[0:36] Good evening everyone. Welcome. It is 602 p. m. So

[0:41] we're going to begin. I'll just ask if everyone could

[0:45] settle, please. Thank you. All right, the meeting being held

[0:49] tonight is a public meeting under the Planning Act. Please

[0:52] note that this meeting will be live streamed on the

[0:55] city of Kingston website, audio and video are being collected

[0:58] by the city and the meeting recording will be archived

[1:01] on the city website for public consumption. I will take

[1:03] this opportunity to remind everyone, including myself to please ensure

[1:07] the sound on your cellular device is turned off. Notice

[1:12] of collection. Personal information collected as a result of the

[1:15] public meetings are collected under the authority of the Planning

[1:18] Act and will be used to assist in making a

[1:20] decision on this matter. Person speaking at the meeting are

[1:24] requested to give their name for recording in the minutes.

[1:27] All names, opinions, and comments may be collected and may

[1:30] form part of the minutes, which will be available to

[1:32] the public. To be notified of the decision, you must

[1:36] either fill out the sign - in sheet at the

[1:37] door, or you must email the file planner or committee

[1:40] clerk requesting notice of the decision. Tonight's meeting is to

[1:44] present a planning application in a public forum as detailed

[1:48] in the Community Meeting Report. This report does not contain

[1:52] a staff recommendation and therefore no decisions will be made

[1:55] this evening. Following the presentation by the applicant, the meeting

[2:00] will be opened to the public for comments and questions.

[2:03] I will be alternating between recognising five speakers attending in

[2:07] person and five speakers attending virtually. Do not expect a

[2:12] response immediately after you have asked your questions. Staff and

[2:15] the applicant will be taking notes and will respond after

[2:18] five speakers have had an opportunity to present. For those

[2:21] attending in person, the seats at the Speaker Microphones have

[2:25] been reserved. Over here? Yes, okay. Those five seats right

[2:29] back there. I lost my spot.

[2:40] Okay. Please be sure to speak directly into the microphone

[2:44] so that those attending both in - person and online

[2:46] can hear clearly. There's just a little button and the

[2:48] light will turn red when you've got the microphone turned

[2:50] on. If you are attending the meeting online and wish

[2:54] to speak to this application, please use the raised hand

[2:56] function at the bottom of your zoom screen. If your

[2:59] question or comment has already been provided, please do not

[3:01] feel compelled to repeat it. I will now call the

[3:04] Community Meeting to Order. The purpose of the Community meeting

[3:07] is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to present

[3:10] a potential development proposal in the early stages of development

[3:13] process and to seek feedback from the public and members

[3:16] of Planning Committee. Anyone who attends a Community meeting may

[3:20] present an oral submission and or provide a written submission

[3:24] on the proposals being presented. Tonight's Community Meeting Application is

[3:28] for 105 Queen Street. I'd like to invite The Applicant

[3:31] to present the proposal.

[3:41] And just while the applicant is getting set up, a

[3:43] reminder that we will go to Community MembersNACS. So if

[3:46] you are in the room and wish to speak, I

[3:48] will be inviting you after this presentation. If you'd like

[3:50] to sit in one of those chairs, then we'll go

[3:52] through the questions and comments. Thank you.

[4:02] All right, well, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the

[4:05] committee and members of the community. Thank you for coming

[4:08] out this evening. My name is Mike Keane, and I'm

[4:11] a land use planner with Foten Consultants. And I'm here

[4:15] tonight to present to you an application for a zoning

[4:18] bylaw amendment for 105 Queen Street and 90 to 96

[4:24] barrack street. And with me, the other presenter is Ray

[4:31] Zaybak, and Ray is one of the founding partners of

[4:35] Schultz and Zacka architects. And is the designer of the

[4:39] project. And can I click. Or do I need to

[4:48] ask you. It's that one. Okay. Thank you.

[4:58] So. The property right now, if you're familiar with downtown

[5:04] is the staple store. And it's a tall one -

[5:08] story building, and it has its associated parking lot on

[5:13] Baggett and Bearik Street's kind of behind the store. And

[5:18] then along Beark Street, there's a small row of townhouses,

[5:23] an additional parking behind the townhouses. And two of the

[5:27] three units are also part of this project. You know,

[5:36] and looking at the history on this property, there's quite

[5:40] a bit of history. And in one of the earlier

[5:44] zoning bylaws dating back to 1993, the staple site was

[5:50] envisioned as a 22 - story or a 16 -

[5:53] story mixed use building. And then in 1993, an application

[6:01] came forward that proposed more of a bar - style

[6:04] building across the length of the property that was 10

[6:08] stories in height. And that building went to the Ontario

[6:12] Municipal Board where that approval was granted. That building was

[6:17] never built. And in 1999, the staple store was constructed.

[6:24] And since 1996, the site has been zoned a site

[6:29] - specific C1 - 4, which comes out of the

[6:34] old 1996 - 259 by - law. And that property,

[6:39] the staple side of the property has never been brought

[6:42] into the new zoning by law. Just taking a few

[6:49] quick existing condition photos. This is the view looking down

[6:55] Bagot Street between Annalene and the Staples Store. This is

[7:01] looking down Queen Street toward the water. This is looking

[7:06] at, this is broken in two images, but looking at

[7:10] the barrack Street frontage of the staple store and the

[7:14] townhouse. And this is a site showing it in the

[7:22] context of the downtown and some of the surrounding institutional

[7:26] recreational and park features that exist. The ring, the light

[7:32] ring on the image represents a 600 metre distance. So

[7:38] about a eight to 10 minute walk and giving you

[7:42] a sense of, you know, what some of those immediate

[7:46] Institutional and recreational features are. The site itself is located

[7:50] approximately 200 metres from the main bus downtown transfer point.

[8:01] You know, this is an area that has been transitioning

[8:05] over the last roughly 10 years, maybe slightly longer than

[8:10] that. And this slide is showing some of those existing

[8:15] and some of the ongoing newer construction apartments and condos

[8:21] in the area. On the west, the farthest, or sorry,

[8:28] I should say, it is the west. The nine -

[8:31] story apartment, uh, immediately to the west is Anne Lane,

[8:35] the nine story further to the west would be the

[8:37] crown condo building. Following down along Queen, the 23 story

[8:43] apartment is homestead's building that's constructed. The 19 story building

[8:50] is under construction right now. And just at the corner

[8:54] of Barrick and Wellington, there is a 25 story approved

[9:00] building, not yet built. Just giving you a sense of

[9:03] some of the transition that is occurring in the core

[9:06] of the downtown right now. All applications have to be

[9:14] consistent with the provincial planning statement. And the planning statement

[9:18] focuses on complete communities and housing supply and encourages municipalities

[9:25] to be very efficient with their land use. And particularly

[9:30] lands that are serviced. And it encourages a range of

[9:34] housing. And it would certainly identify places like Kingston's downtown

[9:40] as areas of higher density where residential growth should occur.

[9:46] So when we move into the official plan, we see

[9:48] those same themes of provincial policy carried forward. We see

[9:54] this designated as a central business district area. It permits

[9:59] the widest range of uses in the city. It permits

[10:03] the high density residential uses. And it's identified as an

[10:08] area where the city will intensify in a mixed use

[10:12] fashion. And on this site in particular, there is a

[10:16] requirement for ground floor commercial use. And the requirement for

[10:20] that transit - oriented and pedestrian - friendly urban design,

[10:26] those podium level, uh, important functions. You know, as we

[10:33] move deeper into official plan policy, we can see how

[10:37] the site is designated in the downtown in Harbour specific

[10:42] policy area, which highlights additional details on that downtown and

[10:46] business district. And again, you're seeing the echoing of that

[10:51] intensification and mixed use higher order development that is to

[10:56] occur in the downtown. When we look at this next

[11:00] slide, you can see that this area of the downtown

[11:04] is not impacting heritage and view planes that the city

[11:09] has established. Looking at the zoning bylaw, as I mentioned

[11:16] in an earlier slide, half of the site, the staples

[11:20] property remains under the old 1996 bylaw. And the couple

[11:28] of townhouses that are long Beark Street are in the

[11:33] new bylaw. And under that, old bylaw, the maximum permission

[11:38] is four stories with an angular plane that would allow

[11:41] a building up to 25 and a half stories on

[11:43] that staples site. So when we move forward with the

[11:51] project itself, this is a project that we believe is

[11:55] an underutilized site in a strategic location. And so the

[11:59] project that we're presenting to you tonight, we believe reinforces

[12:03] that walkable and transit supportive downtown community. And it follows

[12:10] design principles that the city has established. With the articulated

[12:15] podium. And Ray will be speaking more to that about

[12:18] the design elements, uh, in a moment. But it does

[12:22] follow those complete community principles that are established in the

[12:27] official plan. And so, Ray, I'm going to turn it

[12:30] over to you to speak about some of the building

[12:33] statistics and design elements. And you just, this is the

[12:39] clicker in the centre there. Good evening. My name's Raymond

[12:44] Zaybak. I'm an architect working out of Kingston. Here we've

[12:49] been in business in Kingston for about 37 years. Worked

[12:53] on many projects around the area. And, uh, specifically projects

[12:58] in the downtown area. So we, um, we sort of

[13:01] know the terrain. I'm just going to explain the project

[13:04] quickly. Mike's touched on a bit of this. So, uh,

[13:07] that's slides a good one. Sort of captures the, um,

[13:11] the whole project from above. It's comprised of a six

[13:15] - story podium with a single - story street -

[13:18] level commercial floor. Separated at the through block with a

[13:24] through block laneway for shipping and receiving. With two 19

[13:29] - story residential towers, placed at 90 degrees to one

[13:33] another. On opposite ends of an L - shaped site,

[13:36] the towers are separated by approximately 25 metres or about

[13:39] 82 feet at the corners. The fifth and sixth story

[13:45] of the podium are further recessed to reduce the scale

[13:49] of the podium to a street wall of four stories.

[13:53] So in total, the building's 24 stories, including the podium.

[14:00] Not including penthouse, mechanical penthouse, which at this point we've

[14:04] positioned on top of each building. So the residential towers

[14:09] are set back 15. 8 metres. From the adjacent property

[14:13] in Queen Street in 22 and a half metres from

[14:16] the adjacent property on barrack Street, the two edges of

[14:19] the property. There's a large retail commercial space that occupies

[14:24] the entire ground floor, except that laneway I talked about.

[14:28] It provides space for 25, 000 square foot retail store,

[14:33] approximately the size of the small, I think, slightly larger

[14:36] than the existing staple store. Um, and a 15, 000

[14:40] square foot easterly, um, commercial space on that ground floor.

[14:47] The intention here is that the staples star will remain

[14:50] on the property. The commercial space are designed that they

[14:55] can be subdivided into smaller spaces. We want the typical

[15:00] problems when we have large commercial spaces downtown. Is there

[15:03] not easily divisible into smaller units if the large tenant

[15:06] leaves? Uh, so design specifically to accommodate that purpose. Pedestrian

[15:13] access when the apartments is gained through lobbies and elevator

[15:18] cores located at the extreme corners of the property. It'd

[15:21] be one elevator core entrance for public on Queen Street.

[15:27] At the corner of Queen and Baggett. Our Queen and

[15:29] Baggett, yes. And the other at the northeast corner of

[15:33] the site. On Beark Street. And the reason that's done

[15:39] is, um, we are trying to provide unencumbered space within

[15:45] those big retail plates on the ground floor. So keeping

[15:48] the podiums at the extreme corners of the site. The

[15:53] second through sixth story of the podium of apartments facing

[15:56] barrick street Queens Baggett Street and Queen Street. So their

[16:01] apartments facing all the streets. You won't see parking garage.

[16:05] You know, cars visible from the street. This is all

[16:07] parking, sorry, all residential units in those locations with eyes

[16:12] on the street. There are outdoor amenity spaces planned for

[16:17] the roofs of the building. You can see on the

[16:19] top of the fourth floor, uh, the dark green indication

[16:24] there. This is our intention to be that would be

[16:26] rooftop amenity space on that level. There would be rooftop

[16:29] amenity space on the sixth level. And in behind the

[16:33] tower on the left there, you're looking, that's an image

[16:36] looking from barrack Street side of the building. In behind

[16:39] that building is another rooftop, which is, um, intended to

[16:43] be, uh. I'm an outdoor amenity space. Are those amenity

[16:48] spaces are adjacent to indoor amenity spaces within the buildings.

[16:53] Uh, on the site, the underground parking for 536 vehicles

[16:58] in underground, uh, I think somebody indicated they were to

[17:02] forced or is actually three stories of underground parking. So

[17:04] the three and a half stories. We have sloping parking

[17:07] decks, but it, um, about three stories of, um, real

[17:11] estate being taken out of the ground to provide the

[17:13] parking. Uh, 165 spaces for residential. That's a 0. 3

[17:18] to one parking ratio. Access to parking. You can see

[17:23] here Rito Street is the middle street at the lower

[17:27] left. There is a parking ramp which accesses the parking.

[17:31] It's directly opposite the end of Reedle Street. Bicycle parking.

[17:37] There's 549 bicycle parking spaces. Uh, planned for the site.

[17:43] 62 of those would be short term bicycle spaces. Shipping

[17:48] receiving an apartment moving will be done on the interior

[17:51] of the site midway through the block there. You'll see

[17:55] the entrance on the left is the parking ramp entrance.

[17:59] The entrance further to the west is the entrance to

[18:04] a through block Laneway. And this will accommodate loading and

[18:09] services for the commercial spaces. It all provides areas where

[18:15] apartment dwelled can move into their units can park off

[18:19] the street, move into their units offload there. So all

[18:25] of the, all of those services are internal in the

[18:28] site. And negotiation of large vehicles. On the surrounding streets.

[18:34] So currently occurs there, I think with staples, that will

[18:36] be eliminated through this proposal. The four story podium might

[18:44] touch on that. And I'll see some slides from street

[18:47] level in a moment. The four story podium is articulated

[18:50] vertically and horizontally to create a streetscape scale trip gestion.

[18:55] I mentioned the four story street wall on this building.

[19:00] Everything is recessed back from that, um, that forest story

[19:04] podium. And this podium actually drops down in spots. So

[19:07] the, um, we don't just have a big pancake of,

[19:11] of building on the ground with two towers protruding out

[19:14] of the top of it. We have, um, unarticulated facade

[19:19] along the street. She gives a more interesting and lively

[19:22] streetscape. I mentioned the amenity spaces at the fourth floor

[19:27] level. Um. There are some design components that we hope

[19:33] sort of respect some of the historic elements that are

[19:36] unique to the city of Kingston. One, of course, the

[19:40] surface materials. We're intending to use masonry. On the podium

[19:45] level of the building. Uh, that would be the brick

[19:48] or stone. In various different mass and components. Um, also

[19:55] the curved corners. Your interesting Kingston has some as renowned

[19:59] for a few buildings with some, um, beautiful curved corners.

[20:02] The S and R building, um, the old Victorian grey

[20:05] building on the corner of Wellington and Brock Street, for

[20:09] example, as well as Yoda LaSalle Hotel, which unfortunately was

[20:13] torn down years ago. But another curved building, what was

[20:16] the Bank of Nova Scotia that took its place? And

[20:18] I think it's now the bulk barn that occupies that,

[20:21] uh, that building. So this is those curved corners. They're

[20:26] practical, but they're in reference to some of the sort

[20:28] of unique architectural heritage features in the city. With regard

[20:33] to the immediate context, and we'll see some slides that

[20:36] illustrate this in a moment. The podium reduces the height

[20:39] at its edges along baric and Queen Street. To match

[20:42] the lower scale and fenestration of the adjacent historic structures

[20:47] there. So I'm going to just pan through some pan

[20:53] through some other slides. This is the view from the

[20:57] other side. You can see the lower level, the second

[21:00] story amenity space tucked in to the, um, to the

[21:06] 90 degree. Podium there. Uh, there are department certainly to

[21:11] balconies as well. And on that slide, one of the

[21:15] interesting things is the through block connection. You can see

[21:17] coming out onto Queen Street from the through block Laneway.

[21:22] So this is a plan of the building. Um, you

[21:25] can see the two large commercial spaces on the left.

[21:29] That's about 25, 000 square feet. You can see how

[21:31] the trucks would come into the, um, the service lane

[21:36] load into that building, also loading provisions for the smaller

[21:39] retail space to 15, 000 retail spacer commercial space. On

[21:43] the top right there. You can see the building cores,

[21:47] the entrances to the apartments at the bottom of that

[21:50] plan and at the top right corner. You can also

[21:53] see the parking ramp opposite Rito Street there, which takes

[21:56] you down to the lower parking levels. This is a

[22:02] view looking northwest along Queen Street. I think this slide

[22:09] tries to illustrate the scaling down of the building as

[22:13] you round the corner from, uh, Bagot Street onto Queen

[22:16] Street in this location. Bringing the building down to the

[22:20] scale of the existing historic rojas along that street. This

[22:29] is Barrick Street in Baggett Street. Another curved corner there.

[22:32] This might be the location. I mean, entrance to the

[22:36] larger retail store. And you can see this, I think

[22:39] this illustrates well, our intention to a sort of articulate

[22:42] that base in the building. Um, with shape and material.

[22:51] This is looking west on Bear Street. We are, um,

[22:57] we will have to modify the two existing houses there

[23:00] at the end of that, um, where it touches our

[23:03] new building. That's the location of the parking ramp, which

[23:07] takes you down into the parking level. And again, you

[23:10] can see the articulation of the, uh, of the building

[23:13] facade and the step back. To the higher towers. This

[23:23] is the same view sort of turned, uh, looking more

[23:28] southerly. That what it looks like garage door, a glass

[23:31] garage door, that is the actual entrance to the parking

[23:33] garage. There would be an apartment residential apartment above that

[23:38] space. Uh, that would be a walk up from the

[23:41] street level. That would not be connected by the corridor

[23:44] of the apartment building.

[23:59] All right. Thanks, Ray. Just a couple more slides to

[24:03] get into the questions here. And so this is, this

[24:07] is our opinion about, about the plan and how it

[24:11] meets some of the core urban design principles. In terms

[24:15] of looking at that skyline. And if you know the

[24:18] city's policies, you know the bunch of historic points where,

[24:22] where you look back at the city. And so that

[24:25] also, uh, is part of orienting the towers, uh, to

[24:30] frame in that, that view from city hall. It's behind

[24:33] City Hall not blocking city hall. So the, the whole

[24:41] reason that we're here this evening is because we need

[24:45] a site specific zoning bylaw amendment, uh, to bring this

[24:49] plan into conformity with the official plan. And so we

[24:54] want to bring the new, we want to bring the

[24:57] property into the new bylaw. So removing it from that

[25:01] 1996 bylaw and bring the entire site in. And at

[25:05] the same time, we would be dealing with our site

[25:08] specific provisions to deal with the height that we're asking

[25:11] for to deal with the parking requirements to deal with

[25:17] certain modifications to amenity areas, not reducing the amenity area,

[25:23] but the shapes. And just a few more technical natures,

[25:28] which is the nature of a zoning bylaw amendment. And

[25:34] if you've been to the city's website, uh, their dash

[25:38] hub has all of our materials on it, uh, which

[25:41] are publicly available. I've just listed off, uh, the studies

[25:46] that are included with our application. And as public

[25:56] comments have been coming in, uh, the city has been

[25:59] sharing those with us. And so I, I have grouped

[26:04] some of these comments into themes, which you see on

[26:08] the screen of noise and unit mix, traffic loading, heritage

[26:14] and shadows. And I want to talk noise first because

[26:19] I think with the comments that I was seeing, there

[26:22] is a slight misunderstanding in that, that we're asking for

[26:26] a class four designation, uh, on this property. And what

[26:31] that means is that's because the neighbourhood is noisy. It's

[26:36] not because our building is noisy. And so the ministry

[26:41] of environment and recognising that we do want to see

[26:45] infelling occur in locations like downtowns, which are noisier places.

[26:51] They allow, uh, they allow for noise exceedances. Um, and

[26:58] what that means is that the building will have to

[27:00] have, uh, air conditioning for every unit, you know, windows

[27:05] could potentially be triple pain rather than double, double pain

[27:09] as an example, but it is, it is a way

[27:11] of, um, making sure the building for the residents that

[27:16] live there, uh, is dealt with. Appropriately. We are currently

[27:22] working on the reverse. There was a comment saying, well,

[27:26] like how noisy is this building going to be. Typically,

[27:30] we don't know that answer until we get into detailed

[27:33] design. And we select the types of air handler units

[27:37] and things that go on a building like this. Um,

[27:40] but, but recognising the questions in that regard. We are

[27:45] having our noise consultant test, uh, test some materials, you

[27:52] know, for air handling and that that would be common

[27:55] to a building of this scale so that we can

[27:58] generate some of that information. Now unit mix right now

[28:04] is most certainly weighted toward one bedroom units. And we

[28:09] have two, we have 62 bedroom units. And really we

[28:12] only have two, three bedroom units, uh, in the proposal

[28:15] right now. But there's two things I want to point

[28:17] out. The reason that those are the unit mixes that

[28:21] we're proposing our, because that's what the market says we

[28:24] need in Kingston right now based on the other units

[28:27] that have been built. But the final unit mix will

[28:32] be subject to change. Like it will, we won't really

[28:35] know the final unit mix until the site plan control.

[28:39] So by designating with a lower, like a higher number

[28:44] of the smaller units ensures that we're assessing appropriately for

[28:49] things like amenity space and parking. Now there were some

[28:55] comments. There's, there's fear of traffic, like how much worse

[28:58] it's going to be, but what our traffic consultant has

[29:02] noted, you know, the whole site is offsite. There's no

[29:07] surface parking anymore. All the loading is entirely off -

[29:11] site. There will be no more backing up on city

[29:13] streets. There will be full service from within the site

[29:18] itself. So there were no concerns of parking and traffic

[29:23] congestion in that way. And I think it's also important

[29:26] to note that we are proposing a substantial amount of

[29:32] underground parking on this site. You know, with the hope

[29:36] that some of that space will become publicly available, uh,

[29:41] to help the downtown and it's, you know, it's broader

[29:45] parking needs, uh, that are required. You know, there are,

[29:51] there are comments about heritage. And I think race boat

[29:55] quite well to some of the design features. We worked

[29:58] closely with heritage consultants and coming up with this design

[30:04] and reviewing, uh, how the building is laid out. And

[30:08] those materials are available on dash to review. You know,

[30:14] I mentioned, uh, shadows, you know, shadows are always a

[30:19] concern when we're introducing tall buildings in a downtown. And

[30:24] I'm, I'm by no means going to tell you there's

[30:27] zero impact because that's not the case. There will be

[30:30] a change. And there are parameters that are set up,

[30:34] uh, that we follow when we're citing the buildings and

[30:37] reviewing. And these buildings pass those, those criteria that are

[30:42] set up in that regard. So to conclude, it's my

[30:51] opinion as a planner that this is good land use

[30:53] planning and that the zoning bylaw amendment is representative of

[30:58] the changes that are needing. It's consistent with the provincial

[31:01] planning statement. It's in conformity with the official plan. And

[31:06] it's going to introduce another opportunity for mixed use high

[31:11] density, uh, downtown. So that concludes our presentation. And I

[31:19] will sit beside Ray as we take the rounds of

[31:21] comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we'll

[31:30] now turn to members of the public. We are going

[31:32] to start with people who are in this room. And

[31:36] then after we have five speakers, we're going to go

[31:37] online for five more speakers. If you are in the

[31:40] room and would like to speak, could you just raise

[31:43] a hand so I have a sense of how many

[31:44] people we might have, give or take. Okay. Thank you.

[31:47] We have three people in the chairs already. I need

[31:49] two more people to come into these chairs, please. I'm

[31:52] going to start at the end and we'll work our

[31:54] way down. When it's your turn, you can turn on

[31:56] your microphone. Like I said at the start, the light

[31:59] will turn red. You'll have five minutes to speak and

[32:02] I'll give you a heads up when you only have

[32:03] 30 seconds left. So I'm not interrupting you, but I'm

[32:05] just letting you know your time's coming too close. Okay.

[32:08] Thank you. Oh, just up there. There's three. Yep. And

[32:13] the one more chair open as well if someone else

[32:15] would like to come and sit to speak. I know

[32:17] it's nervous wracking being one of the first, but you

[32:20] can do it. Okay. We're going to start here. Please

[32:22] state your name for the record and then I'll start

[32:24] your five minutes. Thank you. Good evening. My name is

[32:26] Avon Lee Martin and I'm here tonight because I believe

[32:29] we need to have a serious conversation about responsible development

[32:33] looks in downtown Kingston. I want to be clear this

[32:36] is not about being opposed to development or housing. Kingston

[32:40] needs housing. But we need the right housing and the

[32:42] right places supported by the infrastructure required to sustain it.

[32:46] The disproposal would add 536 rental units and two 24

[32:51] story towers and an already dense and historic part of

[32:53] downtown. The surrounding streets are narrow aging and already heavily

[32:58] used. And there are serious concerns about whether existing storm

[33:01] and COR infrastructure can support development of this magnitude. Density

[33:05] without adequate infrastructure is not responsible planning. And density without

[33:09] the housing Kingston actually needs as not solving our housing

[33:12] problem. The 536 proposed units only 60 are two bedroom

[33:17] units and just two are three bedroom units. There's also

[33:20] no proportion at allocation of affordable units identified. So we

[33:24] need to ask, who are we building the city for?

[33:26] Where are the homes for families? Where are the genuinely

[33:29] affordable units? Where are the housing options that allow people

[33:32] to put down roots and remain in Kingston? And why

[33:35] aren't we seriously exploring other desirable forms of housing. There

[33:38] is more than one way to create density. We can

[33:41] add much needed housing while still respecting the scale and

[33:44] character of existing neighbourhoods and providing the kinds of homes

[33:47] Kingston residents actually need. We also need to talk about

[33:50] the people who already live here. This is an established

[33:53] residential neighbourhood. We live here. We pay property taxes here.

[33:57] We have invested in our homes and our community. And

[34:00] one of the most significant impacts of these towers will

[34:02] be the loss of sunlight and natural light for existing

[34:05] residents and business owners. Many surrounding residences and businesses receive

[34:09] natural light from only one side. Existing buildings already cast

[34:13] significant morning shadow and adding two 24 story towers with

[34:17] dramatically intensify that impact. Potentially leaving neighbouring properties without any

[34:21] direct sunlight. I find it telling that none of the

[34:24] pictures in your presentation show the massive impact on the

[34:27] Andylene condo building. And this is more about losing a

[34:31] pleasant view or a little morning sun. Permanent shadow changes

[34:34] the environment of an entire neighbourhood. Trees, gardens and other

[34:37] vegetation that currently depend on sunlight could struggle or die.

[34:41] Well, residents and businesses would be left with darker spaces

[34:43] and a fundamentally altered quality of life. Once these towers

[34:46] are built to that sunlight is gone permanently. We cannot

[34:49] replace a mature trees and vegetation that die because their

[34:52] environment has changed and we cannot restore natural light to

[34:55] homes that have been placed in shadow. We have to

[34:57] ask whether sacrificing the light greenery and quality of life

[35:00] of an existing neighbourhood is a really inacceptable price for

[35:03] maximizing the height and density of one development. And we

[35:06] cannot keep saying that because other high rises have already

[35:09] been approved. Another one is acceptable. That should make us

[35:13] more concerned about the cumulative impact of concentrating mega high

[35:16] rises within the small area, not less concerned. At what

[35:20] point do we say enough. Kingston should grow, but growth

[35:23] does not mean that every available downtown property needs to

[35:25] become another 20 plus story tower. We need thoughtful intensification

[35:30] across our city. Mid - rise development townhomes, family -

[35:33] size departments, affordable housing, and a greater diversity of housing

[35:36] options. So I'm asking Council and City staff not simply

[35:39] to ask, can we fit this development here? Askin said,

[35:42] is this the right development for this location for the

[35:45] people who already live here and for Kingston that we

[35:49] want to build? Kingston needs housing, but we deserve development

[35:52] that provides the housing or community actually needs. Respects the

[35:55] infrastructure we actually have and recognises that existing residents matter

[36:00] too. We should not have to lose our quality of

[36:03] life so that a developer can gain more stories. Thank

[36:06] you. Okay, thank you. I fully understand the desire to

[36:16] clap. However, because this is a business meeting, we can't

[36:19] do it. So if you could just praise quietly in

[36:22] your head, it would be much appreciated. Thank you for

[36:24] being respectful. We'll go to our next speaker. Please state

[36:27] your name and you have five minutes. I'll let you

[36:28] know when you have 30 seconds left. Thank you. I'm

[36:31] Donna Johnson. I live at my husband and I. Oh,

[36:34] sorry. Is that okay? Hello, my name is Donna Johnson

[36:39] and my husband Shane Dark. Just a bit closer. How's

[36:44] that? All right. Is that good? There we go. There

[36:47] we go. Okay. One more time. Uh, my name is

[36:51] Donna Johnson and my husband and I live in the

[36:54] Annalaine development on Baggett Street. I have many concerns, much

[37:02] like Avenle regarding this proposed by La Amendment, uh, by

[37:08] the way. I also know I only have five minutes.

[37:11] So basically I'm going to concentrate on key issues. That

[37:15] have a cumulative effect. Of this massive development. And also

[37:20] firstly, I would like to request a peer review of

[37:23] the Heritage Study. Uh, because I saw a lot of

[37:27] discrepancies between the reports. Secondly regarding mass massing and density.

[37:36] The development roses net density of approximately 841 units. Per

[37:42] hectare. The city plan allows for 123 units per hectare.

[37:49] That is seven times greater. Than what the city plan

[37:53] allows for. That's a huge increase. Also noise impact, um,

[37:59] the gentleman mentioned that they'll do all kinds of triple

[38:02] painting, et cetera. To make it livable for the tenants

[38:06] who are going to live there in a C for,

[38:09] um, a class four noise environment. Well, with both the

[38:15] people who live around this building, we have, uh, the

[38:19] ability to change all our windows to triple pain. We

[38:23] have balconies that we enjoy. And what kind of enjoyment

[38:27] are we going to have once we're in that kind

[38:30] of noise volume. Um, class four is a maximum noise

[38:37] allowed province wide. And a downtown, this is downtown heritage

[38:42] Kingston. And not downtown Toronto. Another thing I do have

[38:49] a slide presentation. If you can, um, it's under my

[38:53] name. So it's around shadowing. And light deprivation. So next

[39:03] slide, please. So that particular slide there is giving you

[39:09] an illustration of March 21st at 8 a. m. So

[39:13] as you can see, it reaches right over to Belle

[39:17] Lava Street, which is right next to MacBony Park. And

[39:21] it covers Balaclava Bay Street, Sydden Street, Montreal Street, ordinate

[39:27] Street Baggett Street and Beark Street, as well as St.

[39:31] Paul's Church and adjacent properties northwest of the development. And

[39:35] when you look at that slide, look at the orange

[39:39] outline there. That tells you, it illustrates the shadowing from

[39:44] the approved towers already along Queen at Bark. This creates

[39:48] a huge area of light deprivation to a significant number

[39:53] of residents in the neighbourhood. An example I put there

[39:57] is the limestone terraces heritage. On the corner of Montreal

[40:02] and ordinance. They only have two sides to their windows.

[40:06] The front and the back. So their front facing windows

[40:10] will basically have no morning light for three quarters of

[40:13] the year. That is extreme light deprefation. Next slide, please.

[40:20] This one, um, is on June 21st. So the longest

[40:24] day of the year. And even on the longest day

[40:26] of the year, Annalene and St. Paul's is in shadow.

[40:33] Next slide. This one is, um, September 21st, or around

[40:38] this time of year, massive shadowing. And you can see

[40:43] it, um, it, the greatest extent of the morning period

[40:47] affects portions of Montreal Street Bagat Street St Paul's Church

[40:51] and west of the development beyond Sidnam Street. It doesn't

[40:54] even illustrate it how far it goes. And then next

[40:59] slide. So again, this is another slide on December 21st.

[41:05] The shortest day of the year at 9 a. m.

[41:08] the shadows reach their greatest extent of the morning period

[41:11] affecting portions of, again, ballot clav street by Bernie Park.

[41:16] Bay Street Sydden of Street. Montreal Street or Street Bagger

[41:20] Street and Park Street as well as church. And adjacent

[41:25] properties northwest of the development at 11 a. m. shadows

[41:30] impact remain evident on the portions of ordinance street, Baggett

[41:34] Street and Bear Street. The Heritage Impact Study concluded that

[41:40] although the redevelopment will result in a noticeable change to

[41:43] the area, it will not adversely impact a Jace inheritage

[41:48] resources or properties with known or potential cultural heritage. Five

[41:54] minutes, I'm sorry. Is it? Oh, I did. I missed

[41:56] it. Okay. Sorry. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I

[41:59] will go to our next speaker. Please state your name

[42:01] and you have five minutes. Yeah. And we'll just make

[42:04] sure. Yes. Thank you for turning that off. No problem.

[42:07] Um, I'm Peter McCantie. I identify myself as Aiden. Um,

[42:10] so I'll repeat what I told the mayor about a

[42:13] couple of years ago, which is, um, unless you can

[42:16] afford a budget a subway through solid granite in the

[42:20] downtown core were basically out of road space to build

[42:25] a upgrade or transit network. Like right now we have

[42:28] so many buses already going downtown and traffic's already getting

[42:32] pretty tight. Um, but the other thing I also want

[42:34] to discuss, which is something which I think is also

[42:36] badly missed in these, um, report like in this proposal

[42:40] is safety. Um, with the more you identify the downtown,

[42:45] the more you have issues with police response, fire response

[42:49] and all that stuff. Um, for example, um, not sure

[42:53] if many of you know this, but a lot of

[42:55] the major incident stuff gets sent from downtown station four,

[42:59] which includes like the technical rescue, the, uh, one of

[43:03] the latter trucks. We have two in the city, one

[43:06] of them which is 20 years old. And these replacements

[43:07] soon. We also have two aerials. Now this brings me

[43:10] another point, which is we don't have the, uh, equipment

[43:15] to, to, you know, respond to high rise fires in

[43:17] Kingston, even if we bought it, we need a place

[43:19] to put it. The more far trucks you need, the

[43:22] more parking space you need for it. Um, the war

[43:25] traffic you bring down, Tom, because of densification, the more,

[43:28] you know, the harder it is to respond. Um, and

[43:30] the other thing too is because of worse located downtown

[43:34] station four also responds to fires on highway two. For

[43:37] example, just yesterday there was a major fire within like

[43:40] five minutes of the Kingston boundary with, um, Lee's Grenville.

[43:44] And, uh, that required bringing the, um, like the, uh,

[43:50] platoon leader from station four plus one of their engines

[43:54] plus the volunteers from station one and all that stuff.

[43:57] Um, it's all sorts of stuff you guys can look

[43:59] up online. And honestly, I believe the last community risk

[44:02] assessment was in 2021. Since then, we've had at least

[44:06] 10 high rises built downtown, I believe, if I'm not

[44:08] mistaken. And, um, the impacts of these impacts on transit

[44:13] traffic and all that stuff has not really been analysed

[44:16] since that report was released. And I believe that further

[44:20] densifying downtown without putting the brakes on it is really

[44:23] important. Could you pull up a map of a Google

[44:26] Maps of Dantown Please if you can. But the big

[44:31] thing is if you look at a map of Kingston's

[44:34] downtown, it's like it's built for horse carriages. It's really

[44:39] like really hard to drive around unless you're in a

[44:42] horse carriage or, you know, you drive really slow. And

[44:45] the more traffic you stick down there, the more chances

[44:49] of pedestrians getting struck, uh, more chances of, you know,

[44:53] pollution. There's also the fact that you take away the

[44:55] character of the community. Like a lot of tourists come,

[44:58] The Kingston, because they love the old style of the

[45:01] city. It's not just a great lakes, which is wonderful,

[45:03] but it's also just the heritage. And we're losing that.

[45:07] Like I've been here since the nineties. It's what we've

[45:09] been dealing with. And if we look at Toronto, their

[45:12] traffic situation is critical. They, even though they're adding subways,

[45:15] they just don't have places to put cars. And it's

[45:19] causing a major issue. And I believe like, if you

[45:21] look like at Western Kingston, Northern Kingston, even the east

[45:25] side of Kingston with the Lab and Crossing, we have

[45:28] like four lane roads to handle that extra traffic. We

[45:30] have the space to densify. We have like more places

[45:34] to put businesses. Hell, we've got a brand new open

[45:38] space at the Kingston Centre once they got rid of

[45:40] the, uh, the, the, uh, Canadian tire. And I believe,

[45:45] I would love this project. I just don't want to

[45:47] downtown. I don't think we can support that sort of

[45:50] densification downtown. I think we're at the limit. We have

[45:54] to stop. And even though, even if we have to

[45:57] fight the province of this, because I know the land

[45:59] tribunal is going to fight tooth and nail on this,

[46:01] because I know that's what they're going to do if

[46:03] Kingston says no. We have to stop somewhere because eventually

[46:07] you're going to reach a point where we're going to

[46:08] have all these buildings, all these extra people coming to

[46:11] town, which are probably going to be middle upper class

[46:14] and probably will be commuting with their cars to Midtown

[46:17] Wedstown instead of downtown. You know, it's just going to

[46:20] cause a Cascade effect. And I honestly think we really

[46:24] need to do a rethink. And, um, even though I

[46:28] do agree with the fact like it's, it's, it's staples.

[46:32] It's not like a Heritage property like some of these

[46:34] other places which of unfortunately destroyed some of it. But

[46:37] it doesn't stop the fact that, you know, 30 seconds.

[46:41] Yeah. Thirst. It just doesn't stop the fact that we

[46:43] just need to stop, look at the public safety, look

[46:46] at the, you know, like sewer riff is structure. Like

[46:50] look structure on Princess. I think that had to happen

[46:52] because they're like, Oh crap, we don't have enough water

[46:54] for those new condos. So it's just we need to

[46:57] stop and reanalyze everything before we add anything else. Thank

[47:00] you. Thank you. If you can just turn off your

[47:04] microphone, Mary Sleep. Um, so we'll go to our next

[47:06] speaker state your name. You'll have five minutes. Thank you.

[47:08] Good evening. Thank you. My name is Scott Jackson. And

[47:11] I'm resident of downtown Kingston. I am here tonight to

[47:14] ask this committee to deny the zoning bylaw amendment of

[47:17] the proposed 24 story, twin towers at 105 Queen and

[47:21] Bear. While we all agree that downtown Kingston needs purpose

[47:25] built housing. Intensification cannot come at the cost of permanent

[47:29] architectural and cultural destruction of our historic core. This application

[47:34] represents a direct irreconcilable conflict with the city of Kingston

[47:38] official plan. First, this proposal permanently destroys the human scale

[47:43] protected under section two of the official plan. Our downtown

[47:47] streets like Barrick and Queen were laid out in pre

[47:50] - automobile erate corridors erecting a continuous six - story

[47:55] solid street wall podium topped by a 24 - story

[47:58] towers will trap these streets in dark windswept permanent shadow.

[48:03] It forces an aggressive urban canyonization into an intimately scaled

[48:09] historic neighbourhood stripping away the pedestrian first comfort that defines

[48:13] our downtown. Second, this proposal inflicts permanent damage on our

[48:19] historic skyline violating section 10A's strict mandates against a visual

[48:23] intrusion. Kingston's low to Mid - Rise profile punctuated by

[48:27] historic limestone masonry and church spires is a shared cultural

[48:31] accet. A 24 - story vertical mass will stand as

[48:35] an incongruous visual monolith visible from the waterfront to the

[48:39] market square. It will visually engulf and dwarf the surrounding

[48:42] heritage properties, including the heritage easement at 90 to 92

[48:46] barrack and my own home. Finally, we must look to

[48:51] establish planning jurisprudence right here on Queen Street in its

[48:55] landmark August 2019 decision, the local planning appeal tribunal explicitly

[48:59] rejected high - rise towers on this streetscape. There's tribunal

[49:04] rule that dropping towering vertical masses into Kingston load amid

[49:07] rise low to mid - rise fabric constitutes an unacceptable

[49:11] quote visual intrusion and architectural incompatibility. At 24 stories, this

[49:18] proposal is even taller and denser than the footprints, the

[49:21] tribunal previously warned would fracture the cultural fabric of the

[49:24] city. If this committee approves a site - specific exception

[49:29] overlay of this magnitude, it will set a dangerous, irrevocable

[49:32] planning precedent. It signals to the development industry that our

[49:36] historic guidelines are completely negotiable. Paving the way for future

[49:40] high - rises to systematically dismantle our historic core. I

[49:44] urge this committee to uphold the Integrity of our official

[49:47] plan, honour past tribunal precedence and deny this amendment. Thank

[49:51] you. Okay, thank you. Uh, we'll go to our next

[49:55] speaker. Please state your name. You have five minutes. My

[49:59] name is Gene Ryan. Before the clock starts, I would

[50:02] request that my PowerPoint be put up.

[50:15] My name is Gene Ryan. I'm here to ask the

[50:19] planning committee and planning staff to uphold the official plan

[50:24] and uphold zoning by laws. Um, I'm starting with the

[50:28] focus on the proposal site - specific exception overlay because

[50:33] it's really the crux of what this building is requiring

[50:36] to get built. Next slide, please. Downtown 1 allows

[50:46] 4 - 6 stories maximum. What's being asked for with

[50:51] this reposal when multiply that by a factor of 424

[50:55] stories. Downtown 1 allows 4 maximum density of 123 dwelling

[51:01] units. What this proposal would require would almost times that

[51:07] by 7 to 141 units. The idea that this proposal

[51:14] in any way is actually representative of downtown 1 is

[51:18] clearly not the case. And what we're seeing here is

[51:23] a site - specific exception for the proposal that creates

[51:28] a holy new MiniZone that does not conform with the

[51:31] official plan and does not follow the zoning by a

[51:34] laws of the area. Next slide please. We've been seeing

[51:39] this with increasing regularity. It's creating terrible destructive precedent for

[51:45] the city. And with each new approved site - specific

[51:51] overlay, aka new non - conforming MiniZone, it creates the

[51:58] precedent that the next proposal relies on. Should this be

[52:02] approved. We can be sure that we'll see it. And

[52:06] yet an upcoming application. Next slide please. Another site

[52:16] citation from the justification report itself. This proposal would greatly,

[52:23] diversely impact a hugely important heritage area of the city.

[52:29] And beyond that cause immeasurable adverse impacts for residents in

[52:34] the area. But more than simply residents in the area,

[52:38] it's the city of the Kingston as a whole. Next

[52:40] slide, please. The OLT is very clear about The fact

[52:47] that municipalities absolutely have the right. To enforce their official

[52:54] plan and zoning by laws. And we saw that just

[52:57] this past May related to an Intensification proposal in Orangeville.

[53:02] The alts, he was very clear about the fact that

[53:04] Intensification is only one policy set. That the city and

[53:11] its councillors are expected to uphold. And that Intensivication cannot

[53:16] be prioritized over a competing policies, including those to preserve

[53:22] neighbourhood character. Next slide, please. With increasing frequency, we see

[53:30] these applications come forward for the most desirable real estate

[53:35] in Kingston. More developers can charge the highest rents. And

[53:39] I don't blame developers for doing that. That's their job.

[53:43] They're here to maximize their development. I am calling on

[53:47] the city both staff and council to make sure though

[53:51] that our choices for housing uphold the official plan follow

[53:57] zoning bylaws for all of us, not just developers. We

[54:01] all know, for example, residents who are unable to read

[54:04] you their deck, for example. Because they don't, they aren't

[54:08] granted the variants that's requested. This is far more than

[54:14] that. Again, it would create a new MiniZone that's completely

[54:19] non - conforming with the official plan and with the

[54:21] zoning by laws. And it does not meet our needs.

[54:26] This is from August just this past summer. Kingston out

[54:31] of 243 cities ranks 150 eighths in affordability. We've been

[54:38] playing, we've been building plenty of units though. And for

[54:42] that reason, we're really high up in terms of availability.

[54:46] Coming in number four. Thank you. Coming in at number

[54:50] fourth out of 243 cities in terms of apartments being

[54:54] available. I know that we can do better and it

[54:58] will ask, please, all of our city officials and all

[55:01] of our public servants to serve the whole city. All

[55:05] of us residents. It's not that we trust you. It's

[55:08] that we depends on you. Thank you. Thank you very

[55:12] much. Okay, so we've had five speakers in the room.

[55:17] We're going, I'm so sorry. We are going to go

[55:19] to the applicant for response, after which we'll come back

[55:25] into the room. So if you are in the room

[55:26] and would like to speak, you're welcome to go sit

[55:28] there and be comfortable. If you're happy where you are,

[55:29] that's fine. Um, and I'll turn it over to the

[55:31] applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did document

[55:37] all the comments that were received in my approach is

[55:40] typically to document comments and to start questions, uh, of

[55:45] the application. Most of what I heard were statements. I

[55:48] haven't starred any questions. Um, so I've noted the comments

[55:53] and would be prepared to move to the next five

[55:55] if there is a question that you thought was in

[55:57] there that you would like me to address. I'd be

[56:00] happy to do so, but I didn't hear any questions

[56:01] of us. Thank you.

[56:26] Yeah, I would agree that they were, um, they were

[56:29] statements that were made. I did not record any questions

[56:31] either. Aside from a request for peer review. Would that

[56:34] go to staff or the applicant. Staff, Mr. Bar. Thanks.

[56:39] And through you chair, that is a request that, you

[56:41] know, staff will undertake and bring back to our partners

[56:45] inheritage services. Thank you. Okay. In that case, we will

[56:50] go online. If you are on Zoom and you would

[56:53] like to speak, please raise your virtual hand. Through your

[57:01] Madam Chair. I'll recognise Jennifer Hosek. Thank you. Hi, Jennifer.

[57:07] Please state your name and you will have five minutes

[57:09] to speak. Thank you. I'm Jennifer Hosek. Thank you. I'm,

[57:14] I'm on not finding my camera. And yes, and I'm

[57:19] not in Kingston currently because I'm a way at work.

[57:22] Otherwise I would certainly be here. I must absolutely applaud

[57:28] the speakers up till now who did such a good

[57:32] job making actual arguments. And rather than, um, I would

[57:39] say from the point of view of the, uh, you

[57:42] know, hearing the developer speak to simply list the concerns

[57:46] that we have and that we have sent in various

[57:49] letters, um, and not really give an actual response to

[57:55] them, but rather to simply diminish them. And I again,

[57:59] I think that following the lead of the, of the

[58:02] people who have been speaking would really be the way

[58:05] to go because they're, they're, um, they're offering actual factual,

[58:11] um, factual facts, basically facts, uh, to show how it's

[58:18] going to be so detrimental to have these towers. Now

[58:22] I know that I am a person who, uh, has

[58:25] money and chose to live downtown. And I want to

[58:28] live in a livable downtown city. And I also live

[58:32] in Analene. So I'll also be a person who won't

[58:35] have any direct son for the rest of my life

[58:38] if I continue to live in that building. And so

[58:42] one question that I have for the developer is, uh,

[58:46] and, you know, I'm not a professional city planner. I'm

[58:50] just an educated person. So, uh, I hope that we

[58:53] can ask the question in a way that, you know,

[58:56] speaks to actual bylaws and so forth. Is it like

[58:59] in what way is it actually legal to, you know,

[59:03] cast that kind of shadow that the previous speaker also

[59:06] shown influences so many people, how is it possible for

[59:11] that to happen? The second question is related to the

[59:15] towers. Why is it the case that or is it

[59:18] not the case that there's a difference between a nine

[59:21] story building and a 24 story building? I think that

[59:24] one of the speakers spoke factually to the case, to

[59:29] the argument that 24 stories is simply not legal. My

[59:34] proposal would be to not have the towers. Just don't

[59:37] have the towers. If you're going to have the towers,

[59:40] then nine story level should be the maximum. In addition,

[59:46] if we really need to have the nine story towers

[59:50] move one of the towers, make it smaller and move

[59:52] it to have it go along Queen so that the

[59:55] people in Annalaine, and here maybe I'm being selfish, um,

[1:00:00] get to have the light that they signed up for.

[1:00:03] I actually happened to, um, have that, um, sad, um,

[1:00:08] condition. So like that disability condition where I have to

[1:00:11] have light and, you know, we all know that we

[1:00:14] have that kind of winter blues. And then my final

[1:00:18] question is, what about the flooding my compatriots have spoken

[1:00:25] to many of the issues like noise and traffic and

[1:00:29] heritage. And I think and the shadows, that's all completely

[1:00:33] accurate. And I'd like there to be discussion of flooding

[1:00:36] because almost every year there are issues around Annalene and

[1:00:40] sometimes annine actually gets flooded because the sewers are simply

[1:00:46] the storm sewers are not big enough. And I, I

[1:00:49] want that problem. Um, I mean, that problem is going

[1:00:52] to be exacerbated, may not be a city planner, uh,

[1:00:57] but I'm sure that it'll be exacerbated by that building.

[1:01:00] So, uh, the question is how is that going to

[1:01:02] get mitigated? And I completely, um, I apologise again that

[1:01:07] I don't, um, get to show you my, um, my

[1:01:10] very serious face at this moment. And I see the

[1:01:14] remaining minutes to this subsequent, uh, speaker. Thank you. Okay.

[1:01:20] Thank you very much. We'll have a look online and

[1:01:22] go to our next speaker. Is there anyone else online

[1:01:31] who would like to speak. Please raise your hand. Thank

[1:01:34] you. Through Madam Chair, I'm recognised Barbara Bater. Hi Barbara,

[1:01:42] you have five minutes. Thank you very much. I just

[1:01:49] came to this issue very recently yesterday. I saw it

[1:01:57] something about it on, on Facebook. So I apologise. I

[1:02:01] also came to the meeting late, but I thought I

[1:02:03] had signed up. So I would show up. Um, I'm

[1:02:07] speaking a bit off the top of my head, but

[1:02:10] I lower my hand here. Um, hope you can hear

[1:02:15] me. And I really applaud the two speakers, I think,

[1:02:22] was it Mike Johnson? I'm not quite sure. And the

[1:02:24] woman after him spoke very, very well about the heritage

[1:02:30] nature of the neighbourhood. Also staples is a terrific store.

[1:02:39] Um, I was actually in there today. And this may

[1:02:45] seem like a secondary topic, but, but all of the,

[1:02:51] one of the staff said that. Most of the downtown

[1:02:55] businesses rely on their printing services. Uh, anyway, I won't

[1:03:00] belabor that point, but it's a terrific store. I use

[1:03:04] it a lot myself and love it. Um. Since there

[1:03:09] aren't, sorry. I just have a real support for the

[1:03:19] two speakers and preserving the heritage nature, the avoiding some

[1:03:25] of the traffic issues. We just have to slow down

[1:03:29] and think about what we're doing. Before we go ahead.

[1:03:36] And I. Apologise for if I'm a bit rough here.

[1:03:40] I, I have never gone to a meeting like this

[1:03:43] before. So I'm putting my, uh, thank you. Okay. Thank

[1:03:51] you very much. And no worries if you've never been

[1:03:53] before. That's what this is for. This is the process.

[1:03:55] So if you've never done it and you're nervous, that's

[1:03:57] normal. Uh, we're glad you're here. We're glad you're participating.

[1:04:00] Um, is there anyone else online? Okay. Through you, Madam

[1:04:03] Chair, I'll recognise Colleen Murphy. Thank you. If you could

[1:04:06] just state your name, uh, for the record and then

[1:04:08] you have five minutes. Thank you.

[1:04:31] Colleen, we're unable to hear you in the room. It

[1:04:37] does appear that you've been unmuted. But we'll try again.

[1:04:55] Okay. Colleen, we are still unable to hear you. So

[1:04:58] we'll move on to the next speaker, but you can

[1:05:00] try logging on again. Um, and we can try again

[1:05:02] later. Or you can submit your statements, uh, through email.

[1:05:06] So we'll move on to Melissa Reed. Thank you. Please

[1:05:11] state your name and you have five minutes. My. Name

[1:05:20] is Melissa Reed. Um, I will skip the. Comments I

[1:05:25] have and just go right to the questions. Since this,

[1:05:28] um, building, uh, it will be built on a landslope.

[1:05:33] And the geography of the address has not been addressed.

[1:05:38] What specific independent third party hydrological and geotechnical studies have

[1:05:41] been reviewed guarantee that three level underground digging for these

[1:05:45] two 24 story towers will not act as a subsurface

[1:05:50] dam all drained groundwater flow and causing chronic flooding or

[1:05:53] foundational fraction neighbouring properties down the road. My second question

[1:05:56] is without a legal binding agreement ensuring actual deep level

[1:06:01] affordable housing units. How can a committee justify approving a

[1:06:05] massive twin tower development that actually bypasses our cities official

[1:06:09] plan and our community's urgent need for housing? Thank you.

[1:06:16] Okay. Thank you very much. Just looking online again.

[1:06:26] Okay. Not seeing anyone line. Um, we finally had three

[1:06:29] speakers. If anyone in the room would like to speak

[1:06:31] if you don't mind coming and sitting these chairs, please.

[1:06:33] Thank you. We'll just give a moment to check online

[1:06:35] again while you're getting settled.

[1:06:47] Okay. We'll recognise Carrie Hill. Hi, please state your name

[1:06:52] and you have five minutes.

[1:07:13] Carrie, we're not able to hear you in chambers. For

[1:07:19] those online, sometimes it can be a case of headphones

[1:07:21] or whatever other technology you're using to listen and speak.

[1:07:36] Can you hear. Me now. There we go. We can

[1:07:38] hear you now, Carrie. Thank you. Okay. I don't know

[1:07:41] what I did. But any. My name is Carriell. And,

[1:07:45] um. I. Really just have one question. I'm just wondering

[1:07:52] whether either the owner of the property. Or any of

[1:07:56] the developers or planners involved. Were at the. Meoral candidate.

[1:08:02] Meeting on Monday evening. The reason why I'm asking this

[1:08:07] is that all four candidates said no to any further

[1:08:12] high rises in downtown Kingston. That's, that's my question. Thank

[1:08:18] you. We're not seeing anyone else online. Just double checking

[1:08:24] one more time. I'll recognise Colleen Murphy. We'll try Colleen

[1:08:32] again. Can you. Hear me now. We can. Oh my

[1:08:40] goodness. Gracious. Thank you so much. So my name is

[1:08:44] Colleen Murphy. My husband and I live in the Annaline

[1:08:47] building facing the St Paul's side. My dad also lives

[1:08:51] in Annalene facing the staple side. I'm here this evening

[1:08:55] to highlight some of my family's main concerns about the

[1:08:58] proposed high rise development. So we've heard this, but I'm

[1:09:03] going to just repeat. Um, one concern is traffic congestion.

[1:09:07] So the area is already and you probably know this

[1:09:09] already, but the area is already prone to heavy traffic

[1:09:13] congestion. Especially during rush hour and event times. Narrow roads

[1:09:18] are prominent in this area. It is often difficult for

[1:09:21] us to enter or exit by car to our building.

[1:09:25] The two parking garages face staples. People in our building

[1:09:29] need to get to where they are going properly. Having

[1:09:32] to wait to enter or exit the building is anticipated

[1:09:36] to be longer due to the added population density. And

[1:09:40] during construction time. So the narrative needs to be a

[1:09:44] thoughtful traffic flow plan on how to deal with more

[1:09:48] traffic congestion due to the added population density that this

[1:09:52] area will experience. Condition of our roads is another concern.

[1:09:57] The roads in our area are already needing repair, especially

[1:10:01] along Cleen Street. Heavy trucks for construction will damage our

[1:10:06] streets further. So there needs to be a plan to

[1:10:09] mitigate damage to our roads and a plan for immediate

[1:10:12] repair post construction. Another issue has been mentioned, but I'll

[1:10:18] repeat proposed height of the twin buildings will affect a

[1:10:21] few things, including the beauty of our downtown, which is

[1:10:25] already at risk with the number of tall high raises

[1:10:28] being built. These towers will certainly disrupt the beauty of

[1:10:31] the downtown. Kingston is well known for its downtown heritage

[1:10:35] buildings, including around the proposed development. People come from far

[1:10:40] away to experience Kingston downtown. Let's try to preserve the

[1:10:44] beautiful character of our downtown. There will be diminished natural

[1:10:48] sunlight as people have mentioned for our building and surrounding

[1:10:51] areas. Some of us actually use our balconies and outside

[1:10:55] spaces as extensions of our own homes. We grow gardens

[1:10:59] and enjoy the sunlight, which is important to our health.

[1:11:02] These towers threatened to completely block our sunlight and impact

[1:11:05] our health. There is already a significant wind tunnel, which

[1:11:09] I don't think has been mentioned along Queen Street, especially

[1:11:12] along the corner and in front of our building. I've

[1:11:15] experienced such wind tunnels or excessive winds outside tall buildings.

[1:11:20] The high buildings being proposed most likely will exasperate the

[1:11:23] wind in the area. My dad will certainly have a

[1:11:26] tough time walking with anticipation of a moment to conditions.

[1:11:31] 24 floors is unacceptable. We need to consider lowering the

[1:11:35] number of floors significantly. Our building was only allowed for

[1:11:39] nine floors just to put this all into perspective. There

[1:11:42] were valid reasons at the time for limiting the height

[1:11:45] of buildings. Another issue that I anticipate is garbage and

[1:11:50] recycling. There's already a lot of recycling and garbage in

[1:11:53] the area. Often the weekly garbage and recycling is disturbed

[1:11:56] and access garbage blows everywhere. And our flower beds on

[1:12:00] our sidewalks and on our streets. There will be excessive

[1:12:03] garbage and recycling in this area impacting downtown. The plan

[1:12:07] needs to think thoughtfully about how to contain the mess

[1:12:11] in the downtown area. There's a strain on our storm

[1:12:14] sewers as people have mentioned. And when it rains, and

[1:12:17] I believe the previous speaker spoke to this, the large

[1:12:19] puddles that form along Vegot Street. And this can especially

[1:12:23] be slippery when the puddles freeze. So we need to

[1:12:26] ensure walkability at no flooding along Baggett Street. We're concerned

[1:12:30] about the infrastructure strain on an already strained system. There

[1:12:34] will be greater overflowing flooding due to having this increase

[1:12:38] of 536 units. We need to have the plan or

[1:12:42] update our storm sewers in the area before any construction.

[1:12:46] The bright lights at night will increase from being in

[1:12:49] close proximity proximity, which will certainly impact us, including during

[1:12:54] construction time. We will all have to have heavy curtains

[1:12:58] to block out the light at night. And just a

[1:13:01] couple more things. Added pollution, including noise pollution, especially during

[1:13:05] construction times. We have all suffered enough from the noise

[1:13:09] and added pollution from the many buildings going up along

[1:13:12] Queen Street. Many people in our buildings are shift workers.

[1:13:16] The constant noise greatly impacts our sleep and quality of

[1:13:19] life. And finally, parking. Well, this proposed twin towers decrease

[1:13:23] parking for those visiting the downtown. We already have limited

[1:13:26] parking downtown. We want to attract people to come 30

[1:13:30] seconds. And people who work downtown need a place to

[1:13:34] park. Thank you. That's it for me. Okay. Thanks very

[1:13:38] much. Uh, so we're going to pause the speakers there.

[1:13:41] We'll turn to the applicant for responses to questions and

[1:13:43] then we'll come back in the room. Thank you, Madam

[1:13:47] Chair. And through you, one of the first questions related

[1:13:51] to, like, is it legal to cast a shadow on

[1:13:56] a property? And I have to admit, I've actually never

[1:14:00] been asked that question before. So I will have to

[1:14:02] do a bit of investigation. Uh, into that and provide

[1:14:06] a response to the planning committee, uh, rather, uh, planning

[1:14:11] staff to bring back to this committee. What, what I

[1:14:15] would say in terms of views and shadow impact is

[1:14:19] that the official plan does lay out policies. It does

[1:14:23] have protected views. Uh, and this isn't one of those

[1:14:27] protected views. And when we conduct shadow studies, there are

[1:14:32] terms of reference in terms of, of what is an

[1:14:36] acceptable shadow. And there is no doubt these buildings will

[1:14:40] cast shadows. They will change what people know today. But

[1:14:45] they are within the limits of those parameters, uh, that

[1:14:48] are set. There was a comment, a few comments about,

[1:14:56] uh, about flooding. Uh, and about storm sewers that, uh,

[1:15:03] in poor condition, they're at their maximum. And that is

[1:15:06] something that, that we acknowledge. There are improvements. That will

[1:15:12] be necessary. Yeah. There's, there's still a combined sewer on

[1:15:16] Beark Street. They would have to be, uh, separated stormwater

[1:15:20] from, from sewer. So these are known, uh, issues that

[1:15:23] will have to be addressed through the development process. There

[1:15:29] was a comment about, uh, staples and how important it

[1:15:33] is to the downtown. And it is certainly the intent

[1:15:35] to keep, uh, staples on the site.

[1:15:46] Uh, there was a question about garbage and how that

[1:15:51] might impact the area and all the garbage would be

[1:15:54] handling would be handled internal to the site. There's not,

[1:15:57] there would not be garbage brought to the curb. Uh,

[1:16:00] at this project. There was a question about what hydrogeological

[1:16:08] studies have been conducted. There have only been preliminary look

[1:16:13] at the site right now. So as, as the project

[1:16:16] moves forward into a site plan level, that's when those

[1:16:20] hydrogeological studies would be conducted, uh, they'll be conducted for

[1:16:24] a number of reasons. One is defined water levels. The

[1:16:28] site will also be subject to what's called a record

[1:16:29] of sight condition. Uh, which is a site proving it

[1:16:34] is safe from contamination for residential use. So those are

[1:16:38] studies that have only been started in a preliminary way.

[1:16:43] And we'll come later in the process. In similar vein,

[1:16:48] it was recommended to put a legally binding agreement, uh,

[1:16:52] to have deeply affordable housing on the site. Those are

[1:16:56] all, all negotiations that come, uh, much later in the

[1:17:01] process. There was a question about if this would be

[1:17:05] decreasing parking in the downtown. And our project is actually

[1:17:10] proposing parking that would be publicly available. Should it be

[1:17:15] built? So we are actually proposing a surplus of parking

[1:17:18] to the residential use and the commercial, uh, users of

[1:17:22] the site, like specifically having spaces reserved for staples and

[1:17:26] another user. And on top of that, there would be

[1:17:29] a surplus of parking that, that we'd like to figure

[1:17:31] out how those spaces could become publicly available.

[1:17:41] And I believe that's it, Madam Chair, but if I've

[1:17:44] missed any, by all means, I'm happy to. Thanks. Um,

[1:17:47] I do have just to, so the, there was a

[1:17:50] question around the difference between a nine story and a

[1:17:52] 24 story tower. I think at the core of that

[1:17:54] question was, um, I'm paraphrasing here, but could the towers

[1:17:58] be nine stories tall. Well, through you, Madam Chair, like

[1:18:05] we're, we're, we're proposing 24 stories and we believe that

[1:18:08] our studies demonstrate that they're appropriate for the site. And,

[1:18:13] uh. You know, Will await staff comments. We don't have

[1:18:16] any comments from staff yet on this project. Maybe that's

[1:18:19] something important for the public to know. Uh, so, so

[1:18:22] that, that's our proposal for now. And we believe our

[1:18:25] studies demonstrate the heights are appropriate. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:18:29] And just one more, I'd like to touch on, you

[1:18:31] did mention a bit The flooding. There were concerns expressed

[1:18:33] on question around Annalene, um, storm sewers and how will

[1:18:36] flooding be mitigated. So again, I believe you indicated that

[1:18:39] those studies are yet to come. Is that correct? Yes.

[1:18:42] Through you, Madam Chair partially, like we, we do have

[1:18:44] a servicing study that's been completed for the property. So

[1:18:49] we're aware of upgrades that are necessary, particularly along Beark

[1:18:53] Street. So there are upgrades that are going to be

[1:18:56] unnecessary in the neighbourhood. Thank you. Um, did planning staff

[1:19:01] wish to comment, Mr. Bar. Thanks and through you chair

[1:19:05] just to build off, uh, the comments from Mr. Keene.

[1:19:09] Staff are still reviewing this application. We have not released

[1:19:11] any comments. So the public dialogue that we're listening to

[1:19:14] tonight will form part of our, uh, comments back to

[1:19:18] the applicant on their complete submission. So, um, building off

[1:19:22] of that, I just want to clear up two other

[1:19:24] points. The first, um, about the mayoral debate question, um,

[1:19:29] I'm not aware and I cannot speak for all staff,

[1:19:31] but staff and attendance tonight, we're not at the debate,

[1:19:33] but at least myself and a couple other staff members

[1:19:35] are tracking the election and things that are commented on,

[1:19:39] you know, and reported on through the paper as well.

[1:19:42] Additionally, there was a question about, is it illegal to

[1:19:45] cast a shadow? Not that I am aware of, especially

[1:19:48] in the planning practice, property shadow other properties, whether they

[1:19:52] are one story high, three stories high or 20 stories

[1:19:55] high, just depending on how close the building or structure

[1:19:58] is located to another property. Someone's rear yard shed, that

[1:20:02] is three metres high could be construed as casting a

[1:20:04] shadow on someone's property if the fencing or other buffering

[1:20:07] around it just depends on how close it is to

[1:20:08] the lot line. What staff evaluate when we're looking at

[1:20:12] shadowing is not whether or not a shadow is cast

[1:20:16] on a property, but what we evaluate is undue adverse

[1:20:19] impact. So we're looking at how long a shadow was

[1:20:22] on a property and when throughout the year that happened.

[1:20:24] So we do have parameters by which we evaluate this

[1:20:27] under the official plan to conclude whether or not a

[1:20:30] shadow actually constitutes undue adverse impacts or not. So that

[1:20:35] does form part of our review. And we are reviewing

[1:20:37] the shadow study as part of this application. Thank you.

[1:20:42] And just as part of that, um, one of the

[1:20:45] questions were the applicants that the mayoral candidate debate on

[1:20:48] Monday were the applicants there. Through you, Madam Chair, I

[1:20:55] don't know. I was not there. Um, and I know,

[1:20:59] uh, Ray said he was not either. So I'm, I'm

[1:21:01] not sure. But, um, we are also following the campaign

[1:21:04] quite closely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So

[1:21:08] we're going to our third round of questions. We're going

[1:21:10] in the room. I see we have four of five

[1:21:12] chairs filled. Is there anyone else in room who would

[1:21:14] like to speak if you would please, I wish I

[1:21:18] could let you speak again, but it can't. Sorry. Sorry,

[1:21:22] we can't have a chat right now, but we can

[1:21:23] chat after. That'd be fine. Um, anyone else in room

[1:21:26] who wishes to speak. Seeing none. Okay. We'll do the

[1:21:30] four folks we have in here. So we'll start at

[1:21:32] this end and work our way down. Turn on your

[1:21:34] microphone. Please state your name and then you'll have five

[1:21:37] minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh, my name's Ken Schmidt.

[1:21:41] I'm a resident of the Annaline condominium building. And, um,

[1:21:46] I, uh, want to ask a question if the submitted

[1:21:50] comments, the written submitted comments that I made, uh, a

[1:21:54] couple of weeks ago to city, would they be included

[1:21:56] in all the information that goes to the planning department.

[1:22:00] So all the comments I made about shadows, et cetera,

[1:22:02] et cetera would be in there as well as the

[1:22:04] diagrams. Perfect. So just a few questions. Um, the shadow

[1:22:11] criteria that's set up, the developers referred to and the

[1:22:16] city. Is it city, um, or developer run. And is

[1:22:21] it city standards or developer standards. The second question I

[1:22:25] had was regarding the articulated podium, uh, was referred to

[1:22:30] by the gentleman, the designer, uh, Ray, I'm sorry, Zaybak.

[1:22:40] And explain very well about it being articulated. However, I

[1:22:43] believe, and I'm asking the question, is it articulated on

[1:22:48] the baguet street side of the structure? I believe it

[1:22:52] is not that the residential tower that fronts on baguet

[1:22:57] Street rises vertically like a 24 story, actually 25 story

[1:23:02] wall because there's a, uh, elevator compartment at the top,

[1:23:06] which is three times higher than the antelane building. And

[1:23:09] it would be directly across the street rising virtually from

[1:23:13] street level directly, vertically and no articulation. Um, and, um.

[1:23:20] That's actually, that's the two questions I had because I,

[1:23:24] you answered the question about the submission. Thank you. Thank

[1:23:28] you. Um, we'll head to the next speaker over. Hi.

[1:23:37] Please you'll turn on your microphone state your name and

[1:23:39] I'll give you five minutes. Oh, okay. Um, my name

[1:23:42] is Diane Scott. I also live in the Annalena Apartments

[1:23:48] and we are going to be the most of really

[1:23:51] affected people in this cityscape. I live in the sixth

[1:23:56] floor in about the middle of the building. Not only

[1:24:01] will I not have any sunlight. I will not have

[1:24:04] any sky view because of the fact that we have,

[1:24:08] um, uh, balconies that overhang our windows so that even

[1:24:13] if the sun is directly ahead for a short period

[1:24:16] of time, I will not be able to see it

[1:24:19] because there is the bottom floor of a balcony right

[1:24:22] over top of my balcony. So. In Connect also in

[1:24:27] connection with the view. Now this is not, I can't

[1:24:33] give you a nice little slide that I have prepared

[1:24:41] to show, because I'm not exactly sure where the building

[1:24:46] starts and where the building ends. But having done a

[1:24:50] little preliminary standing in my living room, like, um, you

[1:24:54] know, one foot from the window, well, it's actually a

[1:24:58] patio d'or, um, and then stepping back two feet and

[1:25:03] stepping back three feet. If I press my nose against

[1:25:07] the window, I might, might possibly see the sky, but

[1:25:13] I don't think so. I will see nothing to the

[1:25:16] left, nothing to the right except a building in front

[1:25:20] of me. And I will be in The Dark all

[1:25:24] the time. Now this affects also not just my, this

[1:25:28] affects the building in many ways. The electricity costs for

[1:25:35] the people that live on that side of the building

[1:25:37] are going to go up. Um, there's going to be

[1:25:42] data. Because at the moment, um, I already find that

[1:25:47] because on one side, on the, um, okay, it's the

[1:25:51] east side of Annalene, um, which is the affected side

[1:25:56] basically. Because it is a condo building, except for the

[1:26:02] end units, we all have one window. We are not

[1:26:08] a house. We do not have back windows where the

[1:26:11] sun can come in. We have windows along the front.

[1:26:15] And that is it. No side windows, no sun coming

[1:26:17] in any other direction. Um, and no views coming in

[1:26:20] any other direction. So this is a serious impact. Um,

[1:26:25] and enough that for me, it is.

[1:26:35] Well, I have, I have been diagnosed with having sad.

[1:26:39] Okay. So I'm not going to get any sun unless

[1:26:41] I maybe go out in the balcony in the middle

[1:26:43] of January in noon. Um, but. It's a very serious

[1:26:51] side effect as well as having, the issue also in

[1:26:55] that we have a cooler system on the roof. And.

[1:27:02] At the moment. The coolest system does not kick in

[1:27:07] until a certain temperature. And at the moment, because of

[1:27:16] buildings and the sun doesn't, you know, just pop up

[1:27:19] right in front of us. It takes a while for

[1:27:23] the air conditioning to come in in the summer. So

[1:27:25] sometimes in the, um. It takes, it's like first thing

[1:27:30] in the morning. The chiller system is not on. So

[1:27:34] it's pretty hot in the building. Now with the 24

[1:27:38] story building, completely blocking that chiller. I'm not really sure

[1:27:42] when we are going to have, um, the chiller system

[1:27:46] working. So our air conditioning will be off a lot

[1:27:49] of the time. Um, which makes a significant difference. I

[1:27:54] will have no light. I will have no view. And

[1:27:58] I will have no air conditioning, which impacts me severely.

[1:28:02] Um, and, um, it's interesting that, um, in the comments

[1:28:06] that I guess it was the original application of 30

[1:28:13] seconds for the building. 30 seconds left over. You have

[1:28:18] 30 seconds left. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Okay. Um, I

[1:28:23] don't know. Oh trees. The trees are going to die

[1:28:27] on Baggett Street. Okay. They won't die on the other

[1:28:31] side of the street because it's only nine stories barking

[1:28:33] their son. But for 24 hours. So the trees are

[1:28:37] going to die in our plants and our garden. Thank

[1:28:40] you very much. Thank you. Okay. Um, we will move

[1:28:44] on to our next speaker. Please state your name. And

[1:28:46] you have five minutes. Hi, everybody. My name is

[1:28:55] Mary Jorie. I live and work in the downtown core,

[1:29:00] live in block D and work right downtown at King

[1:29:03] and Princess. I, um, also I work for downtown Kingston

[1:29:09] business improvement area, but I'm here as a citizen as

[1:29:12] opposed to my position as an executive director overseeing the

[1:29:16] businesses in the downtown core. Although some of my comments

[1:29:19] will also be reflected because of things that I know,

[1:29:23] uh, because of my position. So I've been to a

[1:29:26] few of these now. And I've also, um, dealt with

[1:29:28] a lot of development in the downtown core for the

[1:29:30] five years that I've been here. It's always challenging when

[1:29:33] there's a new development proposed, um, so it's not surprising

[1:29:38] that the people that are most affected are here. And

[1:29:41] speaking their minds and what a wonderful world we live

[1:29:43] in or wonderful country that we live in that we

[1:29:46] have that ability. I think there's lots of thought provoking

[1:29:49] topics on, especially the shadow topic to me is very

[1:29:53] interesting. Um, certainly I actually almost lived in Annalene when

[1:29:58] I moved here. We looked at the property and we

[1:30:00] decided against it. And, uh, moved over to the other

[1:30:03] side of town just a little bit outside of downtown.

[1:30:06] Cause I felt that Anna Lane and myself and my

[1:30:09] husband was too close to the noise of the city.

[1:30:12] Um, so it's already a noisy area. Um, so I,

[1:30:19] and I'm not sure that air conditioning and all of

[1:30:22] the things that come with these large buildings that we

[1:30:24] also have in block D are going to make it

[1:30:28] any noisier. You're downtown. It's noisy day and night. And

[1:30:33] when I have a balcony that oversees battery park and

[1:30:38] I have a building right in front of me, we

[1:30:40] have sun partially. And I don't see the sun again

[1:30:46] till the next morning. But that is just part of

[1:30:49] my lifestyle where I can go out and, and choose

[1:30:52] other sunny areas to enjoy. So, um, and also it's

[1:30:58] interesting because it sort of made me think about residential

[1:31:01] areas. Residential neighbourhoods, especially just on the other side of

[1:31:05] Queen Street there. I often go walking there to because

[1:31:08] of the shade. So it's funny how we look at

[1:31:10] shade from trees as opposed to shade from a building.

[1:31:15] Um, it's essentially during the same thing except, of course,

[1:31:18] trees create, uh. Yeah, oxygen and also just beauty. So,

[1:31:25] but it just made me think about, well, I'm sure

[1:31:27] there's some houses over there that don't get a heck

[1:31:28] of a lot of sunlight because of the maturity of

[1:31:30] the trees. My understanding, and again, this just comes from

[1:31:34] the position that I hold is that stormwater and sewer

[1:31:37] separation is a citywide challenge. It's not, uh, unique to

[1:31:40] that area. It's something that is being addressed with the

[1:31:44] city and utilities Kingston on a very long - term

[1:31:47] expensive adventure. So, uh, it has to be done. Uh,

[1:31:53] whether it gets done, you know, to support this building

[1:31:57] or not, it has to be done. So that's going

[1:31:59] to happen anyway. I wanted to say that downtown, oh,

[1:32:04] downtown has garbage management challenges everywhere, uh, as we see

[1:32:08] more residents come into town. And as we see more

[1:32:11] buildings come into town, but condominiums and rental apartments are

[1:32:15] the best at managing their garbage because they do have

[1:32:19] internal garbage, um, abilities as the gentleman was saying. So

[1:32:23] I'm not worried about garbage. I would also say I

[1:32:26] have a car. It's in the basement of my, my

[1:32:30] apartment building. And if it got stolen, I wouldn't know

[1:32:33] it because I never use it. When you live downtown,

[1:32:37] you don't use a car. Um, so I don't think

[1:32:39] you're going to see traffic increase with these types of

[1:32:43] buildings. If you, um, are dependent on a car, I

[1:32:47] would suggest that you live in the suburbs because downtown,

[1:32:51] you just, you simply just don't need one. Talked about

[1:32:57] that. Community of people. I just want to talk about

[1:33:01] our block D. We have two rental buildings, which are

[1:33:04] homestead and we also have condominiums at Royal George. And

[1:33:08] we have a hotel. There is a great community of

[1:33:11] people in those, um, in those buildings. And they are

[1:33:15] people who live in adult lifestyle. They don't need three

[1:33:18] bedrooms. Some of them have them, but it's really one

[1:33:21] and a half to two bedrooms that you need. And

[1:33:24] those are, those are in need in our downtown core.

[1:33:28] 30 seconds. Additional parking. I think you had said that

[1:33:33] there is the possibility for having some municipal parking when

[1:33:37] everything's done, which is a need in the downtown core,

[1:33:39] even though we want to reduce vehicles. We want to

[1:33:41] become more of a walking community. And I do trust

[1:33:45] that the developers, the planning department along with the oversight

[1:33:47] of council will continue the conversation and we'll have some

[1:33:50] great buildings in short order. Thank you. Okay. We've got

[1:33:59] two speakers here. I think we'll come down here. Are

[1:34:02] you ready to speak as well. Thank you. Uh, I'm

[1:34:11] Anthony Jenkins. Let her maraude right now. I'll tell you

[1:34:15] a little more about my background. I came to Kingston

[1:34:18] in 1971 to attend the faculty of education. It was

[1:34:22] a brave new adventure for me and Irish immigrant boy.

[1:34:26] Grew up in Hamilton. And decided to see the world.

[1:34:30] After university where I also attended in Hamilton. Came to

[1:34:35] gangster. Found myself dramatically attracted to the place.

[1:34:45] And while my business and curiosity has taken me all

[1:34:51] over North America, through much of Western Europe and the

[1:34:55] British Isles, they like to be distinct. I am always

[1:35:01] delighted to come home. Unfortunately, that delight has been tempered.

[1:35:06] By some of the projects that we have seen over

[1:35:10] the last 10 years, 20 years. And now with an

[1:35:13] increasing ferocity, we see, I see, I understand a concerted

[1:35:19] attack on our city. I don't want to blame the

[1:35:24] developers. As someone else mentioned, developers do what developers do.

[1:35:31] That's their role. Push the boundaries. The city's role, the

[1:35:38] administration of the city is to limit that. Aggression. To

[1:35:47] slow it down. Take a hard look. Figure out what's

[1:35:50] best. Not in the immediate. But in the long term.

[1:35:56] We don't have a supply problem with housing in Kingston.

[1:36:01] We have an affordability problem. How does this project address

[1:36:08] that legitimate problem. I don't see that it does. The

[1:36:14] notion that the more you build, the cheaper will become

[1:36:16] for the renters. Doesn't stand up the scrutiny. The Global

[1:36:22] Mail article was referenced earlier. Doesn't. Support. This kind of

[1:36:27] development for those reasons. So

[1:36:37] I have, in summary, two words for this proposal. Bizarre

[1:36:44] and absurd. My question for the proponents of this proposal

[1:36:51] is, what are you thinking? Who are you trying to

[1:36:54] benefit. Where is your data. My question to staff, planning

[1:37:03] in particular. Is do you know, do you realise that

[1:37:07] you're losing credibility with every such absurd and bizarre project

[1:37:11] that you champion. You are not working for us. Who

[1:37:14] is it to pull your chain. It's not the people.

[1:37:21] My comment to the citizens who have put themselves out.

[1:37:26] And it is an inconvenience. To oppose this prosecutic as

[1:37:29] good on you, every one of you. If I can

[1:37:36] just take one nostalgic look back to that first year

[1:37:40] in kinks in 1971. It was over a cafeteria lunch

[1:37:44] with a man named Lars Thompson, who was an instructor

[1:37:47] on faculty. And are renowned pragmatic philosopher among us, a

[1:37:52] renowned among us students there. And in that lunch towards

[1:37:56] the end of that year, he said to me, uh,

[1:37:58] Tony, as I then called myself and still sometimes do.

[1:38:04] If the one thing you can take away from your

[1:38:07] experience here, it is that you should always. Challenge the

[1:38:10] assumptions. And I see a lot of stuff being done

[1:38:14] on assumptions that have not been challenged, that have not

[1:38:17] been vetted, that have not been examined thoroughly. Thank you.

[1:38:23] Thank you. Okay, we'll go to our last speaker in

[1:38:26] the room. Please state your name and you have five

[1:38:28] minutes. Thank you very much. Vicky Schmolka. Oh, I have

[1:38:32] to start by saying I feel very sad. And I

[1:38:35] feel very sad in part because of what I think

[1:38:38] Mr. Jenkins just said. We are destroying something very precious

[1:38:44] to all the residents of Kingston who take their visitors

[1:38:47] downtown, who come downtown for events who enjoy the ambience

[1:38:52] of a human - scale city. And this is not

[1:38:57] about the developer. It's not about the architect. They do

[1:39:01] fine work in other places. It's about this site and

[1:39:05] whether or not this site is good planning. And I

[1:39:09] think we've heard ample evidence that it is not. I

[1:39:13] have these questions. When do the official plan change? Because

[1:39:18] my understanding is that the North Bloc allowed Intensification, higher

[1:39:25] buildings. And that's what we're seeing with The Madeline and

[1:39:29] the Good Life Plan and the other building that's going

[1:39:32] up at Queen Street. My understanding was that outside that

[1:39:37] area of intensification, the idea was to limit height to

[1:39:41] protect the heritage character of our city. And in particular,

[1:39:47] um, the zoning bylaw that Mirror is what's in the

[1:39:50] official plan. Says that it's a 17 metre height within

[1:39:56] of 39 angular degree angular plane that allows a building

[1:40:00] to be 25. 5 metres. And we saw that briefly

[1:40:04] at Mr. Keene's presentation. But I would like to ask

[1:40:08] staff, is that indeed the zoning bylaw that now applies

[1:40:11] to this site. 17 metres, 39 degree angular plane, 25.

[1:40:16] 5 metre height. Because this is a request to completely

[1:40:21] blow up that official plan and that zoning for this

[1:40:26] particular site, for this particular development. And yeah, it's not

[1:40:34] okay with the public, because I think Carrie Hill tried

[1:40:36] to indicate when she talked about the mayor of candidates

[1:40:39] meeting earlier this week. And I want to ask about

[1:40:44] precedent because people said that these buildings will create a

[1:40:48] precedent. I would like to ask staff, if in their

[1:40:52] opinion, the buildings that are allowed more height in the

[1:40:55] North Block create a precedent for the rest of downtown.

[1:41:00] Or if the Planning Policies did limit the height to

[1:41:03] that particular area and not further. I was very disappointed

[1:41:09] that the planning professionals here did not present a map

[1:41:14] showing the Heritage Buildings that are directly in the same

[1:41:17] block as this proposed building. And the Heritage Buildings that

[1:41:21] are within a reasonable. Area surrounding it. We know tourists

[1:41:28] come to our city because it has character. And as

[1:41:32] beautiful as these buildings might be somewhere else, and I

[1:41:36] appreciate the attempt to make them have rounded corners. They're

[1:41:40] not beautiful here. They're an intrusion here. They're incompatible here.

[1:41:45] Frankly, they're a very disappointing approach to planning this part

[1:41:51] of the city. Um, an eight - story building, as

[1:41:55] I understand as allowed by the zoning, would be okay.

[1:42:00] My other question is, we've heard clearly from the people

[1:42:03] at Annalaine that their enjoyment of their property, their ability,

[1:42:09] maybe even to live in their property, those with seasonal

[1:42:12] effective disorder or other special needs. Um, might cause them

[1:42:17] to leave. And I want to know what is the

[1:42:19] obligation of the city. This is directed at staff too.

[1:42:23] What is the obligation of the city when a new

[1:42:25] building undermines enjoyment of people living in an existing building

[1:42:30] and also probably affects their property values? Because there's no

[1:42:34] doubt that if you are looking at an apartment that

[1:42:37] has no sun in September to March, in the morning,

[1:42:43] uh, which is what I understood from the shadow studies,

[1:42:47] then your building is your condo unit is not going

[1:42:50] to first sell for so much. So what is our

[1:42:53] responsibility as a city to protect someone else's investment that

[1:42:57] they've already made. 30 seconds. Perfect. Um, thank you. I

[1:43:02] just want to point out that the community meeting, the

[1:43:06] Merrill meeting, I don't want to call it debate because

[1:43:09] it was hardly a debate is available on YouTube. So

[1:43:12] if anybody wants to watch it and see it, it

[1:43:15] is on the coalition of Kingston Communities who hosted that

[1:43:19] meeting on their website. And you can get a link

[1:43:21] to watch that meeting and hear, um, how the crowd

[1:43:25] responded to the idea of downtown development that is high

[1:43:28] rise. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we've had five

[1:43:35] speakers. So we're going to turn to the applicant for

[1:43:37] responses. If I could talk

[1:43:47] about the question about articulation on the, on the, I

[1:43:50] think it was the baguet and Queen Street near the

[1:43:55] bag in Queens Street. There is a section of the

[1:43:57] building. Where the tower comes down to the second floor

[1:44:01] directly disciplined. It's a limited portion of the building that

[1:44:04] comes down there. And that's simply an attempt to integrate

[1:44:07] the tower more with the base of the building. It

[1:44:12] doesn't occur right at the corner. It occurs somewhat down.

[1:44:17] The. Virtual. Sorry, sir. I know you're trying to contribute.

[1:44:22] I have to maintain an order. Thank you. That's correct.

[1:44:24] It's across the street from Annalene. Yes. Okay. Three you

[1:44:32] madam chair. Just a few more. Points to address. Um,

[1:44:38] one point I want to clarify, um, I had mentioned.

[1:44:44] Public parking is what we're shooting for. Uh, one comment

[1:44:47] was that it was municipal parking. I don't want to,

[1:44:53] there was a comment about, uh, they're happy we're providing

[1:44:56] municipal parking. And I just want to be clear that,

[1:45:00] uh, what we're providing is public parking. There's, there's not

[1:45:04] been any discussion with the city about whether that would

[1:45:06] be municipal. So that's just a distinction I want to

[1:45:09] be clear on that we are proposing parking publicly available.

[1:45:15] Because of a surplus of parking that we're providing. Not

[1:45:18] that there's been any discussion with the city that that

[1:45:21] would be something the city takes on. There were, you

[1:45:30] know, there were some questions and comments about like, you

[1:45:32] know, where does your data come from to get this?

[1:45:35] And I can assure you, we don't propose these things

[1:45:39] willy - nilly. They are, uh, expensive and complicated processes.

[1:45:45] And our clients do use market data, uh, before bringing

[1:45:48] forward an application, uh, of this nature.

[1:45:58] You know, I do appreciate the, you know, the concerns

[1:46:02] with view and with shadowing. And I know the it's

[1:46:09] acceptable. Uh, I just ask you to look at the

[1:46:12] studies that are on the website. You know, you can't

[1:46:16] look at one hour of time. Certainly there will be

[1:46:20] change. And as, as Mr. Bar said, uh, he articulated

[1:46:25] how the city will be reviewing those studies, uh, when

[1:46:29] they provide us back comments. I would also like to

[1:46:34] point out there were comments, you know, with respect to

[1:46:37] like when, when did the official plan change, uh, because

[1:46:41] the speaker felt this is not in complying with the

[1:46:44] official plan. And I just, just remind everyone that we're

[1:46:48] only here for his owning bylaw amendment. We're not here

[1:46:51] for an official plan amendment. So by default, the application

[1:46:56] is in conformity with the official plan. The zoning in

[1:47:02] this area is from 1996. Uh, it was not changed

[1:47:07] with the newest zoning bylaw. And the speaker was correct

[1:47:11] that that zoning allows for 17 metre height, angular plane

[1:47:17] stepping up to 25 and a half metres. Uh, that

[1:47:20] would be for the staples portion, uh, of the property.

[1:47:29] And there were a few other comments that were, I

[1:47:33] guess, more specifically directed to staff. I don't know if

[1:47:37] staff want to take any of those. And if I've,

[1:47:39] if I've missed any of my notes, I'm happy to

[1:47:41] address those, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have one more

[1:47:43] that I believe was Directed for you. There were several

[1:47:46] rhetorical questions. However, there was one question. How does this

[1:47:50] project help with affordability. Yes. Through you, Madam Chair. I

[1:47:56] don't know at this moment is the honest answer. Like

[1:48:00] at this point we are proposing rental. We're not proposing

[1:48:04] condo. Uh, but we really have not had any discussions

[1:48:07] on affordability, nor really have we finished the final suite

[1:48:12] mix. Um, but, but it's certainly an interest that I

[1:48:15] know will be addressing with staff. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:48:19] Mr. Bar. Thanks. And through you chair. I just want

[1:48:24] to provide some clarification about the zoning that's applicable to

[1:48:27] the site. This site does have old zoning from an

[1:48:30] old Ontario land tribunal that actually programs over 75 percent

[1:48:36] of the site currently proposed by the applicants to have

[1:48:40] a 10 story building on it. With a seven Storie

[1:48:44] Street wall. So that is up to about 117 metres

[1:48:47] geodetic on the site. And it does not require any

[1:48:51] angular plane requirements. So what you would typically see in

[1:48:54] a downtown zone, especially the DT1 zone, which does have

[1:48:58] provisions that speak to a maximum height of 25, five,

[1:49:02] and, uh, you know, 17 metre street wall that you

[1:49:04] would typically see within the North Block area is not

[1:49:07] applicable to the vast majority of this site, the frontalong

[1:49:10] baguet Street because of that old Ontario land tribunal hearing

[1:49:13] where it programmed in the zoning for a 10 story

[1:49:16] mixed use building. Looking at the other questions that I

[1:49:22] got, uh, I'll work my way through these. So what

[1:49:26] is the obligation of the city when a new building,

[1:49:30] uh, potentially, uh, in the terms of the person who

[1:49:33] asked the question undermines the enjoyment of a citizen in

[1:49:37] their building, um, we look at the tests of the

[1:49:40] official plan, which looks at undue adverse impact. So when

[1:49:44] we're evaluating these types of buildings, we're looking at the

[1:49:48] policies of the official plan and what is considered reasonable

[1:49:52] development for the area in which it's proposed. So that

[1:49:55] includes all of the tests under section 27, which talk

[1:49:59] about normal enjoyment of one's property, adverse impacts related to

[1:50:03] shadowing traffic noise architectural incompatibility and those other, uh, key

[1:50:08] pieces of the cities official plan, which seeks to evaluate

[1:50:12] whether or proposal is compatible with the adjacent uses that

[1:50:16] are around it. Staff are still undertaking a review of

[1:50:19] this application. And we have not formed our opinion yet.

[1:50:22] And we will be providing comments to the applicants. Post

[1:50:25] this meeting. There was a question about impact of property

[1:50:28] value and property value is not a planning consideration. This

[1:50:32] has also been ruled on by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[1:50:36] There was a question about precedent in the downtown area

[1:50:39] and whether or not one tower has created the precedent

[1:50:42] for more towers everywhere downtown, uh, you know, we have

[1:50:45] communicated this through other applications that have come forward to

[1:50:49] committee about how downtown is being considered for the development

[1:50:54] that we're seeing in both a mid - rise and

[1:50:57] high rise format. Um, there are overlapping policy layers within

[1:51:01] downtown where specific key areas like the St. Lawrence Board,

[1:51:06] which is kind of the southern end of the Kingstown

[1:51:08] district. Downtown princess Street in Sydney Ward all have different

[1:51:14] varying heritage policies that apply to it in the form

[1:51:17] of individually designated properties. Uh, heritage conservation districts that also

[1:51:22] take into account market square. But then the official plan

[1:51:25] as an additional policy layover top of all of that

[1:51:28] for Heritage Character areas, those areas are very specific on

[1:51:31] where they apply. They are mapped in the official plan

[1:51:35] and there are policies that apply to those mapped areas.

[1:51:38] The North block is not one of those heritage character

[1:51:41] areas. The site where the Metro is, is also not

[1:51:47] one of those Heritage Character areas. And the staple site

[1:51:49] does not fall within one of those heritage character areas

[1:51:52] as well. So the policies of those heritage character areas

[1:51:56] do not apply to these sites. Um, sorry, this site,

[1:52:00] I should say in the singular. The buildings that you

[1:52:05] saw for, uh, homestead, which are going up on Queen

[1:52:09] Street for the Staples site, uh, and for the Metro

[1:52:13] site, uh, do not have those policies that apply to

[1:52:16] it, not even an adjacency format. So there are tests

[1:52:19] and evaluation are different under the plan. So that's where

[1:52:22] the majority of the high rise development to date has

[1:52:26] been discussed and directed to and approved by council through

[1:52:31] either, uh, actual decisions of council around the horseshoe or

[1:52:35] through settlement or through the Ontario Land tribunal. That those

[1:52:40] have been the appropriate locations for heights. And they're being

[1:52:42] concentrated in two specific areas in downtown, one being the

[1:52:46] North Block. The second being The Hub. With other conversations

[1:52:49] centring around, uh, different scaled buildings when we're looking at

[1:52:53] any type of development that would be within the Williamsville

[1:52:56] area within the St. Lawrence Board Heritage character area or

[1:52:59] within the downtown lower princess Street Heritage Character area. So

[1:53:03] the nuance consideration to how downtown has been talked about

[1:53:08] for development and what's being considered in specific areas. So

[1:53:12] staff in their evaluation of this will be applying all

[1:53:14] of the appropriate tests of the official plan that apply

[1:53:17] to this site in our evaluation of whether or not

[1:53:19] this will be a supportable development. Thank you very much.

[1:53:24] And there was one more question near the beginning. It

[1:53:26] was in relation to shadows, but the question was around,

[1:53:28] um, are the standards, the city standards or the standard

[1:53:31] set by developers. Could you address that, please? Thanks, Interview

[1:53:35] Chair. The standards are not set by the developers. The

[1:53:38] standards are set by the city. Thank you. I think

[1:53:42] that covers all the questions I had recorded. Um, so

[1:53:46] just looking at the time right now, I have 756.

[1:53:49] We've been going almost two hours. I think it's appropriate

[1:53:50] to take a short break. Um, so we'll do, we'll

[1:53:53] do nine minutes. So we'll be back here at 805.

[1:53:58] Okay. So see back here at 805. Thanks everyone.

[2:03:22] All right, team, it is 8. 05, so we will

[2:03:25] jump back in. We are going to check online first,

[2:03:29] and then we'll come back in the room. And I

[2:03:39] will call on Justin Conidis. Hi there, please state your

[2:03:45] name.

[2:04:01] Micro. On. Now. We can hear you now. Just please

[2:04:06] state your name and your five minutes will start. My

[2:04:10] name is Justin Kenidis. I guess I'm a long time

[2:04:17] Kingston resident. I lived in Kingston from 1956 until 19.

[2:04:22] From 79 to 2003. I lived in Toronto, then came

[2:04:25] back to Kingston, so I think back in Kingston since

[2:04:28] then. It's the first 15 years of my professional life

[2:04:35] in Toronto. I spent a lot of time representing developers.

[2:04:38] So I can certainly confirm a point based by somebody

[2:04:41] else that Schultz and Z - back are just messengers

[2:04:45] here, and they were just doing their bidding of their

[2:04:48] clients, so any criticisms of the design really would not

[2:04:53] be a reflection on Schultz and Zbek. Anyway, I'm not

[2:05:02] going to repeat things that have already been said. I

[2:05:05] other than say I agree, but a lot of what

[2:05:07] I've heard today. I'd just like to raise, I guess,

[2:05:11] five points. First, I wish our city staff and our

[2:05:15] mayor would stand up for our official plan and our

[2:05:17] bylaws. Of public input went into establishing our official plan.

[2:05:25] There was lots of public consultation and compromises made and

[2:05:30] so forth to arrive at things like the existing height

[2:05:33] limits and setback in Angular Plain Requirements and the official

[2:05:37] plan. And the bylaw, and all that seems to have

[2:05:42] happened is there's two sections of Point of Water. Staff.

[2:05:46] Look at. Pause for just a moment, please. Pause, thank

[2:05:49] you. I'll pause your time. Yes, Councillor Shaves. He's reflecting

[2:05:53] on gen and not part of this agenda. So he's

[2:05:57] talking about the mayor, who's not part of this, or

[2:06:00] electoral debate. So could the topic remain on what's on

[2:06:03] the agenda for tonight, please? I think that's a fair

[2:06:05] request. So, Justin, I'm going to restart your time. And

[2:06:10] if we could just keep it focused on tonight's application,

[2:06:12] that would be appreciated. Thank you. You're welcome to

[2:06:22] continue. And.

[2:06:32] By unmuted now. Yes, you are. I'll restart your time

[2:06:36] now. Sorry, I didn't notice that pop up. On the

[2:06:40] screen. Sorry, I thought I was fall on topic, but

[2:06:45] I can see how people may not agree. Anyway. I

[2:06:48] guess my experience my years working with developers is that

[2:06:52] if they know they're working with the municipality that stands

[2:06:54] up and stands up for their official plan and bylaws,

[2:06:58] they'll follow them. If they know they can drive a

[2:07:01] truck to them, they're going to, they'll go to, they'll

[2:07:03] drive a truck through them. And so that's the context

[2:07:06] in which I was saying, I wish this municipality would

[2:07:09] stand up for its official plan and bylaws. So in

[2:07:17] that context, for example, I think if the developer come

[2:07:21] in with a bosal based on the existing 7, 10

[2:07:24] story zoning for 75 percent of the property and complied

[2:07:27] with the official plan and the bylaw for the rest

[2:07:29] of the property, we wouldn't have a PAC meeting tonight.

[2:07:33] And you'd probably see a development going ahead very quickly.

[2:07:36] But because developers are learning that they can push in

[2:07:40] the city always seems to bend. The maximum requirements and

[2:07:44] our official plan on biolog become minimum requirements. Second point,

[2:07:50] I guess just on the shadowing, I mean, obviously I

[2:07:53] think the general rule is if bylaw and official plan

[2:07:56] allows something, then the shadowing is legal. I think it's

[2:08:01] certainly incumbent upon staff and the city to consider when

[2:08:04] someone's applying for an amendment to the bylaw that's going

[2:08:07] to result in dramatic changes to shadowing to give very

[2:08:11] high consideration of that. I think if this is a

[2:08:13] high rise being proposed on the old Canadian tire site

[2:08:17] at the Old Traffic Circle, shadowing would be a much

[2:08:20] different concern than it is putting a tall building up

[2:08:23] in the middle of Heritage Buildings. So point is a

[2:08:29] more specific requirement as the staff goes through it. It's,

[2:08:33] I mean, I own a fair amount of real estate

[2:08:34] in town. And also familiar with some buildings, including Bak

[2:08:39] Yib Homestead Buildings in Block D and the Annaline building.

[2:08:44] It always amazes me that the city does not require

[2:08:48] tall buildings such as all the homestead buildings to have

[2:08:52] green pin program. If I invite you to go down

[2:08:56] to the garbage room, say, I guess I take KD5

[2:09:00] Ontario Street, that's probably homestead's best building in the city.

[2:09:03] And it's garbage room smells like most taller private building

[2:09:06] garbage rooms. You go to, cause they don't have a

[2:09:08] green bin program. So garbage means rotting stuff as an

[2:09:12] olive ins. You go into the analytine building, which is

[2:09:17] one of the few mid tie rise buildings in the

[2:09:20] city that has a green pin program and their garbage

[2:09:22] room does not spell because the rotting materials are in

[2:09:25] the green bins. So it just seems beyond belief that

[2:09:29] the city does not require green vinse and high rise.

[2:09:33] You have 30 seconds left. Okay. The, uh, I'll just

[2:09:39] make one final point then, which is on the public

[2:09:41] parking, which is, and this is really a question. Is

[2:09:45] the public park going to be rented out on the

[2:09:47] monthly basis or just on an hourly basis. And if

[2:09:51] it's being rendered out of monthly basis, our tenants from

[2:09:54] the building going to be eligible for those monthly passes,

[2:09:57] or is that parking? It's really going to be kept

[2:09:59] for members of the public and not people who are

[2:10:01] living in the building. And that's your time. Well timed.

[2:10:05] Thank you. Just checking online to see if the other

[2:10:08] speaker. If you are online, I would wish to speak,

[2:10:14] please raise your hand in Zoom. Okay. Seeing none. So

[2:10:23] we'll go back in the room. I see we have

[2:10:24] two people who wish to speak. Is there anyone else

[2:10:25] in the room who wants to speak. This is kind

[2:10:28] of your last chance. If you do, you can sit

[2:10:31] in one of these chairs. Um, so go to our

[2:10:33] first speaker. Please state your name and you have five

[2:10:35] minutes. Good evening. My name is Susanna Cliff Youngling. I

[2:10:40] live on 28 almo streets. So I'm not. Susanne Cliff

[2:10:46] Jüngling. I live on unmac burney park. So I want

[2:10:50] to kind of point out that I'm not living in

[2:10:52] the anode building. Like I'm just a concerned resident altogether.

[2:10:57] And I certainly do live downtown. And I spent a

[2:11:00] lot of my time downtown, whether that's shopping or for

[2:11:04] leisure time. Um, so I always find that important to

[2:11:08] note that it isn't just the immediate residence that are

[2:11:12] impacted on development such as this. But it is the

[2:11:16] wider community. And we do have a right to also

[2:11:18] kind of say that we will be impacted because every

[2:11:21] time I come downtown, I will be impacted. But actually

[2:11:25] I'm already impacted by these high rises. I live on

[2:11:29] MacBony Park and my bedroom window. I can see the

[2:11:34] tower that is at the end of Queen Street, the

[2:11:37] homestead or high rise building. It is in plain sight

[2:11:42] all the time. So we are all impacted and it

[2:11:46] has an effect on what our city looks like, feels

[2:11:51] like how we act in it. How we can enjoy

[2:11:54] it. And I know that this isn't just for the

[2:11:57] developer question or for city staff. And I don't know

[2:12:00] how otherwise to articulate it. But I do really think

[2:12:03] that a couple of or a few speakers have already

[2:12:07] spoken well about this. That it really is on city

[2:12:11] staff and our elected councillors to really uphold what is

[2:12:17] right for the city. Um, I think questions have been

[2:12:21] mentioned about, you know, if this development could be different

[2:12:26] anyway, I just want to make the point. I understand

[2:12:29] that this development is economically feasible or you wouldn't be

[2:12:32] proposing it. But that's really irrelevant to me because I

[2:12:36] don't care if it's profitable or not, right? Um, so

[2:12:40] it obviously it's the developer who needs to have it

[2:12:42] profitable. But for the city to consider it is it

[2:12:46] right for us. And there are other profitable proposals that

[2:12:52] would fall within the guidelines and would not require this

[2:12:57] kind of meeting and these exceptions to be made. So,

[2:13:01] um, I'd like to ask the developer had been asked

[2:13:05] about, you know, what data they're using to justify this

[2:13:10] kind of development. And as I said, like I agree

[2:13:13] that you probably have your data. I'd ask staff to

[2:13:16] also collect independent data. Is this really necessary? Is this

[2:13:23] development necessary for the city? Like I think we've already

[2:13:27] seen some, uh, data that shows that, um, we haven't

[2:13:32] kneel over supply of units. And it's not that we

[2:13:37] need more units. So we don't need all this development.

[2:13:41] Um, what is it that would be right for us?

[2:13:42] And I think you've heard tonight from people who've spoken

[2:13:45] much better than I can articulate this. That we do

[2:13:49] not really want this. We want something else. We want

[2:13:52] better. I really don't need to see another high rise

[2:13:56] building. Most likely just glass and steel. There is no

[2:14:01] environmental kind of, um, discussion here of how environmentally friendly

[2:14:06] and supportive of climate change of countering your climate impact

[2:14:12] this development is. There are no green walls. There is

[2:14:14] nothing. There is nothing there. So why would we want

[2:14:18] to, why would we want to agree to something like

[2:14:20] that? Anyway, so those are some of my comments. And

[2:14:23] again, I'd like to, for city staff to clearly kind

[2:14:27] of figure out data driven, is this necessary? Do we

[2:14:33] need these units? Do we need them there? Do we

[2:14:35] want them there? Is this the best traveller city? And

[2:14:37] affordability is what we need, not more units. Thank you.

[2:14:42] Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker. Just another

[2:14:45] reminder. If you're in the room and would like to

[2:14:46] speak, please come and take one of the chairs or

[2:14:48] if you're online on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand.

[2:14:52] Thank you. Um, please state your name and your five

[2:14:53] minutes. Thank you. My name is Jill. Jill Bryant. And

[2:14:59] I'm about six minutes on foot from this proposed development.

[2:15:08] I wasn't really planning to speak tonight, but I feel

[2:15:11] that I just want to say that I agree with

[2:15:13] everyone who feels that the twin towers are incompatible. I

[2:15:18] did write a letter. I'm very concerned about the impact

[2:15:23] on what I thought was the limestone city. Do we

[2:15:30] still use that when we talk about Kingston? I've lived

[2:15:34] here almost 18 years. And that was certainly something that

[2:15:39] really got me. Like I felt that in my heart

[2:15:44] because I grew up in Elora, Ontario. My father still

[2:15:50] lived there. And he does tours in Allura. It's a

[2:15:54] very historic limestone city as well. It's not, it's not

[2:15:58] city. It's a small village. But, um, I hope this

[2:16:01] isn't too off topic just to mention that the allura

[2:16:04] mill has had massive developments. And it's really ruined. The

[2:16:10] heart of the village in the opinion of many people.

[2:16:14] I fear that the same thing will happen in Kingston

[2:16:17] and is happening now. And these things honestly keep me

[2:16:22] up at night. Councillor Ridge knows from another development proposal

[2:16:27] very close to my house. These things affect people. And

[2:16:33] I am, I feel so much for the people in

[2:16:37] Annalene and they have a very hard year ahead. I

[2:16:42] know what it's like. And it is not fun. And

[2:16:46] I don't know why these proposals even get to this

[2:16:50] early stage here where we all have to get stressed

[2:16:53] out and worried. And lose sleep over things that are

[2:16:58] so fundamentally against the official plan. Like what? What is

[2:17:04] with that. Um, you look around at the streets now.

[2:17:10] And I see that massive tower from way, way far

[2:17:13] away. And it all makes me very sad. Um, so

[2:17:20] the haste in which the city is considering these high

[2:17:23] rise proposals and pushing them through is a dizzying kind

[2:17:28] of pace. We need to slow down. It's, it's ugly

[2:17:33] and we're losing the history of the city and what

[2:17:36] makes it unique. What I would actually like to see,

[2:17:40] and I kindly request is that you have the chief

[2:17:43] electoral officer at a referendum question to the ballot at

[2:17:47] October's Municipal Election. My water. Are you in favor of

[2:17:53] allowing buildings over eight stories in downtown Kingston. I think

[2:17:58] it's important that all Kingstonians can weigh in on this

[2:18:01] question about what, and we decide what is right for

[2:18:05] our city. And this kind of twin tower 25, 24

[2:18:10] story development. Is not. I do not agree. And I

[2:18:14] hope that Council, the planning committee and city planning will

[2:18:20] say no. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'll just address

[2:18:26] that one question around a referendum and any questions that

[2:18:29] are going to be referendum questions. There is a procedure

[2:18:31] that goes that the city can go through. But we

[2:18:34] are too late at the election season for that to

[2:18:37] happen. So if people wanted one for next season, they

[2:18:40] would need to have a conversation with the city clerks.

[2:18:42] So I'll leave it there. Um, turning to online, I

[2:18:45] don't think we have any other hands. We have one

[2:18:48] more hand. Okay. And I'm not seeing anyone else in

[2:18:50] person. Through you, Madam Chair, I'll recognise Kevin Caverly. Hi

[2:18:57] there. Please state your name and you have five minutes.

[2:19:00] My name is Kevin Caverly. I live in an 1841

[2:19:05] Stonehouse nearly directly across from the proposed location. Um, and

[2:19:14] I would like to acknowledge all of the concerns I

[2:19:17] have heard tonight, uh, from other members around of the

[2:19:23] community. Uh, however, I also believe it's very important, uh,

[2:19:29] to progress, to grow. We need. Densification downtown. We need

[2:19:38] more housing. There are certainly things I would love to

[2:19:44] tweak about this, add some more green spaces. Maybe a

[2:19:49] community space in this site while we're redeveloping it. Uh,

[2:19:54] but I just want to go on record that not

[2:19:59] everyone around here is against, uh, developing this site or

[2:20:04] putting in dense housing. That's all I have to say.

[2:20:09] Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, so we will

[2:20:13] now turn to the applicant. Thank you. And through you,

[2:20:20] Madam Chair, the first question related to, uh, parking and

[2:20:26] what might be available. We haven't worked those details at

[2:20:31] all, uh, at this point. Uh, I think it's very

[2:20:35] interesting that there might be interest in some long -

[2:20:39] term parking spaces available to the public in the area.

[2:20:43] So that's something that certainly I can take back to

[2:20:45] the owners, uh, for consideration, uh, that detail is something

[2:20:50] that is quite a ways down the road from, from

[2:20:54] sorting out, uh, in detail. That's something that would come

[2:20:57] at the site plan, uh, stage, which is prior to

[2:21:01] a building permit stage. There were, uh, there were comments

[2:21:10] related to, um, like there's been many comments saying, you

[2:21:16] know, this is against, uh, the official plan. And, you

[2:21:22] know, it, it needs to be stated again that the

[2:21:24] downtown in the official plan is where the city wants

[2:21:29] to see the most mixed use and the most intensive

[2:21:33] use. And then with that basic principle, there are, there

[2:21:39] are guidelines to, to measure adverse impacts. And the studies

[2:21:45] that are provided as part of this application attempt to

[2:21:49] address those comments. That in turn would be reviewed by,

[2:21:55] by city staff. And I can't think of an application

[2:21:59] that has not had some comments from city staff that

[2:22:03] require addressing. So that's kind of the next stage of

[2:22:06] this process is, is staff will be evaluating our application

[2:22:12] against the official plan and against other guidelines. And against

[2:22:16] the comments that have been said tonight. And then that's

[2:22:20] the next phase is we'll receive a consolidated package from

[2:22:24] staff that we have to address before. And sometimes that

[2:22:30] goes back and forth a few times, two, three times.

[2:22:33] Sometimes even five or six times until it reaches a

[2:22:37] point where staff were able to make some kind of

[2:22:40] a recommendation to the planning committee. And that recommendation might

[2:22:45] be at that point that they're satisfied. It might be

[2:22:49] to change it. Uh, and then in turn, this planning

[2:22:52] committee will make a recommendation to council. So I say

[2:22:56] that just from the standpoint that, that we are here

[2:23:01] to hear the comments. And we are taking them down.

[2:23:05] And I know staff are here to do the same.

[2:23:07] You know, I remain of the opinion that this application

[2:23:10] is in compliance with the official plan. And we'll continue

[2:23:15] to work with staff as technical comments come forward. Uh,

[2:23:20] in that regard. There was comments about, uh,

[2:23:30] like no sustainability, like being part of the project right

[2:23:33] now. And, and that is another aspect that comes later

[2:23:39] as the building goes into detailed design. Um, there are

[2:23:44] sustainability elements that are just built directly into the building

[2:23:48] code these days. And there are elements that are built

[2:23:51] into the city's policy that will be part of every

[2:23:55] building, whether tall or not, uh, in the city of

[2:23:58] Kingston. There was a question of, do we need these,

[2:24:03] do we need these here. And that goes back to

[2:24:05] that fundamental principle that, that downtown is where the city

[2:24:10] wants to see the most intensification. So downtown is the

[2:24:15] location where we do need and want and it's set

[2:24:18] in policy where we want to see that growth. I

[2:24:27] believe I've addressed the questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. I

[2:24:30] have one more. It was kind of a comment kind

[2:24:32] of a question, but it was regarding green BIM programs.

[2:24:35] Um, is that something that the applicant could consider. Through

[2:24:39] you, Madam Chair. Absolutely. You know, I can assure you

[2:24:42] that no owner of a building wants a smelly garbage

[2:24:45] room either. And, uh, with having closed in service, private

[2:24:50] service, it just makes it easier to have recycling green

[2:24:53] bin and all the various programs. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:24:57] And one other question that was asked is around data

[2:25:01] and, um, could the applicant please explain what data is

[2:25:04] being used to justify this development? If you have that

[2:25:07] information available right now. Through you, Madam Chair, I don't

[2:25:11] have like a specific document that I can roll out

[2:25:13] that says here's like all of our, our marketing data

[2:25:17] in terms of how, how the site, uh, works. Um,

[2:25:21] but working with, with groups like The BIA working directly

[2:25:25] with the businesses, uh, being aware of the other projects

[2:25:29] that are, uh, you know, either under construction or already

[2:25:33] built, that data combined is what is what dictates what

[2:25:39] we bring forward in terms of, you know, why we're

[2:25:41] proposing mostly one bedrooms, you know, whereas I've had other

[2:25:45] projects where we're proposing mostly two bedrooms. It just varies.

[2:25:50] And at the time of construction, those evaluations will be

[2:25:54] running again to ensure that the unit mix is appropriate.

[2:25:59] Thank you. Thank you. Um, there was also a question.

[2:26:02] This one's directed towards staff. I believe it was a

[2:26:05] question around, uh, why proposals come to this early stage,

[2:26:09] um, it can be distressing for residents. And so why

[2:26:12] are we having meetings like this before any decisions are

[2:26:14] being made? Thanks. And through you. It's precisely why we're

[2:26:20] having this meeting at this early stage is to allow

[2:26:24] members of the public and planning committee to consider the

[2:26:28] early stages of an application. When an application is submitted

[2:26:32] to the city and it's deemed complete under the Planning

[2:26:35] Act, especially I'll use the zoning bylaw amendment as an

[2:26:38] example here. The initial first 90 days is barred from

[2:26:42] any sort of appeal. So member, sorry, the applicant cannot

[2:26:46] appeal an application within the first 90 days of it

[2:26:49] being considered by the municipality, after which they have the

[2:26:52] ability to appeal for non - decision. So within the

[2:26:55] first 90 days of an application, during these barred windows,

[2:26:58] we always look to hold a community meeting for the

[2:27:02] purpose of eliciting public and committee feedback so we can

[2:27:05] get that early sense from what is being said about

[2:27:10] an application for ourselves, but also for the applicant. We

[2:27:13] also aim to get our public, sorry, our technical review

[2:27:17] comments out during this window as well. That way we

[2:27:20] have a complete understanding about where the city's position lies

[2:27:25] with an application. So that's why when an application is

[2:27:28] submitted, we are statutorily required to review it. If it's

[2:27:32] a team to complete or complete under the planning act.

[2:27:35] So we initiate the process by which we are here

[2:27:37] tonight. So this application was deemed complete for the purposes

[2:27:41] of the planning act, which initiated our timeline. So that's

[2:27:44] when the notice went out. That's when the technical review

[2:27:46] begins. And that's when we begin to plot a course

[2:27:50] to bring this application to planning committee. So there is

[2:27:53] a very prescribed and technical process that we're working with

[2:27:56] in order to process these applications completely and bring forward

[2:28:01] it for public consideration. Thank you very much. And one

[2:28:07] other question that I think is directed at staff as

[2:28:09] well around the data question, um, so is data considered

[2:28:13] and staff's recommendations. I think that's a relevant question related

[2:28:16] to this. And through you chair. I guess that's more

[2:28:20] of a complicated question for staff to answer because we're

[2:28:24] not necessarily driven by the data of economics associated with

[2:28:29] a property, but we do have a reflected need from

[2:28:33] the Mayor's Task Force on housing to support our population

[2:28:36] growth and the number of units that we're looking for

[2:28:38] across the city in various types. We also have a

[2:28:42] provincial requirement to build 800 new dwelling units every year

[2:28:47] as a minimum. And we have our latest population data

[2:28:52] that we're working with that plots out, an average review

[2:28:55] for new development across the city up until 2051, but

[2:28:59] also if we look back, you know, the official plan

[2:29:02] that's been based on a population model that we're working

[2:29:05] towards. So when we're looking at new development applications, we're

[2:29:08] not necessarily saying, well, do we need X number of

[2:29:12] units at this one location? We're taking a broad city

[2:29:15] - wide objective and looking at, okay, well, how are

[2:29:17] we facilitating the housing and the housing options that we

[2:29:19] need across the city in order to fulfill both the

[2:29:23] complete communities aspect, the housing needs continuum. And then the

[2:29:27] general livability of the city. And how are all these

[2:29:29] pieces fitting together? So it's, it's challenging to look at

[2:29:33] one development and say, you know, this is what we're

[2:29:36] pinning our hopes and dreams on for the year for

[2:29:38] new development when really it's a housing continuum in spectrum

[2:29:41] across the city. So that's why, um, you know, it's

[2:29:45] not necessarily the staff consideration for the economics of one

[2:29:48] property, but it's looking at what is appropriate development across

[2:29:51] the city. And that includes form. So when we're looking

[2:29:53] at an application, it's not necessarily pinned upon, do we

[2:29:57] need this application that's here? We're looking at it, you

[2:30:00] know, does it fit the objectives of the city? Is

[2:30:02] it appropriate for the context in which it's being provided?

[2:30:06] And is it compatible in all the other tests of

[2:30:07] the official plan to build the housing inventory that will

[2:30:11] be built out in the longterm that's appropriate for the

[2:30:13] city. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we are moving

[2:30:18] into the next phase of this meeting, which is to

[2:30:20] look at committee members. So are there any questions from

[2:30:23] committee members. Councillor Osanic. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through

[2:30:30] you, I do have a few questions. Um, we heard

[2:30:34] the resident, or sorry, the resident, we heard, um, a

[2:30:37] member of the public here tonight who talked about fire

[2:30:41] safety. And I don't know what this is for the

[2:30:44] applicant or for staff, but I've heard it even at

[2:30:47] the election door of people of like even fire staff

[2:30:52] saying about the latter truck. We need another ladder truck

[2:30:56] in the city for all the condos that are there

[2:31:00] that we have built. And so if there's a fire

[2:31:04] in these two 24 story buildings, um, like how, what

[2:31:10] happens? What happens? And do we need an aerial truck?

[2:31:16] Like I believe we need an area truck to get

[2:31:18] there. And then they put the fire hose. Like I

[2:31:22] think our aerial truck, as I asked this before, is

[2:31:24] only for 12 stories. And then the rest is they

[2:31:28] just shoot the, the hose up at the top, um,

[2:31:32] yeah, my dad who lives in a high rise didn't

[2:31:34] like that answer very much. So anyway, what happens in

[2:31:38] a fire. This

[2:31:48] building would be fully sprinklered. And it has a standpipe

[2:31:51] system in it. So I think these buildings are intended

[2:31:53] to be fires on the upper floors are intended to

[2:31:55] be fought from within the building. Um, you're not going

[2:32:01] to get a ladder truck that's going to extend to

[2:32:03] the roof of this building. Nor many other buildings had

[2:32:06] already exist in the city. All right. Uh, three, um,

[2:32:10] Madam Chair. So that just means the firefighters run up

[2:32:14] the staircase to whatever floor. Has the fire. Yeah. They

[2:32:18] have a, uh, dedicated firefighters elevator and a thing called

[2:32:22] the CACF room in the lobby that they operate from

[2:32:29] when the fire. They can direct tenants in the building.

[2:32:32] What to do from that room. There are, there are

[2:32:34] provisions. They're building code provisions. That take into account billings

[2:32:38] as size. Assuming that you're not going to be able

[2:32:40] to get a ladder up that high. Okay. Thank you

[2:32:43] for that. Um, since high rises of these numbers, stories

[2:32:47] is new to us. Um, I don't think we've heard

[2:32:50] that answer before, but I'm sure everyone in Toronto would

[2:32:53] know about that. So thank you. Um, the other point

[2:32:57] we had from someone in the public, I think the

[2:32:59] same person tonight raised as transit. So what does staff

[2:33:05] say about transit. It was that our street's are already

[2:33:11] really busy and so many buses. So if this is

[2:33:18] going to be, um, not many parking spots, you know,

[2:33:22] um, how did people can transit take these extra 500

[2:33:28] people that will be living in these two apartments? I

[2:33:30] guess that was the point. Mr. Bar. And I think

[2:33:33] it had to do with the narrowness of the roads

[2:33:35] as well. Mr. Bar. Thanks. And through your chair, we

[2:33:39] do have a traffic impact study that's been submitted and

[2:33:42] supportive this application. And the application is under reviewed by

[2:33:45] transportation services, which does include a review by Kingston Transit.

[2:33:49] We don't have the full totality of those comments yet,

[2:33:52] but it is a consideration councillor that we are looking

[2:33:55] into as part of this application. All right. Thank you.

[2:34:00] Um, my next question is, are there any affordable housing

[2:34:04] units going to be built in these two buildings. Mr.

[2:34:09] Keane. Through you, Madam Chair, we haven't got that far

[2:34:13] down the line in terms of our, our design. But

[2:34:16] I would certainly expect just of a building of this

[2:34:19] nature. There will be some affordable units. All I can

[2:34:22] say at this point is the commitment's rental, uh, right

[2:34:24] now, but we don't really our unit breakdown and our

[2:34:28] unit makeup will be something we work out with staff

[2:34:30] and with council. Thank you. Um, it seems that a

[2:34:35] lot of the apartments that have been built recently and

[2:34:38] it's great. We've had apartments being built, but they seem

[2:34:41] to be serving the luxury housing market. Like the rents

[2:34:47] are like 3, 000 dollars a month for a two

[2:34:49] bedroom. And since you haven't come down to like that

[2:34:53] level yet, I think it would be really appreciated with

[2:34:58] affordability in mind to make these more mid - market,

[2:35:02] you know, maybe not as much jazz and pizzazz, but,

[2:35:06] you know, like more in the 2, 100, 2, 500

[2:35:10] dollar range just because people can't afford 36, 000 dollars

[2:35:17] if your husband and wife a year for your rent.

[2:35:20] Or if your fiancees and about to get married, you

[2:35:23] have to save for a down payment to then graduate

[2:35:26] to the housing market from apartments. So if you could

[2:35:31] keep that in mind, is that possible. Three of you,

[2:35:35] Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you. I've written it down. And

[2:35:39] certainly we'll be take that back to my client. Thank

[2:35:41] you. Great. Thank you. And, um, I think just the

[2:35:45] last thing I want to raise. I don't know how

[2:35:47] to make it into a question, but I think you've

[2:35:49] seen that like 24 stories is too high. And so,

[2:35:55] um, I'm hoping that you could give consideration for lowering

[2:35:59] the number of floors in the buildings. Thank you. Thank

[2:36:04] you. Next up, deputy mayor Usterhoff. Yes. Good evening, Madam

[2:36:11] Chair. Can you hear me well enough. We can. Okay.

[2:36:15] Great. Thanks very much. Um, yeah, I want to say

[2:36:19] have a few comments and, uh, questions as well. And

[2:36:22] I really, really appreciate, let me see my colleague. It's

[2:36:26] the first time there by speaking, but also all of

[2:36:27] the, um, the public, uh, that's amazing. Amazing input and

[2:36:33] exactly why we have these meetings. So, um, I have

[2:36:37] a lot I wrote down as I've been listening to

[2:36:40] and some of it's been answered. So I might, um,

[2:36:42] but, um, but I wanted to ask about the infrastructure.

[2:36:45] We hear a lot about it. And I don't, I

[2:36:47] know a developer is not going to build until they

[2:36:50] know they have enough water. They have enough, uh, electricity

[2:36:55] and energy required for this building, but, um, is that,

[2:36:59] uh, I must just ask it quickly is that a

[2:37:02] concern. Is that going to delay the project? Is there

[2:37:04] enough power for this type of building. Mr. Bar. Thanks.

[2:37:10] And through you chair, that is part of the technical

[2:37:12] review that's ongoing by city staff right now is looking

[2:37:14] at all those key servicing components. I know we've heard

[2:37:16] about stormwater tonight, but we're also reviewing for water, wastewater

[2:37:20] and electricity. So any future staff recommendation that would be

[2:37:23] brought forward would be in full consideration of the city's

[2:37:26] ability to service this development. And in addition to that,

[2:37:30] we do have the municipal servicing allocation policies. So with

[2:37:34] the zoning being approved, it doesn't necessarily guarantee them servicing

[2:37:37] until they move forward with a more detailed application and

[2:37:40] obtain their municipal servicing allocation from the city. Deputy Mayor

[2:37:45] Osterhoff. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. That's helpful for everyone

[2:37:49] to know. That is that's the procedure. And that's great.

[2:37:54] I, there are things I really liked about this development.

[2:37:56] And it's not surprising. This, this particular, um, the architecture,

[2:38:00] um, and is everything is top notch actually, where, uh,

[2:38:04] where I want to give great credit to that when

[2:38:07] we see things like the framing of the city hall,

[2:38:11] this development is intended to enhance the city and the

[2:38:15] downtown. And I see it. And maybe I think many,

[2:38:19] many others also see that I want to acknowledge that.

[2:38:22] Um, I think it's quite, quite pleasing. And, um, debating

[2:38:26] the height is something that I also will wonder about.

[2:38:31] And, um, I look forward to that discussion. Um, so,

[2:38:34] um, when I wrote, uh. So I'm acknowledged that I

[2:38:40] do think, uh, I'm glad to know it's flexible on

[2:38:43] the layouts of the units. I hope, and I don't

[2:38:47] know of the data on three bedroom units, but I

[2:38:49] do believe that there could be more needed there. I'm

[2:38:53] pleased with the underground parking and the possibility of downtown

[2:38:56] public use, both short term and long - term. I

[2:38:59] hope that, uh, downtown really needs it. Better parking. I

[2:39:03] really appreciated the comments from, um, Mary Jo, uh, thought

[2:39:08] that was, uh, very, very well done. Um, and, um,

[2:39:12] the scope of living downtime, the perspective of living downtown,

[2:39:16] um, but I also appreciate those who are concerned about

[2:39:18] it. Um, and the impact of shadowing. It's a pretty

[2:39:23] big deal. Um, and so, um, I really, um, I

[2:39:27] hope that I wanted to ask, did they already take

[2:39:31] shadowing and consideration? And is there a way to, I

[2:39:37] mean, the Anna Lane, I know exactly where it is,

[2:39:40] uh, it has there any been any shadowing considerations in

[2:39:46] the presentation that is given to us tonight. Mr. Keene.

[2:39:53] Yes, through you, Madam Chair. Uh, as part of our

[2:39:56] application, we've completed a complete shadow study, which is the

[2:40:02] equinox and the solstice. And we've evaluated that study based

[2:40:08] on the criteria that are provided in the official plan

[2:40:12] that are established by the city. Uh, and it passes

[2:40:16] that criteria. And by, by no means, you know, it

[2:40:22] shadows Anne Lane. It has, it has a wave, like

[2:40:25] which is weirder seeing as common with the downtown buildings

[2:40:28] because of the orientation of the cities downtown. The shadows

[2:40:33] move. So it doesn't, you know, at 8 a. m.

[2:40:36] when the sun is first arising in, you know, in

[2:40:40] March and in September, you have a long shadow. And

[2:40:43] then by 9 a. m. it's short and it's moving.

[2:40:46] And then by 10 a. m. it's shorter and it's

[2:40:48] moving again. And that's just, just because of the orientation

[2:40:52] of the streets, uh, in the downtown. So the shadows

[2:40:56] don't stay on one location, uh, for a prolonged period.

[2:41:02] They create like a wave, uh, is the way they

[2:41:04] react in all of the times. And, uh, we'll look

[2:41:08] forward to staff's input on their review of that report.

[2:41:16] Yeah, thanks for that. I get that now after these

[2:41:19] years. And I'll be interesting to see here if they're,

[2:41:23] if there is more that can be done to limit,

[2:41:26] uh, mitigate shadowing, it is, it is an incredibly legitimate

[2:41:30] concern. And I look forward to that. So that's, um,

[2:41:36] the stormwater is this building development. I mean, ultimately it

[2:41:42] creates more displacement of water. So that's, that's the, the

[2:41:48] risk, I guess stormwater management. It's a big deal again.

[2:41:51] Flooding, I don't know about the flooding downtown. I haven't

[2:41:54] seen that so much. So, um, and you write right

[2:41:57] downtown. And is that, I guess, questions for the staff,

[2:42:01] Madam Chair, um, is, is the stormwater is the city's

[2:42:06] issue, right? They have we, we have to solve that

[2:42:09] as well as the infrastructure against. Mr. Bar. Thanks. And

[2:42:13] through you, Chair. Uh, yeah, stormwater is a city infrastructure

[2:42:16] piece. And within the downtown area, uh, applicants are required

[2:42:21] to submit a stormwater report that looks at reducing system

[2:42:24] flows. So the properties have to reduce their outfall at

[2:42:29] peak periods, uh, every new development is actually working as

[2:42:34] a sponge to try and absorb more stormwater during those

[2:42:36] events and eject less to the system. So it is

[2:42:39] part of the consideration for balancing infrastructure development downtown. Deputy

[2:42:44] Mayor. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going

[2:42:48] through my questions here. That was helpful. Um. Minister Parking

[2:42:55] about that, I don't, uh, I just wanted to say

[2:42:59] that I think that there's a lot to like about

[2:43:01] this development. I don't see this as a destructive to

[2:43:06] our downtown. Um, and, um, and I'm glad we clarify

[2:43:11] that this is not an official plan amendment. The official

[2:43:14] plan, uh, speaks to this and welcomes this type of

[2:43:18] development in scale. And that'll be a big, um, conversation

[2:43:25] to come. 30 seconds. Thank you. Uh, it's a, it's,

[2:43:30] um, it's an attempt for the heritage part. Um, I

[2:43:33] understand that. And it's, it's, it's, it's a often enough,

[2:43:36] we don't have a lot to say about architecture. In

[2:43:39] this case, we have a developer or an architect of

[2:43:42] the second to none really who are, who are complementing

[2:43:45] the cities. So, um, I look forward to further discussions.

[2:43:49] Some madam chair and seeing what's best for us. And

[2:43:52] thank you. One second to spare. Well done. Um, we'll

[2:43:57] turn now to Councillor Shafes. Thank you. Um, I want

[2:44:04] to start off by, there were comments about it. This

[2:44:07] is needed. The number of apartment buildings. And one factor

[2:44:12] was kind of used. See if we had enough supply.

[2:44:14] It's called the occupancy rate. And a healthy rate is

[2:44:18] three percent. And getting into some information from earlier. Uh,

[2:44:24] as of October 25, downtown Occupy rate was two percent

[2:44:30] for one bedrooms and 1. 9 percent for three bedrooms.

[2:44:33] And in Kingston under the CMA, the rates were 2.

[2:44:36] 4 for one bedrooms and 1. 2 for three bedrooms.

[2:44:41] And I know the applicant had mentioned provincial standards and

[2:44:46] housing supply. But I'm going to go back to the

[2:44:49] way it's sort of distributed now. I know you mentioned

[2:44:51] that still early. But one bedrooms were at currently at

[2:44:56] 464 and three bedrooms at two. But according to these

[2:45:00] numbers, will you be considering having a lot more three

[2:45:04] bedroom units. Mr. Keene. Yes. Through you, Madam Chair, certainly

[2:45:10] the hardest ones are the three bedrooms in a rental

[2:45:13] scenario because rents are often similar to a house purchase,

[2:45:18] uh, in Kingston. So do I think there'll be more

[2:45:22] three bedrooms? Yes. I suspect there'd be more two better

[2:45:27] than three bedrooms. But, uh, we also, we regularly propose

[2:45:33] this kind of mix because this is the highest test

[2:45:35] for amenity, right? Like you're not going to go with

[2:45:38] more units. You've got to provide numbers of amenity like

[2:45:43] 10 square metres per unit. As I increase bedroom size

[2:45:47] and have less units, my amenity decreases. So you want

[2:45:51] to test these buildings with the smaller units to make

[2:45:55] sure there is enough amenity in that case. So when

[2:45:59] you decrease units later in the process by making larger,

[2:46:03] better units, you're safe, so to speak, on those things

[2:46:06] like parking and amenity, which are regulating factors in a

[2:46:10] project like this. Um, but certainly we'll be looking at

[2:46:14] that the entire makeup. Um, as the project moves forward,

[2:46:20] um. I've had a few projects go the other way

[2:46:24] where we proposed more bedrooms. And it actually went to

[2:46:28] smaller units. I wouldn't foresee that here. Certainly, uh, could

[2:46:32] be more two beds and more three beds. But it

[2:46:36] is three bedrooms for every, not just city of Kingston,

[2:46:40] like every city, a three bedroom unit is tough outside

[2:46:43] of a student scenario. Um, because a family that needs

[2:46:48] that three bedroom unit is starting to look toward a

[2:46:51] house. So it's a challenging one to fulfill, not just

[2:46:55] Kingston. That's like across the province. Hey, thank you. Uh,

[2:47:00] I noticed in your report, your portion, it's stated that

[2:47:04] the number of car sharing parking spaces were two. But

[2:47:07] within the city exhibit A 1. 3E, it states the

[2:47:13] minimum requirement is six. Is that going to change? So

[2:47:18] through you, Madam Chair, with the number of units that

[2:47:20] we're providing, the bylaw would require 12 and we're proposing

[2:47:24] six. So if the spot that said too, then there's

[2:47:28] an error in my report. Okay. Thank you for clarifying

[2:47:32] that. I know, uh, few and Councillor Easterhoff mentioned, uh,

[2:47:37] flooding. And it's been discussed here before, but flooding in

[2:47:41] the downtown area and around the Ohhit building, uh, in

[2:47:44] the past. I just wondering, will there be plans in

[2:47:47] place to address this. Sorry through you, Madam Chair. Can

[2:47:53] you repeat that? I was just writing a note about

[2:47:55] that in regards to flooding. I know Mr. Bar, Director

[2:48:00] Brier was discussing that basically any new residential units are

[2:48:06] supposed to reduce the amount of flooding or water leaving

[2:48:09] their properties. They're lots into other areas. So with, with

[2:48:13] this issue, being partially city related, will your building have

[2:48:20] mitigating factors to reduce the overflow of water leaving the

[2:48:23] building. Uh, through you, Madam Chair, short answer is yes.

[2:48:29] The most common way to control stormwater in a building

[2:48:32] like this is through tanks that retain water and slowly

[2:48:37] leak it out to the city systems. Those could be

[2:48:40] in parking garage areas. They could be on the roof.

[2:48:43] So that's, that's how, uh, the technical aspect of it

[2:48:47] works so that that stormwater is eventually leaked out to

[2:48:50] the system, uh, at the appropriate times when the system

[2:48:53] is less stressed. Just a follow up on that. Would

[2:48:58] you consider recycling the water. Um. Three of you, Madam

[2:49:05] Chair. Ray says, sure. I don't know. I don't know

[2:49:09] what the rules are around that, but yeah, for sure.

[2:49:14] Thank you. Um, how close would NetZero will this be

[2:49:19] this building be over and above the building code. I'd

[2:49:29] have to say we're not quite sure. Not yet. We're

[2:49:31] going to, I mean, we're going to try and make

[2:49:34] it, you know, within the, um, constraints of the project.

[2:49:40] There'll be value engineering done. But certainly in all, I

[2:49:43] mean, it's the way we want to go. Okay. I

[2:49:47] know you really can't give an answer, but, uh, I'm

[2:49:49] throwing this at there now. So then you will be

[2:49:51] considering it. My next question. I know a lot of

[2:49:57] people inquired about the 23 floors. And I do have

[2:50:02] concerns as well. Um, my question is why towers, two

[2:50:08] towers. Why not spread the floors throughout the whole floor

[2:50:12] plate. Footprint of the building and maybe having more units

[2:50:18] in each floor. Which would reduce the height of the

[2:50:21] building. Through you, Madam Chair, um, that, that is another

[2:50:29] option, but they would be a large L - shaped

[2:50:32] building, you know, like the existing zoning on the site.

[2:50:36] Uh, allows that 10 story building, seven story podium. You

[2:50:41] know, three stories above that as a big bar across

[2:50:45] the site. But urban design principles, uh, do steers away

[2:50:51] from that style of building. They do steer us toward

[2:50:55] a podium level building, which is what really people interact

[2:50:59] with and then stepping back to those towers which have

[2:51:03] limited floor plates. They have long skinny shadows rather than

[2:51:07] a large bar shadow that would actually cover, um, the

[2:51:12] entire Annalene all day. Cause it would never move. It

[2:51:15] would just a different part of our building would block

[2:51:19] and a lane. But when you have the taller, skinny,

[2:51:21] uh, towers, they cast narrower shadows. So it moves more

[2:51:25] readily with the site. So it is urban design principles

[2:51:28] that are established by the city of Kingston and many

[2:51:31] other cities that dictate, uh, the form that's before this

[2:51:35] committee. Okay. I wasn't how effect I would have in

[2:51:38] the shadowing aspect. So basically what you're saying is because

[2:51:42] of the narrow aspect of the towers be less shadowing

[2:51:45] effect on the ad lane building, another buildings in the

[2:51:48] area. And if this building was had a larger footprint

[2:51:51] and would say reduced down to 10, 11 floors, it

[2:51:55] would probably be an old day shadowing aspect. Through you,

[2:51:58] Madam Chair, I would certainly have to model it. But

[2:52:01] yes, that, that's the principle behind the tall towers versus

[2:52:04] a bar building. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Councillor

[2:52:12] Shaeves, would you take the chair for my police? I

[2:52:16] take chair and recognise you. Thank you, sir. Um, so

[2:52:20] through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant described already about, um,

[2:52:26] the amenity space and how using a one bedroom, lots

[2:52:29] of one bedrooms to model, um, helps with that in

[2:52:31] the future. So I just want to offer that, I

[2:52:34] think, you know, if we're talking about affordability and we're

[2:52:37] talking about, um, a conversation I've been having a lot

[2:52:40] lately is around right size housing. And so if we

[2:52:43] have, you know, seniors or whoever, uh, empty nesters living

[2:52:47] in large family homes who are looking to downsize and

[2:52:49] maybe have a different next chapter of life, perhaps in

[2:52:52] the downtown core. Often two bedroom at least, um, is

[2:52:57] what people would be looking for. So I just want

[2:52:59] to offer up a request, you know, for couples downsizing

[2:53:04] for someone who needs to share an apartment with a

[2:53:06] roommate for affordability reasons. Um, I just think fewer one

[2:53:11] bedrooms and more two bedrooms would be great. I take

[2:53:13] a point, um, I take the point that was made

[2:53:15] about, you know, once you get into three bedrooms, people

[2:53:17] start looking at homes or houses rather, um, and I

[2:53:20] think that's a fair assessment. Um, so that's all I

[2:53:23] wanted to offer in addition to the rest of the

[2:53:25] conversation. And that's it. Since I don't see a question

[2:53:29] there. I return the chair. Thank you very kindly. Um,

[2:53:37] so all the committee members have had a chance to

[2:53:39] speak, but we have a special guest with us this

[2:53:41] evening. So we will turn to Councillor Rich. Thank you,

[2:53:45] Madam Chair and through you. And I will politely ignore

[2:53:49] the comments of cancella shaves over there. Um, the, so

[2:53:53] I just want to begin by thanking everybody that came

[2:53:56] the seed bang and, uh, expressed their concerns, their thoughts,

[2:54:00] uh, even their support in some cases, uh, for this

[2:54:03] project. And that's part of what public consultation is all

[2:54:06] about. Um, I have, I think this is a very

[2:54:10] interesting proposal. I have some questions. You know, a lot

[2:54:15] of, lots of things have been, uh, mentioned about shadows

[2:54:17] and shade. And I will, I will get to that.

[2:54:21] But, um, I just want to ask a bit more

[2:54:23] about the traffic. Traffic study. Because this area is evolving.

[2:54:29] Um, it's incredibly complex. You have a number of developments

[2:54:32] that are kind of coming online simultaneously as well as

[2:54:35] an interaction with the ferry. And sports arena that hosts

[2:54:39] events. So, um, you just mind giving me a bit

[2:54:43] more information about the traffic study and what, what the

[2:54:46] results of that were. Thank you for that question. And

[2:54:53] through you, Madam Chair, one of the aspects that's makes,

[2:54:59] makes a site like this work so well is that

[2:55:01] all the loading is internal to the site. So if

[2:55:04] you think about how the site operates now, uh. Full

[2:55:09] size transport trucks, go down barrick street, throw it in

[2:55:13] reverse and back into a loading space. And that, that

[2:55:17] is not uncommon in downtown. If anything, most places, no

[2:55:23] off, not even a site where you can back off.

[2:55:27] The trucks just park on the street. So when you,

[2:55:31] so from that loading, you know, garbage, all of those

[2:55:34] aspects having a through lane for a development like this

[2:55:38] actually offers an improvement to that side of the traffic.

[2:55:43] And, and I know this may be hard to believe,

[2:55:48] but dumping 500 residential units in downtown might sound like

[2:55:52] a lot of units, but from a traffic perspective, it's

[2:55:55] a blip. And you'll see that when you review our

[2:55:58] traffic impact study, downtown already has traffic lights. It's not

[2:56:03] even recommending changing timing of traffic lights to handle this.

[2:56:08] You know, it's, it's handling all of its parking off

[2:56:11] sites separate from that loading space. And so when you

[2:56:14] take a look at that traffic study, you'll see that.

[2:56:17] Um, but at the same time not to take our

[2:56:20] own traffic consultants word for it. The city staff, you

[2:56:24] know, departments will be reviewing that report and commenting or

[2:56:30] agreeing with it through the process. Thank you. Oh, thank

[2:56:35] you very much. That's, that's very helpful. Yeah. No, I

[2:56:38] agree about the on site loading. Absolutely. We can all

[2:56:42] look to the Metro grocery store on, on Barry Street

[2:56:46] about that one. Um, yeah, no, I think it's just

[2:56:49] an ongoing concern that I've heard from, uh, folks that

[2:56:52] live in the area just because of the number of,

[2:56:55] of moving pieces there. Um, now if we're talking about.

[2:57:01] Shadows, we're going to talk about shadows. Um, under section

[2:57:06] 2. 72, the official plan, this adverse effect. And this

[2:57:11] is a question more for staff. What I don't see

[2:57:14] a definition of an adverse effect in the official plan

[2:57:17] itself explicitly merely what, you know, talking about potentially an

[2:57:23] adverse effect is, um, staff mind telling me a bit

[2:57:26] more about that. Is that okay? Mr. Bar. Thanks. And

[2:57:34] through you chair, uh, right. Let me just refresh my

[2:57:38] brain on where adverse impact come from. So there is

[2:57:41] a definition of compatibility under the plan. Compatibility, specifically outlines

[2:57:46] what it considers to be compatible. And I believe adverse,

[2:57:51] I believe adverse impact is actually defined. So it's called

[2:57:55] adverse effects under the official plan. An adverse, yeah, adverse,

[2:58:01] I had to find it. Sorry. I had to vamp

[2:58:02] there for a minute while I found this. So adverse

[2:58:04] effects means one of the following. An impairment of the

[2:58:07] quality of the natural environment for any use that can

[2:58:10] be made of it. Injury or damage to property plant

[2:58:13] or animal life, harm or material discomfort to any person

[2:58:17] and adverse effect on the health of any person, impairment

[2:58:21] of the safety of any person, rendering any property or

[2:58:25] plant or mammal life unfit for human use, the loss

[2:58:28] of enjoyment of normal use of a property and interference

[2:58:32] with a normal conduct of business. So an adverse effect

[2:58:37] is one of these following things depending on what is

[2:58:40] being reviewed as part of it under the tests for

[2:58:43] compatibility, which range from impacts to the natural environment, the

[2:58:48] human environment, uh, to the normal conduct of properties. Thank

[2:58:52] you very much. And in the following section, 2. 7.

[2:58:56] 3, what's the first one that's listed as a, uh,

[2:59:01] potential item. Under 27, three, the first item listed is

[2:59:08] shadowing. Okay. Thank you. So shadowing, shadowing is a land

[2:59:12] use compatibility consideration. Yeah. I know. Thank you very much.

[2:59:16] Um, okay. And so this isn't, this is more of

[2:59:21] a holistic question is I'm not a member of the

[2:59:24] Planning Committee. And so I'm something of an amateur. What

[2:59:29] takes precedent? Provincial Planning Act or official plan, the city

[2:59:34] official plan. Bar. Thanks. And through you chair, um, they

[2:59:41] both work together in tandem. So the official plan is

[2:59:44] the policy document for the city of Kingston that implements

[2:59:48] the provincial policy. Uh, so both work in tandem with

[2:59:51] each other. There are matters of test for compatibility in

[2:59:55] other like considerations of the city that aren't necessarily directly

[2:59:58] reflected in the provincial planning statement. So there are different

[3:00:02] and unique tests that are hosted both at the provincial

[3:00:05] level and the local level. So both policy documents have

[3:00:08] to be met in our evaluation of planning applications. Okay.

[3:00:13] Thank you. Um, that's very interesting. Um, so, okay. That

[3:00:19] just tells me to put things into perspective a bit.

[3:00:23] Uh, and, you know, I want folks to know that

[3:00:25] I take their concerns a bit that's very seriously. And

[3:00:28] as part of the reason I'm asking these questions is

[3:00:31] trying to understand a bit better. So I appreciate the

[3:00:35] answers from staff. Um, so obviously shadowing is very highly

[3:00:42] considered under the official plan. It's mentioned 16 times. I

[3:00:46] didn't just do a word search at that, Mr. Bar.

[3:00:50] I actually read The Thing. And one of the other

[3:00:53] things on the 2. 7. 3 letter J, as degradation

[3:00:58] of cultural heritage resources. So, um, what is going on

[3:01:04] in terms of there are a number of cultural, a

[3:01:06] number of heritage resources around the building in terms of,

[3:01:09] you know, the construction. And is there anything that the

[3:01:12] proponent of the applicant can speak to with regards to

[3:01:14] that in particular? Mr. Keene. Through you, Madam Chair, there's

[3:01:21] two aspects of that question. One is that as part

[3:01:24] of our application, we do have a cultural heritage expert

[3:01:28] that has commented on the project and has reviewed those

[3:01:33] designated enlisted properties and has given input to the architect

[3:01:39] as the project has been designed. The second aspect, which

[3:01:43] is something that will be considered much later in the

[3:01:46] process is when, when construction starts, you know, protections will

[3:01:52] be part of that process for those resources. Whether they're

[3:01:56] heritage buildings or not, there are processes that protect adjacent

[3:02:00] properties, uh, from, from digging and, you know, potentially falling

[3:02:06] in per se. So, so those are the two aspects

[3:02:09] that the application will consider. Okay. Thank you very much.

[3:02:17] Based on where we are right now and the proposal

[3:02:21] and everything, I'm sure I'll have significantly more annoying questions

[3:02:26] at the next meeting. But, uh, but I just wanted

[3:02:29] it there and take everybody for the time. Thank you.

[3:02:35] Okay. That concludes this community meeting at 904 PM. Um,

[3:02:40] if you wish to stay for the last little bit,

[3:02:43] you're welcome. If you wish to leave, uh, you're welcome

[3:02:45] to do that too. Please do so quietly so we

[3:02:47] can finish up. Thank you kindly. All right. I will

[3:02:49] now call the regular meeting to order at 905 PM.

[3:02:52] Do we have a mover in a seconder to approve

[3:02:54] the agenda with the addendum? Move by Councillor Shaves, seconded

[3:02:58] by Councillor Sanic. All those in favor. And that's carried.

[3:03:04] Do I have a mover in Secondar to confirm the

[3:03:06] minutes of Planning Committee meeting number 2026 - 15 held

[3:03:10] September 3rd, 2026. Move by Councillor Shaves, seconded by Councillor

[3:03:16] Oceanic, all those in favor. And that's carried. Are there

[3:03:23] any disclosures of pecuniary interest? Seeing none, there are no

[3:03:27] delegations. There are no briefings. We have no items of

[3:03:29] business on the agenda. There are no motions. There are

[3:03:32] no notices of motion. Is there any other business? Seeing

[3:03:35] none, correspondence was included in the agenda and the addendum.

[3:03:39] The next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled for Thursday,

[3:03:42] October 1st, 2026 at 6 p. m. Can I please

[3:03:45] have a mover in Second or to adjourn the meeting,

[3:03:46] move by Councillor Oceanic, seconded by Councillor Shapes, all those

[3:03:49] in favor. And that's Carrie. Good night everyone. Thank you.

[3:03:52] We are adjourned.

Planning Committee

Agenda

Transcript