bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… Aaron Oct 21 2025 at 7:22PM on page 25
Comment
Making it harder to develop high density is not necessary in a housing crisis, regardless of location. Build and they will come
by Communications & Public Engagement
×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.First Draft of the New Official Plan
Notice of Collection
All information received will be compiled and considered by staff for use under the purposes of this site. Information will be collected and used in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other relevant privacy legislation. All comments made on this site are available to the public and may form part of public records.
The City will give written notice in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to affected persons before granting a request for access to a record created through this survey if it includes personal information that the City has reason to believe might constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.
Learn more about the City’s accountability and transparency responsibilities on our website.
Add comment
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:30AM on page 202
Question
What is the reason for this option? What is gained?
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:29AM on page 202
Comment
This appears to be too restrictive. Smaller lots may have the benefit of lower tax burden on the property owner
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:28AM on page 202
Question
What is the basis of this size constraint? IS the City encouraging larger lots as opposed to smaller ones?
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:27AM on page 201
Question
What is the reason for this option? What is the City hoping to achieve?
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:26AM on page 201
Comment
Agree, this is consistent with Urban consent application policy
Chantal Oct 21 2025 at 11:24AM on page 199
Comment
subsection F requires confirmation that no future demands to expand water and wastewater services to the rural properties. This assumes that there will never be need for expansion. No one knows what the future may hold and the option to request expansion of services should be available
Ali Oct 20 2025 at 4:40PM on page 106
Question
Why are several forms missing from this table?
claude Oct 20 2025 at 11:31AM on page 57
where are the maps?
Tom Rance Oct 17 2025 at 3:55PM on page 54
Comment
With the rapid growth of apartment and condo living, the typically older generation residing therein and the growth in electric vehicles as the preferred mode of transportation for this cohort, the Plan should include the requirement that there be sufficient EV battery charging facilities in the (longer-term) parking spaces provided in these establishments. For new builds, perhaps a requirement to provide, on completion of the project, 10% of total parking space be provided with sufficient electrical supply to fully recharge an EV battery overnight. The requirement could go on to require that, every few years, the building be provided with an additional 10% of parking spaces so equipped, until, by, say 2050, 100 % of the parking spaces would be so equipped. This would require the developer to initially make sure the incoming feeds would be large enough to eventually handle 100% of the potential overnight power demand, even though the demand on the system would not be felt for some years.
Michelle G. Oct 7 2025 at 1:45PM on page 11
Comment
TNPI (Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc) requests a section within the document, perhaps under Provincially Significant Areas, dedicated to planning appropriately around TNPI assets which are CER regulated. See below for recommendations to include.
- protection for Right-of-way for current and future projected needs
– recognition that increased population growth may impact our pipelines and might drive our need to upgrade/replace pipeline portion. Early consultation recommended within 200m to recognize potential impacts on the pipeline industry, striving to avoid adverse impacts to energy infrastructure
- TNPI pipelines have a dedicated Prescribed Area of 30m, under CER regulations which is from the pipeline, requiring authorization within this area
- Setbacks for development to be determined based on the type of pipeline and stress level of the pipeline with consultation with the pipeline operator - recommendation of 10 m
-Easements to be incorporated into development plans, recommending open spaces, walkways and not to be incorporated into individual lots. Consultation with operator and written consent for right-of-way or near the right-of-way
- protection for Right-of-way for current and future projected needs
– recognition that increased population growth may impact our pipelines and might drive our need to upgrade/replace pipeline portion. Early consultation recommended within 200m to recognize potential impacts on the pipeline industry, striving to avoid adverse impacts to energy infrastructure
- TNPI pipelines have a dedicated Prescribed Area of 30m, under CER regulations which is from the pipeline, requiring authorization within this area
- Setbacks for development to be determined based on the type of pipeline and stress level of the pipeline with consultation with the pipeline operator - recommendation of 10 m
-Easements to be incorporated into development plans, recommending open spaces, walkways and not to be incorporated into individual lots. Consultation with operator and written consent for right-of-way or near the right-of-way
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 11:09AM on page 252
Comment
Again, this section is more appropriate to a sub-document with a descriptive and statement of intent in the top level Operating Plan. That way, updates and additions could be made in a more timely manner.
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 11:05AM on page 224
Comment
This section is useful but it loses its import by placing at the end of the document. If the Operating Plan and/or Specific Policy documents are placed online, linked references could be incorporated in the actual document(s).
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:56AM on page 192
Comment
I'd like to see this as a Top Level coverage only with definitions of each of the areas. Keep Policies in a separate, living document. Sure would save a lot of paper. This type of structure is more adaptable to online documentation and more user-friendly.
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:50AM on page 188
Comment
Add chemical and bio-hazards
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:49AM on page 163
Question
Isn't this covered in the Integrated Mobility Plan? Is this section redundant or should it act as a top level statement which points to the IMP?
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:43AM on page 118
Comment
I understand the importance of this coverage in the Operating Plan, but is it necessary to cite all of the related policies in this top level document? Shouldn't they be in a separate document(s) and reference made to them here? link
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:32AM on page 120
Question
Out of curiosity, does this include Kingston's early airfield in the Kingscourt area? link
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:17AM on page 115
Comment
Recent MRF and HRF development along Princess Street seems to ignore this requirement creating a micro-climate that is not conducive to pedestrian comfort.
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:09AM on page 113
Comment
Sounds good in theory but, judging by recent construction along Princess Street, it is not in practice.
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 10:06AM on page 113
Comment
This is confusing. Does it mean that MRF and HRF should look like building blocks or should the facades on the first level be varied to give the look of several buildings combined into one.
Donna VanDusen Oct 5 2025 at 9:54AM on page 111
Comment
There is no coverage of handicap parking designation. There should be a requirement for number of, size, and signage for designated handicap parking (both resident and visitor) for all forms, especially residential.
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:38PM on page 212
Comment
Would like to see a requirement for annual progress reports
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:36PM on page 116
Comment
Public washrooms and public gathering spaces could be added
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:35PM on page 50
Comment
Love the blue belt. Can we provide some kind of guarantee of public ownership and access. Waterfront should be protected for public use, limit privatization, and expansion of affordable rec spaces
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:33PM on page 57
Comment
Specify green space and childcare?
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:31PM on page 41
Comment
New industrial developments and city contracts can be tied to good job guarantees (fair wages, local hiring, apprenticeship programs with Queens and SLC)
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:29PM on page 176
Comment
to avoid low-income residents from being left behind in the transition to green energy, energy-efficiency retrofits can be mandated in rental housing
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:26PM on page 151
Comment
Equity mapping in infrastructure and land use decisions would be great to see, to ensure certain communities are disproportionately exposed to flooding, heat islands, etc.
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:24PM on page 36
Comment
Would love to see policies supporting the expansion of public, non-profit, co-op housing to reduce dependence on private developments
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:22PM on page 27
Comment
Consultation is good, but stronger commitments to power-sharing would be even better. i.e. co-governance with Indigenous people's, tenant's unions, accessibility advocates, other communtiy-led orgs
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:19PM on page 219
Comment
okay only if proactive engagement continues (i.e. Get Involved, multilingual outreach)
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:17PM on page 68
Comment
Could limit flexibility if conditions change - maybe periodic review policies?
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:16PM on page 41
Comment
If possible, add a clear timeline and transparent process for employment land designation - currently just defers this to future work
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:12PM on page 175
Comment
Seems to be phrased more as support and encouragement rather than mandatory. Performance based standards would be better (like net-zero ready for new builds). Especially if this plan is looking forward as far as 2051. We absolutely need to make renewable energy a requirement by then.
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:10PM on page 156
Comment
This exception only okay with tight criteria and strong offset and mitigation requirements.
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:06PM on page 160
Comment
Maybe a stronger commitment to accelerate sewer separation programs
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:05PM on page 175
Comment
Possible to add clearer timelines and funding strategies if within the scope of the report?
Sarah Oct 2 2025 at 12:01PM on page 39
Comment
The target is aspirational, not enforceable - would this limit accountability? Maybe a binding target with some interim milestones could be beneficial.
Steve Cross Sep 15 2025 at 12:49PM on page 25
Comment
There is no such thing as a wrong place for car dependent transportation just less desirable
Steve Cross Sep 15 2025 at 12:46PM on page 25
Comment
redundant
Steve Cross Sep 15 2025 at 12:38PM on page 23
Comment
You are saying the same thing twice, a Plan by definition is forward looking and therefore proactive.
Steve Cross Sep 15 2025 at 12:28PM on page 23
Comment
If it is the wrong place for the proposed development then it should not be allowed.
in reply to Donna VanDusen's comment
Steve Cross Sep 15 2025 at 12:23PM on page 19
Comment
Totally agree. For this document to remain relevant for 25 years the companies should not be named.
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:44PM on page 87
Comment
I don't like this Title - it sounds like a Marketing ploy. Why not use the 3E1 Title instead and keep away from the tourism tone. Once the new boundaries are established, it may warrant stricter language on how the land will be used/developed and then list the appropriate policies.
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:39PM on page 84
Comment
Same question as on 3D2. These specific discussions are considerations for the infrastructure of the communities and deserve a section of their own as more of a "How To Structure a Community".
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:31PM on page 83
Question
Why is this here as a section under descriptive communities?
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:28PM on page 79
Comment
This whole section (3D) seems like a repeat of the section on Corridors. Could the two sections be combined to reflect the planned usage of these areas under the overall goals of the Official Plan. This sounds more like a marketing plan. Lay the groundwork for expediting development, not tourism.
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:11PM on page 66
Comment
Why is this section here when no examples are listed? Or is this a "just-in-case" designation.
Donna VanDusen Sep 14 2025 at 12:08PM on page 66
Comment
This is confusing. Why does the document go from specific corridors i.e., Montreal/Rideau to the generic section 3B.12 on Corridors?
Also at this point, I don't see anything about the Hwy #15 or Hwy #2 East corridors or they still considered "rural".
Also at this point, I don't see anything about the Hwy #15 or Hwy #2 East corridors or they still considered "rural".
View all
Comments
Close