All right, good evening. It's now 6 p. m. and we'll begin. The meeting being held tonight is a public meeting held under the planning act. Please note that this meeting will be live streamed on the city website, audio and video will be collected by the city of Kingston and the meeting recording will be archived on a city website for public consumption. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone in the room to please ensure that the sound on your cellular devices is turned off. 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 are requested to give their name for the recording in the minutes. All names, opinions and comments may be collected the NA 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 bust 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. Following the question and answer period, this committee then makes a recommendation on the application to city council who will have the final say on the applications. Following council's decision, notice will be circulated according to the planning act. Members of the public cannot appeal a decision. Only it registered owner of land of to which the amendment applies or prescribed person under the planning act has the ability to appeal a decision of council. For more information on appeal rights, how to be added as a party to an appeal, please contact the assigned planner. So I'll call the meaning to order at 602 p. m., and I need a mover and secondary to approve the agenda with the addendum. Move by Councillor Stephen. Seconded by a Councillor Sanic. All those in favor. And that passes. So I need a mover in a secondary to confirm the minutes of planning committee meeting number 2026 - 10 held on Thursday, May 21st. So moved by. Councillor Storehoff, second by Councillor Sanek. Is there any edits or anything to add? Nope, all in favor. And that passes. Okay. Oh yeah, so Councillor Glenn, I don't see when you raise your hand, because it blurs out. Just so you know. All right. So are there any disclosures, a peculiary interest. Seeing as none, there are no delegations. There are no briefings, so I'll move on to our business for this evening. We have The Recommendation Report for 2035 - 2047 Portsmouth Avenue, and I invite staff to present. All right, good evening. And through the chair, my name is Ian Clenning, a senior planner with the city of Kingston, and beside me, as Shanti Birdy, a fellow senior planner who has been working with me on this file. Tonight we are here to present a recommendation report regarding an application for zoning bylaw amendment for the purpose located at 235 to 247 Portsmouth Avenue. The purpose and effect of the proposed amendment is to rezone the property to the URM9 zone to allow four - story apartment building, having 59 dwelling units. An exception overlay is sought to allow the proposed building layout and configuration, as well as a reduction in certain parking requirements. And importantly, to establish and enhance requirements for setbacks and restrictions on balconies to provide additional protections for the adjacent residential neighbourhood. The site is located on the west side of Portsmouth Avenue, a collector road roughly 100 metres south of Johnson Street, and about 100 metres north of Curtis Crescent, where a pedestrian crossover is located. Active transportation within the area is supported by bike lanes along Portsmouth and Johnson, while a Kingston Transit Services, both Portsmouth Av and Johnson Street, through routes one, two, 31 and 32, and 16. The image on the right illustrates how the property is flanked to the north and east by the detached residences along Dickens Drive and Author's Lane. The site is all illustrated here showing two lots which are intended to be merged and developed as a single parcel. As well as the unique panhandle feature of the property. The land are designated residential in the official plan, and are zoned UR6. A legacy exception applies only to 247 Portsmouth illustrated in green on the right. Which can generally be described as permitting a supportive living residence of up to four stories, and is reflective of a 2011 development application that did not materialize. Provided here are some photographs of the site. The upper photo shows the three - story KFLA Health Unit Building in the background, while the lower photo shows the existing shared entrance to the site, together with the existing buildings. The upper image here shows the view looking north towards Johnson Street, and the rear yards of some of the residences, which can be seen in the background. The bottom image has been taken looking towards the panhandle feature. I will note here that the location of two trees which have been marked for retention as part of the applicant's landscaping strategy in an effort to minimize overlook into the abutting yards. The proposed development has been significantly revised since an initial plan put forward in 2022. For context, shown here was the initial plan with the building facing toward the north and the parking to the south and east. The revised proposal has been reduced in height and relocated to the southwest corner of the property. The building now achieves a 10 metre setback from the rear lot line and almost 20 metres from the north. Balconies facing the north and east have been removed from the first through third stories, and are prohibited from within about 20 metres of the rear lot line. A total of 25 parking spaces are provided, and the applicant has now provided a short - term delivery space. Including amongst the parking, are two type A accessible spaces, and a visitor space. I would like to take this time to thank those members of the community that provided comments, which have been attached to tonight's addendum. With those comments reflected of many of the area residents and focused on the revised proposal, I would like to take the opportunity to speak to these concerns. With regards to parking and realistic parking allocation and overflow prevention, the site I will note is close to what the city has classified as a parking area too, illustrated in blue on the right - hand side. But happens to be located in parking area 3, where a greater extent of parking is required. For the blue PA - 2 or parking area 2, uh, parking area, 0. 4 parking spaces would be required per unit, which is what the applicant is provided. Tenants would enter with the full knowledge of the availability of parking. I can also note that the power of parking by the city of Kingston highlighted how reduced parking can increase housing affordability. With respect to the installation of a robust landscaping slash privacy buffer. Unfortunately, most of the trees on the site are expected to be cleared to accommodate the proposed development. Exceptions to this are two referred to earlier at the northwest corner of the Panhandle feature. And. The possible retention of an additional two trees at the front of the property made possible through the relocation of the front walkway. At this time, the applicant has submitted a preliminary planting plan, and we will look to further refinements and additional opportunities for public engagement through the site plan control process. With respect to traffic, egress, and pedestrian safety. The applicant has provided a traffic impact study, which demonstrated appropriate entrances in sight lines can be achieved, and that Portsmouth Avenue can accommodate the increase in traffic. Recognising the concern for broader neighbourhood safety, our partners at in transportation were able to elaborate on off - site and ongoing processes, which would inform the type of improvements identified. Specifically, the city has robust road safety program in which we conduct ongoing reviews of right - of - way infrastructure and public council concerns. We have a traffic counting program and pedestrian Crosswalk policy that we use to review and inform and implement Crosswalks across the city where appropriate. When road safety concerns are identified, we have dedicated staff that review and provide recommendations for road safety improvements such as signage, changes, access management changes, tree trimming, intersection control modifications, speed limit adjustments, or other roadway modifications. They went on to say that this site is deemed a low trip generator with 22 total in the AM and PM peak. There was no requirement here for additional traffic controls at this intersection, and this was not identified in the traffic impact study. Regarding stormwater management, I can confirm that detailed stormwater management plan would be provided as part of the site plan control application. And we'd be prepared based on actual soil percolation. The design put forward contemplates regrading the site with the resultant being a significant reduction in the amount of area draining to the east with the existing area shown on the left and the proposed on the right. Other areas would be directed towards a catch basin and used through a controlled release. Given the above, it is our professional planning opinions that the application is consistent with the provincial planning statement by directing growth to within the service settlement area. Conforms to the official plan by approxing appropriate growth along a collector road, where this type of intensification is appropriate. The proposed development represents good land use planning and staff are recommending approval of the proposed zoning bylaw. In the event of approval, the development would be required to obtain site plan control approval, where detailed design and site layout would be further refined. With that, I thank you for your time, and we would be happy to address any questions the committee or public may have. Alright, thank you very much for the presentation. And so are there any questions from the committee. No question. Oh, Councillor Shaves. Thank you. I guess this is one of the few projects which comes through here that we actually have seen was predated us. Um, I think most of the questions have been addressed from the initial community meeting. And addressed here. So on this one, go straight into the standard question. So I have for a partner buildings. So how close net zero will this building be over and above the building code. Through the chair, I believe I'll have to direct that to be the applicant to speak to. Good evening. Jonathan Beskoski. Um, through you, Mr. Chair. Councillor, the intent of the intent of this proposal is for this to be a CMHC MLI select building. So within that envelope of the CAC MLI select, um, qualification. There's the point system. Within that point system, the more energy efficiency you are, the more points you are able to generate. Um, that being said, at a minimum, it would be tier one. That is required today. And that will be accomplished through, um, window glazing treatments, uh, roof treatments, uh, energy efficient thermostats, things like that. But this will definitely aim to get to the 95 percent of the MLI select, which will again, improve, uh, any type of energy efficiency. Thank you. I generally ask these questions because it's a nice ask and we've declared a climate crisis. So trying to do my part and kind of, we will do our best. Thank you. That's what we ask. Um, and similar on that part, will you, will you be taking part of the or take advantage of the green standard, um, community improvement plan. Yes, we will. Great, great to hear, because that's actually one of the few positive comments I've actually heard during the, when I asked that. In regards to your landscaping plan, will you include biodiversity and pollinator friendly plants and shrubs? Uh, three, Mr. Chair, we will do our best through the site plan, uh, application stage. Um, as Mr. Clan Denning did state, it will be further refined. And I would note many of the trees that were removed, what were actually unhealthy and were not, um, were not living through this process. Um, there has been two arborist reports that were submitted, but yes, we will do our best to, to provide that. Thank you, our Paul Mayer. We'll like you. Um, final question. And I do mean final. If asked by your residents, will they be allowed to have a community garden on the property? Three, Mr. Chair Councillor, I don't think at this time that's something we would agree to. I think the rear portion through the landscaping might have some availability, but at this time, I don't, I don't think that's something we would agree to or acknowledge will happen. I'd just like to point out, because in these times, uh, people are basically growing their own food. So it's a possibility, would you like to bring? Yeah. The one, the one thing I would say is if we saw from the site plan, that kind of finger point that comes out on an island would only be able to be accessed through the property. So that would be the one limitation of, of that access having to come entirely through the property. Okay. Thank you for your answers. Thank you. Councillor Sanek. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Um, I just have a question actually to staff. Um, I missed the answer. I saw in the ad is we have the concern about overflow parking, especially since, um, in Roman at St. Lawrence College has lower than when the Swiss first, uh, at, um, at planning committee during the COVID days. Um, enrollments lower. So it might be more, um, people having to go to full time jobs than just students that would get to walk to St. Lawrence College living in the building. So we do have, you know, like reduced perking because of the reduced parking policy that the city implemented. So if the neighbours on Dick and Drives and on the surrounding neighbourhood found cars is that already restricted parking on the streets there or what was, um, what did you say was the answer for that question. Thank you. And through the chair, I'd be happy to address that question. Uh, when speaking to the topic, uh, I wanted to highlight how tenants would be moving in with full knowledge of whether a parking space is available. If so, at what cost. They have provided a visitor parking space, uh, my understanding through consulting and engaging with the community that the adjacent streets, uh, have parking prohibitions. But I guess in summary that does become a bylaw enforcement issue. And what we can expect though is that people are entering the situation eyes wide open. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you, my last question then to the applicant going along with the landscaping details that Councillor Shapes was asking about for the trees that will be planted. Can you, can you please ensure that they're going to be sufficiently watered so that they actually survive and not plant them in the month of July when we're in the middle of the heat wave through you, Mr. Chair. Yes. We can commit to that. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else hasn't spoken. To Glenn. Okay. So now are there any members of the public present wishing to speak to this file? Just please raise your raise your hand and then I'll see. I'll get anybody who wants to, I'll get to you first, but then if raise your hands just so I have an idea of how many people wish to speak to this file. All right. That's it. Okay. Just state your name and you have five minutes. Okay. Frank Dixon. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for the presentation. It's like a very good project. Um, I will say that I'm supportive of the proposal. But that I do have, uh, some concerns that haven't been raised so far by the committee. I'm wondering, uh, I've got this written down also. I'll pass it to the Kirk's section. I'm wondering if you have any e - charging stations, a contemplated for the parking area. Um, second one is during the presentation described Portsmouth Avenue as a collector rude. I've always thought of that as an arterial. Now your proposal is for four stories. And I'm wondering if you have elevators contemplated in this design. Looking at the schematic provided, it seems null. I think that's important that they be installed for the convenience of residents. Looks like the properties relatively level. I've cycled and walked around there. So, um, maybe expect a minimum of issues with, um, gradient, uh, related problems. Well, then there wasn't touched on the presentation was serviced by Kingston Transit to the state. Just where you may be able to describe that, um, city is trying to, um, encourage use of transit. Okay. So those are my points. I'll pass them to the clerk. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else was just to speak. This is your last chance. Okay. Is there anyone online who was just to speak? Please raise your virtual hand in Zoom. Last one more time. If you wish to speak to this file 2035 - 2047, Portsmouth Avenue, please raise your virtual hand. Okay. Seeing as none. All right. So I need a mover and secondary, or actually, sorry, you're going to have to answer. Oh, wait, you have a question. No, yeah, you can come to the, one of these mics here. All right. Boyd Birch. I live on deckenstrai. I have any question I have is on the grading. Which way will it run north or east or west, I guess where in Portsmouth are away from. Especially in a pan - antelaria. Okay. Um, yeah, you ask all your questions and then, then we have everything answered all at once after. Did you have any other questions? That's my only concern. Okay. So is anyone else. Before I close the public portion. All right. So now we'll go to, uh, staff to answer these questions. Um, thank you. And through the chair, happy to address some of the comments and questions that we received. With respect to Mr. Dixon's question about, uh, EV charging stations, um, I would happily defer to the applicant. But what I can highlight to this committee is the province in their wisdom has recently, uh, enacted Bill 98 to amend the planning act so as to prohibit municipalities from utilising, um, their tools under the planning act to require, uh, EV charging stations. Um, confirming that Portsmouth Avenue in this area is in fact a collector, uh, with respect to the question about the elevators, uh, I can confirm that the designs is currently put forward do have, um, elevators. Um, and with respect to the transit by Kingston Transit routes, uh, St. Lawrence College is currently a station where the one slash two and the 31 slash 32, as well as the 16 all operate, um, it might take me a minute to sort of give you the lowdown of the origin destinations of those roots. But that's, uh, that's currently provide service along, uh, Johnson Street as well as Portsmouth. With respect to the grading, what I might have, uh, our partners in clerks and IT do is if we could pull up slide number. With me. Slide number 18, please. So the area in red has been used to highlight where one of the drainage areas currently exists. And certainly the drainage area that's the most important, uh, the budding residences. What the applicant is doing is regrating the site. So whereas currently all the red area drains to the east. I. e. towards the panhandle. Through the regrating of the site, what we would call a catchmentary, uh, for the panhandle would be reduced to the extent of the small red area on the right - hand side of the screen. The remaining drainage area would is essentially the remainder of the white on the right - hand side. The impermeable area, because of the building, because of the parking, all of that would drain into a catch basin. And it is released through basically a storage cistern of sorts. And the responsibility of the applicant through their more detailed stormwater management plan is to provide calculations based on on - site investigation of the soils permeabilities. To understand the pre - to post flows based on the regional storm event and to control for the 100 - year storm event. That's a bit of an engineering term, but the storm that's expected to happen. And they have to control pre to post for that catchment area and with the sizing. I have been told by area residents that the area is bedrock. And that would dictate essentially the permeability of the soils. And with that, the size of the cistern that would be required and the pipe that essentially releases the water from that storage container, the cistern. I do hope that was a sufficient explanation. Um, I'd be happy to clarify if anything is sort of lost in translation. Um. I believe that did answer all the questions, but, um, if again, there is follow up, I'd be happy to try to address them. Okay. Thank you very much. So now we'll move, uh, so I need a mover in a seconder. So move by Councillor Glenn, second of McCunlular Stephen. So is there any discussion. Seeing as none all in favor. Opposed. I didn't see your vote. Councillor Glenn. To which one. Okay. Cause it disappears. Cause all right. Sounds good. So carries you unanimously. All right. So now we'll move on to the next one, which is a recommendation for report for 1575 Westbrook Road. And I invite staff to present. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, my name is Shanti Birdie and I am here with my colleague Ian Clen Denning. We are senior planners with planning services. I am here tonight to present you the staff recommendation for a zoning bylaw amendment and official plan amendment at 1575 Westbrook Road. Submitted by Foten planning and design on behalf of the owner. A community meeting was held for this application on September 18th, 2025. And public notice of this application has been provided in a Corgans with the requirements of the Planning Act. Two pieces of correspondence have been received. Um, since authoring of the report and are included in the addendum to the agenda package, um, comments will be addressed during the areas of interest portion of this presentation. The purpose and effect of the application is to amend the city of Kingston official plan and the Kingston zoning bylaw to permit an asheville plant on the subject property. The official plan would be amended to move the property into a new site - specific policy area to permit an asphalt plant. And the zoning bylaw would be amended to also permit an asphalt plant, as well as to apply appropriate, um, zone provisions, including setbacks, an expanded EPA area and introduce buffering requirements. The property highlighted in orange is approximately 13. 7 hectares in size and located on the corner of Smith Road and Westbrook Road. The property is currently designated rural with portions of environmental protection area EPA. And subject to cite specific policy number two in the official plan. The property is currently zoned rural with a portion of EPA zone and is subject to exception overlay number E200. The property is located east of a residential cluster of homes along Smith Road and west of an existing asphalt plant inquiry site across Westbrook Road. The site is approximately 1. 2 kilometers from Creekford Road Road and 1. 6 kilometers from the residential area of Windermere Drive and Ottawa Street. The property is located on a portion of Westbrook Road, which is classified as an arterial road. And Smith Road, which borders the property along the south is a local road. The asphalt plant itself is proposed on the north side of the existing office building. And would occupy an area of approximately 1, 800 square metres, which includes the paved area around the actual equipment, um, and machinery itself. To support the new plant, new Drive aisles are proposed to be extended. West before going north and south, um, to access new material storage areas as well as a new proposed stormwater management pond. The existing EPA zone is proposed to be modified to be scaled to the west slightly and extended along the west side of the property, um, to better reflect actual wetlands on the property and to provide further protection. Um, the amendment also proposes a natural buffer around the wetlands to offer further protection to the wetland feature beyond protections offered through grading works, improved stormwater management controls and setbacks being established. Um, so the report includes a full list of questions and responses that we've heard up until authoring of the report and happy to answer additional questions after this presentation. This presentation will focus on three areas of concerns that we have heard, which are traffic, groundwater, and emissions. So starting with traffic, um, a traffic impact study was undertaken to support this application and finds that there is an estimated 35 truck trips associated with the proposed use. That includes coming and going over 12 hour period. Approximately half of this traffic. So around 17 trips is expected to travel to and from the south and the remainder would travel north. The traffic study finds that the existing road network can accommodate this level of traffic and no road modifications are required to support this proposal. We have heard concern about the amount and speed of traffic in the area of the Westbrook subdivision, south of the subject property. The correspondence included in the addenda package proposed a traffic route be included in the official plan amendment itself. The official plan does contain policies, um, support truck roots, which would be implemented through the traffic bylaw. Um, so we've spoken to our colleagues in Transportation Services who have confirmed that at this time, um, heavy truck traffic would not be restricted on Westbrook Road because it is an arterial road, which serves as a main connection to Princess Street. We've also heard requests for existing traffic counts for the area. Um, so the traffic study does take into account both existing traffic in the area as well as traffic generated from future development that we anticipate. Um, based on very recent traffic counts in the area, the intersection at Princess Street and Westbrook, uh, Road sees about 114 trucks travelling southbound and about 120 trucks travelling northbound, um, on the day of the count. And similarly, um, the intersection of Westbrook and Ottawa Street saw 103 trucks southbound and 103 Northbound in a day on the day of the Count. The current proposal would add about 16 to 17 trips to this volume. So a small portion of the existing volume. We've also heard, um, concerns about groundwater both in relation to the natural environment as well as local area wells. Um, so the site does contain an existing well and it does contain a wetland feature. A hydrogeological assessment was prepared by a professional engineer, um, and confirms that the plant, as well as the material storage areas proposed, are sufficiently distanced to comply with provincial requirements and to avoid, um, any impact on groundwater and area wells. The plant itself is about 32 metres from the existing well, um, and the plant would be located on a paved surface to reduce the potential for infiltration into the environment in the event of an accidental leak. Um, ashbolt materials are generally semi - solid and have a higher viscosity, meaning if there were an accidental spill, the spread would be slower than a more thin viscous, sorry, less viscous product. So the likelihood of infiltration into the environment in the event of this bill is low and reporting requirements are in place. A stormwater management report and grading plans have also been prepared to ensure that surface water on the property is directed into a new stormwater management pond to avoid infiltration into the wetlands. In addition, the proposed vegetated buffer and berms around the wetlands, um, also help reduce the potential of infiltration into those features and into the groundwater. With that, no adverse impacts on groundwater or wells is anticipated from this proposal. So emissions, um, we have heard concerns about odour and general emissions from the youth. It's important to note that limits for emissions, whether odo related or health related, um, are established by the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks. You may see that as MECP in the report. Um, the Ministry determines levels that are deemed acceptable. And these levels are reviewed through what's called The Environmental Compliance Approval Process. So you may see that referenced as ECA in the reports. Um, and the ECA is required for this type of use. So the ministry would review these levels. That said, um, an emission summary and dispersion. Dispersing, modelling. Data was provided to identify the expected emission types as well as the levels they would be present in comparison to what is permitted by the province. Um, so you may have seen that document online with a table of about 44 compounds, I believe. And in that table, it identifies what level, um, each compound would be present at. The summary also includes a professional opinion that based on the data, no adverse impacts on sensitive uses in the area are expected, um, and just for clarity, sensitive uses are homes along Smith Road specifically. In addition to placing limits on emissions, the Ministry Approval Process also reviews minimum separation distances. For a Class 3 use such as an asphalt plant, a minimum of 300 metres, um, is required between a sensitive use, a home, and the asheville plant itself, which is the 300 metre radiuses that you see on the screen. The actual distance between the plant and the homes do vary. Um, so the nearest home at 3654 Smith Road would be approximately 370 metres, um, from the edge of the concrete of the plant. Um, so exceeding that 300 metre requirement. The emissions summary table, um, provided also indicates that all contaminants involved will be below the permitted ministry limit with more than half of the contaminants, anticipated at less than one percent of what the ministry would allow. In review, um, sorry, so at over 300 metres, um, the concentration of compounds produced by the asphalt plant are expected to be far below, uh, limits permitted by the ministry at the nearby sensitive uses. So the homes along Smith Road. So with those considerations and having reviewed all the technical studies submitted and support of the application, staff are satisfied that the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment are consistent with provincial policy, including the provincial planning statement. Um, they are consistent with the intent and relevant policies of the official plan and represent good land use planning. Studies and plans demonstrate the ability of the proposal to mitigate potential environmental and human health impacts through appropriate stormwater management, buffering, and overall site design, including setbacks and separations. Appropriate zone provisions, including buffering requirements, and setbacks are proposed to ensure this compatibility. The proposal is therefore being recommended for approval as presented in exhibit A and B of the recommendation report. Should the application for official plan and zoning bylaw, um, amendment be approved. The applicant would proceed to the slight plan control process through the city. Um, as mentioned, an ECA Environmental Compliance approval would also be required through the Ministry of Environment, conservation, and parks before the plants can actually operate. So with that quick summary of all the information, we're open to questions and we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Okay. So are there any questions from the committee. Councillor Istroff. I don't like going first, Mr. Chair. I was waiting for my colleagues, but I'll give my second chance. So, um, I do have a few questions myself. And I want to speak on behalf of some of my constituents as well. And, um, but I was given, um, an asked to read this on behalf of, um, one of my constituents who I met earlier when we had the public meeting. So, uh, it's from Richard McQueen. And it helps to read it because I think even as we go through it, we will see how some of these are addressed, Mr. Chair. So Mr. McQueen lives at three 36 54 Smith Road. So, um, he has questions regarding, uh, the zone change. And so, um, we mentioned noise overall. And we, we address that too, but if we have to hear it again, that's good. Extra truck traffic. Um, and the one we haven't mentioned, um, that he brings up is a tailgate banging. And maybe we can ask about that, Mr. Chair. And if that's preventable or not, we always hear those. And is that something that would happen on that site? Um, start up noise early in the morning from machinery. How will that be managed? The duplication of the plants so close to each other. Is that a concern environmentally as well. Um, the effects on the water table, the cracks and the limestone, uh, allowing contaminants into the stormwater. It's an excellent question. They currently have, um, some black type of suit in their water, our toilet water. Soot. Sorry. Thank you. A teacher is here. And I knew I had it wrong. Yes. So, um, yeah, so it affects their plumbing furniture. So, um, so that is a concern. And I guess it's the overall addressing of, um. Water quality. And I guess I could have asked that. You could have said that could go into the public time there. But, um, I did it for them. So I guess I had that okay to do that. And I'll leave that there. Do I get a chance again to speak at the motion time? Yeah. Windows discussion. Yeah. You can speak and ask questions there too. Okay. I think that's fine to wait till then. Thank you. Okay. You still have like. Three minutes. Well, I had more questions. Might as well ask them. Yeah. I don't want to get, I don't want to get lose this moment in time. Like if you ask what you remember, think of more, you can ask the second like, can we, yes, so can we answer these first? Yeah. Let's do that. Thank you. All right. Appreciate that. Three of you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for those questions. Um, so in relation to noise, there was an acoustic assessment undertaken. Um, which can be referred to as a noise study. So it takes a look at the types of noise that would be expected from this use. Um, and it does make recommendations for mitigations. Um, so those do include dust covers around equipment. Um, enclosures, nozzle covers, um, and acoustic enclosures. So with those implemented through the site plan control process, um, there's no noise, um, impacts anticipated. Um, so I do want to note as well, um, the ECA does require, um, a noise ECA. Yes, I'm just looking for a nod. Um, so through the ministry, we mentioned that there would be, um, the emissions taken a look at through the ECA process that environmental compliance approval. Noise will also be taken a look at through that as well as stormwater management controls. So there's a little bit of overlap with what we will take a look at through the site plan process, but there will be another level of overview through the ministry approval as well. Um, so as long as the mitigations that are recommended through that acoustic assessment are implemented, which they will be through the site plan and ECA process, um, no adverse impacts from noise are expected. Um, I'm going to put a pin in the truck traffic noise as well as the, um, tailgate noised, um, just to have the applicant speak to that in a moment. Um, in relation to. Um, the effects on the water table, um, so an environmental impact assessment was undertaken to take a look at the different natural features on the site. So there are two intermittent water courses on the property as well as a long, wetland along the west side of the property. Um, that assessment does flag that the wetlands are in a very shallow water table. There's very little infiltration of that water back into the ground. And there's very little recharge from, uh, the ground itself. So on this specific site on these specific wetlands, there's not a lot of water interchanging through the ground. That being said, the stormwater management controls are still going to be put into effect. So a stormwater management report by professional engineer was prepared. Um, to assess whether a stormwater management pond could appropriately manage stormwater on this site. And so in addition to that pond, which was found to be pseudoble, there will be swales and ditches to ensure that any rainwater is directed towards that pond to limit infiltration into the wetland. And even though there's only a little bit of exchange with the water table and the wetlands, we do want to reduce any infiltration into those wetlands for its health as well. Um, I would be very interested to hear more about The Black Swot in that water. Um, that is a concern. Um, I was on site quite recently, um, at the end of May and can confirm that the Asheville plant is not operating. Um, so if there are water quality concerns at the moment, um, they should be looked into, but they would not be the result of this proposal because it's not operating at the site, um, at the moment. Um, I will turn it over to the applicant just to speak about the truck traffic noise as well as the tailgate banging noise potential. Um, and possibly, um, the owner may be able to speak to any sort of conflict between the two existing plants. Um, the existing plant across the road, um, I believe it's 1610 Westbrook. We know the one directly across the road. They also have to go through their own ECA process through the ministry where environment stormwater water use are all reviewed. Um, so if there are any incompatibilities, um, for any of those reasons, the ministry would be able to flag that, um, it's not something that has come to our attention yet. Um, and we do circulate this ministry with these applications. And they have not flagged any potential concerns at this time. Thank you. Thank you very much. And, uh, through you, Mr. Chair, I think you just staffed for answering many of the questions there. And for the presentation. Happy to expand a little bit on some of the, uh, the points that staff have passed over to us. And I think that, um, Robert, who's the owner of Williams Paving and of the site is happy to speak to some of the particularities as well. But I will address some of the planning related issues, I guess specifically. Um, so I do want to expand just on the noise component of the ECA and the way that the noise study is completed. It's based on a worst case scenario. So all of the mitigation measures that are being recommended and that would be required both through site plan and the ECA are all based on, like I said, the worst case scenario. So it's not reflective of the sort of daily operations or the normal, um, activity that would be proposed. So they try to look at it from a very conservative lens and assume that, Hey, if you're operating at the highest production possible at the worst times of the day, what's it going to look like? Um, so yeah, just to confirm that those mitigation measures will still be in place regardless of the fact that it's conservative. Um, also would touch on the fact that the stormwater management ECA being submitted as well. So the noise and emission sort of ECA. Stormwater management ECA. That helps to review some of the groundwater impacts and the environmental impacts, making sure drainage is going in the appropriate location. So, uh, that actually, that application for the stormwater ECA has already been submitted. It can be done through a separate submission process to the ministry. The noise sort of impact one has not been submitted yet because we're aware that, uh, there's really no point in doing it until zoning is in place on the site. Whereas the stormwater management, the engineer has decided that just to get ahead of the game to try to look at because we need to do stormwater on the site anyway. Um, so all that to say is really that there's that additional level of review, uh, for groundwater impacts and environmental impacts, but also that the ministry is currently aware that this is kind of appending application. Should it be approved. And then on that note, um, related to the sort of compatibility between the two plants being in close proximity to each other, um, as staff highlighted in the presentation. And I think we spoke about during the community meeting this pocket of Westbrook is quite developed with other sort of rural industrial uses. And there's been no demonstration through any of the studies from a compatibility perspective or looking at the D series guidelines, those setbacks for the 300 metres that shanty was referring to. Nothing in those indicates that there's any sort of land use compatibility issue. But the ECA will still sort of flush those out. Should anything unforeseen come up? Um, on that note, I think I will allow Mr. Young here to speak a little bit about the truck noise. If you wouldn't mind. Through the chair, my name is Robert Young. With regards to the truck noise, it's a valid point. Most of our aggregate for the asphalt plant is shipped in from across the road at the quarry. And for the most part, I'd say 95 percent. About 4. 30 or 5. So as far as a tailgate's bang, they bang when the load's coming out. So a lot of it won't be at that time of night. It'll be there delivered in the product during the day. And for all potential purpose, we try to run. As much as possible during the day. It's not, it's feasible at night if it's an emergency job or you know, we're working downtown the city at Kingston. We got roads we got to get to at night, but we try not to. Like we honestly, we do everything on our power not to work on unless we absolutely have to. Um, but the material would be brought in all during the day. So the noises should be very minimal. And if it, if that happens, you got to call me because it will be addressed. I mean, period. Like that's, you know, since that's, that's just, you just come with an experience, but we don't, yeah, that's all I can pretty much say with that. Thanks. Excuse me. That was some referring to the tailgate, I guess. Yeah. So that slamming would be limited. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear that that's correct. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. If I may just to expand because Mr. Young reminded me of something there too, uh, the, the noise study, like I said, looks at the worst case scenario. So it also looked at operating hours between 6 AM and 6 PM. Uh, my understanding from speaking with Mr. Young is that the general sort of hours of operation or yes, when you're going to be able to get the aggregate, but that's mostly between sort of 7 a. m. and 6 p. m. max again based on, um, whether or not there's night operations, of course those happen as well, uh, but the typical operating hours are between 7 a. m. and 6 p. m. Bar. Thanks and through chair. And just to build on the truck port, sorry. It's been a long day. The banging of tailgates are what are known as impulse noises. Those are root viewed specifically as part of the noise report. So they are taken into consideration when we're talking about the mitigation features. Uh, additionally, I just wanted to speak to one of the points that was made about, so in well water as it exists today, um, if a member of the public is having an issue with their well in the rural area, they should contact the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks because they are the overseers of well interference in the rural area. Uh, so they can investigate these conditions and concerns and try to work to probable solutions or identify concerns in a rural area if they exist. So if a member of the public doesn't know who to reach out to at MECP, they can contact city staff and we can point them in the right direction. Okay. Through the chair, I was wondering just to confirm that, um, I think I know most of this, but the existing regulatory framework, obviously it's the MECP that is the primary regulatory that the applicant has to abide by those regulations. Is it just MECP or is there another, how many different levels of government oversight is there. Thank you to my knowledge, it's only MACP. Okay. Um, right. Shoe my knowledge. Yeah. And then we have the site plan control comes after this. If it's approved, uh, then that is something that we will enforce with as far as the stormwater management and the buffer and that kind of thing, right? So that will be something that our engineering staff overseas, just like all the developments like that. Yes. That's exactly right. Um, so the studies and plans submitted our appendage to a state plan control agreement that is entered into between the owner and the city. Um, and there are financial securities that are received by the city to make sure that the work is conducted as per plan, um, yes. So there are additional steps to undertaking. Okay. And maybe what my colleagues will ask that we talked about the traffic, 17 north and 17 south or the likely quantities. And I think we had an understanding then in agreement or a cooperation that as little traffic is possible would go down to Highway 2, like all past Otto S Street. Generally the direction would be Westbrook Road, North and South. But Creekford. And then north to unity. Is that generally the way that it's going to flow. Through the chair. Yes, that's correct. Most of our people, you know, I think human nature is to drive the path of least resistance and Creekford whenever possible if it makes sense. Obviously down Westbrook is minimal as possible. I mean, I live on Westbrook Road. Like my son does. So we have a place right there. Like right on Westbrook Road. So, and yeah, we're more cognitive of it. It is a main artery. I won't promise that we can't go down there sometimes. But definitely if we have options, we will always take the creek for the world option going that direction. Yes. Thank you for that. And I know, as you know, me and Councillor shaves have a lot of constituents. So we have done a great job of being involved in this. And speaking up to things. So the last one, and I thought about this. Smith Road is probably only going to be used rarely. Maybe delivering to Smith Road. But I would think that Smith Road is not necessarily going to be a routing for a truck very often. Is that correct? Cause they're worried about increased traffic there as well. I'm only going to give you a personal experience, but Smith wrote eigenty from a truck. Very like, if ever. I mean, it's not even, there's other alternatives if you're even driving a car. I mean, it's got some twists and bends and stuff as well. Exactly. It would not be a preferred truck road in any way whatsoever. If all other options. It's more designed for a. Maybe if it was a bypass, like if something was wrong with princess or whatever, that way. Yeah. I wanted to make sure we can sort of appease that concern as well because I thought about it after my phone call. And I think that that's not likely to be a problem here. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few comments to make when the motion comes forward. But these are all my questions for now. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Sanic. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Um, I just have a couple of questions and, um, it's about, uh, the residence proposal for having restrictions of heavy trucks going, um, south of Creekford Road to get down to princess Street. And I read the answers today and it says that staff wouldn't be like our transportation staff. That idea because Westbrook Road is in our TERO Road, even though the Councillor or a member of the public could bring up forward, you know, as a request. So if Steph wouldn't be supportive of it, then, um, if Councillor still wanted to do it, the alternative would be to put emotion at Council to, um, restrict the heavy trucks on the lower portion of Westbrook Road. Is that how it could still be done if Council supported a motion to do so. Mr. Bar. Thanks and through, Chair. Uh, yeah, the process councillor would be to bring forward motion council in order to have transportation staff, consider the request and bring forward a report and recommendation for how best to move forward. Council is, uh, the one who passes these types of amendments to city bylaws. So it's always in your hands, uh, professional staff provide recommendations to you in order to make the best informed decision. So, you know, they would look at the transportation characteristics of the area, travel routes in any sort of, uh, restrictions that there would be for heavy truck traffic on nearby roads in Creekford Road is one of those roads that does have, um, half ton rule certain times of the year based on, um, the, the, the ground and the road bed there. So all doc council, you are correct would come forward for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much for that answer. And I know that Creekford Road has, um, springtime load restrictions on it. And I believe it's like March 1st till April 30th since this is an asphalt plant that basically just kind of opens up in the spring until the fall. And we have the applicant here and it's representative with, with the plant stirred offeration at the start of April or mid April or end of April. I'm just looking to see what the overlap timeframe would be where the plant is working. But, um, Creetford Road has the spring load restrictions on it, which would prevent dump trucks from using Creek for Road unless I'm wrong, but I think that's what the spring load restriction means. Through the chair. Thank you for that. Typically in the asphalt business, in the perfect scenario, we start first, second week of May, depending on how the season's going. And we try not to start until half loads are off. So as you were saying, we would not be on the road until then. Most of our product that we'd be bringing would come across the road, becoming from across the road. So that would just be a straight, you know, out of Lafarge's pit two hours. And we like to be done. Again, ideally. If we can get out by the, you know, second week in November, but maybe extend to November 30th, but we don't want to be working when it's snows or when it looks like it's getting cold. It's just, it's not feasible. It's just not even good business practice to be running then. So come and, you know, in the, in our perfect scenario, if we can shut everything down the last week in November. And hopefully we don't open up till the second week of May. Like in the, in the ideal situation. For sure. Great. And if we can get Don Little earlier, even better. Thank you for confirming that, um, it wouldn't really overlap with this spring load restrictions on Creekford Road. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else have any questions. I can't see Connie. Council shaves. Thank you. And thank you for my colleagues for asking some of the questions I had in mind. So it gives me a little more time. So I would like to follow up in couple of those. First one is staff. Why is there load restriction on Creekford Road and not Westbrook Road. Thank you for your question. Um, so my understanding is the restriction on Creekford Road Road is similar to, um, many other roads in the city. To avoid damage in the springtime. Um, so not necessarily like a truck traffic concern or a truck route concern. But a heavy truck traffic concern. So it's not a four guards to a heavy load, just volume. Uh, yeah. So more of the weight issue. So when that same weight happened on Westbrook Road, South of Creekford. Yes. I don't have all of the information about the bylaw. My colleagues may be able to support this. Um, but it's likely that the construction of the road is different. Um, on Westbrook versus, um, Creekford is currently made of. Okay. Um, yeah, just a thought which came to me while I was, while I was listening. So I'm not sure if the hand behind me or not. It just made me think as to why one and not the other. And there could be an issue of in regards to the quality of the road as well. So. No hands. So okay. I will continue on. Um, there was just nodding in agreement. It was being said. You know, it should just lower the second. See who's nodding behind me. Um, I'm going to bring up something which I brought before. And I know it was sort of discussed with, uh, Councillor Ustraff and his comments in regards to the direction roads. Uh, and the liveries. I believe that last time I mentioned, uh, speaking with the Crossing Guard and the What Haven area, they were commenting about the truck traffic going through there because the lot of construction going in that area as well. But the companies that were going through, I believe one, if I remember correctly was GIF. And they're being very, very respectful stopping for the, for the Crossing Guards dropping for pedestrians watching their speed. And I brought this issue up for you. And your comment was, if your drivers are not following the rules of the road. And I think you were actually reiterated today for them to call you. And then you would address that. Absolutely. Um, we, we live there too. Uh, yeah, absolutely. If my driver's at any time, call us. It will be addressed, you know, and, and I'd be very surprised if one of us, I've got a, we pride ourselves, but the management staff that I have. So be very surprised if we don't see it happening before you do. And it will be addressed. Yeah. So a question. Do you have those stickers in the back like some transports do judge my, my, my driving, call this number. I don't have them. I suppose without my son's back of his car maybe, but, uh, no, we don't have that, but we're, we're close. So I mean, you know where we are if you have to. Um, and I know we discussed and I think it was sort of touched on too, but the directions of all the traffic going, um, and I know we talked about last time. At the beginning, the development on Gardener's Road to the intersection, the 401 Centennial probably diverted to allow your traffic away. But I want to guess a lot of your projects are either going to be north going the 4 - 1 or going east towards Creekford Road into town. So you really should probably, and realistically, I know you can't guarantee this. But looking at the numbers and your experience is probably going to be very limited number of vehicles going down south on Westbrook Road to Princess Street. Because that's one that made concerns I hear about. Through the chair. The past couple of years in our layman's opinion, there's been an awful lot of infrastructure work towards at downtown of Kingston, which by default takes us by Creekford. You know, it seems like the paving that needs to be done, you know, cause going a lot of the major projects are down this way for sure. Um, the majority. Lately has been for us. Yes. Well, you're welcome. We have a number of projects still coming. So, uh, including on Centennial. So we, we have a number of projects on because roads is our priority for us. So, uh, you and any other Asheville company, you're welcome. Um, so I'm going to take a different angle now. In regards to health and safety and issues. Because within the official plan, it states enables a site can be developed with non - intensive and non - polluting industry uses. I would presume polluting what include airborne pollutants, even, even those who can't see. And I'm not sure where anyone else here. But driving by or walking by any of the sites where roads are being developed and there's ashfault, I tend to smell that. I tend to get some headaches. So my concern is, and that just for a quick drive by or walk by, um, the concerns that maybe neighbouring residents may have smelling this in their backyards and basically changing our challenging their lifestyle. They may have to adjust their yard work, relaxing the backyard or hosting company in the backyard that they may have to basically escape into the front. So my concern is, and especially with the environment that we have now with the heavier winds, they're not as light as they used to be. So they're transporting noise and Pluton's a little further. So I was wondering if someone, um, maybe the headnotters behind me can, uh, maybe discuss this or share some information. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for the question. Um, that's definitely been on our minds and something that we've taken a look at. So the current site - specific policy includes that language about non - polluting uses. Staff had recommended that that specific term be removed because it's undefined and pollution is covered under other, um, regulatory bodies such as the MECP. Now, if we were to look at, um, a dictionary definition of pollution because neither the planning act, um, nor the environmental act, um, define that term. But if we take a look at the textbook, um, Dictionary Definition, it refers to a use or a contaminant that makes the environment unusable or unsafe. Um, so that is something that can be controlled. So I cannot promise that there won't be any odour, but what we can say is through the emissions modelling that has been provided. And the applicant will be able to speak to this as well. Um, as they've been working very closely with the engineers who've put together this modelling, um, based on the modelling, the amount of odour related emissions is very low significantly lower than what the ministry would allow. Um, similarly in that emissions table, you will see compounds labelled odour related. You'll also see compounds related to health. So it breaks down what each compound is related to, um, or what kind of potential impacts there could be. Um, and the reason that there are limits put on each compound is because yes, some of them can have impacts. Um, and that's where the limits come into play. That's also where the separation distances come into play as well. Um, so just as one example, um, health Canada, as well as environment and climate change Canada have done studies on benzene, just as an example, um, and at 230 metres away from an asphalt plant, um, the level of that compound is going to be less than what the ambient level within an urban or rural setting would be just from average traffic, um, asphalt products in the environment. Um, so there's a reason that the limits are in place. There's a reason why the limits are what they are and the ministry would allow them. Um, so at the distances proposed, um, it is not expected that these contaminants would cause health and safety issues to human life or the environment. Um, I will pass it over to the applicant. As I mentioned, they've been working very closely, um, with the engineer who is putting together this emissions modelling to support the environmental compliance approval. Um, and I will mention as well when these, um, submitted, they are posted on the MECP website. So you can view the submission and there is a commenting period as well. Um, but that initial emissions data is available, um, currently on the website. And if you have any issues accessing dash to find that document, you're welcome to send any of staff and email. And we will provide that document to you directly so that you have it. And you can see what compounds are involved, what percentage each are involved in and what percentage of the limit, um, they would be present at compared to what the ministry, um, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, um, more than half of the compounds involved are at less than one percent of what the ministry would allow. And many are actually 0. 01 percent of what would be allowed. So with that, I will pass it over to the applicant just to talk a little bit more about that ECA emissions process. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, staff. For the excellent explanation, but yeah, I'll expand on it a little bit just based on our ongoing conversations with pension, who's the firm that had prepared the emissions summary dispersion modelling mouthful. So the numbers in the chart in that summary, they represent, and I wrote this down specifically because I thought it was interesting. The worst hour on the worst day. Uh, under the assumption that the plant is running at full capacity 24 seven, 365 over the course of a five year period. And still, uh, the numbers and the percentages that are coming up are overwhelmingly under that one percent of what the ministry would consider to be, um, what is called legally justifiable and supportable. Uh, and that's based on the Ontario regulations and the environment act. So that's what MECP uses, uh, to evaluate all of these compounds. And to SAS points, some of the compounds are things like silver and zinc, like the compounds themselves aren't necessarily indicative of something that is a pollutant. It just happens to be a chemical. So some of them are on there because it's part of an admission. And it's associated with any sort of, uh, manufacturing of anything. But in this case, obviously it's reviewed under the guise of this is an asphalt plant. And so how will, uh, that impact the actual surroundings. Um, I also heard from the firm that the thing in the study called a POI, which is a maximum point of impingement. Uh, so that's where they're looking at different receptors to see at what point is that the highest concentration. And, uh, we were told that even at the highest concentration in all of the charts that was at the receptor at the North property line. So that's basically the closest property line to where the asphalt plant is. And I was told that they're at no point would the levels of any of those compounds even reach the sort of very negligible amounts, uh, at the Western property line or near any of the sensitive uses. Uh, so all that to say is the firm and the scientists who had prepared the study is extremely confident that there will not be any adverse impacts to, um, as staff said, human health or vegetative health, uh, in part also due to the mitigation measures. So as an example, one of those mitigation measures is dust collector. That was one of the higher sort of compounds is just dust. And so there is a dust collector that will have to be required as part of this in order to mitigate dust effluent coming out. Um, I do want to touch on the, uh, the odour part of that as well just to expand, yes, some of the Colombhounds are identified specifically as being odour producing. Most of those are the ones that are under that one percent of what MECP would consider, um, legally justifiable and acceptable and safe. Um, the odour itself, and this is something that I'm happy to pass over to Mr. Young if he wants to expand on this. But from a site visit, I had learned, it's actually the, it's the process of paving, applying the asphalt is the smell sort of generating part of it because you're heating it up actively and spreading it open in air. So the actual manufacturing of it being on the site, um, up until the sort of. I don't recall the technical terms, but when the thing opens to heat it up, that is the point where for a moment you get a whiff while we were standing immediately underneath it, uh, and that lasts for, you know, maybe a minute or two. And then by the time we moved on in our conversation and Mr. Young was showing me something else, I'd forgotten about the smell. So that's my understanding is that it's the active paving using asphalt is the real odour sort of generator, not related to the land use or the actual manufacturing. Okay. Thank you. Um, not related to this, but I'm quite certain that staff that we're working at plant, we have the proper PPEs. So, um, but I shall move on. That's my health and safety coming out again. Um, so another provincial planning statement. It talks about, um, mitigating adverse impacts on sensitive land uses such as residential uses. My question is, you have 30 seconds. Oh yeah, apparently got another five afterwards. That's okay. I'll use that too. Um, impacts on land uses. Does this include the land users itself? So the residents. Thank you. Um, yes. So sensitive use is such as a residence is sensitive because it is a resonance. And it does consider human health as well. Okay. Thank you. Since I don't have about 27 seconds left, I'll pass that on, uh, I'll use my five when it comes to the next round. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else have any questions. Comments. Seeing as none. Okay. So we'll move on to the public portion. So is there any members of the public wishing to speak to this file? Okay. Yeah. Got you. I'm just going to see everybody raise their hand who wants to speak that we all know. Okay. So if you could all move whoever wants to speak, if you could take a chair, um, beside Frank here. And then we'll move up like one at a time. Yeah. Any. Who wants to speak. The chair. Yeah. So if you want to. Speak, just consider one of these. Chairs. And then you're fine. Where are you. Going? Okay. We'll start with Frank. Just state your name and you have five minutes. Frank Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. I'm going to be bought on this. I've been coming down here for a 20 plus years. This is probably the messiest file I've ever seen presented to this committee. And I want to back up a little bit. To the introductory, um, session that was held for this committee on this file. And I asked a question about gradient. And a professional planner hired by the applicant couldn't answer the question. It's a colossal credibility problem. Now I think there's been progress made on dealing with important issues on the file. We've heard discussion. From staff from the planner of the shelf. So I think we are getting somewhere. Okay. I'm going to make my big point first. I'd like to see the file deferred further. Until a site visit by the Plan and Committee. Planning staff, the proponent. The public and the media. Go out and examine the site and the neighbourhood on the ground. We cannot understand this file sitting in this room. Okay. And I'm speaking as a retired geophysicist. For a member of the Canadian Society of Expiration Geophysicists. Okay. I'm super concerned on this fault. And I'll just, um, sure enough by seeing, I do not have confidence. On environmental issues with provincial oversight. With a progressive conservative government since 2018. And I'll just give one example of that. The green bell file. Which was currently under investigation by the Real County Monique Police for over two years. Okay. To me, that's the overarching issue. Anything environmental with Queens Park right now is just, it's just a colossal question mark. Okay. Now I want to rewrite what I'm going to turn in here is I keep adding to it. And it's kind of incoherent. And I've heard explanations and so forth. So I'm going to do that. And then I'll turn it in. I just make one more point. And I'll add another point on the Creekford Road element. That's a role that often floods in the spring. And the payment is very close to the surface. And it's very close to the areas that flood. Solis Westbrook Road as well and portion of it. But the quality of the pavement on Creekford is much less than the quality on Westbrook. It's just as someone who's lived here for a lot of years. All right. So also I do find, I know the applicant is trying. And it's a very challenging foil. But I do find that the answers are incomplete. And that they're delivered in something of a condescending manner. I don't think that's appropriate. Okay. We don't know what we don't know. Too much of the time on this wall. And I don't even live there. I'm concerned just as a citizen who's got some expertise, which I'm trying to add. If I was on council, I could never vote for this. In its current state. Impossible. If I voted for it, I couldn't live with myself. Okay. So I'm going to rewrite this and I'm going to turn it in. And I'm just hoping that Council understands the gaps between what it needs to know to vote in an audible and responsible manner. And where we are now. Thank you. Okay. So now we'll move on to, yeah, next year. So state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. My name's Joe Smith. I live at 3867 Smith Road. Just up two or three minor questions, I think. First off, for the stormwater pond, this entire, I'd like to know how deep the bedrock is on this entire site. Because if you're building a stormwater pond and then a berm leading into just a normal pond on the property, what's to stop any overflow from leging through that berm into the groundwater and the other side. Is that stormwater pond going to be lined with clay or anything like that to prevent this. And prevent pollution from getting out of the property. Um, I'd also like to know. During the winter time, if you're planning on operating till six, seven o'clock in the evening, what about the lighting on the property? Is that going to interfere with the rights of the people living near you, the guy that lives 371 metres away from your property. Cause that could bigly affect him. Um, I'm the better part of, I'd say three quarters of a while from the service centre on 401. And we can see the lights from there all the time, even through the forest, just between me and it. But my biggest question is living on Smith Road. Mr. Young, you have alluded, you have promised to keep your traffic off the road. And we appreciate that very much. Um, that road is a Tarin chip road. It's not a good quality road. And it's already starting to break apart in pieces, especially up around the corner where my nephew lives. Now Miss Birdie has alluded to the idea of maybe having road bands on it. But that would be something that we would bigly suggest because even if Mr. Young keeps all of his trucks off the property, off the road, sorry, we still have E360. We still have Lafarge. We still have, uh, Pleasant View Greenhouses. We still have all that other road traffic on that road. So Mr. Young keeping his trucks off the road will not really accomplish a whole lot. And thank you. Okay. Yeah. State your name and you have five minutes. My name is Lester Daisyan. 3751 Smith Road. I'm the senior citizen of the area. I've lived there since 1969. I'd like to give just a short history of this property. Um, back in 1978, uh, fully construction. Wanted to. Open up. A quarry in the area. And, uh, at that time, they went in front of the Kingston Township Council. They council turned them down. Because of the pollution that was going to be taking place. And, uh, so they fully construction went to the OMB hearing, which is probably a few people are turned down. You'll probably do the same thing. And, uh, at the OMB hearing, I remember Mr. Jim Harrington, who was the township solicitor. The first question he asked, the manager of the company, because Mr. Foley wasn't there at the meeting. Was, what are the operational hours. The guy said 24 seven. They were going to operate to place 24 hours, seven days a week. So we're kind of skeptical. About. Companies making certain statements that are going to be, you know, sort of down the road. They're really not going to stand up. To the scrutiny. First of all, or secondly, the property is on bear rock limestone. Porus, fissures. Where does the water go? You're talking about this wonderful pool of water. But that pool of water is setting on the limestone, on the stone. There should be five to six feet of good clay. That's going to keep the water there. I would propose to the city that they send out their, uh. Health people and check this water because I'm sure, I mean, I'm not sure. But I know Mr. McQueen is right now getting water in his system that is black soot and it sticks to the toilet even. So they can't have it for drinking water. Now he's been slow. Going to you people to ask, you know, to have the thing checked out. But, um. I don't know. To me, it doesn't make too much sense. You're talking 95 percent of your asphalt is coming from across the road. Why for five percent are you going through all this aggravation for us. Because when there's a north wind or a northeast wind, I don't care what your stacks are, that spoke is going to come towards us. And we're going to have to put up with the smell. I don't want to have to have that smell. As I said, I've, I've lived here in this beautiful city and practice here for 49 years. And enjoyed the Kingston Township. And now I enjoy the city. And I simply hope that the city will do the same thing that the township did. They'll turn you down because you're doing nothing but polluting our area. You're polluting our air, you're polluting the water. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned. You have 30 seconds. Yeah, 30 seconds. But you just, you just have 30 more seconds. I can't hear you. Oh, you have 30 more seconds. 30 more seconds. All right. Well in 30 seconds, what I can say is that I think that you are doing a bad service to us as citizens. And I certainly hope that you go home tonight and think about it. There's no clapping. All right. So is anybody else wish to speak to this file who's in the room. Going to ask again anyone else who wishes to speak to this file. Yeah. Okay. You can come up to the mic. And just state your name. And then you have five minutes. I promise you. My name is Martha Vinendall. You just listened a minute ago to my brother Joseph Smith. We live at 3867 Smith Road. Most of my concerns have been addressed. Very, very clearly as a matter of fact, I had a whole two pages that I was going to read out to you. But, uh, most of it's gone. Um, one thing my brother did touch on was The Night Lighting. Um, I'm aware, like he said, we can still see the lights from the old. Used to be called the Texaco station across the highway. So it does show up quite brightly in our backyard. And I am concerned that there will be floodlights left on overnight at this plant. Just for security reasons. I understand needing that. Um, not only does it disturb the residents. It also disturbs the Little Brown Bat, which needs, uh, the knee darkness in order to function. It affects their roosting. It affects their navigation. So that's something to, uh, concern to think about. Um, the applicant very kindly addressed his drips capabilities and their driver's adherence to the rules of their own. I have to say that there has been a couple of times I've actually been put off the road. I've lived here for 30 years in Kingston. West. By people who are careening down the road to get their next load. Now, yes, we can go ahead and phone and report this. But what I'm more afraid of is there's a lot of children who walk along that road, especially Westbrook and Smith Road. Um, there's children that wait for the school buses along that road. And I would hate to see a fatality. So who's going to govern their speed in particular? Because I have never in 35 years seen an MTO law enforcement. Come along that road ever. Uh, what else was there? Did I have here. You covered that, you covered. I think that's pretty much everything. Um, I do have a concern on the west side of Westbrook Road. We have a planned propane transfer station of construction waste station, which has become in anything and everything dump. Uh, yet another construction waste station and a proposal for an asphalt plant. That seems like an awful lot of congestion for a relatively small area. And I'm just wondering at what point is the city going to say there's enough there. Because there is a lot of traffic, a lot of truck traffic. I know you've done traffic studies, but there is an awful lot of trough traffic on that road. And that's everything. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else. No. All right. So we'll go online. Is there anyone online who wishes to speak? Please raise your virtual hand in Zoom. Alaska again. If you wish to speak to 1575 Westbrook Road, please raise your virtual hand in Zoom. Seeing as none. Okay. So we'll turn to staff and the applicant to answer some of the questions. Mr. Park. Uh, thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak to Mr. Dixon's comments first. I've always appreciated Mr. Dixon's participation and comments in this planning committee. He's a regular attendee. And, uh, he is very well read in the reports and makes meaningful comments. However, I do have a little bit of a problem, take a bit of exception with the comments he made this evening regarding this report. And how it was presented, not only by the applicant, but by city staff. The report that's before committee tonight is based on reports. That are requirement to be submitted to the city by qualified professionals based on the nature of that study, whether to be a transportation consultant, hydrogeologist. Uh, noise consultant. Those studies in turn then are reviewed by the appropriate staff at the city who are also experts in those fields. And as a result of that, they came forward with the point that we were satisfied with those studies. And they complied with the policies of the official plan. And as such, that is why you have a report before you this evening making recommendations to Council for approval of this application. That being said, of course, the final decision always rests with council. But staff remains behind the report and the recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. So who else would like. To. Thank you. Um, I would like to jump into the question about the stormwater management pond and management plan. Um, so within the stormwater management report, um, these pawns are identified as only one metre deep. Now the size of these ponds are based on engineering expectations of the amount of, um, water involved. And that's how the sizes are determined. So at this stage, so at the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment stage, we receive these studies to ensure that the site can feasibly accommodate, um, stormwater management facilities, um, it has been reviewed by our development engineering staff for feasibility, um, and it will be further reviewed through the site plan control process as well. Um, however, based on the report provided, it does appear that these proposed facilities. So the one metre deep ponds, um, are sufficient to capture the amount of water in the event of a high storm event or that one in 100 year flood, um, events that we see. The excess water would drain south into the municipal ditch along Smith Road. Um, if it were to get to that point, um, however, the stormwater management report does indicate that the proposal for the site is appropriate to capture the amount, um, of stormwater anticipated for that site. In terms of lighting concerns, um, so I've referenced this site plan control process a few times. So when we get to that process is when we get, um, a little bit deeper into the proposal, we will be requiring a lighting plan. So similar to kind of the noise assessment or the other plans that we've received, we will receive a lighting plan to ensure that lighting does not adversely affect the neighbours. Um, so we haven't received that plan yet. It would come in the next step of the process. Um, but some of the medications we may see depending on what is proposed on the site. So where lighting is proposed. We might see recommendations for light shields or lighting in different locations, but we will be taking that plan in the next step at the site plan control process. Apologies I'm just looking at my list. Um, Oh, in terms of, uh, traffic. So we did hear some traffic concerns, um, again, um, so I also heard reference to general traffic concerns in the area, um, and potential overdevelopment of this area. So yes, we do take, um, individual traffic studies for sites as they come online. But those studies, including the traffic studies submitted for this proposal, does take a look at the wider area, the volumes of traffic that come through, um, as well as projects that are planned in the future. So this traffic study did take into account the subdivision that is proposed, um, on the east side of the Westbrook subdivision area. I'm blanking on the name. I apologise. Um, but it does take into account future development that is coming online. Um, it's proposal and as recommendation. Generally as well, the city does undertake just general assessment of its roadways and its functioning. So part of that is regular reviews. We also do have our Integrated Mobility Plan in the works alongside our official plan. Um, so we do take a comprehensive look at traffic volumes across the city. Um, to see if there's any modifications that are needed. Um, so it is something that we do take a look at. And I believe that would be the planning questions on my list. If I've missed anything. Mr. Bar. Yeah. Thanks. And through you, Chair. Um, just in relation to how this area has built out, uh, this does go back to Kingston Township Times, but this portion of Westbrook Road around the quarry has long been envisioned for rural Industrial development. So it does span multiple properties throughout this area, some of which still remain undeveloped, but there are numerous properties that are currently designated for rural Industrialuses along this portion of the street. Mr. Chair. Thank you. I think staff sufficiently responded to all the comments and questions. Um, I think one other thing I wanted to note was just for the, uh, the ECA process being a provincial process. In those conversations I had had with, um, pinch in. They had actually mentioned that the ECA process though, it's been updated like many other processes at a provincial level over the many different regimes, that kind of thing. He did note that it's relatively remain the same over the last, uh, 20 years or so based on his experience. So just to provide some context in terms of, uh, how the ECA process has evolved over time. It's been fairly stable, I guess I would say. And, uh, they are reviewed on a yearly basis, generally speaking, uh, so just to provide, I guess, a little bit more context on the due diligence there at the provincial level. Um, and I'm just checking my own notes here as well. Yeah. Lighting, we anticipate submitting a lighting plan as part of the site plane control process. We understand that that's going to be a part of it. Um, and, uh, the applicant's cognizant of the impacts of that. And I think the last note that I wanted to make was just related to, um, the impact on wildlife just to reiterate that in environmental impact study was conducted in support of the application and confirm that there was no anticipated adverse effects on, um, part of me, sorry, I'm losing my voice all night. But on wildlife in the area, um, and that was based on part on a site study as well as review. Thank you. All right. Anything anybody else wants to add. No. We're not there yet. But pardon. Uh, one question wasn't answered to my satisfaction. Do I ask it after the, was it a public member of the public questions? Which one was it. Mr. Chair, I'm concerned. I want to know about whether the bedrock that exists there. And the water containment on stormwater is one metre down, you said. How are you going to achieve that? How do you achieve that? It's important to me, to my community that we not impact wells. At turning it to deal breaker. Okay. I, I just can't accept any development that will impact water. So convince me that that's what they're asking because it hasn't been answered. Is it clay line? What are we doing to ensure. Safe? Yeah. Mr. Barbie. Thanks. And through you chair. The actual detailed design of the stormwater management pond will come at the time of site playing control. That is what the next step is going to be for is that heavy detailed review. But stormwater management ponds are designed to be bathtubs. They're meant to hold water because what they do is they take in turbid water and then their processes, whether they're one bay or two bay or however many they are meant to separate out solids, suspended solids from the water. So they're meant to settle on the bottom of the pond and those pawns do have to be maintained and cleaned out every few years in order for the ponds to function sufficiently. So whether this pond has geology that requires a clay lining or not, that will be determined through the site plan control stage. But we do have numerous, uh, stormwater management ponds around the city built in many different geologies. Bedrock in Kingston is a reality. It's often very near the surface. So this is not a new consideration for us at the staff and development level. But the, the design of the stormwater management pond is meant to hold and contain water and not let it infiltrate into the ground as it comes in. This is not a, this is not a lake. This is a piece of infrastructure that is designed to, um, clean and deal with, uh, stormwater from Industrial sites. There is also that additional provincial review regulated by MECP, uh, for an environmental compliance approval. And they specifically also have governance over the stormwater management pond because it's an industrial use in a rural area. Uh, with a stormwater pond. So there are multiple layers of review, uh, that go into that facility. Okay. Minister Chair, just to ask one clarification component of that is. But yeah, I think we should probably do this when we have the discussion part because long as I do have, just remember it. All right. So since everything's been asked. So then we'll move on to, uh, I need a mover in a seconder. Move by Councillor Sandic, second by Councillor Stephen. So now we can have a discussion. So now we can, all right. Councillor Straw. So just to clarify that. We have bedrock. And so when we pass this, if he passed this, then we are accepting from staff that this is possible with the bedrock to that. Cause you wouldn't recommend it. I believe that site plan can. I'm familiar. I'm a professional. I've built my own. I know exactly what they do. And my three neighbours have just done it. So I understand what's happening. But we also had lots of earth to work with. What do you call it? Filtering. So we're not filtering here except you're creating that. So then we're taking it from staff that this is achievable on a bedrock, um, environment to the stormwater pond. And so is it already inclined to that direction? I think that, Bertie, you mentioned that, uh, that it was most of the grade was south, was it? Most of the drainage, yes, um, would generally go south towards that pond partially routed through swales and ditches. Um, just in terms of the lining. So currently their proposal is a 500 millimeter thick conventional clay liner of the pond. In the event that for some reason this plan is not feasible and an amendment to the plan would be required. It would be an amendment to the site plan control agreement. Before it happens. So if for some reason this is not feasible, though it has been reviewed and produced by an engineer. And it has been reviewed by our development engineering staff as well. Um, the report does reference that there is, um, bedrock in this area. It is shallow. It is acknowledged. Um, and while I, I can't find the information in the report at the moment. Um, it may be safe to assume that the location of the pond is partly based on where there's ability to accommodate this. Um, but yes, staff are saying that through our review of these reports, we are confident that it is feasible. If during construction or at any point during the process, this plan changes or it's found not to be feasible and a new plant is required. We would require a new plan, um, and we would require an amendment to the, um, sorry, the slight plan control agreement to make sure that it happens. Right. So we have that. Okay. Thank you for that. And, um, so I, I think I understand, I am confused as well. I won't dwell on it, but as far as the comments, um, because I, I, I see the exact opposite as Mr. Frank Dixon. That's not acceptable to me, those comments, uh, in my experience with the staff, it's been an excellent. They presented, but also, uh, the applicant has been incredibly, uh, gentlemen and extremely professional. And I'm very, very sensitive to that. And, um, I think, uh, that can be disregarded. So, um, but I appreciate, uh, Mrs. Vinendall's comments that as far as she has said that everything seems to be answered, the lighting, I knew would be answered. That will definitely, um, that's my wheelhouse as well. I will watch that one closely. But most of all, the drainage system, I think we really recognise staff. No, that's a non - negotiable for me in the rural area. And, um, I have had many battles really related to water and stormwater and the necessity there. So I think I can see my way through that and, uh, recognise, um, that this can be done. And or we set the example of how it will be done and do it well. So, uh, thank you for that. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Anyone else have any comments. Councillor Shaves. Well concerning cut me off last time. I warn you I was going to be speaking. So, um. So under the official plan considerations, um, it states the applicant provided emission summary and subpersion modelling. In ESDM report to confirm the anticipated level of order emissions. My question is how do we do a test of older before operations start. Thank you. Um, so the compounds that are identified as odour causing, um, the, their impact is known based on, um, their categorization of being an odour compound. Um, and so the fact that they're present at such low values indicates to us that they would produce low odour impact. Um, so that's part of the reason that those compounds are classified by health vegetation, um, odour. Um, and so that's how we know. So the low value being placed into the environment. Um, I can't say there would be no smell, but it would be very, very low. Um, and not to the point of causing health concerns. Okay. Thank you. Um, before I say my next statement, I just want to say this is not directly at staff. Um, cause I don't want to be at the end of the wrath of Director Park. More general and if staff do want to comment, they can, but it's more of a general issue, which I have, especially with my previous experience with health and safety, my previous employment. Orders are not consistent. Considered nauseous or harmful to human health under the additional permit use within the report. As I mentioned earlier, um, I would probably challenge that because I've been near parking lots. We've been done, drive by roads being done. And you spell it and you can feel it, get a headache. Um, the CDC. Actually states that the fumes from the asphalt have carcigen materials in them. So I would challenge that as well. I understand we're talking about levels, one percent less than what is permitted. However, I also challenge the fact that, uh, depends on who's governing what's dangerous, what's not dangerous, what's healthy, not healthy, because things have changed over time. Asbestos used to be okay. It's not okay anymore. Let pipes, let paint. We're okay. It's not okay anymore. Um, there's also yellow food dye and orange food dye, which in some countries they're banned. But another country such as Canada and the United States, you're allowed to have them in the product. So you eat them at your own risk. So I do have concerns. And I understand their mitigation factors coming in. I'm not going to be spearing that, but it's challenging as to what is the safe level. Because five, 10 years down the road, that could change. So. That's the one reason why I have a struggling a little bit with this file. And so I'm just going to end it there. All right. Councilloc Senic. Thank you for you, Mr. Chair. So my problem with this, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. If we had the 401 and Westbrook Road Interchain to already built, but I had a good friend who lived in Westbrook Road between Ottawa Street and Princess Street. And the amount of traffic that goes up and down Westbrook Road. I just, I felt so bad for her and for the other neighbours and seeing that we now have the traffic counts, um, trucks a day. Like this to me sounds like we have to do that motion to restrict heavy trucks right away, you know, let alone with, um, this plant going, you know, like at 401, um, and Westbrook Road. So I really have a struggle. Like I'm happy that, um, Creekford Road can be an option for any softbound trucks. It's just that like, even I don't know, it's like, it's still, you know, the hundred trucks. This is going to be another 17 in the Southbound traffic. That's, you know, as 17 percent increase in the traffic, we're, you know, the proposal of like three or 400 homes off a Creekford Road. They're all going to have the same problems as lower Westbrook Road. So like even if we do the heavy co - restriction, it's just that's a lot of trucks. Somebody this week sent me an email and said picture one of your roads, Lisa, like Hudson Drive or Lancaster Drive and having, you know, 17 dump trucks a day going by your house on one of those roads. And when you sit there and you picture 17 through a residential area, that's, that's so much. That's so much traffic. And to me, it's almost like this application is just a couple of years too soon. If we had, if not us, but if MTO ministry of transportation had the interchange already working at Westbrook Road and 401, it would avoid all of the, um, construction traffic. And that's where I'm struggling with the application right now. Thank you. All right. Anyone else. No. All right. Um, did anybody want to comment and what Councillo Sanic said? I know it was more statements, but. All right. I guess we'll go to a vote. All those in favor. Opposed. And that. Wait, how much did that? Is that tie. So it loses on a tie. All right. So were you in the negative Councillor Glenn. Cause the delay. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Okay. So that fails. Do we need to do a. Good. All right. Okay. So that's it. So there are no motions. There are no notices of motion. Is there any other business. Councillor Shaves. Um, thank you. So I'm not sure if everyone's aware right now. But this is Mr. Bar's Last. I know where I'm going. This is Mr. Bar's last Planning Committee as Manager Development Improvals. So after 13 years of progressive experience and municipal planning, including over eight years with the CDF Kingston. And probably more importantly four years of having deal with me here on Planning Committee. At our next meeting in July. Mr. Bar will be the Director of Planning Services Chief Planner for the city of Kingston. So we'd like to say congratulations. And on that note as well. Mr. Park. With more than 35 years of experience in the planning profession, including senior leadership roles with the city of Toronto. And seven years with the seat of Kingston. And I'll add seven year, uh, four years of having deal with me through planning. Uh, he has made a remarkable and elasting contribution to our organisation. His leadership extensive experience expertise. And unwavering commitment to public service has helped guided numerous planning initiatives that continue to shape and strengthen Kingston today. We wish him every success and happiness as he embarks. On his well - deserved new chapter and feature adventures within his retirement. So sir. Thank you very much. And you have, it's been a great honour working with you. Um, thank you Councillor Shaves. I'd like to start by saying, uh, I feel incredibly fortunate. I've had the opportunity to be the Director of Planning Services for the city of Kingston and honoured to have been so. Moving forward, I know the planning services is a team of consummate professionals dedicated to making Kingston a better place to live, work and play. And I know Mr. Bar, who will be replacing me will lead this team by example and is more than ready to take on his new role. To the members of Planning Committee. I don't need to tell you that this committee of Council is by far one of the most. If not, the most demanding and challenging committees to sit on. To each and every one of you, thank you for your time and commitment. To this committee and your support of staff. And not to be forgotten. Thank you to the clerks. And to the technicians that bring all of this together. We could not do this without you. I wish each and every one of you, nothing but the best. Thank you and be well. Yeah, thank you very much for bringing that up. And thank you. Um, I know we've known each other for the committee of adjustment time and you brought me in and I've learned so much from you from, from planning. So thank you. And then same thing with James from Committee of Adjustment into Council. So yeah, and I've learned a lot from you and I know I have all the confidence in you also taking over for Tim. All right. So. I guess we're going to end this. Um, so correspondence was included in the agenda and the addendum. The next meeting, the planning committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 9th, 2026 at 6 p. m. So I need to move her in the secular to adjourn. We would Councillor Steven, segment of cancellar shapes. Um, all those in favor. All right. Good night, everyone.