Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 24, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000688
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Jay Patry Enterprises LLC
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To facilitate the development of a six-storey apartment building
Reference Number: D13- 024 -2023
Property Address: 563-567 Princess Street
Municipality/UT: Kingston
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000688
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000688
OLT Case Name: Jay Party Enterprises LLC v. Kingston (City)
Heard: September 12, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jay Patry Enterprises LLC
Roberto Aburto
Carolina Campos
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH AND JACKIE DENYES ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2023, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the Merit Hearing of an Appeal filed by Jay Patry Enterprises LLC (“Appellant”), pursuant to s.45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for relief against the City of Kingston’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustments (“COA”) decision to refuse an application for minor variances (“Variances”) seeking to construct a six-storey apartment building containing 23 residential units on the property municipally located at 563-567 Princess Street in the City (“Subject Property”).
2During the Appellant’s pre-application consultation with City staff for the purposes of discussing requirements for a complete submission, it was initially determined that a Zoning-By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control application would be required to facilitate the development as initially proposed. However, following the completion and submission of various requested reports, plans and studies (including a Planning Justification Report, Conceptual Site Plan, Servicing Report, Drawing Binder of Isometric Illustrations, Stormwater Management Report, Urban Design Study, Survey of Existing Features, Vegetation Report, Noise Impact Study, Parking Study Memorandum and a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment), as well as further pre-application discussions with staff, the development application was substantially revised such that it was determined it may proceed under Minor Variance application.
3The application proceeded to be filed with the City via request for Minor Variances, was circulated for staff and agency comments, and was returned in support of the requested relief, subject to conditions of approval.
4Comments from the public during the initial application process included two in opposition from neighbouring landowners for reasons set out in separate letters dated June 14, 2023, and June 18, 202