City of Kingston

Mr. Slevin conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment at 1287 and 1301 Gardiners Road. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk’s Department.  

There were no questions from the Committee. 

There were no questions from members of the public.  

Mr. Wicke conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment at 4065 Unity Road. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk’s Department. 

Councillor Oosterhof sought clarification on why staff are allowing agricultural use on two hectares of land when the usual minimum lot size for this would be 40 hectares. Mr. Wicke explained that the home, farmhouse, and associated buildings on this lot are in keeping with the character of the rural lot from a planning perspective. He added that the hold is in place because no development is proposed for the retained lands and therefore it is preferred for studies such as a hydrogeological study to not be performed.  

Bob Clarke, Agent for the Applicant, added that the holding privilege will allow the owners to defer until there is a proposal for development. He noted that there is a barn on the severed property that is used for small stock and he feels the agricultural use is an appropriate continued use. 

Note: This item was deferred from Planning Committee Meeting 13-2024, held on Thursday, June 20, 2024.  

Ms. Flaherty provided updates on the City-Initiated Housing and Administrative Amendments. She noted that no changes had been made to the report since it had been deferred.  

Councillor Osanic asked if new subdivisions could be built with fourplexes. She inquired if the fourth unit could replace the requirement for a garage. She asked whether the wider driveway requirement would impact the number of trees on a lot. Ms. Flaherty stated that the four-unit permissions would apply to new builds, and therefore new subdivisions could include fourplexes. She added that the fourth unit may take the form of replacing a garage and clarified that garages are not a requirement on any property but are often used to satisfy a portion of the parking space requirements. She noted that parking provisions would remain with a fourth unit and could still take the form of a garage. She explained that the proposed amendments allowing for a wider driveway to accommodate additional parking would only apply to the privately owned portion of the lot, which will allow for the planting of City street trees as well as protecting the City’s right of way.  

Councillor Oosterhof asked for assurance that adding a fourth unit permission would not completely change the existing neighbourhoods within Kingston. He asked if the City has any choice in not implementing the fourth unit permission and noted that other municipalities have said no to implementing this change. Ms. Flaherty explained that Planning Services staff focused on bringing forward recommendations that would respect the built form of the existing neighbourhoods and fit within the context of those communities. She stated that she does not have enough details on the staff recommendations for fourplexes in other municipalities to comment on their decisions and added that every municipality has different zoning standards and a different zoning framework.  

Councillor Glenn asked if voting against the amendment to allow fourth units would put the funding from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) at risk. She asked if there is an understanding that it is difficult to agree to four units. Ms. Agnew stated that other municipalities have had their funding pulled due to not agreeing to the fourth unit permissions. She added that the CMHC has placed a strong emphasis on net new units created with an increasing emphasis on each target. She explained that there is a risk that funding could be pulled if any of the targets are not met. She noted that during the consultation process with the CMHC the City was required to identify where the biggest challenge or public concern may be, and the four-unit permissions were flagged during that process.  

Councillor Chaves sought clarification on how many current zoning by-laws there are and how many pages of by-laws there are. He asked if the proposed amendments have condensed those by-laws into fewer pages and if this is a more efficient resource for staff. Ms. Flaherty stated that there are six different zoning by-laws, with five being former by-laws that continue to apply across certain areas of the city and the Kingston Zoning By-Law approved in 2022. She added that the former by-laws total approximately 2100 pages and that the proposed amendments condense the former by-laws in about 215 pages. She explained that the proposed amendments create consistent standards that apply generally across the entire city, while also acting as a resource that is easier to use for both staff and members of the public.  

The Chair asked the Committee if there were any objections to members of the public who spoke to the report at the last meeting, speaking again to the report at the current meeting. There were no objections. 

John Grenville, 24 Jenkins Street, stated that based on the success of the Williamsville Secondary Plan in 2012, there have been more than 2000 units built or approved for construction along the Williamsville District section of Princess Street. He asked whether there is a priority for creating housing along the Williamsville Main Street. He asked how the creation of significant new high-density areas would detract from Williamsville Development along the Main Street. He asked if developers would go where the property is less expensive and create the same density in other areas. He noted other issues in the Williamsville District such as no increase in parkland despite the increase in residents over the last 10 years and a lack of parking enforcement.  

Joel Thompson, 882 Clearfield Crescent, asked how many single-family permits are requested on an annual basis in comparison with multi-unit permits. He noted the money spent on public services when building new subdivisions in comparison with building onto what already exists. He added that the municipality could be proactive with allowing four-units or it could wait to be forced by the province. He asked if staff could clarify where the four-unit overlay would apply and what the requirements would be to have it removed.  

Chris Hargreaves stated that the report does a good job of achieving more housing to support housing affordability. He asked who is advocating for environmental stewardship and climate action. He asked what Planning Services will do to ensure the impact of the amendments on the environment are as minimal as possible.   

Joan Bowie, 414 Albert Street, urged the Committee to reconsider proposed amendments regarding waste and recycling and storage for residential buildings. She stated that currently waste is stored on laneways, porches, and street sides. She asked why two receptables could not be shared and why there are not dedicated spaces for the receptables. She added that all residential units should have rodent proof waste and storage areas. She noted that recently there have been piles of garbage seen in public parks and that measures should be taken to prevent this.  

Annette Burfoot, 74 Regent Street, stated that Williamsville is the densest neighbourhood in the city. She asked if staff would provide a population for Williamsville District that includes students. She stated that the amendments would have negative environmental consequences and potential issues with runoff and flooding in nearby lots. She asked how these issues would be managed under the newly amended Official Plan. She asked how built-form considerations would be monitored and managed. She asked if staff could provide a list of all development decisions that will no longer come before Planning Committee and Council as a result of the amendments.  

Rob Fonger, 751 Johnson Street, asked how the general public was notified of the decision to defer this item to the current meeting. He stated that the proposal for increased densities along ‘express transit routes’ does not appear to be supported by any data and falls short of the Housing Acceleration Fund (HAF) requirements. He asked what cost benefit analysis the City has done to confirm the advisability of proceeding with this initiative. He argued that the report’s proposals will worsen the City’s current approach to residential intensification and would result in housing for profit rather than affordable housing. He questioned the capacity of the City to properly manage current intensification efforts. He asked the Committee to consider deferring their decision on the report until the policies of upper levels of government are more certain. 

Greg Samuel, 225 Park Street, asked under what circumstances the Committee of Adjustment could reject a six-storey apartment building if they are given the power of approving such applications. 

In response to comments from the public, Ms. Flaherty confirmed that the Williamsville District is a priority area for directing high-density housing. She explained that through Bill 23 Planning Services is no longer allowed to apply the same site control to residential developments if they have ten units or less and that some of the amendments are a response to that provincial legislation. She added that the unit overlay would be applied to all urban residential zones across the city and would prohibit four units until such time as the owner has submitted servicing information and technical studies. She explained that the focus of the amendments are on housing affordability but noted that a number of environmental stewardship and climate action policies have been built into the Kingston Zoning By-Law that meet and achieve the targets from environmental protection perspectives. She confirmed that the proposed provisions for garbage and waste facilities would apply to the 5-to-10-unit range for residential development and added that lots with four or less units would be subject to the Property Standards By-Law. She noted that both the Property Standards By-Law and the Zoning By-Law rely on a complaint-based system. She added that staff have worked to ensure the population projections include the student population so that those numbers can be factored into planning and policy decisions. She confirmed that no notice was provided to the public on the deferral of the report.

Mr. Bar addressed the question related to parkland in Williamsville and stated that parkland has been accepted in various forms over the years. He listed on-site conveyance, off-site conveyance, and cash-in-lieu of parkland as different methods for securing parkland in this area. He noted that parkettes have been facilitated on Princess Street. He confirmed that of the 964 homes that were issued building permits last year, only 88 of those permits were for single detached dwellings. He added that Planning Services has seen a shift over the past couple of years to higher-density development forms and away from ground orienting units. He explained that properties along Princess Street are generally heavily hard-surfaced due to their formers uses but added that each redevelopment provides an opportunity to secure more landscaped open space and appropriate stormwater management controls. He cautioned that development approvals do not directly lead to building permits or construction on a property. He explained the four criteria that must be met for approvals through the Committee of Adjustment. 

Ms. Agnew explained that a detailed economic exercise was not completed on the proposed policies. She added that staff have been conducting these types of studies consistently with new policies and particularly with work regarding the life cycle analysis and looking at varying housing forms. She noted that the proposed amendments have been informed by the analysis done for previous policies. She stated that the need for additional community supports for by-law enforcement has increased over the last four years.  

Ms. Flaherty explained the three types of decisions that will no longer go to City Council, noting that two of those decisions are delegated authority to the Director of Planning Services and the other is the express transit overlay.  

Councillor Glenn explained that her amendment would limit the number of actual bedrooms that are permitted in the four-unit approvals in the Sydenham and Williamsville districts. She added that these districts are facing a lot of pressure and that most of the four-unit properties will be student housing. She stated that this amendment would encourage reasonable numbers of individuals living within small areas.  

Councillor Oosterhof asked if staff had any concerns with this amendment. Ms. Agnew stated that feedback from developers included concerns that eight-to-ten bedrooms could be too low relative to adding a fourth unit. She added that she did not see major concerns with the amendment as it focuses on Heritage Conservation Districts but noted that if it was applied to other areas in the city then it could create more concern. 

Councillor Chaves asked if the amendment could have a negative impact on the funding received from the CMHC. Ms. Agnew stated that the limitations on bedrooms was an approach from City staff and not connected to the accelerator initiatives.  

Councillor Osanic explained that her amendment would address concerns related to tenants losing their job and automatically losing their housing that they were renting from their employer. 

Councillor Chaves asked if this amendment would negatively impact the funding received from the CMHC. Ms. Agnew stated that staff do not have concerns for the funding related to this amendment. 

Councillor Chaves asked if the amendment would have a negative impact on the funding received from the CMHC. Ms. Agnew explained that this amendment is minimal and localized to a specific area of one district and therefore staff are not concerned about a negative impact on the funding received due to this change.

Councillor Osanic asked for Clause 4 of the motion to be voted on separately. 

Councillor Osanic withdrew her motion to separate out Clause 4.