>> mayor paterson: ok so, ladies and gentlemen, we will call this meeting to order. mr. clerk, do we have a quorum? >> ms. clerk: yes, mayor paterson, we have quorum. >> mayor: ok, first we have committee of the whole--closed meeting.
>> ms. clerk: ok, we have a motion to waive the by-law to add a meeting--a closed session item. advise that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose, agreement with the attorney
general as outlined in the addendum. moved by deputy mayor stroud, seconded by councillor schell, that procedural by-law 2010-1 as amended be waived in order to amend the council agenda to add the closed session item entitled: advice that is subject
to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose, agreement with the attorney general as outlined in the addendum. >> mayor: please vote. and that carries. >> ms. clerk: moved by
councillor george, seconded by councillor neill, that council revolve itself into the meeting--to consider the following items: labour relations or employee negotiations, ontario nurses association. b, labour relations or employee
negotiations, canadian union of public employees. c, advice that is subject to necessary for that purpose and litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board--construction
contract disputes, 197 brock street, 266 bagot street, and 105 brock street. d, advice that is subject to agreement between the city of kingston and ministry of the attorney general. that carries. good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. say go, a knee, boo ju, wa chay ya, kway kway. as the mayor of the city of kingston, i offer these words in the spirit of this gathering. let us bring our good minds and hearts together as one to honour and celebrate these traditional
lands as a gathering place of the original peoples and their ancestors who were entrusted to care for mother earth since time immemorial. it is with deep humility that we acknowledge and offer our gratitude for their contributions to this community
having respect for all as we share the space now and walk side by side into the future. we were just meeting in we discussed a couple of labour relations, issues with respect to the ontario nurses association and the canadian union of public employees, and a
couple of items subject to including construction contract disputes at several addresses, and also regarding an agreement between the city and the ministry of the attorney general. so with that, i will ask for a motion to rise without
reporting. councillor allen, seconded by councillor holland, that council rise from the committee of the whole--closed meeting--without next, we have the approval of the addeds. we have, as noted, the additional item for our
and we have a report from planning committee as well as some other communications. can i have a mover, please, for the addeds? moved by councillor candon, seconded by councillor osanic. please vote. are there any disclosures of
potential pecuniary interest? councillor--or deputy mayor stroud. >> deputy mayor stroud: thank you, your worship. i, peter stroud, of the council of the corporation of the city of kingston declare my pecuniary interest in the matter of closed
meeting item no. 5, report 16-273 as i am a current member of the ontario nurses >> mayor: ok, thank you very much. councillor george. >> councillor george: thank you, your worship. i, kevin george, of the council
interest in the matter of clause 1, report no. 91 as my company has been retained by the applicant to provide survey services. councillor candon. >> councillor candon: thank you. and through you, with respect to the matter relating to report
no. 91, item 5, i have a professional legal opinion from a reputable local law firm with expertise in the municipal conflict of interest act stating that i do not have a pecuniary interest in this matter. i take these matters very seriously and did the extra work
to make sure that everything was--was done correctly. as such, i'll be voting on this matter this evening. seeing no other disclosures of pecuniary interest, we will move on. we have no presentations tonight.
we have no delegations. we have no briefings. are there any petitions to present? ok, seeing none, we have no motions of congratulations, recognition, sympathy, condolences, and speedy recovery.
we have no deferred motions. so, we will move right to reports. first, i will ask for report no. 90 from the cao. councillor hutchison, seconded by councillor mclaren, that report no. 90 from the chief administrative
officer--consent--be received and adopted. >> mayor: so, there is just the one item, a, so because there's one item, it has been separated. is there anybody that wishes to speak to it? councillor allen. >> councillor allen: thank you,
and through you, i just wanted to thank staff for their work on this. this is a creative approach and solution to get to an answer for our rfp. and i'm looking forward to a redevelopment that also brings a new company to kingston.
so, i think that that's a really great opportunity for us, so i hope--there's a lot of factors involved in this, but i hope it goes forward and that we can see a great redevelopment of an old building to contribute to our downtown and our inner harbour area.
so, i'm looking forward to passing this. >> mayor: thank you. councillor hutchison. >> councillor hutchison: i suppose i should say as the councillor for the district, i want to mirror the comments of councillor allen and say that
the thanks should go out to of course the staff who negotiated this and worked on this and the city's own generosity in making this deal work, and to raw design for taking part in it and proposing in good faith what they did--what they're proposing to do.
and i would say that i've heard nothing but positive response from this, and i think it's a good thing we're doing here. thanks very much. >> mayor: deputy mayor stroud. i'd like to agree with my esteemed colleagues on this matter that have spoken.
it did not come at no cost to the city, but i would think that this is a positive outcome, and we're all hoping that this development will be everything that we hoped it could be by the looks of it. and they have my full support as well.
deputy mayor, will you take the chair? >> deputy mayor stroud: i take the chair, your worship, and it's your turn to speak. so, i was very clear when this issue first came up to council. i believe it was back in 2014. i had real concerns about the
amount of money that this was going to cost us. and it wasn't because there wasn't some value in the building but because the building was in such bad condition. i was concerned about where this road would take us.
so, it's unfortunate that it has cost us more than i think we would have hoped, but like the councillors that have spoken around the table, it's very clear to me that this is the best option moving forward. yes, we are selling this building for a dollar.
we would have liked to have sold it for more. but it's gonna cost us a lot more to hang on to. so, it's very clear to me that we are where we are today and that moving forward this is definitely the best option that's in front of us.
and so, again, i'm happy to support and would encourage council to do the same. thank you. you, your worship, and you may have the chair back. seeing no other speakers, we will call the vote. report no. 91 from planning
committee. >> councillor schell: thank you, mayor paterson. i'm pleased to report--to present report no. 91 from the planning committee for council's consideration. councillor schell, seconded by councillor neill, that report
no. 91 from the planning committee be received and adopted. >> mayor: so, there are five items in report no. 91. no. 1 has been separated because of councillor george's conflict. no. 5 has been separated because it was a recommendation that was
lost on a tie. would anyone like to separate either items 2, 3, or 4? councillor boehme. >> councillor boehme: yes, item 3, please, your worship. >> mayor: item 3. councillor schell. >> councillor schell: item 4,
please. >> mayor: ok, so we will do each of the items individually. so, first we will call the vote on item 1, approval of an application for zoning by-law amendment, 40 crescent drive. item 2 is approval of an amendment, 3955 pine grove road.
item 3, approval of an amendment, 297 gore road. >> councillor boehme: thank you, to briefly speak to this 'cause there's a great little park in behind there--buckingham park. and it's a little gem of a park. one of the problems is it doesn't really have any true
road frontage. so, what this is essentially gonna do is it's gonna take a section of the available land there and basically bring that park out to the corner so it will come more visible. it'll actually have some road frontage on a corner.
so, more people will be aware of it. the other thing it'll do is section off some remainder of that land which will, i believe, be row houses or potentially row houses which is also in keeping with what's already existing there.
so, this is a great use of getting some parkland back and actually being able to put some more taxpayers as well in the area that can benefit from that. so, i hope everybody supports i don't think it's controversial at all. i think it's just good planning
and good common sense. so we will call the vote on item 3. item 4, approval of official plan update. i wish to move deferral of this clause that clause 4 of report no. 91 received from the planning committee be deferred
and referred back to staff in order to allow staff an opportunity to understake--undertake a final round of public engagement on the proposed changes to the five-year update of the city of kingston official plan. and that's moved by myself and
seconded by councillor neill. >> mayor: ok, thank you. so, debate is only with respect to time or place. seeing no comments, we will call the vote. item no. 5, approval of an application for proposed amendment to the brownfields
community improvement plan, 223 princess street. mr. clerk, can i see you for a moment? ok, so item no. 5 has been split into two parts. so, we will deal with them separately. so, first--
ok, so item 5 has been split into two parts, so we will first vote on the sec--on the first part which is with respect to the proposed amendment to the brownfields community improvement plan. and there will be a second vote with respect to the actual
amendment. so, with respect only to the first part, the brownfields community improvement plan. councillor neill. >> councillor neill: yes, i believe that this indeed passed unanimously at planning. the planning committee was in
full support of our brownfields policy which i'm proud of. over the years, it's been adopted by many other communities as well. and it's a very forward-looking policy. similarly, we supported the notion, the principle, of
community benefit because that--there's been frustration over the years with some developments being approved well beyond the existing zoning allowance for density with no benefits accruing to the community. so, that i believe passed
unanimously as well. and that's a--i believe is a good principle to adopt. but that section clearly from what our planners have said and what the planning act says, does not mean that it should influence our decision around land use planning.
and that's why those three of us who voted in favour of both brownfield and the community benefits program indeed voted against the proposal based on land use planning and the existing op and zoning. so, just to give that clarity because it may seem strange that
we're saying yes to two things and no to something else. but thank you. is there anybody else that wishes to speak just to this first section? seeing none, we will call the vote then. now on the approval of an
amendment, 223 princess street. would anyone like to speak to this? >> councillor schell: sure, i'll start. i would like to tell you my process for deciding on my--on the proposal for 223 princess street.
>> mayor: councillor schell, i'm just going to--i'm just going to pause there. >> councillor schell: ok. >> mayor: the clerk has reminded me that because the recommendation lost on a tie vote, we need a mover and a seconder to put it on the floor.
so, can i have a mover? so moved by councillor schell, seconded by councillor turner. so now the recommendation is on the floor. councillor schell, my apologies. i will start your five minutes over again. >> councillor schell: oh, i
don't need five minutes. this building will not change the gorgeous view down queen street that ends at the water and across the way to rmc. this building is not on the waterfront. it has always saddened me that this gorgeous city hall is
flanked by an 18-storey condominium that blocks our this building is in the heart of lower downtown without being right on princess street. it will fill a huge empty lot and see an important heritage faã§ade restored. the only heritage aspect of this
site. from this building, people can walk to everything that makes for a happy, sustainable life. two major grocery stores, clothing shops, restaurants, and bars at all price points. the grand theatre and the other venues for live entertainment
are close. artillery park, the main library, city hall, main post office, doctors, dentists, lawyers are all within walking distance. you could put a lightweight kayak on your back and walk to doug fluhrer park for an
afternoon paddle in the bay. the kingston school of art is a 15-minute walk away. a person living there can walk or bike to confederation park, turn right, take the waterfront trail to the rideau trail and head to ottawa. turn left and walk to the
hopefully soon-to-exist waterfront trail around classic arms to the kick 'n' push trail and join the transcanada trail. work life. cfb kingston is a half-hour walk. queen's and kgh, 20 minutes.
hotel dieu hospital and ohip are five minutes away. what an opportunity to live and work without a car. a major bus terminal is around the corner. last but not least, our staff have worked very closely with this applicant.
they have spent over a year refining the terms of the building using their professional tools to encourage changes that have made this an even better building in terms of look, acceptable height, and the chance for some very exiting community benefits.
i respect their professionalism. i realize this wasn't all planning issues, but it's very much a political statement about, for me, sustainability, walkability. many of the things that we have been concentrating on at this council.
and i will vote in favour of this project. >> councillor neill: yes. couple of comments. i know that we received an addendum to our addendum just before the beginning of planning committee which included something that somehow wasn't in
the earlier report for whatever reason. and we had shadowing studies done for spring, summer, and fall equinox, but we didn't for the winter equinox. and that in fact shows that central school virtually for most of the school day will be
deep shadow. that both the armoury and artillery park would also be in so that--for whatever reason, we didn't have that information previously, but i just wanna bring it to everybody's attention. the--the other thing, and i
mentioned this at the planning committee--i probably annoyed everybody at that meeting because indeed people who are suggesting four-to-six storeys, that isn't what the zoning says. that isn't what the official plan says. it doesn't talk about storeys
it talks about metres. and the metres that are allowed would, for residential, allow just under eight storeys residential, as i understand it. several people have spoken to me about how anna lane at nine storeys isn't a negative impact on the community.
so, i think--i think those suggest to me that--that this developer could have developed eight, nine, or ten storeys with far less community pushback that we're getting with the proposed 15--actually, 16 storeys when you count the top. so for that reason, i voted
against it at planning, and i'll be voting against it again >> mayor: thank you, councillor mclaren. >> councillor mclaren: thank i believe that kingston is unique and that there are many things that make us unique. however, we face a serious
question and that is how do we keep ourselves unique? there are at least two strategies to maintaining our cultural-built heritage. we can preserve its look and feel as close as it was to when it was built. this is a strategy that's
followed, for example, by paris, rome, and quã©bec city. or we can juxtapose it with new redevelopment and examples of this would be halifax and london. both can work, but which is better for kingston? mixing the old and the new
through juxtaposition is easy. it can just happen. one mistake or one moment of missed vigilance, and the city's almost forced to go down that juxtaposition route. that is why the strategy is so commonplace in north america. however, might our uniqueness be
better served by our own exclusive and particular heritage protection strategy? i believe that the greatest value in the short and the long term for kingston is in the second option. to be more like paris and less like london.
this seems to be the choice that kingston made when we first instituted the height restriction in the downtown and harbour area by-law. is this by-law still relevant? yes, of course it is. the by-law was arrived at with broad public support, and it
still clearly has brought public support. this by-law is a powerful contributor to the quality of place that we enjoy in our downtown. it ensures the investment that many have put into preserving our downtown does not get
wasted. many have invested in a vibrant quality of place that is defined by its surroundings. surroundings are the greatest contributor to a sense of place. any business person knows how much effort they put into creating a sense of place for
their business. i ask you to recall how much effort you put into transforming your house or your apartment into your home. we all do strongly value a sense of place. the concreteness and the stability of a consistent sense
of place provides the soil for intergenerational connections through the organic lived experience that links us to our parents and our ancestors who shared this place. this is in contrast to sterile and monstrous sideboard-like juxtapositions that rend the
organic growth cutting off our roots to our lived connections to our past. if these lived experiences and connections to our roots--it is these lived and connect--experiences and connections to our roots that contribute meaningfully to the
authenticity of our city and the uniqueness of our public life. these lived experiences provide a sense of belonging to a place that helps fulfill an inner need for security, permanence, and a source of personal identity. tearing up these connections from our collective experience
is unhelpful in building a shared relevance or deep roots within our community and within our city. the law, when directed at the common good, is a guardian of our collective traditions, values, and expectations. the law provides a thread that
binds our community's past to our present and to our future in a tapestry of collective experience. in this sense, the law is to the community what our character is to each of us, a very significant part of who we are and how others see us.
so, what face do we wanna put on the character of our city for the next hundred years? if our city's architecture is just like every other city, then that is just one less reason to come to kingston. kingston's current by-law allows for three to four times the
height and massing of most existing buildings. the by-law's intensification allowances are also huge. it provides for managed, orderly and expanded growth. the by-law allows for the protection and enhancement of our cultural and built assets.
these are all the good things we want in good measure. in short, i believe our current downtown zoning by-law finds the best balance between long lists of competing intentions, interests, and desires. i see the law as a limit to audacity, not as an anchor point
to negotiate new levels of audacity. to me, the reasons given for amending the by-law seem to be examples of reason run amuck. reason blinded from reality. and the cure for that is to get out of the imaginary world and into the real world.
and open your eyes-- >> mayor: 30 seconds. >> councillor mclaren: open your eyes and see. simply put, the building is just too tall. i therefore, have not yet been provided with a good reason to unbalance the by-law or adjust
the height element in the by-law. who else would like to speak? >> councillor hutchison: thank i think that--that this--this proposal that came before planning committee, a meeting i attended, the--and spoke at. this is a question of
intensification and density as a concern. and the problem for everyone is that everybody agrees on the principle. and no one--it's hard pressed to find anybody that disagrees. i think the number is probably close to zero.
so, the other part of it is that what this turns on is whether we--how much weight, how much importance, we give to the historical heritage architectural and aesthetic neighbourhood conditions that this proposal has presented we'll have.
plus the precedent-setting aspects which are not allowed to be spoken of in planning terms but are certainly alive out there in economic terms. so, as was partly alluded to in the previous comments, the 1996 by-law took in a great deal of public consultation and tried to
balance all the community considerations and interests involved. and it also anticipated--and this seems to get lost--it anticipated intensification because the surrounding area is two to three storeys high, and what is allowed is--by the
by-law is approximately eight storeys or 25.5 metres. so, when i asked--when this first came up at planning, i said we should go back to the 1996 by-law, find out what the arguments were, and--pro and con, and assess the by-law accordingly in the light of the
proposal. this was not received by staff and--and i was given the answer that what has changed is intensification. but as i said, the by-law already anticipates that there would need to be intensification of a certain degree.
and that's the issue at hand here. and how those different values get balanced out. and what concerns me most of all here is that the building is outsized for the area that it's in. it's twice as big as the by-law
allows. originally proposed, it was far more than that. it was 2.4 times as much. it also concerns me that it could create a following precedent of contextual--what's been called "contextual precedent" where a developer
could say, "well, you gave me x--you gave so-and-so x, so i would like x." and probably x plus. staff is constrained in the sense they have to say every proposal is taken on so merits, but after ten years on council, it doesn't seem to actually work
that way. so, that's what concerns me. and because it's already been put to me by the other developers that, you know, "hey, what about that? how come i can't get this?" and that has some effect in the process.
so, i think that this is why i'm--i'm not gonna vote for it's not just about the it's about the implications of the proposal. and what kind of city in that city you want. and i'll--and i'll come to an end about an anecdote.
after we had a meeting here, can't remember which one, i was introduced to these folks from north carolina. >> councillor hutchison: and they said--they're from wilmington, i think it was. and they said--i said, "so, what's up?"
and i said, "oh, we have this issue here" and i mentioned the capital and the other proposal we're dealing with. and i said, "this is the size." and they said, "oh no, don't do that." so, the economic development ideas: intensification increase
economic consumption. one building will not solve that. two buildings, three buildings, four buildings will not solve so, there are other ways to do councillor holland. >> councillor holland: thank for reasons very similar to the
ones expressed by my colleague councillor hutchison, i won't be supporting this proposal. i guess i'd also just like to draw attention to another one of your strategic priorities. we've talked a little bit about well, a lot. we've all thought a lot about it
in relation to this building, and walkability as councillor schell has brought up. some of the ideas that we floated around when we had our session to sketch out the four years that we had ahead of us as a council. and we also talked about open
government and transparency and public consultation. and that is a priority that i value a great deal. i think we've done a tremendous job working towards that over the few years that we've been on council so far in this term. and though i think we're at risk
of--of failing in our objectives, ultimately, if we fail to gain the trust of residents and those who are speaking out on this issue, for example, who have said over and over again from all across the city that they do not support the size, the height of this
building. so for that reason, and to ensure that the consultations that we--that we undertake as a city will continue to grow in the degree of meaningful participation, i'm going to do what the overwhelming majority of the public has asked me to
do, and that is to vote against this proposal. and through you, i just wanna touch base on three reasons as to why i'm gonna support this project. the social, economic, and environmental benefits that come with it.
we always like to talk about how we want to reduce green gas emissions, today we actually get to vote on that and actually do it in a meaningful way. we're gonna allow people to have greater access to public transit--transit, people will be walking more.
we're creating buildings or a building that has new insulation. many people criticize some of our downtown buildings. they say, "you can't hold a--you can't have a lit candle in the buildings 'cause they're so drafty that the candle will blow
out." newly insulated, new construction buildings are good for our constituents. shared walls have lower utility costs. and new constructions means that these buildings are gonna be--or this particular building is
gonna be filled with things like new appliances that require less energy and are better for the environment. people say we don't have enough people per kilometre in our city which means that may have an influence on our taxes. we may be paying too much in
taxes because we don't have the right density. this should be a high priority for a community that says they wanna be a sustainable city. from a social perspective, this creates affordable living spaces i don't think downtown should be just a place for rich people to
live. increased heights keeps the cost of housing down and keeps rent rates down. nobody seems to wanna talk about that when we talk about our official plan. instead they talk about how many bricks are stacked too high and
how it drives--how that frustrates them. i really feel that the constituents are really being overlooked when we have these conversations. we--instead when we look at a building like this, we should be looking at the fact that 50% of
canadian homeowners only have $10,000 of accessible cash to them at any given time or 40% of canadians have less than $1,000 in their bank account. that means that affordable housing is very important. and designing a city where people can live affordably is
very important. and i feel that these people are being overlooked. this--if we support a project like this, we're creating an environment where people can live without vehicles which are very expensive. they'll have more affordable
purchase prices on their home. they'll have utility costs that are lower because of new construction technologies. and i think these people need our help. i think we should give them a hand. from an economic perspective,
kingston--i feel that kingston is in dire need for an uplifter in our downtown. let's fill it with people. let's get rid of our vacancy signs. let's rejuvenate these derelict abandoned buildings and turn them into places where people
live and spaces for the arts. let's make these places where people thrive instead of a place where dust collects. our downtown business has said that it's very important--which is a very important asset in our city, many would call it the heart of our city, and to--they
say that we need intensification so, to vote against contrary to their recommendations seems very counterintuitive to me. our taxpayers have made a huge investment in the big dig, and we made big investments and have had a lot of momentum with the k-rock centre.
and i think we need to capitalize on the investments that we've made in our downtown. the--this project goes with our goals of sustainability. we're increasing public transit; we're lowering our green gas emissions; we're making a walkable community; we're
lowering our burden on the taxpayers; we're constructing a city in an economically and responsible way; we're creating an inclusive community that does not cater to the rich. and--and it is worth noting that this building is actually three storeys shorter than other
buildings in our downtown core. our downtown needs new life. let's give it some and let's get excited about it. and through you, i just have a few questions. some lingering from planning committee a couple weeks ago and also from some of the things
that my colleagues have said today. one of it is about shadowing. so my understanding was that when we look at shadowing, we're--part of how we arrived at this height was that the impacts of the shadowing were a lot less than previous--previous
iterations. what--what are the impacts of the shadowing in terms of this? are we going to be put--overshadowing a school for much of the year in shadow? >> mayor: ms. venditti. >> ms. venditti: thank you. through you, your worship, with
respect to the shadowing, we had studies that illustrated fall and spring shadows for the 20-storey building, for a 17-storey building, and for the 16-storey building that's currently being recommended. the study that was submitted and included in the addendum was a
winter equinox submission, so it showed the worst-case scenario in terms of shadowing in the winter months. so, it was looking at the long--or the shortest day of the year, sorry, december 21st. there were shadows being cast on the schoolyard through that
study. some of those shadows were from the senior citizens apartment that's right there. the shadowing from this building hit the schoolyard around 1:00 in the afternoon. but given the time of year that that shadowing is forecasted to
happen, it's likely that the children aren't likely to be in school given that it's the shortest day of the year, december 21st. and it's a minimal impact in terms of it's only for an hour or two. >> councillor allen: and we--and
how long could we expect that--so would that be spread out over a month either direction or a couple weeks? how do we--how do we know when that sort of shift takes place? >> ms. venditti: through you, your worship, the days get longer after december 21st, so
it would be a couple of weeks. a short time period. maybe a month. >> councillor allen: ok, thank you. one of the things that in the second peer review document from era that many people have pointed out is the--is the floor
plate, and the floor plate recommendations that larger cities have in their tall building guidelines. and we're not following that recommendation here. and i'm wondering why we took that route in sort of ignoring that advice from our peer review
document? >> mayor: ms. agnew. >> ms. agnew: thank you. and through you, your worship, so certainly we didn't--we didn't ignore the recommendation. we did have a look at all of the recommendations that came
forward in the peer review and assessed them based on not only the viability of the suggestion but also from a policy framework, whether it was something that we had the ability to require of the applicant or whether we did not. so, as a recommendation coming
from the city of toronto tall building guidelines, again we wanted to consider the context by which those recommendations and those guidelines were created for the city of toronto and look at where they would be similar and dissimilar to the situation in the city of
kingston. so for example, in toronto where these guidelines are being applied mostly in the downtown core, the average building height that they're being approved with is 60 storeys. so, when you look at a 60-storey building with that floor plate
and the type of parcel fabrics that they're being approved upon, it's a very different situation, to some extent, from the city of kingston. so, we wanted to look at that, the comparability to the situation. and then more importantly, we
needed to look to our policy framework which currently doesn't have any type of policy articulation that would give us the guidance and the ability to make it a requirement of any applicant. our documents currently right now are silent with respect to
any kind of limitation or guidance with respect to floor plate of buildings. so for those reasons, staff--we did have discussions about reducing the floor plate with the applicant, but we could not make it a requirement. >> councillor allen: ok, just a
couple more questions. thanks for sharing that. i have some things to say about but i wanted to know--my colleagues have mentioned that--the zoning by-law is quite clear about height. and so, i'm wondering, you know, given the sort of lack of
direction in our policy documents about floor plate, where do we--where do we have in our policy documents that we could even consider something above this height? it's very clear in some of the language in our official plan about protecting cultural
heritage, landscape, human scale. those are things that we see in our email inbox every day for the last few weeks. and so, i'm wondering how we could consider this in our--if it's clear in the zoning by-law that this height exists.
so from a policy perspective, when we're looking at analyzing any type of development proposal, there's a series of policies that we look at. we look at the provincial policy statement from a high-level overarching perspective. that then focuses on our
and then down to the implementing zoning that is assigned to the particular parcel in question. so, while the zoning on the property does have height restriction of 25.5 metres and it was already mentioned, so that was developed at part of
the zoning by-law for the downtown area that was established in 1996. our 2010 official plan that was created several years after, it has a very broad and overarching look at the development that we wanna pursue for the city. so, we have to look at all of
the policy sections of the official plan and there's numerous. it's not just one policy here and there. we have to look at them comprehensively as a holistic document. but specifically when you look
at section 10.8.4, i believe it is, in the official plan, it speaks to the lower princess heritage character area, and it gives some real specific guidance with respect to development in this area. but it also provides an exemption policy which states
that notwithstanding any of the other provisions above, taller builders are allowed in this area of the city subject to going through the compatibility criteria and the policy tests that are used to determine whether or not the building can be compatible at the height and
massing that's proposed in and above the zoning by-law. so for that reason, we do--we do have to consider proposals that come in. even though they don't meet the zoning that was established in 1996, the 2010 official plan does have that enabling policy
for us to look at potential exemptions to those heights subject to the compatibility of criteria being fulfilled and met. >> councillor allen: sorry, just to--just to repeat that briefly. the official plan supersedes the zoning by-law and so therefore
because it says we can--someone can bring an urban design study to prove that a--a building of taller nature can fit here, we have to consider it? is that essentially what you're saying? >> ms. agnew: well, from a planning perspective, we have to
give consideration to any development proposal that comes in at any time. and we have to go through the process of evaluating whether it's something that staff can support or not. but based on the exemption policy that's in the official
plan, that gives the ability for us to look at a development proposal that--that may exceed the zoning without amendment to the official plan which is why you don't see an amendment to the official plan included as part of the detailed so, we're really talking about
the zoning by-law. i think that's all i've got for questions. i'll just take one short minute to say that it seems to me that, you know, this has been considered fairly deeply and across many policies by our staff.
i think we have some language and we have some guidelines and we have some vision as a city about what we wanna see, but we don't necessarily have the framework to implement that and to implement some of the vision that we've been hearing from folks.
we don't have a downtown secondary plan that guides development. we don't--no, we have a--we have a design architecture guideline study, i believe, right? secondary plan? and through you matter--mayor paterson, so no we don't.
so, we do have the downtown architectural guidelines, and they essentially have informed official plan policy, but they are a set of guidelines which is different than an actual policy. >> councillor allen: ok, and so then--so we--i'm looking forward to the zoning by-law
comprehensive process because we're gonna be able to put in a lot of these discussions in and we're gonna be able to maybe aim for the types of heights that are uniform or move in a certain direction so that it feels like a natural evolution of a city.
because i think the biggest concern that we all have, whether we're for this or against this, is that development is becoming ad hoc. it's becoming, you know, sort of in a place, in another place, and there's no sort of natural evolution.
and we need to build that study-- >> councillor allen: thank you. --build that work. i think a lot of work has gone into making this fit in here. and i think that this building will benefit and fits in our--our downtown.
and that's not to say i haven't had concerns about it and that i embrace it fully. but i certainly will be watching and working with the developer to make sure that these concerns that we all have are met going forward. >> mayor: thank you very much.
and through you, i think it's pretty plain to see around this table that we can all pretty much agree we need densification and intensification in our and yet, we need to somehow do this without expanding the urban boundary which we refer to all the time.
there's been huge dollars invested in active transportation in kingston as a sustainable city. there's also been a massive investment in transit. and now is the time, essentially, to leverage these investments, to get the return
on the tax dollars that we've invested here for the taxpayers. so, we need these tax dollars to be available to purchase parkland. and we've recently realized that those funds, parkland reserve funds, they eventually dry up if you don't put more money back
into them. we need these dollars to maintain and save other heritage properties that are gonna come up available on the market, and the current ones that we already have. so, we need to do this by increasing the number of
ratepayers that we have rather than increasing overall tax dollars because we can all probably agree that the tax burden on our residents, whether it's municipal, provincial, or federal, is getting to the point where people are having to choose between food and the
ability to live and function. another point about that is currently i look up there and i see no one's actually using that air space, so what an opportunity here. this project has gone from-- [laughter] >> councillor boehme: yes, thank
you for laughing. that's very respectful. appreciate that. this project is essentially how we attain livable, restored, vibrant heritage rather than a decaying train station example that i can think of. and yes, it can be heritage and
be left to rot and decay and it will still be heritage, but nobody's saving it. that's the problem. this is how we take a storefront. and we talk about human scale, well, you know what, when you're walking down there and you see
that building, and you look at the storefront and it's restored, you're gonna think, "wow, that's amazing." and yes, there may be--there may be an initial building in the background, but there's lots of examples of sparks street in ottawa where these things exist,
and they fit. they're blended. this is modernization. this is where the city is going to eventually go to. the provincial policy statement says that cities over 100,000 need to grow. we have an urban boundary; we
that's a fact. the way we save these properties for future generations is not by leaving them vacant and decaying, but it's by being creative in our approaches. and blending heritage with a modern building and by having more people living and working
and contributing to a thriving so, when it comes to intensification and densification, which i believe we can all agree on that we need, within our urban boundary, let's not be scared of our own shadows. and that's why i'll be
supporting this. next on my list is councillor turner. >> councillor turner: thank you. and through you, mayor paterson, there's a lot of things to talk about tonight, and a lot of you have commented on a lot of the issues that i think are very
important concerning this i'd like to talk a little bit about taxes that councillor boehme discussed earlier, and i'd like to say that residential development provides the most reliable tax source. so, if we're gonna look at this building, for example, the taxes
for this building originally were $92,867.38. we're gonna take that to approximately, if i've done my math correctly, about $700,000 to $800,000 a year that we're gonna generate on that particular site. so, that's gonna go to providing
our--our city, as councillor boehme said, with a lot more money to buy and build other things. so, i think it's a win-win also, if you look at it, we're going to increase jobs with the construction. kathy woods did an economic
impact study. approximately 400 full-time employee years through about 400 mil--40--no sorry, $43 million in economic impact. also the intensification of the downtown will increase the vibrancy and the cultural activity of the people that live
down there. so, it's a win-win. i think we have to go forward with this. we have to change the culture and our thinking and move to the future. so, i'm in favour of this councillor osanic.
>> councillor osanic: thank you, i feel that 15 storeys is too high. it's twice what the city's official plan recommends. and it's five times higher than the standard buildings in the surrounding blocks. there's many experts on heritage
and the community who oppose this proposal, including the frontenac heritage foundation. we want intensification downtown but not at any cost. an eight-storey condo would have given us intensification. we had residents send us examples of mid-rise
intensifications in toronto. toronto, the land of skyscrapers. so, if we look at these condos, right, here's one that was sent to us at yonge street and davisville. eight storeys tall only, right at a subway stop.
we have another one on--at 510 king street east which has the streetcar right at its front door. it's only seven storeys. we have one on adelaide street west which is right downtown, ten storeys. so, condos don't always have to
be skyscrapers and high-rises. if the proposal had been eight storeys, we would still be doubling the current density in this area. and we wouldn't be debating this tonight as planning amendments would not have been necessary. the developer could have built
the condo by now in this time of having two revisions and two public meetings. and section 9.5.9 of the official plan, it says that when a council's considerations is item h, "the degree to which the proposal creates a precedent." i do not wanna corrode the
city's ability to say no in the future to every other development that might be too large. there's no doubt that this proposal will set a precedent for future developments. anna lane condominiums. options for home at queen and
bagot is nine floors. it is modestly half the size of i don't hear any complaints about its size. anna lane is the current development that i would like used as a precedent for the downtown area south of division anyone else that wishes to
speak? deputy mayor stroud. how exciting. people of kingston, your worship, esteemed colleagues, we're currently tied five in favour, five against. three people to speak including myself.
no matter what the--the outcome, it looks like we're kind of going into overtime here. the essential just of my argument is almost identical to councillor osanic's. i don't wanna repeat what she said. thank you for giving us such
amazing examples in the land of skyscrapers where an eight- or nine-storey development can work and be profitable. i think it's a myth that it can't be. i've said it publicly, basically they're seeking--they initially sought 20 and now it's 16 and
the height limit is 8. what we're arguing about is storeys 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. that portion that's above the height limit described in the before i go any further, i'd like--your worship, i'd like to ask a question of the director
of planning. it has to do with the heritage element. can you explain the difference between a heritage district in the ontario heritage act and the language in the official plan that describes this area? so this area is identified as
the lower st. lawrence ward. and what the official plan says about it is it identifies it as a character area, something that's worth further exploration from the city's perspective. so, it doesn't have any heritage status right now. it hasn't been evaluated against
criteria and our section 906 of the heritage act. so, it hasn't gone through that evaluative process say as sydenham ward or barriefield, for example. it's--it's a note in the official plan that simply says this is an area that has some
historic relevance, particularly in terms of the age of the structures. that there could be some character there and it's worth the city evaluating at a future date. but it doesn't really get into any other detail than that.
yeah, so the heritage character has been covered by the dozens and dozens if not hundreds of emails that we've all received from people that value that however, there is no hard-and-fast heritage protection for this area. it sounds like maybe we should
be considering it. in the meantime, we've spoken about the precedent; we've spoken about what could be done here under the current rules without a zoning by-law amendment; we've made allusion to human scale; and i heard paris mentioned by councillor
i would just like to say that it's not just paris, the capital of france. there's the capital of belgium, the capital of denmark, the capital of holland, all have the same kind of human scale high, high density in their central areas.
and those neighbourhoods all are thriving. we have--we are so close to having that here in kingston. a little bit by historical fluke and a little bit by design. let's not give up on it now, we're so close. but most importantly, let's
listen to the people that are speaking to us. the people across the downtown in my district, in councillor neill's district, in councillor hutchison's district, the downtown areas of the city are overwhelmingly against this it is very clear.
and it's not just from the emails, it's anyone you talk to on the street. the only ones in favour are ones with a direct vested interest in the project or ones that have invested by buying a unit or ones that stand to gain by increased development in the
that is clear. we will be letting the people of downtown kingston down in a really big way if we pass this the developer is able to do it within more modest limits. and, your worship, i really encourage you to not turn your back on the people of the
they're looking for leadership on this. they need us to stick by our by-laws. our by-laws are what give the public trust in their elected officials. and we're about to turn our back on them for some kind of quick
fix that may or may not be we can get there with two eight-storey buildings. we do not need one 16-storey we don't need it. please vote against it. just a couple of questions. one to staff. the recommendation that's before
us, do you feel that this recommendation, if supported, is--could be supported at the omb should it go that--an appeal process be started on this project? >> mr. agnew: thank you. and through you, yes absolutely. planning staff, i would never
put my name on a report as a professional planner that i didn't feel could be fully supported at the ontario municipal board. >> councillor george: thank you. i've been down this road before and i know--i think it's been a while since we got this type of
it goes back to block d when we had a great deal of discussion and public meetings on what was gonna happen with that block over a number of years. and i know people this evening are comparing what we should or shouldn't be doing with our downtown to cities like paris,
toronto, london. but the fact is this is the city of kingston. there are some similarities, but there are a lot of differences between what the city of kingston currently has available in lands of use and policies and such compared to some of these
other cities across the world. i put a lot of reliance in--in our city staff when they do a job that we've asked them to do through the planning committee when it comes to advising us as elected officials to assist us in making decisions on whether these are good or bad planning
proposals. we do hear from the community. we know there's a number of community members that dislike this particular proposal. and there are others out there who dislike many other proposals that come forward. but at the end of the day, the
question i always ask myself is what is being recommended to us--the elected officials--by those we have hired to do their job? is it defensible at the omb or in a court of law? and stop laughing. you think this is pretty funny.
this is a problem we have. so for me, if this is defensible, and i can assure you--i don't believe for a minute, and i heard this on the television news the other night, that this has split our community down the middle. which i think is a real crock,
guys. you shouldn't have stated that. there's 124,000 people stated on the signage in this community. we've heard from maybe 100 to 150 either opposed to or in favour of this particular application. but there are a lot of people
out there in the community that we all represent who are allowing us to do our job based on the advice that we're receiving and doing the job that we feel is in their best interest as community--you know, people that are involved in the and it takes in a huge area.
i've heard from a lot of people on the street, as deputy mayor stroud mentioned. and i've heard both who are very opposed to it, and they've let me know about it. and i've also heard from many that--that support it who use the downtown a great deal even
though they may live in the outskirts. but they love the downtown of kingston, as most of us do. that's why, you know, we support--we support a lot of what takes place in our downtown and have for years, and we'll continue to do that.
so, i guess the only thing i would offer is that i'm gonna vote in favour of this. there's probably--in my opinion, it could have been done better, possibly. i'm not gonna say that because i'm not a planner; i'm not an architect; i don't--i'm not a
financial expert. i don't know what it takes to make these things happen, that it's viable for people to come in and develop these types of projects. but on the advice of our staff, i'm gonna have to support this because the last thing i wanna
do is spend another $55,000 or $60,000 of taxpayers' money to lose at the ontario municipal board. and we've already lost two appeals in this term of council to the tune of roughly $115,000 to the taxpayers that we knew were--we couldn't defend
against. and this is another example of where we could end up in that same situation. but i'm going to act on their advice and support the there is only one member of council that has not spoken. chair, please.
>> deputy mayor stroud: you have this is a very important decision. it is good that we have had the level of debate and discussion that we have had in our community over the last year. i think it has been a shining example of civic engagement.
and to some degree, i wish we got this much level of input on all of the issues that we talk about. it is polarizing. most of the people that i talk about--that i've talked to about this issue, they have a gut reaction to it.
either a gut positive reaction, "that makes a lot of sense. we need to invest in our downtown." or they have a gut negative reaction, "it just wouldn't fit." and i think it's important to say that i respect opinions on
both sides. there's no easy answer here. it's not that one side is absolutely right and the other side should be dismissed. there are pros and cons that need to be weighed. this is a difficult decision. it's difficult because of the
location. if we were talking about a 15-storey building that was located somewhere in the west end, we wouldn't have all had an hour debate about it. we would have all approved it. development that had the tower right on the streetscape of
princess street, again, we probably would be in agreement. we'd probably all vote no. i would. it's about queen street. so, what sort of redevelopment do we imagine there? and in my view, queen street has such promise for redevelopment
that can bring new vitality to the commercial core on princess in my view, taller buildings on queen street can sustain your independent retailer on princess that is why so many people across the community that i have spoken to are in favour of this. granted, many people are opposed
as well. but i do take issue with a couple of comments that say that the overwhelming number of residents are opposed. well, i have talked to many people that are also very much in favour of this because they love the downtown and they are
worried that if we cling too hard to the status quo, if we cling to hard to what we have, we will lose it. so, we have an opportunity to invest in change. and i believe that this is the right kind of change. to councillor mclaren's point, i
am absolutely in favour of the mix of the old and the new. kingston is the city where history and innovation thrive. not the city where history thrives, not the city where innovation thrives. the city where history and innovation thrive together.
this is an opportunity to invest in our downtown and make it stronger than ever before. i'm also in favour of balance. staff have worked on this for over a year to try to get that balance. we are trying to strike a balance between concerns about
heritage but also our goals for sustainability, our goals to--for walkability, our goals for intensification. and as the director of planning said earlier tonight, you can't just look at one section of the official plan or one section of the policy, you have to look at
everything as a whole. and when you look at everything as a whole, in my view, this development strikes that so for that reason, i will vote in favour and ask council to do the same. >> deputy mayor stroud: and you >> mayor: so with that, we will
call the vote. and that carries by a vote of 7-6. report no. 92 from heritage who has report no. 92 from heritage kingston? >> deputy mayor stroud: sorry, your worship, i was daydreaming. yes, report no. 92 from heritage
it is my pleasure to rise and present it to council for moved and seconded. >> ms. clerk: moved by deputy mayor stroud, seconded by councillor schell, that report no. 92 from heritage kingston be received and adopted. one item.
approval of heritage property grant applications, 428 princess street and 34 sydenham street. we'll call the vote. report no. 93 from planning it's my pleasure to present report no. 93 from the planning committee for council's thanks.
no. 93 from the planning >> mayor: there's just the one clause. approval of an application for zoning by-law amendment, 113 raglan road. we will call the vote. there's nothing from committee of the whole.
we do have two information if you have questions, just raise your hands. no. 1, tender and contract awards subject to the established criteria for delegation of authority for the month of july 2016. no. 2, brownfield program
overview, 2005-2016. ok, there are no information reports from members of council. no miscellaneous business. we'll move on to new motions and ask that the deputy mayor take the chair, please. >> deputy mayor stroud: i will have to look on my colleague's
because the internet is out and i don't have access to the digital version. so, moved by mayor paterson, seconded by councillor holland, whereas the tragically hip held its last concert of its man machine poem tour in kingston on august 20, 2016; and whereas the
city of kingston held a community celebration event in springer market square in partnership with the cbc, kingston accommodation partners, the great waterway, and the downtown kingston bia! to broadcast the concert; and whereas over 1--11.7 million
people across canada watched the concert live on the cbc and 25,000--or more--people gathered in springer market square and the rogers k-rock centre to celebrate this iconic band; and whereas since the show, there has been tremendous interest from residents in honouring the
band and their iconic august 20th show in kingston; and whereas the city approved a commemoration strategy which states that an event will only be considered for commemoration at least ten years after its conclusion; therefore be it resolved that notwithstanding
the commemoration strategy, council approve the commemoration of the tragically hip concert held in kingston on august 20th; and that council direct staff to commemorate the august 20th the tragically hip concert and city of kingston event by having a stone engraved
and a page added in the kingston remembers history flipbook within springer market square; and that this commemoration be funded through the existing recreation and leisure services capital budget. your worship, you have the chair--or you have the floor.
this--this motion came forward as a result of a number of people in the community that came forward after the august 20th concert, and came forward with a suggestion that we find a way to be able to commemorate what was clearly a night to remember in kingston, a night
that certainly was a great show of support for the tragically hip and a great opportunity for us to be able to join with canadians from coast to coast to be able to show how much we appreciate the tragically hip and certainly what they've done in our community.
so, this particular motion, of course, requires a council motion because we do have a commemorations policy that would say ordinarily we would have to wait ten years. but i think under the circumstances, i think that this deserves an exception.
this in my view is--was a once-in-a-generation event. and certainly we have an opportunity, i think, to show again our appreciation to all of the band members while we still can. with that, in order to move as quickly as possible, there is
actually an amendment that i would like to put forward if the clerk is able to put that on the screen. >> deputy mayor stroud: so there's an amendment from mayor paterson you see up there. i'll read it out, i guess. i read it?
yes. that new motion no. 1 be amended by adding the following three clauses immediately prior to the final clause. 1, that the design of the tragically hip square be completed by august 31, 2016 to allow staff to share the design
with the downtown kingston bia for consideration as part of their 2016 pewter ornament collection; and that staff be directed to consult with the public and the tragically hip on the design on the commemoration stone; and that staff be first capital place advisory
committee to finalize the commemoration location within springer market square; and--is there another clause or is that it? ok, so the last "and" is redundant. >> mayor: that's-- >> deputy mayor stroud: ok, so
to the amendment, your worship, you have the floor. so all i wanted to say here is that this amendment basically just speaks to a timeline so that we can move quickly on and secondly, it speaks to consultation. not only with the public but
also with the band themselves. and i think that that's critical. so, i do hope that we have council's support on that amendment as well. on the amendment only, does anyone wish to speak? ok, so seeing none, on the
amended motion as a whole, does oh, we have to vote on the amendment. that's right, sorry. i'm moving too fast. on the amendment, we will call and that passes unanimously. so back to the full motion as amended.
your worship has already spoken. did you wanna say anything else? does anyone else wish to speak to the motion as a whole? >> councillor neill: i just wanna again thank staff and the mayor's office for doing an excellent job on organizing it was a tremendous evening.
i was in market square along with 25,000 other people cheek to cheek. and the whole event was excellent. i know that the mayor's received a suggestion, as i have, from a citizen suggesting that perhaps some consideration for some 401
signage "kingston: the home of the tragically hip" might be a i know that we already have a couple of signs there. so we don't want a lot of sign pollution. but it might be something that's worth considering as well. >> deputy mayor stroud:
councillor neill, are you making an amendment or a friendly suggestion? >> councillor neill: suggestion. >> deputy mayor stroud: a suggestion, ok. so, we're still on the amended--the amended motion with the extra clauses.
on the amended motion? i actually have something to say, so, councillor schell, could you take the chair for a second? >> councillor schell: i'll take the chair and recognize you. i just wanted to say that i happened by coincidence to have
a conversation with rob baker this morning. >> deputy mayor stroud: and we--a portion of it was in public with other people listening, but after that going back to his electric vehicle and i to my scooter, we had a little other private conversation.
and he actually--it was quite touching. he volunteered with no questioning on my part--we sort of just mentioned the final tour and, you know, just chatting, and he said how proud he was to have seen after he came out of the arena how well things had
gone in market square. i mean, he didn't--he wasn't privy to that. he was on stage, right? and he expressed personal pride in that and being a part of and really--and thanked me and asked me to thank council. so i'm taking this opportunity
to basically thank all you guys on behalf of rob baker for the portion that city council put forward in--in helping that happen. everybody agrees it was a success story and i think the mayor's idea of commemorating it so soon after the fact is an
excellent idea and probably has the full support of the band members as well. hopefully we'll hear that from them in time. >> councillor schell: i'll return the chair. >> deputy mayor stroud: i got the chair back.
all right, anyone else? seeing none, i'll call the vote on the entire motion. well, that passes unanimously. great job, your worship. you have the chair back. >> mayor [laughing]: thank you very much. on to new motion no. 2, moved by
councillor neill, seconded by councillor holland, whereas asbestos is a well-known cancerous agent with increasing numbers of canadians facing serious health consequences due to exposure over the years; and whereas numerous countries around the world have legislated
an outright ban, and many cities across canada have passed motions calling for a complete ban in canada which the current federal government has promised; therefore be it resolved that the city of kingston endorses the complete banning of asbestos, and encourages the
canadian government to pass legislation as soon as possible; and that this motion be shared with mp mark gerretsen, prime minister justin trudeau, and all federal opposition party leaders. >> councillor neill: thank you just to mention, last night the
kingston district labour council passed a motion unanimously supporting this initiative. all kinds of other cities in--across canada have done a similar thing. it was something that was identified by the current government, and one of the
promises made, but at this time, there's no legislative timetable for when this is going to be brought in. and i think it's a very, very important initiative. all kinds of other countries around the world have passed outright bans.
there has been over the years some reluctance in canada because for many years, canada was the largest producer of asbestos. and so, there was some reluctance politically over the years to do anything about it. in fact, we've banned it in so
many applications in canada but we continue to import materials that have asbestos. and there's still some asbestos being used in canada as well. and this is attempting to address that. i--i have a very personal reason why i'm moving this motion as
my father was a chief petty officer engineer in the navy. and he took an early retirement in 1967 because of what was diagnosed at that time as bronchial asthma. he died at age 54 in 1984. and the autopsy read that he had died of acute asbestosis.
so, this is something that affects many, many canadians. and i think it's an important initiative for us to give the nudge to the federal government to bump this up on their priority list and to make this happen sooner. i believe that there is an
amendment that my seconder agreed to that adds a little bit more clarity to what we're requesting. >> mayor: can we just get that--can i just get that on my screen as well? >> mr. clerk: so, while we're putting it on the mayor's
screen, the amendment is the wording that you see in red. >> mayor: ok, so the amendment is to add the wording to the first action clause "banning use, exportation, and import of asbestos and calling for a national registry of buildings containing asbestos as soon as
possible." and then just adding that we also share this motion with the minister of labour and the minister of health. so, that's also been seconded by any discussion on the amendment? vote on the amendment alone. councillor neill, you have the
floor. >> councillor neill: i'm ok, thank you. wishes to speak? vote. are there any notices of motion? seeing none, mr. clerk, i'll ask for minutes, please. councillor boehme, seconded by
councillor george, that the minutes of city council meeting no. 2016-22 held tuesday, september 6, 2016 be confirmed. still one person to vote. everyone re-vote, please. we have tabling of documents, number of communications. is there any other business?
for by-laws. councillor neill, that by-law 1 be given first and second reading. councillor osanic, that by-law 1 be given third reading. [clerks whisper-inaudible] >> ms. clerk: ok, and i would remind you that by-law 4 dealing
with the official plan was deferred, so it has been removed. moved by councillor allen, seconded by councillor boehme, that by-laws 2, 3, 5 through 7, 11, and 12 be given third >> ms. clerk: sorry, first and second reading.
still one person still to vote. councillor turner, that by-laws 2, 3, 5 through 7, 11, and 12 be given third reading. so motion to adjourn, please. moved by councillor george, seconded by councillor candon. and we are adjourned. thank you very much.
0 Komentar untuk "winter equinox"