City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. She noted one item included as correspondence in the addendum. 

Tyler Hamilton, Applicant, was present and indicated that he had nothing to add. 

Mr. Perkins expressed support for the building design. He asked if there are units designated exclusively for residents with mobility issues. He inquired if there will be charging options for electric vehicles. Mr. Perkins also asked if there were short-term parking spaces for delivery vehicles and for residents moving in to the building. Mr. Hamilton explained that the intent is to provide accessible units to those who require them. He added that electric vehicle parking will be evaluated during site plan control. Mr. Hamilton also noted that the Applicant is willing to accommodate a short-term parking space. He added that there will be a two way access from 518 Albert Street which would allow enough space for a truck to pass through. He clarified that the building can be accessed from Princess Street as well as from the rear of the building, where the parking will be located.

Councillor Cinanni stated that there is a history of vehicles parking along Princess Street in this area, blocking bicycle lanes and sidewalks.

Mr. Dakin noted there are three parking spots proposed at the immediate rear of the building envelope. He asked if an alternative layout for the proposed parking spaces could be considered in site plan control to avoid separating green space from the building envelope. Mr. Clendening clarified that the easements provide sufficient space for turn movements as required under the by-law. He added that the laneway affords two lanes of traffic due to a six-metre easement on this property and the abutting property to the north. In response to concerns regarding greenspace, Mr. Clendening clarified that the City will be working with the Applicant to create a functional space and the design as seen in the site plan is shown as a conceptual demonstration. Mr. Bar added that there is no requirement under the zoning by-law for buildings with 50 units or less to have a loading zone. He clarified that this property can be accessed from Albert Street, where short term parking can be facilitated. He added that parking management has programs where residents are able to rent specified spaces for longer amounts of time for loading or unloading. 

Mr. Skebo inquired if there are studies that test the the feasibility of move-in and move-out for a 45 unit building during high volume times of the year. Mr. Bar clarified that there are no scientific studies to demonstrate this. He added that the requirement under the Zoning By-Law for buildings with 50 units or more to have a loading zone was driven by experiences observed in the city in the past.

The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak. There were no comments received from the public.

Mr. Rehan sought clarification regarding the role of the Committee in prescribing conditions related to short-term delivery spaces when it is not delineated as one of the variances requested. Mr. Clendening explained that buildings with 30 or more units are required to provide a short-term delivery space under the Zoning By-Law. He specified that this is different than a loading zone, which is only required for buildings with 50 or more units. He clarified that relief is sought for a short-term delivery space. Mr. Clendening added that the amending motion would not approve the relief for a short-term delivery space, while affording the others permission.

Mr. Dakin sought clarification regarding the amending motion. Mr. Clendening clarified that the Applicants could address this amendment in several different ways. He explained that one of the proposed parking stalls could be dedicated to short-term parking. He added that the Applicants are looking for the ability to provide offsite parking at 518 Albert Street where there is an existing easement. He explained that an additional parking space could be provided within the 60-metre relief permitted by the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Clendening added that the Applicant is able to pursue cash in lieu of parking pursuant to City by-laws and the Planning Act for majority of the regular tenant parking spaces. Mr. Bar clarified that the amending motion increases the proposed to 20 spaces with the addition of a short-term delivery space, and decreases the variance requested to a reduction of 3 visitor spaces. Mr. Hamilton added that the Applicants are aware and happy to move forward with the amendment as provided.

Mr. Rehan expressed support for the amendment.

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. 

Atif Haider, Applicant, was present and indicated that he had nothing to add. 

The Committee did not provide comment.

The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak. 

Artem Bogachuk introduced himself as a member of the construction team for 196 Concession Street. He added that he is available to answer questions if needed.

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. 

Mark Levac, Applicant, was present and indicated that he had nothing to add. 

The Committee did not provide comment.

The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak. There were no comments received from the public.

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. 

Patrick Stenson, Applicant, was present and indicated that he had nothing to add. 

The Committee did not provide comment.

The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak. There were no comments received from the public.

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. She noted one letter of concern included as correspondence in the addendum.

Kelsey Jones, Agent for Applicant, was present and indicated she had nothing to add.

The Committee did not provide comment.

The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak. There were no comments received from the public.

Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. She noted two letters of concern included as correspondence in the addendum.

Scott Gordon, Agent for Applicant, was present and indicated he had nothing to add.

The Committee did not provide comment.

The Chair afforded members of the public with the opportunity to speak.

Mary Ann Higgs, 3-1 Place D'armes, voiced support for the application but indicated a desire for City oversight on the proposal. She expressed concerns regarding precedence and densification in the area. She noted historical functions of the previous townhouse without vehicular access and expressed that it should remain this way. Ms. Higgs also highlighted groundwater concerns and past investments to manage the risk of flooding. 

Mr. Slevin clarified that the property benefits from an existing easement over the neighbouring properties at 105 and 109 Charles Street which allows access from the street line to the rear yard. He added that this easement also benefits 99 Charles Street which is currently developed with a parking space at the rear of the property. Mr. Slevin added that an additional variance was added to this application to address the narrowness of the easement. He clarified that the rear of 101 Charles Street is sufficiently wide to accommodate two parking spaces side by side. He noted that although the right-of-way length is not to the current standards of the Zoning By-Law, it is considered legal non-conforming due to the historical use of the easement. Mr. Slevin added that this property could function with or without parking spaces, given its location. He stated that relieving parking requirements will allow for flexibility in the future. He added that additional parking is available on Charles Street and at a private parking lot at 568 Bagot Street.

Mr. Skebo sought clarification regarding the variance specific to parking.

Mr. Slevin confirmed that both the severed and retained lots have variances for parking that bring the required parking spots from one to zero. He clarified that this does not prohibit parking on the property, but eliminates the requirement.

Mr. Dakin expressed agreement with variances related to parking.