you.
That's
helpful,
I'm
wondering
if
that
10
meters
could
be
changed
based
on
a
given
site,
so
I
think,
for
example,
the
tannery
lands,
where
perhaps
public
interest,
and
perhaps
even
the
proponent,
have
talked
about
naturalizing
or
keeping
somewhat
wild
shoreline.
Presumably,
if
that's
driven
by
the
proponent,
they
could
go
beyond
that.
So,
even
though
it's
as
of
right,
they
could
go
further
back.
That's
just
up
to
up
to
them
to
make
that
decision.
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
the
reduced
10
meter
setback
does
not
apply
that
far
north
into
the
the
inner
harbor.
It's
it
doesn't
have
a
very
well-defined
boundary
in
in
the
first
draft
right
right
now.
It
kind
of
ends
I'll
just
say,
generally,
the
lands
south
of
doug
fleur
park
and
then
in
around
the
shoreline
around
to
where
ontario
street
bends
up
to
to
west
street.
So
those
those
are
the
areas
that
have
a
reduced
10
meter.
H
That's
actually
helpful
to
know.
Thank
you.
My
second
question
or
second
line
of
questioning,
I
suppose,
is
about
director's
discretion.
I
noticed
that
one
of
the
clauses
in
the
report
talked
about
replacing
existing
exemptions
in
section
three
to
allow
the
director
to
exercise
discretion.
Could
you
give
us
a
bigger
context
of
that
and
tell
us
why
that's
recommended.
E
If
we
just
said
all
development
within
120
meters
of
a
psw
or
whatever
natural
heritage
feature
it
is
going
to,
it
is
going
to
encapsulate
a
vast
number
of
parcels
or
a
vast
amount
of
land.
Where
proposed
development
would
not
impact
that
those
that
feature
whatever
it
happens
to
be,
if
there's
an
intervening
road
in
the
way
or
perhaps
there's
an
entire
block
of
development
between
a
proposed
site
and
some
significant
woodlands
or
psws,
or
something
like
that.
E
So
if
there
wasn't
some
type
of
director
discretion
mechanism
built
in,
we
would
have
to
then
require
all
sorts
of
properties
to
go
through
site
plan
where
there
would
be
no
benefit
in
doing
so.
Now,
perhaps
the
as
I
mentioned,
the
the
cycling
control
pilot
is
slated
for
a
general
update
later
on
this
year.
H
E
The
exact
implementation
details
of
how
this
approach
could
be
implemented
through
site
plan,
I
think,
would
need
to
be
further
developed
through
the
public
consultation
stage
in
the
the
broader
analysis
of
the
the
site
line
control
update.
So
I
I
think
that
that
that's
a
very
good
question,
but
at
this
point
it's
a
it's
a
concept
that
we're
we're
putting
forth
recognizing
that
the
existing
natural
heritage
overlay
is
is
conditional
and
we
we
can't
use
that
laura.
Do
you
want
to
jump
in.
D
Through
you,
mr
cherry,
yes,
I'd
just
like
to
add
so
obviously
it's
the
proposed
approach
through
site
plan
is
something
that
would
be
subject
to
the
future
public
consultation
on
the
site,
plan
bylaw
and
certainly
through
that
process,
we
can
explore
whether
there
are
any
type
of
bump
up
opportunities
that
could
be
built
into
that.
So
maybe,
when
a
building
permit
application
is
posted
on
dash.
D
If
someone
had
an
objection
to
the
fact
that
they
didn't
go
through
site
plan
for
that,
perhaps
there
would
be
some
type
of
bump
up
that
we
could
build
into
that
process.
So
that's
certainly
something
that
we
can
review
through
the
future
site
plan
bylaw
review
and
make
that
kind
of
recommendation
through
that
process.
F
Sorry,
just
I
want
to
counsel
kylie's
what
I
guess
was
one
of
nile's
responses,
tweak
this
and
so
through
you
chair,
I
don't
imagine
too
much
of
the
developed
land
outside
of
the
downtown
is
going
to
be
returned
to
its
natural
state.
So,
assuming
that
and
in
the
interest
of
fairness,
why
would
we
not
use
the
10
meter
ribbon
of
life
and
apply
that
to
all
areas
that
are
currently
currently
developed?
I
I
don't
mean
to
areas
that
may
be
considered
for
future
development,
but
for
areas
where
that
development
already
exists.
F
E
Through
you,
mr
chair
sarah's,
having
button
clicking
problems,
I
think
that
that's
a
that's
a
really
interesting,
really
interesting
question,
and
I
think
that
well
wildlands
within
the
urban
area
that
you
know
say
like
a
lot
of
the
examples
tonight
have
been
residential
subdivisions
backing
onto
crete,
corridors
or
wetlands.
While
they
may
not
be
returned
to
a
naturalized
state.
E
I
think
portions
of
those
lands
are
still
going
to
play
some
degree
of
of
role,
whether
that's
part
of
like
a
migration
corridor
for
for
various
forms
of
wildlife
or
whether
that's
an
opportunity
for
storm
water
infiltration
into
you
know,
rear
lawns,
those
types
of
things
which
then
helps
with
the
base
flows
of
creeks
and
and
wetlands.
I
I
still
think
that
there
would
be
a
benefit
in
maintaining
as
great
of
a
development
setback
as
as
possible
in
relation
to
these
these
areas.
E
I
think
the
part
of
the
the
situation
for
for
downtown
is
that
a
lot
of
the
lands
that
are
that
would
be
subject
to
that
10
meter,
reduced
development
setback.
A
lot
of
those
lands
are,
I
think,
historically
filled
lands
there.
Their
lands
that
are
fortified
with
reinforced,
concrete
shorelines
and
there's
there's
fairly
limited
opportunities
to
to
improve
those
areas,
so
the
to
the
same
degree
as
a
residential
backyard
would
be.
I
I
I
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
think
that
that
is
a
a
very
good,
a
very
good
point,
very
good
comment,
and
certainly
I
think
that
that
that
is
the
the
approach
that
we'd
like
to
take,
which
is
the
transition
from
like
riparian
quarters,
for
instance,
from
the
natural
heritage,
a
feature
we
transition
to
a
natural
heritage
b.
Feature
we're
still
going
to
show
the
riparian
quarters
that
we
do
have
mapped
we're
still
going
to
show
them
on
schedule,
eight
of
the
official
plan.
E
But
then
we
would
tweak
the
the
language
within
the
actual
plan
in
section
3.9
to
say
basically,
like
you
know
the
ones
that
are
shown
on
the
schedule.
Eight
are
the
ones
that
we
have
mapped.
Those
are
the
ones
that
we
know
where
they
are,
but
where
they
happen
to
be
found
on
the
landscape
that
we
don't
have
mapped,
we
we
don't
need
to
go
through
an
official
plan
amendment
in
order
to
offer
protection
to
these
these
lands.
H
A
E
For
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
don't
want
to
get
into
commenting
on
this.
Like
a
specific
active
development
twilight.
I
don't
have
these
particulars
on
it,
but
in
a
hypothetical
scenario,
just
because
there's
a
someone
could
meet
a
30
meter.
Development
setback
from
the
high
water
mark
of
whatever
water
body
doesn't
mean
that
they
would
always
be
able
to
develop
there.
E
A
I
You
no
no!
No.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
didn't
mean
to
the
reason
I
used
the
example
I
did,
and
I
didn't
really
want
to
use
an
example
is
because,
when
it
came
back
at
certain
places
on
the
on
the
shoreline,
it's
back,
I
think
45
meters
or
maybe
50
meters
right.
So
it
was
an
example.
I'm
not
saying
that
obtains
you
know,
there's
all
kinds
of
things
to
be
done
with
that
pro,
the
planning
for
that
property,
but-
and
that's.
I
D
D
So
we
have
to
write
a
zoning
bylaw
in
a
way
that
says
yes,
you're
permitted
to
do
this,
no
you're
not
permitted
to
do
this.
The
minimum
setback
is
30
meters
and-
and
we
can't
require
someone
to
go
through
an
eia
through
the
zoning
bylaw
provisions.
That
would
have
to
be
done
through
the
official
plan
policies
and
other
policies,
but
it's
not
something
that
we
could
write
into
the
zoning
bylaw.
I
I
E
Through
you,
mr
chair,
the
the
reason
that
the
zoning
bylaw
doesn't
say,
you're
prohibited
from
developing
within
120
meters
of
provincially,
significant
wetlands
or
you're
prohibited
from
developing
within
areas
identified
as
significant
woodlands,
because
those
that's
not
what
our
official
plan
says
to
be.
I
guess
to
be
clear.
Our
official
plan
says
that
development
is
prohibited
within
natural
heritage,
a
features
and
that
development
is
conditionally
prohibited
within
the
natural
heritage
b
features
and
those
adjacent
lands
it's
prohibited
unless
you
do
a
study
that
demonstrates
that
it
would
not
adversely
affect
those
those
features.
E
So
our
official
plan
is
establishing
some
degree
of
I
suppose,
development
potential
in
those
areas
provided
that
an
appropriate
study
has
been
done
and
an
assessment's
been
done,
and
it's
not
going
to
impact
those
features.
So
if
the
zoning
viola
came
in
and
just
outright
prohibited
all
development
within
those
areas,
it
it
wouldn't
be
in
line
with
our
official
plan.
A
A
A
How
did
you
let
this
happen?
So
if
there's
some
way
of
streamlining
communication
and
site
plan
since
you're,
taking
on
more
responsibilities
and
that's
a
delegated
authority,
so
I'd
appreciate
it.
If
there's
a
way
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
bump
ups
at
every
council
meeting,
which
wouldn't
be
good
for
planning
committee
timing
or
others.
So
if
you
can
address
that,
that's
good
that
the
10
meter
in
recognition
for
the
downtown
in
automatic
recognition
that
we're
we
have
a
10
meter.
A
A
Councillor
hutchinson
will
probably
agree
with
this.
It's
a
nightmare
in
the
downtown
because
we've
had
so
many
zoning
bylaws
over
the
years
and
we
or
our
constituents
have
to
end
up
being
detectives
to
figure
out
that
40
years
ago,
when
they
had
a
double
parking
lot
or
they
had
a
parking
space
in
front
partially
in
front
of
their
house.
That
was
allowed
in
the
zoning
of
the
day.
It
isn't
now
and
it's
it's
such
a
nightmare
to
constituents.
I
see
council
hutcheson
smiling
because
he's
probably
faced
some
of
these
questions
as
well.
A
So
is
there
any
way
that
we
can
take
pictures
or
do
something
that
will,
as
we
do
with
heritage
buildings,
so
that
it
isn't
always
at
the
discretion
of
of
constituents
having
to
go
to
court,
to
try
and
or
to
try
to
deny
that
or
find
that
they
indeed
have
an
existing
non-conforming
use.
So
so
a
catalog
of
existing
non-conforming
uses.
D
Harpy,
certainly
through
amsterdam,
so
the
existing
zoning
violence
as
something
becomes
legal
non-conforming,
a
use
becomes
legal
non-conforming
or
a
building
becomes
legal
non-complying.
Sorry,
my
dog's
walking
around
in
the
background.
If
you
hear
something
walking
around
here,
a
building
becomes
legal
non-complying
if
it
legally
existed
in
that
location
prior
to
the
passage
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
D
So
when
we
pass
a
new
zoning
bylaw
in
2022,
when
we
have
all
sorts
of
technology
available
to
us
and
we
have
the
ability
to
schedule
satellite
image,
imagery
and
additional
data
that
we
can
then
use
as
a
reference
point
for
when
a
new
zoning
bylaw
is
passed
in
2022,
we
all
of
a
sudden
have
a
much
better
resource
as
staff
and
as
members
of
the
public
to
say
look.
This
bylaw
was
passed
in
2022
and
we
can
very
very
clearly
prove
with
pretty
accurate
information
that
this
existed
at
that
point
in
time.
D
So
the
creation
of
a
new
zoning
bylaw
should
actually
help
the
process
of
determining
whether
outside
physical
structures
and
and
driveways,
and
that
type
of
thing
legally
existed.
Obviously,
when
we're
talking
about
the
number
of
bedrooms
or
units
in
a
building,
it
becomes
much
more
difficult
because
we
can't
easily
capture
that
data
and
secure
that
somewhere.
Obviously,
we
have
tax
records
and
all
sorts
of
things
internally
that
we
can
review,
but
it's
certainly
that
physical
element
that
we
that
we
can
capture
with
newer
technologies
that
that
should
should
certainly
benefit
the
process.
A
That's
reassuring.
Thank
you.
My
final
question-
and
this
is
a
kind
of
a
follow-up
to
councillor
hill's
concerns
with
the
new
ribbon
of
life.
30
meters
being
applied
is
that
for
only
structures
that
impede
upon
that
will
their
people
still
be
allowed
to
build
a
reasonably
sized
patio
or
or
a
deck
on
their
house
or
with
that
with
the
measurement
of
the
30
meters,
be
inclusive
of
a
dish
that
dexer
or
that.
E
To
you,
mr
chair,
the
zoning
bylaw
would
not
be
regulating
patios
decks
in
our
structures
under
under
the
zoning
file,
so
the
30
meter
setback
would
be
applied
to
to
a
deck,
and
that
is
part
of
the
reason
why
we
were
recommending
a
an
exemption
for
a
small
accessory
residential
structure.
You
know
whether
that's
a
you
know,
a
small
garden
shed
in
the
backyard
or
something
or
a
small,
like
10,
by
10
deck
platform
that
you
know
if
someone
wanted
to
put
that
on
portion
of
their
property.
E
E
What
sometimes
does
happen
is
people
don't
build
those
small
decks,
but
they
build
a
much
larger
patio
which
we
don't
regulate
under
the
zoning
by-law,
which
then
introduces
a
whole
lot
more
impervious
surface
and
hardened,
and
it's
much
less
natural
than
you
know
a
deck
sitting.
On
top
of
the
ground,
so.
A
Some
something
else
for
you
to
consider
and
my
very
last
question
I
know
from
friends
that
I
did
have
visited
over
the
years
in
lakeside
that
some
people
have
and
have
had
for
years,
docks
whether
they're,
removable,
docks
or
more
permanent
structures
are
those
going
to
be
existing
non-conforming
use
recognition,
or
will
that
be
an
allowance?
Somehow.
E
To
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
would
have
to
consult
the
first
draft
of
the
zoning
violet
to
see
if
deck
or
docks
were
were
specifically
identified
as
as
structures
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
I
don't
think
that
the
zoning
bylaw
would
be
being
applied
to
docs.
I
think
we
would
leave
that
with
catalogue,
region
conservation
authority
for
appropriate
shoreline
permits
and
those
types
of
things.
D
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
We
do
have
members
of
the
public
with
us
tonight,
I'm
just
going
to
ask
that
they
use
the
raise
hand
function
which
is
located
in
the
center
of
your
screen
in
zoom.
When
you
move
your
mouse
over
top
of
it,
mr
chair,
we
do
have
miss
ferrar,
who
would
like
to
speak
first
and
mr
chair
before
perhaps
I
asked
miss
ferrar
to
unmute
herself
if
you'd
like
to
go
over
the
rules
for
public
speaking
at
the
meetings.
A
A
J
J
So
my
first
question
is
about-
and
I
haven't
had
much
time
to
look
at
this,
so
it
may
be
not
appropriate,
but
it
only
talks
about
fish
habitat.
What
about
turtles?
What
about
amphibians
and
reptiles?
What
about
small
mammals?
What
about
birds
and
migratory
birds?
I
mean
I
don't
know
why
no
mention
was
made
of
that
when
it
talks
about
fish
habitat.
J
So
that's
question.
One
question
two:
I
guess
in
a
short
one,
I'm
wondering
if
the
redo
corridor
landscape
strategy
has
any
bearing
on
any
of
this
or
if
that
was
a
part
of
the
consultation
and
question
three
is
about
the
tannery,
and
I
know
I
shouldn't
be
addressing
something
specifically,
but
I'm
sort
of
confused
about
the
30
meter
setback.
So
if
a
property
owner
owns
a
property,
does
he
own
the
30
meter
setback
and
then
the
question
to
the
tannery?
J
B
C
C
B
K
K
H
K
In
riparian
zones
is
to
protect
natural
life,
but
also
human
life
and
human
property.
So
I'm
very
concerned
that
we
haven't
really
looked
at
this.
The
way
we
need
to.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
new
provincial
policy
statement,
the
2021,
has
the
words
climate
change
in
it
20
times
or
19
times,
and
there's
a
reason
for
that.
We're
just
very
much
more
aware
of
the
consequences
of
extreme
rain
events,
all
all
the
ways
in
which
our
climate
is
changing
in
a
way
that
can
be
detrimental
to
all
of
us.
K
I
think
people
who
live
by
water
have
a
special
responsibility
and
it's
a
community-wide
responsibility,
and
I
appreciate
that
people
who
live
in
buildings
that
are
too
close
to
the
water
and
I'm
probably
one
of
them.
You
know
just
moved
into
places
that
were
built,
that
planning
committees
like
yours,
approved
in
the
past
and
that
that
has
resulted
in
people
living
close
to
the
water.
But
I
think
it
is
a
big
mistake
to
think
that
that
gives
us
a
privilege.
K
You
don't
want
to
abuse
water,
your
proximity
to
water,
based
on
something
that
happened
many
many
years
ago
I
mean
bell
park.
Was
a
city
dump
until
the
1970s?
We
would
never
do
that
again.
So
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
this
in
a
whole
different
perspective,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
troubles
me
with
all
of
this
changing
like
counselor
osanic,
asked
that
you
know
all
those
places
on
safari
drive
will
become
r2.
K
Well,
that
tells
them
that
they're
not
living
somewhere
special
that
by
removing
the
epa
behind
their
houses,
you're
sort
of
saying
to
them.
You
can
do
whatever
you
want,
and
I
don't
think
that
that
is
the
right
way
to
approach
water
protection
in
the
21st
century.
I
really
am
disappointed
that
staff
looked
to
get
an
awkway
and
south
front
knack
and
loyalist
township
to
compare
those
are
not
with
no
offense
to
our
neighbors.
Those
are
not
the
places
of
best
practices
and
water
protection.
K
Look
to
the
regional
municipality
of
waterloo
or
aurelia,
or
some
of
the
other
municipalities
who've
taken
some
innovative
and
progressive
approaches
to
protecting
the
land
along
water
and-
and
you
know,
don't
tell
me
what
south
front
neck
is
doing.
I'm
sorry,
it's
it!
It's
not
our
comparator.
The
city
wants
to
stand
out
as
a
city
of
sustainability.
K
So
let's
look
at
the
better
places,
not
not
the
others
and
I'm
not
necessarily
naming
the
absolute
best
places.
I
think
another
real
disappointment
for
me
in
this
policy,
and
I
should
have
said
I'm
speaking
personally.
You
know
I
wear
many
different
hats.
I
didn't
have
time
to
get
a
group.
You
know
to
talk
to
everybody
and
get
permission
to
speak
on
their
behalf,
so
I'm
speaking
on
my
own,
but
this
policy
seems
to
be
looking
at
the
existing
developments
and
new
developments
and
lumping
them
all
in
the
same
pod.
K
Well,
I
don't
think,
that's
appropriate,
I
think
existing
developments.
Yes,
we
have
to
think
through
how
to
not
make
those
properties
difficult
and
I'm
wondering
if
anyone
ever
received
proof
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
sell
your
house
or
get
a
mortgage
on
your
house
because
of
the
zoning
on
it.
I'm
not
sure
that
that
that's
a
fear,
but
is
that
a
fact-
and
I
I
would
like
to
hear
from
bankers
to
say?
Yes,
it's
a
fact,
but
I
think
I
lost
my
train
of
thought
there.
K
You
know
looking
at
safari
drive
it's
one
thing
that
people
that
live
on
safari
drive.
What
about
the
development
that's
possible
across
the
creek
there?
What
is
the
new
permission
there?
It's
outside
the
urban
boundary
right
now
and
my
point
is:
it
should
have
more
stringent
protections
for
the
water
system.
Okay,
safari
drive
was
allowed
to
build
the
way
it
was,
but
on
the
other
side
of
the
creek.
Let's
not
let
that
happen
again.
Let's
make
sure
the
setbacks
are
strict
and
strong,
and
I
don't
see
this
policy
doing
that.
K
I
share
councillor
hutchison's
concern
about
director
and
counselor
kylie's
concern
about
discretion.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
confidence
in
that
discretion
and
this
is
moving
the
whole
process
to
privatize
it.
We've
privatized,
our
waterfront
in
the
past,
now
we're
privatizing
the
process
to
allow
approvals
to
things
that
can
happen
near
the
waterfront,
the
idea
of
the
10
by
10
structure.
Well,
that
structure
doesn't
exist
by
itself.
That
structure
is
includes
a
pathway
to
get
to
that
structure
someone's
going
to
store
their
their
lawnmowers
there,
their
pool
equipment
whatever
and
have
a
patio
there
too.
K
I
don't
think
I'm
not
sure
this
10
by
10
structure
idea
is
really
feasible.
I
also
worry
about
site
plan
being
the
appropriate
way
to
manage
all
this,
I'm
just
very
conscious
of
time
and
with
respect
to
conditional
zoning.
Yes,
zoning,
it's
not
allowed,
but
we
certainly
have
conditions
on
our
official
plan.
We
have
a
25.5
meter
height
limit
in
downtown
pending
a
urban
design
study
that
says
you
can
go
higher,
so
we
could
have
official
plan
policies
that
say:
30
meter,
rigid
text-based,
you
cannot
move
further.
K
K
I
found
the
staff
report
very
complicated
to
understand
what
it
is
that
is
really
going
to
happen
like
how
is
it
going
to
work
on
the
ground
and
I
think
it
it's
really
important
for
planning
committee
to
ask
staff
to
to
tell
them
exactly
what
this
means.
Not.
What
word
is
going
to
change
in
the
official
plan
like
the
moving
riparian
corridors
out
of
the
official
plan,
naturalist,
a
is
really
troublesome
to
me
because
I
I
appreciate
there
might
have
been
implementation
problems,
but
I'm
not
sure.
K
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
just
going
to
ask
if
perhaps
we
could
do
a
final
call.
I
don't
see
any
hands
currently,
but
if
we
could
do
a
final
call,
should
there
be
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak
at
this
time
about
this
public
meeting?
If
you
please
raise
your
hand
and
zoom
and
we
do
have
another
hand.
Mr
chair,
I'm
going
to
ask
if
leslie
rudy
would
please
unmute.
L
L
So
if
maybe
I
could
have
a
quick
explanation
of
that
or
if
there's
somewhere,
that
somebody
can
direct
me
to
to
look
up
that
up
or
if
that
can
be
more
clear
in
the
document,
so
that
it's
easier
to
to
parcel
out
what
what
that
means
for
for
us
non-planning
people.
That
would
be
really
great.
But
it
sounds
to
me
that
that
we're
going
to
have
rules,
but
somebody
can
say:
oh
no,
we're
not
going
to
follow
those
rules
and
that
that's
concerning
to
me
thank
you.
A
M
Thank
you
from
you,
mr
chair.
First
of
all,
I
have
to
say
thank
you
to
staff
for
involving
conservation
of
cataract
conservation
staff
from
from
the
onset
we've
been
involved
from
very
early
on
previous
iterations
of
the
zoning
bylaw
and
we're
quite
pleased
with
with
the
approach
that's
been
taken,
we've
reviewed
extensively
with
with
niall
and
and
laura
to
try
to
make
this
the
best
approach,
moving
forward
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
details
that
do
still
need
to
be
ironed
out.
M
But,
but
I
I
think,
a
point
that
has
to
be
kept
in
mind
is
specific
to
to
riparian
areas.
The
protections
are
essentially
the
same
as
what
was
there
previously
through
the
official
plan
and
moving
forward.
They
are
essentially
the
same.
What
the
the
difference
is.
Is
that
we're?
No
lo
where
the
the
changes
will
not
place
legal
non-conforming
status
on
on
properties?
That
should
not
be
legal
non-conforming.
M
Yet,
at
the
same
time,
through
the
text-based
approach,
the
riparian
buffer
will
be
protected.
The
30
meters
is,
is
it
and
I
know
there's
some
reluctance
to
compare
to
other
municipalities,
but
those
other
municipalities
are
quite
progressive
and
they've
had
a
30
meter.
Minimum
setback
for
years,
city
of
kingston
has
been
behind
and,
and
the
official
planet
is,
is
quite
progressive,
but
the
the
zoning
bylaws.
As
you
all
know,
it
was
quite
outdated.
M
So
I
think
it
needs
to
be
kept
in
mind
that
30
meters
is,
is,
I
wouldn't
say
the
industry
accepted
it's
the
scientifically
accepted
minimum
and
that
that's
where
we
we
commend
the
city
with.
Finally,
you
know
adopting
that
as
the
setback
and
again
reiterate-
and
I
think
nyle
had
said
this
too-
that
30
meters
is
a
minimum.
In
many
cases
a
greater
setback
will
be
required
because
of
other
sensitivities
on
certain
properties.
M
Mrs
schmoko
spoke
to
the
collins
creek
area,
any
development
on
that
that
western
block
would
be
significantly
further
from
from
from
collins
creek
than
the
development
on
the
east
side,
and
that's
because
we
we
protect
things
like
floodplains
and
wetlands
now,
where
they
weren't
in
the
past
so
anyways.
I
I
just
wanted
to
to
share
the
conservation
authority's
support
and
again
being
grateful
for
for
the
work
that
staff
have
done
and
and
we
we
do
think
that
this
is
the
right
approach.
Thank
you.
B
E
E
I
think
that's
a
really
interesting
point.
Our
artificial
plant
does
identify
fish
habitat.
I
I
don't
have
a
firm
answer
for
you
this
evening
on
why
exactly
fish
habitat
is
is
identified,
but
fish
habitat
is
essentially
water
bodies
and
the
natural
heritage
resource
manual
gets
into
kind
of
specifying
that
and
providing
clarity
on
that.
Our
official
plan
certainly
does
contemplate
habitat
for
for
other
species
and
species
at
risk,
endangered
species
threatened
species
etc.
E
But
we
do
not
map
these
locations
because
it
is
very
sensitive
and
confidential
information.
We
do
not
want
to
be
distributing
the
locations
of
where
these
species
live.
It
results
in
poaching
and
it's
just
not
a
best
practice,
but
certainly
there
are
other
policies
within
section
6.1
of
our
official
plan
that
outline
our
intent
to
protect
these
areas
and
protect
the
lands
around
these.
These
habitat
areas,
significant
wildlife,
habitat,
etc.
E
But
I
think
it
needs
to
be
kept
in
mind
that
the
intent
of
this
this
work
in
this
discussion
paper
is
to
look
at
how
we
can
best
implement
the
existing
official
plan
policies
into
our
our
new
zoning
bylaw.
So
we're
not
looking
at
bringing
in
new
official
plan
policies
or
better
implementing
recommendations
from
an
existing
study
through
this.
This
work
we're
talking
about
this
evening,
we're
looking
at
our
existing
official
plan
policies
and
and
how
we
can
implement
that
into
our
new
zoning
bylaw.
E
There
was
a
question
on
the
ownership
of
the
30
meter
setback
and
the
30
meter
setback
is
intended
to
make
sure
that
development
is,
is
maintaining
at
the
unappropriate
stop
back
it.
The
recommendation
coming
through
the
zoning
viola
is,
is
not
into
ownership
of
transitioning
that
land
into
public
lands,
certainly
through
development
applications.
That
may
be
something
that
is
subject
of
much
consultation
and
discussion
between
development
proponents
and
the
municipality
and
in
the
public.
E
E
A
question
on
on
trails:
whether
or
not
the
trails
are
to
be
included
inside
that
30,
meter
setback
or
outside
that
30
meter
setback.
I
think
the
intent
of
our
official
plan
and
what
we're
trying
to
bring
in
here
is
is
trying
to
maintain
the
greatest
development
setback
as
possible
from
development
to
these.
These
sensitive
features.
So
if
there
was
an
opportunity
like
a
development
scenario
where
a
waterfront
pathway
was
being
contemplated
or
required,
hopefully
that
pathway
could
be
located
beyond
that.
30
meter
setback
so
that
we
would
be
securing
as
creative
setback
as
possible.
E
Mr
hargreaves
had
had
some
comments
and
he
was
activating
some
of
the
the
questions
that
members
of
council
had
this
evening.
So
I
think
we've
we've
responded
to
a
number
of
those
questions
and
I
think
we've
got
some
some
other
areas
where
we've
heard
from
from
council,
where
we
need
to
do
some
more
more
work
and
kind
of
further
develop.
Some
of
those
ideas,
mishmoka
had
a
number
of
of
comments.
I
I'm
not
sure
that
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
respond
to
all
of
them
here
this
evening.
E
E
We're
we're
locating
development
farther
away
we're
providing
opportunities
for
mitigation
measure,
so
we're
providing
opportunities
for
things
like
soil
erosion
and
vegetation
cover,
increasing
forest
cover
within
the
the
urban
boundary
promoting
stormwater
infiltration,
where
the
development
setback
in
this
30
meter
setback
provides
space
for
all
of
those
those
beneficial
processes
to
to
occur.
So
we're
it's
not
not
in
line
with
the
new
official
plan.
But
this
this
work
was
not
intending
to
update
our
official
plan
to
be
in
line
with
the
new
provincial
policy
statement.
E
E
But
I
think
what
is
really
important
when
we're
trying
to
understand
how
best
to
implement
natural
heritage
policies
and
regulations
in
a
zoning
bylaw
is.
We
need
to
be
looking
at
least
partially
to
municipalities
that
are
within
the
same
region
that
have
very
similar
environmental
features
as
as
our
own
jurisdiction
does.
E
These
are
all
other
municipalities
that
we
thought
might
have
similar
development
pressures,
as
the
city
of
kingston
might
have
similar
historic,
downtown
cores
as
the
city
of
kingston
other
municipalities
that
are
fairly
fairly
advanced
in
their
their
planning
processes.
So
we
did
try
and
offer
a
breadth
of
municipalities
to
draw
from
in
that
municipal
comparison
review.
E
There
was
a
question
about
about
mortgages
and
whether
or
not
the
the
concern
about
mortgages
is
is
fear,
or
fact
I
think
that
and
the
short
answer
on
on
that
is.
Did
we
call
up?
You
know,
td
bank,
or
do
we
call
up?
You
know
whatever
mortgage
broker
and
say
hey?
Is
there
a
problem
with
this
for
this
this
particular
project?
E
E
Additional
comments
on
the
director's
discretion.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
concerns
and
questions
looking
for
further
development
of
that
idea.
So
I'll,
I
guess
I'll
just
indicate
that
we
we've
heard
that
and
we'll
be
taking
that
back
and
taking
a
closer
look
and
trying
to
further
develop
the
idea
of
site
plan
control.
E
So
the
zoning
bottle
is
a
document
that
outlines
what
you
can
and
can't
do
with
your
your
property,
whereas
site
plan
control
doesn't
doesn't
determine
what
you
can
and
can't
do
site
plan
control
is
looking
to
ensure
that
that
property
can
be
laid
out
efficiently
safely
effectively.
And
it's
it's
a
planning
act
approval.
So
it
opens
the
door
for
municipalities
to
to
ask
for
studies
and
submissions
for
you
to
demonstrate
how
you're
going
to
develop
that
property.
E
E
A
D
D
So
this
discussion
paper
provides
a
foundation
that
would
allow
for
schools
to
be
treated
the
same
regardless
of
their
funding
model
and
identifies
potential
amendments
to
the
school
definitions,
to
focus
on
the
use
rather
than
the
users.
The
zoning
maps
of
the
second
draft
will
also
be
amended
to
provide
a
more
appropriate
zone
for
schools
within
the
neighborhood
context.
D
This
is
intended
to
support
the
viability
of
both
the
place
of
worship
and
the
surrounding
community
by
supplementing
their
principal
function,
with
additional
options
benefiting
the
community
next
slide.
Please
elementary
schools
are
traditionally
the
center
point
of
residential
neighborhoods.
Younger
school-aged
children
are
typically
dependent
on
caregivers,
for
safe
transportation
to
and
from
schools,
so
that
the
location
within
a
neighborhood
is
important
for
is
important
for
pedestrian
safety.
Secondary
schools,
on
the
other
hand,
traditionally
have
a
wider
catchment
areas
and
have
children
who
are
more
independent
and
mobile
with
more
complex
and
multi-faceted
transportation.
D
Network
secondary
schools
are
more
often
located
on
larger
arterial
or
collector
roads.
The
official
plan
recognized
the
location
differences
with
separate
policies
for
elementary
and
secondary
schools.
The
official
plan
policies
also
make
distinctions
between
private
and
public
school.
They
treat
public
elementary
schools
differently
than
private
elementary
schools,
allowing
public
elementary
schools
in
residential,
hamlet
and
rural
lands
designation,
while
private
schools
are
only
permitted
in
institutional
or
commercial
designations.
D
The
official
plan
also
treats
private
and
public
secondary
schools
in
a
manner
that
is
more
similar,
with
both
being
allowed
in
institutional
or
arterial
commercial
designations.
The
difference
is
that
public
secondary
schools
are
also
permitted
in
residential
designations,
where
a
site
has
adequate
size
and
is
located
on
an
arterial
or
collector
road.
D
Next
slide,
please,
upon
review
of
the
comments
received
on
the
first
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaws
staff
identified
a
desire
to
remove
the
funding
distinction
from
elementary
schools
and
secondary
schools,
which
would
enable
public
and
private
schools
to
be
located
in
the
same
zones.
The
proposed
official
plan
memo
would
continue
to
distinguish
between
elementary
and
secondary
schools,
but
would
remove
the
specific
language
related
to
private
and
public
funding.
In
the
discussion
paper,
staff
identified
that
elementary
schools
will
be
permitted
in
residential
hamlet
and
rural
lands.
D
Designations
staff
are
also
considering
the
appropriateness
of
allowing
elementary
schools
in
institutional
or
select
commercial
designations.
Private
and
public
secondary
schools
are
proposed
to
remain
in
the
institutional
and
arterial
commercial
designations.
Applications
for
secondary
schools
within
a
residential
designation
would
proceed
through
site-specific
zoning
by
law
amendment.
D
Next
slide,
please,
in
response
to
the
first
draft
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw,
which
contained
a
specific
definition
of
school
that
was
connected
to
the
curriculum
that
is
taught
staff,
received
comments
and
concerns
from
members
of
the
public
that
the
definition
would
inadvertently
prohibit
specialized
schools
or
other
private
schools.
Teaching
alternate
curriculums
staff
have
identified
potential
definitions
for
elementary
schools
and
secondary
schools
that
would
focus
on
the
use
as
an
academic
institution
without
reference
to
the
school's
curriculum.
D
So
the
two
proposed
definitions
are
are
provided
on
the
slide
and
they're
contained
in
the
discussion
paper,
but
I
don't
think
I
need
to
read
them
out
loud
here.
Additionally,
staff
have
reviewed
the
proposed
zoning
of
schools
across
the
city
from
the
first
draft,
as
identified
in
exhibit
b
to
the
discussion
paper
and
have
identified
opportunities
to
better
align
the
zoning
of
elementary
school
properties
with
the
zoning
in
the
immediate
neighborhood
of
the
school
next
slide.
N
So
I'll
be
speaking
to
the
places
of
worship
section
so
just
as
background.
First
of
all,
generally
speaking,
places
of
worship
are
designed
for
a
variety
of
uses
within
the
structure,
so
they're
obviously
intended
from
a
religious
gathering
perspective
to
accommodate
large
gatherings
and
in
addition
to
the
larger
gathering
spaces,
they
often
have
extensive
kitchen
facilities,
washroom
spaces,
oftentimes,
auditorium
spaces
and
office
spaces
as
well,
that
are
all
located
within
the
building.
N
Just
as
laura
mentioned
regarding
schools,
places
of
worship
are
generally
speaking
at
community
gathering
points,
and
so
this
means
that
they've
been
traditionally
located
in
central
locations,
areas
that
are
often
located
near
express
transit
routes
and
near
commercial
facilities,
although
sometimes
they're
also
located
integrated
into
residential
neighborhoods
as
well
by
the
nature
of
their
use.
Oftentimes
places
of
worship
are
used
intermittently,
obviously
sundays,
the
most
part
saturday,
sometimes
and
and
the
weeknights,
but
oftentimes.
There
is
a
latent
time
where
the
facility
is
not
well
used.
N
It's
also
well
known
that
places
of
worship
have
traditionally
been
places
that
have
offered
social
supports,
so,
for
example,
spaces
for
alcoholics
anonymous
or
for
community
groups
to
to
use
this
space
to
hold
meetings.
This
kind
of
thing,
it's
generally
recognized
that
the
user
bases
for
places
of
worship
have
been
changing
and
and
oftentimes
diminishing
in
recent
years,
and
there
are
a
number
of
studies
out.
N
Obviously,
we've
seen
change
in
some
buildings
in
our
community,
where
it's
no
longer
a
place
of
worship
and
has
been
reused
for
some
other
type
of
use.
Instead
and
a
lot
of
places
of
worship
are
seeking
these
alternative
ways
of
funding
their
operations
and
ensuring
not
only
that
they're
viable
from
a
funding
perspective,
but
also
that
they
are
relevant
to
the
community
in
terms
of
providing
services
to
the
community
as
well.
N
Next
slide,
please
so
from
an
official
plan
perspective.
Currently,
places
of
worship
are
permitted
in
commercial
lands
and
institutional
lands,
rural
lands
and
hamlet
designations
as
well,
and
they
are
permitted
in
residential
designations
subject
to
requirements
such
as
the
provision
of
potable
water
and
parking
and
landscaping
provisions
as
well,
they're
also
permitted
in
employment
areas
as
complementary
uses.
Obviously
there
with
the
recognition
that
they
don't
preclude
the
development
potential
on
adjacent
parcels
due
to
their
potentially
perceived
sensitivity.
N
N
So
what
we're
proposing
today
is
to
add
new,
complementary
uses
to
places
of
worship,
so
some
of
the
uses
that
were
previously
mentioned
include
things
like
cultural
and
educational
uses,
so
that
would
be
something
like
a
library
or
art
gallery
museum
school
oftentimes.
These
are
already
effectively
part
of
places
of
worship.
N
N
It
also
represents
an
opportunity
to
be
a
venue
for
sales
or
for
say,
music,
rehearsals
or
practices
or
concerts.
This
kind
of
thing,
as
well
as
I
mentioned,
places
of
worship,
are
also
currently
many
incorporate
office
spaces,
and
sometimes
in
these
instances
there
might
be
surplus
spaces
as
well.
This
represents
an
excellent
opportunity
for
things
like
shared
spaces,
small
offices,
I'm
sure
you're,
all
very
familiar
with
the
the
sanctuary,
which
is
a
co-work
space,
which
is
the
entire
use
of
a
of
a
previous
place
of
worship.
But
clearly
that's
something.
N
That's
functioned
well
in
our
community
and
from
a
residential
perspective
as
well.
There
is
opportunity-
many
of
you
probably
are
aware
of
residential
facilities
traditionally
being
located
with
places
of
worship,
for
example,
and
associated
mance,
but
it
also
represents
the
opportunity
for
a
second
unit,
both
in
terms
of
something
being
incorporated
into
the
building
itself
or
in
the
instance
where
there
are
larger
grounds.
N
I
just
want
to
note
as
well.
One
thing
that
I
don't
have
in
slides
here
is
that,
from
a
complimentary
perspective,
a
lot
of
the
places
of
worship
in
kingston
also
have
heritage
elements
to
them,
so
either
they're
designated
or
listed
properties,
and
this
is
something
that
offers
an
opportunity
again
to
preserve
and
support
those
heritage
characteristics.
N
Some
of
the
potential
considerations
that
we've
been
taking
into
account
as
well
are
the
potential
for
adverse
impacts
that
would
relate
to
the
addition
of
complementary
uses
as
well.
So
a
couple
of
examples
here
would
be
related
to
additional
noise
or
problems
related
to
parking
for
the
places
of
worship,
and
then
there
are
other
considerations
as
well.
N
That
need
to
be
taken
into
account
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
additional
uses
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
interior
building
code
and
that
they
would
be
captured
from
attacks
the
property
tax
perspective
and
that
any
additional
uses
would
also
be
captured
from
a
licensing
perspective.
Next
slide.
Please.
A
F
Sort
of
I
guess
the
the
trying
to
get
an
understanding
of
of
of
how
this
worked
in
the
past
versus
how
it
works
now.
So
previously
land
was
set
aside
in
residential
areas,
so
that
schools
could
be
developed
right
and
then
the
school
board
would
have
to
make
the
decision
to
take
it
up
or
not.
Take
it
up.
I
I
know
that
you
know.
In
recent
years
there
hasn't
been
a
significant
uptake
in
in
those
properties,
but
you
know
we're
going
to
go
through
another
kind
of
cycle.
F
In
the
case
of
a
private
business,
private
businesses
come
and
go.
You
know,
private
schools
come
and
go
and
their
their
longevity
typically
isn't.
As
long
for
most
of
them,
you
know,
I
think
we
tend
to
think
of
schools
as
more
like
upper
canada,
private
schools
as
upper
canada
college
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
many
many
many
more
private
schools
or
small
operations
that
don't
necessarily
you
know,
endure
right.
F
So
I
guess
my
concern
would
be
that
the
intent
of
setting
aside
land
for
public
education
is
not
being
met
in
the
case
of
private
education
and
secondly,
if
a
private
school
purchases
that
makes
or
opts
to
purchase
that
land,
you
know
it
does
two
things
one
of
them
is.
Is
it
potentially
undermines
the
public
education
program,
and
I
know
that's
not
part
of
land
use.
I
I
understand
that,
but
it
is
a
you
know.
F
D
So
it
would
mean
that
while
we're
creating
a
new
zoning
bylaw,
we
would
be
creating
legal
non-conforming
uses
and
and
creating
a
lot
of
additional
restrictions
on
existing
private
schools
within
those
zones.
It
would
also
prohibit
private
schools
from
being
able
to
move
their
location
from
one
property
to
another
property,
but
it
certainly
isn't
intended
to
change
the
way
that
lands
are
created
for
the
public
school
system
and
all
of
a
sudden
open
up
a
different
process
for
private
schools.
D
F
H
D
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
think
the
intent
in
the
new
zoning
by
law
would
be
to
acknowledge
that,
where
a
school
is
a
joint,
elementary
and
secondary
school,
that
it
would
need
to
be
located
in
a
zone
that
a
secondary
school
is
permitted
because
those
are
the
more
restrictive
zones.
So
it
wouldn't
all
of
a
sudden,
be
opening
up
all
of
those
elementary
school
zones
to
secondary
school
zones.
But
it
would
be
opening
up
the
secondary
schools
to
the
elementary
schools.
Make.
A
I
I
I
So
I
didn't
see
the
what
that
argument
was
supposed
to
be
about,
and
the
funding
I
think
counselor
hill
pointed
out,
is
you
know,
one
is
public
and
others
private
and
some
extent
makes
all
the
difference.
So
what
I
would
like
to
know
is
usually
when
someone
applies
to
put
a.
This
is
just
an
example.
I
I
I
D
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
just
want
to
to
clarify
your
question
related
to
the
curriculum
so
and
into
the
funding
type.
So
as
we're
going
through
the
new
zoning
bilal,
we
really
want
to
ensure
that
the
zoning
bylaw
is
focused
on
the
land
use,
so
we're
actually
looking
at
like
a
school
as
an
academic
institution
and
whether
that
academic
institution
is
a
specialized
school
for
children
with
special
needs.
D
Who
may
not
be
teaching
the
exact
curriculum
that
we've
defined
in
the
zoning
bylaw
or
whether
it's
a
standard,
traditional
school
who
are
following
that
exact
definition
from
a
land
use
planning
perspective.
We
want
to
ensure
that
we're
actually
focusing
on
that
use
as
an
academic
institution
and
and
not
distinguishing
it
based
on
the
types
of
curriculum
that
is
taught.
D
I
I
D
Yeah,
I
I
certainly
couldn't
I
couldn't
take
a
guess
at
how
the
existing
zoning
on
many
of
the
schools
was
created
or
how
the
existing
sites
were
chosen,
because
when
you,
when
you
look
at
the
exhibit
that
I've
attached
to
the
discussion
paper,
there
are
a
wide
variety
of
zones
that
apply
to
the
existing
schools
across
the
city.
So
what
we're
really
hoping
to
do
is
come
up
with
a
more
cohesive
approach
to
schools
and
and
not
just
consolidate
that
existing
patchwork
of
zoning
and
hope
that,
for
the
best
okay.
A
Seeing
none
could
you
take
the
chair
very
quickly,
counselor
kylie.
Perhaps
I
missed
this
because
I
did
a
speed
read
on
all
of
this
after
too
many
zoo
meetings
yesterday,
but
I
appreciate
that
we're
trying
to
kind
of
level
the
zoning
playing
field
if
you
will
for
private
schools
as
well
as
recognizing
public
schools.
A
D
Through
you,
mr
chair,
the
obviously
within
school,
so
if
a
daycare
would
be
located
co-located
with
a
school,
it
would
be
considered
an
accessory
use,
that's
permanent
on
a
school
property.
So
much
like
any
of
the
the
additional
programs
that
schools
might
have
as
it
relates
to
maybe
auto
body
shops
or
different
technical
programs.
A
D
G
D
Certainly
are
carrying
the
same
principle
forward
that
we
aren't
distinguishing
daycare
based
on
private
versus
public,
and
I
actually
have
two
children
who
are
in
daycare-
and
I
I
think
most
of
the
daycares
across
the
city
are
privately
owned,
I'm
not
sure
of
any
publicly
owned
daycare.
So
it's
certainly
in
the
new
zoning
bylaw
it
won't.
It
wouldn't
distinguish
on
that
funding
type.
A
G
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
just
going
to
remind
members
of
the
public
if
they'd
like
to
speak
during
this
portion.
If
you
could,
please
raise
your
hand
and
zoom,
which
is
located
in
the
center
of
your
screen
when
you
move
the
mouse
over
the
zoom
window,
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
couple
of
seconds
here,
mr
chair.
We
don't
currently
have
any
hands
up,
but
I,
if
we
could
just
give
a
minute
in
case
anyone
thinks
of
something
that
they
would
like
to.
A
A
Thank
you,
councillor,
kylie
councillor
sonic,
all
those
in
favor
carried
disclosure
of
pecuniary
interest.
Anybody
opening
a
private
school
see
none
delegation
or
disco
delegations.
We
have
none
briefings.
We
have
none
motions.
We
have
none
notices
of
motion.
We
have
none
other
business,
seeing
none
correspondence.
A
We
have
received
some
and
it's
been
duly
collected.
Our
date
of
our
next
meeting
is
thursday
may
6th
at
6.
00
p.m.
Motion
to
adjourn,
and
we
can
pick
anybody
because
everybody's
hand
went
up
except
council,
guys,
councillor
hill
and
councillor
hutchinson
moved
in
seconded
all
those
in
favor
carrie.
Thank
you
very.