Okay, can I have your attention, please? We will go ahead and get started. I'd like to welcome everybody to our committee of adjustment meeting for June 2026. So I'm going to ask you to check that your cell phones are turned off, or the ringers are turned off. And while you were doing that, I'll take care of some housekeeping issues here. Members of the public with a particular interest in any application, please be sure to fill out your name on the signup sheets that are located at the back of the room. On the right - hand side of the door as you enter. That will become clear in a minute. So I'll now read the following statutory notice. The notice of decisions for the applications we review this evening will only be forwarded to those who have presented a written request for the decision. Furthermore, a formal request is necessary to be advised of a possible Ontario Land Tribunal hearing on these matters, and in order to be made to be allowed to make a presentation to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which is otherwise known as the OLT. Now, if you would like to be notified of any decisions or appeals that may result, then please send an email to our secretary treasurer Lindsay Staman. Her email address is up on the board. And be sure to include your file name and your full name. And that's especially important for those of you who are following along at home this evening. Now for those of you who are new to Committee of Adjustment, I'm going to go through the five - part process that I use as we navigate through all of the applications this evening. In the first part, I'll start by introducing the application. So if you are the applicant or the agent, I'll invite you to come to the speakers area to my right that take any seat with a microphone. When I recognise you by name, you just tap the microphone button. It will light up here in red. And then you will have an opportunity to address the committee. You can offer any additional information that you have, or you may requests of the committee if you so choose. And if you have nothing to say, then just simply say, you know, I'm happy to be here and I have nothing for the DRAD, and that's fine. And the second step, I'll be inviting members of the committee to ask questions of either the applicant or staff. And then in the third step, I'll open the public portion of the meeting where members of the public will most likely line up to the speaker's area to my left. Any speaker or microphone that's available, just tap the button when I recognise you, and you'll say your name for the record, and then you will have an opportunity to ask your question or raise your comment in respect of the application. Now, during the public portion of the meeting, we will physically be recording your questions and your comments. So do not expect a two - way dialogue between yourself and staff or yourself in the applicant or their agent. What we are doing during this part of the meeting is we are gathering in the information, gathering the questions. And only when we close the public portion of the meeting, will your questions and comments be addressed by the applicant, their agent, or staff? That's the process we use here. We don't encourage debate. That's not what this is about. We are here to gather information to be able to make a decision. And so that's what happens during the public portion of the meeting. Every speaker will be allotted up to five minutes. And as the timekeeper, I'll stand up and I'll interrupt you at the four minute mark to say you've got one minute to wrap up. And that's how that process will go. I should also add that it would be very helpful if speakers do not repeat the same issues over and over and over again. Once we've heard the issue once, we don't need to hear it again. Hearing it two or three times doesn't mean that it's more important. It just, it has no beneficial effect except to take up valuable time. So don't feel compelled to do that. All right, so then once I close the public portion of the meeting, and I will call three times for public comments before I close the public portion of the meeting, we go to our fourth step, and that's where I give the applicant their agent or staff an opportunity to address the public comments. And once that's over, we get into our fifth and final step, which is where I turn the meeting over to the committee. Somebody makes a motion to put the applicant on the table, the application on the table. We will deliberate in this very public forum, and then we will vote on it and make our ultimate decision. And then that's it. We rinse and we repeat, we go back up to the very top. Step number one, and, uh, we go on to the next application. So once your application is finished, I'll say it's finished and you are definitely free to leave at that point. And as we move on. Okay, so that's all there is for that. So at this point, I'd like to call on Allison, our clerk, to confirm quorum. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. I can confirm that we do have Corum, absent this evening, is Jordan Tikkenoslevy and Smnathina. Thank you very much. So at that, I now call the meeting to order at 535 PM. And I'm going to refer you all to the agenda that was amended. And committee members, you should have received the amended agenda this afternoon, uh, and there were some exhibits with it. So can I call for a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So moved by Lisa and seconded by Ken. Is there any discussion. I see none. So all in favor, raise your hands. And that's unanimously carry. Thank you. All right. Now we're looking for the confirmation of the minutes of the May 25th meeting that they be approved. Can I have somebody move that? So moved by Vincent and seconded by Doug. And he discussion. All right. So all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that's unanimously carried. You were not. You can't abstine. Yeah. So, um, everybody passed except for Ken Hu abstained. Thank you. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interests this evening. Yes. I have a can you hear your interest with the first file. As I'm employed by the applicant, okay. All right. So during the meeting, you'll just leave the room. Thank you very much. Are there any other disclosures of pecuniary interests. I'm seeing none. Okay. Uh, we have no requests for deferral. We also have no returning deferral items. So our first piece of new business, number eight - one is an application for permission. 548 to 550 Gardeners Road. Lindsay, can you read this into the record for us, please? Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for permission at 548 550 Gardeners Road. The file number is D13025 2026. And it is to permit a transportation depot. Great. Thank you. And so you are the applicant or the agent going to have you state your name, please? My name is Miles Weeks. I'm a senior planner with Foten Planning and Design. I'm here to speak on behalf of The Applicant, who's joined me today. Okay. Very good. Welcome. Is there anything further you wish to add to the application. No, nothing at this time. We reviewed staff's report and we have no additional comments, but happy to answer questions. Very good. Thank you. Committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant or the owner. And I'm seeing a bunch of shaking heads. No. Okay. All right. So at this point, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us in - house or online who wish to speak to the application for 548 - 550 gardeners Road? Please raise your physical hand or your virtual hand in Zoom. I'll call a second time. If you are here with us this evening to speak to the application for 548 to 550 Gardeners Road, please raise your physical hand in - house or your virtual hand on Zoom. And I'll call 1 3rd and final time. Uh, if you're here to speak to the application for 548 to 550 Gardeners Road, let yourself be known. Please raise your physical hand in - house or your virtual hand in Zoom and seeing none. I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for a motion. Somebody want to put it on the table. So moved by Gary. And seconded by Ken. Any discussion. I see none. So all in favor raise your physical hand. And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. That's it. Yep. All right. Lindsay, the second application is for a minor variance and permission, 23 point crescent. Can you read that please? Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for minor variance and permission at 23 point Crescent. The file number is D13018 2026. And it is to acknowledge and permit an expanded deck within the wave upbrush area. And add a water body separation distance of 7. 8 metres. Great. Thank you. And you were the applicant. I am Jeff Vladmer. Okay. Welcome. And is there anything further you want to add to the application? Oh, I've been well cared for by eastern engineering and chantier. I don't have anything else to add. Very good to hear. Thank you committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant. Yes. Lisa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question to staff. Um, what did the staff report say about the conservation authority that they supported or that, um, will do a review when it gets to a later state. Thank you for the question for you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the CRCA, the Conservation Authority has reviewed the application in full, um, and our supportive of the application. So they have reviewed it under, um, their purview. And they are supportive. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from committee members. None? Okay. At this point, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public here who wish to speak to the application for 23 point crescent. Please raise your physical hand if you are in - house or your virtual hand if you are following online. No, I'll call second time. Is anybody wishing to speak to the application for 23 point crescent razor physical hand in - house or virtual hand online. And I'm just not seeing any movement. So at that, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for a motion. So to be moved by Ken and seconded by Lisa, any discussion. So all in favor raise your physical hands. And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. All right. Application item number three is an application for minor variants for 748 development drive. Lindsay, can you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair, this is an application for Minor variance at 748 development drive. The file number is D13021 2026. And it is to permit reduced setbacks for the covered storage. And new building together with a reduction in Landscaped OpenSpace. Okay. Do we have the applicant or their agent with us. Right here is fine. Any one of these. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Jason Sands. I'm a land use planner at the Boulevard Group. I'm here on behalf of the owner. Happy to answer any questions that the committee or members of the public may have. I've reviewed the staff report, have no objections. Uh, thank you staff. Review the conditions and further have no concerns. Very good. Okay. Committee members. Do you have any questions for Mr. Sands. Or staff. I'm seeing none do we have. On law. Who do we have online. Okay. So no, no questions. All right. So at that point, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us, uh, wishing to speak to the application for 748 development drive. Please raise your physical hands. If you are in - house or your virtual hand, if you are following online. I'll call a second time. If you are with us this evening and wish to speak to application for 748 development drive, please raise your physical hand in - house or your virtual hand online. And I will call a third time. If you wish to speak to the application for 748 development drive, uh, please raise your physical hand. If you are in - house or your virtual hand online. And I'm seeing none. So at that aisle closed the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for emotion. Moved by Vincent and seconded by Doug. Any discussion. So all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that's unanimously carried. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah. All right. Our next application is number four, which is an application for minor variance and consent for 23 and 27 Charles Street. Lindsay, do you want to take this one. Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for minor variants and consent, 23 and 27 Charles Street. The file numbers are D10, 0, 10, 2026, and D13 020 2026. The minor variance application is to permit a reduced lot area for the property located at 23 Charles Street. And the consent application is to sever 53. 4 square metres from 23 Charles Street and convey it to 27 Charles Street. Very good. Thank you for that. And Mr. Sands, you're back for this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jason Sands, registered professional planner on behalf of the Boulevard Group here on behalf of the four owners, both property owners, 23 and 27, Turrell Street. Reviewed the staff report conditions of both minor variants and the consent application. I have no concerns. Happy to answer any questions that any members of the committee and or public may have. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Committee members. You have any questions for Mr. Sands or staff. I see none. So at that point I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us in house or online, wishing to speak to the application for 23 and 27 Charles Street. If so, please raise your physical hands if your in - house or your virtual hand if on following along online. Do we have anybody with us wishing to speak to the application for 23 and or 27 Charles Street? Please raise your virtual hand online or your physical hand if following in - house. And third and final call, if you want to speak to the application for 23 and 27 Charles Street, please let it be known by raising your physical hand in - house or your virtual hand online. And I'm seeing none. So at that, I close a public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for a motion. So to be moved by Lisa and seconded by Doug. Any discussion. I see none so I'll call the vote all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. Okay, application number five is an application for minor variants. 453 doc side drive. Lindsay, could you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair, this is an application for minor variants at 453 Dockside Drive. The file number is D13023 2026. And it is to permit an increased maximum surface area for a two - level covered porch. I'll also note that tonight's addendum contains two letters of concern regarding this application. Great, thank you. So do we have the applicant or their agent with us. Uh. Yes. Um, I am the agent. Cole Finley. Okay. Yes. Welcome, Mr. Findley. Is there anything further you wish to add to The Application this evening. Uh. No, no. I've reviewed everything, um, from the planner and the conservation report. Um, actually, I would like to mention, I'm not sure if it was in the, uh, the plan report, um, but, uh, just to address the, uh, the questions of the, uh, the privacy, um, for the, uh, the DAC. Um, both the, uh, the upper level of the deck, uh, will have privacy walls. Built in on both sides. Um, for privacy for both the, uh, the four or five, three dockside drive as well as adjacent neighbours. Okay. Very good. Anything further. Uh, no, thank you. Okay. Very good. Thanks for that. So for a committee members, do you have any questions for Mr. Findley. Or staff. I see nones. Oh, yes. Lisa. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have read the letters in opposition to it. And I just wanted to ask staff for all the other homes and facing the same direction on Dockside Drive. What other homes have this same sort of really large deck structure. Through the chair? As of now, this would be the first. The area is still very much in construction. This river you shore subdivision. So the street is kind of filling out as we speak. And the only few back decks in general that have been built. So as of now, this would be the biggest one. But then to come in the area. Thank you for that response. And I do have, like I shared the same concerns that those neighbours raised just if I wanted to live there. And those backyards are so, you know, they're just not deep, not deep backyards. And they have the open space. Then the EPA. And then the water. But for the part that's actually owned by the residents, like I sympathize with the neighbours. I think it's too much deck. Um, I don't know if it's because it's so, you know, like black and metal and kind of, I don't know, boxed in. And then like for those privacy fences, like privacy panels on each side, I think it just makes it worse to tell you the truth because it closes it off. Like if someone's next door and they look over to that house, they can't see through the privacy. And so to me, some of their view of the adjacent neighbours is going to be missing because you get it blocked off. Um, I just, I just don't like it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for that. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Uh, yes, Gary. Thank. You. I hear Councillor Acetic's comments or thoughts. Um, I understand that individuals have the opportunity to apply for minor variances. I just want to understand from an applicant's perspective why it would be hard for them to build a deck within the prescribed parameters and why this, uh, why this variance was necessary for them. Okay. Any other questions. Okay. So at that, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. So do we. Did staff want to address that comment from Gary. Through you, Mr. Chair. I think it would be best for the applicant to respond to the member's question just in terms of, it seeks to address the intent of what the variance is requested. Okay. So Mr. Finley, if you could maybe comment on that. Yeah. Yeah. Most definitely. It's a, it's an excellent question. Like I, uh, I understand the, uh, the concerns that come with it my, uh, my understanding from speaking with a number of planners with the city. Um, is that, um, it is, uh, it doesn't need a minor variance. Um, the size of the deck itself, um, but it's because that the, uh, there'll be a concrete pad poured on ground level underneath. And then because of the, uh, the concrete pad, that increases the square footage and the presence of the, uh, the, the DAC or covered porch in the yard. And, uh, that's why it's, uh, it's over the allowable size for the, uh, the minor variants. The deck itself is, uh, it's, uh, it's simply the, the width of the house. And it is, uh, 12 feet out from the house. And then as well as, um, like as far as the depth of the yard, um, the I don't have it up in front of me here, but, um, the, the yard is actually quite deep. Um, and this doesn't, uh, it doesn't occupy, um, a very large portion out the backyard. And as well, there were, well, sorry. If I'm, uh, talking in circles, uh, the conservation report, um, was, uh, was cleared as well. Like there is no, uh, no harm in doing that to the environment with trees or the turtles or the, uh, the little cat river that's there. Okay. So yeah, my, uh, my client, he's prepared. Like, uh, we, we had discussed this, uh, on building plans, um, before getting just in talks. And, um, he had said like, he also, uh, you know, wanted privacy. Um, but it's kind of like a, like a two way street in one sense. Like, you know, you're looking into adjacent neighbours yards, you know, like over or through this property and to see the adjacent neighbours, you know, that's, I mean, it's, it's like, you know, you want some privacy, um, but if this deck is in the way of, you know, seeing in, uh, adjacent neighbor's yards, then you know what I mean. That's kind of a, uh, goes against, uh, Jason neighbor's privacy in addition. Um, but if this was something that were to, uh, to make it worse with the, uh, like the privacy, uh, privacy screens that we'll be up. Um, then I can happily, uh, speak with, uh, with my client. And we can, uh, you know, we can opt to not do those. Um, you know, if that, uh, best pleases, you guys. Okay. Thank you for that. Vincent, did you have something to say. Yeah, it's kind of had a follow - up question about that through you there. Um. So he mentioned that he needed a concrete pad for this. And the concrete pad needed because it's two stories. Is that the reason? Or would it need a concrete pad only if it was just the ground level, uh, deck? Or would you need or would it not be needed at all. Um. That's an excellent question. The concrete pad itself is not needed for the deck. Um, my client just wanted like a concrete pad that is on ground level. Um, just to put, you know, say like a, like a hot tub on and just to have a, like a flat walkway from their walkout basement. Okay. I guess follow up to staff. Is it true that that's the only reason? Like could he build this two story deck without the as of right without a concrete pad. Through the chair, that is correct. So the provision is for the area of the deck. And because that concrete pad is beneath and it's a, essentially a platform attached to the house that is covered. It meets the definition of porch. So that concrete pad would be one level of the porch in the area above it would be another. If there was no porch at ground level. So if there was no concrete pad and it was glass or landscaping below, this cover porch would meet the 50 percent provision. It's actually more like 34 percent of in terms of the coverage of the rear yard. Um, so no variance would be required. Okay. Thank you. Yep. And Ken, I'll come back to you, Gary, in a minute. Just to clarify a point from my own understanding is it isn't a case of no concrete pad means no minor variants. It's a case of a lesser amount of concrete pad. Meaning the total coverage of the deck and the consequent concrete. Just less concrete pad would get the applicant, the deck without having to come before the committee. Sorry. The deck and the concrete pad before. As long as if you chose to reduce it. So there's an allowable limit the applicant seeking to go beyond that. Fundamentally for the pad. Because the deck is otherwise permitted in its width and its height and it's setbacks. Through the chair, that is correct. The second story is not right at that 50 percent maximum. As I mentioned, it's more like 34 percent so they could kind of fill in that remaining allowance with the concrete pad, but because it's below the entirety of the deck, um, that is what, what tips it over into the, going beyond that 50 percent requirement. Okay. Okay. Uh, Gary, you had a follow up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for staff about, uh, the privacy panels, um, that are associated with it. So I see that it's not a part of the conditions. Um, so it's perhaps not something that would be included in the, in this approval per se. So with this committee, I'll be able to, uh, maybe create a condition. Um, that there are no privacy panels on those sides. Um, if the applicant degrees that earned something along those lines from the applicants representative, but I just wanted to confirm with staff, if there was any staff related concerns that triggered these, uh, privacy panels to be included, which might be related to overlook. Through the chair, the privacy panels are not included as a condition. Um, because this second story of the porch would meet the zoning requirements. And it's just because that, that pad adds a surface area. Um, approval of the variance would not increase the likelihood of any overlook or privacy concerns beyond what's permitted as of right. Um, so for that reason there was no need to include that type of thing as a condition. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from, uh, stat or from the committee. Okay. All right. So at that, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us this evening, wishing to speak to the application for four, five, three dockside drive. Please raise your physical hands if you are in house or your virtual hand if you are following online. So if you're here and you are interested in the application for, oh, I see we have one online. Yeah. So Americ Malek, if you would unmute your mic and then state your name for the record. And we are, um, I'm aiming Mr. Charity. We are the immediate neighbours to 453. Down this slop because I don't know if everybody's aware that the houses are built in the slope. And so they are at the 455, 453 is a little higher. And, uh, looking at the size of this concrete block, I was just wondering how this will affect the water drainage. Into direction of our property. And, uh, the next issue is that if there is a damage related to the water, um, water drainage, then how is that going to be dealt with, you know, considering this big block of, uh, of concrete. And then the spout being in a direction of our property, uh, I just wanted to get, uh, can understanding of how this. The potential warded drainage issue can be dealt with. In addition to, uh, to the concerns that were brought by the committee. Okay. Very good. Thank you for that. Uh, do we have any other members of the public with us this evening wishing to speak to the application for four, five, three dockside drive. Please raise your physical hand if you are in house. Or your virtual hand online. Oh, and I see we have online Scott Blair. If you could unmute your mic and state your name, please. Okay. And, uh, Mr. Blair, if you are unmuted, I'll just get you to state your name so we can hear you. Sorry. It's Scott Blair. Yes. Scottler. Thank you and welcome. Um, is there anything you would like to add, uh, or questions you have in respect of the application. Uh. Yeah, just to add to the Last gentlemans who is our neighbour, we're two away from the house in question. Um, there is a question about grading because when the, uh, mockups of this were created, there were not the retaining walls that we have now. Um, the developer, um, did retaining walls at most of the houses along this strip. Um, because they couldn't get the Rana Hill and we couldn't get the, they couldn't get the grading correct as far as I understand it. So most of these houses have retaining walls at the front and or back. And so this concrete pad would affect that retaining wall. Effectively they'd have to remove it, I think. That's number one. Number two, um, this just to make a correction. This is not the first house along here with The Covered deck. Um, at 4. 35 Dockside Drive, which was, which is several houses away, um, it's not occupied yet, but the builder has put a small covered deck on that house. Um, it's not a walkout. So it's while it's not a two story, two level deck. It's, it's a two store, like the roof goes up almost to the, to the upper level of the house. Uh, just wanted to mention that because somebody had mentioned there were no other, um, no other decks like that. There is. Um, but it is, I think dramatically smaller. It's only a portion of like half the size of the house. Um, and approximately 10 or 12 feet deep, I think. And then lastly, somebody had made mention of, of the law or the yard being big. I mean, this isn't my first subdivision. These yards are not big. They're very small. People laugh when they come over. Um, and so to cover 67. That's actually a substantial coverage. I understand that the applicant needs some sort of concrete or interlock underneath rather than just rough gravel or grass, um, but maybe again, maybe reducing the size of that concrete pad would be of assistance. Um, and then the last thing I want to point out, um, was the neighbour. So there's one, the gentleman who just spoke is between us and the applicant. And even at 12 feet with such an elaborate deck based on the photos I'm seeing, it's definitely going to affect any sort of view that they have down the river. And all of us along here paid a substantial lot premium to, to be here and to have that view. Okay. Thank you very much. And I'll call once again, do we have any other members of the public wishing to speak to the application for four, five, three dockside drive. Please raise your physical hand if you are in house or your virtual hand if on zoom. And I see we have yaw window. Shuhan. If you could please unmute your mic and then state your name for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Yather Minder Johan, the owner of the property. Thank you, Cole, for representing. And thank you, committee, for your time this evening. I would like to address a few things. Um, so as you've heard from the staff and their great work, um, this deck is not an elaborate deck. It's a simple 12 by 10 deck. That's width of the house. And how many houses do we have. In many subdivisions are all across, uh, across Kingston. And then the adjacent subdivision that was developed by the same builder has such a large DAX along with, um, there's some covered ones there. There's also some with privacy walls. The privacy wall isn't going to be a bit block of, uh, you can't see or not. It's, it has louvers. So there will be, uh, light and view. As far as the depth of the deck goes, it's only 12 feet out from the habits. And that's allowable. The reason the concrete pad is down there. You know, we can take out the concrete pad, but, you know, then I could put stones there. Uh, but the concrete pad does not impede to my adjacent neighbours water issues. They have spoken with the, the development manager of the builder. They are building, retaining walls where they're needed and their builder is fully responsible for, um, ensuring the proper grading is done and the proper water is, uh, devoted, uh, in a proper way. So in between each of the houses, there's about an eight feet of space, uh, as far as the lots go, the lots are 50 foot, uh, wide by almost 100 feet deep. So that's not a small lot. After that we have about 20 feet of foot pathway that's going to happen. Then there is about 25 to 30 feet of conservation area before you hit the river body of water. And so this is, uh, I would say an exaggeration to some extent when we say, Oh, it's going to block the views. The deck is only confined to my property and it's only attached to the said property. So I think in terms of the grading issue, the builder is completely looking at that and the retaining walls where they're needed. They are built. And as far as my side neighbours, uh, you know, if the spout is facing at their ways, then it will be diverted the other way. Um, so that's, that's to do with the construction of the house. Um, in terms of the size of the deck, the deck is not an elaborate size. Uh, I think what's adding to it is, is the concrete slab. I'd rather have a floor that's long, uh, has a longevity rather than putting, um, some sort of landscaping with stones or things like that. Um, and, and the neighbours are not going to see the concrete slab at all. Uh, it's only going to be just outside of the, where the deck ends. Um, and it's within the city limits and all the guidelines in terms of the size that fits. And if it comes down to it that the committee decides that we have to either shrink the concrete pad, we're happy to do that. Uh, if the committee decides that, uh, you know, we have a completely removed concrete slab, then we can do that as well. Uh, but I would, I would still like to have a size of the DAX so that, you know, we can, we can have, uh, seating area appropriately to enjoy the views for which we have also paid a premium price as well. Thank you for your time and I appreciate the support. Right. Thank you for that. So I have closed the public portion of the meeting and, uh, the applicant is actually responded to some of those complaints. Do staff one who chime in or add anything that has not been covered. Through the chair, just to address some of the concerns, raise by the members of the public. Um, with regards to the drainage concerns, um, the, the subdivision does have, um, approved grading and drainage plans, um, that came with the plan of subdivision. And development engineering staff have reviewed the proposal and they don't have any particular drainage concerns. Um, due to the size of the, of the deck, um, or the porch. As mentioned before, it's not actually covering 67 percent of the rear yard. It's only covering about 31 percent. It's a cumulative area of both levels that bring it over that 50 percent to 67. Along those lines of drainage, because there are approved lot grading certificates for the development at the building permit stage. If there are any proposed changes to any drainage you're greeting, that needs to be approved by the subdivision developers engineers. And then that approval needs to be provided to the city. Um, so that would be covered regardless of whether or not there was a variance. That's how, how that works. Um, with regards just to the concerns over, um, the views and the blocking of views, um, that does not really something that we, we evaluate through minor variants application typically, but I did want to note that the proposed setbacks and height of the, of the porch are not any different from what is permitted as of right. And as the property owner mentioned, the second story of the porridge without any, um, without this extent of concrete pad underneath would be permitted as of right. Um, so they don't necessarily need to build a minor variance to construct that. They just need it if they want to include the size of, of porch underneath that they are. Um, I think that covers most of it retaining wow as well, uh, would be something that's included in the subdivision, the approved plans for the subdivision and wouldn't be permitted to be impacted if that was something that the engineers weren't supportive of. Very good. Thanks for that. Okay. Ken. Um, thank you Mr. Chairman. The applicant, the gentleman that owns a property made an interesting statement in his remarks, which caught my attention. Um, he, I believe he suggested he could reduce or eliminate the concrete slab. It's kind of up to the committee. Which is a curious remark to make, um, I don't think it's up to the committee to decide how much slab he can have. Um, I think he needs to be asked whether he wishes to perceive what the application that's before us. Because technically speaking, he could reduce the slab to the point where there is no minor variance even needed. There's a point where you wouldn't even be able to put conditions on it because the application is no longer required depending on how much you reduces a slab. So I think he needs to be asked, does he wish to proceed with the application before us? I think we should see clarification. I heard that his preference was to have the slab. But I think at this point, I would put it back to, um, uh, Yedwinder, um, what is your preference where this lab is concerned. You could unmute your mic if you could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. My preference would be to have the slab and the application proceed as is to have the full slab as we requested the increase in this. Okay. Okay. Very good. Yeah. That clarifies it. Okay. Um, committee members, any questions or staff anymore follow up to the public comments. Okay. So at this point, I'll turn it back to the committee and then we'll put the motion on the table and then deliberate. So we have somebody move. By Ken and seconded by Doug. So it can and Doug any discussion. I'll start. I spoke to staff earlier about this today. While the variant seems high, the fact of the matter is the physical deck. Is 12 feet by 10 feet. It's small. It's not big. Unfortunately, because it has a lower level that's going to be paved, it effectively doubles the size. It doesn't mean the 24 by 10 foot deck or a big deck extending way out into the land. It's stacked one on top of another. So whether there's by my simplistic way of thinking whether it's got gravel on it or grass or, or, or, or concrete, um, it doesn't make the deck bigger in my mind. Although I respect the process that we have to go through this evening. But I would certainly be voting in favor of what I see before me. Doug. Sorry, Mr. Chair. That was where I was going to go with this. Because what if the guy just put paving stones in? This wouldn't even be in front of us. That's right. So. Any other comments before we call a vote, Ken. Just thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll support the application. I think that, uh, given the physical configuration of this house in the neighbouring houses, we're more than likely to see more decks like this. Given the location as well. And one only need to look at the photographs that are contained in exhibit J to see that there already are DECs, uh, on what I would call the first floor of the house projecting out. Albeit they smaller. That doesn't necessarily mean they're permanent. Right. I think they'll ultimately be replaced in the long run because the neighbourhood and the character and the views and everything essentially warrants that approach and we see lots of decks here. That's for sure. Uh, and everybody wants to view. That's it. Okay. Thanks for that. Any other comments before we call a vote. So all in favor, raise your physical hands. And Ken all in favor raise a physical hands. Okay. So one, two, three, four, five opposed. And okay. And one opposed. So the motion carries. Thank you. All right. Our next application is an application for Minor variance 135 Ontario Street. Lindsay, can you read this into the record please. Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for Minor variants at 135 Ontario Street. The file number is D13 022 2026. And it is to convert two ground floor commercial units into three residential units. Thank you. And, uh, the applicants, I'd have you state your name for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is Jason Girard. I'm with Homestead Landholdings. The owner of the property. Okay. And Miss Samuel Brown with Homestead. Okay. Welcome. Is there anything further you wish to add to the application. No, thank you, Mr. Chair. We've reviewed the pre consultation minutes and the staff report. And we don't have any objections or concerns. Okay. Thank you. Committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant or staff. And I am seeing none. So I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us this evening wishing to speak to the application for 135 Ontario Street. Please raise your physical hands if you are in - house or virtualhend if online. I'm seeing none. Do we have anybody in house wishing to speak to the application for 135 Ontario Street? Please raise your physical hands. Or if you are online, raise your virtual hand. And I am seeing none no movement. So I'll close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for emotion. So then we want to move this. Okay. Move by Ken seconded by Lisa. Any discussion. I'm seeing none all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that's unanimously carried. Thank you. Garrett, did you have a question. Uh, yes, I can vote in favor of my question was in relation to, uh, The Cash and lieu of Parkland process. I just want to understand that. I'm not familiar with him. It's one of the conditions here. Oh, well, yeah, I think, uh, I think that's a valid question. I'm really sorry. I didn't see the hand up there. Um, could we get some clarification on the cash and lie with Parkland? But yeah, Malcolm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. So Cash and Luna Parkland is required when you add density to development that has on a lot that has over three units on it, considering this is a parliament building. It qualifies for that. Uh, so that's why normally the committee doesn't typically see that catch and move process. And so we like to flag it as a condition of a minor variance, uh, there is no extra application after this. It would just go right to a building permit. And then ultimately, uh, we would collect that money prior to the issuance. So the building permits what we like to flag that as a condition at this time. Okay. Okay, Gary. Yes, please record my vote in favor, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thanks very much for that. Okay. So yeah, that's done. Uh, that has passed. So the next application is number seven. Which is an application for minor variants, nine hundred and nine Oh eight division Street. Lindsay, can you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for Minor variants at 90908 Division Street. The file number is D13008 2026. And it is to facilitate the construction of a new six story apartment building. Uh, the addendum contains an updated exhibit F for this application to include a landscape plan within that exhibit. And the addendum also contains several letters of concern related to this application. And I'll just pass the mic over to the city planner assigned to this file, Victoria McCutchen to provide some additional background information on the file. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Victoria McCutchen and I'm an intermediate planner with the city of Kingston. So tonight the first expressed transit area minor variance application has been brought forward for 900 to 908 division Street. And as such, I wanted to take a moment to just provide some brief background context on the two policy changes that have come into place in late 2024 and early 2025 to enable intensification on the subject site. Um, so this would be the passing of the North Kingstown Secondary plan and then the introduction of the new Express Transit area framework. So the North Kingstown area, secondary plan was passed by Council, which identified appropriate areas for intensification and Infield Development in the North Kingstown area. Um, these sites generally included vacant underutilized or brownfield properties. The secondary plan also introduced a new mixed use designation and zoning to sites that were deemed appropriate to accommodate a broader range of residential and commercial uses. Um, so the 900 Division Street property was identified as an intensification area in Phil site and rezone to a mixed use. One zone and redesignated as a mixed use property through this plan. Um, so this expanded the permitted uses on the site to include apartment buildings of up to six stories as well as a variety of non - residential uses. Um, additionally, a series of city initiated amendments to the official plan and Kingston Zoning Biolaw introduced new policies to streamline the residential and mixed use development process for properties located along Express Transit Roots in the city. This process allows properties with the Streetline along an Express Transit route to be developed with an apartment building or mixed use building, subject to an identified height cap through a minor variance application. So as you'll see on the left side of the slide, this section of Division Street between John Counter Boulevard to the north and Barbara Avenue to the south are subject to a height cap. That is the lesser of six stories or 19. 5 metres. Properties south of this area are subject to a four story height cap. Well, properties north of this area are subject to a 12 story height cap. If developed through this framework. The framework also provides guiding performance standards and applies all applicable general provisions of the Kingston zoning bylaw to the review of the application. Certain standards, including setbacks from the maximum lock coverage. Sorry. Certain standards, including sub - X and the maximum lock coverage are to be determined from scratch through the minor variance application to recognise the diversity of properties and locations. So on the right side, you'll just see a snippet of that section of the zoning biologist showing that certain sections are to be determined through the minor variance. So variance is one to five that we're seeing tonight through this application are required to be established through the minor variance process for all properties developed under the Express Transit Area framework. And can I just get next slide, please? Thank you. Um, so through these policies, we've also expanded notice requirements applicable to Express Transit Minor variances, including mailed notice being provided 20 days in advance of the Associated Public meeting to properties within a 120 metre radius of the subject site. So standard minor variances require 10 days notice to properties within a 60 metre radius of the site. Additionally, as the development involves more than 10 dwelling units, the applicant is required to obtain site plant approval in addition to this minor variance. Um, so as such, I'd like to be clear that the conversations surrounding features such as landscaping, lighting. And fencing does not need to end tonight. Um, staff continued to welcome input and discussion as we continue to work with the applicant to refine these elements of the site. And finally, I'd just like to add one point of clarification to a reference on page eight and 13 of my staff report. So this would be pages 165 and 170 of the agenda package. Um, to the number of standard residential parking spaces provided. So, um, the report indicates 79 standard residential parking spaces. However, this should be noted as 117 standard residential parking spaces. Um, the total number of spaces on the site has been accurately conveyed as 135 spaces. So 41 surface, 94 underground. Just clarifying those, those missing spaces that were noted. And with that, I'll pass it back to the chair. Great. Thank you. Thanks very much for that introduction. So do we have the applicant with us? Yes. Oh yes. Say your name, you know the routine. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chad. My name is Alex Adams. I'm here with the Boulevard Group representing the owner. Okay. No concerns with the staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Very good. Thank you. Committee member. So you have any questions for the applicant or staff. I see. None. Yep. Doug. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, more of a question for staff, but they're talking about putting commercial on the ground floor level. But is the commercial on the ground floor level going to share the parking in the back? Or is there other parking designated somewhere for the commercial. Because for sure people are going to want to come into these stores that are there. For sure. Follow questions. Where are those people going to park? Or do they have to come by bus? Through you, Mr. Chair. So, so at this time, commercial has not been proposed in the building. Um, we've just had it so that the ground floor has a floor height, a 4. 5 metres. So if in the future, they want to convert it into a commercial space. They can do that. Um, and we would look at that at that time to see how we can kind of reconfigure the parking situation. Um, they would currently be above the required number of parking spaces for the residential use. So there is a little bit of wiggle room that we could work with for that. Okay. And Ken, did you have a question. Of a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for Victoria. Um, you mentioned, and it's shown in the perspective, a dropdown of the building height on the North elevation on 908 Division. How are nine 12 and 9 16 Division directly to the north or between the Satan armadile? How are they treated in the official plan and zoning by that? Are they intended for Intensification as well. Through you, Mr. Chair. So that would be correct. So properties along that Division Street section, um, would all be subject to that six story height cap if they're developed in the same way that this one has been proposed to be. Um, but the underlying zone would be a UR zone currently. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions from committee. No, yes, the Councillor, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. I wasn't sure if I was speaking now. We're in the public portion. Um, I'm here representing my constituents who are some in this room. First thing I want to start with something Gerald's sentiment of The Constituents is that the building design looks great. Like there's beautiful looking building. I think everybody kind of comes that conclusion. Few things that were sort of flagged by the constituents that maybe staff or the developer can speak to. One is there's a bit of a concern setback from nine, 12 Division Street and just maybe someone can speak to if it's meeting within guidelines and how that was designated. I know there's a little parking path there. There's some concerns of the distance between that and 9, 12 Division Street. There are some concerns in Northwest Corona privacy in the amount of privacy overlooking, um, sort of the northern portion of Armadale and Division Street as well. Um, there are some questions relayed to treason vegetation, particularly along the fencing. There's some really old, beautiful trees sort of along that property. Um, and there is some existing fencing that's new and in high condition. Um, so there are some concerns of the residents of it's being torn down or what could be done, uh, to work with the existing neighbours on that. Um, they're obviously, uh, as this is getting built, there are some questions about vermine pests as the lane is getting disturbed and changed. If there's going to be measures put in place by the developer as this goes along, um, and there are some concerns about, uh, underground parking and creating underground parking and how that process is taking place and what happens if there's damage to surrounding properties. So I don't know who wants to field that if staff want to feel that if the developer wants to field that, but those are the major concerns I've heard from your neighbours. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I think what we'll do is, um, incorporate that into the public. Okay. All right. So we'll go to, we'll have staff or the applicant address, the comments we just heard. And then we'll open the public portion. Three, Mr. Chair, I can start and then I can pass it over to the applicant if they have anything to add. Um, okay. Let me just pull this up here. So, um, in terms of these separation distance that was sought on the north side, um, so the intent here was we were looking to balance a couple of different factors, um, one being the underlying, um, standard, um, interior setback that we would be seeing in that MU1 zone, um, and in that instance, we were looking at, it was more of a three metre setback. However, in the express transit area overlay, they would require a separation distance from four story structures, which would be 10 metres. And then from five to six story structures, which would be 15 metres. So the current separation distance would allow us to meet that. Um, with the step down. So from that four story structure, it would be 10 metres to the back to the back lot line. Um, another thing that we were looking at as well is just maintaining appropriate access to the rear of the property. Um, so that separation distance would allow them to, um, provide an appropriate pathway through that area as well as planting strips. Um, and fencing as needed. Um, so this was a, this was a distance that we were comfortable with while still ensuring that it wasn't, um, too large of a space where it was, it was creating a weird, um, a weird blank space between the neighbourhood and still allowing for that consistency in the streetscape. Um, okay. Let me just move down here. Um, on the privacy screening, um, question. So currently what we would recommend it as a condition, um, was for sweets 508, 509 608 and 609 TEF privacy screening. So these were the units that were on the far north side, um, where one of the separation distance reductions was sought. So we thought that that was an appropriate area. Just given that, um, given the reduction that they were looking for, some of the other units that we were potentially looking at having this, um, given the neighbor's concerns, um, were on the west side on the northwest side. So this would be units 507 and 607 where there is a bit of a reduced setback. Um, this wasn't something that we had initially recommended just because it's, it's right where that pinch point is where there's an increased separation. Um, but that was something that we were certainly open to. And then, um, the other piece we were looking at would that would be units 409 408 and 407 could also be feasible. Um, just recognising that this would be a larger built form for that portion of the site. Beyond that, a lot of the other balconies on that Western side are more inset into the building. Um, so the units that I have mentioned are the ones that have the projecting balconies, um, where we would see more of that potential for overlook, um, as opposed to these other ones that are farther inset, um, primarily facing that far western lot line and would have more of a substantial setback. Um, so that's something that we, um, like as staff are open to discussing for sure. Um, okay. I'm just moving on to the next one. So in terms of, um, the vermin and pest control questions. So this would be more of a property standards consideration that we would be looking at. So through that, they would be required to ensure that, um, the lands are not, um, able to harbour any infestation of insects or rodent. So this could be something that we would be looking at further with our bylaw team if there were issues that did arise. Here. Um, on the matter of fencing and vegetation retention. So, um, this is something that we have gone back and forth with. So currently in terms of requirements, um, there wouldn't be requirement to have privacy fencing in this area. So that was something that we had added in as a condition of approval just to kind of mitigate this larger built form. However, we are certainly open if that's more of the preference from the neighbourhood to be retaining existing fencing and vegetation were possible. Um, I think the only thing that we were concerned about with just with retaining the vegetation is there may be areas where that's not feasible. Um, just given the existing, some of the locations along where that fence line is. From some of the works that are proposed currently for the underground parking lot in particular for the relocation of the, um, utilities Kingston and Kingston hydropoles. Um, there may be some areas where the site works or not allowing that to, um, to be retained. However, that's certainly something that we are open to discussing where feasible. Um, not sure if there was anything I was missing there. There was just the issue of the underground parking excavation. For sure. Thank you. Um, so in terms of blasting, so this would be something that the province would be primarily regulating as opposed to the city. However, um, if the work concerns that did arise, that would be primarily taken by our engineering department, um, and we're happy to kind of feel those, um, as needed and provide that direction. We're feasible. But primarily the responsibility for that would rely would rest with the construction company. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. So at that, oh, Ken. Yep. All right. Mr. Chairman, that's Victoria. If you could explain a little further about relocation of the hydrocorridor, I read that in one of the neighbor's letters and they did not understand it. You mentioned, can you expand, please? Through you, Mr. Chair. So this would apply to 14 Armadale Place. So there is an existing utilities Kingston easement at the rear of the property. Um, through the review of this application, they had discovered that there were existing poles that were not currently located on the easement as they should be. And they're located on the subject property. So, um, one of the things that they would be looking to do is just move those onto the easement to the appropriate location. Um, the other piece of this is because they're bearing the hydro lines. They would be looking to relocate one of the hydropoles onto that easement as well. Um, Kingston Hydra was also open if there was preference from the neighbour as to where they would like them to be located within that easement. That's certainly something that they're open to discussing. Yeah. Follow up. I think, thank you Mr. Chair through you. So yeah, I just want to ask about the, um, former 908 Division Street and how it's a four story. So is that according to the, uh, current zoning? It's Lav4 stories on that lot. And just you explained that why it's like four and not three as per the condition of development. Through you, Mr. Chair. So they could go up to six stories. Um, just because they are also under that express transit area overlay. The proposed step down was more to, um, just reconcile that underlying, um, urban residential zone, which permits up to three stories. Um, and recognising the surrounding neighbourhood in that area is fairly low rise, um, one to two story buildings. We wanted to have that element to kind of provide, um, provide a better transition to the existing neighbourhood as well as to mitigate some of the shadowing impacts from that larger building. Okay. Any other questions from committee members before I open the public portion. I'm seeing none so at this point I'm going to open the public portion of the meeting. So if we have anybody in - house or online wishing to speak to the application for 90908 division Street, please raise your physical hand in - house or your virtual hand in Zoom. Oh, yes. And if you want to take a seat up here. And state your name, Mr. Scarpasa. Yep. Oh, and just tap the mic button. Yeah, right down there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Phil Scarpaza. Okay. And is there anything further you want to add? I did. I have six items if I could. And thank you to the committee. Thank you for the developer and yourself for your time. Uh, the issues are as follows only noncompliance. The proposed project requires 13 minor variants in which clearly shows that the project does not meet the intentions and design solutions of the official plan and the exoning as they exist. Uh, mass and scale. The proposed six story height, clearly exceeds by three stories. And Will Dwarf, every building in the nearby area. And by doing so, clearly will not complement the existing residential homes and apartments. Traffic and parking. The proposed project does not even provide for one parking space per unit. In this day and age, this should be a minimum requirement. As proposed, the project only has 135 parking spaces for 189 units. Clearly this proves the property density exceeds, which should be allowed. Number four. I would argue that the proposed project should be reduced to a minimum of 135 units. Number five, the project doesn't even provide for, well, it provides for minimal visitor parking spaces. And number six, the project is located at the corner of Division Street in Ali and Avenues. An intersection that is already very busy and will make traffic congestion even worse and more dangerous. I respectfully request that the Planning Committee rejects this proposal in its current form. And requires the developer to submit a revised plan that addresses these critical issues. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Do we have any other members in - house or online wishing to speak to the application for 90908 Division Street? Raise your physical hands or your virtual hands online. And I'll call one final time. Do we have anybody online or in house wishing to speak to the application for 90908 Division Street? Please raise your physical hand or your virtual hand online. And seeing none. I'll come back to the applicant and stab to address these questions in a few more I've got listed on sheet of paper. Who would like to start? Mr. Chair, I can start and then pose it back to the applicant if the terms of the question on the 13 minor variances. As mentioned earlier, the proposal has been brought forward under this express transit area framework. And through this process, uh, variance is one through five have to be, um, would be required for all express transit area minor variants applications. Um, and this is to recognise that unique configuration and layout of these individual sites. So unfortunately, while it appears to be 13, um, new variances, the remaining six through 13 would be the changes to existing performance standards and variances one through five would be, um, new standards that we would be introducing through this application. So in terms of the six story height exceeding that three stories, that's certainly something that we can appreciate that this would be, um, a new built form for this area. We aren't seeing, story buildings in that immediate, not immediate area. Um, the 900 Division Street sites currently permitted to be developed with six - story building as of right. And the 908 Division Street site is only able to do so through the Express Transit area framework. It's currently zoned for three stories, as mentioned. Um, so through this application, some of the key considerations we were looking at were shadow impacts, privacy, and that transition into the adjacent neighbourhood. Um, so through that step down to four stories, um, that was kind of how we were seeking to reconcile that, um, currently the shadowing on, um, the North has been significantly improved. Um, we're seeing most of the shadowing is, is contained within the subject site in that parking area. Um, and shadows tend to, um, pass quickly over the adjacent properties with no more than three to four hours of shadowing, which aligns with our city standards for what we would be looking for. In terms of traffic and parking, um, so the city is currently divided into parking areas one through five. So this site would be subject to parking area too. Um, and that is, would have a lesser parking requirement due to the proximity to transit and the city centre as well. So, um, this would mean that they're the minimum parking minimum number of parking spaces that they could provide for this sort of development is 76 parking spaces. Um, and as mentioned, they have provided 117 of the Senate parking spaces. So, um, it's a bit challenging here to try and find that happy medium where it still functional, but, um, but understanding that this is an area with Express transit and we want to be able to, um, to manage those reductions where we can. Okay. Just down here, my comments. Um, so we would have six visitor parking spaces as well. Um, these were all be surface parking spaces that we would have. Um, in terms of traffic congestion along that Division Street and Elliot Avenue, um, area. So, um, through this proposal of traffic impact study was reviewed by city staff, um, so the purpose of this study was to evaluate how, um, a proposed development will affect the surrounding transportation network and to recommend mitigation measures as applicable to ensure safe and efficient traffic conditions. Um, so any recommendations of the study will be implemented into the project design. And we will have an opportunity to kind of, um, include some of those recommendations as well through the site plan control agreement that will be the next stage of this process. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have a couple other ones that were, uh, that I found in the correspondence. One comment was, uh, when will the trees and fences come down. Through you, Mr. Chair, I couldn't turn that over to the applicant. Through you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thanks to staff for answering the questions. Um, I'm happy to add anything else that may have been missed on any of those previous questions. Um, relating to when will the trees and fences come down. Still to be determined, I guess. At the moment, the construction is potentially scheduled to start later on this year. It's subject to, you know, getting, getting approval site plan control in place. And then ultimately building permits. So exactly when they come down, I do not know. But we're happy and open to meet with, uh, meet with neighbours, discuss, um, you know, potentially modify as needed regarding respecting any landscaping or replacement offences as required. Right. That's good. I know one of the neighbours had a concern where for personal reasons there, that's where their pets live. And it posts a problem when the containment. There was another question here in another piece of correspondence. It was more of a statement. I'm not sure there's much to say, but, uh, the property should not be allowed to be developed right to the property line. Although I think it's zoning issue. Three Mr. Chat. I'm not really sure on that. Um, I guess where we are developing the property along the West and northern side, there is going to be a minimum of two metres of landscaping before any, I don't know, if you're classing paving as kind of development, um, and then along the northern section adjacent to 912 has been mentioned. There's going to be a 10 metre setback there. Okay. Another comment was how do we find out if we need special insurance to protect pross against property damage. Is there a, how does the client go to their insurance company to inquire. Three, Miss Jack. I'm not aware of any special insurance. Um, but I'm not sure I would potentially suggest, you know, consulting whether your own insurance broker. That's fair. And, um, we need to walk, uh, with the developer to see where everything will sit in relation to our property lines. Could that be possible. Happy to schedule any on site meetings with neighbours as desired. Yeah. And who would the neighbours contact? The developers contact name attach. I've been provided to city staff at their happy for anyone to reach out to them as needed. Thank you very much. I have nothing else. Okay. Committee members, any other questions? All right. So public portion is close. I'll put it back to the committee for a motion. And then we'll deliberate. So somebody want to move it. Moved by Lisa and seconded by Vincent. Any discussion. Yes. Vincent. Yeah. So, uh, through you. I have an amendment for one of the conditions. Okie doke. Seems it's always you. But it's not a bad one. You kind of mentioned it anyway. So it's to just replace number 12, which is that 1. 8 metre high privacy fencing shall be provided along the rear and interior lot lines of the property and replacing it with that existing fencing and vegetation along the interior and rear lot lines be retained where feasible with proposed site works where replacement fencing is required new fencing shall be installed at a minimum of 1. 8 metres in height and accordance with the city's fence bylaw to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Three, Mr. Chad. Just verbally doesn't sound like any concerns, but is it possible to put that on? Yes. Yeah. I think would you be a lessened it over? And then we could put it up on. Okay. Yeah, three. Miss Jay. If I, if I'm correct, the intent though is like retain existing where feasible. If not feasible, then the privacy fence is. Yeah. And then try to keep some of the vegetation, which you already mentioned. Yeah. So, I mean, at a high level, no concerns. I mean, this proposal is subject to site Planck Control. So we already in discussions with staff regarding some of those features that we'll be, uh, dictated through Cyplon Control anyway. Perfect. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. So do you need some time, I guess to. Okay. We will take, uh, five minutes. Five minute recess and we'll come back at, uh, 651. Okay. Uh, I'll call the meeting back to order. Uh, our five minutes is up and we're ready to put the amended motion up on the screen. Thank you. Yeah. So at this point, um, we have, uh, Vincent has proposed an amendment to the motion. So we need somebody to second that. That would be seconded by Lisa. Okay. And let's review it. What do we have. Okay. That the application for minor variants file number D108 2026 for the property located at 900 and 908 Division Street. Be amended by revising condition 12. Privacy fencing in exhibit A to report number COA 260 to redist follows. That existing fencing and vegetation along the interior and rear lot lines be retained. We're feasible with the proposed site works. We're replacement fencing is required new fencing at a minimum of 1. 8 metres in height in accordance with the city's fence by a lot to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Is that okay? All right. So we want to take a vote on that. All in favor of the, uh, motion as amended. Sorry. Of the amendment. Yep. Raise your hands. And that is unanimously carried. And now we need to vote on the motion as amended. Uh, we already have that on the table. Lisa. Yeah. Okay. So any discussion on that motion. As amended. If not, all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that's unanimously carry. Thank you. Okay. That's that for 908. Moving along on the agenda, we are on item number nine, which is other business. We don't have any. There's no correspondence. The date of next meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 20th. Uh, at 5 30 p. m. And now we need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Vincent seconded by Doug all in favor, raised a physical hands. And that's unanimous. They carry the meeting as adjourned at 653 PM. Thanks everybody.