►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Committee - November 7, 2019
Description
Planning Committee meeting from November 7, 2019. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2PkBV7N
A
To
the
local
planning,
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston
before
the
bylaw
has
passed.
The
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
the
decision,
so
we
will
indeed
go
a
little
out
of
sync
to
the
very
first
public
meeting
which
concerns
9
Cooper
Street.
So
if
the
planners
would
like
to
speak
to
that,
that
would
be
fine.
B
As
well
as
those
a
few
in
the
public
tonight,
my
name
is
Jason
sands
I'm,
a
registered
professional
planner
here
in
Ontario
and
I'm
here
to
present
for
the
owners
of
this
property
at
nine
Cooper
Street.
The
proposed
redevelopment
for
that
site
start
with
the
location
of
the
of
the
property.
The
subject
property
is
located:
north
west
of
the
main
campus
of
Queens
University,
as
well
as
Casey
V
I.
B
The
subject
properties
on
the
north
side
of
Cooper
Street
is
identified
on
the
screen
and
are
in
a
red
hatch,
primarily
the
parcel
surrounded
by
residential
development
as
well
as
you
can
see,
it's
in
very
close
proximity
fairly,
close
proximity,
sorry
breakwater,
Park,
Victoria
Park,
as
well
as
some
other
institutions
and
in
in
in
fira
course.
Proximity
to
this
downtown
central
business
district
as
it
relates
to
the
subject
property
itself
again
on
the
top
right
of
your
screen.
B
You'll
see
it
identified
in
red
for
city
standards
that
consider
this
a
fairly
large
parcel
at
nearly
eight
hundred
square
meters
in
size.
It's
also
somewhat
unique
in
that
it
has
access
from
a
city-owned
laneway,
which
is
located
west
of
the
subject.
Property
directly
adjacent
to
15,
Cooper
Street,
the
lot
depths,
approximately
50
meters,
the
existing
site,
as
mentioned
and
are
fantastic
preamble,
has
been
approved
through
a
pre
minor
variance
in
1982
to
facilitate
the
use
of
a
triplex
on
the
site
and
through
the
redevelopment
plan,
as
proposed
before
you
tonight.
B
B
The
subject
property
falls
under
zoning
bylaw
number
84
99,
which
is
applicable
to
the
former
city.
More
specifically,
it's
within
an
Izone,
a
1
in
a
2
family
zone
that,
as
mentioned
previously,
has
been
somewhat
amended
quote-unquote
through
a
minor
variants
application
previously
to
permit
the
three
dwelling
units
that
are
currently
on
site.
I'd,
also
like
to
point
out
to
that.
Currently
there
are
zero
parking
spaces
legally
on
the
subject
property
and
there
are
zero
bicycle
parking
spaces
on
the
site
to
accommodate
the
three
units
that
exist
today.
B
B
This
slide
overviews
a
bit
of
the
of
the
proposal,
so
at
the
center
of
the
screen,
you'll
see
this
the
elevation
drawing
the
front
perspective
of
the
proposal.
Should
you
be
standing
as
a
patron
along
Cooper
Street,
and
that
the
image
on
the
right
is
a
site
plan
drawing
to
delineate
how
that
would
look
for
a
minute
from
a
bird's
eye
aerial
perspective.
B
It's
been
mentioned
that
there's
no
increase
in
total
number
of
units.
The
building
as
proposed
you
can
see
us
is
two
and
a
half
to
three
stories
in
built
form
which
is
consistent
with
what
we've
seen
previously
to
the
neighboring
sides,
as
well
as
the
surrounding
neighborhood
of
residential
uses
on
Cooper,
Collingwood
and
surrounding
streets.
B
The
the
front
elevation
and
the
overall
design
of
this
of
this
project
has
been
carefully
considered
through
septet,
which
stands,
which
is
a
short
acronym
for
crime
prevention
through
Environmental
Design.
To
be
assured
that
the
three
entrances
that
each
provide
exterior
entrance
to
each
interior
dwelling
unit
may
be
visible
from
the
streetscape
itself.
As
you
can
see
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
building
is
the
porch
projection
for
the
entrance.
B
One
of
the
unique
features
of
this
parcel
is
its
access
via
the
city-owned
Lane,
as
well
as
the
easement
access
across
the
adjacent
property
known
locally
as
15
Cooper.
So
through
the
proposal
the
applicant
and
the
owner
have
designed
it
so
that
vehicles
can
be
utilizing
that
lane
access
across
the
existing
easement
and
locate
all
the
three
parking
spaces
which
are
required
by
zoning
by
lady
499
in
the
rear
yard,
away
from
Cooper
Street
and
the
streetscape
itself.
By
doing
such
it,
some
additional
flexibility
has
been
built
into
allowing
consideration
for
the
building.
B
The
aggregate
side
yard,
for
example,
is
not
necessarily
a
requirement
based
on
the
access
via
a
lane
and
the
ability
to
bring
the
building
closer
front
closer
to
the
front
lot
line
or
adjacent
to
Cooper.
Street
helps
to
give
it
a
more
strength
and
streetscape
presence
and
establish
that
built
built
form
along
the
north
side
of
Cooper
Street.
B
One
of
the
recent
amendments
in
the
city
of
Kingston
was
an
update
to
the
zoning
bylaws
to
require
a
30%
landscaped
open
space
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
consistent
built
form
and
a
and
a
maintenance
to
natural
drainage,
etc.
This
proposal,
as
mentioned
on
an
800
square
metre
lot,
is
proposing
to
maintain
in
excess
of
50
square
of
50%
of
the
parcel
in
terms
of
landscaped
open
space,
all
the
while
complying
with
the
required
parking
provisions
etc.
B
Additionally,
one
of
the
most
recent
updates
was
for
amenity
space
at
an
eighteen
point,
five
square
metre
requirement
per
dwelling
unit,
so
eighteen
point
five
times
three
I
think's
around
55
square
metres.
The
amenity
space
that's
proposed
through
this
application
is
approximately
seven
times
that.
B
The
through
this,
as
mentioned,
we're
in
an
azo
no-one
in
a
two-family
dwelling,
we
have
proposed
that
the
subject
property
be
rezone
to
a
site-specific,
a
zone
to
accommodate
the
desired
development.
The
first.
This
is
the
proposed
site,
specific
bylaw
that
has
been
submitted
in
support
of
the
application
which
details
where
in
which
performance
standards
are
required
to
be
amended
to
facilitate
that
development.
So,
as
you
can
see,
they're
approximately
1:6
provisions
and
the
first
of
which
the
PERT
the
uses
are
already
permitted
at
three
units.
B
B
The
owners
are
desiring
to
bring
that
building
towards
a
street
because
the
access
can
be
via
the
lane
and
parking
in
the
rear,
and
and
in
my
opinion,
that
provides
a
nice
streetscape
and
it's
consistent
with
the
setbacks
of
the
adjacent
properties
at
5
and
15
Cooper
Street.
There
is
to
note
there's
a
street
tree.
B
I
call
a
street
tree,
it's
on
private
property,
but
it's
in
the
front
yard,
and
we've
worked
carefully
with
forestry
staff
to
ensure
that
this
setback
will
maintain
that
Street
tree
through
this
redevelopment
plan,
it
won't
be
lost
and
it'll
be
it'll,
be
it'll,
be
incorporated
into
the
design.
The
minimum
side
yard
setback
proposed
is
on
the
drawing
I.
Think
1.15
asked
for
a
1.0
side,
yard
setback
to
building
some
designs
and
flexibility
through
the
development.
B
B
Two
meter
setback,
as
mentioned
a
zone
previously
requires
you
to
be
three
point:
six
meters,
but
the
rear
acts,
the
rear
access
lane
and
the
parking
at
the
rear
that
can
be
accomplished
through
the
lane
way
gives
you
that
flexibility
to
reduce
that
building
depth
is
a
provision.
That's
proposed
to
be
increased
through
this.
It's
a
provision-
that's
that's
dictated
based
on
the
built
form
of
your
adjacent
parcels,
so
five
Cooper
Street
and
15
Cooper
Street,
the
average
of
those
setbacks
take
into
consideration.
That's
where
we're
generating
this.
The
relief
is
required.
B
However,
the
design
of
the
building
has
been
done
in
such
a
way
that
the
limit
windows
are
limited
on
the
on
the
west
hand,
side
and
the
majority
of
the
windows
are
facing
the
rear
parking,
the
graveled
area
at
the
rear
of
five
Cooper
Street.
That's
got
that
five
Plex
on
the
east
side
of
a
subject
property
and
finally,
the
last
provision
that's
proposed
to
be
amended
through
this
is
to
increase
the
parking
area
in
the
a
zone.
B
There's
a
requirement
to
a
maximum
permitted
area
for
parking
to
be
40
square
meters
of
of
space,
because
the
applicant,
the
owners
proposing
to
accommodate
three
spaces
and
a
complying
size
of
two
point,
seven
by
six
that
that
area
is
proposed
to
be
increased
so
that
that
can
be
accommodated
on
site
so
just
very
quickly.
In
summary,
again,
the
OP.
The
application
seeks
to
demolish
the
existing
triplex
reconstruct
a
new
triplex,
with
not
an
increase
in
bet
dwellings,
but
in
increase
in
bedrooms.
B
The
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement,
as
well
as
the
residential
designation
of
the
city
of
Kingston's
official
plan
based
on
the
built
form,
the
massing
and
the
scale.
It's
my
opinion
that
the
development
that's
proposed
is
an
appropriate
form.
The
density
is
respected
of
that
of
the
existing
development
on
the
site,
as
well
as
the
surrounding
developments
and
through
through
this
application.
Yet
the
owners
are
proposing
to
increase
to
a
complying
requirement
of
on-site
bicycle
parking
as
well
as
on-site
vehicular
parking.
B
A
D
Thank
you
and
about
the
application,
one
in
person
inquiry
at
the
front
counter
and
one
written
submission.
A
copy
of
the
written
submission
has
been
provided
to
the
committee
through
the
clerk's
office
staff
in
planning
and
other
city
departments
are
still
reviewing.
This
application
comments
received
at
this
public
meeting
and
in
any
subsequent
correspondence
will
be
reviewed
by
staff
responses
to
comments
and
questions
related
to
the
proposal.
Along
with
the
staff
recommendation
about
the
proposal
will
be
presented
in
a
comprehensive
report
to
committee
at
a
future
meeting.
E
The
maximum
permitted
building
depth
25
meters,
you
mentioned
you
got
that
by
comparing
to
the
adjacent
properties
from
my
notes
here.
V
Cooper
Street
is
18
meters
in
15.
Cooper
Street
is
nineteen
point
five
meters,
so
that's
about
25
percent
less
than
25
meters.
So
why
that
number?
How
did?
How
did
you
get
there?
Yeah.
B
Through
mr.
chair
was
a
bit
of
an
error
on
my
part
in
the
present
the
requirement.
A
subject:
property
is
calculated
based
on
the
average
of
your
two
adjacent
properties.
So
I,
don't
recall
the
numbers
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Those
two
numbers
on
your
adjacent
SAR
averaged
and
the
proposal
that
we
have
in
front
of
you
is
25
point.
If
two
is
25,
so
the
development
at
nine
Cooper
Street
is
25
and
the
distance
is
20.
B
E
A
F
Question
is
about
the
parking
requirement
which
is
being
recommended
to
be
brought
into
compliance,
and
I
was
wondering
if
this
is
because
the
zone
84
99,
does
have
a
particle
requirement,
but
there's
also
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
the
updated
zoning
by
not
changing
that
requirement.
So
I'm
wondering
with
the
sort
of
the
thinking
behind
this
requirement.
F
In
this
case,
the
site
does
allow
for
this
flexibility
to
to
create
those
paces,
but
I'm
just
wondering
from
the
perspective
of
the
panners
working
on
the
file,
how
they'd
how
they
go
about
managing
that
aspect
of
an
application
in
what
we
are
likely.
The
last
year
of
the
of
the
old
was
owning
by
law.
Knowing
that
there's
changes
coming.
B
B
B
Based
on
my
review
of
this
on
the
submission
end,
based
on
the
fact
that
the
the
site
could
accommodate
the
the
actual
on-site
parking,
it
was
thought
that
it
should
be
proposed.
I,
don't
disagree.
This
is
a
very
walkable
area,
there's
a
sufficient
transportation
public
transportation,
as
well
as
active
transportation
in
the
neighborhood
in
relatively
close
proximity
to
this
central
business.
B
F
So
I,
just
just
to
summarize
I
guess
purpose
of
my
comments
there
on
the
record
is
that
the
this
area
so
close
to
campus
is
one
of
those
areas
where
reduced
parking
requirement,
wouldn't
would
probably
make
sense.
So,
as
we
see
this
type
of
application,
coming,
sticking
to
the
old
rules
at
times
might
be
one
of
the
things
we
might
not
have
to
do
so
so
strictly.
So
just
keep
that
in
mind
when
it
comes
comes
up.
Thank
you.
A
You
very
much
I'm
going
to
take
a
totally
different
tact
and
my
colleague
from
the
Sydenham
district.
My
difficulty
isn't
that
there's
a
triplex
that
you're
proposing
three
parking
spaces.
My
issue
is
that
there's
going
to
be
19
bedrooms
and
which
is
a
substantial
increase
from
the
current
11
bedrooms.
A
B
During
mr.
chair
no
short
answer
is
we
have
not
completed
a
parking
study,
a
parking
justification
or
any
of
that
sort
in
support
of
what
we
have
before
us
tonight.
All
city
documentation
leads
to
account
and
a
ratio
based
on
a
unit
count
as
opposed
to
a
bedroom.
Count.
I,
don't
disagree.
If
you
increase
your
bedroom
count,
there's
a
very,
very
high
likelihood
you're
going
to
increase
your
number
of
users
on
the
site.
B
That
said
through
this
proposal
with
11
bedrooms
in
it
today,
there
is
a
alcohol
haphazard,
one
parking
space
on
site,
it's
not
sufficiently
sized
to
accommodate
a
full
parking
space
to
what
we
need
at
the
bylaw
standard
and
there's
zero
bicycle
parking
spaces
that
are
covered,
sheltered
and
secured.
So
through
the
increase
of,
let's
say,
eight
individuals
if
we
go
buy
a
bedroom
count.
A
There
may
be
four
staff
I
know
that
we've
looked
into
the
potential
as
many
communities
have
of
calculating
required
parking
by
bedrooms
rather
than
by
rather
than
than
by
units,
and
my
question
is
concerning
both
that
calculation
for
only
needing
three
parking
spaces
for
19
bedrooms.
But
it
also
applies
to
the
amenity
space
question
as
well
like.
Is
it
sufficient
when
we
calculate
required
amenity,
space
or
required
parking
according
to
two
units,
rather
than
according
to
two
number
of
occupants
number
of
bedrooms?
G
Thank
you
and
through
you,
mr.
chair,
we
have
been
going
through
a
process
of
reviewing
our
parking
standards
for
across
the
city
and
that
will
be
coming
out
in
2020
as
part
of
the
next
version
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
we
have
been
looking
at
per
bedroom
rates
in
a
lot
of
cities.
What
we're
seeing
is
a
point
two
five
per
bedroom,
so
in
this
case
you'd
get
to.
You
know
four
point:
seven,
five
around
up
to
five
spaces.
G
If
we
looked
at
a
a
point,
two
five
rate
per
bedroom,
which
is
standard
in
some
of
their
cities
like
Guelph
and
Waterloo
Kitchener
Waterloo,
specifically,
we
haven't
zeroed
in
that.
That's
specifically
what
we're
doing,
but
we
have
been
looking
at
that.
So
that
would
be
the
number
of
spaces
if
we
looked
at
a
per
bedroom
rate
versus
what's
in
the
zoning
bylaw
now
that
does
it
on
the
unit
and
a
one
to
one
ratio
per
unit.
B
Mr.
chair,
thank
you.
I
do
not
want
to
scold.
You
I
would
just
point
out
that,
based
on
a
quick
review,
the
site
has
ample
room
to
accommodate
to
miss
Agnew's
comment
of
five
on-site
parking
spaces
based
on
a
bedroom
count
to
be
consistent
with
Guelph
or
another
area.
The
site
has
sufficient
room
to
accommodate
such
parking
demand,
while
maintaining
open
space,
while
maintaining
a
many
z,
space,
etc.
As
currently
designed.
A
A
H
Thank
you
mr.
chair
Frank,
Dixon
495,
Alfred
apartment
2,
K,
7,
K,
4,
J,
4,
Thank,
You,
mr.
Stan
sands,
for
presentation
and
to
staff
and
to
committee
members
for
questions.
So
far
there
was
discussion
on
the
increased
number
of
bedrooms
and
that
seems
to
be
at
73%
my
calculation
going
from
11
to
19
as
Raposa
Liz
at
wined,
so
I've
got
three
points
that
haven't
been
raised
yet
and
looking
at
the
agenda
package,
page
15,
which
provides
an
overview
of
the
neighborhood.
H
My
curiosity
is
with
respect
to
what
is
referred
to
as
Newport
Avenue
on
the
diagram.
Is
that
the
laneway
that
you
were
discussing
in
your
presentation?
It's
just
to
the
west
of
number
15
and
that's
the
one
that
you're
looking
to
use
as
the
access
for
the
parking
which
is
going
to
be
in
where
the
backyard
is
now
right.
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
delay
of
okay.
It's
was
that
accurate
and
so
and
then,
if
so,
what's
the
width
of
that
laneway
access?
H
My
next
question
is:
is
this
property
a
currently
non-conforming
with
respect
to
parking
regulations,
and
how
long
has
that
been
in
place
in
that
condition?
If
so,
you
said,
there's
only
one
parking
space
ill-defined
for
what
is
now
11
bedrooms,
so
that
seems
to
be
insufficient,
and
my
next
question
is:
if
the
proposal
is
approved,
how
long
would
it
take
to
build
the
project
because,
if
it's
approved,
then
we're
losing
11
bedrooms
over
the
course
of
the
period
of
construction
right
and
we're
in
a
housing
crisis
situation
in
the
city?
H
So
those
11
bedrooms
are
off
the
market
during
the
construction.
So
that
concerns
me
if
it
is
approved,
then
it
goes
to
19
right,
so
we've
regained
them,
but
I
think
that's
significant.
We
need
to
many
understand
that
bit
better
and
I'm
not
taking
at
a
position
for
or
against
on
the
project.
I
don't
live
there.
I,
don't
think
it's
my
place
to
support
or
refuse
the
projection.
Based
on
what
I've
seen.
Thank
you.
A
I
My
name
is
Rob
Kennedy
I
live
at
20,
Beverly,
Street
and
I'm
here
primarily
for
a
later
item.
What
this
bears
on
that
item?
First,
just
an
observation
may
be
building
on
a
concern
that
was
expressed
in
one
of
the
letters
that
you
received,
that
the
description
of
this
proposed
building
as
a
three
family
unit
seems
misleading,
and
just
just
just
for
the
just
of
the
reasons
that
you,
the
chair,
mentioned
here,
that
that
it
seems
I,
think
everybody
would
agree
that
the
chances
of
it
being
occupied
by
three
families
are
zero.
I
B
A
A
J
But
I
wasn't
given
a
lot
of
details
exactly
why
so
I'm
just
gonna
speak
to
a
few
things,
I
think
primarily
it's
this
concern
of
three
units
in
the
heart
of
neighborhoods,
but
this
being
already
three
units.
It's
an
interesting
case.
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
a
few
things,
which
is
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
is
location.
So,
if
you
consider
Portsmouth
and
King
where
we
just
had
a
recent
development,
that's
coming
along
a
number
of
things.
Come
up.
J
It's
it's
a
transit
corridor,
so
we're
not
talking
about
a
whole
bunch
of
cars,
go
down
a
laneway
with
a
really
odd
easement
snuck
in
there.
So
we
can
do
a
parking
lot
in
a
back
lot.
We're
talking
about
an
appropriate
place
where
it
has
really
good
transit,
active
transportation
opportunities,
good
sidewalk
infrastructure.
You
know
it's
it's
designed
for
it.
So
that's
one
of
the
strikes
against
this
application.
Whether
or
not
it
is
a
test,
it
would
fail
in
the
policies.
J
Aside
other
things
that
come
up
for
me
is:
is
it
in
an
area
that
needs
intensification?
So
if
we
talk
about
the
building
and
the
address
escape
to
me
so
I
won't
even
try
but
right
across
from
the
arc
building,
where
we
put
in
I
think
was
originally
proposed.
32
bedrooms,
8
units
I,
don't
know
what
it
became
again.
J
I'm
looking
as
a
member
of
the
public
for
benchmarks
about
why
this
type
of
density,
which
other
people
have
mentioned
bedrooms
so
I,
won't
you
know
hit
that
one
over
the
head,
but
again
as
the
public,
we're
looking
for
that
kind
of
thing.
Developing
policy
indications
would
tell
us
that
this
is
not
really
a
location
where
we
want
this
kind
of
development.
So
I
would
want
then,
to
see
real
signs
that
this
is
through
the
goalposts.
It
doesn't
need
anything
else
and
then
I
would
say:
okay!
Well,
you
know
what
it's
already
that
way.
J
J
Maybe
didn't
have
quite
those
issues.
So
I
wanted
to
raise
that
the
three
units
to
three
units
is
essentially
the
the
same
thing,
but
I
do
think
that
the
bedroom
piece
has
been
discussed
as
something
that
has
to
be
looked
at
the
other
thing
I'm
looking
for-
and
this
is
me
now-
this
is
not
anything
to
do
with
the
STA,
but
the
other
thing
I'm
looking
for
is
what
perks
do
we
get
or
what
bonus
do
we
get
by
this
building?
So
I
look
at
a
very
long,
walk
back
and
I.
Think.
J
Okay,
so
can
you
get
me
an
great
entrance?
Could
you
get
me
that
great
entrance
with
a
34
inch
doorway
that
might
be
accessible?
So
if
you
can
get
me
through
the
door
and
into
the
other
rooms,
that's
a
perk
to
me
and
it
speaks
to
things
like
this
mixed-use
diversity,
family
unit,
which
I
also
am
NOT
a
big
fan
of
that
word,
because
it
has
as
much
as
you
can't
use
other
words.
J
That
word
also
has
a
connotation
to
us,
but
I'm
looking
for
indications
of
diversity,
so
that
I
can
think
believably
if
I'm
an
optimist
that
this
could
be
occupied
by
different
people.
So
things
like
a
long
ramp
along
the
side
of
the
building
stairs
at
the
back
down
to
the
parking
or
something
might
open
up
that
possibility.
Small
change
and
then
I
think
you
know
what
the
community
is
getting
a
perk
for
that.
So
those
are
just
my
thoughts
for
for
your
use,
whatever
they
may
be.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
A
L
L
I'm
a
little
confused.
Have
you
been
in
the
property
you've
been
inside
it
referring
to
eleven
bedrooms,
because
I
was
in
the
property
in
the
spring,
and
it's
two
three
bedrooms
and
a
two
bedroom,
which
is
eight
bedrooms.
So
there's
some
confusion
for
me
in
terms
of
exactly
what
it
is
I
know
it's
being
used
as
a
nine
bedroom
and
speaks
to
the
other
gentleman's
point
more
as
a
rooming
house.
L
My
overriding
concerns
here
are
when
you
talking
about
a
development
that
goes
from
nine
adults
living
in
a
house
to
eighteen
or
nineteen
two
weeks
ago,
the
nine
students
that
were
there
tore
down
30
feet
of
fence
and
I
can
only
at
which
there
is
a
police
report
on
file.
So
my
questions
are:
what's
gonna
happen
when
there's
19
adults
living
there?
L
L
L
L
What
is
the
minimum
width
to
make
a
turn
off
of
this
carriage
lane,
which
is
grass
what's
going
to
happen
to
the
several
very
mature
trees
that
are
on
the
city?
One
is
on
the
city
lane
and
more
across
the
back,
where
you
believe.
There's
an
easement
I
can't
speak
to
the
you
know.
The
specific
aspects
of
the
the
proposed
development
and
the
variances
of
the
rezoning
that
is
required
have
to
take
some
advice
on
that
myself,
but.
L
Parking
at
the
back,
whether
it's
three
or
five
spaces,
is
a
significant
change
to
way
it's
been.
It's
grass
on
the
city
lane
so
who's
going
to
maintain
that
and
be
responsible.
There's
a
tree,
a
significant
portion
of
a
tree
down
on
the
city
lane
right
now,
I
was
just
there
who's
going
to
clear
that
away.
A
B
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
start
by
addressing
mr.
Dixon's
comments.
I
think
he
pointed
out
to
page
15
in
the
package
that
was
circulated
tonight
with
the
specific
naming
of
Newport
Avenue
over,
what's
being
referred
to
as
the
city
lane
in
my
presentation,
that
is
correct,
runs
adjacent
to
15,
Cooper
Street
and
it
does
align
with
what's
called
Newport
I've
on
that
drawing
the
lane
way.
Width
is
3.9,
2
meters.
B
Mr.
Dixon's
third
question
related
to
the
non-conformance
as
it
relates
to
on-site
parking.
Yes,
that's
correct.
1982
was
when
the
zoning,
or
when
this
property
was
approved
through
a
minor
variant
application
to
increase
the
unit
count
to
3
I,
have
not
read
the
decision,
but
I
suspect
it
came
legal
non-conforming
in
and
amongst
that
time
frame.
B
B
We've
used
that
language,
because
it's
consistent
with
the
language
that's
used
in
the
City
of
Kingston
zoning
bylaw,
calling
it
a
rooming
house
doesn't
meet
the
definition
of
a
rooming
house
in
the
city,
zoning
bylaw,
but
from
an
everyday
term
it
I
guess
you
could
consider
it
that
to
answer
the
question
as
to
whether
or
not
there's
a
maximum
number
of
bedrooms
prescribed
in
the
a
zone.
There's
not
some
questioning
that
was
brought
up
for
mr.
Mitchell
I.
B
Just
want
to
flip
to
a
slide
that
shows
the
floor
plans
to
speak
to
the
bedroom
or
the
window
count.
Sorry,
so
the
first
it
wasn't
the
first
question,
but
it
was
my
first
question.
I
feel
I
can
successfully
answer
related
to
adding
additions
to
the
rear
of
existing
development.
That
then,
is
gonna,
create
long,
hallways
and
lack
of
natural
light
and
really
inhabitable
situations
for
residents.
B
I
did
make
that
reference
when
I
was
speaking
to
the
compatibility
component
about
limiting
Overlook
on
15
Cooper
Street
and
directing
it
more
so
to
the
east
side
as
a
rear
parking,
and
you
can
see
in
in
the
floorplan
drawings.
Drawing
on
the
left
is
the
basement
main
floor
in
the
center
second
storey.
On
the
on
the
on
the
right-hand
side,
the
bedrooms
primarily
align
on
the
left-hand
side,
which
would
it
would
be
on
the
west
side,
overlooking
five
Cooper.
B
Sorry
15
Cooper
on
your
right-hand
side
is
where
the
kitchen,
the
living
room
areas
and
the
additional
the
more
prominent
window
openings
would
be
located.
That
said,
they
are
all
designed
to
the
Ontario
building
code
specification
and
meet
compliance
from
that
regard.
Great
great
comment,
as
it
relates
to
accessibility
for
an
entrance
point
of
view.
Currently
it's
not
designed
to
have
at
great
entrances
that
would
be
fully
accessible.
That's
something
that
we'll
take
away
and
look
at
consideration
of
in
bringing
those
four
stairs
down
so
that
they
could
be
accessible
from
an
at-grade
perspective.
B
Miss
wat
question
as
it
relates
to
what
exactly
is
happening
on
site
and
specifically
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
The
image
in
the
top
right
is
the
site
plan,
drawing
that
shows
the
L
shape
of
the
parcel.
The
building
is
one
unit
2
unit
3
unit,
landscaped,
open
space,
three
parking
spaces,
all
adjacent
to
one
another
with
a
hammerhead
turn
around,
so
that
they
can
turn
around
successfully
on
the
subject:
property
access,
the
easement
out
to
the
lane.
B
This
area
in
this
portion
of
the
site
is
still
landscape,
dopin
space,
which
also
functions
as
amenity
space.
Mr.
good
row,
15
Cooper,
Street,
sorry
to
hear
about
the
fence
issue:
it's
not
one!
That
I
was
aware
of
it's
a
property
standards
issue.
It's
it's
an
issue
with
the
existing
tenant,
it's
something
that
will
be
brought
back
to
the
owner.
The
city,
lien
city
made
the
city
maintenance
or
who
provides
maintenance
to
a
city-owned
Lane.
B
Question,
why
is
illegal
parking
in
the
front
yard
utilized
when
they're
successful
or
ample
space
at
the
rear
yard
to
accommodate?
Currently
again,
the
I
would
say
off
the
cuff.
Illegal
parking
is
continuing
to
be
used
because
it's
not
being
enforced
and
they're
not
being
told
they
can't,
but
that
said
about
why
it's
not
being
used
at
the
rear,
I
would
say,
speaks
to
the
point
that
the
existing
residents
don't
have
that
much
demand
for
vehicles
to
necessitate
additional
parking
spaces
on
site.
B
The
question
is
relates
to
whether
or
not
there
is
in
fact
an
easement
over
the
subject:
property
at
15
to
access
ix,
Cooper
Street
from
the
documentation.
The
survey
work
that
I've
seen
it's
there
again.
It
would
fall
into
through
the
technical
review
with
the
city
to
understand
if
that,
as
a
true
accessible
access
point
for
vehicles
off
city
lane
via
15
to
9
the
city
tree
or
the
tree,
that's
on
the
city
lane
again
that'll
fall
into
the
same
thing.
I
think
I've
successfully
answered
all
the
questions.
D
You
mr.
chair,
in
regards
to
mr.
Kennedy's
question
regarding,
if
number
of
bedrooms
per
unit
is
regulated
in
the
a
zone
in
zoning
bylaw,
eight
four
nine
nine
I
can
confirm,
as
mr.
Jones
sans
stated,
that
number
of
bedrooms
per
unit
is
currently
not
regulated
in
the
a
zone.
Nor
is
it
regulated
in
any
of
the
city
of
Kingston's
zoning
bylaws
in
terms
of
number
of
bedrooms
per
unit.
At
this
time.
D
In
regards
to
mr.
GU
Drew's
comment
regarding
the
number
of
the
existing
bedrooms
within
the
existing
dwelling
on
the
subject,
property
staff
have
reviewed
municipal
tax
records
from
the
2019
tax
year
which
indicate
that
there
are
currently
eight
bedrooms
in
the
subject
property,
so
staff
are
reviewing
building
permit
records
to
confirm
the
number
of
legal
existing
bedrooms
on
the
subject
property
as
part
of
our
review
of
the
application
as
well.
In
regards
to
mr.
D
Guru's
comments
regarding
the
maintenance
of
the
existing
lien
way
for
properties
and
developments
proposing
to
use
the
laneway
for
access,
including
that
which
is
currently
proposed
at
nine
Cooper
streets,
the
city
would
require
the
owner
to
enter
into
a
private
lien
way.
Agreement
which
would
be
registered
on
title
and
such
an
agreement
would
generally
note
that
the
right-of-way
is
not
maintained
by
the
city
and
will
not
include
any
repairs
such
as
snow
removal
etc.
D
A
So
we
can't
talk
about
students
and
make
it
a
planning
decision,
and
so
therefore
I
think
the
term
families
may
be
a
bit
of
an
anachronism
when
we
talk
about
it
in
the
context
of
zoning.
But
it's
definitely
something
we
need
to
consider
in
our
comprehensive
pilot,
so
I
believe
I
saw
counselor,
Oh,
Sonics
and
Thank.
M
You
Mara
just
to
follow
up
from
over
here
question
about
the
trees.
I
think
he
talked
about
more
than
one
tree,
but
mr.
sands
I
only
heard
you
talk
about
one
city
tree
and
it
would
get
consideration
during
this
process.
Are
there
other
trees,
like
I,
think
there
along
the
fence
line
so
with
the
new
construction?
Do
those
trees
remain?
Are
they
going
to
be
taken
down.
B
Thank
you,
sir
I,
honestly,
don't
know
of
all
of
the
single
trees.
I
don't
have
a
tree
inventory
to
detail
where
they
all
are
on
the
site
and
which
ones
are
to
be
retained.
I
I
am
confident
in
the
street
tree
at
the
front
of
the
parcel,
is
the
one
that
was
carefully
designed
around
where
exactly
the
others
are
on
with
respect
to
side
yards
I'm,
not
sure.
Well,
we
can
look
at
that
to
understand
when,
through
foundation
excavation
how
much
of
those
would
be
lost
if
any.
M
Thing
in
if
there
are
any
loss,
went
the
minutes
to
say
that
for
the
comprehensive
report,
when
it
comes
back
that,
as
you
know,
those
trees
could
be
replaced
by
hopefully
there's
room
to
replant
some
further
in
the
backyard
and
also
another
concern.
Just
hearing
staff
say
that
legal
can
farming
bedrooms
according
to
the
records
might
only
be
8
if
we're
still
going
forward,
then
with
19,
and
we
just
have
19
bedrooms
now,
that's
a
huge
extra
amount
of
bedrooms
and
I
have
concern
with
that
and
amassing.
Thank
you.
C
So
I
think
the
issues
with
this
application
are
that
the
zoning
permits
for
one
to
two
family
dwelling.
That's
why
it's
referred
say
units
to
a
triplex,
but
this
triplex
is
much
larger,
more
imposing
building
than
is
what
is
currently
in
place
or
the
zoning
Indic
itself
indicates
and
I
think
the
points
there.
C
One
of
the
public
pointed
out
that
question
of
light,
but
that's
light
going
into
the
building
and
yes,
that's
important,
but
it's
also
what
is
viewed
and
the
aesthetic
effect
and
the
sense
of
enclosure,
that's
part
of
being
in
a
even
more
in
the
neighboring
backyards.
They'd
have
to
deal
with
that
and
I
believe
that's
referenced
in
the
Official
Plan.
C
In
the
variance
of
1982
I
believe
it's
in
here,
okay,
I
think
I've
got
this
right.
The
existing
multiple
family
dwellings
permitted.
That's
the
heading.
There
is
no
adding
new
floor
area.
Well,
this
proposes
to
increase
the
gross
floor
area
by
a
considerable
amount
and
I
would
think
the
way
I
read
it
is
the
1982
variance
actually
meant
not
to
allow
that
and
so
I
think
we
really
have
to
take
that
into
account.
C
A
And
again,
after
five
meetings,
I
missed
my
cue
I
believe
that
staff
or
the
planner
planner
can
respond
to
the
questions
in
the
process
with
the
committee
and
I'll
recognize
you
as
soon
as
that's
done
so
councillors,
Anika
I
think
had
some
questions
and
I'm
sure
we
can
work
camps
are
Hutchison's
comments
into
some
form
of
a
question
as
well.
If,
if
you
wish
to
respond
to
it,
thank
you.
D
I'm
councillors,
annex
question
and
in
regards
to
the
trees
that
are
on
the
subject,
property
and
the
retaining
of
trees
and
the
replacement
of
trees
is
something
that
is
certainly
to
be
addressed
through
planning,
staffs
and
forestry.
Staffs
comments
to
the
applicant
and
we'll
certainly
be
addressed
in
the
comprehensive
report
to
committee.
B
Thank
you
I,
just
to
add
to
the
staffs
response.
There
was
a
question
or
a
comment
as
relates
to
the
overall
massing
and
built
form.
That's
proposed.
I
just
would
like
to
make
note
that
the
overall
building
height,
that's
proposed
in
the
concept
in
front
of
you
tonight,
is
1.8
meters
less
than
the
overall
building
height
that's
permitted
on
the
site
as
of
right
today.
B
However,
having
varying
building
depths
on
city
blocks,
particularly
in
this
neighborhood,
is
not
uncharacteristic
through
through
the
existing
built
forms
I
just
to
also
mention
to
1982
variance,
it's
very
common
to
tie
a
site
plan,
drawing
two-year
variance
approval
to
limit
your
gfa
through
that
process,
so
I
suspect,
that's
what
was
done
and
and
as
staff
had
noted,
we
are
trying
to
recognize
or
proposing
to
recognize
that
through
site-specific
zone.
Thank
you.
N
Yes
to
share
this
is
a
question.
That's
appearing
about
this
legendary
mysterious,
comprehensive
zoning.
Bylaw,
that's
going
to
happen
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
this
zoning
bylaw
will
have
any
limitations
to
the
amount
of
bedrooms
in
resident,
multi
residential
units,
because
obviously
that
seems
to
be
an
ongoing
concern
that
keeps
it
becoming
more
and
more
prevalent.
When
you
consider
the
capacity
of
these
multiple
bedrooms
and
the
financial
generation
of
wealth
that
can
a
master.
G
Thank
you
and
through
you,
the
the
first
version
of
the
zoning
bylaw
that
was
put
out
a
year
and
a
bit
ago.
It
doesn't,
it
does
contemplate
a
new
structure
and
it
does
get
away
from
as
councillor
Neill
indicated
for
many
use
of
the
word
family.
That
is
an
outdated
term.
It's
reminiscent
of
a
time
gone
by
in
terms
of
planning.
It
does
introduce
a
new
structure
and
looks
at
it
from
a
dwelling
perspective
as
opposed
to
regulating
it
by
a
family.
It
doesn't
impose
maximums
per
bedroom,
certainly
through
site-specific
zoning
bylaws.
G
G
E
Just
want
to
continue
on
the
theme
of
bedrooms.
We
heard
earlier
that
the
definition
of
rooming
house
would
not
apply
here.
What
is
the
definition
in
the
Official
Plan
of
rooming
house,
because
if
we
have
all
these
bedrooms
and
say
perhaps
the
people
that
live
in
those
bedrooms
have
partners
that
come
over
or
two
people
in
a
bedroom,
then
we're
talking
about
nearing
40
people
in
this
one
small
parcel
and
wondering
how
that
impacts,
servicing
and
all
the
other
implications
that
we've
discussed
tonight.
So
what
is
the
definition
of
a
rooming
house?
If
not
this.
G
Thank
you
through
you.
The
definition
of
a
rooming
house
is
regulated
through
the
zoning
bylaw,
not
the
Official
Plan
and
one
of
the
key
differences.
When
you're
looking
at
a
rooming
and
boarding
house,
it
really
has
to
do
with
the
carriage
of
how
the
space
is
being
leased,
typically
in
a
rooming
and
boarding
house
you're
having
individual
housekeeping
units
that
are
individually
leased,
and
you
also
have
a
primary
person,
who's
living
in
the
dwelling
and
then
renting
out
on
a
per
room
basis.
G
G
Testing
my
memory,
if
I
mr.
sands,
you
might
remember
I,
believe
the
zoning
bylaw
and
there's
somewhat
difference
of
definition,
because
we
have
five
zoning
bylaws,
so
you're
really
testing.
My
brain
here
I
think
it
talks
about
a
maximum
number
of
unrelated
people
that
can
be
living
and
again,
that's
even
the
definition,
because
it's
talking
about
people
being
related
to
other
people
which,
in
you
know
21st
century
planning,
you're
not
allowed
to
talk
about
from
a
human
rights
perspective,
but
that's
generally
how
its
defined.
Now
in
the
zoning
bylaw,
okay.
A
Is
the
laneway
indeed
a
municipally
serviced,
lane
way
or
roadway,
and
is
it
a
hard
surface?
The
reason
I
ask
is
over
starting
in
the
90s,
the
city
discontinued,
servicing
every
Lane
way,
I'm
aware
of
in
in
the
and
and
substituted
that
with
easements
for
property
owners.
So
I'm
really
concerned
about
whether
we
have
an
unserviceable.
A
D
Through
you,
so
the
lane
way
is
city-owned,
although
not
currently
actively
maintained
by
the
city
and
it's
under
my
understanding,
through
discussions
with
our
engineering
department,
that
it
is
a
common
practice
for
many
city,
laneways
and
unopened
road
allowances
to
not
be
actively
maintained
by
the
city
and
though,
even
though
it
may
not
be
actively
maintained
by
the
city.
It
is
a
public
right-of-way
that
needs
to
remain
open
and
unobstructed,
and
so,
for
instance,
adjacent
properties
may
use
it
to
access
parking
in
the
rear
yard.
A
Pandora's
box,
if
the
city
says
yes,
we'll
maintain
that
lane
way,
I
can
name
a
dozen
lane
ways
in
Williamsville
that
constituents
will
say
we
want
you
to
maintain
our
lane
way
as
well,
so
I
think
that's
an
issue
that
needs
to
be
dealt
with
before
the
comprehensive
report
comes
out.
That
could
be
problematic
from
a
financial
municipal
concern
and
as
I
understand.
A
It
I
know
that
the
report
prepared
by
the
proponent
talks
about
eleven,
currently
11
bedrooms,
clearly
they've
either
have
they
either
have
three
illegal
bedrooms
and
they
aren't
paying
their
appropriate
taxes
on
that
and
I.
Don't
know
how
long
that's
going
on
or
we
need
to
affirm
that
their
current
number
of
bedrooms
is
eight
and
so
that
the
report,
when
it
comes
out
as
a
comprehensive
report,
should
show
that
it
they're
requesting
an
increase
from
eight
till
to
nineteen,
which
clearly
is
substantial.
A
B
Mean
through
three
mr.
chair,
there's,
there's
room
on
site
to
accommodate
a
standard
type,
a
parking
space
that
would
be
accommodated
with
a
1.5
meter,
walk
aisle
adjacent
to
it.
It's
not
a
requirement
per
zoning
bylaw,
but
based
on
based
on
the
size
of
the
parcel
and
the
current
configuration,
it
looks
sufficient.
Okay,.
B
For
an
increased
level
of
percolation
I
believe
the
stormwater
engineer
who
viewed
this
parcel
and
the
proposal
as
it's
currently
proposed
did
that,
based
on
the
assumption
of
a
gravel
parking
area
as
opposed
to
a
ashphalt
parking
area.
So
it
would,
it
would
be
lesser
of
an
impermeable
surface
than
asphalt
in
its
gravel
form.
Okay
and.
A
B
A
A
You
so
I've
completed
the
public
portion
of
this
public
meeting
and
the
committee
and
I
recognize
there's
lots
of
work.
We
just
hand
it
over
to
our
planning
staff,
but
I,
look
forward
to
what
whatever
comes
out
of
the
comprehensive
report.
I
have
had
a
request
for
a
five
minute
recess:
I
think
some
people
are
tap-dancing.
So
if
we
can.
A
A
O
Thank
You,
mr.
chair
and
good
evening,
my
name
is
Yuko
LeClair
I'm,
a
land
use
planner
with
fo
ten
planning
and
design
and
I'm
presenting
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
at
42,
Beverly
Street
on
behalf
of
the
owners,
and
the
purpose
of
this
application,
is
to
permit
a
three
unit
dwelling
in
a
triplex
on
the
subject
site.
O
So
our
subject,
property
is
located
in
the
all
Winton
neighborhood
west
of
Queens
campus,
the
main
campus.
So
it's
about
a
block
west.
It's
in
an
area,
that's
residential,
it's
characterized
by
primarily
one
and
a
half
and
two
and
a
half
story.
Dwellings.
There
are
a
scattering
of
one-story
dwellings
as
well
as
some
three-story
dwellings
kind
of
throughout
the
neighborhood,
but
the
predominant
characterization
is
one
and
a
half
to
two
and
a
half.
It's
in
an
area
that's
well
served
by
public
transit.
O
There
are
transit
routes
to
the
north,
on
Union
Street
and
then
to
the
south
along
King,
Street
West.
The
nearest
bus
stops
are
at
the
intersection
of
Beverly
and
King
about
little
less
than
120
meters
away.
It's
in
an
area
as
well.
That's
well
served
in
terms
of
public
parkland.
It's
in
proximity
to
major
employers,
including
Queen's
University,
in
Kingston,
General,
Hospital,.
O
Looking
at
the
site
a
little
bit
more
closely,
it's
a
property,
that's
about
564
square
meters
in
area.
It
has
a
little
over
fifteen
and
a
half
square
meters
of
frontage
on
the
west
side
of
Beverly
Street
and
the
property.
The
lot
depth
is
about
38
meters.
There
is
a
very
sharp
grade,
change
pretty
much
a
sudden,
great
change
at
the
back
of
the
property
about
three
meters,
a
little
more
than
three
meters,
and
there
was
a
retaining
wall
and
in
that
portion
of
the
lock
that
kind
of
keeps
the
slope
to
the
back.
O
O
Looking
at
the
property
from
a
policy
perspective
under
the
Official
Plan,
it's
in
a
housing
district,
it's
also
in
on
schedule
three
of
the
Official
Plan
it's
in
the
residential
designation.
This
is
a
designation
that
permits
a
broad
range
of
uses,
everything
from
single
detached
houses
and
secondary
Suites
to
apartment
buildings.
So
the
current
house
that
the
house
that
existed
previously
was
permitted
and
the
triplex
is
also
a
permitted
use
within
this
line.
Use
designation.
O
Looking
at
other
schedules
in
the
Official
Plan
other
mapping,
that's
provided
the
property
is
also
in
an
area
of
constraint.
So
what
that
means
is
there
as
a
result
of
the
combined
sewer
on
Beverly
Street,
the
sanitary
and
storm
sewers
are
combined.
It's
an
area
where
putting
residential
units
into
basements
does
not
recommend
it's
not
supported
by
utilities
Kingston,
and
that
has
informed
the
design
of
the
building.
O
From
a
zoning
perspective,
the
property
is
zoned,
one
family
and
two
family
dwelling,
which
is
the
a
zone
permitted
uses
in
this
zone,
include
one
in
pink
to
family
dwellings,
one
or
one
into
unit
dwellings
secondary
Suites.
Existing
multiple
family
dwellings
are
permitted
to
a
degree
and
as
a
variety
of
community
oriented
uses,
like
churches,
etc.
I've
just
noted
some
of
the
provisions
on
this
slide,
so
the
minimum
wat
area,
which
is
a
per
unit,
requirement
maximum
building
height
and
a
minimum
landscape
to
open
space.
O
There
are,
of
course,
other
parameters
that
deal
with
parking,
the
deal
with
setbacks
and
so
on.
I
haven't
listed
them
all
here,
but
they
are
discussed
and
a
little
bit
more
detail
or
in
our
planning
report,
and
they
will
be
discussed
further
in
the
comprehensive
report
in
the
future
so
describing
the
application
it
solved
the
permit.
The
purpose
of
this
application
is
to
allow
a
three-unit
dwelling.
You
can
see
on
the
site
plan
that
we've
shown
here.
O
The
brown
footprint
is
that's
the
the
footprint
of
the
building
and
there's
a
little
shed
in
the
rear
yard.
The
intent
here
is
to
allow
three
parking
spaces,
so
one
parking
space
for
each
residential
unit.
It's
also
proposed
that
each
parking
space
will
be
electrified
so
that
they
can
you
be
used
to
charge
electric
vehicles.
O
I'll
note
at
this
point
that
this
presentation
is
going
to
deviate
a
little
bit
from
the
application
that's
provided
in
the
package
and
the
planning
report
that
we
prepared,
so
we
had
per
working
with
the
applicants
and
the
design
of
the
building
is
what's
shown
here.
What
was
originally
shown
here?
The
original
design
excuse
me,
which
is
what's
shown
here.
This
is
a
gambrel
style,
almost
like
a
barn
style
roof.
It's
a
three
unit
dwelling,
it's
also
three
storeys
in
height
with
four
bedrooms
on
each
floor.
O
So
this
is
the
application,
that's
provided
in
our
original
justification,
so
we've
revised
the
application
to
change
the
style
of
that
building
a
little
bit
reduce
the
footprint
of
that
top
that
top
floor
in
it
and
work
towards
a
two
and
a
half
story:
design,
and
that's
really
driven
by
commentary.
That's
been
heard
from
this
committee
from
the
public
and
from
working
through
some
technical
comments
with
city
staff,
so
this
is
again
the
original
design.
This
is
the
revised
design.
This
is
not
the
design,
that's
being
some.
O
This
is
the
one
that
we've
provided,
but
we
are
still
working
to
refine
this
design.
A
little
bit
more
so
this
is
a
more
of
a
gable
style
roof
the
talk
unit,
the
the
ground
floor
and
the
second
floor
would
be
as
originally
proposed,
four
bedroom
units.
The
basement
remains
amenity
and
storage
space,
but
that
third
floor
is
as
being
reduced
to
a
two
and
a
half
story.
Floor
is
what
we're
striving
to
achieve
here
with
a
reduced
building
footprint.
O
So
what
you're
seeing
here
is
there's
a
gable
and
roof
with
dormers
and
you'll,
see
the
dormers
when
I
show
you
the
site
elevation
a
little
bit
more.
Clearly,
we
are
still
working
on
the
design,
we're
still
working
to
refine
that
the
intention
is
to
achieve
a
LEED
designation
on
this
property
and
make
it
as
environmentally
sustainable
as
possible,
and
also
in
light
of
the
the
fact
that
the
previous
house
has
been
demolished.
O
O
A
lot
of
the
existing
housing
in
the
neighborhood-
and
you
can
see
this
as
these
are
the
side
elevations
of
the
current
design,
again
we're
working
on
this
or
we're
still.
This
is
the
direction
that
we're
going
at
two-and-a-half
story
design,
but
we
are
still
working
through
the
design
with
city
staff
and
through
our
our
designer
to
sort
of
scale
that
so
that
we
can.
We
can
comfortably
characterize
it
as
a
two
and
a
half
story.
O
The
floor
plans
shown
here
this
is
these
haven't
changed
so
this
is.
This
is
the
basement
floor
plan
and
the
ground
floor
plan,
and
you
can
see
we
are
proposing
a
bathroom
in
the
basement,
we're
also
proposing
some
storage
units
for
the
individual
units
and
that's
a
convenience
consideration
with
the
amenity
space,
the
idea
being
that
users
of
that
amenity
space
are
not
having
to
truck
back
and
forth
to
their
individual
units
for
bio
breaks
and
so
on.
O
The
second
floor
plan
on
the
left
is
again
unchanged
from
the
original
submission,
but
on
the
right.
The
plan
here
that
you're
seeing
for
the
third
floor
is
different
than
the
original
submission,
so
you're,
seeing
the
two
bedrooms
kind
of
on
the
right-hand
side.
This
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
dwelling
and
then
the
kitchen
and
living
area
kind
of
spread
around
between
the
front
back
of
the
of
the
unit.
O
The
concerns
from
the
neighborhood
and
concerns
from
the
committee
have
been
heard,
and
we
are
amending
this
zoning
amendment
to
a
site-specific,
a
zone
in
the
sense
that
rather
I
think
one
of
the
councillors
characterized
as
previously
as
a
limited,
a
zone
or
an
upgraded
a
zone.
This
would
be
more
of
an
upgraded,
a
zone
which
would
permit
a
three
unit
dwelling
incorporate
performance,
standard
amendments
based
on
the
built
form
specific
to
the
a
zone.
So
we
would
ask
to
reduce
the
per
unit
lot
area,
for
example,
to
be
appropriate
for
three
hundred
Welling.
O
The
front
yard
setback.
That's
proposed
is
three
point:
six
meters,
that's
based
on
the
front
yard;
setback
of
the
property
to
the
north
and
very
similar
to
what
the
current
house
or
the
previously
existing
house
had
we're,
also
asking
to
increase
the
building
depth
to
a
little
over
18
meters,
we're
asking
to
reduce
the
parking
stall
dimensions
in
the
rear
yard.
So
the
current
standard
is
2.7
meters
by
six.
O
So,
there's
a
provision
in
the
zoning
bylaw
that
limits
the
total
amount
of
paid
parking
area
in
the
a
zone
and
we're
just
asking
to
increase
that
the
limit
is
40
meters,
so
we're
asking
to
raise
that
that
maximum
to
41
square
meters
we're
also
out
allowing
asking
to
allow
the
front
steps
to
project
a
little
bit
into
the
front
yard.
So
that's
the
the
application
as
submitted
and
as
amended.
It's
our
opinion
that
this
remains
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement
as
a
compatible
form
of
intensification.
Similarly,
it's
our
intent,
our
opinion.
O
P
Thank
you
three.
Mr.
chair,
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
Planning
Act
to
notice,
the
public
meeting
was
provided
in
the
form
of
a
sign
posted
on
the
subject
site
in
advance
of
this
public
meeting.
In
addition,
notices
were
also
sent
by
mail
to
all
72
property
owners
within
120
metres
of
the
subject
property.
A
courtesy
notice
was
also
placed
in
the
Kingston
Wieck
standard.
Approximately
12
pieces
of
Correspondence
have
been
received.
P
Three
additional
pieces
of
Correspondence
in
support
of
the
zoning
bylaw
amendments
have
been
received
and
have
been
omitted
from
the
addendum,
but,
however,
are
in
front
of
you
for
consideration.
This
information
will
be
included
in
the
minutes
of
this
meeting,
a
comprehensive
reports
which
will
speak
to
the
technical
view
and
all
public
comments
received
will
be
presented
at
a
later
date.
Thank
you.
C
O
Three
of
mr.
chair,
we
haven't
actually
increased
the
building
depth.
The
reason
that
we're
asking
for
that
amendment
in
the
a
zone
and
not
in
the
B
zone
is
because
there
isn't
a
requirement.
There
is
no
limit
on
building
depth
in
the
bezel,
so
there's
nothing
for
us
to
amend
in
the
B
zone,
but
there
is
a
building
depth
limit
in
the
a
zone
and
that's
why
we're
asking
to
limit
that.
O
So
the
building
depth
I
believe,
is
in
the
range
of
eighteen
and
a
half
square
meters,
and
that's
that's
that
design
component
has
not
changed.
The
maximum
building
height
is
just
under
ten
point,
seven
square,
ten,
ten
point:
seven
that
hasn't
changed
either,
but
obviously
the
the
way
that
that
roof
is
designed
has
changed
dramatically
from
what
was
originally
proposed.
And
it's
continuing
to
change.
I.
C
O
The
the
current
revised
proposal
is
what
you
have.
We
don't
actually
have
an
updated
design
to
provide
you,
that's
that
kind
of
next
level
of
design,
and
we
are
working
that,
through
with
city
staff,
so
when
we
do
have
one
and
when
city
staff
are
in
a
position
to
make
a
recommendation
that
will
come
back
to
this
committee
through
a
comprehensive
report,
but
it'll
be
much
more
in
line
with
the
river
design.
You
see
before
you
tonight
them
the
original
proposal.
Okay,.
C
G
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
mr.
chair,
so
I
understand
from
my
colleague
mr.
Park
that
the
the
iteration
that's
before
you
tonight
has
just
come
in
in
the
last
day
or
so
to
city
staff,
and
this
report
was
published,
obviously
in
advance
of
the
meeting,
with
the
supporting
material
that
you
see
before
you.
So
certainly,
as
part
of
you
know,
any
process
going
forward.
G
Should
we
get
to
a
point
where
staff
are
comfortable,
making
a
recommendation
to
the
committee,
you
would
make
sure
that
we
have
all
of
the
updated
information
and
also,
as
part
of
that
process.
We
do
comprehensive
reports
that
allow
public
input
so
I
think
we
would
be
able
to
achieve
that
and
still
satisfy
the
requirements
under
the
Planning
Act,
even
though
the
proposal
has
evolved
to
what
we're
seeing
tonight
versus
what
staff
were
provided
and
what
came
as
accompanying
documents
with
the
report.
That's
before
you
right
now.
M
You
mr.
chair
I
kind
of
feel
that
this
proposal
is
like
a
repeat
from
two
weeks
ago
and
that
I
should
just
get
the
minutes
out
from
two
weeks
ago
and
read
off
the
same
questions
that
I
asked
so
for
the
bottom.
Is
this
house?
Is
it
a
walkout
basement
and
I
kiss
it
on
an
elevation
and
there's
a
walkout
basement
so.
O
O
So
it's
not
as
dramatic
of
a
change,
and
you
can
see
that
again
on
the
side,
elevations,
where
in
particular,
looking
at
the
building
from
the
south
side,
which
is
this
elevation
on
your
bottom
right,
you
can
see
how
it's
it
slopes
slightly
up
to
the
back.
So
it's
not
a
true
walkout
basement.
Like
the
example
you
had
a
few
weeks
ago,
there
is
a
stairway
leading
down
to
that
exit,
so
it
is
except
it's.
It's
individuals
can
access
that
space.
That
way.
M
So
my
one
cans
to
go
is
that
the
basement,
because
it
has
a
washroom
and
it
has
a
rec
room,
that
there
could
be
some.
You
know
people
that
would
want
to
also
live
in
the
basement
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
can
do
anything
with
this
proposal
to
make
it
less
inviting
for
that
to
happen,
and
they
know
two
weeks
ago
we
heard
that's
property.
M
You
know
that
if,
if
a
neighbor
sucess
suspects
that
they
can
put
a
call
into
the
city,
but
then
that's
a
lot
of
you
know
more
work
for
the
city
to
have
to
try
to
monitor
another
house
that
potential
we
could
have
that
problem,
and
you
know
that
just
doesn't
really
happen.
Usually
then
the
people
you
know
just
do
it
and-
and
they
get
away
with
that
so
I-
see
because
the
basement
set
up
the
same
way
that
that's
my
concern
with
that
great
room
in
the
recreation
room
there
and
three.
O
Or
mr.
chair
I
think
the
the
limitations
before
us
are
the
limitations
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
Unfortunately,
the
zoning
bylaw
can
limit
the
number
of
units,
so
the
number
of
units
would
be
limited
legally
to
three
and
that
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
the
basement
is
basically
the
most
desirable
amenity
space
and
make
it
as
as
much
of
a
draw
on
an
amenity
to
the
residents
of
the
units
as
possible
by
providing
that
additional
bathroom
space.
O
Of
mr.chair
are
some
trees.
Our
proposal
and
I'll
note
that
the
immature
tree
in
the
front
is
a
city
tree
and
is
not
going
to
be
it's
going
to
be
protected,
so
we
had
a
tree
inventory
and
a
preservation
plan
done
that
will
protect
that
tree,
as
well
as
as
many
trees
as
possible
along
the
southern
property
line.
We
know
there
are
three
trees
that
are
likely
to
be
removed.
One
is
a
dead
ash
tree
that
needs
to
go
anyway.
O
There's
another
tree
that
has
previously
been
damaged
at
some
point
and
is
not
in
a
very
safe
condition,
so
they
create
the
arborist
actually
recommended
the
removal
of
that
tree,
and
there
is
one
third
tree
in
that
in
that
sort
of
area
there,
where
there's
a
possibility
that
it'll
be
removed
as
a
result
of
root
damage
and
best
practices,
and
so
on
and
tree
preservation
are
recommended
as
part
of
the
construction
of
the
new
dwelling
to
do
not
lose.
That
particular
tree.
O
O
E
Chair
through
you
might
get
the
relation
of
the
building
to
the
property
lines
and
the
change
is
requested
for
setback.
So
could
you
go
to
this
slide
where
it
showed
the
other
buildings
around
the
property?
Please
there
now
that
image,
that's
the
current
or
the
former
building.
Is
that
correct,
that's
correct,
so
what's
proposed
is
actually
going
to
be
much
further
forward
towards
about
really
Street
than
what
we
see
here
so.
O
O
Consideration
is
based
on
the
reason
that
we're
asking
for
an
amendment
is
because
the
two
properties,
the
front
wall
of
the
house,
the
depth
requirement,
is
based
on
the
dip,
the
distance
between
the
front
wall
on
the
house
and
the
back
wall
of
the
house
on
each
lock
and
and
an
average
of
the
two
jacent
properties.
In
this
case
we
have
two
one
and
a
half
story.
Buildings
are
fairly
smaller
footprints,
so
they're
the
distance
between
the
front
and
rear
wall
is
in
the
range
of
13
or
so
meters.
So
we
don't.
O
We
don't
meet
that
particular
requirement,
but
one
is
step
back
well
as
well
is
set
well
back
from
the
front
online
in
comparison
to
the
other
one.
So
the
way
that
our
building
is
designed
the
front
wall
is
in
line
with
the
front
wall
of
the
closer
building
and
the
rear
wall
is
actually
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
street
and
every
wall
of
the
other
building.
Okay,.
E
That's
good
to
know
I'm.
Just
by
reading
it
it
seemed
like
it
might
have
been
closer
than
the
other
buildings,
and
then
questions
about
shadows
would
come
in,
but
that's
fine
for
now
and
then
to
talk
about
the
minimum
aggregate
for
the
side
yard
it's
much
less
than
what's
required,
based
on
the
height
of
the
building
from
10.5
to
4.6.
Could
you
explain
that
please.
O
So
three
of
mr.chair-
that's
got
another
slide
back
here.
That
shows
so
this
is.
These
are
the
amendments
that
we're
asking
for
in
the
bezel?
So
that's
a
requirement
from
the
be
zone
that
we
were
asking
to
amend
because
the
be
zone
provision
is
related
is
a
function
of
height,
the
side
yard
setback
in
the
aggregates
all
year
at
setback
in
the
a
zone.
That's
not
the
case,
so
we're
not
asking
to
amend
that
provision
in
the
a
zone
because
we
actually
meet
the
side
yard
apartments
of
the
a
zone.
A
Be
going
into
the
public
after
this
so
yeah
a
couple
of
questions
just
to
follow
up
how
finished
will
the
basement
floor,
be
you
have
a
rec
room,
I'm,
presuming
that
it'll
be
totally
finished.
I'm
presuming,
it'll
be
built
to
code
with
sound
proofed
ceiling
and,
and
so
on.
Is
that
an
accurate
assumption,
3.
A
O
Three
Oh
mr.
chair,
our
in
in
the
very
initial
stages
of
this.
This
proposed
development.
We
had
looked
not
at
having
a
residential
unit
in
the
basement
and
the
residential
unit
on
the
ground
floor
and
on
the
second
floor,
but
through
feedback
received
from
from
the
review
with
utilities,
Kingston
and
the
constraint
area
of
requirements,
we're
not
allowed
to
put
a
residential
unit
in
the
basement.
So
that's
just
that's
not
that's
not
support.
O
It's
not
recommended,
so
the
design
was
was
amended
to
convert
that
intended
residential
unit
to
amenity
space
and
that's
its
I
would
suggest
that.
Maybe
the
the
layout
of
the
storage
areas
is
a
legacy
of
that
original
design
that
it
was
originally
intended
to
be
a
unit
but
but
taking
a
change
to
be
away
from
a
unit
in
terms
of
the
regulatory
tools
in
place
to
prevent
the
illegal
conversion
of
that
unit
to
a
residential
unit
from
a
design
perspective.
A
G
Thank
you
and
three
mr.
chair,
one
of
the
only
ways
to
ensure
that
would
again
be
looking
at
placing
a
cap
on
the
number
of
bedrooms
that
are
legally
allowed
within
the
structure
and
then
should
there
be
a
conversion
of
that
space
to
bedrooms
in
the
future.
Certainly
that
would
not
be
legal
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
go
down
the
road
of
drought,
of
addressing
that
with
the
property
owner
by
different
enforcement
means.
A
O
A
G
Thank
you.
We
are
also
in
the
process
of
developing
for
the
city
website,
a
list
of
properties
with
legal
units
throughout
the
city.
Again,
as
inventory
were
people
if
they're
looking
at
renting
a
property
are
able
to
check
to
see
what
is
legally
established
on
those
properties
by
address
that
would
be
a
resource.
That's
there
again,
we
can't
see,
inside
of
people's
properties,
to
know
what
they're
doing
most
of
these
types
of
situations.
G
If
they
are
illegal
conversions,
they
do
come
to
us
by
way
of
complaint,
and
then
we
investigate,
but
certainly
as
part
of
posting,
that
information,
the
only
other
thing
that
would
be
more
proactive
in
nature,
would
be
of
council,
considers
a
residential
licensing
program
for
all
rental
properties
and
and
through
that
process,
making
sure
that
the
licenses
that
are
issued
are
for
properties
that
are
legal.
That
is
something
that
the.
G
A
Agree
with
that,
the
idea
of
a
license,
potentially
a
licensing
system-
I'm-
not
gonna,
go
there
now,
because
I
know
our
planning
staff
has
already
overworked
and
we
have
too
much
have
we've
put
too
much
on
there
already.
But
so,
if
you
can
duly
note
my
skepticism
and
there's
a
way
of,
if
there's
a
way
to
ensure
that,
given
the
extreme
housing
shortage
and
the
fact
that
each
of
these
storage
rooms
could
bring
in
650
or
$700
in
in
rent,
there
is
a
risk,
an
inducement
to
do
that.
So
anyway,
I
think
you.
A
Much
any
further
questions
or
comments,
seeing
none
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
public
again,
there's
a
microphone
on
both
sides,
each
person,
so,
if
you'd
like
to
just
go
to,
if
you
have
any
questions,
just
move
to
one
of
these
mics
just
give
your
name
address,
and
you
have
five
minutes
of
airtime.
So.
A
R
A
R
These
trees,
of
course,
will
have
to
go
if
there
is
a
retaining
wall
being
put
in
and
I
presume
that
this
retaining
wall
belongs
to
this
property,
because
red
markers
were
put
on
it
without
even
asking
us
whether
the
you
know
on
our
fence,
which
is
not
a
great
fence,
but
I
think
the
owner
should
have
asked
about
it.
I
don't
know
what
that
was
this
owner
or
was
a
one
before,
but
they're
still.
They
are.
Thank.
A
S
Doesn't
seem
anywhere
near
the
property
but
I'm
representing
my
mother,
Pyrrha
revolta,
who
lives
at
44,
Beverly
Street,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
property.
I,
have
a
couple
of
questions
or
concerns
the
first
one
I
just
want
answered
quickly.
Did
he
say
that
there
was
still
a
retaining
wall
at
the
back
of
the
property
or
did
or
did
he
say
that
was
taken
down?
J
S
I
wanted
to
talk
about
that
because
the
retraining
wall,
my
mother's,
been
living
there
for
over
40
years,
and
the
retaining
wall
has
always
been
there
and
it's
just
blocks
and
it
comes
to
about
half
way
behind
her
garage
they've.
Taken
it
down
and
what's
happened.
Now
is
the
portion
that's
behind
my
mother's
garage
no
longer
has
any
stability,
so
it's
fallen
against
my
mother's
grudge
now.
S
Fortunately,
when
primo
reputable
to
grad
years
ago,
he
had
asked
the
city
for
permission
to
reinforce
the
wall
and
they
had
given
it
to
him,
so
he
reinforced
the
back
of
my
mother's
garage.
So
the
falling
of
the
blocks
didn't
hurt
but
they're
there
and
we
were
actually
told
we
couldn't
touch
them.
So
I
was
just
wondering
what
happened
so
y'all
tell
me:
okay,
the
other
thing
is
with
the
setback
proposed
for
this
house.
I,
don't
know
if
I
saw
that
plan
correctly,
but
almost
all
the
houses
are
level
with
my
mother's
front.
S
With
that
one
going
forward
a
little
bit
deeper,
it's
going
to
be
hard
for
her
to
have
real
sunlight
in
her
porch
and
stuff
and
be
able
to
actually
look
at
part
of
the
water,
which
is
what
made
her
go
there
in
the
first
place,
so
I
I
don't
know,
but
the
setback
but
I
I
kind
of
would
like
to
know.
If
that's
a
possibility,
if
there
will
be
a
blockage
of
Sun
because
it
sure
looks
like
it
on
the
plan.
S
I,
don't
know
if
it
goes
around
the
house
or
if
it's
just
a
straight
driveway
like
it
was
in
the
other
one,
because
right
now,
they're
joined
driveways
and
my
mother
that
years
ago
now
had
to
put
up
a
small
wall
because
they
were
always
driving
back
and
forth
on
her
property
to
get
into
the
back.
So
I
didn't
hear
anything
about
a
driveway
to
get
to
the
back
parking
lots.
So
I'd
like
to
know
about
that.
How
how
that's
going
to
work?
S
Because
there's
not
a
lot
of
space
back
there,
I,
don't
know
if
you
know
I
think
on
the
other
side,
on
the
south
side,
there's
no
room
for
a
parking
Lane,
a
driveway
lane.
So
it
has
to
be
that
one
lane
and
I
don't
think
from
what
I
saw
up
there,
that
there's
room
for
cars
to
turn
around
like
there
were
in
the
first
housing
development,
so
I'm
wondering
how
they're
going
to
deal
with
that.
S
The
other
thing-
and
this
is
a
personal
thing
because,
like
I
said,
we've
lived
there
for
for
many
years.
A
couple
of
weeks
ago,
you
saw
another
petition.
You
see
this
one,
where
we're
opening
floodgates
on
that
Street
and
there's
just
no
parking
like
I
I
come
there
and
I
Drive
them
my
mother's
driveway,
which
is
great,
but
it's
with
breakwater
Park
in
the
summertime.
You
ask
the
police
department.
They
made
hordes
of
money
this
year
issuing
parking
tickets
on
the
one
side,
because
people
have
no
place
to
go
to
park.
S
So
parking
is
a
real
issue
on
Beverly,
Street,
I'm.
Sure
it's
on
Collingwood
too,
but
it's
a
real
issue.
So
I
don't
know,
I
realized
and
I'm.
It's
got
to
do
with
the
bylaws
and
that
that
three
parking
spaces
is
enough
for
12
bedrooms,
again
we're
back
to
that
bedroom
issue,
but
in
fact,
on
Beverly
Street,
especially
in
the
summertime.
When
we
have
great
water
park
open
it's
going
to
be
a
parking
nightmare.
This
year
alone,
my
neighbor
and
I.
On
the
other
side,
I've
had
trouble
driving
out
of
our
30.
A
S
T
My
name
is
Eileen
Dixon
I
live
at
20,
Beverly
street
and
I'm
opposed
to
this
development,
which
would
increase
the
population
of
the
street
to
another,
so
at
42,
Beverly
Street
to
making
it
from
two
units
or
3
units.
It's
just
gonna
make
more
people.
My
main
objection
is
that
the
increasing
population
on
that
street
has
resulted
in
noise
through
the
night,
and
so
it's
just
gonna
get
more
people.
It
will
get
worse
and
there's
no
additional
effort
to
enforce
the
noise
bylaws.
T
So
this
property
gets
if
this
proposal
here
of
going
from
2
to
3
and
then
the
other
one
at
49
going
tomorrow
and
then
there's
gonna
be
45
Beverly
Street's
up
right
after
that,
it's
just
been
sold
and
then
there's
more
going
up
the
street
you're
talking
about
a
huge
increase
in
the
density
of
the
population
of
this
very
small
street
and
by
the
way
to
America
traffic
emergency
vehicles
regularly,
you
use
the
streets,
they
have
difficulty
ambulances
and
fire
engines
getting
up
the
street
because
of
the
parking
issues.
People
are
parking
illegally.
T
It
makes
it
a
very
dangerous
sort
of
situation
to
and
I
think
it's
just
something
that's
got
to
be
looked
at
as
a
whole,
not
just
as
an
individual
proposal
going
from
what
was
the
way
used
to
be
3
bedrooms
in
the
house.
That
was
originally
there.
It's
now
being
proposed
to
go
up
to
12
from
three
and
we're
talking
about
across
the
street.
Talking
about
a
massive
thing
and
I
think
it's
kind
of
wrong
to
be
looking
at
this
as
one
property
at
a
time
or
this
property
in
that
property.
You
approve
one
how're.
T
We
going
to
turn
down
the
next
one.
At
what
point
do
you
say
this
is
too
much
for
a
street
to
hold
up
and
I
and
I
really
don't
know,
but
I
feel
sort
of
somewhat
at
despair,
because
I
feel,
like
you
know
these
presentations
they're
very
nice,
they're,
very
professional.
You
know
all
the
terminology:
I
don't
I
just
know
that
the
street
is
becoming
very,
very
populous
and
very
noisy
through
the
night,
because
these
are
young
single
adults.
T
They
have
a
different
schedule
and
of
some
of
them
and
it's
it's
a
like
party
central
very
often
there
we
have
to
get
out
of
town
once
it's
homecoming,
because
you
can't
sleep.
This
can't
possibly
sleep
there
and
so
I
just
want
to
know
really
I'm
sort
of
asking
the
councillors
who
represent
us.
What
do
we
have
to
do
to
get
for
the
permanent
Kingston
residence?
What
do
we
have
to
do
to
get
our
considerations
heard
ahead
of
the
developers
who
can
pay
very
wonderful
proposals,
nice
designs,
etc,
but
just
living?
T
T
30
seconds
it
says
a
quote
at
an
article
and
can
cause
person
in
the
week
standard
who
says
a
one
time:
residential
area,
that
city
hall
and
developers,
large
and
small,
seem
to
be
intent
into
turning
into
a
student
pay
pen
and
that's
the
perception,
I
think
of
a
lot
of
people
in
the
city.
They
I
think
you
should
be
aware
of.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
U
Unfortunately,
one
Street
isn't
the
issue.
This
is
something
that
the
city
is
currently
dealing
with
on
a
whole
variety
different
basis.
You
can
see
this
all
over
downtown
Kingston
as
well.
Parking
is
not
something
that
is
getting
solved
with
ease
and
I
know.
That
must
be
a
very
difficult
thing
to
say
you
deal
with,
but
primarily
my
concern
is
I.
U
Would
love
to
be
able
to
live
in
a
place
that
is
more
conducive
to
healthy
living
for
myself,
in
terms
of
being
able
to
get
to
my
job
in
terms
of
my
girlfriend
being
able
to
make
her
job
having
a
great
place
to
raise
kids
in
the
future,
and
that
area
is
very
conducive
for
that?
But
it's
it's
not
easy.
For
someone
of
my
age
to
be
able
to
move
in.
U
This
is
a
potential
opportunity
for
me
and
other
professionals
that
may
want
to
work
and
live
in
this
area
to
simply
move
in
and
start
their
lives
and
granted.
There
is
the
concern
of
the
party
mentality
or
the
noise,
but
it
did
sound
like
the
building
blueprints
did
include.
Soundproof
walls
would
presume
that
the
landlord
would
do
there
were
with
all
to
research.
U
Their
tenants
and
I
mean
that
is
obviously
something
people
would
want
when
renting
their
property
is
a
tenant,
they
can
trust
someone
that
they
know
will
take
care
of
the
property
and
follow
the
basic
rules
and
principles
of
you
know.
A
good
society
and
good
living
so
I
do
understand
the
concerns
that
have
been
risen,
but
most
of
them
seem
superficial
and
I.
U
Think
a
lot
of
these
issues
can
be
solved
if
they
continued
to
work
together
and
it
seems
like
they
are
I
didn't
know
about
the
first
blueprint
until
I
just
saw
it
I
only
heard
about
this
revised
one
and
it
seems
like
they
are
compromising
and
I
think
that's
the
biggest
thing.
I
think
compromise
can
be
reached.
U
So
I
really
do
hope
that
you
guys
consider
this
proposal
because
it
could
benefit
a
lot
of
people
and
it
isn't
necessarily
queen'
students,
but
other
people
like
myself,
who
been
born
and
lived
in
the
city
all
their
lives
I,
would
love
to
be
able
to
live
downtown
near
breakwater,
Park,
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
raise
my
own
family
and
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
get
to
my
job
with
relative
ease.
I.
Don't
necessarily
need
to
have
all
these
cars
that
people
have
seem
to
be
concerned
about
I
mean
to
be
fair.
U
A
V
My
name
is
sandy:
wood
I
live
at
54,
Edge
Hill,
Street
I
was
advised
about
the
I
was
in
the
couch
area.
I
echo
the
comments
of
the
counselor.
This
is
a
repeat
of
a
couple
weeks
ago.
Same
consultant,
similar
proposal
right
across
the
street
I've
vehement
lee
oppose
this
I
don't
understand
the
games
of.
Is
this
gonna
be
a
X
or
is
it
going
to
be
a
B
but
I?
It
seemed
to
me
it
seems
semantics
or
it's
very
confusing.
V
Ibm
Utley
opposed
that
comment
and
it
is
not
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
and
there
is
well
and
I
absolutely
echo,
miss
Dixon's
comment
about.
We
need
to
stop
looking
at
this
one
proposal
at
a
time
there's
multiple
homes
for
sale
on
the
street
and
we've
had
round
one
now
we're
on
round
two
and
what's
next,
we
need
to
look
at
a
macro
whole
perspective.
Here
or
this
neighborhood
has
changed
for
the
worse.
Thank
you.
I
Yes,
the
floor
is
yours:
hi,
I'm,
Rob,
Kennedy
from
twenty
Beverly,
Street
and
I
want
to
build
on
my
neighbor's
comments
just
down.
Let
me
just
take
a
step
back
like
I.
You
folks
have
got
the
very
difficult
job
of
evaluating
requests
for
exceptions
to
the
rule
if
I
understand
things.
So
how
do
you
do
that?
Like
what?
What
criteria
do
you
apply?
I
Typically,
my
thought
would
be
that
you're
looking
for
something
like
why
shouldn't
a
rule
be
followed
well,
typically,
because
there's
something
exceptional
about
this
property,
this
proposal,
the
two
that
we've
heard
tonight's
and
the
one
two
weeks
ago,
I
haven't
heard
a
single
attribute,
given
that
was
unique
about
the
property.
It's
just
a
straight
flat
out
request:
I,
don't
like
I,
don't
like
that
rule
for
three
units
or
for
two
units
in
an
a
zone.
So
why
can't
I
have
three
I?
Don't
like
the
the
lot
coverage
rule?
I
I
I
E
I
That's
that's
a
bad
thing
and
that
if,
if
it's
justifiable
to
change
the
a
zone
max
two
three
go
for
it,
like
maybe
the
whole
city,
a
zone
should
be
three
if
that's
what's
needed
for
for
infill
to
reach
infill
goals,
but
that
might
not
be
supported
by
the
voters
but
I.
You
know
it's
it's
it's
a
more
reasonable
approach,
I
think
to
take
a
global
approach.
I
know:
I
asked
the
Planning
Department
two
weeks
ago.
If
they
had
a
criteria.
I
J
Name
is
Donald
Mitchell
I
live
at
42,
Gibson
Avenue,
but
I'm
representing
the
Sydenham
District
Association
I,
think
the
public
said
a
disadvantage
and
I
think
somebody
should
put
that
on
the
record
because
of
this
last-minute
design
change.
The
Sydenham
district
association
does
not
support
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
proposal
of
42
Beverly
Street.
J
We
recognize
that
the
provincial
policy
statement
is
intended
to
give
merely
the
highest
level
growth
directives
only
and
that
the
province
fully
expects
diverse
municipalities
to
apply
their
own
specific
guiding
policy
directions
through
publicly
discerned:
Official
Plan
zoning
bylaws
secondary
plans,
related
policies
and
other
studies.
Our
Neighborhood
Association
knows
from
dedicated
face-to-face
engagement
with
residents
over
many
years
that
the
overall
understanding
of
the
public,
previous
councils,
expert
staff
and
other
planning
professionals
is
that
planning
best
practices
do
not
support
spot
zoning.
J
Recently,
we've
begun
to
see
the
newest
mana
facie
manifestation
of
the
thin
edge
of
the
wedge
of
spot
zoning,
which
is
advocating
an
amendment
to
be
zoning
to
permit
additional
height
uses
and
density.
Thankfully,
maybe
that
will
not
be
the
thin
edge
of
the
way,
but
I'm
sure
that
something
else
will
come
along.
The
recently
approved
OPA
50,
which
we
understand
is
to
be
read
in
its
entirety,
has
precise
language
to
ensure
compatibility,
stability
and
the
preservation
of
character
neighborhoods.
J
That
language
is
likely
to
be
found
in
many
areas
of
the
official
plans,
such
as
section
2
or
perhaps
section
2
point
6
is
a
portion
of
the
OPA
50.
That
is
the
threshold
that
this
application
can't
meet.
In
fact,
it's
our
failing
out
of
data
zoning
bylaw
and
the
desire
for
additional
profit
that
have
emboldened
developers
to
attempt
to
misdirect
these
out
of
scale
projects
into
the
heart
of
neighborhoods,
where
they
know.
Certainly,
their
planning
professionals
have
told
him
what
collaboratively
has
been
discussed
for
many
years.
J
Increased
scale
and
intensification
should
be
at
centers
and
corridors.
We
have
gone
further
and
refined
our
arterial
and
hub
growth
directions
in
developing
studies,
policies
such
as
essential
Kingston
growth
in
infill
strategy
or
the
North
Kingston
Town
secondary
plan.
The
public
have
a
little
longer
to
wait
and
those
policies,
along
with
an
updated
consolidated,
zoning
bylaw,
will
be
completed
to
fair
profit
for
housing
as
commodity.
The
house
beside
mine,
sold
twice
recently
three
to
four
years,
apart
with
no
significant
upgrade.
Besides
a
new
fence,
the
selling
price
difference
was
a
hundred
and
thirty-five
thousand
dollars.
J
J
K
W
Thank
you
very
much.
I
want
to
start
by
saying
that
I
was
shocked
to
discover
on
Wednesday
October
23rd
demolition
had
begun
on
the
one
and
a
half
story.
Building
at
42,
Beverly
demolition
permit
was
granted
I
believe
on
October
22nd.
So
I
was
told
three
business
days
after
the
October
17
Planning
Committee
meeting,
in
which
there
was
a
strong,
vocal
opposition
to
redevelopment
plans
at
49,
Beverly
Street,
the
next
day,
October
23rd
after
sitting
vacant.
For
several
years
the
building
was
reduced
to
rubble
twelve
hours.
It
was
quick,
decisive
in
suspect.
W
I
would
not
be
so
cynical
to
believe
that
this
was
expedited
to
head
off
any
last
minute
impediment
to
the
developers
plans.
Certainly
the
excuse
that
it
was
used
by
drug
users
or
squatters
could
not
have
been
mitigated
by
simply
locking
a
door
or
erecting
a
fence,
but
has
now
forced
the
hand
of
development,
but
what
kind
so?
W
Am
I
pleased
with
what
I
see
tonight
you're
headed
in
the
right
direction,
but
you
still
have
a
long
way
to
go.
I
want
to
point
out
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
my
comments
from
October
17th,
because,
based
on
this
new
information,
I
looked
at
what
we
had
going
into
this
meeting
tonight
in
equal
measure.
W
W
That
picture
there
is
looking
that
picture
by
the
way
is
looking
at
my
front
window
and
that
water's
right
up
in
the
front
of
my
line
right
there
is
the
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
term.
Sorry,
the
effluent
that
is
coming
out
of
the
combined
sewer
system
after
it's
overflowed
and
it's
running
straight
out
into
the
lake
two
or
three
hundred
meters.
So
that's
the
end
of
it's
a
very
poor
quality.
Last
picture.
It
was
raining
like
crazy,
so
what
I
wanted
to
say
was
we
are
in
what
is
essentially
an
area
of
severe
flooding.
W
It's
largely
due
to
the
combined
sewer
system
in
which
local
residents
and
development
projects
are
located,
both
42
and
49,
Beverly
and
other
proposed
rezoning
applications
are
red-flagged
areas
and
I
have
a
map
that
I
can
show
you
give
to
the
committee
later.
Some
sewer,
surcharging
or
better
described
as
sewer
overflow
restrictions
and
recommendations
are
in
place
to
dissuade
the
construction
of
basement
units
and
other
secondary
units.
Why
should
we
permit
this
level
of
intensification
at
forty
two
and
forty
nine
beverly
street
when
constraints
are
in
place
on
the
construction
of
secondary
suites?
W
Why
these
are
these
proposed
developments
not
simply
adding
to
the
existing
effluent
surcharging,
so
the
average
daily
water
use
of
350
liters
per
day
per
person
is
considered
standard.
A
family
of
four
uses
1400
liters
per
day,
the
new
development
at
forty
two
Beverly.
This
is
not
changed
with
this
new
design
will
be
four
thousand
two
hundred
liters
per
day
with
the
other
development
proposals
and
rezoning
applications
in
this
area
will
rise
to
eight
thousand
four
hundred
liters
per
day
and
very
quickly
eclipsed.
W
Even
this
figure
and
the
result
when
combined
with
the
surface
water
runoff,
is
what
we
witnessed
as
I
said
on
Thursday
October
31st
Halloween
night.
This
is
not
a
unique
situation.
It's
not
a
hundred
year
storm!
It's
not
a
ten
year
storm.
It's
a
yearly
event
and
flooding
on
King
Street
that
occurred
the
week
before.
Halloween
makes
it
even
more
frequent.
Excuse
me
30
seconds.
A
W
How
will
we,
how
will
climate
change
affect
us
in
the
future,
we'd
had
to
taste-
and
it's
unmistakably
foul
odor
at
this
point,
on
calling
for
a
moratorium
on
site-specific
rezoning
for
tribe
flexing
in
this
sewer
surcharging
area
and
instead
encourage
and
maintain
more
modest,
yet
intensive
growth
strategy
that
complements
the
neighborhood
with
smaller
dwellings
that
are
compatible
with
their
neighbors
and
don't
overtax
an
already
marginal
infrastructure.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
F
H
Thank
this
chair,
Frank
Dixon
for
85
Alfred
Department
to
case
of
mk44,
so
I
don't
live
in
the
immediate
neighborhood,
but
I
did
live
up
the
street
as
a
student.
A
couple
blocks
away
so
I
know
the
advantages
of
it
and
the
neighborhood
has
an
extraordinary
character.
It's
really
unique
in
Kingston
and
Lyford
tonight.
I
have
some
concerns,
given
that
there
are
apparently
other
properties
which
could
befall
a
similar
fate
to
this
one.
So
this
historic
house
snore
exists,
as
shown
on
page
61,
so
I'm
wondering
did.
H
The
owners
leaves
with
the
city
before
demolishing
it
in
terms
of
heritage,
assets
or
aspects,
and
that
has
a
precedent.
I
guess
a
factor
when
you
consider
there
are
other
houses
in
the
the
area
that
are
potentially
to
be
modified
or
developed
in
this
way,
something
of
a
domino
effect
so
I'm
going
to
advocate
for
something
new
to
happen
in
the
immediate
neighborhood.
H
So,
as
the
previous
speaker
had
indicated,
flooding
occurs
in
the
area
and
we
have
a
sharp,
basically
a
cliff
to
the
north
and
the
west
of
this
property
and
that's
a
concern
not
only
with
respect
to
the
immediate
fallenness
or
the
effects
of
this
property,
but
also
for
the
future.
We
need
to
understand
the
impact
of
putting
more
construction
in
and
what
it's
going
to
do
to,
basically
that
the
full
of
water
and
and
small
and
so
forth,
so
I
would
put
myself
in
opposing
the
current
proposal.
H
I
A
O
O
My
understanding
is
that
the
retaining
wall
is
still
there
and
is
maintained
in
its
current
position
and
that's
not
proposed
to
change
I'm
seeing
waving.
So
that's
certainly
something
that
we'll
look
at
with
her
with
the
applicant
is
that
retaining
wall,
the
status
of
it
and
I
expect
its
restoration
to
some
degree.
O
The
red
post,
I
suspect,
that's
a
surveyor
post.
So
as
part
of
this,
this
application
early
on
surveyors
would
have
attended
the
site
and
surveyors
are
permitted
to
some
degree,
to
enter
properties
and
and
post
stakes,
to
identify
property
lines
and
boundaries,
and
so
on
so
I
suspect.
That's
that's
where
those
posts
came
from.
O
O
So
the
subject
site
here
using
my
mouse,
the
driveway
is
proposed
on
the
north
side
of
the
dwelling
leading
to
the
rear
yard.
It
is
tight.
Certainly
the
design
incorporates
a
small
hammerhead
at
the
back
there
to
help
facilitate
vehicles
to
maneuver
into
the
back
and
turn
around
and
that's
what's
intended.
There.
O
Further
to
that
note,
I
believe
the
comment
was
that
there
was
there
didn't
appear
to
be
room
on
the
south
side
for
driveway.
That
is
correct.
There
is
a
walkway,
that's
proposed
along
the
southern
portion
of
the
house
to
provide
access
to
from
the
front
to
the
back.
It's
also
proposed
that
the
this
green
space
on
the
south
portion
of
the
house,
the
triplex,
will
function
as
a
swale
for
stormwater
management
to
direct
stormwater
flows
from
the
rear
yard
to
the
front
and
then
into
the
municipal
system.
O
From
miss
Dixon
regarding
the
noise,
I
think
that's
an
enforcement
question
about.
If
staff
will
indulge
me
I'd
like
to
address
all
the
ones
that
I
can
and
then
maybe
turn
over
the
questions
for
staff
question
and
concern
about
cumulative
impact.
I
think
that's.
That's
certainly
one
that
staff
have
heard,
and
that's
one
that
we
have
heard
and
hear
often
in
public
meetings
of
this
nature
is
I
know.
O
Staff
is
working
very
hard
and
with
the
community
to
develop
some
some
policy
guidance
for
development
and
until
those
policies
going
to
affect
our
our
guiding
framework
is.
Is
the
policy
are
the
policies
that
are
in
effect
now.
So
the
provincial
policy
statement,
which
provides
very
high-level
policy
direction
for
intensification
and
generally
supports
intensification
as
a
way
of
utilizing
existing
municipal
infrastructure
as
efficiently
as
possible,
and
the
city's
official
plan
provides
our
more
detailed
nuanced
guidelines
with
respect
to
compatibility
to
integrating
minor
infill
into
existing
neighborhoods.
O
Ultimately,
make
a
recommendation
as
to
whether
from
to
our
client
in
and
as
part
of
the
application
as
to
whether
we
feel
that
it's
supportable
from
a
provincial
policy
perspective,
as
well
as
a
municipal
official
plan
perspective,
and
if
a
proposed
development
does
not
meet
the
compatibility
criteria.
For
example,
the
functional
needs
criteria,
the
land
use
designations
and
strategic
goals
of
the
Official
Plan.
We
can't
support
it.
We
can't
make
a
recommendation
in
favor
of
it.
O
On
the
question
of
soundproofing
into
building
code
compliance,
those
are
certainly
considerations.
Compliance
as
a
requirement.
There
were
a
few
comments
on
cumulative
impact,
so
I
won't
go
into
those
again.
The
criteria
for
exceptions
to
the
rule,
so
I've
spoken
to
that.
So
that's
well
any
application
to
amend
the
zoning
bylaw
the
tool.
That's
used
to
determine
whether
an
application
to
amend
the
bylaws
is
supportable
or
not,
is
the
Official
Plan
and
it's
the
provincial
policy
statement.
O
So
those
are
the
tools
that
that
any
application
to
amend
the
zoning
bylaw
has
to
satisfy
it
has
to
satisfy
those
tests.
In
Kingston
we
do
have
the
dated
zoning
bylaw
and
a
dated
set
of
zoning
bylaws,
which
makes
the
requirement
for
site
specific
amendments
just
that
much
greater
because
the
bylaw
is
old
and
it
doesn't
contemplate
current
best
practices
in
building
currently
building
code
requirements
and
and
current
practices
and
planning
either.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
requirements
to
amend
the
zoning
bylaw
and
rather
than
well
I'll.
Leave
it
at
that.
O
The
I
from
mr.
Mitchell
and
the
Sydney
district
Association
support
for
a
two-unit
as
of
right
building
the
the
lot
area
is
actually
not
large
enough
to
support
a
two-unit
building
so
the
to
unit.
In
order
for
this
lot
to
be
developed
as
a
two
unit
dwelling
as
of
right,
it
would
require
740
square
meters
of
area
doesn't
meet
that
requirement.
O
So
I
just
want
to
know
that
from
mr.
Rubens
I
think.
Why
are
there
no
constraints
on
limiting
increases
in
unit
count?
I
think
that
was
more
of
a
servicing
related
questions.
So
there
was
a
servicing
report
prepared
in
support
of
this
application
that
was
submitted
and
is
available
both
through,
but
I'm
sure
can
be
provided
on
request
and
that
servicing
report
found
that
yes,
there's
a
combined
sewer
system
and
this,
the
overall
capacity
of
the
system
is
sufficient
to
accommodate.
O
This
particular
use
in
the
three
units
proposed
and
including
the
12
bedroom
count
as
evaluators
that
study,
which
is
being
reduced
to
ten
acknowledging
that
there
is
a
combined
sewer
system
and
and
that's
an
infrastructure
deficiency
that
the
city
is
overall
planning
to
upgrade.
At
some
point.
The
capacity
physically
for
that
amount
of
that
additional
input
into
the
system
is
there
and
and
that
that's
the
report
also
recommended
those
storm
water
changes
in
those
storm
water
management
items
that
I
mentioned
briefly
a
moment
ago
from
mr.
Dixon
question
regarding
heritage.
O
So
we
did
have
a
Heritage
impact
study
study
completed
as
part
of
this
application,
which
evaluated
the
both
individual
heritage
component
attributes
of
this
building.
It's
not
listed
on
the
city's
Heritage
Register.
It's
not
designated
individually
as
a
property,
either
I
know
the
official
plan.
There
are
certain
areas,
there's
heritage
corridors,
heritage,
character,
areas,
heritage
affected
views
and
the
site
doesn't
individually
fall
in
any
of
those
areas.
O
Notwithstanding
those
policy
criteria
at
what
the
site
was
evaluated
to
see
if
it
met
criteria
for
a
heritage
designation
or
for
heritage
as
a
property
of
cultural
heritage
significance
and
it
was
found
not
to
meet
any
of
the
criteria
available
and
designated
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
The
Heritage
impact
statement
was
prepared
on
the
expectation
that
the
existing
house
would
be
demolished
and
it
evaluated
that
and
recommended
no
mitigation
measures
from
a
heritage
conservation
perspective.
P
Mr.
chair,
there
were
questions
with
respect
to
from
Frank
Dixon.
With
regards
to
the
demolition
permit
process.
A
demolition
permit
was
issued
on
October
22nd.
A
thorough
review
was
undertaken
with
regard
to
this
application.
Part
of
the
review
looks
at
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
the
planner
you
go
had
mentioned
that
it
had
been
confirmed
that
the
property
is
not
designated
under
the
Heritage
Act,
nor
it
is
listed
nor
isn't
listed.
However,
28
Edgehill
isel
is
a
designated
property
and,
as
the
subject
property
known
as
42
Beverly
is
adjacent
to
this
property
heritage.
P
Impact
statement
was
provided
and
is
being
currently
reviewed
as
part
of
this
application.
Through
the
demolition
permit
process,
a
comprehensive
review
was
done.
A
designated
as
substance
report
was,
was
also
completed
as
well,
and
it
was
found
that
there
were
no
issues
with
the
application
with
respect
to
mr.
Don
Mitchell's
questions
regarding
compatibility
stability
in
neighborhoods.
P
As
you
all
know,
as
you
probably
know,
the
city
is
currently
undertaking
the
central
growth
Kingstown
strategy,
which
takes
into
consideration
and
acknowledges
that
there
are
issues
with
respect
to
concerns
regarding
built
form
compatibility
and
these
applications
42
Beverly
and
49.
Beverly
will
be
considered
with
respect
to
this
ongoing
study
with
respect
to
the
issues
regarding
noise,
that
is
an
enforcement
issue,
and
I
will
defer
to
senior
staff
with
regards
to
those
issues.
G
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
mr.
chair
Julie
enough
for
planning,
building
and
licensing,
we
also
are
in
charge
of
the
nighttime
noise
enforcement
for
the
City
of
Kingston
and
collaboration
with
City
of
Kingston
police,
so
certainly
as
part
of
the
fun
of
the
public
feedback.
Tonight,
I
will
have
a
discussion
with
my
team
about
the
noise
concern
raised
with
respect
to
this
glare
and
will
pay
attention
to.
Certainly
the
the
process
isn't
in
place.
G
Right
now
for
noise
enforcement
is
one
that
is
complaint
driven,
but
we
do
have
staff
that
are,
you
know
on
all
day
long
to
do
with
noise
calls,
but
we
also
have
staff
in
the
evening
there's
through
to
Sunday
8:00
p.m.
until
2:00
a.m.
so
we
do
have
people
that
are
actively
responding
to
noise.
Calls
with
certainly
will
raise
that
with
my
staff
as
part
of
the
take
away
of
tonight's
public
meeting.
E
Chair
three
right
actually
want
to
pick
up
a
hamat
that
you
made
earlier
bathroom
with
a
tub
in
the
basement
and
I'm
wondering
if
staff
or
perhaps
the
proponent
could
comment
on
what
uses
in
a
non-residential
part
of
the
dwelling
are
allowed.
So,
for
example,
could
there
be
a
kitchen
in
that
space
where's
the
line
where
it
becomes
so
obvious
that
will
be
used
for
residential
purposes,
that
it
wouldn't
be
accepted,
recognizing
that
we're
supposed
to
be
taught
form
not
function?
Nasa
died,
I
think
that's
pertinent.
G
Thank
you,
and
through
certainly
as
part
of
the
the
building
permit
process
associated
with
any
type
of
dwelling.
There's
a
thorough
zoning
review.
That's
done
against
the
plans
that
are
submitted
for
the
building
application,
if
there's
any
type
of
notification
or
indication
on
those
plans
with
respect
to
something
that
would
indicate
a
kitchen.
Certainly,
the
drawings
have
to
be
amended
if
there's
no
approved
unit
in
that
space
and
that
would
be
inspected
through
the
process
to
make
sure
that
there's
no
actual
electrical
infrastructure
things
going
in
that
would
facilitate
a
kitchen.
G
Typically,
if
it's
identified
on
a
plan,
we
make
sure
that
we
are
very
clear
with
applicants
that
you
know
even
putting
in
a
stove
plug
or
something
like
that,
which
has
happened
in
the
past,
that
we
don't
even
facilitate
that,
because
we
know
that
one
thing
can
lead
to
another.
So
there
is
that
clear
process
that
takes
place
with
the
building
inspectors,
specifically
prior
to
anything
being
issued
from
a
permit
perspective.
G
E
M
G
Thank
you
and
three
times
so
we
are
in
the
process
of
techni
on
this
utilities.
Kingston
is
a
commenter
that
would
be
looking
at
the
zoning
application.
Definitely
it's
been
identified.
This
area
is
still
part
of
the
combined
sewer,
it
hasn't
been
separated
and
it
is
subject
to
surcharging
so
utilities.
Kingston
would
be
looking
at
that
as
part
of
any
type
of
habitation.
That
would
be
suggested
in
a
basement,
and
that
would
be
evaluated
as
part
of
their
technical
comments.
M
A
C
G
G
So,
in
terms
of
the
building
footprint
again
applicant
has
proposed
to
look
at
a
site-specific
B
zone
and
the
difference
between
the
B
zone
and
the
a
zone.
There's
different
types
of
regulations
in
the
zoning
in
the
a
zone
specifically
and
mr.
Leclaire
reference
that,
specifically
that
for
the
a
zone
it
requires
a
minimum
amount
of
area
per
unit
of
370
square
metres,
I
believe
which
he
was
indicating
as
of
right
couldn't
be
accommodating
on
the
property.
G
When
you
go
into
the
B
zone,
it
doesn't
regulate
units
by
area
that
way
it
switches
into
different
performance
standards.
It
starts
to
measure
lot
lines
and
things
differently.
It
has
a
greater
height
consideration
and
the
B
zone
also
doesn't
have
floor
space
index,
which
is
another
key
thing
that
we
look
at
in
terms
of
understanding
how
big
the
footprint
is
relative
to
the
overall
size
of
the
lot.
G
So
there
are
some
differences
between
the
two
and
how
it
regulates
form,
certainly
as
part
of
looking
at
the
overall
amount
of
square
footage
that
is
suggested
as
part
of
the
application.
We
can
make
sure
that
that
information
is
provided
specifically
in
any
future
reports,
just
to
be
able
to
clarify
that,
for
you.
C
So
that's
the
first
thing,
but
underlying
that
also
is
a
whole
question
of
density
and
being
able
to
claim
that
you're
serving
some
official
plan.
The
official
plan
desire
to
intensify
in
an
area
that's
already
plenty
does-
is
more
than
dense
for
almost
all
uses.
If
37
per
net
hectare
units
for
phonetic
words
good
for
transit,
I'm,
not
sure
it's
enough,
but
that's
what
we
say
right
and
this
169,
then
you
I,
think
you
got
a
problem.
I
just
think
that,
should
in
proposals
of
that
sort
in
areas
like
this,
it
should
simply
be
discounted.
C
You've
already
got
your
intensification,
but
as
we
Accord
four
and
as
being
mentioned
by
two
or
three
people
on
the
corridors
and
in
the
nodes
and
according
to
our
our
planning
document,
that
would
be
fine
and
we
allow
for
I
think
in
some
areas
like
a
resistor
85
right.
So
this
is
part
of
the
problem,
I.
C
Think
of
people
having
myself
with
evaluating
whether
this
is
a
reasonable
request
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
those
things
up
and
and
I
think
that
knowing
the
square
footage,
the
footprint
and
the
square
footage
and
the
comparison
would
be
useful,
at
least
in
thinking
about
it,
if
it
but
not
I,
think
what
you're
saying
is
in
terms
of
zoning.
It's
a
whole
other
ballgame.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank.
A
Of
things
like
in
the
public
discussion,
I
have
a
quick
question
for
staff.
This
seems
to
be
becoming
a
kind
of
recurring
theme
at
planning,
particularly
on
Beverly
Street
but
elsewhere
as
well.
I
know
in
West
Dale,
for
instance,
because
they
don't
have
capacity,
we've
created
a
holding
zone,
I
believe
or
the
equivalent
of
a
holding
zone.
Why
wouldn't
we
say
there
isn't
service
capacity
for
in
intensification
at
this
time
until
are
our
new
sewers
are
put
in?
Why
wouldn't
we
declare
a
holding
zone
in
this
neighborhood
or
could
we
thank.
G
You
and
through
you
so
definitely
dear,
there
is
a
holding
symbol
that
was
applied
to
Westbrook
Meadows,
specifically
as
part
of
evaluating
we're.
Second
units
would
be
allowed
as
of
right
across
the
city,
and
that
was
to
make
sure
that
from
a
servicing
capacity
perspective
because
how
it
works
with
once
you
have
your
zoning
in
place,
if
all
you're
applying
for
is
a
building
permit,
there
isn't
the
same
level
of
rigor,
that's
tested
with
respect
to
looking
at
the
servicing
capacity.
G
The
zoning
in
place
assumes
that
it's
there,
so
when
we're
creating
that
as
of
right
permission,
because
there
are
known
constraints
within
the
system
in
the
Westbrook
area,
the
holding
symbol
was
put
on
there
specifically,
so
that
it
would
require
the
specific
servicing
assessment
that
needed
to
be
done
before
a
building
permit.
Otherwise,
building
permits
are
assuming
the
servicing
is
already
there
could
that
be
applied
elsewhere
in
the
city.
G
Certainly,
as
part
of
doing
the
second
unit
work
that
we've
gone
through
in
the
last
year,
we
had
to
look
at
a
detail,
assessment
and
work
with
our
partners
at
utilities
Kingston
to
look
at
other
areas
of
the
city
where
their
constraints,
the
rural
area
as
well,
has
a
holding
symbol
on
it.
So
whether
or
not
they
would
put
an
additional
hold
in
this
area
based
on
servicing
capacity
or
are
you
referencing
specifically
because
it's
still
in
a
combined
sewer,
I
think
what
they've
said
is
as
they're?
G
Okay
with
some
incremental
infill
as
part
of
that,
but
it's
one.
The
large
scale
pieces
start
to
come
forward
that
it's
really
triggering
the
concern
with
respect
to
the
combined
sewers.
But
again,
that's
a
non
engineer
explaining
what
I
understand
to
be
the
explanation
from
utilities
Kingston.
But
it's
a
very
valid
question.
A
The
other
thing
I
know
that
there
was
a
gentleman
who
spoke
favorably
for
this
development
because,
as
a
as
a
professional,
he
would
love
to
live
in
the
core
of
the
city.
I
just
want
to
point
out
the
elephant
in
the
room.
Why
are
we
getting
so
many
large
larger
proposals
for
increasing
substantially
the
number
of
bedrooms?
We
went
from
8
to
19
on
an
earlier
proposal
today.
It's
because
the
grant
all
per
bedroom
in
this
neighborhood
is
700
or
750
dollars,
plus
utilities.
A
So
my
question
is
how
many
young
professionals
or
young
professional
families
could
afford
$2,800
or
$3,000
a
month,
rent
plus
utilities,
they're
very
successful
young
professionals
if
they
can
I'm
an
old,
professional
and
I
couldn't
afford
that.
So
so
that
I
mean
that's
the
reality
that
we're
faced
with
and
I'm
troubled
as
I
was
with
a
similar
proposal
two
weeks
ago,
from
from
the
same
planner
I
believe
two
up
so
to
move
this
to
Abby's
own.
A
O
O
A
That
raises
the
question.
This
is
very
frustrating
for
me:
I
mean
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
I,
should
be
able
to
read
a
report
and
know
that
it's
I
mean
it
references,
B
zone
provisions,
it
references
a
zone
as
the
previous
one
a
couple
weeks
ago
did
as
well,
and
it
almost
feels
like
a
kind
of
cherry-pick
well
in
the
previous
a
zone.
G
You
know
the
information
that
we
had
at
the
time
that
this
report
was
written
and
when
the
agenda
was
released
last
week
was
showing
a
B
zone
with
the
drawings
that
are
in
the
package.
Obviously,
there's
been
some
additional
updated
work
and
some
changed
information
that's
being
presented
this
evening
as
part
of
the
presentation
that
doesn't
coincide
with
what's
in
the
report
and
I
apologize.
If
that
is
confusing,
that
there
are,
as
mr.
G
Leclaire
indicated,
I
guess
changes
that
have
been
made
in
the
last
two
days
which
are
post
us
being
able
to
post
the
agenda
so
in
the
future.
You'll
see
consistent
information
coming
forward
in
terms
of
the
comprehensive
report
and
I
do
apologize
for
any
confusion
that
that's
provided.
I
appreciate.
C
Because
I
brought
it
at
the
beginning,
and
that
is
if
someone
that
wants
to
change
it
seems
to
me
that
before
the
meeting
after
the
documents
are
being
issued
to
the
public
end
of
the
committee,
they
should
be
required
to
come
back
at
another
time
and
make
its
sign
an
addendum
to
the
rack
of
application,
saying
we
agree
to
the
lengthening
of
the
application
period
because
I'm
sure
that
staff
is
always
thinking
about
that.
Then
thinking,
ok,
we'll
just
push
this
through
because
we
got
we
have.
We
have
legal
requirements
to
make.
C
But
if
you
want
to
change
it,
fine,
but
it's
you
that
are
you
the
applicant
that
wants
to
change
it
right
if
staff
for
doing
it?
Well,
I!
Guess
that's
in
to
be.
You
know,
portion
of
the
180
days,
but
if
the
applicant
wants
to
play
then
they
can
sign
something
say
we
agree,
we'll
go
to
you
know,
194
days,
all
right,
that's
only
fair
stops.
You
have
to
be
running
around
after
somebody
is
changing
their
mind
and
you
know
trying
to
make
it
fit
in
the
legal
requirement.
It's
talked
about
over
work.
C
A
You
any
further
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee.
Seeing
none
I
declare
this
public
meeting
completed.
If
anybody
has
anything
to
add,
you
can
do
it
in
writing
or
you
can
meet
with
one
of
the
planner
or
or
myself
before
relief.
There
are
no
action
items
today.
Other
than
I
will
call
the
the
planning
committee
meeting
to
order
approval
of
the
agenda
and
mover
and
a
seconder
councillor
Chappell
and
councillor
Kiley
confirmation
of
minutes.
Oh
that
was
with
the
addendum.
You
all
heard
me
say
that
yes,
good
confirmation
of
minutes.
A
Oh
you're
right,
it
is
getting
late.
Call
the
question
on
the
approval
of
the
agenda
with
addendum
all
those
in
favor
carried
confirmation
of
minutes
from
October
17th
councilor
of
sanik
councillor
Chappell
any
Corrections,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
carried
disclosure
of
queue,
nary
interest,
seeing
none.
We
have
no
delegations,
we
have
no
breeding
briefings.
A
We
have
no
business
or
mote
notices
of
motion.
We
do
have
a
no
other
business.
We
have
correspondence
to
include
the
three
additional
ones
that
that
were
distributed
today.
Any
further
comments,
questions
seeing
none
date
of
our
next
meeting,
November
21st
same
place
same
same
Channel.
Thank
you
very
much,
I'm
going
home
and
going
to
bed
Oh.