Good evening. It's 6 p. m. so we will begin. The meeting being held tonight is a public meeting held under the planning act. Please note that this is a meeting will be live streamed on the city website, audio, video are being collected by the city of Kingston and the meeting recordings will be archived on the city website for public consumption. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone in the room to please ensure the sound on your cellular devices is turned off. There we go. Notice of collection. Personal information collected as a result of the public meetings are collected under the authority of the planning act and will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. Person speaking at the meeting or requested to give their name for recording in the minutes. All names opinions and comments may be collected and may form part of the minutes which will be available to the public. To be notified of the decision, you must either fill out the sign - in sheet at the door or you must email the file planner or committee cleric requesting notice of the decision. Tonight's meeting is to consider public meeting reports. These reports do contain a staff recommendation and the recommendation is typically to approve with conditions or to deny. After the planner's presentation, committee members will be able to ask questions of staff followed by members of the public. Do not expect a response immediately after you have asked your questions, staff in the applicant will be taking notes and will respond after five speakers have had an opportunity to present. If your question or comment has already been provided, please do not feel compelled to repeat it. Following the question and an answer period, this committee then makes a recommendation on the application to city council who has the final say on the applications. Following Council's decision, notice will be circulated in accordance to the planning act. Members of the public cannot appeal a decision. Only registered owner of the land, which the amendment applies or prescribed person under the planning act has the ability to appeal a decision of council. For more information about appeal rights or how to be added as a party to an appeal, please contact the assigned file planner. So I'll call the meeting to order at 602 p. m. So I need a mover in a sector to approve the agenda with the eventum. Move the Councillor Stephen, seconded by Councillor Glenn, all in favor. And that passes. So I need a mover in Second Due to confirm the minutes of planning committee meeting number 2026 - 11 held on Thursday, June 11th, 2026. We'll be Councillor Sannick, seconded by Councillor Shaves. Is there any edits or, no, okay, all in favor? And that passes. Okay, so are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Thing is none. There are no delegations. There are no briefings. So we'll move on to a first item of business this evening, which is the recommendation report for 55 catarachery woods drive, and I invite staff to present. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. My name is Amy Didrickson. I'm a senior planner with City of Kingston Planning Services presenting a staff recommendation regarding the official Plan Amendment zoning by La Amendment application at 55 Catwoods Drive, which has been submitted by Foten Planning Consultants and Carico Development Corporation, Community Meeting regarding this application was held in October of 2024. Since this time, the applicants been working through the technical review process and has also submitted concurrent site plan control application that's going through a technical review. So the purpose and effective this application is to amend the official plan and the zoning bylaw to establish site - specific permission for an eight - story apartment building with a reduced night story containing amenity area and mechanical penthouse containing 149 dwelling units. The subject property outlined in purple is currently vacant of buildings is a 1. 5 hectare parcel located just west of the intersection with Sydney Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive at the eastern edge of the Cataraqui North Secondary Plan area within the city's urban boundary. There are commercially zone lands immediately to the east highlighted in red, as well as a Hydra 1 yard directly to the south. The Lendenwood subdivision is located to the west, which contains a mix of housing forms with two - story townhouses and semi - detached dwellings adjacent to the subject property to the West. The subject property meets official plan criteria, locational criteria for a taller mid - rise building, given its location on a collector wrote at The Periphery of an existing neighbourhood with access to open space and transportation options. Its proximity to existing and planned commercial uses and ability to provide a transition to surrounding LawRise development. This is an area of the city where there is service incapacity and stormwater management infrastructure to support the proposed development and where the city is made investments in active transportation infrastructure such as the multi - use path along Catwood's Drive highlighted in blue and bus service along Catwood Strive that connects to the Cataraqui state's business park and commercial uses along Princess Street. So the proposed height and massing of the apartment building is remained substantially similar since the community meeting with changes primarily to the parking and site plan layout. There are now two levels of underground parking with the same slightly reduced number of parking spaces with a smaller underground footprint as opposed to one level of underground parking that was initially proposed. 40 surface parking spaces are provided at the rear of the building continues to be provided at the rear of the building which allows the building to address the street and activate the public realm. Overall highlight that 149 dwelling units are well accommodated on this parcel through providing vehicular and bike parking that meets and in certain cases exceeds the Kingston zoning bylaw minimum standards. Amenity areas are provided in excess of zoning by - law standards in a variety of formats, including outdoor amenities at grade, amenity areas at grade rooftop spaces, balconies and indoor amenity rooms notably on the ground floor along the Catwood Strive frontage. Originally, the development prevented at the community meeting had a large patio on the west side of the building, whereas updates included terrorist patio along the Catwood's frontage - oriented towards the east, which will add visual interest along the street frontage. We have some landscaping details from the site plan control application that's proceeding concurrently, which show concerted effort to program seating areas and tree plantings in this space. I'll also highlight some details in the open space to the west of the building. This would be the space between the houses on Max Crescent and the proposed building. So we have some details that we'll be refined through site plan control that illustrate community garden along the frontage, native shrub plantings along the edge with a water feature, with pathways winding around and seating areas, as well as a number of tree plantings. So since the notice of community meeting was issued, we've had some correspondence that's contained in the staff report and then one additional piece of correspondence that we've received before this meeting. I'll cover some topics of interest in the next few slides. Um, so there have been concerns with respect to the proposed scale and height of the building in relation to the surrounding context, which talked about in the immediate vicinity includes low rise dwellings. We heard at the community meeting concerns related to shadowing and overlook on adjacent properties. Um, in relation to these concerns, this slide just illustrates how the oversized law does allow for generous separation distances between the homes on Max Crescent to the west as well as, um, the space that's provided to the north with the six metre front yard as well as the road allowance and the linear open space to the north. And just, um, for reference, the minimum setback between buildings that are over seven stories and height along the cities express transit network and adjacent low rise buildings is 20 metres. So the setback that's provided along the west side is more than triple that and will allow for quite a transition space in between the building and adjacent low rise residential. Within these transition spaces, there are a number of tree plantings for posed. So I've included some details here just to illustrate their overall, um, there will be over 80 new tree plantings proposed in the landscaped area to the west. There's a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees that are currently, uh, on the plans going through site plan control application. But with respect to the zoning, um, just to highlight, there is a west side planting strip requirement that's been incorporated into the zoning bylaw amendment, which is beyond, um, standard requirements in the URM8 zone, which would typically only require a planting strip along the rear. So the tree plantings in the west side location will meet the requirement for a planting strip here and, and we'll be required as the application progresses. Um, just in relation to shadowing concerns, the applicant did submit a shadow impact study. And the renderings are included in the staff report before the committee, but essentially the sighting of the building, um, on the property limits, new shadows on adjacent residential and open space uses to very discreet times in the, um, fall and spring equinox just shown here, um, where shadows touch on, on Max Crescent homes between eight and 9 p. m. and clear, um, and then later in the day, just, um, briefly touch on the Cataraqui cemetery after 6 p. m., but this would be considered a very reasonable degree of shadowing and the setbacks and height that are, um, specified in the zoning will ensure that this built form that's justified through the application is carried forward. Um, so there were concerns with respect to traffic, um, as part of the correspondence that we received and concerns because residents are experiencing traffic congestion in this area and concerned that the proposal will increase the traffic congestion in this area. Um, so we'll just highlight here that, um, the application is supported by a transportation impact study that's been reviewed to the satisfaction of our transportation staff as part of the technical review. It does conclude that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the existing and projected traffic volumes signal timing adjustments are recommended at the Sydnam and Catwoods Drive intersection as part of improvements that are warranted in this location based on projected traffic conditions. The proposed development, because the proposed development does not contribute significantly to projected traffic conditions. This is a recommendation for the city to consider as part of future projects and isn't a requirement that will be required through the site plan application of the applicant. But also noting that as part of future city projects here, there is an extension to the Cowboys Drive Environmental Catwood Strive. Road, which is being reviewed through an environmental assessment process that is also, um, in the future for this area. Concerns have also been expressed with respect to the Class Four noise designation that's being recommended for this site as part of this application. There have been concerns that this designation will allow for an increased noise level from, uh, the proposed development, um, but just to clarify the purpose of the class four designation, um, it's required due to existing noise sources from non - residential uses in the vicinity of the property, um, and notably the loading and unloading activities at the Bay Ridge Landscaping non - residential use that's located to the east. It does not allow increased noise from the existing. It does not allow increased noise impacts to existing residential properties and does not exempt the residential use from the city of Kingston's noise bylaw. So the proposed development will be required to incorporate central air conditioning for all units and will also include a noise barrier wall to buffer noise to the outdoor patio area proposed for the property, which is illustrated on this slide. There had also been comments submitted, which express concerns for residents of the proposed development, but there will be a very reasonable degree of noise with the class four designation. It's mainly intended to apply to areas that are adjacent to non - residential uses that generate noises above a standard range for a residential area. So the subject application includes redesignating and arterial land use designation with a residential land use designation. And we received comments that residents would like to see a commercial use integrated into the proposed development in this location. Um, so through the technical review process, the applicant, oops, I'm sorry. Um, the applicant explored the potential to incorporate commercial uses at grade, but determine that this was not viable at this time. Um, but to enable a potential conversion in the future, the recommended zoning by law amendment enables ground floor commercial uses. And also includes a requirement that a minimum 485 square metres of ground floor space include indoor amenity space or permitted non - residential uses or a combination. If commercial uses become viable for the owner in the future, the zoning will enable this conversion. Um, so before the committee is a recommended official plan and zoning by law amendment that's intended to enable this residential development and primarily I would summarize that the exception overlay that supplied, um, is intended to reflect the development that's been demonstrated to be compatible and functional through the reports and plans. And certain modifications are intended to enhance the requirements of the URMAT zone to reflect appropriate standards for this larger lot in the West End. For example, where the URMA zone would allow for a 10 percent Landscaped Open space minimum requirement, we've specified a 40 percent Landscaped Open Space requirement here to ensure that the green space amenity of the site shown through the application is carried forward. Um, so the recommendation. Oh. Apologies. The recommendation before committee is for approval of his owning bylaw of this official plan and zoning by law amendment, um, that will enable a compatible form of intensification that will add to the mix of housing options available in the area while incorporating site - specific setback and buffering requirements to mitigate any potential for adverse effects. In terms of next steps, um, after the committee's recommendation to council, if the applications are approved, their proposal will require a site plan control application and agreement. Which is proceeding, but won't be able to be approved until the zoning is in place. Um, there's a municipal servicing allocation holding overlay requirement to allocate servicing to the proposal. And a building permit as well. Apolog. That concludes the presentation, but the, um, applicant is here as well. Um, for any questions and staff, we're happy to answer as well. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. So are there any questions from the committee. Councillor Shaves. Well, I might as well start us off. Um, actually a question but curiosity. And that was the one these side plans, the proposal site. This seemed to be a couple roads which led to the south portion of the property, um, behind the parking lot. Is that for anything? Or I'm just wondering what that's for. You, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, is this question in relation to the Hydra 1 lens to the south and the access easement? I just hope to clarify the question. Sorry. I'm not certain. It seems to be part of the property, but on the south side. Behind the parking lot. Yeah. So it's through you, Mr. Chair. There is an access easement for the Hydra One lens to the south. They use that land for access. And as a result, the proposal doesn't include changes to that area. So my understanding. Okay. It just seemed like there were trees planted at the long part of that lot. So I just wonder what that was for. But this is no big deal. I'll start with what I like in here. Um, the setbacks from the northern property in the Western properties. The tree line to the west. Is part of its remaining. I love the green space. That's there with the pathway that the residents can use. Um, and you're planting, I believe 84 trees more than what was there in the first place or being cut down. And for the first time after asking for probab B three years in the plans include committee gardens. In the community centres or area. So thank you. Um, hopefully the residents will take advantage of that. My questions are going to be centring around the traffic's impact study. There are a couple of the word included 11 25 Sydden Road. Which going to have an impact. And you did touch on the, the extension of Catwood's east of Sidden Road. And another report touched on also the fact that signal adjustments will have to be done at those lights. But right now it's only a three way. Once that extension is completed. It will be a four way. And then we traffic going west. And possibly turning while going straight through north or south. That's going to have an impact on the traffic in the flow. Just wearing yourself and get touched into that place. Yep. Through you, Mr. Chair, so the. Background or the, uh, the development proposal at 1125 Sydnam Road has come in for a planning application more recently than this one. And the way our transportation staff scoped transportation impact studies, um, is to, to request, um, that development's be considered that have progressed through the development application process, um, and have an approved transportation impact study. And at this time, um, that, that proposed development isn't at that stage yet, but it, um, there's a sequential consideration of developments as they come forward, um, to ensure that the cumulative effects are captured by developments in a way that's, that's fair so that developments that are coming forward, um, to compensate for any additional requirements that, um, they would need to address to mitigate any traffic impacts that are created by a proposed development. So essentially that, um, that proposal that you're referencing hasn't progressed enough through the planning application process to be considered here. Similarly, the catwood's extension. Is in its early stages in the environmental assessment process. So it wasn't requested to be included in the traffic impact study, but, um, this is a future improvement that's worth noting in this area. I think, um, the environmental assessment process is intended to evaluate alternatives and look at ways to improve track that conditions. So, um, that process will be considering this development and the traffic generated by it and the recommendations from this TIS. So it's, um, it's a complex consideration effect domino effect, but it's our transportation staff have a process for ensuring that, uh, applications are considered in a sequential and fair way. Thank you. I believe I brought up here as well that once that development does occur in the, um, mill pondia area. And the road is extended from John Counter all the way to Cinnamon Road. Believe a lot of people going to be using it as a shortcut. So that's going to impact the traffic flow through there. Uh, also with the traffic impact study, there was no mention of residents or at least the roads off of Cidnam Road unis and Arnold. The resident already have difficulties exiting and entering those cul - de - sacs, those communities. And this may just actually infuse that even greater. So. Just wondering why those weren't included as well. Through you, Mr. Chair, the intersections that UNIS and Sidnam Road and Arnold are dead - end streets. And it's my understanding that, um, traffic in back studies, uh, don't typically consider dead end streets ineffective intersections. The ones that were considered in the traffic impact study were intersections along Catwood Strive that connect to the broader residential network. So the scope of the study didn't include those intersections. But. Yeah, that's, uh, that's my understanding based on feedback from transportation staff. Okay. Just I've heard quite a bit about how difficult it is to enter and exiting those two streets, those roadways. So I doubt this is going to actually help. Assist them getting in or out very much. So, and I will leave it at there. Thank you. Hey, Councilloc. Uh, thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Um, my one question is just back to the commercial, the future commercial. So, um, do I understand it right that hundred and eighty five square metres will be preserved. That won't be residential inside the building that could be commercial in the future sometime in the future. Like it will not be residential, but it will be right in the meantime just some sort of endor amenity space that later could always become like a cafe or something like that. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Chair, that's, that's correct. The 485 square metres could be indoor amenity space now, but then also the zoning enables neighbourhood commercial uses in the future if those become viable. So like a cafe or a restaurant or, um, even a wellness clinic, I believe. Okay. Thank you. Three, Mr. Chair. For the like the outdoor area to the west of the apartment on the property, um, that will be open to other people in the neighbourhood that they could also walk by the water feature and the wildflower garden. Is that correct. So through you, Mr. Chair, the space to the west is a private open space so that that wouldn't be a public, um, a public open space. The applicant had reached out to the city to see if, if we would be interested in, um, in Parkland dedication that would include that area, but it, in consultation with Park staff, um, that area didn't meet our criteria for a city park just based on the size and, uh, lack of connectivity was my understanding with the, um, with the, with the park system, um, so it would be a private, private amenity space. Okay. Uh, thank you for you, Mr. Chair. Does that mean like it would be surrounded by a gate. And then everyone's fob who live in the building that would open the gate. Is that how that would work or how would it be protected from someone in the public from going in there. Through you, Mr. Chair, there isn't fencing proposed here. Um, I think the intent is that it would enhance the property from the aesthetics of the property from the street scape, but it would be, it would be trespassing if someone were to be on the property, but there wouldn't be a barrier. Okay. Thank you for you just one more question about the park, Mr. Chair. Well, the amenity space outdoor amenity space for the residents. Um, would it be built at the same time as the apartment? So as tenants start to move in, um, inside the apartment, it would be, it would be there as an outdoor amenity space. Or is this something that would be built after everyone moves in? I'm hoping at the same time, because my next questions will be about the letter in the adids from the some Cataraqua cemetery. Uh, thank you. And through the chair of the intention is that the amenity space at the West side will be constructed at the same time as the development so that it is as ready as possible when tenants move in. Obviously considering planting seasons. There may need to be a secondary round of landscaping that happens. Uh, but the majority of the features will be completed before residency. Great. Thank you. That's good to hear through you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just have like a last question about the tree. So, um, 80 new trees will be planted. I know we can't require this, but can we please try to, and you since they developer is here at the meeting, um, can we try to ensure their survival by providing watering. Thank you. And through the chair, certainly the trees are part of the site plan agreement, which means they're continued life. Uh, is withheld through the landscaping plan. Uh, we are fortunate in this area that the west side of the property is already a little bit wet. There's some stormwater, uh, features, which is why we're making a bit of a wetland feature of it. Um, but watering is certainly a consideration that has been included in the landscape plan and will continue to be executed throughout the build out of the development. Great. Thank you very much. And my last question, Mr. Chair Isabel, the letter we have from the Cataraqui Cemetery that's in our adids. And I just wondered how planning staff will address those concerns. Would that come in an information? Like they're kind of, they're related to this, but they're not specific to this development. And I just wondered if staff have any comments about it or if they can provide us on an upcoming agenda, you know, and information report or a discussion about what they're talking about in the addeds. And that is, um, if we could try to make park development sooner so that a new area isn't waiting for years before the park gets developed since they've been seeing a lot of increased usage in the cemetery treating it as if it is a city park because there's a lack of parks there. Thanks. Thanks and through your chair. Uh, we have reviewed the letter and we are aware of it. It's interesting to see that the cemetery is fulfilling the need as a park space. It is a beautiful area to move through so I can understand why people would be, uh, drawn to it. Uh, the cutthrough traffic is something that we did not anticipate or understand as well until it was raised to our attention. The cemetery is private lands. They do have the ability to do with that. But I understand they want to remain open and permeable. So that is something that they're going to have to continue to work through. And city staffer always available if they want to talk through options with them. But I'll start with the traffic and then move towards the park. So with the traffic concerns that are arising with this site, we do have the Purdy's Mill North subdivision progressing as well as the Catwoods extension, which would take it from the east side of Sydney Road out towards Old Mill. So eventually there will be a formal municipal road that will go across the northern portion of the cemetery property and then down the east side of it through the old mill subdivision creating that formal link, which should reduce the desire for people to use that as a bypass to the John Counter Taylor Kid Princess Intersection, uh, because this has been brought to our attention, we will bring it to transportation services so that they are made aware of it. And it's something that we can monitor through the implementation of these projects if it's needed. For the park space. It is great to see that the private amenity on this site will go forward with the enactment of the site plan control and provide that level of green space for the site. Um, as for the old meal subdivision, the manager of parks was not in today. So I was not able to understand where in the timeline for development approvals, uh, that park is, but I understand that it's probably progressing now given the full build out of that subdivision. Uh, but we also just passed a first time for the city, um, an advancement for using, uh, development charges funds in the future for advancing parks as part of, uh, The private development. We just had that at Council on Tuesday with the Barriefield Highland subdivision. So we're going to implement that and monitor it and see how it works. And if it forms a positive development for the area and it works financially for the city, we could use this as a greater tool to advance parks sooner in new subdivision development. So this is a bit of a pilot that we are undertaking. And we'll monitor that as well. But the, the concerns from the cemetery are well heard and understood. And we will continue to advance those two projects. Great. Thanks so much. For the front and loading, um, for the parks that, yeah, we just approved on Tuesday night. Would Steph be responding back to the cemetery's letter that was written. Thanks. And through you chair. We can take a moment and reply back to their concerns to highlight everything that we've discussed here tonight and engage with them. We do engage with them on several different development applications in the area. So there is a relationship there. All right. Thanks so much. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak. All right. So now we will move to the public. Is there any members of the public wishing to speak to this file if there is, if you want to come to one, you can raise your hand so I know where you are. And then you can come to one of these chairs right behind here with the mics. Anyone wish to speak to this file 55 cataraqui woods drive. Seeing as none, is there anyone online who wishes to speak to 55 Cataraqui woods drive. All right. Seeing as none. So, um, I'll close the public portion. So I need a mover and a seconder for the recommendation. Move by Councillor Stephen, seconded by Councillor Usteroff. Is there any discussion. Yeah. Councillor Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three of you. I just want to kind of echo Council Shaves. I think this is a really beautiful design. I really appreciate the thought and detail that went into it. Um, I feel that concerns are addressed in a reasonable way. And I think this is going to be a really nice place for people to live. So, um, thank you for the consideration you've given there. Okay. Um, Councillor Sanic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, uh, forgot to ask one other question. So there was one resident who wrote us and said she wasn't able to, uh, be here tonight. And she had a concern that there's only one entrance for all of the people that are going to live here. There's only one entrance exit. And when I think of some other apartments, um, some of them have two. So is there any concern with that, that staff have like through the fire department or anything, like maybe this is 149 units and it's below some certain threshold where you have to have two entrances and exits. Is that any concern at all. Through you, Mr. Chair. I think on a collector road, it's ideal if there's, if the single, um, entrance, I mean, this is a two way. It's a two way entrance and exit. And there is a traffic turnaround circle that's incorporated at the back of the building, the applicants reviewed the site circulation and the sight lines through their traffic impact study and our transportation staff had no concerns that this would function well. So I think it's ideal if there aren't too many interruptions in the Catwoods Drive flow of traffic there with a single entrance exit. All right. Thank you. Councillor Stroh. Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Um, yeah, I, I do want to echo, uh, my colleagues. There's a lot to like about this development. It does have all the touch points. So I want to commend the developer and, uh, the staff, uh, pulling that off. And, um, putting it all together. So I think there's a lot. I want to appreciate Councillor's question about traffic and the driveway. That was something I saw too. It's curious about that. But I hear the reason. And if it's off topic, Mr. Chair, just that councillor shaves mentioned about the two roads. And. Arnold and, um, the other one there. I always wonder when we're doing these developments here, how come we don't complete the picture of those roads, which are really our problematic. If we're doing traffic studies, how can we don't improve when we can like bringing those streets around. At the time of, um. Upgrading, like we don't bring water. We don't bring sewer. We don't bring traffic. We never improve what is. And I was wondering from a planning perspective, I don't know, but with the word is never apologise, but it seems like we overlook the existing community a lot. And, uh, you know, I'm supportive this project, but I often wonder why we don't have more include the whole area improvement when we do these things. Who wants to take that. Mr. Rocky, nice, Mr. Chair, that Arnold Street has not done, but we're bringing that road to the west. Then we ought to pick it up, you know, and improve what we've done in the past. Thanks. And through you, Chair, I'll take that one. Um, I think your question Councillor Usterhoff goes beyond the scope of this application because of where it is concentrated is not directly adjacent to any of the roads in the area. So a developer led improvement, which would be an improvement led by the private application. Um, is just not applicable in this situation. But if we think about what is happening at 1125 Sydnam, which is the subdivision to the north, that Councillor Shaves brought up. Um, that application does have some consideration for a connection to unis drive in so far right now as an emergency access connection. So there is a potential second connection that will happen there. When we're thinking about, you know, broadening out our network and what could potentially happen on the east side, um, as the city does grow, we do catch up and absorb older parts of the city. And we do try to examine how best to incorporate them into how we're growing. So if you think about the cat north subdivision, just to the south, if you're in general, that had to be knitted into the existing communities of Princess Street and the Sydnam Village area. So we do, as the city grows, look at how best we can provide water, wastewater, stormwater in better scenarios. Sometimes it's economical to do it as part of an application, uh, where we can make small improvements. Sometimes it's, it's better looked at through a comprehensive municipal program where we extend roadways and connect parts of the city to it. So it does very persuasion, uh, but these are considerations that staff do bring forward in the city's overall development. Okay. Thank you. I was curious about it. And, uh, I'll always be watching for it. Thanks. For Glenn. Thank you. And through you. Uh, so I also wanted to, uh, commend the applicant. I think that what we're finally seeing is, uh, real intent to listen to what we feel the community needs. I was thrilled to, of course, see three bedroom units in here. It's very difficult for families to find affordable places to live, uh, and enough space. Uh, the number of accessible units, uh, EV parking, bike spaces, uh, trees, setbacks. I could continue on. So I think when we give consideration for what someone needs to live in a complete setting and we provide opportunity for flexibility for the different individuals who might reside here, we create a place that's worth being. And so thank you for putting all the effort into listening to what was said. And I think this is going to be, um, a good development. Thanks so much. Okay. Anyone else. Deputy Mayor Steven. Could you take the chair. I have the chair recognise you. Yeah. Um, thank you. Um, so yeah, I'll let go was just said like I was, I was going to also mention like the, you know, it's nice to see that there's like a good mix of different kinds of units like three bedrooms is great. We've been wanting that a lot. Um, and the landscaping. Like I'm very impressed with that too. And like everything, um, I think, yeah, I agree. This is where there was a lot of listening of what was needed and the executed on that. So, um, kudos on that. So thank you. I returned the chair. Okay. So, um, I guess, yeah, now we vote. So all in favor. And that passes unanimously. Okay. So now we're going to move on to the next one, which is recommendation for report for four York Street. And I invite staff to present. Welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With this presentation, um, I will just stick with a summary of the application and some of the changes that have occurred since the community meeting last summer, um, and touch on some of the themes in the correspondence, um, but obviously there's been some extensive, uh, engagement with this file. So I won't be able to cover all the topics. But, um, we'll cover some of the topics and how they relate back to the instrument that's in front of committee tonight, which is a modified, um, approval for a zoning bylaw amendment. So the purpose and effect of this application is to establish site specific zoning to enable the adaptive reuse of the existing one story building on the site, uh, with a proposed three story apartment building containing nine dwelling units in a total of 18 bedrooms. The broader context of the property is shown here. This is centrally located property in the city's urban boundary and close proximity to Princess Street and the city's downtown Corps and the Associated Mix ofuses and amenities. This location is also within walking distance to a number of transit stops shown here, including the Express route on Division Street highlighted in red. Um, this is an area of the city where using alternative modes of transportation like transit and active transportation is a viable alternative to a personal vehicle. This area of the city also includes a mix of housing forms, including three to three and a half story apartments and proximity on some properties that are highlighted here in pink. I highlighted in blue are a few sites with approvals for tolera buildings that are closer to the downtown core. The subject property highlighted here is a unique triangular site at the Western Gateway to the Bernie Park neighbourhood. The properties contain the existing one story building for approximately 70 years, which is currently vacant, but formerly contained the Midwives clinic. Surrounded on all frontages by streets, York and Barry, which are collector roads and ordinance street, which is a local road in a one - way street. Just to highlight the aerial photo on the left illustrates how, um, their shallow setbacks on many of the properties in the immediate context or just characteristics of the neighbourhood. And similarly, the subject property contains a building that's developed close to the front property lines. Although, um, the building covers approximately line, but it does not contain enough space for onsite parking. So the proposed development, uh, is similar to what was presented at the Community meeting last summer with updates primarily internal to the building. The proposed department continues to incorporate the existing one story building on the property with a two - story addition. Uh, the total number of bedrooms proposed to decreased by four, resulting in a change to the unit mix that of summarized here, allowing for spaces internal to the building to support functional needs. I'll just quickly run through the changes in the basement level include dedicated room with 13 long - term bike spaces and a dedicated room with waste storage. Um, the main level, um, the reduction in bedrooms has made space for main level bike storage and waste storage in one room as well as, uh, increased living space in the units on the main floor that will incorporate barrier free features. The building conversion and addition makes, um, use of in existing stairwell. So there is no elevator. The main level spaces are intended to support the accessibility of these spaces, um, without the need to use stairs. Ultimately, the building will need to comply with accessibility requirements of the Ontario building code. And with respect to obese with building code compliance, um, I just want to highlight that as staff in the applicant have been looking into the detailed design questions that we've been receiving on this file staff and building services have identified that there is a second exit that will be required for one of the barrier free units that's highlighted on this slide, the additional exit that's required. And the applicant has examined how this can be accommodated and has identified a location as highlighted here. Um, this doesn't affect the recommended zoning bylaw amendment and can comply with the Ontario building code with changes within the property boundaries. Um, but just highlighting here back to the zoning bylaw requirements, um, in terms of bike spaces, what is required for nine units is eight spaces where the applicant is providing 17 and shared bike rooms. Uh, the zoning bailar course five square metres of waste storage area where the 12 square metres provided in the spaces that have been allocated with the updates. And just quickly with the rooftop, um, initially there was a rooftop patio across the entirety of the roof. Um, where it's set back now on all sides by two metres. So some key themes in the correspondence that I'll touch on, um, in the next few slides are summarized here. But we received quite a bit of, uh, correspondence around, um, how the property could be considered for intensification when this area has been recently subject to the North Kingstown Secondary Planning Exercise. We're specific sites where designated for Intensification and Infill. And this graphic shows where specific sites are subject to the NKTs specific policy area as a result of this update in 2025. So as detailed in the staff report, although this property is not one of the infill sites identified through the North Kingstown work, this work did not preclude the possibility that other properties could similarly be able to support infelin intensification through private development applications such as a subject application. So in terms of the policy framework that, um, that applies, um, just to highlight the official plan establishes minimum densities for new residential development and existing built up areas, but does not define maximum densities. Density is at a high level intended to be regulated through looking closely at functional needs and what can be accommodated on a site. Um, so in terms of transportation needs amenity space and waste storage and things of that nature. So the density is that's recommended through the zoning is limited to what's been demonstrated to conform with the city's policy framework, um, which includes a maximum number of units and bedrooms in addition to requirements for spaces internal to the building that contribute to the functionality, such as the bike parking and the waste storage areas. Many comments have centred around haired significance of the building and conformity with the same Lawrence Heritage Character Area Policies and the need for Heritage Impact Study. So the subject property is not listed on the city's Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, but it is in the expanded boundaries of the St. Lawrence Heritage Character Area, as shown here and outlined in blue with the property in purple. The St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Policy's discouraged demolition and encourage adaptive reuse of any building in the character area. Um, the policies enable staff to request additional study through a heritage impact study or urban design study when the need to address compatibility with the characteristics and context of the area. Um, so there was a decision through the technical review that those additional studies weren't required. The characteristic context were encouraged to review or in the North Kingston Cultural Heritage Study. And this is in sub area six, the MacBurney Park neighbourhood. Um, and I've just highlighted here some of the characteristics that relate to Bilt form that do align with the built form that's proposed here. Um, so describes varied building types on shallow setbacks, which, uh, the existing building reflects and the proposed, um, varied building materials, varied building massing, which includes single detached in apartments as well as relatively low building heights. So, um, but in relation to the heritage, considerations of the St. Lawrence Heritage Character area, the recommended zoning by amendment, um, enables the adaptive reuse of the existing building, um, through a number of sites specific requirements, um, such as recognising the minimum and maximum front set back as the minimum and maximum front setback that must be carried forward. Um, as well as recognising, um, existing existing projections like the eves, um, so that the existing building can be repurposed and expanded upwards. So there have been a number of comments around the compatibility of the proposed three - story building and the massing concerns of centred primarily around a concern that the proposal does not fit within the existing context. Um, so in reviewing zoning bylaw amendment applications, the official plan directs us to consider the existing context as well as the planned context and the potential for adverse effects. So as part of a review of the existing context, we did update our 3D modelling to be able to more accurately reflect the existing context using LIDAR more recent aerial imagery and we're in the process of updating the rest of our modelling. But for this application specifically, um, this did help to visualize how this would look and try to communicate through the public engagement how the addition would ultimately fit within, uh, The context as well. It helps staff to review how certain changes might help to tailor the compatibility of the built form and step up from the surrounding context. So, um, along those lines, the step back to the rooftop amenity guard was, was recommended because it helped to tailor the building on this site. But with respect to the planned context, um, just to highlight a few items here, um, so the three story buildings are enabled in the zoning surrounding the property and in all of Kingston's urban residential zones. They're proposed maximum permitted height of 10. 3 metres. That's recommended here is 1. 3 metres taller than a flat roof that's permitted on surrounding properties. And the distances of the road allowances provide, do provide a sort of built - in setback between the building and adjacent residential lots. Uh, that's equal to, um, what would be a minimum in a rear yard equal to or greater than with the setback of 7. 2, 7. 5 metre rear yards on the York Street Broad Allowance and even greater around Barrie Street and ordinance street. In terms of shadowing, um, we reviewed in response to community concerns we reviewed with our, our 3D models conducted a shadow analysis with, uh, with help from our urban design staff, um, uh, to review the shadowing that would be generated. And just to highlight in relation to this, um, there are no new shadows cast in the rear yards of existing surrounding properties and limited new shadows that fall on the park just after 5 p. m. during the spring and fall equinox. Um, new shadows cast by the building would not be considered an undue adverse impact in terms of the location time of year and duration. But we did look closely at what would be experienced in front yards and found that, um, particular the midpoint of the year, it's spring and fall that the majority of both York Street and Barrie Street in sun for the majority of the day. Um, there was a concern with front yard gardens and this, this level of sunlight continues to support gardens and continues to be a reasonable degree of sun with the proposed development incorporated. So although its staffs considered opinion that a three - story low - rise built form in this location is appropriate, um, the staff and applicant looked a ways to tailor the height and massing to enhance visual compatibility. And this resulted in the step back, um, to the rooftop amenity space, um, as well as, um, putting limits on parapet and stairwell projections to reflect what had been reviewed through the application, um, as well as detailed in the staff report, staff are also recommending the zoning bylaw amendment enable Juliet Balkanes only as a way to limit new projections into the shallow setbacks in this context, uh, where's the applicant had requested permission for balconies that would exceed standard requirements. Some images are included here of Juliet Balconies that still allow for natural light and airflow into units while limiting projections from the building face. Um, finally, I'll just touch on, um, concerns with respect to construction on this constrained site. So they're limited areas on the property for construction staging and fencing. And as a result, the recommended holding overlay in the zoning requires a construction management plan to be submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the city that will ultimately ensure that the works happen in a strategic and coordinated manner to minimize impacts to the neighbourhood during construction. So in urban residential 11 zone is recommended for the site with an exception overlay, um, to permit the apartment use in specific density, um, and would apply site - specific development standards and broadly these standards are intended to enable the adaptive reuse of the building, insure spaces are allocated within the building for functional needs to support the proposed density and to contain a height and projections that will be visually compatible with the characteristics of the area. So the recommendation of approval before committee would enable the adaptive reuse of the building while introducing nine dwelling units in a compatible low rise form supported by spaces, internal to the building for functional needs and supported by the mix of land uses and range of transportation options available in proximity. The following additional applications are required to permit the proposal in addition to an approval of the zoning bylaw amendment. There would be a need for a holding overlay removal. Application that would address the construction management plan and a development agreement to that's detailed in the staff report. There would also be a tree permit application required to address the preservation or removal of the city - owned tree in the municipal road allowance, as well as a building permit. Thank you all conclude my presentation. I know the applicant is available as well as their agent and city staff available to answer questions. All right, thank you very much. So are there any questions from the committee. No questions. No? Alright, well I have a question. Better. No, it's just a regular question. So, um, I was just curious why this property, if I understand Joule's online, why this property was never, um, designated. Like what was the reasoning. Uh, good evening. Three of us, for chair. Um, the property is not listed or designated on the Heritage Register. Um, it was not brought forward for designation tooth. The designation project and was not listed on the Heritage Register prior to that project. Okay. That's all my questions. Um, so Councillor Sanek. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, I just want to talk about like how it will function for drop offs. Like, um, Amazon drop off some for pizza deliveries and moving, you know, like loading zones when people are moving in and out. Can you please say, um, how that was addressed. Well, through you, Mr. Chair, for a building of this scale, um, the Kingston's owning bylaw doesn't have a requirement for a short - term delivery space or a loading space. Um, I understand practically that, um, there would be a need for move - in, move out. I mean, this property has, um, functioned as a midwife's clinic. So they're, um, there is street parking in the area. Um, I would ask the applicant maybe to speak to how they envision. Those elements functioning on their site. But from a zoning perspective, those elements aren't technically required. Three of you, Mr. Chair. My name is Alex Adams. I'm with The Boulevard Group here representing the applicant. Um, as it with any kind of downtown urban context development, it's always a bit more challenging than kind of a West End development that we saw before. Actually on ordinance street, there is short - term parking there, which has been this since the Midwives have been there. So the opportunity to utilise that or other areas nearby. Okay. Thank you. A three, you Mr. Chair. So if some of these, if the residents that are living in the 18 bedrooms in these nine units, if they do have vehicle, uh, the only place they can park is to try to get a city, um, parking path for street parking, which is like 80 dollars a month or something. So that's what we're saying would be their parking. And is that where residents are saying that there's already like the waiting list to get street parking in that neighbourhood. Three, Mr. Chair. The support for this application is based on the availability of other modes of transportation in this area. This would be a development that, um, wouldn't necessarily require its planned for non automotive users. Um, if someone did have a car, they would have to make, they would have to make arrangements. But I think this, this location lends itself, um, well to alternatives. And that's where the support is here for the units for nine units in this location, given the options in the area. Okay. Thank you. Um, my next question is about accessibility. So if I heard the presentation correctly, uh, we do have letters, forests tonight about accessibility and how, um, their steps right now going up. And so it's not accessible. Um, but in the presentation, did I hear correctly that, that is going to be addressed by having units that will be level so that there won't be stairs required to go, um, into the building. Through you, Mr. Chair. That's correct that they will be required to be two barrier for units in the building. Uh, and there is access already by a ramp. Uh, so there will be barrier free access to the building as a result of the building permit application and the units themselves are designed in a manner in which, uh, they will meet the barrier - free requirements in the building code. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, or Deputy Mayor, Steven. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, there's a lot of things we could talk about. There's one thing that I have found to be particularly confusing. It's come up in the correspondence we've received from Community Members. And I was really hoping staff could help explain the red exception zone because the old red exception zone, I believe that's the one where it talks about no added floor area. It's weird confusing language. And just for a little bit more context, and again, hoping staff can explain this more, but the official plan designation for this area is residential. That makes sense. But the zoning on this property is weird. And complicated. And the layers to it. And this has been added over the years and some things mean other things don't apply, right? So it's very confusing. So could staff maybe start by trying to explain to us as plain languages you possibly can, about the red exception zone and what that means. Mr. Bar. Thanks and through your chair. Uh, so yeah, the red exception zone is a Kingston creation that we brought into fruition in order to not erase properties historic development rights while we were bringing in the Kingston zoning bylaw. The Kingston zoning bylaw has a very specific. Can I just interrupt you occasionally? I'm so sorry with respect, Mr. Chair. Okay. So to not erase when the Kingston zoning bylaw came in, I just need us to slow down a bit because it's very confusing. So the Kingston zoning by La Consolidated, all these different bylaws, but there were some areas that were confusing. And so they were kind of set aside. Is that right? Can you just sort of talk about that a bit, please? Yes. So like a zoning bylaw amendment, the Kingston zoning bylaw was essentially a large citywide zoning bylaw amendment. That happened which consolidated all of our old zoning bylaws. We have been doing zoning by Law Mendments in the city for decades. So we have site - specific zones that predate our current official plan, which came into full force and effect in the 2010 era. So, yep. Three, Mr. Chair, when you say site - specific zones, you mean for a specific property, correct? Yes. So that would be someone who's applied for specific rights on their property. And those have been encoded in a bylaw that says this is what your site can do. Which is what happened with the Midwives facility. So in 2009, there was a application that was passed for this site, which allowed, which basically codified the historic use of the site, uses for, you know, medical office purposes. And so that was written into this property's zoning. That was specifically done over top of what was then known as the A zone, which was a residential zone. So this property had a residential zone that also included the ability to have medical offices on the site. So if I'm, Mr. Chair, if I'm hearing correctly, it's a residential zone and there was like an exception made back in the day, whatever that was in early 200s for a medical clinic. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. That's correct. The way that zoning was written, the A zone has a lot of descriptive zoning. So it tells you what your SEP Act should be and what your height should be. So in order to really cleanly say that the building's form as it currently was in its one - story form was permitted and legally zoned for that. They wrote into the zoning that the building has existed at the date of the passing of this bylaw is meant to fulfill the provisions of the zone. So that's why it says you're allowed to have an office on the property. And it is essentially the size and scale that it is. So instead of writing a zone like you see today, where we say the front setback is one metre. The height is three metres. You know, the lock coverages X percent, they just said this building as it exists meets all zoning regulations. Three, Mr. Chair. Okay. So it was almost like, I don't want to say lazy. I don't know who these people were. But it feels like a quick and dirty way to just kind of be like, this is what this site is. And if you want to change it, then you come and you have to apply and try to teach it, right? Like, correct. So it's a, it's a way for complicated sites if we want to say instead of measuring a variable setback, like let's say a one corner, it's half a metre and snow broadens out to five. It's a very difficult to write a zoning provision about that. So that's where we would say the setback is as existed a day to the passing of this bylaw in that existing form. So that was passed in 2009 with the enactment of the new official plan. We kept doing zoning bylaw amendments. So when we pass the Kingston zoning bylaw, which consolidated all of them. We didn't have the time to go back and look at all of this site - specific zoning bylaw amendments before 2010 to make sure that they conformed with the current official plan. So we passed the zoning bylaw, which now applied at that point to the vast majority of the city, but we left a few properties behind because we didn't want to go an inadvertently remove someone's development rights that they had passed specifically for their site and make them legal nonconforming. With that fast forward to 2024, we passed a suite of housing amendments for the city. And this is where we created the red exception. So a red exception zone is zoning that. Tried to do both. It tried to keep the historic development rights. For uses that were prescribed to a property from the past, but also give it a home in the Kingston zoning bylaw and assign it a zoning code that was as close to the use that it could be for that property. So this property still has the historic use for the wellness clinic, the medical uses. But it's also been given a neighbourhood commercial zone. So it has both of those zones. And when that is put together, the way the zoning bylaw reads is that you get development rights essentially from both the old bylaw, what you were prescribed and given from the past, plus whatever the Kingston's owning bylaw. And that is a red exception. It is a, through all intents and purposes, a hybrid zoning that combines the old pass with what has been granted to a property through a Council approval. And permissions from the new zoning bylaw. Three, Mr. Chair. So is it like the Coloured Red? Is that, that sort of makes me think stop. Is that kind of the idea? Is it like a flag for people? Why is it called red exception if that's within scope of this conversation? Because they are colour - coded red in the mapping. So they have a red outline on them. That's the only reason they're callered exception. We could have called it a purple exception or a glitter exception, but for the purposes of mapping, we have a host of other colours that already applied to other zones and a red exception was just the easiest way we could colour that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if I'm understanding all of this, which is confusing, it's that there are multiple layers that is past disoning. There is present zoning. We're kind of talking tonight, I guess, about future zoning in a way. Um, and so there are things that this building was allowed to do in the pastor was allowed to be in the past. And the new zoning bylaw says essentially, that can be changed, but you have to come and go through this public process, correct? Yeah. So there was an interesting part in the previous zoning bylaw where it said that the building existed at the day of the passing of the bylaw is what is conforming with the zoning. The second part to that, it specifically outlined that any additions enlargement or expansion, so any more greater gross floor area would have to be considered through the committee of adjustment or a zoning bylaw amendment. That's something we wouldn't write into zoning today because it's essentially a policy. Because even if they just said the building is existing, the date of the passing of the bylaw is how it is today. Someone could come in and apply for a minor variance or a zoning bylaw amendment in order to change that, which is what we have before us here today. So when zoning is passed for a property, it's not necessarily the end of considerations for planning approvals for a property. Someone can come in and change the zoning again in the future. They could submit another application. And what it does is it prescribes the new permissions for that property and what's happening. And it raises the old. Three, Mr. Chair, just because it came up in what you've just said. So here at Planning Committee is where we do zoning by law amendments. Committee of adjustment does minor variances. Why is it because an apartment building wasn't permitted on site? Is that why it's a zoning bylaw amendment, not a minor variance. Thank you. And through you, Chair. That's correct. The neighbourhood commercial zone and the zone from the past does not permit any more than one residential unit on the property in this commercial form. So we're here tonight, um, making a recommendation on an application for an apartment use on the site with up to nine units as a maximum and up to 18 units, or sorry, 18 bedrooms as a maximum. So those are then written into the zone encodified. So if it is eventually passed by council, uh, as a decision of council, what would happen is the old zoning on the property would be erased. And it would be given a new zone code and exception code. And that would just be it is. The paths would be erased and the zoning would be what would be passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll let other people speak and ask their questions, but I really wanted to dig into that. Thanks for the explanation. Okay. So anyone else, Councillor Glenn. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. I just want, I hope that, um, Mr. Conrad is still with us. I just wanted to loop back to the heritage piece. Uh, particularly. Hi, Joel. With respect to the letter that had been received, commenting that, um. The designation for this property was actually put on hold because of the rezoning application. So is that accurate. Uh. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, uh, the designation was not put on hold, uh, The Planning Act application. Um, the property is not currently listed on the city of Kingston's Heritage Register, nor is it designated. There was no plan to, to designate it. But section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act specifically prohibits a municipality from serving a notice of intention to designate on a non - listed property when an application for zoning, uh, by law amendment has been deemed complete under section 34 of the planning act. So we are not in a position currently to move forward with designation should we choose to. And can you speak to why this was never put on the list. It wasn't identified previously as a, um, uh, potential heritage property. The city underwent several projects to identify properties that should be placed on the list or on the heritage register as listed, uh, properties that we would review and potentially designate in the future. This was not one of those that was placed on that list. Um, there are many potential heritage properties across the city. Some are identified by city staff. Some are identified by the public, uh, and brought forward to us. And then we place them on, uh, on kind of a, uh, an informal list for research and review. And then when we have an ability, we move forward with designation. This was not on our formal list, uh, on the, on the Heritage Register that was, uh, and captured by the designation project. And are there any particular criteria that would put property on the list. Um, for a potential heritage property, uh, there are no specific criteria. Uh, the criteria to designate a property, um, for a property to be designated under the interior heritage act. It needs to meet two of the nine criteria of Montary regulation 906. But in order to have a property of interest that might have potential heritage value, uh, no, there are no specific criteria. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else. Councillor Shaves. I don't always want to go first. Just to struggle back regards to the, uh, red zone exception. So if this gets approved, a council and everything. Does this make it a new red zone exemption for the site. Three, Mr. Chair. Believe the red exception would be removed from the property as a result of the new bylaw pass, uh, from that's recommended by staff. Okay. Thank you. Is there any requirement. Requirements for this building to have another elevator. Three, Mr. Chair. Does our understanding through the Ontario building code that an elevator is not required. Um, and that's a result of its overall hype being under four stories. Thank you. Um, also noticed within the report says the living spaces of the two main floor, bear free units. Are enlarged to ensure private amendments base is provided considering they are unable to attend the rooftop of many spaces. One of my concerns here is will this cause the rent be higher for these two units because they have this extra amend in space within their, their units. Three, Mr. Chair. I would ask the applicant to maybe comment on the potential rent and the impacts of that, uh, design choice. Through Mr. Chairman, my name is David K. I'm the owner and proponent of the project. Um, at this time, it's difficult to know how much rents will be. Um, only because. I don't know how much it's going to cause to do this build until it's built. Um, I just know that ground floor commercial accessible units are in high demand. Um, based on the latest, like CMHC reports, um, so. Thank you. Okay. So in comparison to the other one bedroom units within the building, will the accessible units be equal to less than or greater than the other single. Better units. Through Mr. Chair, I really wish I could answer that question, but I, I just don't know. Um. Okay. That's concerned. Also, I also see that these two accessible units, which have increased space for private amenity spaces are also two smallest units within the buildings. Um, I'm not sure how that. S a problem with this. I'm going to say that. Three Mr. Chair, but is there a question there? Do you want me to comment on? Well, maybe uncloud my confusion here considering we have two accessible units on the main floor. Who within the report states they have extra floor space to make up many spaces. Because they can't attend the rooftop of many space. But yet they're the smallest units in the building. I think that the smallest units because they're one bedrooms. And in terms of access to the rooftop amenity space, I'm not sure if it made it into any of the designs, but there was a concerted effort on my behalf to make it clear on the plans to install, um. Like a retractable wheelchair ramp to go from the first floor lobby up into the rooftop. And that still, our intent. I think there was some confusion between myself, my designers and planning staff about just how that would impact the necessary, like OBC stair tread width. And should this, um, wheelchair lift constrict. The width that a staircase needed to be. And so just as a, um, as a measure to ensure that amenity space was satisfactory, if not exceeded the requirements for those two barrier - free units on the first floor, we made the living space larger, assuming that they couldn't get to the rooftop amenity. But it's still my intent to make a lift work to the rooftop. And maybe if I could just speak repeating myself from last summer, perhaps, but the reason, the first floor ended up being three units, um, and not two or not four is, it's a small space. And both the ground floor offers a second means of egress to the outside, um, whereas the other floors have to have two means of egress, which is constricted by the two sets of existing stairs. Which will remain where they are in the building. But rather than have two units on the first floor, I thought it was better to have a diversity of building of unit types, more one in two bedroom units. Rather than another four bedroom unit on the first floor. I hope that makes some sense. Thank you. Be honest? Not totally. Um, I hope you can get that wheelchair lift in there. Um, I don't call reading it in the report. But correct me if I'm wrong, but there's more than two one bedroom units in this building. And I'll still point out too accessible units are still the smallest. But I will carry on. Um. Yeah, still not certain how the two small students have increased amenity spaces. Now it was discussed in the presentation. And I think you're touched on the egress. So I'm going to say unit one has access to the main entranceway, which has steps and array up. And then unit four, if I have the numbers correct. Has a direct access to the main lobby, which has, uh, ramp access. But it also has a rare door. And the rear door goes into a common area. I'm not sure the steps there or not. But to get outside of the building, there are steps outside that rear door on, I believe York. Is that going to change? Cause that does not make that accessible. The principal entrance to that unit is from the lobby, which is from the ramp, which is accessible. And then the door that we put in that was recently added is on the south face of that unit on ordinance. Maybe 15, 20 feet away from the ramp that goes to the lobby. So great as such there that we could ramp, although it's, I think it gets close to being city property. There's a few feet between ordinance and the building envelope. That is, um, municipal property. So I'm not sure how we'll navigate that, but if we can put a ramp from that second exit, we. We would. Staff one to address that. Would that be allowed. Through you, Mr. Chair? It's my understanding from speaking to building staff about the building code requirements with respect to accessibility that the main entrance is required to have, um, access. But the secondary exits, um, do not, it's just not a requirement in the building code. So if there's a fire in the front entrance, they'll have to hold and cease in the column area in the back. Okay. Uh, question, a notice within the blueprints and the designs. There were washer dryers look like there were, are you providing the washer drivers? The drawing showed washer dryer combos. And that was one of the comments. Sorry. Three Mr. Chair. At this point it will depend on whether or not incoming tenants would like to have laundry if they provide their own usually apartments will provide roughens for laundry. And depending on the tenant and the rent. They bring their own. They rent one by one. The landlord provides one. But at this point, um, I don't know what we'll do. Okay. Because the point where I'm going is it appeared that within the diagrams that the door is stackable. And regardless to the two accessible units, that's basically where we're going to be sticking here tonight, successful units. Um. Someone in wheelchair would not be able to access the dryer that's stacked. So those two apartments would have to be designed to have side by sides. Through Mr. Chair. Yeah. I recently started using the, um, or buying the two - on - one combos that are no higher than, I think it's 36 inches tall. So, but Jared, either side by side or two and one. Thank you. Okay. Um, the next area we're going to tackle, I'm going to exit the actual units, but the garbage and bike storage on the main floor. I saw concerns with that design. Cause basically, um, I know you'd have, like within the actual accessible unit, there was a design there. We showed the radius determining radius within the bathroom. And I don't really see that in the storage area, in the bike storage. Um, because basically if I saw the design properly, you'd have to enter, open the door to enter the storage area. And the waste units are behind the door. So then you'd have to move into the area, close the door, use the put away whatever waste you have into the proper bins. Then you have to move out of the way move, then close it again. I see that flaw. And before I let you speak, I'm going to throw another fly in there. It's a multi - use room with bike rack. I'm not sure how that's designed. I just foresee the bikes getting in the way, especially if someone who's in the wheelchair. I don't see the Turing radius. And if it's multiused by other residents who may not have concerns with those who have nobility issues, things may be left on the floor. Which cause, which being an impairment, further impairment for those who use a wheelchair. So I have a great concern with that. So is the way we could just remove the bike rack from that just and relocate the bin so they're more readily accessible. Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, just a bit of a general comment. The plans as part of the submission, not the actual final design. These are conceptually, but conceptual, but detailed. So we're, we're happy to take on board any of these comments regarding more kind of internal functional layout washes side by side, et cetera, et cetera. Have to take that away. And as, as and when building permits, may be submitted. We can, uh, we can look at these comments at that point. Okay. These could be conceptual plans, but you have conceptual concerns. Um. Well, I think you know where my issues are is the accessible units. The lack of space. And this private space. So they don't actually have access to. 30 seconds. I'll see if we can push that 31. Um, I think I've asked all my questions. But this is where I have concerned with this project. It's with this accessible units. Both exiting and entering the building. Accessing the units itself. And getting into and getting around the garbage and bike storage units. So. Is that 31 yet. No. Okay. I'll give it back to five seconds then. All right. Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken wishes to speak. As none. Okay. So Councillor Ridge, were you wanting to speak. Pointed procedure, Mr. Chair. Am I only asking questions at this point or am I allowed to do questions and comments? You can do questions and comments. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay through you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, so thank you so much for the presentation and the documents and reviewing them. And thank you for coming to answer questions today. I want to begin just briefly by, by saying that, you know, this is a very unique lot with a lot of challenges, like objectively. I think that that's a very fair assessment of, uh, of the challenges that anyone would have for developing on this space. Uh, I was going to ask a number of questions predominantly around accessibility, uh, but through you, Mr. Chair, those seem to have been asked, uh, quite thoroughly. So my question more is to staff is around, why is the zoning amendment for you are M11 as opposed to URM eight or URM5. Through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant had put forward a URM eight zone with a site specific exception through their submission. But you are a mate zone was crafted for Central Kingston for a six story built form in the URM 11 is a more recent zone that's come about through the North Kingstown work. It's crafted for, um, buildings of a smaller scale of four story building. And it also includes the non - residential, um, use permissions for ground floor. We heard through the process that the community wanted to see non - residential uses. And so we've enabled those if for in some, uh, future time, uh, the conversion sought to maybe one of the units that exits from the building that could be possible under the mixed use zoning that's being applied. But the same, um, neighbourhood commercial uses are permitted in the URM 11, but it's, it's just, uh, a zone that's closer to what's being proposed with the low rise form was basically why it was recommended. It's just a closer match. And also crafted for this, for this area. Um, thank you. And through you, uh, Mr. Chair, as pair of the presentation in terms of intensification that the minimum, but not a maximum, but simultaneously a URM 11 does have a maximum in terms of density within the zoning requirements. So are those in contradiction with each other? It is one supersede the other. Mr. Chair. Thank you for that question. So yeah, the official plan doesn't have a maximum density, but it directs us to, to look at density, how to look at density and how to look at what's appropriate on any given site. So there is a baseline, um, there's a maximum density in the URM 11 zone that succeeded here. I think, um, that density often, um, like with a site of this, this size, the density is, is going to be quite high just given that it's quite a unique site with not a lot of lot area. So the, um, the maximum density in the URM 11 zone would result in two units here. Whereas most of the lots in the area you would be able to have for as a right, just with the UR5 zoning. So it's, it's, um. Basically the official land framework helps us to establish what an inappropriate density would be through a zoning by law amendment process. And we look at the parameters and the zoning for comparison, but it's not, it's not in contradiction. It's explained in the staff report how we, how we reviewed that maximum density alongside what's proposed here. And it's, it is a function of the unique lot and the coverage of the lack of open space in this area, in this lot. Okay. Thank you. Um, and I just, I just wanted to ask a question again about the second, the three of you, Mr. Jair, sorry. I just wanted to ask a question to get him at the second emergency exit space for the accessible unit because I just, I don't believe I heard it. I misheard it. Uh, that is to be created as the end that will presumably be like a ramp if possible given the space requirements. Is that correct? Three of you, Mr. Chair, as I look over at Mr. K. Through Mr. Chair. Yeah. That's the intent is along the ordinance street side. I think great is such that it's the lowest. Threshold of the door is almost at great anyway. So. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And, and through you, Mr. Chair, I am admittedly a bit of a novice when it comes to planning committee. Um, and so we just have some questions in terms of, uh, different policies. I seem to overlap in the specific area. And which one takes priority. This both exists simultaneously within the North Kingston Secondary Plan. And the St. Lawrence Ward character area, uh, and which have their own, uh, policies that are overlaid, uh, with one another, uh, making fusing, I think for any expert potentially. Which of these policy supersede the other and how does the superseding policy interact with the URM 11 zoning. Through you, Mr. Chair. In this specific development context, the North Kingstown specific policy areas under 10H of the official plan do not apply to this property because those are only applied to the Intensification areas. Uh, what does apply are the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character area policies? Because that area was expanded broadly into the MacBook sub area. And so in that instance, the 7. 3 point D. 0. 5 policies of that Heritage Character area do apply. Um, but not the 10H site - specific policy. So in this specific application, we are only looking at the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character area conscious of that, obviously in conjunction with the rest of the official plan that is applicable, but specifically the NKT policies of 10H do not apply. Thank you, Andrew. Mr. Chair, do any North King town secondary plan policies apply with regards to this property? Three, Mr. Chair. Not in the site - specific policy area. No. Only the other general policies that were expanded, like there were some additional transportation policies that I believe were included that applied generally across the city. But, um, and, uh, but no, just the heritage, the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Caretary Policies that now apply as a result of it expanding into this area. Okay, thank you very much. Interview, Mr. Chair. So just returning to the zoning recommendation of DRM11. As we can see through the report, there are a number of exceptions that are being put forward in the proposal here. Um, and some of them are understandable, given the unique lot size. Um, is it normal to have so many exceptions for what is proposed. Zoning, uh, policy for the specific area to have so many exceptions. Through you, Mr. Chair. I think when you have a lot with this kind of unique characteristics and an existing nonconforming building that you're adaptively reusing that, um, that there would need to be a number of exceptions. Um, I mean. In the presentation, tried to group what, what many of those exceptions are intended to, to achieve like we needed to recognise, um, conforming lock coverage and landscaped open space because of the footprint of the building that's being expanded. There were nonconforming eaves that project from the building and stairwells and needed to recognise those. So again, so that the building could be reused. And then with the functional spaces, trying to carve those out within a building one typically, they would be provided exterior to a building, like making sure that those are carried forward as the application proceeds through the process. So the functional needs component meant there were a number of unique requirements that we included. And then, um, with the, with the parking and the transportation piece as well, um, so I think with a site in a nutshell, a side of this nature, I think just ends up requiring a number of exceptions. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comment, uh, from comment from staff about the unique nature of the site. So then my, my question is, is this site based on its uniqueness, either the layout or the history or any other pieces? Is it mentioned specifically? And either the North Kingston, secondary plan or the St. Lawrence St. Lawrence character. Ward area plan. Three of Mr. Chair. I think the primary document that we would say that it was flagged in would have been the North Kingstown Cultural Heritage Study, which examined the sub areas of North Kingstown into different little neighbourhood pockets. Uh, this site was identified as a site of potential heritage significance and was recognised for, for potential further investigation. Um, but it did not make a conclusion whether it was significant or not. Um, what that did, what that study did do was identify specific, um, sub - area characteristics, uh, which were to support how the area was to develop, which is, um, which is appropriate for a cultural heritage landscape, which is, uh, what the Heritage character area represents. And so I think the touches on an important point about, um, how the policies interact with the proposal in that it's an area of a cultural heritage landscape that has been identified in policy framework as being a cultural heritage landscape and not specifically the building itself yet. Um, so yes, answer your question directly. It was mentioned as a building of potential significance. But we hasn't gone through the process under the Ontario Heritage Act to protect it under the Ontario Heritage Act, nor does it have that conserved adjective or verb into the official plan policy as well. Thank you. Okay. Um. So seeing the no one else. Um, so I propose we just take like a five minute bathroom break, uh, before we go into the public portion. And then that way we can start fresh with everything. And then so I will, uh, so we can be back. At 747. All right, if we could take back our seats. We have Corim right now, yeah. Okay, so I will ask if there's any members of the public present who wish to speak to this file. So I'm assuming there's a few of you. Yeah, so if, I guess, if you could fill up these seats over here, one, two, three, four, five of them with mics over there. That would be, I don't know, maybe you can be. I guess, so where can she go with her thing. Yeah, I guess you could go. Yeah, I do prefer if you're over on the other side. You can bring your stuff and pick a chair and sit down. So if you can fill them all up and then we'll go from like the start to the end. So whoever's at the first chair, we'll go first, and then we'll. If you want to, you can choose not to. Get. Presentation. Okay. All right, well. Who would like to go first. This is. Chaos. Did they all take the chairs? Okay. Is this good? All right, so we'll go, just state your name, you have five minutes. Okay, my name is Anne Lawheed. Thanks for the opportunity. For the entirety of the years long North Kingstown project, I was on the North Kingstown Secondary Plan Community Working Group. The city started, the consultation process for the Secondary Plan in 2016. Councillors asked for an exceptional forward - thinking livable green and innovative blueprint for North Kingstown. I remember how excited the senior planner was to be the project manager of a secondary plan for existing neighbourhoods. In the first year of community engagement alone, there were nine city - led events without - of - town consultants, as well as in - house planners. Staff came to meet residents. At the music festival and skeleton park. At the Legion on Montreal Street at the Ukrainian Church Hall and The Portuguese Cultural Centre at the Community Health Centre and Weller Avenue and at the Princess Street Promenade. City Planners worked with skeleton park arts to organise a huge community barbecue for more than 500 people in Doug Flair Park. With live music. And displays that invited interactions. It was really exciting to see the city staff engage with us in creative ways. And listen to our ideas in our own neighbourhoods. So a lot of time expertise, public input, and city resources went into developing policies for North Kingstown. Over the 10 years of three different councils. We residents forgiven the idea that we could really have a say in how and where our district might change. Ten years later, we have amendments to our official plan, which are supposed to guide growth and respect cultural heritage, among other things. The cultural heritage study for North Kingstown identified properties that have potential heritage value so that policy and planning can proceed in ways that conserve and enhance these resources. Properties around the park are specifically mentioned in the study as at risk of being affected by insensitive infill. The study divides North Kingstown into sub - areas. And number four, York falls into the MacBook neighbourhood sub - area. Here we have mostly closely space tomes on small lots with shallow setbacks, narrow streets, and a relatively low building heights. Some homes rely on the front patch for their outdoor space. So when you learn that people have concerns about massing and shadowing with this proposal, you need to visualize that kind of streetscape with its tiny front gardens and porches that are practically next to the public sidewalk. With respect to his own property, the developer and his consultants call these neighbourhoods neighbourhood attributes constraints. And absolutely, they are. But instead of considering the constraints, when designing the building, they've just decided to ignore them. The resulting proposal is not only incompatible with the streetscape. It's not even clear that it would function well for tenants. The policies guiding adaptive reuse ask that structure speed developed in a manner that conserves the attributes that contribute to the heritage character of the area. Adding two stories to this building is called Adaptive Reuse. But it does not conserve the proportions, which are precisely the attributes that make the building a landmark and a gateway to the park in the neighbourhood. The Bailey Broom factory was rescued from demolition and renovated with its original proportions intact. It wasn't designated either. But even when derelict, it functioned as a landmark. The broom factory is an example of adaptive for use so successful that it was featured in an article earlier this year in the Globe and Mail. The peace refers to the public outcry that saved the building because, and I quote, to the heritage enlightened residents of Kingston, Mr. Bailey's brooms and the building he chose for the manufacturer were an important piece of the cities Industrial Heritage. Number four York is not Industrial, but it's a rare piece of Kingston's mid - 20th century heritage. It's also part of the history of family and child welfare, having originally been the home of the Victorian Order of Nurses who cared for babies in a working class neighbourhood. That's not irrelevant. That's interesting and important. Finally, there's an implication here that the public just doesn't understand the policies. That's not the case, but if it were, then who are the city policies written for. I really hope that nearly a decade of effort won't be squashed by an application demanding relief from umpteen requirements. I ask that you deny Mr. Case application. Do I have any time left? 30 seconds. Can somebody please address the issue of basement apartments in the era of severe storms and flooding, please. Okay, thank you. So next. State your name and then you have five minutes. Hi. My name is Claire LaSalle, and I do have a PowerPoint presentation prepared. Can we put that up? So I am a Kingston resident. I have been for many years. I am also a cyclist and a pedestrian. Next slide, please. I have lived on Redan Street in the skeleton park neighbourhood for 31 years. My husband and I choose to live car - free, but we do bike and walk around the Midwives building almost daily. I can assure you that the traffic around the Midwives building is significant particularly when students are attending school because numerous parents in this wonderful neighbourhood walk to school with their kids. I'd like to address that earlier, The comment was made about delivery drivers. If that were to happen delivery drivers during school walking time and also regular traffic, because it is a very busy thoroughfare, I think it's a perilous situation that could be very dangerous. Next slide, please. The construction of the proposed building will be perilous to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Site lines are challenging at this site. Because all of the streets are angled around the building. A large - scale building project on the site will present real danger to the numerous pedestrians who crossed the three intersections daily. Next slide, please. So this is a view of just up the street. From the location. And you can see that there is a whole street closed. There is another street closed, and there is a sidewalk closed. I can't, for the life of me, comprehend how a building could be put up on that site with causing major disruption to traffic. And because there is no sidewalk on two sides of that building, um, it would be very, very detrimental to the safety of all the people walking and biking and in wheelchairs because of Providence Manor. There are numerous people who also use wheelchairs and walkers in the area. Next slide, please. You can, again, this is just up the street, so another sidewalk closure. If you close a sidewalk on York, ordinance, or the other streets surrounding that property, it will be very detrimental to traffic regulation. Next slide. Small lot, big building. The scale of the building does not fit in with the neighbourhood. The proposed building will dwarf the homes surrounding the lot. Housing is necessary, but it should not be at the expense of a true, livable city neighbourhood. Next slide. Again, I just took some pictures around the property, and you can see if that proposed building goes up, we would no longer be able to see the trees on the other side of that building. And my husband did comment at the store famous, which is across the street. If this building, as proposed, is erected, then it would be the store famous across from the building infamous. Next slide, please. Again, just showing you the scale of and the side, these were taken today. So this is very current. Next slide, please. The one side walk available there. But again, you can see a city of Kingston truck going by on the other side. This is at 10 o'clock in the morning. Imagine this at lunchtime when there's much more traffic, and people walking to school. Next slide. Again, to show you the size of the property to accommodate... Yep, 30 seconds. Thank you. Next slide, let's go right to the end. Thank you. Next. And that's it. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for your work on behalf of the citizens of Kingston. And please do not allow this building. All right, thank you. So the next person state your name, and then you have five minutes. Hi, my name's Karen Weisbaum. I wasn't planning on speaking this evening, but a couple of things have struck me over the course of the evening. Um, one is that with respect to the first presentation, it was 55 Cataracoi. Was that the address? Many of the things that I heard that were praiseworthy about that development are absent in this one. Things to do with setbacks, with green space, with trees, with the proportions of the building relative to the land around it. That is absent here. I was struck by that. Um, I won't repeat things that I put into my submission. Um, there is a submission that I made as part of the package. But one of the items that I did include there that was not touched upon this evening was snow. Um, it's laudable that the applicant would be planning, for example, to put in an extra ramp in keeping with the spirit of the lower level units being barrier - free, which by the way got used interchangeably this evening with accessible, in my mind, those are not the same things. One has a legal definition and exists in statute. The other does not. I appreciate, again, the intent, but they're not the same thing. Um, where does the snow go? So if there is no bylaw that requires that exit, but to his credit, the applicant intends to put some sort of ramp there, then where does the snow go? I walk along that section all the time. I like my neighbour have lived in the area for over 30 years. There's nowhere for the snow to go. I am also a car - free person. I pay to have my parking area and my right of way in the Laneway behind my house ploughed every year, because I'm responsible for my own snow. So I haven't heard that addressed even remotely this evening. Because that section of ordinance, as you're coming, if you're heading north on Barry, the snow ploughs can only go one way. So they come along Barry, and they swing right or east. And the snow goes in this direction because of the angle of the plough, which is towards the building, not away from it. And it's routine in January, February, and well into March that you can't actually walk along that section because of the problems with drainage and ice and snow. So, um, and secondly, thirdly, I have a relative, excuse me, who isn't a wheelchair and has mobility issues. I would not be happy if she was living on that ground floor given the issues that had been raised here this evening. They didn't come to my mind before I heard them spoken about, and I appreciate it. I would not be happy. I would not feel that they were safe. I would not live there if I was a person with mobility issues myself without having some sort of plan B to exit. And with due respect in terms of the bilaws, do I have another minute. With due respect to the zoning bylaws and that they don't require it, that is a lower standard manifest itself has a lower standard for persons with disability than what we expect for able - bodied persons. And I find that unacceptable. I think we can do better. The problem is with the bylaw. It is not with the requirements for accessible. Thank you. Okay. So the next state your name, and then you have five minutes. Oh, you gotta press the button there. I have some slides. Okay, can we get those up to you? That's junior. Oh, sure. Gene Ryan. Okay, we'll just wait for the presentation to go up. There you go. Okay, okay. Uh, my name is Gene Ryan. I'm here to ask The Planning Committee to vote against recommending zoning changes for our three - story apartment building at four York. Next slide, please. The small constraint lot in a sensitive location, basically a small island in a dense neighbourhood has been recognised as needing special zoning for a long time. Um, 2009, it was passed 2008, The Planning report came forward. And the restriction on any added floor space was specific to their surrounding houses. And the fact that they are, in general, two stories. Next slide, please. In 2024, by law, 2024, 334 further asserted this and affirmed that size restriction. Um, it also designated the slight CN, which allows for a midwipes clinic. So the red exception for The Midnight's Clinic was no longer needed. It's only there for the size restriction. This size restriction is meant to be interpreted as a legacy exception. It's clearly stated in the bylaw itself, which means it takes precedence overall other areas zoning, i. e. the CN. Next slide, please. The following year, March 18th, 2025, Council passed the North Kingston Project. Thank you to Anne and everybody else who worked so hard on it for so long. It's a unified set of policies. It looked at the entire area. It's elected certain sites for Intensification. It's selected certain sites per the official plan to maintain heritage integrity. Four York Street was not selected for Intensification. It was selected for addition to the Heritage Area. Next slide, please. Here is a blow up of the Heritage area, the before, the after. We see York just outside, the former Heritage area, and then added questions came up about what they're not. It is included in terms of heritage area language. It certainly is. It's one of only six properties in the MacBooney Park Sub area. That's emphasized for its importance to the character of the neighbourhood. Next slide, please. Here we see the Intensive Attacation sites a ways away from four York Street. I've circled the purple ones. You are M11. There were specifically created for the Intensification areas. And with a MAX 90 unit, so per hectare. Next slide, please. We can see a couple examples of what you are M11 site selection. Included. Large lots capable of supporting large buildings with multiple UNATS. Next slide, please. Here we have four York Street. A very small lot with almost entire coverage by the building already overbuilt. Even if it were zoned, you are M11. It's still 3. 5 times more dense than would be allowed in that intensification zone. Creates serious problems for the tenants. Denize equal save access to all. Next slide, please. Big issues with unaddressed public concerns. We're still waiting for documentation actually showing why the legacy exception status is not being acknowledged. We've asked for bylaws. We've asked, for example, they have yet to come. We've asked for a heritage impact assessment per the new policies in the OP. Those have been denied, even though this is a specified gateway heritage area property. We have had thorough and detailed input from our registered professional planner. That's not discussed in the report. And we've had major issues flagged regarding accessibility. Next slide, please. There's a list of crateria that needs to be considered rezoning by a law amendments. This particular proposal meets almost nano them. You have 30 seconds. In particular, it does not conform with the North Kingstown Project Policies. Approving this proposal would reverse the policy decisions related to this site. Kingston deserves the smart growth of the North King Sound Project Policies for York Street is an early test. Let's not make it a precedent. And I thank you very much for your time. All right, thank you. So now next to state your name and then you have five minutes. My name is Elizabeth Hanson. I'm a resident of Alma Street and one of the residents who engaged extensively with planning staff on this file. Planning committee, who I address now, you are elected representatives of the people of Kingston charged with protecting the well - being of current and future citizens and upholding the cities duly arrived at policies and regulations. Please deny this request for a zoning bylaw amendment. The proposed building will harm our neighbourhood. More importantly, support for this recommendation will damage faith in the integrity of the city's planning process. The proposed building is grossly disproportionate to and out of character with the surrounding houses. And I would note that the presentation today reused slides that misrepresent those surrounding houses. It will strip the neighbourhood of an architecturally unique building, which through its modernist horizontal built form tells the story of the neighborhood's past and of women's history in Kingston. Please see, Andrea Gummo's peer review. It will reflect these harms, sorry, it will inflict these harms merely to add nine cramped dwelling units. None of which are rent geared to income or are truly accessible. Please see Megan Quinn's letter, which explains among other things that she who uses mobility device believes you can't rotate one in the supposedly accessible units. I predict that these units will be a last resort and a market now saturated by 5, 000 new units that have already been built in Williamsville and those in tower blocks now under construction nearby. Of greater concern than these local harms, however, is the fact that the report flouts the express intent of policies and regulations which are applicable to the proposal. And in some cases, specifically refer to this site. Among these are the 2024 provincial planning statement. The city of Kingston official plan consolidated in 2025 to include the North Kingstown Policies. And the zoning bylaw decisions designed to implement them. The thick policy matrix pertinent to the application is laid out in Andrea Gamo's peer review, which has been appended to this report as though it were a letter from a citizen, but is in fact a report by a professional planner and a peer of the staff. The staff report arrives at its recommendation through logical fallacy refusal of applicable guidance and selective quotation, or rather strategical mission. One example of these manoeuvres must suffice here. The North Kingstown Policies Distinguished two areas. The St. Lawrence Ward character area enlarged to include the Midwives triangle and areas to the west. And at different portion of North Kingston, the Montreal Street Corridor designated for Intensification. Then the city amended zoning bylaws to permit intensification along Montreal Street, including creating the URM 11 zone proposed for this building. But intended for medium to large apartment buildings. It also reaffirmed other zoning within the St. Lawrence character area, including the CN zoning with red exception for four York Street. The language and zoning that applies to the St. Lawrence character area is framed as guidance for good practice. It leans on qualitative values, such as visual appearance and legible heritage. But the report treats strongly urged guidance. Because it is not requirement as completely without force. Meanwhile, it finds the city free to apply the URM - 11 zoning to this tiny lot, though 18 exceptions are required to do so, because there is no explicit prohibition against treating the St. Lawrence character area as though it were the Intensification area. But why would there be such explicit prohibition? The policies distinguished the two areas precisely to treat them differently. 30 seconds. So, all right, if I've got 30 seconds. In popular parlance, a denial of reality for the purpose of disempowering people who are inconveniently noticing reality is called gaslighting. In a democracy for elected officers to endorse it. I would remind you is not best practice. Okay. Thank you. So we will go to staff to see, and then we'll come back and then do another five afterwards. Just so that people can keep up. Um, so yeah, so I think they were just a couple of questions in there, so I don't know if who wants to tackle this. Through you, Mr. Chair, perhaps I could start with a start. I do want to respond to the DORM 11 zone comments, just to explain maybe more some of the rationale there. I know it was a zoning that came out of the North Kingstown work and applying it here may seem like we're creating that's upset people who've been through the process, but essentially we had to choose a zone. We had to choose a parent's own to apply the exceptions to, and the zone had the greatest basis for comparison, essentially. So, um, you are five zone that applies around the property wouldn't permit an apartment building, which is one of the core things that we had to permit through the zoning bylaw amendment. So, um. Yeah, essentially, the URM 11 zone was selected as what we call a parent zone. And then we apply the kind of site - specific considerations on top of that, which does amend a lot of the parameters of that zone. And we walk through that in the staff report to explain sort of how those different exceptions meet the intent of the zoning bylaw. But, um. And I also appreciate the comment about the comparison between the two files tonight. It's certainly not lost on me presenting them both, but I think there's very different contexts in either when, again, with a site that, I mean, we're looking initially tonight at a site that's undeveloped, um, you know, it's been enveloped for quite some time. It has quite a bit of area and you're building new, in this case, we're dealing with an existing building and an established neighbourhood that is characteristically tight - knit. So a lot of the same sort of generous setbacks can't be provided where you're adoptively reusing a building that's tight to the property lines. Maybe I'll pass it over to colleagues just to pick up on some of the other points. Mr. Norwood. Thanks, and through you, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to reviewing the list of comments as we were going through the presentation. I guess I'd start off with, um, a discussion on the topic of insensitive intensification is the first, I think, one of the first commenters mentioned. And then the couple other strings afterwards that touched on that. So in terms of that, I think that there are two components, which we're looking at, like form and function of intensification. So intensification in terms of form. We're looking at adding two stories to an existing one - story building. And like we certainly appreciate that there is a change to the neighbourhood from a building that has been one story for 70 plus years. And so how that is like perceived as a very drastic change. What we look at in this application specifically is how the planning context has changed in this neighbourhood over the period of time in addition from the 2008 application, which, um, kind of consolidated the existing building envelope as the zoning standard on the lot. And so we look at that planning framework does permit three stories as of right in the UR5 zone. That is broadly permissible across the entire neighbourhood. And this is what this building is proposing. We also look at that there are a number of other three story apartment buildings in the neighbourhood already. And that is part of what has led to the MacBony Park sub area characteristics recognising that three stories is a part of the characteristics of the community already. So when we look at that intensification in terms of form and height, we see it as A is a part of the plan form of the neighbourhood and also part of the existing form in some capacity relative to other apartment buildings in the area. Building off of that into function, um, which again, the number of kind of comments that from the different commenters in terms of how is this going to function? And it's very valid common and staff certainly spent a lot of time working with the applicant to understand how it's going to function. When we look at the zoning bylaw amendment and the number of amendments that our requested, we really only have two amendments in that zoning bylaw that speak to function. And that is really the number of parking spaces, which is significant for sure because there are zero parking spaces proposed. Um, we feel that that reduction of parking spaces at zero is appropriate in this location because it is adjacent to active transportation corridors, public transit, centres and corridors, all the services that the downtown does have to offer and walkable is defined in our official plan as within 600 metres, I believe. So we do have a location that is appropriate for that reduction in parking spaces. Um, and then we're also incorporating internal spaces to ensure that multimodal transportation via the bike rooms are available to all the residents as well so that we promote that active transportation and it's in a location that can facilitate other forms of it. So in terms of the form and function, um, we do believe that it has met those tests at the official plan requires. The other zoning bylaw amendment piece that speaks to function generally would be, I guess, the landscape open space piece. Um, and, you know, this is a, this is an amendment that is reflecting the existing, um, building site where you have an existing building that's covering the predominant area of the site. But the amenity space, um, piece that often is incorporated with a landscape open space is being adhered to in terms of the sizing of the zoning bylaw. And again, in terms of the location of the property being very close to the MacBooney Park as well as all the services downtown, we do have, um, amenity space location function appropriately address in terms of the location of the building being adjacent to those things. So overall in terms of the function of the building, um, there are some exceedances. And we mentioned the bike spaces, but also on the waste storage room. I remember from the first community meeting, that was a big topic of discussion. Whereas, but how was way going to be dealt with? And that was a big piece that we, uh, did attempt to work with the developer on. And now they have exceeded the waste requirement for attend unit building. And on multi - levels as well. So that was an important piece for us to ensure that there wasn't going to be any overflow of waste onto the public realm. Um, in terms of some other comments that I'm just walking through, traffic was another piece that kind of came up in a few of the comments. And that was an important consideration for us as well. Uh, again, recognising that it is going to be a predominantly multimodal piece with pedestrian activity. Um, and, uh, bike activity is the planned function for transportation. Um, but when we looked at what the traffic impacts of the Midwife Clinic were our transportation department actually ran what are the average annual daily trip numbers and relative to what a Midwife clinic or a doctor's clinic would be versus what a nine union department building is. And ultimately the modelling that is normally used for transportation studies actually resulted in less annual average daily traffic at the peak hours. Um, for a residential building of this scale versus a midwife clinic. So one of the concerns brought up about having the traffic for school children in terms of like what the peak hours would be going to and from school. That modelling actually suggests that there would be less traffic relative to a midwife clinic where you have employees showing up for a day at, you know, an 830 9 a. m. start day plus their clients and then leaving at a similar time in the afternoon. Um, so that was a piece of information that was extremely useful to us in understanding what how the traffic was going to work. It does spread out the traffic over time. So, you know, certainly a Midwife clinic's not going to have any traffic on the weekend most likely. So there will be residential traffic as a result of that. But that's how we kind of assess like the impacts of the increased traffic is that it's more spread out throughout the week. And it's a less intense that those peak hours. Um, in terms of snow storage, that's maybe one thing that I maybe would ask the applicant to discuss. Generally our understanding of the snow storage is that although, um, there are some pieces like the ramp that has been discussed for, uh, I believe two exits now that are proposed. Generally the snow storage wouldn't alter too much from what's there needed today. And with, um, it's kind of the requirement of the landlord to be able to maintain those spaces. Um, the expectation would be that they are maintained enough way that is off of the municipal right of way. So I'll ask the applicant to make me touch upon snow storage while we kind of look at maybe addressing some of the other comments that have come through. Thanks, Animal, through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think the only added area that would need to be shoveled would be those, uh, the access off of Barrie Street to unit five. Uh, exit to unit four, um, the rest, the front lobby is currently covered by the roof. Uh, and then the existing side exit stairwell. And I think we've shown on the site plan the number of kind of wide areas that we've labelled as snow storage so that collective 90 square feet of exterior space that is on a property that would require snow to be removed can be put. Literally five feet away. So thank you. Was there any, cause I know there was other questions too about, uh. There was like, um, yeah, The Basements, um, flooding. And there was also one about, um, uh, accessible, like accessibility with our bylaws, um, can't remember exactly. Yeah. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. In terms of the basement flooding, um, we did actually follow up with utilities Kingston in terms of those concerns. Uh, we do know that there was a, uh, backwater valve installed, uh, by the Midwife Clinic at some point in the past 10 years, I believe to mitigate that. But we actually did have, uh, utilities Kingston take a CCTV footage review of the surrounding, um, sewer pipes. And they ultimately indicated that the sewer pipes were in sufficient condition to accommodate this proposal. And they, they did not say that there was a, uh, an extra concern with, um, like there was no additional infrastructure issues that would necessarily result in, um, an increased risk of backflow, uh, to this building, especially with that backflow preventer that would help mitigate that. Um, we do currently permit bass room apartments in residential buildings. And so that's why it's proposed in this instance. Um, in terms of the accessibility issues, I certainly appreciate the difference between the word accessible and then barrier free, barrier free is determines used in the Ontario building code. And that is ultimately what, um, the standard that the building will need to adhere to for those two barrier free units. They would have to be barrier free in terms of their entrances as well as their layout within the building. I think that that's why you see some of the, um, the layout that you, that you see in terms of some of the vestibules that are proposed. I believe the doors are 42 inches wide. I'm not an expert in the Ontario building code. But a lot of discussion with the applicant and our building department has occurred to ensure that the barrier free components are considered. And are demonstrated to be available or possible to be implemented when it comes time to that detailed design review that the applicant has mentioned in terms of getting Ontario building code, uh, ready drawings. A couple of comments if I may, Mr. Chair, just about, uh, there was a comment about, um, some of the public comments and specifically we did receive report from a registered professional planner. That we did review that report in detail. Um, we, we did address some of the comments and concerns in that report within the public comment section of the report. It is in terms of our process, it will be treated as public correspondence, just like any other, um, type of correspondence that we did receive from the public because it was, um, I believe, uh, contracted out by a few members of the, of the public who submitted it, uh, as themselves and not as the, like as someone who hired a professional planner to do a peer review. Certainly there are questions about the contents of the peer review. We're here to talk tonight about that. And we're more than happy to talk about that. Um, but yeah, we, we did try to address some of those comments in the report in the public comment section. Um, and lastly, I think I'll take a look at the red exception. I know Mr. Bar did a good job at the beginning of the, of the evening trying to unpack the red exception. But the section in the zoning bylaw is section 5. 5. 2 that talks about how when there's a more restrictive provision, um, in the, in the 2022 - 62, that the legacy exception can be relied upon. And so that is how red exception has been treated is that if there is a more restricted precision that you are able to use the least restrictive provision. And it comes from that implementing bylaw in 2024 that talks about how red exceptions are to be treated as, um, as legacy obsession. So that is ultimately the connective tissue there in terms of how that, that has played out. I'm sorry. If you want to have a conversation, I would ask that you leave the room. Excuse me. Just to respect the process. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead. Just one last additional thing through you, Chair, to Ms. Hansen, to the, to the idea of regulating more matters for accessibility through the zoning bylaw. We are limited under the planning act by what can be regulated by a zoning bylaw. And it includes matters mostly exterior to a building height, setbacks, landscaped open space, uses on a property density, um, and then parking and loading areas, which is why one of the largest accessibility matters that we deal with here at Planning Committee or through a zoning bylaw is accessible parking and passive travel between accessible parking and buildings. All other matters under the AODA for how a building functions are regulated under the Ontario Building Code and implemented through those detailed drawings. So it's a limitation that we have for a zoning bylaw, by what we can regulate. And that's specifically governed under the planning act. Okay. Thank you. So I think that covered all that first round. So now we'll go on to a second round. So we'll start over here. And then if you can state your name. And then I know you have a model you wanted to show us. So yeah. Um, my name is Susana Cliff Jungling. I live on 28 Elmer Street. I am presenting on behalf of my neighbour, Jill Bryant. So her words not mine. And I'm just going to read them. Public discourse is instrumental for making good municipal decisions. The city of Kingston Public Engagement Charter states that quote, the involvement of Kingston residents in the city's decision making process is vital to democracy. Perspectives matter, neighbours, voices matter. Following the flow of documents with this application was disconcerting to read the February 27 recommendation regarding accessibility, enlarging the living spaces of the barrier - free units was the trade - off to address the lack of access to the rooftop amenity space. This concession for people with mobility needs didn't sound fair. And when I read The May 27 letter, penned by disability rights advocate Megan Quinn, I understood the full extent of these harms. Unequal access to the common amenity space is one of the many serious deficiencies in the accessible units which exposes the city to sanction by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. As residents, we're assured we are part of the planning process. But our significant, inclusive feedback has not been considered in a meaningful way. Certainly there's been no shortage of public engagement against this application. Close to 100 letters, several small group meetings, site visits, petitions, and a group letter penned and signed by 53 neighbours. Strong misgivings over the proposed buildings looming bulk and mass have been expressed repeatedly by neighbours who fear the addition would overwhelm the low profile historic building. The front and our heritage foundation, which advocates for smart growth that protects and enhances heritage structures, agrees with neighbours. Their recent May 16 email states, quote, the proposed renovation addition reduces the original buildings unique form and attributes to the point of being unrecognisable." End of quote. In contrast, the city planning response has been limited to the following, quote based on considerable public feedback with respect to the massing and visual impact. 2. 0 metre setback is recommended for the rooftop amenity area. End of quote. That's from April 22nd 26. The tech review comments. And this is where the model comes in. This model is built to scale. We'll moving a rooftop fence back two metres. Shrink the building's mass bulk or size. Last relies planning tech review comments suggested some understanding with neighbor's concerns because they noted an excessive level of density. In fact, the proposed apartment building is more than three times denser than what's permitted in the requested URM - 11 Intensification Zone. It's four times denser than any comparable low rise in the neighbourhood. How can this now be okay. CPAG4 in the overview section of the peer review by Andrea Gamma registered professional planner stating, quote. The proposed development represents an unacceptable increase in density for a site that is already overbuilt. This peer reerview goes on to sake quote, the existing buildings nearly 100 percent lot coverage. And block characters surrounded by streets result in any increase in height and density, having an undue impact on surrounding properties. Neighbourhood character and the function of the site itself." End quote. Miss Gumma's peer review clearly presents the project's failure to conform with the intent of the city official plan. A plan that quote reflects community priorities. And of quote. And it is meant to be, quote, read in its entirety to ensure that all applicable policies have been considered. That's page one of the official plan. We've been assured we are part of the planning process, yet important feedback from the community, including a registered professional cuter. A disability advocate, a heritage board president and neighbours has not been considered in a meaningful way. Perspectives matter. Neighbor's voices matter. This official plan matters. Members of the Planning Committee, I urge you to deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. So next, if you wish to speak, just, uh, you have five minutes and you state your name. My name is Anthony Jenkins. I don't live in the neighbourhood. I don't have any skin in the game in that way. Uh, I am a longtime resident of Kingston and area and Kingston is the chosen place for me. I work all over North America. At least I have my retirement spending. And I've travelled over Europe, Mexico, other places. Learning, studying, doing. I've been a consultant to federal governments, provincial governments, municipalities. I worked in concert with large developers. Architectural firms. And my work has been essentially construction related to historical themes, historical restoration of important properties. And adaptive reuse. Of heritage properties. Now. I'm just going to have to wing it here because there's just, oh, yes, we've got to slide up. Thank you. All right. This is a building. It's the power school in Port Hope. I put it up there for a couple of reasons. Uh, Dr. Powers was a great uncle of mine. But other than that, in addition to that, it's an exceptional example of adaptive reuse that really works in all dimensions. It has preserved this 1925 iconic building in an important location. Four, another hundred years or two hundred years by giving it a good provident use as affordable housing. The renovations were done and the alterations are done in such a way that they're unnoticeable on the exterior, but they make the building very useful for the clientele. There's a waiting list to get in there. But it's geared to income. It was built by nonprofits. For people that needed that kind of housing. Next slide, please. Adaptive reuse right here in Kingston. The fire. Hall restaurant has gone through a couple of iterations. But they don't hide what it used to be. They don't cover it over. They don't, you know, bury it underneath all kinds of other construction. They're very proud of what it is. And they put it out there. Next. And again. Next slide. Okay. I know this is the S in our building. It had several uses before it was a department store. It's an iconic building and an iconic location. And it's just. A next slide, please. It's an amazing bit of work. It comes together so well. It preserves the historic characters of that building, which is one of the defining characteristics of an adaptive reuse. That it preserves the character and the influence and the history of the building. So. They had to make this one pay though. And everybody knows this building. Not everybody pays too much attention to the addition that's on it. And if you look at that great glass cube that's behind it, it really works. That was, that's what pays the rent. That was, makes this thing tech. Uh, next slide. Inside, when you step in there, I mean, they have space to waste. I mean, others might want to put a few more bedrooms in there, but no, this is a classy building. And you don't have to be big to be classy. You can be small in class. In fact, it's even easier. Next slide. They even made room for the piano because it was a piano works at one time. They celebrated history. They don't hide it. They don't disguise it. I haven't heard from anybody on the proponent side. How what they're doing preserves or enhances the history. They throw the term around adaptive reuse as if it was a magic wand. Next. And Panchan shows bakery. Started out as a bank. So from banking to baking. And, but when you look at that great expense, great effort was made. And it was all private industry. Just as the SNR building was 30 seconds. Next. We'll call that good. Okay. This is a bad project. It offends its neighbourhood. It's not going to be a comfy place for people to want to live. There are so many small problems unresolved issues that we get this dogs breakfast that we've had tonight. If everybody nitpicking about different little things that really aren't a germane to the central impact and the central question, does this building in this form belong in this location on this lot? Okay. I think. So is there anyone else who wishes to speak. Just state your name and you have five minutes. I'm Victoria Clark. My house is number one York Street. Could you move the mic closer to your mouth? My house. You can move the house's number one York Street. And so I'm, I'm, I'm right there. I see everything. And I've had the house for 20 years. And I go away in the winters. I'm a musician. Um, I haven't done that very much recently. And I'm a cyclist. I've got lots of stuff to say. I don't understand why you think that everybody in the building is going to be a cyclist. It's cycling is hard in Kingston. Kingston is not a cycling city. I sit on my porch. And I watch people creep up and not know where to go. When you're talking about three story buildings, excuse me, they are a 90 degree angles. That corner is confusing. It's, um, mysterious. For lack of better words when people really crawl up. And they don't know where to turn. And I have seen almost accidents daily. I think people just come up and they're looking and they don't know where to go. It's confusing coroner. So I really don't understand. Please don't allow this building. I used to watch the women coming in. That were pregnant. There was one or two at a time. It's very quiet. It's very sleepy and it's very confusing. This is not a 90 degree street. With a three story building. This is a tiny little place that's very confusing and it's very dangerous because it's old. It was made before there was all this traffic. And now because of the slush puppy place, there's a lot of traffic that goes down ordinance that did not used to go down ordinance. And so when you talk about the people coming and going for the Midwives, it was so quiet. There's barely anybody. And remember it is a dangerous intersection. It's very confusing. And it's a historical area. This place should be protected. It should be enhanced the neighbourhood. This will not enhance the neighbourhood. But the most important thing is that that corner, because of the nature of it is dangerous. You cannot bring more cars into that area that live there. People don't ride their bicycles in Kingston. I'm a cyclist. There's nowhere to ride your bike in Kingston. There's going to be Ubers and people coming and going and dropping things off. And already nobody knows where to cross the street. Nobody knows where to park. There's never any parking. It's crowded. And it's a dangerous corner. So thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to speak? You can come have a seat here. Anybody wish. We can do two more before we do the answering the questions. Is there anyone online who wishes to speak? Please you're ease your virtual hand and zoom. We'll take two for now. And then take more after if there. Okay. So I'll recognise Andrea Gomo. So if you could just state your name and then you have five minutes. Hi. I'm Andrea Gumo. I have a PowerPoint. Okay. So if we can get that up. It's up. You can start. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, it's my video is supposed to be working or is it turned off. Yeah. That's turned off. Okay. Um, hi and thank you Mr. Chair members of the Planning Committee for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Andre Gamo. I am a registered professional planner. And speaking in a professional capacity, um, I carry data peer review of this application on behalf of a number of clients. Um, they, my clients are members of the public, but happily as planners, um, regardless of who our clients are, are we retain the same credentials? Um, you can find my report on page 304 of the SAF report package in exhibit M public comments. I recommend reading through it as it outlines the detailed policy considerations for this application, including considerations this presentation will not be able to cover. Next slide, please. It's important to note that discussion and disagreement between planners as a normal part of the profession. Here we see the OPPI code of practice, which governs planners in Ontario stating that this is a key responsibility for planners. I've reviewed the staff report in detail, including the comments this evening. And it does not address the issues presented in the peer review. Next slide, please. This proposal represents a massive increase in density on a tiny lot. 327 dwelling units per net hector is comparable to a downtown high rise. The proposed density is high because the existing lot is undersized and almost entirely covered by the existing building and a large number of units are proposed. At one story, this is a clever use of space, but at three stories, this is over development of the lot. This site is not within any of the many Intensive Intensification areas recently added to the official plan. As part of the North Kingstown work, this area was evaluated and determined to not be appropriate for major intensification, particularly because it was added to the St. Lawrence War adheritage character area. Next slide, please. Compatibilities, both a defined term in the official plan and a general land use planning term. The basis of the profession is insurance ensuring compatibility of land uses. Visual compatibility is a subset of general compatibility. And he's used to measure the achievement of goals related to character, cultural heritage values and good urban design. Next slide, please. This official plan definition for adverse effects is taken from the environmental protection act, which direct land use compatibility related to noise, dust, odour, and other emissions. This definition does not apply to visual compatibility. Next slide, please. Here you see the official plan policy on compatibility. That's one of the key policies for evaluating the proposed development. This first half of the list does apply to the EPA's definition of adverse effects. Next slide. And here is most of the second half of the list. These matters that are, these are matters that can be measured by visual compatibility. Next slide. The intent of this change in 2017 was not to eliminate visual compatibility as a consideration. If it were, the policies that apply, it would have been changed or deleted. It's also important to note that the staff report for this application and the one presented previously applies the test of visual compatibility in the normal way. Contrary to the idea that its application is limited to the definition of adverse effects. But the staff report applies it in a way that ignores immediate context in favor of general neighbourhood context. This is a misapplication of the test. And contrary to the findings and recommendations of the North Kingstown Cultural Heritage Study, which is specifically referenced by the official plan for characteristics and context. CADCO Tourism Kingston and Kingston Accommodation Partners recognise the importance of heritage and character to Kingston's economy and growth. Next slide, please. I'd like to draw the committee's attention to a recent Ontario Land Tribunal decision from the town of Orangeville that has some similarities with this application. The Orangeville application requested amendments to permit a multi - unit development at a much greater density than permitted. Town staff had recommended approval, but Council denied the application. Next slide, please. The OLT agreed with Council and determined that the proposal would result in inappropriate over - development. Compatibility and character were factors in Vice Chair Hardy's decision. As with context in the sense of the properties, immediate context above that of the broader neighbourhood. To quote the decision, although many policies do encourage intensification, these policies must be considered alongside other relevant policies, including those that aimed to preserve neighbourhood character. 30 seconds. One, thank you. One cannot prioritize maximizing development while ignoring competing policies. Next slide, please. Um, so in conclusion, I just want to address what I see as an undue waiting of policies supporting residential development and the staff report. The official plan includes many considerations, which are outlined in my peer review that also must be considered. The application does not conform with the official plan does not represent good land use planning and is not in the public interest. Thank you. Thank you. So is there anyone else in the, or actually we're online. So who would, is there somebody else who wish to speak. Okay. So I'll recognise Lee Weslake. If you could just state your name and then you'll have five minutes. Thank you. My name is Lee Westlake. In any other district in Kingston, four York Street would be considered a traffic island. The city's past decisions about this small property have been clear and they've been consistent. No additional floor area. This zoning decision was reaffirmed in 2008, 2024, and last year in 2025. Abandonning that position now with disregard established planning precedent and we can confident in city's decision making. I urge the committee to vote no to this proposal. Thank you. Okay. So that was five. And then we'll get some answers or feedback from staff about some of these comments. And then we'll go back to see if there's anyone else who wants to ask questions or give feedback. In other words, there wasn't really any questions, but I don't know if anybody wants to touch on anything that was said. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, maybe would start just to speak to the comments about, um, compatibility and considering the application, um, in relation to the full suite of, of policy tests, um, and the existing context. Through the staff report. It's much more detailed than the presentation I was able to make tonight. We did consider all the, uh, different forms of adverse effects because that is a component of compatibility and would also emphasize that it compatibility does not mean the same. It just means an ability to coexist. So under that framework, we looked at adverse effects in terms of shadowing. We looked in terms of overlook and the other, um, types of adverse effects that are detailed in the official plan and also the review, um, that I tried to touch on with the existing context. And we did our best to model and update our modelling to see how the proposal would integrate the way our policy framework encourages us to do. Um, but ultimately like a three story form, um, can be compatible in this area where that considered opinion based on, on the policy tests and the official plan. Um, I know that the, the step back was not what the community looked for and that, and that's come up tonight that that is not a response to the public feedback and fully appreciate that. It was an attempt and staff to Taylor. Um, the height beyond a three story height, which was understood to be compatible in this, in this location. Again, the road allowances around this site allow for space to, um, to accommodate visually a higher height that can integrate into the neighbourhood and an apology not going through very systematically. But in terms of, um, transportation concerns around the triangular site. Um, I can offer, like our transportation staff, um, we have been in touch through this application because there have been a number of comments that have come through about the safety in the area. And I guess I can offer that that feedback hasn't gone without, um, getting heard. And there is, I understand an upgrade for pose to, or the ordinance street to actually, um, establish a stop bar in a, in a location that, that makes sense on that, that street. So that has come out of this process. I know there's a sense that, that public isn't being heard. But overall, I mean, there's been so much engagement and, and it's made us sort of double check our, our assumptions and look very closely at the policy framework. But in the end, we've applied the tests that, um, that the official plan prescribes here and are of the opinion that, um, the built form that is recommended will be compatible. Mr. Bar. Thanks. And through you, Chair. Um, I know we've been here for a long time tonight. And I do thank the members of the public and everyone who's come out to speak. This is a complex application that's been going on for a while now. And I know you've had a lot of engagement with staff. Um, both in person and through communication. So thank you for all your contributions. I just want to speak to a few things that have been raised there at the end. Firstly, I would like to address the fact that, in my opinion, the staff report that's before you tonight, comprehensively addresses all applicable land use policy from a provincial and municipal level. The report that's before you is complete and accurate and it's representation of what is applicable to the property in terms of policy. Um, additionally, uh, I know there was a, uh, an example that was put up previously from Orangeville where it was identified by Miss Gumo that there was similarities between the two. But in a fulsome understanding and review of an application, I don't know what that development looks like. And I do not know what the particulars are that led to both a denial from maybe a council level and a No Walt T level around that application. So I'm not able to fully evaluate or speak to that example. And it's applicability to this application. No images were shown. I don't understand the context around that application. Additionally, density is a funny measure. Sometimes I think that is not fully representative of what is actually happening on the ground. Nine units here triggers a density over 300 units per net hectare. But at 387 Barry Street, just to the south of here, there was one unit on that property. And that one unit by itself, because of the size of the property, generates a density of 79 dwelling units per net hectare. That is actually considered high density in our official plan because it's over 75 units per net hectare. 389 buried street has two units on that property. And it creates a density of 129 dwelling units per net hectare. So both of those trigger a high density requirement. Also given all the changes that have happened in Ontario recently, every urban service piece of residential land can have up to three dwelling units on property by right. So by itself, 387 Bairrie Street should have the ability to convert and reach that level of density should someone choose to do it could have a density of 237 units per net hectare. So density is one way we can look at a property to figure out if some things appropriate, but it's not always the silver bullet because you have to look at all the functional needs that go along with that. Is there a sufficient amenity for a site? Is there sufficient? You know, vehicle access or bike parking or garbage or amenity space or the other things that are, are components of good development. So focusing just on density is not the full picture in an area, especially as old as this portion of the city where lot sizes vary development has varied over time. Um, so we have to look at all the other components that go into what is good development. So the, the comments that have been raised about the increase in density on the site being comparable to a downtown development, you know, a downtown development. May have a density of, you know, 300 units per net hector up to a thousand units per net hectare. The zoning that was passed for 283 Queen Street was over a thousand units per net hectare, but that was a 14 story apartment building. You know, these things do vary from site to site depending on the size of the lot and the appropriateness of the development. Thanks, Charlie. I don't have anything additional right now. Okay. So now we'll come back and see if the wish to speak. Okay. So I'll recognise Vicky Shmoka. You state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. I guess I'd like to start with respect to section 10H of the official plan, which talks about intensification in the North Kingstown area. And I'm trying to get my mind around the catch - 22 because as I understand its staff is saying 10H doesn't apply. However, the developers asking for Intensification in an area that staff is willing to say, well, intensification can happen in other areas where we haven't seen the Intensification. Outlined in the official plan. And the North Kingstown study. So isn't that kind of undermining the whole policy? If you find intensification could go at four York shouldn't 10H apply to it because it is becoming an intensification area. So I'd like to understand that better. Um, I think I saw in the shadow study that in December, there's only three hours of sunlight. Um, for some of the houses adjacent to the building. And I am wondering what the city standard is. And to me, three hours of sunlight in December is a real deprivation. So I know it's hard to go back to those, um, images. But if staff could bring that up, you think it'd be very helpful to know if it's only three hours and to have an understanding of whether that is acceptable policy. And hold on, I have to, um, I was looking at the technical report for, um, the project. And utilities Kingston says, number 28, utilities Kingston does not recommend units fully contained within basements due to the susceptibility to sewer disircharging and basement flooding. Now I know staff said that utilities Kingston is not worried about sewer surcharging because the backflow valve. But that doesn't address the other element, which is basement flooding, which I take it is, uh, melting coming in from the outside into the basement. So I'd like to understand how utilities Kingston is satisfied or planning staff is satisfied that flooding is not an issue for the basement apartments. I know other people have raised the issue of deliveries. And I just want to say, I'm a cyclist. I go down Princess Street a lot. I drive down it as well. Deliveries have become ridiculous. Like there's trucks parked everywhere and it's a zigzag to go anywhere. And I think, uh, it, it's surprising to me that staff hasn't been concerned about how deliveries are going to happen to this building. With probably potentially 30 people living here, there is going to be some coming and going. So, um, again, that's one of the conundrums because neither policy applies. It appears not to be Heritage. It appears not to be intensification. So what is the standard for deliveries for a building like this. Um, I'm also struck by the visuals from the photographs. I think it was the second speaker who had actual photographs from the street taken today. And I guess we could say the AI generated model that staff presented because the building bulk of the building shown in that generated model are not at all like the photographs taken by a resident. And I think it would be helpful to put those upside by side. So, um, everybody could kind of see the context the way a photography. Exhibit does as opposed to, um, the AI generation. And the final thing I want to say is, you know, official plans and zoning bylaws are all about expectations. So, you know, what did the developer expect. When he, and he and his hired consultants looked at the zoning and the official plan work for this site, knowing it. And what do the public expect. After all? And I think Miss Lahie spoke really clearly to this 500 people coming to a public event. And then expecting that the policies that came from that whole process would result in, um, a respectful type of development in their neighbourhoods in North Kingstown. It just seems to me the expectations are, are really conflicting. And I appreciate that Stoff has bent over backwards to try to make this fit. But I really, um. Think that Planning Committee has to think carefully. I think someone already said this. About how, how a decision here. Because of the public is asked to comment on something and participate in workshops. And offer their ideas. And then when it comes right down to it, they're ignored. What kind of message does that send to public engagement. Thank you. Thank you. Um, is there anyone else online who wishes to speak. Please raise your virtual hand and zoom. I'll give you another moment. If you wish to speak to this file for York Street. Please raise your virtual hand in Zoom. Okay. Seeing as none. Was there anybody else in this room who hasn't spoken, who has decided they want to speak. This is your last opportunity to do so. So I'll just give you one last opportunity. All right. So we'll go to staff to, um, to, uh, to reply to some of these comments and questions. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't know if the shadow, um, slide is able to be pulled up, but can speak to some of the points about shadowing. Just, uh, to clarify. So we did, the summary table here, just because front yards, um, were mentioned specifically in the public engagement concern about what, uh, the shadows would mean for front yards, but just to, um, highlight the front yards in this case are quite, are quite limited. So, um, the, the shadows in the winter, the shadow summary, um, in the wintertime, uh, does reflect a shadow that moves across the shallow front yards, uh, in the winter, um, but because of the location and the duration, which isn't well captured with the summary table because again, it's on York Street where it moves across the frontages. So this is sort of a summary of how the shadows would be crossing York Street during this time period. But, um, essentially, the winter isn't typically looked at as, as, as a time, uh, for undue adverse impacts, but we, we did as part of this to try to, um, uh, demonstrate for the public what the effect could be. But again, our urban design staff, um, reviewed based on standard practice in Ontario Municipalities and generally, if there's sunlight more than half, half the day, I believe it's in the spring and fall equinox that that's an acceptable. Level of sun. But winter isn't typically looked at. So in that way, the shadowing isn't considered an undue adverse impact because of the, um, specific location, uh, duration and time of the year. Um. Regarding the North Kingstown policies. So they don't apply here because their site specific policy areas that came out of the North Kingstown, um, secondary planning exercise. But we apply the other policy sections from, from the official plan, um, uh, the North Kingstown Intensification areas were intended for four to 15 story mixed use buildings. And the different policy set that applies to those, um, so apologies I'm getting off track here. Maybe I'll just pass over to colleagues just to make sure I'm capturing everything. Thanks to three, Mr. Chair. Yes. Just to jump on the North Kingstown, um, my colleague Miss Diedrichson is correct that the Intensification areas were planned for four to 15 storing mixed use buildings. Uh, they are often given the mixed use designation and upzone specifically in the MU zone, which were specifically, uh, designed in NKT. The issue of, um, you know, that there was intensification areas in NKT. And this wasn't one of them. So this shouldn't be intensified. That type of premise was explicitly contemplated during the passing of NKT in the staff report where I think there was in the general correspondence, what about other locations in North Kingstown? And it was noted that other locations could be demonstrated to be appropriate, you know, subject to the normal planning process, which is what we're undergoing today. So appreciating that like the North Kingston Secondary plan study area was very large and encompassed a lot of properties. It's, it is impossible to look at every single property and understand its true potential and also the market demands for that property at any given time because that is a fluid environment. So, um, it did leave the door open at least, um, in the report that other properties could demonstrate appropriateness through intensification within the NKT study area and not necessarily have been identified at that time as one of those intensification lands. Cause again, those are four, four to 15 story buildings, which are pretty meaningful buildings and had associated policy sets to support that. And that's why there's a specific 10H that goes with it to guide those very dense buildings for Kingston to appropriately be developed in accordance with what the vision of NKT was. Okay. Um, I think, yeah, the, the basement flooding thing came back. But I guess this was more about, I guess, leaking into the basement. And then there was also about, um, was utilities Kingston and planning. How were they satisfied with that. With this property. Thanks, Andrew, Chair. So utilities, Kingston doesn't recommend The Min Basement, but the prohibition about having a basement, uh, residential unit in this area. There are, residential basement dwelling units throughout this neighbourhood and throughout other parts of the city. And it has been allowed additionally, there is a backflow preventer that deals specifically with the sewage system backup potential that could happen in an area in an example of overflow that would happen throughout the neighbourhood, especially here where there's combined sewers. Um, but in terms of stormwater, you know, the Stormwater team has also reviewed this application has no concerns. Having a basement always, you know, potentially opens you up to some level of flooding, but there is no prohibition on basement apartments in this portion of the city. Yeah, that was also a question or a question about standard for deliveries. Is that something that you can touch upon? Thanks. And through you, Chair. In terms of the deliveries for this area, when we undertook the exercise of the Kingston zoning bylaw, we specifically reviewed that and set a minimum number of units that would first trigger the need for an on - site parking space or a loading space. This building is far below that. So this level of building, this level of intensity is not envisioned as being supported by a dedicated on - site delivery space or loading space. That is to happen from the public realm like it would for the balance of this neighbourhood where, um, that is service directly from the road allowance. Okay. Thank you. So I think that covered everything. Um, so now we're at the point where I need a mover in a second there for the recommendation. Move by Councillor Glenn. Seculted by Deputy Mayor Steven. So is there any discussion Council Glenn. Thank you and through you. Um, so. I've been listening this evening to a lot of different commentary about, uh, all of the various things that don't work here. So I'm going to actually put forward that this is a spot where no building probably should ever have been put in the first place. So we are faced with a very, um, awkward, uh, position. So when they put a building there a long time ago, the things that we didn't know. And, you know, it was taken by the comments about safety. And as somebody who has been well schooled in human factors as a career, what you're talking about is a disorientation that we face as human beings when we come across angles that don't work. If you were going to build a city today, you would never put a street in with this kind of angle. So right now we have a small building there. So the impact is less of a problem, shall we say. So this isn't just about pure density or pure height. In an ideal spot, these would not be a problem. But this is far from an ideal spot. So I do have grave concerns about putting greater height in a spot like this. Where there's already that distortion where a human being doesn't see the street properly. And on a street that's far more narrow. And that just takes me over to the parking challenges. There's no parking here. So right now, as we've heard expressed, the traditional use has been a slower use. Some people coming through in the daytime, if you at a time, now we're proposing to put a lot of people here with no parking spaces. And it's not just about the parking spaces for them. I still get my family visiting me or friends coming to visit. And they have to go somewhere. And that's not just a daytime consideration. That's an evening and night consideration. So it doesn't work for me. I think it's an unsafe spot. I think it's a development that doesn't work in this spot. And I know that the proponent has tried to jump through multiple hoops to make something workable here. And that also then takes me to the comments that were made about barrier - free or accessible. These are minimum standards. So very clearly, I think we heard that that's all that we could meet, really what we should be striving for in more buildings. And when we put up even adaptive reuse of a heritage space is something that aligns more closely with universal design. We are far, far from that. So for me, this is unfortunately something that I cannot in good conscience support. I don't think that it's workable in this location. I wish it were. We need more housing. We need more housing downtown. Um, so at this particular point in time, it's a no for me for those reasons. There are others that I'm sure will be brought up or discussed. I think there's just too many concessions we're trying to make on a space that just doesn't work. Hey, anyone else wish to speak. Councillor James. Full transparency. I don't have an issue with the no parking height. Density. My concerns, as I pointed out, lay with the accessibility and the barrier - free units. Not sure if the applicant or staff could maybe straighten some of that out if it's going to be figured out during the site plan. But regards to the waste room. Washer dryers was mentioned. Is still up in the air regards who purchased them and where they had, but it still has to be placed somewhere. And also my concern is that these are like two of the smallest units in the building. And there are more than just two one bedroom apartments in this building. And they're supposed to be barrier - free. To allow those who have familiar issues to move around a leisier. And the smallest one. So, um, seriously, on the fence on this one and leading started one way, but I need some more information, which I don't think I actually received it. Thank you. Councillo Sanic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm against three stories at this location. I think it would have been more difficult decision if it had come in at two stories. That's what I thought, you know, maybe last week or so, but after then hearing all the arguments tonight and reading all the correspondence, um, even two stories is just too much density for me. Like we heard tonight, uh, you know, the dangerous corner, um, too much traffic, um, traffic patterns have changed with slush puppy plays like this, like the confusion at the corner. There's the no parking. And this is not a good example of, um, adaptive reuse. And at the beginning, um, I'm not sure what corner that would be, maybe the Southwest side, uh, of it. But you have that chimney. I don't know if it's a chimney or if it's like a fireplace, but, um, everyone is right with that, with the way that it is and our planning committee agenda, you can't even see that structure. It's like nothing is preserved either than the brick on the first level, but, um, we have, uh, The peer review, um, that, um, is in our agenda, the letter from Kingston Inheritage Foundation. And then we have all the confusion regarding, um, the North Kingstown, um, district plan and the heritage character area. And, you know, like that North Kingstown secondary plan, which is what it was called 10 years ago, uh, like I just think that like we had so many people that were so excited with that plan and really believed in the plan. And now you can't even find like the documents on our website from the very beginning of it in 2016, uh, the Google links, like they don't even work anymore. But like everyone really believed in that plan that this is where the intensified areas would be. And that would provide relief for all the rest of the area. And even though yes, everybody is allowed in Ontario to bring forth a development application for anything. No one can deny an application coming forward for anything. You know, like, uh, the city has to hold true to their policies. And we as councillors have to support that as well. And so I just feel that maybe unintentionally and maybe accidentally, they're somehow things went on the street with, with the public and, um, the expectations coming out of that plan. Because what we hear tonight is like, okay, it's three stories. Yeah. It's not part of the Intensification area, but somehow we'll make it work. And I say, no, like we should have, you know, fought harder to, to, um, come back to planning committee with some other plan that was not intensified like this for an adaptive reuse of this site. And I think as council, we have to protect. We have to use our judgment to protect the public view like we heard earlier in some of the public's comments tonight. Thank you. Anyone else we should speak. There's a Councillor. No. Oh, yeah, okay. Councillor is rough. Yeah. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I just, um, certainly do want to address it as well. Um, been quite a night really, uh, really great to, to hear, um, from the public this way. Um, for quite a while, I've been quite supportive of this, uh, development. And it does seem to have, uh, gone off the rails a little bit. Um, I guess, um, and I agree with Councillor Shaves a little bit. I, I mean, we've agreed to approve all kinds of housing. So I'm okay with the height. I think, uh, I'm okay with, um, no parking. We, you know, this is going to be a unique residence here, but, um, I really did hear, uh, the last, uh, wave of, of the public tonight, uh, phenomenal presentations and making their points very respectfully and very clearly. And, um, so, and then when it talked about, um, the Kingstown plan, which I as well was very impressed with and how we haven't, we can't lose that guide for us. And maybe in some way we have here and how it was pointed out how it was included in the heritage, uh, part as well. So there are things going on here. And, um, I think it needs to go to Council to make the decision here, uh, and give it some time, um, for that to struggle with it, um, based on what I've heard from the public and all respect to them for doing a fantastic job of, of speaking and preparing themselves. I can't support it as I see it, uh, at this time. Thank you. Okay. Anyway. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think we can see where the votes are going. So I'd like to just add something else to the conversation that I'm not sure we've touched on yet. And. I get really frustrated when I hear people say that they're not being heard. Because I know I am. And I think everyone here, we hear, we read, we listen. We read staff reports. We consolidate all of this information. And then we make decisions. And it's hard. But believing that you're not heard just because you're not getting what you want isn't fair. So I need to say that just that's how I'm feeling right now. Um. I actually know this site really well. I know the main floor. I know the basement. Um, I have had two babies with Midwives. And it's an important site. Um, someone described it as the gateway to make Bernie Park. I think that's a really great description. Um, the gateway to the neighbourhood. It's special. There's no question. Policy or not. But I think that this kind of redevelopment is actually a unique opportunity. I think that there will always be disagreement about what people think looks and fits. And character. And these, these subjective things that are really, really personal interpretations. And. I would argue that a three story building in a residential neighbourhood with residential stuff inside it fits the neighbourhood. Like it's a one story building right now. It could just become a vape shop. That would be allowed as of right. It could become a cannabis shop. It could become, I mean, I'm picking extreme examples, obviously, but, you know, it could become a lot of different things that we don't control. So my point. Is that compatibility and character are tricky. From my perspective, and again, I acknowledge I'm not in your neighbour, but I do know that neighbourhood. And I know it well. I play basketball at Central Public School every week in Buenos ANOT Summer. And I think that this is actually a good project. I hesitate at the density. I take, it was Mr. Barris Point, um, we've heard a lot of comments with density. I do take his point though, because again, as a teacher and when we're talking math and we're talking ratios and we're talking all of these things, like you really need to be mindful because we can make numbers look like a lot of different things. And 327 units per hectare is crazy. Like I was making notes this whole time. Um. But again, is what was it? 18 bedrooms, I think. It still feels like a lot, but I think it might be possible. And I think that this is going to, this kind of apartment would cater to a really specific kind of person who's looking for a specific experience. And MacBony Park, I think if nothing else is unique and just different in all the best ways, I live in the West End in a suburb that, I mean, my dad was a realtor when I was a kid and he talked about cookie cutter houses where they all look kind of the same. My suburb's not quite like that. But McBooney Park is not like that. It's a really special place. And I think there were a lot of comments about losing the character of this building or losing this building. And I don't see it that way. I see it as enhancing and preserving because we are not demolishing it. We're talking about putting more on top. We're adding to it. And those roads, again, yes, I agree. It's very confusing. I think the transportation stuff that absolutely needs to happen in that area, um, but they are quite wide. In that area. The sidewalks are quite narrow. And really again, tight to the houses. But anyway, I am rambling now. I say all this just to say that I think there are multiple truths here. I want to acknowledge that the challenges and constraints that were pointed out are real. They are valid. And I think it's also true that we need to make decisions where we're planning for Kingston in the future. So Kingston right now, supercar dependent. Yes. But we heard from some people, and I smiled it, I can't remember, sorry, the person who was behind me, but, um, some people who are living car free. I'm sorry, but that's the dream. That's amazing that they can do that already. And I think we're going to have more people who want to live that kind of lifestyle and have that kind of access in that neighbourhood and access to Princess Street. So 30 seconds. Thank you. So I think if I'm thinking of the future Kingston, I agree Kingston is not very psycho - friendly, but I want to add the word yet. Because I think that with intentional decisions over time, maybe not in my generation, but in future, I really do think that we can get to a place where we can move around with a lot more freedom and not be so reliant and restricted by cars. So I will leave it there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, I guess I'm left. Uh, could you take to chair. I have the chair. Councillor Dini. Oh, you can tag me too. If you want. Okay. So here we are. So from the very beginning, I. Didn't think that this was something that it could support. But I always leave things open where, you know, I, in case like something can change my mind sometimes often change my mind last minute. But unfortunately, well, we're fortunately, I guess depending on how you look at it, um, I haven't changed my mind on this one tonight. Like, yeah, I have those same safety concerns. Um, and then for parking, um, yeah, we're just like we heard like, um, The Midwives, you know, when that was there, it was only a couple here and there during the day. Um, but now we're going to be trading that off for evening parking. And living where I live, which is probably a somewhat similar older neighbourhood with very narrow sidewalks and some narrow streets. Um. They're going to park, people have cars. Even like in my district, the houses that don't have parking. And then the people of cars, they park everywhere. And it's hard to navigate snow ploughs during winter. They're going to have to, they're going to park on the street regardless. So for deliveries and drop offs and pickups, they park on the sidewalk. Like half on the sidewalk, half on the road. And that's what's going to happen. This is what I live in my district. This is what I see. And there's not enough enforcement to like, to have this stopped. Um. Also I'm a firm believer that this should have been designated. It is a historic building. It has like a lot of historic attributes and personally, I think it should have been designated. Um, what else. I guess like I'm just. Trying to, it seems like we're trying to fit something where something shouldn't fit. And like Councillor Glenn said, probably shouldn't have been anything there to begin with. This shouldn't have been a thing to, it shouldn't have been a triangle there. That's just my opinion. But, um, and then like I was saying, like when I joke around what I think it should be if it were, I think it should be an obelisk. That's what I think on that site. Um, but, you know, that's not going to happen. Um, so just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. So, and I know this should have ever have been developed. Begin with, but then it being a one story building that became a history. To me, it's historic. Um, I don't think that it should be anything more than what it is. And, um, yeah, so I can't be supporting this. I returned the chair. Okay. So now I guess we vote. So all those in favor. And opposed. And that loses, uh, five to one. Okay. So, all right. We don't have to give reason any. Okay. So I guess we're moving on now. So the no motions. There are no notices of motion. Is there any other business. Seeing as none. So correspondence was included on the agenda and the addendum. The next meaning of the planning committee is scheduled for next week, Thursday, age of July 16th, 2026 at 6 p. m. Do I have a mover in a second or to adjourn move by deputy mayor Steven by a Councillor Shaves, all those in favor. Okay, good night everyone. No, this was a tough one. For everyone. I mean, and thank you everyone for. Coming out and speaking. There's like, you know, the wrong perspective. It's just, yeah.