City Of Kingston Administrative Policies Committee Meeting No Addendum Thursday January 12 th, :30 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall

Transcription

1 City Of Kingston Administrative Policies Committee Meeting No Addendum Thursday January 12 th, :30 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall a) Correspondence received from the Sydenham District Association dated January 12 th, 2017 concerning the Proposed Motion Regarding Review of By-Law Process and Next Steps. Schedule Pages 1-2 b) Correspondence received from Paul Martin dated January 15 th, 2016 regarding Sign By-Law Number Schedule Pages 3-4

2 From: Susan Reid Sent: Thursday, January 12, :34 AM To: Poirier,Ben Cc: Candon,Adam; Stroud,Peter; Osanic,Lisa; Holland,Mary Rita; Boehme, Ryan N.; Schell,Elizabeth Subject: Official Correspondence: Administrative Policies Committee, Re Motion re Noise Bylaw to take no further action to schedule Dr. Lightstone etc. Official Correspondence to the Administrative Policies Committee To the Chair and Committee Members, Dear Councillors, We, the nearby residents listed below, are very disheartened to see what has transpired since the December meeting of the Administrative Policies committee and very disappointed in the proposed motion from Councillors Boehme and Schell expected to be tabled at tonight s Administrative Policies Committee meeting (January 12, 2017). At the December meeting, it appeared that Councillors recognized they lacked enough context and information to have a thorough understanding of the effect that these extensive permanent exemptions would have, and correctly sought to remedy this. The motion to have Dr. Al Lightstone provide input was intended to provide counsellors with impartial information on what is reasonable and sound in terms of a residential noise bylaw and how the Ontario EPA regulations are interpreted in practice. It is genuinely necessary for Councillors to have an informed understanding in order to meet their responsibility to make sound public policy. This proposed motion cannot not come close to providing that type of objective expert information to support councillors decision making. The alternative proposed in lieu of consulting an independent expert in noise and noise bylaws, is a fatally flawed strategy. Queen s University and Staff have already been consulting on this for over a year. We have already seen what that process has yielded. It appears to have resulted in effectively an end run around both the noise and zoning bylaws. Moreover, this motion does not identify any guidelines or goals to be achieved with the additional work Staff would be doing with Queen s. Instead, we suggest that Queen s University be asked to pay to provide the City with the needed independent expertise. The fact that Queen s is identified as the sole entity designated to work with Staff on the rewrite establishes that they are the de facto agent of change, and it is apparent that the majority of the benefit of removing residents noise protections would fall directly to them. Any cost of consulting Dr. Lightstone are costs the City will incur as a direct result of Queen s continued pressing for permanent exemption from City residential noise regulations. As is, the proposed motion would still cost Queen s their own staff time to work with the city, so it is likely not particularly more expensive for them to instead provide for several days of Dr. Lightstones time, this would definitely result in a more transparent process. 1

3 As yet, Queen s administration has not demonstrated a commitment to meeting even the minimum levels of noise pollution control set out in the provincial legislation to limit their impacts on adjacent properties. Our City Staff are excellent at bylaw interpretation and developing wording to exempt particular parties from noise regulation, however Staff also needs to have policy and technical expertise available to them that is fully independent of the interested party i.e. independent of Queen s or other applicant. Respectfully Yours, Susan Reid resident: Sydenham District Christopher Spencer resident: Sydenham District Rysiek Pietka resident: Portsmouth District Steven Testart resident: Portsmouth District Lory Jurgens resident: Portsmouth District Julie MacArther resident: Sydenham District Loisy Ballina resident: Sydenham District Linda Hart resident: Sydenham District Neil Donnelly resident: Sydenham District Donald Chipley resident: Portsmouth District Mary Jane Philp resident: Portsmouth District Emily Miriam Hill resident: Sydenham District Susan Thorne resident: Sydenham District Ann Garrett resident: Sydenham District Thomas Moynihan resident: Sydenham District Phil Hart resident: Sydenham District Justin A. Connidis resident: Sydenham District Donald Mitchell resident: Sydenham District Leon Garrett resident: Sydenham District 2

4 John Counter Blvd. Kingston, ON K7M 8Z6 Corporation of the City of Kingston January Ontario Street Kingston, ON., K7L 2Z3 Attention: Del Stowe Manager Building Services Regarding: Sign By-law Dear Mr. Stowe: I am writing regarding the proposed amendments to Sign By-law , specifically the changes that target the self-storage industry. We have been using a sign to advertise rental space at 2880 Princess Street, Get Smart Storage, as a means of attracting potential customers to our site, similar to what other companies do that have commercial space for lease or rent. Page 6 of the By-law amendments draft now removes our sign from the definition of Real Estate Sign saying a Real Estate Sign does not include any Sign used to advertise a product or service related to a Self-Storage Facility. Given our sign no longer falls under the definition of Real Estate Sign, the city plans to attach a fee to our signage. In our view, singling out one business from others who offer the same type of service is unfair. Within the definition of Real Estate Sign noted above, the sign s purpose is to advertise buildings and properties for sale or lease. Our sign too, is meant to advertise space for lease. The product or service that Self-Storage offers is simply space for lease or rent. On page 7 of the draft, the definition of Self-Storage Facility means a facility designed and used for the purpose of renting or leasing individual secured storage units which are generally accessible by means of individual loading doors, to tenants who are to have access to such units for the purpose of storing and removing property. By your definition, the service we offer is no different than the company who leases commercial or industrial warehouse space to customers who access their individual warehouse space through their own private entrance for the purpose of accessing stored property. Yet the city in their Sign By-Law amendments is proposing that we be treated differently from these other businesses. 3

5 In your document under Schedule R-1 Real Estate Signs, it reads; Real Estate Signs shall be located on the Premise for which the land, building, or portion thereof is being offered for sale, rent or lease. This is exactly what we have done with our sign. It is located on our property, 2880 Princess Street, where we have space for lease or rental. In closing, letting customers know about the space we have to rent or lease, is critical. At this particular property we have lots of space available and in order to make this site work, we need to do all that we can to get customers in. Additional fees have to be passed on to our customers who at some point may determine, the service is too expensive. We ask that as you amend your Sign By-laws, you treat us with fairness and consider us within the context of other businesses that are similar to us. I thank you for your time and consideration. Paul Martin 4